Re: [Talk-us] Amtrak network=Amtrak tagging

I should have included: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_States_railways as that is a better starting place (for your flavor of question) than our "at the top" Amtrak wiki. There's a lot to grok to become a good OSM rail editor (and don't forget updating wiki), yet, many

Re: [Talk-us] Amtrak network=Amtrak tagging

Hi Greg: Great questions. If you are a rail public_transport:version=2 super-jockey, hey, polish them up to a firm buff and we'll marvel at their brilliant shine! However (and this is pedestrian me), I make "better" progress (higher quality data, at the expense of being slower) following rough

Re: [Talk-us] Amtrak network=Amtrak tagging

I wonder what to do with some of the routes. For example, additional tracks were added in the Tucson area. If we add a route, say, us 60 then an east and west relation is created along with a master route. Do we do the same with rail routes or are all the rails thrown into the same relation? Rega

[Talk-us] Amtrak network=Amtrak tagging

Gee, what a lot of good chatter here on this list! However, neither this list (nor this requestor) have heard a peep about changing a couple dozen Amtrak route network=* tags so all have value Amtrak. Too easy? I might simply ask forgiveness rather than permission or for feedback, though cons

Re: [Talk-us] 'address' tags in Massachusetts

>There is a talk-us-massachusetts@ and I think review of your proposed >mechanical edit should include that list. Okay. This is pretty preliminary still, I just decided that feedback was a good idea. Does that list overlap enough with this one that you forwarding the message would be sufficient?

Re: [Talk-us] 'address' tags in Massachusetts

There is a talk-us-massachusetts@ and I think review of your proposed mechanical edit should include that list. I suspect people would be amenable, but it would be good to publish the code, and the proposed files to upload, so that they can be reviewed. (I'm not clear on the rules for mechanical

Re: [Talk-us] Microsoft Building Import for Greenville, SC

There is some question about the overall accuracy of the height data in this import, but I think the units are correct in meters. For example, the Landmark Building [1] is a known height of 305 feet / 92 meters. [2] Mapillary view (from a distance) [3] . Microsoft measured it at 101 meters

Re: [Talk-us] Microsoft Building Import for Greenville, SC

Hello Mike, I think that you have made the same mistake as they made with the Tampa/Clearwater, FL Microsoft building data import: The height is given in feet and inches, but you used metre scheme (x.y) instead of x'y". An example: This commercial building

Re: [Talk-us] Microsoft Building Import for Greenville, SC

In accordance with Step 6 / item 4 of the imports checklist, the import and QA is now completed. Thanks to Microsoft for making building and height data available and multiplying the efforts of a few local mappers! On 3/14/2018 10:21 PM, Mike N wrote: FYI, this is proceeding with 2 people,

[Talk-us] 'address' tags in Massachusetts

Many POIs in Massachusetts have reasonable address information stored as a single value in the address tag (mostly from imports before the 'addr:*' scheme was established). Something like 1/2 of the uses of 'address' in OSM are in MA. I'd like to do a mechanical edit that parses the individual piec