i would argue that consistency with Enhanced 911 usage is a good
approach for road naming in places like this.
On 6/13/13 2:59 PM, Thomas Colson wrote:
We're required to publish official road names on all maps and data as
assigned by Federal Highways and approved by the park(s) superintendent.
Most parks have several camp grounds. Few, if any, roads in most parks are
signed in keeping with "like the wilderness" principle, and campground loops
are only signed such as "B 20-30 Left, B 31-40 Right" referring to campsite
numbers. Nor are many, if any, "Verifiable from Aerial Imagery". We use a
combination of Mapping and Survey-grade GPS and various versions of leaf-off
.5 m orthophoto to grab centerlines. For example, we have Smokemont
Campground Road A, Elkmont Campground Road A, Cades Cove Campground Road A,
etc. The official names are what we synchronize on with surrounding E911
jurisdictions, what first responders use, and what we use for Incident
Command (see the other post to the list about the Colorado fire). And, yes,
I do plan on campsite numbers, some day (another OSM project, perhaps).
If that runs afoul of OSM road naming convention, I don't have an
alternative. Road naming, and other attributes (closed, access,etc...) is a
VERY controversial issue for this park, and I'm sure others, and receives A
LOT of attention (and complaints), based on what many Location Based Service
Providers "render" on a web site or GPS. We're hoping that with OSM data we
can achieve a good, accurate, and authentic public-domain source of park
navigation data.
I'm heading out of town for the weekend, plan on researching/fixing that
way, building, and TIGER tag issue when I get back.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Remillard [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 1:29 PM
To: Akella, Mamata
Cc: [email protected]; Imports US
Subject: Re: [Talk-us-nps] [Imports-us] National Park Service Import
Feedback
Hi Mamata, Thomas
I understand that the nps:verified tag is a very complicated situation.
Ignoring the inter-organizational angles, It seem like you should be pretty
serious about getting your access tags nailed.
"Elkmont campground" is prefixed on all of the road names. I bet that the
signs on the campground don't include those names. They probably just read
"Road A", "Road B", etc. Generally we want the map to match what the signs
say on the ground. If I am correct about the signs, I suggest, making the
"Elkmont campground" node, an area around the entire site, then dropping the
"Elkmont campground" prefex from your road names.
The JOSM validation can miss things if you don't already have the current
data loaded in. After you do the upload, you should shut down JOSM (at least
delete the data layer), then re-download the entire area, and run the
validator again.
Your current amenity tagging might be the best you can do with the current
software. Given that you are high profile customer of Mapbox, perhaps you
could give them a friendly nudge to support semicolon amenity's in the
rendering engine so that you can do the right thing in the OSM data.
Honestly, it is not a big deal.
You need to use OSM's definition of highway=service. Again, this not a big
deal.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway%3Dservice
The three things I would focus on would be the access tag, the double
buildings, and the road names. The rest of the issues are just picky
details...
Thanks
Jason
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Akella, Mamata
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Jason,
Mamata Akella here. Thank you so much for the detailed guidelines!
This is exactly the type of information that we're looking for and we
will incorporate it into our workflows. Specifically the tagging of
buildings, combining multiple features, and the removal of TIGER tags.
We are still working through the nps:verified=yes tag. I think you
bring up a really interesting point about making minor edits to data
that we've tagged as verified.
Let's keep this discussion going for sure!
mamata
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Jason Remillard
<[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi,
The NPS state of the map talk from this weekend was very interesting!
I hope you are successful moving over NPS tiles to OSM.
It reminded me of your import email from several weeks ago, I wanted
to give you some feedback on your actual imported data!
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=35.65589&lon=-83.58185&zoom=16&laye
rs=M
- If you have multiple amenities on a single building, separate them
with semicolons. Not sure if that will give mapbox issues, but it is
the "right" thing to do as far as OSM data. I don't think it should
be on the building node, unless you are tagging an exit/entrance of
the building.
- All of the buildings in this area were double imported. Be sure to
run the JOSM validator over your changes before uploading.
- There is an outdoor theater on the north west of the bounding box.
It is tagged as 4 buildings. I would make an area that encompasses
all of the buildings, and but the amenity and name tag on that,
rather than tagging each roof section of the theater. Perhaps, change
the building=yes, to building=roof.
- There is a "Elkmont-Elkmont #2 Cemetery Access Road" road. It has
some tiger tags, but it looks like you adjusted the geometry of the
road to match your NPS data. This is fine, but its not really tiger
data now. I would suggest taking the three tiger tags out.
- The nps:verified tag. I don't really understand what this means.
Perhaps a combination of a source= tag, and and access tag might
allow you to restrict what is shown on the official online nps maps
to areas that you want the public to stay on. We have a *lot* of
established tags already, I think we should be able to express your
intention with nps:verified with our existing tags. Also, more
importantly, what does that mean to people that are mapping inside of
the parks that are not employees of the NPS. Lets says I fix the
small problems I just pointed out. Do I delete nps:verified because
somebody outside of nps touched the data? I am sure the imported nps
is not perfect. What are mappers supposed to do if they find a
missing trail, or road, etc as far as the nps:verified tag? I assume
you do want these improvements from the community in your tiles.
- Way 2316586510, should probably be a service road.
Thanks
Jason.
_______________________________________________
Imports-us mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports-us
_______________________________________________
Talk-us-nps mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us-nps
_______________________________________________
Imports-us mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports-us
_______________________________________________
Imports-us mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports-us
