Re: [Tagging] emergency=fire_hydrant
Le 19/10/2010 02:40, Ulf Lamping a écrit : Am 18.10.2010 12:20, schrieb Rodolphe Quiedeville: Le 18/10/2010 09:31, Rodolphe Quiedeville a écrit : Hi, I started rename amenity=fire_hydrant to emergency=fire_hydrant as it is describe in the wiki. I checked there's no rendering in mapnik styles and t...@h. [...] I forgot to say that I've opened a ticket to fix the JOSM presets : http://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/5537 If someone could say to me how to fix the Merkaartor presets too, I'll do my best to do it too. There has been a very lengthy discussion about the emergency category - and there wasn't a clear outcome. There wasn't a consensus if the change is useful at all and it's still unclear what should be in the emergency category and what not. Then the Wiki was changed without community consensus. Then you seem to have made a mass edit without following the code of conduct about mass edits. Now you have the nerve to tell the JOSM developers: The key for fire hydrant is false, it's emergency=fire_hydrant instead of amenity=fire_hydrant, here a patch to fix the default presets The JOSM presets are correct and don't need to be fixed. Please revert the wiki and your mass edit changes back to it's original state! Hi, I did not change the wiki, but your right the wiki was the source of the misunderstanding you speak about. -- Rodolphe Quiédeville - Artisan Logiciel Libre Travailleur indépendant spécialisé en logiciel libre http://rodolphe.quiedeville.org/ SIP/XMPP : rodol...@quiedeville.org ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] emergency=fire_hydrant
Le 19/10/2010 01:37, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer a écrit : 2010/10/18 Rodolphe Quiedeville rodol...@quiedeville.org: Le 18/10/2010 09:31, Rodolphe Quiedeville a écrit : I started rename amenity=fire_hydrant to emergency=fire_hydrant as it is describe in the wiki. I checked there's no rendering in mapnik styles and t...@h. [...] I forgot to say that I've opened a ticket to fix the JOSM presets : http://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/5537 If someone could say to me how to fix the Merkaartor presets too, I'll do my best to do it too. not sure if Merkaartor is there as well, but t...@h and Mapnik tickets can be filed here: trac.openstreetmap.org Hi, Since my email I found merkaartor ressources : Tickets : http://merkaartor.be/projects/merkaartor/issues Source code : http://gitorious.org/merkaartor/ Regards -- Rodolphe Quiédeville - Artisan Logiciel Libre Travailleur indépendant spécialisé en logiciel libre http://rodolphe.quiedeville.org/ SIP/XMPP : rodol...@quiedeville.org ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] emergency=fire_hydrant
Le 19/10/2010 02:40, Ulf Lamping a écrit : Am 18.10.2010 12:20, schrieb Rodolphe Quiedeville: Le 18/10/2010 09:31, Rodolphe Quiedeville a écrit : Hi, I started rename amenity=fire_hydrant to emergency=fire_hydrant as it is describe in the wiki. I checked there's no rendering in mapnik styles and t...@h. [...] I forgot to say that I've opened a ticket to fix the JOSM presets : http://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/5537 If someone could say to me how to fix the Merkaartor presets too, I'll do my best to do it too. There has been a very lengthy discussion about the emergency category - and there wasn't a clear outcome. There wasn't a consensus if the change is useful at all and it's still unclear what should be in the emergency category and what not. Then the Wiki was changed without community consensus. Then you seem to have made a mass edit without following the code of conduct about mass edits. Now you have the nerve to tell the JOSM developers: The key for fire hydrant is false, it's emergency=fire_hydrant instead of amenity=fire_hydrant, here a patch to fix the default presets The JOSM presets are correct and don't need to be fixed. Please revert the wiki and your mass edit changes back to it's original state! The developers have better things to do than these wiki fiddling nonsense ... To explain what I've done. I read the wiki as you and the page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:amenity%3Dfire_hydrantredirect=no was last modified on 6 August 2010, at 22:18 by someone else. If you read all the documentation on the wiki (not wrote by me, I done juste the french translation) could you say that it is not what to follow ? After that I propose a patch to JOSM developpers, what I do wrong ? I propose to improve the software to be conform with the tags definition. I posted here what I'm doing on the mass edits (edits really simple to reverts), give me an url to improve my knwoledge about mass edits, I'll read it with pleasure. I read the thread about amenity=emergency_phone ! Not about fire_hydrant, but perhaps my not so good english (I'm french) was a problem for good understanding. I read the rules of mapnik and t...@h to see if this tags is rendered at the moment. So why are you so agressive with me ? Are you sure all the contributors will do all I've done before editing tag or ways ? Now to fix eventual problems, please fix this wrong wiki to avoid future problem, and after that I'll revert my changes and add amenity=fire_hydrant to all node I've changed. I have better things to do, than read agressive emails on mailing-lists... OSM is a beautiful project and always a pleasure to contribute. -- Rodolphe Quiédeville - Artisan Logiciel Libre Travailleur indépendant spécialisé en logiciel libre http://rodolphe.quiedeville.org/ SIP/XMPP : rodol...@quiedeville.org ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] emergency=fire_hydrant
Le 19/10/2010 10:17, Rodolphe Quiedeville a écrit : Le 19/10/2010 02:40, Ulf Lamping a écrit : [...] Revert done. -- Rodolphe Quiédeville - Artisan Logiciel Libre Travailleur indépendant spécialisé en logiciel libre http://rodolphe.quiedeville.org/ SIP/XMPP : rodol...@quiedeville.org ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Paper streets?
Can we just call/tag paper streets as such? highway=paper_street any incarnation of tagging paper streets in a way that indicates that they have been approved as streets but have not been built or have been disused (in the physical sense). additionally think they should be tagged from a legal/right-of-way framework not a physical frame work since the street/right-of-way exists in a legal declaration/agreement. This framework is important for mapping because paper streets can create headaches for people who wish to build on their own property and find out they can't because there is an ancient street that exists only on paper. Also, many paper streets allow for public and/or private rights-of-way over the given area so it is helpful for passage purposes so people can follow an appropriate route. Rendering paper streets will be up to the renders since there isn't a physical path in many cases to the paper street. I am a firm believer that physical objects should be in one category for mapping and legal/conceptual objects be placed in another category. Both have their importance, but people should learn to differentiate them and not have tags that cross these categories. OSM should (and I think does a good job at this) of having different tags according to the respective categories. Andrew On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 20:05, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.comwrote: 2010/10/19 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: Some of these qualify for highway=proposed. But if there are no current plans to build them, would it be a good idea to map them as (for example) highway=paper name=*? usually they are mapped highway=proposed proposed=primary/motorway/etc, Did you read my second paragraph? sorry, overlooked that. If there are no current plans to build them, what are the plans about? If they are planned to be build sometime, they would qualify for proposed, if they are not intented to be build, don't map them (at least not in OSM). Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Paper streets?
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Andrew S. J. Sawyer assaw...@gmail.com wrote: Can we just call/tag paper streets as such? highway=paper_street any incarnation of tagging paper streets in a way that indicates that they have been approved as streets but have not been built or have been disused (in the physical sense). It doesn't feel right to call something a highway=* if it isn't usable for travel. If it is usable for travel, then it should be tagged highway=track/path/etc as appropriate. For a right of way designated in the plats (which, if it's in the plats it shouldn't be built on, right?), maybe something like landuse=right_of_way, or landuse=paper_street. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Paper streets?
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: It doesn't feel right to call something a highway=* if it isn't usable for travel. If it is usable for travel, then it should be tagged highway=track/path/etc as appropriate. We do have highway=proposed/construction. For a right of way designated in the plats (which, if it's in the plats it shouldn't be built on, right?), maybe something like landuse=right_of_way, or landuse=paper_street. That requires drawing it as an area rather than a single line. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Paper streets?
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: It doesn't feel right to call something a highway=* if it isn't usable for travel. I guess an exception would be something which is temporarily unusable for travel: closed roads/paths, roads/paths under construction. So highway=proposed, if it is visible on the ground (at least a cleared path), could be legitimate. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Paper streets?
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: It doesn't feel right to call something a highway=* if it isn't usable for travel. If it is usable for travel, then it should be tagged highway=track/path/etc as appropriate. We do have highway=proposed/construction. Most of which I assume would be usable for travel, at least by construction vehicles. If highway=proposed is being used for something which is completely invisible, I think that's inappropriate. For a right of way designated in the plats (which, if it's in the plats it shouldn't be built on, right?), maybe something like landuse=right_of_way, or landuse=paper_street. That requires drawing it as an area rather than a single line. No, you can put any tags you want on any elements you want. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Paper streets?
On 10/19/2010 11:02 AM, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com wrote: We do have highway=proposed/construction. Most of which I assume would be usable for travel, at least by construction vehicles. If highway=proposed is being used for something which is completely invisible, I think that's inappropriate. How so? highway=proposed sounds like the very definition of a “paper street”. Until construction has been started (highway=construction) there will be no physical evidence of it. Whether or not we’re interested in documenting what’s not on the ground is an entirely different question, but if we’re going to map proposed/paper streets at all, highway=proposed sounds entirely appropriate. Of course, at some point a proposal may die and there’s no need to indicate on the map where a road is *no longer* proposed. —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Paper streets?
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote: On 10/19/2010 11:02 AM, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com wrote: We do have highway=proposed/construction. Most of which I assume would be usable for travel, at least by construction vehicles. If highway=proposed is being used for something which is completely invisible, I think that's inappropriate. How so? It's not a highway. Of course, at some point a proposal may die and there’s no need to indicate on the map where a road is *no longer* proposed. Following the concept of highway=proposed, maybe you could do highway=proposed, proposed=no_longer./sarcasm ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Paper streets?
On 10/19/10 3:06 PM, Alex Mauer wrote: On 10/19/2010 11:02 AM, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com wrote: We do have highway=proposed/construction. Most of which I assume would be usable for travel, at least by construction vehicles. If highway=proposed is being used for something which is completely invisible, I think that's inappropriate. How so? highway=proposed sounds like the very definition of a “paper street”. Until construction has been started (highway=construction) there will be no physical evidence of it. Whether or not we’re interested in documenting what’s not on the ground is an entirely different question, but if we’re going to map proposed/paper streets at all, highway=proposed sounds entirely appropriate. Of course, at some point a proposal may die and there’s no need to indicate on the map where a road is *no longer* proposed. mapping proposals is pretty dicey. lots of proposals fail, and it's pretty damned hard to clean up unless someone is making it their special job to track them down and clean them up. tiger seems to have spots where there are streets that developers planned but never built. i see them from time to time. richard richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Paper streets?
On 10/19/2010 02:25 PM, Richard Welty wrote: mapping proposals is pretty dicey. lots of proposals fail, and it's pretty damned hard to clean up unless someone is making it their special job to track them down and clean them up. Totally agree. For this reason, plus the reason that they’re not “on the ground”, I would never map a highway=proposed. But I’m not going to tell others how to map; if they want to do the work to keep track of live/dead proposals, that’s their problem, not mine. tiger seems to have spots where there are streets that developers planned but never built. i see them from time to time. Same here. —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Paper streets?
On 10/19/2010 02:14 PM, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Alex Mauerha...@hawkesnest.net wrote: How so? It's not a highway. Neither is a highway which is under construction. Neither is a stop sign. Neither is a What’s your point? Of course, at some point a proposal may die and there’s no need to indicate on the map where a road is *no longer* proposed. Following the concept of highway=proposed, maybe you could do highway=proposed, proposed=no_longer./sarcasm I was just giving my opinion. If someone *wants* to map the roads which have been proposed but aren’t any more, I don’t see a problem with that. /no-sarcasm I’m glad you’re not the dictator of what things people are “allowed” to map. —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Paper streets?
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote: On 10/19/2010 02:25 PM, Richard Welty wrote: mapping proposals is pretty dicey. lots of proposals fail, and it's pretty damned hard to clean up unless someone is making it their special job to track them down and clean them up. Totally agree. For this reason, plus the reason that they’re not “on the ground”, I would never map a highway=proposed. But I’m not going to tell others how to map; if they want to do the work to keep track of live/dead proposals, that’s their problem, not mine. I've mapped some proposed roads, usually only when land acquisition has begun. For example, here the Wekiva Parkway right-of-way is a narrow strip between recently-acquired conservation lands: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=28.7956lon=-81.5133zoom=14layers=M ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Paper streets?
2010/10/19 Anthony o...@inbox.org: On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Andrew S. J. Sawyer It doesn't feel right to call something a highway=* if it isn't usable for travel. If it is usable for travel, then it should be tagged highway=track/path/etc as appropriate. is this referring to highway=services or to highway=bus_stop? Or to highway=stop/give_way/mini_roundabout/traffic_lights? Or are you referring to highway=speed_camera or street_lamp? ;-) While I generally agree with you, it is since long not (more?) the case that highway only refers to ways suitable for travel. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Paper streets?
Some of the folks in this discussion seem to be assuming that, if a street is shown on plans but has not yet been built at the time that an OSM mapper marks the locations of the existing street, this guarantees that the street will never be built in the future. I was not aware that having OSM map streets was the kiss of death for any further development. ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [Tagging] Paper streets? From :mailto:ha...@hawkesnest.net Date :Tue Oct 19 14:42:13 America/Chicago 2010 On 10/19/2010 02:25 PM, Richard Welty wrote: mapping proposals is pretty dicey. lots of proposals fail, and it's pretty damned hard to clean up unless someone is making it their special job to track them down and clean them up. Totally agree. For this reason, plus the reason that they’re not “on the ground”, I would never map a highway=proposed. But I’m not going to tell others how to map; if they want to do the work to keep track of live/dead proposals, that’s their problem, not mine. tiger seems to have spots where there are streets that developers planned but never built. i see them from time to time. Same here. —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Paper streets?
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote: If someone *wants* to map the roads which have been proposed but aren’t any more, I don’t see a problem with that. /no-sarcasm I’m glad you’re not the dictator of what things people are “allowed” to map. I never said people shouldn't be allowed to map paper streets. They should. They just shouldn't use the highway tag for them. (They shouldn't use the highway tag for stop signs either, though that's at least forgivable since it's a point rather than a way.) On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 4:08 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/10/19 Anthony o...@inbox.org: On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Andrew S. J. Sawyer It doesn't feel right to call something a highway=* if it isn't usable for travel. If it is usable for travel, then it should be tagged highway=track/path/etc as appropriate. is this referring to highway=services or to highway=bus_stop? Or to highway=stop/give_way/mini_roundabout/traffic_lights? Or are you referring to highway=speed_camera or street_lamp? ;-) While I generally agree with you, it is since long not (more?) the case that highway only refers to ways suitable for travel. It's definitely referring to highway=services. As for the rest, I believe they are all used as POIs, which makes them somewhat more forgivable, and usually (?) used as a point on the highway itself, which also makes them more forgivable. When you're talking about ways, which connect to actual roads, and in reality don't exist... *sigh* Serenity now! ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Paper streets?
On 10/19/10 4:22 PM, j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: Some of the folks in this discussion seem to be assuming that, if a street is shown on plans but has not yet been built at the time that an OSM mapper marks the locations of the existing street, this guarantees that the street will never be built in the future. I was not aware that having OSM map streets was the kiss of death for any further development. um, no. i think we're assuming (with some justification) that proposals do sometimes die, or get reshaped, and unless a mapper is actively tracking proposals they enter, the map can end up with a surprising number of dead proposals. roads under construction sometimes end up going away; i've been watching a development make agonizingly slow progress nearby for several years. the roads show, as rough dirt, in USGS aerial imagery from 3 years ago, they're still not paved. very limited activity is going on, and if the developer goes bust, the whole thing could end up slipping backwards so easily... i've put them in as highway=construction, but i also plan to keep an eye on the whole thing as i suspect the developer is in a borderline financial state. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Paper streets?
I was reacting to the fact that some people were defining paper streets as streets that haven't been built and never will be, rather than the definition used at the start of the discussion, streets that haven't been built yet. ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [Tagging] Paper streets? From :mailto:rwe...@averillpark.net Date :Tue Oct 19 15:57:03 America/Chicago 2010 On 10/19/10 4:22 PM, j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: Some of the folks in this discussion seem to be assuming that, if a street is shown on plans but has not yet been built at the time that an OSM mapper marks the locations of the existing street, this guarantees that the street will never be built in the future. I was not aware that having OSM map streets was the kiss of death for any further development. um, no. i think we're assuming (with some justification) that proposals do sometimes die, or get reshaped, and unless a mapper is actively tracking proposals they enter, the map can end up with a surprising number of dead proposals. roads under construction sometimes end up going away; i've been watching a development make agonizingly slow progress nearby for several years. the roads show, as rough dirt, in USGS aerial imagery from 3 years ago, they're still not paved. very limited activity is going on, and if the developer goes bust, the whole thing could end up slipping backwards so easily... i've put them in as highway=construction, but i also plan to keep an eye on the whole thing as i suspect the developer is in a borderline financial state. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Paper streets?
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 5:04 PM, j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: I was reacting to the fact that some people were defining paper streets as streets that haven't been built and never will be, rather than the definition used at the start of the discussion, streets that haven't been built yet. Neither of those is quite correct. A paper street is an unoccupied right-of-way that is recognized by the local government in the same way as it recognizes the right-of-way of a public street. In effect, one of the two steps in creating a public roadway has been taken, but the other has not. (Sometimes the order is reversed; a road may be built on private land and then deeded to the government.) It generally has no on the ground existence, but is as real as a city boundary or the edge of an undeveloped nature reserve. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Paper streets?
2010/10/19 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: Neither of those is quite correct. A paper street is an unoccupied right-of-way that is recognized by the local government in the same way as it recognizes the right-of-way of a public street. that's why I would map them. But I still don't see the difference between a proposed road and a paper road (or why a paper road can't be mapped as highway=proposed). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Paper streets?
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 5:42 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/10/19 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: Neither of those is quite correct. A paper street is an unoccupied right-of-way that is recognized by the local government in the same way as it recognizes the right-of-way of a public street. that's why I would map them. But I still don't see the difference between a proposed road and a paper road (or why a paper road can't be mapped as highway=proposed). By that definition, I don't see why it can't be mapped as highway=path or highway=track (or, I guess in some cases, highway=swamp). If it's a recognized right of way, then it's not proposed, it's actual. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Paper streets?
On 20 October 2010 07:42, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: that's why I would map them. But I still don't see the difference between a proposed road and a paper road (or why a paper road can't be mapped as highway=proposed). The land has been owned but no road built and may never be built, but the area is zoned for road way if needed in future... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] how to tag US townships?
ok, I got a question tagging admin area / populated centers / labels in USA seems to come down to two main tags: admin_level and place http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Admin_level#10_admin_level_values_for_specific_countries plus http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Place I've ran into a problem recently fixing up my area, where either the TIGER import, or inexperienced contributors have/are mis-tagging townships as being, in some way, more important / more visible than Cities or Towns. Before I go further, If you aren't sure exactly what a Township is in the US, please read this first: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Township_%28United_States%29 In rural PA (Lancaster) I am specifically dealing with a buttload of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Township_%28United_States%29#Civil_townships From personal experience, the best I can equate them to is neighbourhoods or in-town areas in england. West Lampeter is to Lancaster as Tarpots is 918 years ago) to South Benfleet, or the Sea-front in Southend. The problem is that currently we dont have a discrete tag for place=township and all admin_level= are =8 so, half a question, half a statement of intent, unless someone argues me down from the ledge... I'm going to start using place=suburb for townships as the closest comparison I can find http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Dsuburb thx Ant ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] how to tag US townships?
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Antony Pegg anttheli...@gmail.com wrote: The problem is that currently we dont have a discrete tag for place=township and all admin_level= are =8 so, half a question, half a statement of intent, unless someone argues me down from the ledge... I'm going to start using place=suburb for townships as the closest comparison I can find http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Dsuburb Use place=township anyway; you shouldn't tag incorrectly to make something render well. admin_level=8 would be correct, since it's a city-level division. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Paper streets?
On 10/19/2010 03:15 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote: Unless you can foresee the future, you can't say for sure whether or not a given paper street will be built. All you can say for sure is that a street has been planned and hasn't been built _yet_. Sure you can, the Portland area is a wonderful example. The Fremont Freeway got canceled after it was started, and many people living in the middle of that paper freeway are blissfully unaware. The existing stub isn't much more than neighborhood access given the point at which it was canceled (leading to some awkward lane shifts as most lanes continue to I5 instead of more closely following the 50/50 split at the north end of the Fremont Bridge). Interstate 505 was dead on arrival, and the interchange constructed for it ended up getting connected to US-30 instead. The Mount Hood Freeway is another paper freeway that will never be built due to popular opposition that killed it decisively; ramp stubs for this paper freeway exist at the present day interchange of I5 and I84 (and I5 Northbound's Oregon exit 300 connecting I5 North to I84 East is actually using the ramp stub originally intended for the Mount Hood Freeway, which is why that ramp follows immediately next to I5 for almost a mile before passing I84's MP0). The West Side Bypass (in it's various incarnations) is another such example, a freeway directly connecting Beaverton to Vancouver, Washington has been drafted several times with several alignments, but won't ever happen because you would have to condemn rich people's homes, a swath of the world's largest city park (Forest Park), a nature preserve and popular summer hot spot (Sauvie Island), and build a new bridge Oregon doesn't need and Vancouver/Washington won't pay for (pick any combination of three reasons and you'll accurately describe at least one draft's cancellation). And let's not forget MacQuarie's offer to build a privately-owned turnpike from I5 to OR99W that would have effectively wiped the town of Donald off the map and bulldoze a swath of the same wine country such a turnpike would connect... Sure, western Oregon is fairly granola, but something tells me that western Oregon is hardly unique as an example of paper highways that won't ever exist as a viable way. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] how to tag US townships?
Aren't admin_level and place getting at slightly different things? admin_level is to mark official political/legal boundaries. place is to mark a...well...place that has a name, and the place=city|town|village|hamlet does not necessarily align with the type of government (if any) of the place. From the place page: In most Western countries, the status of a location (whether it is a city/town/etc.), is decided by the government, and is not a function of size. ***But most OSM communities of those countries have made a convention to use the population to decide which place tag to use, to ensure a more common way of tagging across the globe, and not to end up with cities of 1000 residents for example.*** Just like the term township that Ant linked to, the same word can have different meanings in different contexts. Brad On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 7:54 PM, Antony Pegg anttheli...@gmail.com wrote: ok, I got a question tagging admin area / populated centers / labels in USA seems to come down to two main tags: admin_level and place http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Admin_level#10_admin_level_values_for_specific_countries plus http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Place I've ran into a problem recently fixing up my area, where either the TIGER import, or inexperienced contributors have/are mis-tagging townships as being, in some way, more important / more visible than Cities or Towns. Before I go further, If you aren't sure exactly what a Township is in the US, please read this first: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Township_%28United_States%29 In rural PA (Lancaster) I am specifically dealing with a buttload of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Township_%28United_States%29#Civil_townships From personal experience, the best I can equate them to is neighbourhoods or in-town areas in england. West Lampeter is to Lancaster as Tarpots is 918 years ago) to South Benfleet, or the Sea-front in Southend. The problem is that currently we dont have a discrete tag for place=township and all admin_level= are =8 so, half a question, half a statement of intent, unless someone argues me down from the ledge... I'm going to start using place=suburb for townships as the closest comparison I can find http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Dsuburb thx Ant ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Paper streets?
I was responding to the argument that there was no point in mapping any paper streets because no paper street will ever become a physical street. I agree that you eventually reach a point at which a street is unlikely to be built, but, if a developer has just announced the proposed layout for a new subdivision, and only some of the streets have actually been put in, saying that there is no hope that the rest of the subdivision will ever be built is a bit premature. ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [Tagging] Paper streets? From :mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org Date :Tue Oct 19 20:17:09 America/Chicago 2010 On 10/19/2010 03:15 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote: Unless you can foresee the future, you can't say for sure whether or not a given paper street will be built. All you can say for sure is that a street has been planned and hasn't been built_yet_. Sure you can, the Portland area is a wonderful example. The Fremont Freeway got canceled after it was started, and many people living in the middle of that paper freeway are blissfully unaware. The existing stub isn't much more than neighborhood access given the point at which it was canceled (leading to some awkward lane shifts as most lanes continue to I5 instead of more closely following the 50/50 split at the north end of the Fremont Bridge). Interstate 505 was dead on arrival, and the interchange constructed for it ended up getting connected to US-30 instead. The Mount Hood Freeway is another paper freeway that will never be built due to popular opposition that killed it decisively; ramp stubs for this paper freeway exist at the present day interchange of I5 and I84 (and I5 Northbound's Oregon exit 300 connecting I5 North to I84 East is actually using the ramp stub originally intended for the Mount Hood Freeway, which is why that ramp follows immediately next to I5 for almost a mile before passing I84's MP0). The West Side Bypass (in it's various incarnations) is another such example, a freeway directly connecting Beaverton to Vancouver, Washington has been drafted several times with several alignments, but won't ever happen because you would have to condemn rich people's homes, a swath of the world's largest city park (Forest Park), a nature preserve and popular summer hot spot (Sauvie Island), and build a new bridge Oregon doesn't need and Vancouver/Washington won't pay for (pick any combination of three reasons and you'll accurately describe at least one draft's cancellation). And let's not forget MacQuarie's offer to build a privately-owned turnpike from I5 to OR99W that would have effectively wiped the town of Donald off the map and bulldoze a swath of the same wine country such a turnpike would connect... Sure, western Oregon is fairly granola, but something tells me that western Oregon is hardly unique as an example of paper highways that won't ever exist as a viable way. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
