oops, disregard. i got confused. mamata
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Akella, Mamata < [email protected]> wrote: > Is it possible to post cc talk-us-nps on these responses as well? > > Thanks! mamata > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Thomas Colson <[email protected]>wrote: > >> That works. I'll add that to my Sunday-list. Wasn't aware that >> official_name >> tag worked for ways as well. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jason Remillard [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 4:07 PM >> To: Thomas Colson >> Cc: [email protected]; Imports US >> Subject: Re: [Imports-us] [Talk-us-nps] National Park Service Import >> Feedback >> >> Hi, >> >> The name wiki seems clear. >> >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:official_name >> >> The "official_name" name should be used for the full E911 name. When you >> render the NPS tiles, use the official_name tag first. Also import the >> official name as "name". You don't have the actual signage in your >> database, >> it is the best you can do. If an OSM'er goes camping, and fixes name to >> match the actual sign, everything is still correct per OSM policy and your >> NPS tiles don't break since you don't care about what the name tag says. >> Since NPS is the authoritative source for the "offical_name", it would be >> incorrect to change it from what you imported. >> >> Thanks >> Jason. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Thomas Colson <[email protected]> >> 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&lay >> >>> e >> >>> 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 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
