On 7/12/2012 10:45 PM, Mike N wrote:
On 7/12/2012 4:21 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
This is a strawman, since there will rarely be more than one former line
across a small area. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone
wants to map all the former second tracks, sidings, and such, especia
On 7/12/2012 11:43 PM, Peter Dobratz wrote:
NE2,
So after I bring up that I don't think railways should be drawn through
buildings, and most people agree with me on that, you decide to do this:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.762886&lon=-71.430509&zoom=18&layers=M
Does 86 Central Street,
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> I am of course one mapper who's been mapping former railways. (Russ Nelson
> is another.) There is certainly value in seeing how the current
> disconnected bits of railway infrastructure used to connect. I've also
> mapped the occasional h
On 7/12/2012 4:21 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
This is a strawman, since there will rarely be more than one former line
across a small area. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone
wants to map all the former second tracks, sidings, and such, especially
where they've changed over the yea
On 7/12/12 4:24 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 7/12/2012 11:27 AM, Clay Smalley wrote:
I like this idea. That would encourage more people to TIGER-review
streets, as highway=road shows up pretty ugly on Mapnik, and people like
getting rid of ugly. What would be the drawbacks of doing this? It se
Martijn van Exel schrieb:
I agree that residential is not the right classification, but
'unclassified' would be better than 'road', at least for halfway
built-up areas.
Well, "highway=road" means "road without classification" while
"highway=unclassified" is an actual classification (yes, confu
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Mike N wrote:
>>
>> On 7/12/2012 11:26 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>>>
>>> I like that idea, especially given the high number of obviously not
>>> urban roads that would be better off tagged as track or
On 07/12/2012 12:01 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
I'm still working on ones that should have been tagged
highway=imaginary. Ones that go over cliffs, splash along streambeds, or
otherwise do not and cannot ever have existed. (And I wonder just
how some of those made it into TIGER in the first place!)
On 7/12/2012 11:27 AM, Clay Smalley wrote:
I like this idea. That would encourage more people to TIGER-review
streets, as highway=road shows up pretty ugly on Mapnik, and people like
getting rid of ugly. What would be the drawbacks of doing this? It seems
like there would be some but I can't thin
On 7/12/2012 3:15 PM, Mike N wrote:
On 7/12/2012 3:10 PM, Greg Troxel wrote:
So let's spiff up the render, not lose the info from the db.
At some point, historical railways are just like general historical
items in OSM: after years of buildings are built, demolished, and roads
rerouted, edi
Mike N. wrote:
> So they are present, and don't hurt anything. None of the
> 'standard maps' will bother to render them. A railway
> map could use them if it needed to. I delete them if they
> go through current buildings or parking lots also.
Yes, that's a sensible attitude.
I think it's a
On 7/12/2012 3:10 PM, Greg Troxel wrote:
So let's spiff up the render, not lose the info from the db.
At some point, historical railways are just like general historical
items in OSM: after years of buildings are built, demolished, and roads
rerouted, editing becomes impossible due to clutt
I think it's important to separate "there's a way in the db" and
"there's a line on some render".
Personally, I want to see old railway lines on the map. I find there's
almost always evidence along the line, but not always at some point.
So I think we need tags that are more like the USGS maps,
On 7/12/2012 12:37 PM, Peter Dobratz wrote:
It seems that there are a handful of railroad enthusiast users that
are systematically adding current and former railways into OSM, and in
some cases re-adding railways that I have removed. I have been
operating under the assumption that if a physical
On Thu, 2012-07-12 at 12:37 -0400, Peter Dobratz wrote:
> Do we really want a bunch of railway=abandoned Ways running directly
> through newly constructed runways, buildings, roads, parking lots,
> etc?
If the feature physically exists, it should be on the map. If not, it
shouldn't be. Maybe there
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Richard Fairhurst
wrote:
> Peter Dobratz wrote:
>> I'm trying to get a better understanding of the railway=abandoned
>> tag and see what the community thinks about it.
>
> FWIW there's been a similar discussion on talk-gb recently.
>
> The consensus seems to be ra
Peter Dobratz wrote:
> I'm trying to get a better understanding of the railway=abandoned
> tag and see what the community thinks about it.
FWIW there's been a similar discussion on talk-gb recently.
The consensus seems to be railway=abandoned for railways where there's still
some physical trace
On 07/12/2012 12:37 PM, Peter Dobratz wrote:
What makes railroads a special case?
Do we really want a bunch of railway=abandoned Ways running directly
through newly constructed runways, buildings, roads, parking lots,
etc?
I'm of two minds. A lot of my map projects relate to the back country.
I'm trying to get a better understanding of the railway=abandoned tag
and see what the community thinks about it.
It seems that there are a handful of railroad enthusiast users that
are systematically adding current and former railways into OSM, and in
some cases re-adding railways that I have rem
On 7/12/2012 11:43 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
I was wondering if something likehttp://frontdoor.cloudapp.net/ might be a
fun solution. Present some aerial imagery, the OSM data, and say "is this a
track or a road?". Kind of like HotOrNot for the OSM generation. (For extra
efficiency, have a bu
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Mike N wrote:
> On 7/12/2012 11:26 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
>> I like that idea, especially given the high number of obviously not
>> urban roads that would be better off tagged as track or unclassified
>> getting counted as residential (a more urban classificati
On 7/12/2012 11:26 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
I like that idea, especially given the high number of obviously not
urban roads that would be better off tagged as track or unclassified
getting counted as residential (a more urban classification). I'd be
willing to extend this idea to any way tagged t
Fwd to list, see below
-- Forwarded message --
From: Martijn van Exel
Date: Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 9:47 AM
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] TIGER fixup and mapping "more"
To: Richard Fairhurst
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Robert Kaiser wrote:
>> After h
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 6:29 AM, Robert Kaiser wrote:
>>
>> Richard Weait schrieb:
>>
>>> Larger cleanups can be imposing at first glance. Other mappers will
>>> understand that a single mapper can't do everything at once, so you
>>> sh
Robert Kaiser wrote:
> After having spent another vacation in the US (in Northern
> California this time), I started wondering if there should be
> a mass edit to switch all the highway=residential (or other
> highway values set en masse and mostly wrong) that are from
> TIGER imports and still
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Robert Kaiser wrote:
> Richard Weait schrieb:
>
>> Larger cleanups can be imposing at first glance. Other mappers will
>> understand that a single mapper can't do everything at once, so you
>> shouldn't be criticized if you fix a few things but not others.
>
I like this idea. That would encourage more people to TIGER-review streets,
as highway=road shows up pretty ugly on Mapnik, and people like getting rid
of ugly. What would be the drawbacks of doing this? It seems like there
would be some but I can't think of any.
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 8:29 AM, R
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 6:29 AM, Robert Kaiser wrote:
> Richard Weait schrieb:
>
> Larger cleanups can be imposing at first glance. Other mappers will
>> understand that a single mapper can't do everything at once, so you
>> shouldn't be criticized if you fix a few things but not others.
>>
>
>
Richard Weait schrieb:
Larger cleanups can be imposing at first glance. Other mappers will
understand that a single mapper can't do everything at once, so you
shouldn't be criticized if you fix a few things but not others.
After having spent another vacation in the US (in Northern California
29 matches
Mail list logo
