Re: [OSM-talk] Affordable 1 CM high precision GPS.

[Mike N.]

On 5/9/2024 5:33 AM, Florian Lohoff wrote:

At least in Germany we have a grid of Basestations which offer their
RTCM 3.1/3.2  Data via NTRIP which is called SAPOS. As there are huge
differences between different states at least in some of them its for
Free.
When I last looked 5 years ago, the only free option for me in SC, USA 
has a base station 54 miles away.  Although way outside of the 
recommended distance, I use their NTRIP feed for a significant increase 
in accuracy and precision.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] AT Email

[Mike N.]

Hi,

    AT has removed the block and email service to OSM has resumed.   
Thanks for your help!


  Regards,

  Mike

On 1/30/2023 9:24 AM, Grant Slater wrote:

Hi Mike,

We have now reached out to ATT asking them to unblock the
OpenStreetMap.org mail relay server or provide us with more detail.

We recently cut across to a new email relay server, we had spent a few
months slowly increasing the mail sent by the new relay to slowly
build up "sender IP reputation".
https://twitter.com/OSM_Tech/status/1615822718234157056

Kind regards,

Grant



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] AT Email

[Mike N.]

Not sure where to report this but it seems that AT Email has placed 
OpenStreetMap Emails on the block list in the past week.


   Example: Changeset feed Emails, OpenStreetMap US Email list sent to 
@att.net destination emails.   They do not show up in a spam box, so I'm 
guessing it's a full block.


  Mike

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-us] Recent Trunk road edits

[Mike N]

Based on some likely Wiki-Fiddling, I'd like to see the Trunk road 
comments about the US tagging cleaned up to match reality.   (I realize 
that is harder than just reverting to a previous point in time).




___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Recent Trunk road edits

[Mike N]

On 9/27/2020 11:22 PM, Jack Burke wrote:

I'm on Slack, and I originally posted a comment about this editor on
some roads in Florida (that I'm familiar with), but the responses I
saw seemed to be somewhat "meh" so I didn't pursue it.


  There are so many small arguments "this is a trunk" "no, a motorway" 
"no, primary", so it's often hard to give a firm fact based opinion. 
I'd say this goes a bit beyond that.


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Recent Trunk road edits

[Mike N]

On 9/27/2020 11:22 PM, Jack Burke wrote:

and he has a diary
entry about what he's doing (in addition to what he has on his profile
page about it).  He changed*every single*  trunk road in Georgia to
primary, and from what I can tell, in Florida, too.  I haven't yet
expanded my examination into other states yet.



  Eliminating an OSM class of road in an entire state is an indicator 
of someone with an internal ruleset - something as simple as they don't 
like the color of Mapnik trunk roads in the current rendering scheme.


  It's interesting that someone from Indonesia added some observations 
about eastern US trunk roads to the wiki (which makes no sense). 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:highway%3Dtrunk=1959532=1959503


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] place=neighborhood on subdivisions?

[Mike N]

On 9/22/2020 9:26 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:

    The extra hamlet nodes are import remainders that haven't yet been
converted to landuse areas.   The general landuse zones for that area
have been identified, but do not exactly correspond to the named
subdivisions.   As I get a chance to survey, I divide the landuse into
subdivisions and convert the node to a named area for the subdivision.


Please don't expand these as landuse, please expand them as 
place=neighborhood instead.  Landuse polygons should be congruent to the 
actual land use.


That's a good point: the subdivisions often contain one or more landuse 
basins, clusters of trees, etc.   I've been thinking of them as one big 
blob, but it seem correct on a more micromap level to mark them as 
place=, and identify the smaller landuse areas (which are sometimes all 
residential).


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] place=neighborhood on subdivisions?

[Mike N]

On 9/22/2020 8:56 PM, Karson Sommer wrote:


Looking around the area of the edit, there is a lot of stuff from my 
perspective that seems fishy. There are a bunch of place=hamlet nodes? I 
certainly don't see anything that should be tagged as a hamlet, they all 
look like place=neighborhood to me. Each of these nodes should be mapped 
onto an explicit residential area.


  The extra hamlet nodes are import remainders that haven't yet been 
converted to landuse areas.   The general landuse zones for that area 
have been identified, but do not exactly correspond to the named 
subdivisions.   As I get a chance to survey, I divide the landuse into 
subdivisions and convert the node to a named area for the subdivision.


  I see one multipolygon from back in the day when I was still marking 
subdivision areas as hamlets when converting from a node to an area.


 This is all part of the normal OSM work in progress.



___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] place=neighborhood on subdivisions?

[Mike N]

Thoughts on use of place=neighborhood for subdivisions? 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/91255294


  Note that there are many thousands already tagged this way (5000 plus 
in a section of the southeast alone).


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Mapping for emergency services

[Mike N]

On 2/5/2020 9:49 AM, Eric Christensen via Talk-us wrote:


For the record, my team(s) has many cartographic resources at our
fingertips that we can use for search and rescue including, but not
limited to: USGS 7.5' maps, National Park Service maps, OSM, Google
maps, state and local GIS data, and several options for aerial imagery.


  It's great to hear from a data consumer!  It would seem to be useful 
to be able to create some sort of meta-marking about regions of data 
quality in OSM, meaning that "This area has excellent detail", "this 
area has road geometry only", and "this area hasn't been detailed and 
minor roads are known to have poor road geometry", which would somehow 
be indicated in your app.



If you consider an urban search and rescue team's mission, and a large
scale event, buildings on a map can be extremely helpful for planning
and operations where the accountability of many directed searches of
structures is imperative.


  That's good information - I sometimes wonder if there's a use for 
buildings in OSM other than GIS queries for average household square 
footage.



I say all this to really say to all those that go the extra mile to map
a trail (and determine if it's just a walking trail or maybe something
big enough to get an ATV, vehicle, or horse through), add a stream,
outline a dangerous cliff, add a building, align a roadway, mark the
bathrooms at your local park, and so many other tedious, small things
that seem to be totally innocuous...  thank you!


  I'm really happy that some local outdoor /history enthusiasts have 
been exploring and detail mapping all the dirt roads and trails in the 
nature reserve-rich parts of our county.   If the rest of our group adds 
the rest of the buildings and driveways, it will be a great resource for 
the area.



___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Mapping for emergency services

[Mike N]

On 2/4/2020 9:57 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
.  Oddly enough, for the rural firefighters?  Osmand with Microsoft 
Earth imagery as the background is their most popular pick because it 
works brilliantly offline and we have better map data than the state 
itself does.


  It is useful to learn what works elsewhere and that there are other 
locations already doing this.   Osmand on IOS is a study in frustration 
of almost working.  I suppose that means that I should contribute to 
that project to bring it on par with the Android app.


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Mapping for emergency services

[Mike N]

That's a good point, but only if the surrounding areas are well mapped 
in OSM.   In my district of focus, I still encounter TIGER tangles as 
soon as I cross the county border.  I try to go a bit further knowing 
that they answer partner district calls, and it's hard to stop when 
there's so much to do there.  One of my caveats was that it might find 
addresses outside of their district, but routing directions would be 
unpredictable for now.


On 2/3/2020 7:37 PM, Richard Welty wrote:

a  major selling point can focus on out of district response; often
FDs know their own area well, but when they go to support other
companies they often don't know a whole lot about the place they're
responding to.

richard



___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Mapping for emergency services

[Mike N]

Mike,
 It is a rather unique set of circumstances that make this project 
a good fit:

   - The county does not map most driveways
   - The degree of rural-ness, hills, and trees
   - Most trees are deciduous, making the off-leaf imagery good for 
locating hidden driveways.
   - The region is a mix of economics - some nice newer houses, many 
older houses / trailers.   The FD must manage their budget carefully: 
they declined the $15K app from the county that probably just shows GIS 
data with latest roads and address numbers.  It wouldn't necessarily 
locate driveway entrances since the data doesn't have those.  Even if it 
showed off-leaf imagery, a co-pilot wouldn't have time to study out a 
driveway on the way to a call.


   If the official data source did have driveways and a navigation app, 
I'll admit it would be hard to try OSM.  Or even the fire district I 
live in with much shorter driveways, {CommercialMapper} would find 
nearly every address almost exactly.


  The fire chief is eager to present the project to the next meeting of 
fire chiefs in the area.   I'll be interested to hear the comments from 
the other districts.


  Mike


On 2/3/2020 9:57 AM, Mike Thompson wrote:

Mike,

That is a very compelling story.  Thanks to you and the other OSM folks 
involved for making it happen and to you for writing the diary entry.  I 
have often thought that OSM would be a great resource emergency 
responders because in some areas it contains data that no one else has, 
but generally the reaction that I have gotten when I have suggested this 
to such officials was "we have our own data", "we have already invested 
in xyz system" (sunk cost fallacy), or "how can we trust OSM?".  The 
exception was a search and rescue group that used OSM to help locate 
missing people in the back country because OSM contains trails that no 
other source has.


Is this being publicised outside of the OSM community?  There are 
probably associations for fire fighters and other emergency response 
professionals and perhaps someone from the FD involved could speak about 
this project at one of their conferences to get agencies in other parts 
of the country (or world) interested.


Mike



___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Mapping for emergency services

[Mike N]

Not an emergency, but still interesting when someone can use OSM data:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/MikeN/diary/392080

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] When is your doctor a clinic?

[Mike N]

On 1/23/2020 6:51 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:

I'm not trying to apply my understanding of medical establishments to
the US - just asking what the general understanding is on your side of
the pond. Does Jmapb's distinction sound more or less ok for others too?


Jmapb's description matches my general understanding.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [OSM-talk] Teaching cyclists how to contribute to OSM

[Mike N]

On 1/20/2020 5:42 AM, James wrote:
I've yet to see an officer stop a cyclist going too fast, general rule 
is don't be a dick and slow down when you see pedestrians and signal 
with a bell(bylaw) when passing them


Here, the officer on patrol may choose to do speed limit enforcement 
when it becomes a problem.   They generally issue a warning first, but 
have issued tickets.


http://lowcadence.com/2013/02/07/i-am-a-swamp-rabbit-criminal/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-us] User in Florida changing several motorways to trunk

[Mike N]

On 1/8/2020 9:20 AM, James Mast wrote:
Honest mistakes on his end? Perhaps.� But I'm just seeing way too many 
downgrades to be conformable with his 'highway type' changes to be 
honest.� There's probably quite a few roads that he retagged as primary 
that need to be re-upgraded to trunk and so on. Routing algorithms have 
probably been seriously damaged by some of the changes unfortunately.


This is the first case I remember where the trend was to downgrade 
everything in sight, and he hasn't given the usual alternative point of 
reference to clarify where he was coming from.


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

[Mike N]

On 12/17/2019 10:19 PM, Evin Fairchild wrote:
some US routes are more important than others and lumping them all as 
primary doesn???t make any sense;


The arguments here about relative importance of parallel routes makes 
sense.


  Some massive changes such as in 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/78620805 are raising roads which 
have no other major choices, but are apparently just because they are 
the most important.


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

[Mike N]

  I think many of the trunk VS motorway VS primary conflicts come from 
2 points of view:  on the one hand, people like to zoom out and see a 
coherent network of interconnected roads.   On the other side, there is 
the group that prefers the road be classed according to its regional 
characteristics, and not necessarily in the same class for its entire 
designated span.


On 12/16/2019 7:54 PM, Evin Fairchild wrote:
>Personally I think US highways should be tagged as trunk roads in most 
cases


  In the end, this would suffer from the same connectivity issue: 
should the US highway remain a trunk as it reduces to 2 lanes and drops 
to 30mph passing through a tourist area?   Would that tend to draw GPS 
navigation routes from nearby faster, parallel streets?  Or would it 
look like an ugly gap in the trunk road if it switched to primary in 
that tourist area?


  As an aside, I sense that the tendency to upgrade results in all OSM 
streets being promoted by one level, resulting in a compression at the 
top end and less class distinction at those levels.   But because of the 
subjective issues I just let it happen rather than re-edit any such 
changes unless they are massively changing everything in a region.



___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] State Of The Map US 2019 videos

[Mike N]

FYI, The State of the map videos are up at 
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLqjPa29lMiE3IqlKQlEwGlodMfJJHz-YV



___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Request for review of plan for scripted edit

[Mike N]

On 8/8/2019 5:25 PM, Paul Norman via Talk-us wrote:
Given the low numbers of 7-digit numbers I recommend correcting them 
manually rather than writing code to do it.


  On this one I'm not sure how introducing an error-prone keyboarding 
exercise into the mix is an improvement over a programmatic solution. 
At least with the programmatic solution, a typo applies to all and is 
more easily spotted.


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] What is the meaning of hgv:national_network=yes/terminal_access?

[Mike N]

On 8/5/2019 9:42 AM, Bill Ricker wrote:
So is this the tag the lack of which should keep trucks off my street 
with tight turn radii?


 I'm not an expert, but I'd guess it only keeps the street from seeing 
continuous truck traffic even if it is the best route or turnaround (but 
only in California).


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] What is the meaning of hgv:national_network=yes/terminal_access?

[Mike N]

hgv=destination is the closest, but I'm not exactly sure how routers 
treat 'destination'.   Some of these look like they carry some 'through 
traffic' in addition to the classic termination at a facility.



On 8/5/2019 9:07 AM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

hgv:national_network=terminal_access means > "a road which can carry
cargo trucks and has an adequate turn-around facility at the end"

Great, that's helpful. So it sounds like this tag is a synonym for
hgv=destination or hgv=yes?

Joseph

On 8/5/19, Mike N  wrote:

Hi, "Terminal Access" appears to be unique to California, and generally
means a road which can carry cargo trucks and has an adequate
turn-around facility at the end.   They most often provide access for
cargo pick-up or delivery.   (at least one area says it does not include
oversize trucks)

Regards,

Mike Nice

On 8/5/2019 6:33 AM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

Ok, thanks! I've created a wiki page at Key:hgv:national_network

It's still not clear to me what the tag
hgv:national_network=terminal_access means - please add if you can
tell from the data in your area, perhaps?

Joseph

On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 1:13 AM Mike N  wrote:



This was part of the iterative road improvement after TIGER as we began
with major highways.?? ?? I believe it came from the public domain
information for the National Network
https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/infrastructure/national_network.htm .

On 8/4/2019 10:56 AM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

I've found this undocumented tag, used 130,000 times, almost
exclusively in the USA.

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/hgv%3Anational_network#overview

Values: yes 86.56%?? ??terminal_access 13.37%

I thought it might be imported from Tiger, but the usage has increased
gradually since 2012: 60k more ways have been tagged in that time.

How are these tags being used?

I'm guessing that hgv:national_network=yes means that a road is
designated for heavy trucks to use for long-distance trips.

Perhaps hgv:national_network=terminal_access means that heavy trucks
can only use a road if their destination is on it, or near it?

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us




___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us










___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] What is the meaning of hgv:national_network=yes/terminal_access?

[Mike N]

This was part of the iterative road improvement after TIGER as we began 
with major highways.I believe it came from the public domain 
information for the National Network 
https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/infrastructure/national_network.htm .


On 8/4/2019 10:56 AM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

I've found this undocumented tag, used 130,000 times, almost
exclusively in the USA.

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/hgv%3Anational_network#overview

Values: yes 86.56%   terminal_access 13.37%

I thought it might be imported from Tiger, but the usage has increased
gradually since 2012: 60k more ways have been tagged in that time.

How are these tags being used?

I'm guessing that hgv:national_network=yes means that a road is
designated for heavy trucks to use for long-distance trips.

Perhaps hgv:national_network=terminal_access means that heavy trucks
can only use a road if their destination is on it, or near it?

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us




___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [OSM-talk] Facebook mapping highways using AI in collaboration with OpenStreetMap

[Mike N]

On 7/26/2019 4:34 AM, Christoph Hormann wrote:

The corporate appropriation of OpenStreetMap


I'm not a corporate wonk, but I'll note that in my region, "Amazon 
Logistics" is effectively solving the Last Mile Mapping problem: how to 
include driveways into routing.Based on ground truth, they're 
including travel barriers, as well as other routes hidden under tree 
cover.   There's no official data on driveways and it is impractical if 
not dangerous to randomly walk or drive up private driveways to map them.


  Eventually, I'll be able to propose the use of an OSM app to local 
Emergency Services who just recently noted that their response time 
suffers as they attempt to find the proper driveway to enter, as well as 
navigate the correct split driveway.


  [ I'm well aware that the Amazon mappers are not perfect and have 
made newbie errors in other regions ]


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Ways divided by paint?

[Mike N]

On 7/4/2019 10:33 AM, Jack Armstrong dan...@sprynet.com wrote:

In the given example, turns were already permitted prior to the additional 
superfluous lanes being added. This creates confusion and unnecessary clutter 
and should not be encouraged. The intersection was fine before the addition of 
the highway links. The new links add nothing to the map other than clutter.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?changeset=70997250#map=20/39.57344/-104.98491


  The links do improve turn-by-turn instructions, in the case of 
following a large vehicle and not being sure where to leave the main 
lane of traffic to make a left turn.But it's also possible that 
adding turn lanes and/or change:lanes could work (but I'm not familiar 
with change:lanes enough to know for sure).


   I think some areas are more likely to add a physical divider based 
on history of traffic flow and available funds.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Ways divided by paint?

[Mike N]

On 7/4/2019 7:50 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

I strongly disagree with this idea,
and multiple times changed such splits
back to one way.



  What if strictly following the rule of "no split ways unless physical 
divider" results in wildly incorrect turn-by-turn instructions?  For 
example -


https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/34.93102/-82.32703

  Traveling SouthEast on Reid School Road and transitioning to Edwards 
Mill Road; there's no divider and this rule would remove the short 1-way 
link.   Turn by Turn instructions would change from "Bear slight 
right..."  to "turn right, then left at the stop sign".


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] iD forces mistagging again

[Mike N]

On 6/29/2019 8:08 AM, Tomas Straupis wrote:

   Here I would note that 2nd point is enough to keep original water
scheme and depreciate the new one. Because of data consumers.


 I don't remember why but I arrived at the new scheme several years ago 
and have been using it ever since.   So apparently data consumers will 
be ignoring my tagging?


  (Using JOSM by the way).

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Which global OSM mailing list for the "community index"?

[Mike N]

On 6/20/2019 7:39 AM, Andy Townsend wrote:
I'd suggest "talk" as a more sensible introductory mailing list to 
"tagging" as the latter is higher volume and more in depth in a 
particular area of OSM.


  It is almost an automatic reaction to redirect questions like "is 
this a real shale surface", or "how to tag the mobile home park trailer 
numbers?", to tagging, which requires another "email registration cycle".


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Which global OSM mailing list for the "community index"?

[Mike N]

On 6/20/2019 5:58 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Clearly one of the global mailing lists is missing here;


  Forum.openstreetmap.org

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-transit] Old Railways

[Mike N]

Tim,
  This is a good point, but what if OpenRailwayMap were able to pull 
from OpenHistoricalMap to generate a complete picture of the network? 
I say 'picture' because it wouldn't be connected for routing purposes, 
but it should appear connected on a map tile.   I have no idea how much 
additional work that would be for OpenRailwayMap to show.


On 5/18/2019 11:40 AM, Tim Saunders wrote:
I suspect I am a lone voice but I don't agree.� The thing that 
differentiates railways from a lot of historical features is they form a 
network, some if which is still an operating railway and a lot of which 
is still visible in the ground.� Having the extant sections in one 
database and the razed/dismantled sections in another is just making it 
unnecessarily complex to form a picture of the entire network, which for 
the sake of a few additional ways on OSM (which I agree would not 
generally be rendered) can be easily solved.


Regards,

Tim Saunders



___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] Old railways

[Mike N]

On 5/12/2019 1:45 PM, Tijmen Stam wrote:
Btw, do you know of a way to copy data from one layer in JOSM to 
another, while keeping it at the exact same position?


Edit / Paste at Source Position (CTRL+ALT+V).

I still wish it was easier to migrate objects to Open Historical Map.

 While I also don't think that Razed railways without a trace no longer 
belong in OSM, there's a bit of tradition that allowed them here.  Since 
they don't render on the default OSM site, I leave the old tracks for now.


___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-us] Proposed mechanical edit - remove objects that are not existing according to source of GNIS import that added them

[Mike N]

On 3/21/2019 3:04 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
What is the benefit, during survey, of mapped places that are not 
existing anymore?


I encounter many during surveys (usually result of data getting 
outdated) and for me it was
always time sink (as I needed to check is it actually gone) and never 
useful in any way.


Note that it is not obvious, especially for beginner or data users, that 
all of this places

are not existing anymore.


 This has been my experience as well when methodically reviewing 
several hundred GNIS nodes around here.   Everyone is fond of pointing 
out where GNIS is poorly located or out of date, but every GNIS object 
identified as (historical) was 100% accurate.   Let's reserve mapper 
labor and MapRoulette projects for those that benefit from human review. 
 This project would qualify for automated intervention.


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [OSM-talk] DJI Fly SafeGEO ZONE MAP uses OSM data... without attribution

[Mike N]

On 3/18/2019 6:51 PM, Nuno Caldeira wrote:
Was curious where DJI managed to get a worldwide DB of polygons of 
military facilities and points of prisons, triple checked with a couple 
of other users of OSM at Telegram and with polygons i added seven years 
ago. Without a doubt its from OSM, the coordinates of the vertices 
matches OSM perfectly. The names are also the same...


  Interesting in that the sites near me have used the boundary of the 
wall / fence instead of the surrounding and larger area identified with 
"amenity=prison".


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-us] Road name update challenges

[Mike N]

On 3/1/2019 12:49 PM, Clifford Snow wrote:


One caution - when doing a building/address import a few years ago, we 
discovered errors in the counties address database. They had different 
street names from address street names. The street names matched the 
street signs but the addresses had a different street name. These were 
reported to the county


   Did you find that the addresses tended to be more correct in your 
case?   In the few cases I cross checked against a business mailing 
address, the address seemed to be correct.


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Road name update challenges

[Mike N]

On 3/1/2019 10:09 AM, Aaron Forsythe wrote:

 >> 1. Original TIGER had Ruppe Dr at a nearby but incorrect location.

This seems a common enough occurrence that a TIGER data should not be 
used as permanent source.  It's only there to get the map started and 
adjustments from TIGER are required.


  The "TIGER challenges" began as a way to fill in all the new 
subdivisions in areas with no other public data.  It has been very 
effective for those areas.   TIGER continues to evolve and improve in 
its own way, and is suitable as a reference when there is no better 
public data.




 >> The wrong Tuppe Drive still has a "source" tag which is now misleading.

It's not really misleading, as that is still where it came from.


   Does 'it' refer to the geometry, the current or former name, the 
classification as residential (current) or service (previous)?   What if 
the road has to be split in the future?


Use the source tag and include a date of the survey.  This won’t 
directly stop an overwrite, but will at least give a date to compare 
against.


It seems the whole issue stems from an automatic edit without proper 
integration.


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct


  I don't see these as automated edits; they are automated detection of 
possible places to improve the map.  If the challenges are built with 
the latest data, the problem of disagreeing challenges goes away.


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Road name update challenges

[Mike N]

There have been some road name challenge projects which do excellent 
work - updating the road network for current changes.  In some cases, 
there are now dueling sources, for example a recent change -


https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/666170175/history

  (I don't fault any editor involved; they were following best 
practices using the best information they had at the time.)


  Here's my interpretation -
1. Original TIGER had Ruppe Dr at a nearby but incorrect location.
2. Updated TIGER caught Ruppe Dr at the correct location, but introduced 
a typo when entered: Tuppe instead of Ruppe, and didn't remove or just 
move the original Ruppe Dr.
3. All county GIS departments were directed to dump their newest road 
data into info2.scdot.org in 2018.
 4. This was used in a challenge project to create the first version of 
Ruppe Dr at the correct location.
 5. A second update was applied using older / wrong TIGER data. 
Neither noticed the wrong duplicate Ruppe Drive that ran through a house.


  The wrong Tuppe Drive still has a "source" tag which is now misleading.

  We were able to get a local GIS to release data to OSM.  In analyzing 
the data, I notice that address tags are much more carefully updated 
than road names.   So I could create a local project to correct some 
local roads based on corrections from the address data.   I hesitate 
because then those changes will be reverted when they don't match TIGER.


 1.)  For global TIGER comparison maps, would it be possible to 
substitute more current public statewide data as the reference such as 
in SC?


  2.)  Just as if I surveyed the name on a street sign and was able to 
confirm it with public records, how would I detect / prevent loss of 
work when it mismatches our other public sources for several years?


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [OSM-talk] HTTPS all the Things (Automated Edit)

[Mike N]

On 2/26/2019 8:45 AM, Joseph Reeves wrote:
I can't see the security risk you're trying to protect against. We are 
looking at applications that use OSM data and will refer users to third 
party websites; what is the risk of a malicious user MiTM'ing a http 
request to a restaurant website (for example) and sending me to location 
other than the https version of the site? What web clients are you 
expecting this applies to?


  MITM attacks are not restricted to country operators at borders - 
think Firesheep and any number of similar attacks.  The damage from such 
attacks depend on the site being visited, perhaps minimal if checking a 
restaurant menu, much more serious if the site requires a login.


General browsing security has to begin somewhere, and this edit is just 
a step in that direction.   All web clients benefit from this move, 
except perhaps stripped down clients that do not support TLS, in which 
case they must solve their issues in other ways to operate in a modern 
Internet.



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] HTTPS all the Things (Automated Edit)

[Mike N]

On 2/22/2019 3:36 PM, Jmapb wrote:
IMO the value of an automated edit when there's already a redirect in 
place is minimal enough that I don't think it justifies bumping the 
version and modification date. Just my opinion.


  The value of the automated edit is that there is a small improvement 
in security.   Assuming that someone ever clicks on a link in our data, 
it is more secure to go directly to the HTTPS site rather than start 
with the HTTP site.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[Talk-us] Spartanburg County SC Microsoft Building and Address import

[Mike N]

This is a proposed import of Microsoft building footprints and address 
points for Spartanburg County SC, based on county GIS data and the 
Microsoft Buildings data.


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Spartanburg_County_Address_And_Building_Import

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Mapathon Results - Spartanburg SC

[Mike N]

On 2/12/2019 11:01 AM, Ian Dees wrote:

This is great, Mike! Thanks for sharing.

Did you happen to take any photos? It'd be fun to have you write up 
something about how you found this data, set up the Tasking Manager 
project, and did the work at the Mapathon for the OSM US blog.


  Unfortunately no photos, (and no photos of our Meetup last night).  I 
didn't document the actual process very well so I'm likely to omit an 
important detail that might trip up anyone else trying to follow, 
especially on creating the vector background layer.


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Mapathon Results - Spartanburg SC

[Mike N]

Hi,

   We had a mapathon coordinated by 
https://tasks.openstreetmap.us/project/76 to visually inspect all roads 
and update them from GIS data as appropriate.   Much of the GIS data was 
newer and there were many road name corrections (names or Road -> 
Avenue, Drive -> Street, etc). In addition there were many residential 
cases of single>dual carriageway or dual>single, blocked streets, etc. 
Some of the GIS road data was out of date or incorrect - we may try to 
feed it back to them if we can find a contact who has the time.


  In any case, more automated conflation techniques can now be applied 
to that area for more focused updates since the roads conform to reality.


  TIGER:Reviewed for the area:
http://product.itoworld.com/map/162?lon=-81.95092=34.96795=9

  Recent edits (last 90 days):
http://product.itoworld.com/map/129?lon=-81.98411=34.86548=9


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [OSM-talk] What use is OpenStreetMap?

[Mike N]

On 1/3/2019 5:13 PM, Simon Poole wrote:
The slightly longer version is that there are likely economic benefits 
of many different kinds (traffic control, real estate, marketing and so 
on) that are difficult to quantify but are likely there.


 Re: real estate use case - I have seen local agents refer to 
neighborhoods that I put on OSM by surveying the new streets.  Clients 
could be directed to use mapping apps to find a new neighborhood or new 
street that is on a city's GIS but not on other maps yet.   (not sure 
which app they tell their clients to use)



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: Trunk versus motorway

[Mike N]

On 11/28/2018 10:36 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:
Adding the intersection did not change the character of the road south 
of the Gilcrease extension or the rights of adjacent landowners, so I 
don't see any particular reason to reclassify that segment.


  If we're looking for a generalized rule, consider that there may be 
many miles of motorway between the last exit and the next at-grade 
intersection, so it would make sense to keep that section as motorway.


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Add street names from TIGER

[Mike N]

On 11/9/2018 5:36 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
As an experiment my colleagues from the Telenav map team churned out 
some local MapRoulette challenges for adding missing street names from 
TIGER. The tasks were created by comparing TIGER (2017) to existing OSM 
data using our conflation tool Cygnus, which outputs ways with no names 
in OSM but that have names in TIGER.


Looks like a great list of challenges!

  Considering that there are a number of counties in my region (Upstate 
South Carolina) where we plan on synchronizing to the newest official 
data and verifying against imagery, a TIGER compare challenge would be 
counter-productive.   There were a great many name changes and street 
additions and deletions compared to 2007 TIGER and probably even recent 
TIGER.


  Of course there's always the chance in the future if all local 
mappers go inactive, it would make sense to have a TIGER challenge to 
add the new and growing areas.


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-transit] Public Transport Timetables

[Mike N]

On 11/8/2018 5:12 PM, john whelan wrote:


The GTFS bus stop data is of varying quality.  Locally we have an 
automated system that calls out the bus stop names and generally the 
position in the GTFS file is accurate to within a meter.


Some other transit systems are not as accurate, and the GTFS location 
for a bus stop can be more than 100 meters out.


  The result of publishing OSM's information + timetables in GTFS 
format could be a better GTFS than the official GTFS.  But if the 
OSM-GTFS feed is not updated for whatever reason, then eventually it 
just becomes stale data.   OSM-GTFS consumers would need to be aware of 
that possibility.


___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] Public Transport Timetables

[Mike N]

On 11/8/2018 12:06 PM, Leif Rasmussen wrote:


I think that creating a new GTFS server would be better than using 
transit land or transitfeeds.com , because OSM 
would have full control over what happened to the servers and which 
licencing was used.


Does anyone with experience in GTFS know how an integration like that 
could work?  Also, is what I am imagining even possible?



  I would tend to think that using the GTFS standard would be the best 
approach.  The only "duplication of effort" is that there is an 
optional? inclusion of the route geometries in the GTFS feed.


  In the one case I am familiar with - OpenTripPlanner, the local 
network build process could always download the GTFS from any source as 
part of the build process.   The only advantage I see for adding another 
feed source is to add the capability of publishing a GTFS from other 
than an official source.  This allows a public GTFS feed for a city 
which is otherwise too small to maintain an electronic schedule.



___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] [Imports-us] Spartanburg County SC road centerlines import

[Mike N]

On 10/22/2018 2:56 PM, Rory McCann wrote:

Hi Mike.

Thanks for the answers, that clears things up. Bt

On 10/22/2018 5:00 AM, Rory McCann wrote: >> I'm a little unclear 
about one big question: What are you doing with
the existing data in OSM? Existing OSM data seems to have nearly 
identical locations to this new data. You're just going to update 
existing OSM data? Do you know how much existing OSM data needs to be 
updated?


   All existing data will be reviewed.   Most of it will add the 
surface attribute and lanes if visible from imagery and remove the 
tiger:reviewed attribute.   So nearly everything will be modified.


I'm sorry, maybe I'm having a brain fart, but I'm still confused. It
sounds like you're going to look at all existing OSM roads in that
county and manually review them? Just going through and fixing them up
and removing tiger:* tags, and keeping the existing roads in OSM? That
sounds great. But that's a regular map-a-thon, not an import. What do
you need this new data for? If I'm reading you right, this new data from
the county won't be used at all? Right?

You're not going to *replace* the existing OSM data with this new data, 
right? You're not going to delete the existing OSM data, right?


If you (& friends) are going to fix up the roads, you don't need to talk
to this list. Just go ahead and do it! That's not an import. Just 
tracing from the imagery you created from this data isn't an import. 
That's just using a new imagery source. You can just go ahead and do that.


If you want to find new roads that aren't in OSM, load OSM & this new 
data into postgres, and look for roads in the new dataset that are far 
(>10m?) from anything in OSM. Should be quicker than humans looking at 
all.  (Do you know how to do that?)


  There will be 50 to 200 streets of new data used for new 
subdivisions.  I suppose that I could have created sets of data for 
"These might be renamed",  "These might be imported" , "These might be 
adjusted" , "These might be deleted" (Because a diff doesn't identify 
which one is right) , then not bothered to mention the additional review 
which would indeed just be a local project.


  If this is deemed not to be an import, then we will begin immediately.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Spartanburg County SC road centerlines import

[Mike N]

On 10/22/2018 8:46 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

Could I suggest that you act cautiously wrt the tiger:reviewed tag in these
two cases?

If it's an "unknown highway type" it should probably remain as
tiger:reviewed=no. Likewise, if the surface isn't clear, then either
tiger:reviewed should continue to be =no, or there should be some other
tagging to indicate this (surface=unknown, or surface:reviewed=no, or
something).


  As one who grew up in a rural area, a country road lined with 4 
houses in a mile would feel "residential" and I would tend to set it as 
residential in OSM.   That describes most of the rural parts of this 
county also, except for roads that don't happen to have a house.


  We could add Bing streetside to the workflow to confirm the surface 
type in most of the edge cases.


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [Imports-us] Spartanburg County SC road centerlines import

[Mike N]

Thank you for your comments.  Answers inline.

On 10/22/2018 5:00 AM, Rory McCann wrote:

On 22/10/2018 05:20, Mike N wrote:
This is a proposed import of road centerlines for Spartanburg County 
SC, based on county GIS data.   This will include a systematic review 
of all roads in the county and qualify to remove tiger:reviewed tags.


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Spartanburg_county_road_center_line_import 



A roads import! 

There's a few lanes that are weird. lanes=7 for a 6 lane road. It's 
weird that some roads have lanes on some parts, not all (e.g. "Hollywood 
Street"). Maybe try to make it consistant? JOSM validator has found a 
handful of topology errors. There's ~100 examples of roads that aren't 
connected properly (nodes on top of each other, but not connected).


You seem to be defaulting to "highway=residential" a lot (e.g. if you 
dohn;t know another, or turning 'Gravel' into 'highway=residential 
surface=gravel'). I don't know a lot about tagging in the USA, but isn't 
there (wasn't there) some problem with the TIGER data using residential 
too much?


  The 'lanes' and highway type were experimental to see what useful 
information could be mined from the source data.   I agree that they are 
all but useless for OSM's purpose.  95% of the work will be checking for 
geometric alignment and name from the background image layer in the 
editor.   For example there have been many projects where sharp 
intersections have been realigned for safety to create right angles. 
And streets have been renamed for E911 purposes.


   The one case where I see direct access to converted data is a new 
residential subdivision - where a new group of roads would be copied 
from the reference data and connected to existing data.   Those would 
nearly all be residential.  So I didn't take the time to go back and 
remove lane attributes from the raw data.


   Defaulting to residential was not totally wrong for this county in 
the same way it was wrong out west.  The most likely mismatch would be a 
new unclassified road into an industrial area - but those will likely be 
single roads, and thus be as easy to hand trace and assign the correct 
classification as to copy from the reference layer.


Can you link to your discussion with the local community, how/where did 
that happen?


  This was mostly verbal discussion with another community member, as 
well as one of the meetups at 
https://www.meetup.com/Open-Street-Map-upstate/ , and using some of the 
ideas presented by Clifford Snow in his "Discover Rural America" 
presentation at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoX2Q2aJXQE=1211s .



The link the tasking manager project doesn't work.


   Corrected.

I'm a little unclear about one big question: What are you doing with the 
existing data in OSM? Existing OSM data seems to have nearly identical 
locations to this new data. You're just going to update existing OSM 
data? Do you know how much existing OSM data needs to be updated?


  All existing data will be reviewed.   Most of it will add the surface 
attribute and lanes if visible from imagery and remove the 
tiger:reviewed attribute.   So nearly everything will be modified.


   Stepping back to the big picture - although many hours have been 
spent improving the road network in that county, OSM is the last source 
I would use when planning a trip to an unfamiliar part of the county. 
There have been other US projects in which a group would go into a "fast 
growing region" and review all roads, adding surface and lane attributes 
to improve navigation.   The end goal of this project is similar.   When 
combined with some additional planned work such as address points, OSM 
will be suitable as the primary reference source when planning a trip 
through that county.


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Spartanburg County SC road centerlines import

[Mike N]

This is a proposed import of road centerlines for Spartanburg County SC, 
based on county GIS data.   This will include a systematic review of all 
roads in the county and qualify to remove tiger:reviewed tags.


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Spartanburg_county_road_center_line_import

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [OSM-talk] Is it time to redevelop JOSM?

[Mike N]

On 10/7/2018 5:07 PM, john whelan wrote:
C# apparently is open source.  Visual Studio 2017 is a professional 
development environment.  Yes it is Windows and I recognise that many 
prefer one flavour of UNIX or another but I think it is time to think 
strategically and start work on a replacement for JOSM before we find we 
can no longer use it.  It can certainly create code which will run on 
UNIX systems.


I'm not saying C# is the only way to go.


  There's a lot to like about a C# solution, but currently lacks a 
cross platform desktop graphics library.  All the "Desktop pack" GUIs 
that Dotnet Core supports are Windows-only.   I don't know if there is a 
good open-source cross platform desktop GUI for C# yet.


  All that aside, my opinion is that it will be simpler to construct 
all the tools and functions to fill in where Oracle and other Javas may 
be dropping from newer versions.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-us] Possible roundabouts?

[Mike N]

On 9/7/2018 2:27 AM, Marian Poara wrote:
In many residential areas (but not only), there isn’t any one way sign 
inside the small “roundabouts” and it seems that both directions are used.


  In places without much law enforcement presence and no mandatory 
driver training, original residents may shortcut the wrong way because 
they resent the newly reconfigured roadway.  Perhaps when there is 
little traffic and they at least check.


  (around here, drivers have even gone the wrong way on new proper 
signed and curbed roundabouts until an extensive barrel network was set 
up for months to train).


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Food delivery services: Move-fast-and-break-trust

[Mike N]

On 8/21/2018 11:39 AM, Jmapb wrote:


Don't know how common these sort of predatory tactics are outside NYC, 
but fair warning, there may be businesses out there who are no longer 
delighted at the thought of someone "from the internet" taking notice of 
their publicly-posted information.


  Good story!   I've only been questioned twice: once by a store owner 
who probably thought I was from some municipal code enforcement 
department, and one from a passing jogger.   In both cases I handed out 
a card and a quick explanation and that was the end of it.   But I do 
data entry back on the desktop so my appearance is normally just walking 
by and snapping 1 or 2 photos of each item.


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [OSM-talk] Is it technically and legally possible to add the Open Location Code to the OSM search?

[Mike N]

On 8/11/2018 1:35 AM, Oleksiy Muzalyev wrote:
And they will not start putting up signs of the Plus-Codes outside their 
house unless the OpenStreetMap community accept this technology.


   What would actually happen in these locations?  Do they bring up the 
web site https://www.openstreetmap.org and use that?


This 
was a minor experimental import for a small remote town Zeze in the 
United Republic of Tanzania. Nothing happened.


   I see that it has been reverted, but what happened in the 3 months 
since the data was placed there.   Was there a plan to use and evaluate 
the system?


  The community generally seems open to the idea of adding them to 
tools and apps that end users use, although not yet for certain on the 
main OSM web site which has the purpose of mapping assistance.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Is it technically and legally possible to add the Open Location Code to the OSM search?

[Mike N]

On 8/10/2018 9:01 AM, oleksiy.muzal...@bluewin.ch wrote:
Probably it is done so that plus-codes are known to local actors? 
Perhaps, local conditions differ from European ones to the degree that 
it is difficult to comprehend without being part of local community?


That is a perfect use case for a printed map or app that shows 
plus-codes on buildings or other POIs.  That can be calculated from the 
user's location or location of the POI as the map is being rendered.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-us] Drop the tiger:reviewed tag from roads

[Mike N]

On 5/11/2018 12:25 PM, Clifford Snow wrote:
I'm proposing to open a ticket for JOSM to add this tag to the list of 
discarded tags. I'd like to hear if there are any objects or think this 
is a good idea.


I did learn from Toby Murray this morning that you can add 
tiger:reviewed to the list of discarded tags in JOSM by going to 
preferences->Advanced Preferences and adding tiger:reviewed to 
tags.discardable. Then just reload JOSM for the changed to be active.



  I'm not quite convinced since there can still be local uses and 
conventions.  I used it to show that I confirmed a road's name and where 
it began and ended.   Others use it to mean full survey with all 
attributes and signage have been collected.  But since JOSM defaults not 
to show that flag visually, I've almost stopped updating it also.   So I 
have to agree that it is no longer as useful as it once was.


 And regarding other projects: where I was thinking of a local mass 
edit to confirm conguency and remove the flag after obtaining and 
following a process to get a county to contribute data to OSM, it 
wouldn't matter if the tiger:reviewed tag was present - I would still 
match OSM roads to new data and investigate any differences.


  Bottom line - no objection here though.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Maximum number of tasks on US tasker

[Mike N]

On 5/8/2018 11:55 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
Then with residential streets where there are no lanes, often lanes=2 
would get tagged anyway despite nothing on the ground suggesting that 
was actually the case.


  I hadn't considered that unstriped roads shouldn't have lane tagging, 
but at least this doesn't cause bad effects for map data users.


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

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

[Mike N]

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 / 331 feet; an error of 26 feet. 
 Since the building is on a slope, it's not known what reference was 
used as the base in the Microsoft height measurement.   A measure of 101 
feet would be 1/3 of the actual height and not what I would expect.


  Hopefully the units weren't mixed by using different units for 
different buildings.  I couldn't see any indication of this in the 
original shape file.


[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/41979319#map=19/34.85453/-82.39767
[2] 
https://www.emporis.com/buildings/127342/landmark-building-greenville-sc-usa
[3] 
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=34.855667=-82.39939=17=photo=lPCYDmX9ZV5E8JMd6xG3Kw


On 3/25/2018 2:54 PM, Leon Karcher wrote:

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 
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/343235673> is never 16 meters tall as 
said in its height tag. (View on Mapillary 
<https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=34.829709115470564=-82.40749038763568=14.30535083537551=photo=ozDDkY97ETw_S7WwI9xZqQ>) 
If you compare further buildings, you will see that this is applicable 
for all others.


I hope you still can fix it, because the managers of the Florida import 
didn't.


Thanks,
Leon

2018-03-25 20:36 GMT+02:00 Mike N <nice...@att.net 
<mailto:nice...@att.net>>:


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, on dedicated accounts
Greenville_SC_City_MSImport_1 and Greenville_SC_City_MSImport_2

    On 1/24/2018 8:28 PM, Mike N wrote:


The OSM Upstate SC group is planning an import of Microsoft
building shapes for the city of Greenville, SC.   The
candidate wiki page is at

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Greenville_SC_Building_Import
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Greenville_SC_Building_Import>

    The actual import won't take place for 1-2 months yet to
allow time to review the plans.

    Mike



___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us>



___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us>





___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

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

[Mike N]

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, on dedicated accounts 
Greenville_SC_City_MSImport_1 and Greenville_SC_City_MSImport_2


On 1/24/2018 8:28 PM, Mike N wrote:


The OSM Upstate SC group is planning an import of Microsoft building 
shapes for the city of Greenville, SC.   The candidate wiki page is at


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Greenville_SC_Building_Import

   The actual import won't take place for 1-2 months yet to allow time 
to review the plans.


   Mike



___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us



___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

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

[Mike N]

FYI, this is proceeding with 2 people, on dedicated accounts 
Greenville_SC_City_MSImport_1 and Greenville_SC_City_MSImport_2


On 1/24/2018 8:28 PM, Mike N wrote:


The OSM Upstate SC group is planning an import of Microsoft building 
shapes for the city of Greenville, SC.   The candidate wiki page is at


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Greenville_SC_Building_Import

   The actual import won't take place for 1-2 months yet to allow time 
to review the plans.


   Mike



___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] iD news - v2.7.0, new imagery, upgraded turn restriction editor

[Mike N]

On 3/5/2018 3:52 PM, Bryan Housel wrote:

*•  We've added support for more background imagery from WMS servers. *
Thanks Martin Raifer and Guillaume Rischard for your work on this..
/Press B to open the Background pane and see if new imagery is available 
in your area./


  Fantastic!   Is there a syntax to specify custom WMS imagery?

  Thanks,

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Help fight advertising

[Mike N]

On 3/2/2018 4:11 PM, Dale Puch wrote:
It seems like encouraging SEO firms to operate within OSM guidelines by 
providing an easy way to add the OSM appropriate information in bulk 
(with data validation) in one step would be a good thing.  Easier to 
contact, manage and block or revert as needed.


  This is a great idea; the biggest problem is the GeoCoder for use 
where all addresses haven't yet been entered into OSM.


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Help fight advertising

[Mike N]

On 3/1/2018 7:36 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:

Sent to Bright Valley Marketing via their website Contact text box:


  Since there are several SEOs out there doing this, it would also be 
interesting to talk to one of them to find out where they got this idea. 
 If there is some SEO blog that gives the recommendation to advertise 
in OSM, and if we could get that page corrected, it would cut off the 
idea at the source.


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Help fight advertising

[Mike N]

This is a good time to bring up the subject because the recent 
'locksmith' advertising was most bothersome: partly because the 
locksmith industry as a whole in the US is as shady as you can get while 
being barely legal, and partly because I'm sure the physical locations 
had no relevance; almost no one goes to a 'locksmith shop' to get their 
car door unlocked, and many of them just operate out of their residence.


On 3/1/2018 5:44 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Advertising is often added to OSM in blatant disregard for what we want;
for those adding advertising to OSM, we are just another vehicle to
carry their marketing message across.


  Ironically, OSM in the US is nearly a black hole to advertisers.  As 
I last knew, adding something unique to OSM does not mean that it will 
ever show up in Google.   So I infer that we don't allow Google-bots to 
sniff the OSM changeset list.  If advertisers get things right, the best 
their client could hope for is to attract OSM app users.   If they get 
the factual part wrong, it goes nowhere.


  In this list for my region, I recognize at least 2 people who live in 
the area because they made additional relevant edits that only a local 
would know.   Otherwise, I haven't bothered to remove the advertising 
text because it's only space in the database, and a tiny percentage of 
the overall data.



___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

[Mike N]

On 2/25/2018 9:14 PM, Nick Hocking wrote:
Paul wrote  "Or maybe the unedited original TIGER that's still around 
dropped to

highway=road.  "


Given that the *vast* majority of these (with no name) are completely 
fictional, and even those that aren't, are so out of position and so 
wrongly connected as to render them worse than useless, I believe that 
deletion is the only sensible option.


  Deletion is highly dependent on the quality of TIGER ways in each 
region: many TIGER roads near me were directly derived from government 
data, probably 0.1cm accuracy.   I haven't gone out to collect surface 
type, speed limits, lane configurations confirmed road name and 
therefore not touched them but they're very serviceable for automobile 
navigation.



___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [OSM-talk] "The Future of Free and Open-Source Maps" Slashdot.org , Saturday February 17, 2018

[Mike N]

On 2/17/2018 11:01 AM, James wrote:
except it wouldnt be multiplatform and only run on windows 濫冷. Java is 
a better alternative as it's a popular language and is multiplatform. 
C/c++ is a bit more complicated and not everyone can contribute.


That's no longer true - .Net is open source and generates multiplatform 
code and the C# language has an open source reference.


 That being said, Java is quite suitable for JOSM, and the security 
issues would rarely if ever surface in JOSM.  The big question is how 
well does JOSM serve as an OSM editor?   Quite well by a number of 
indicators.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-us] Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

[Mike N]

On 2/12/2018 4:25 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:

As I am not familiar with the "things you've read," while also wondering myself whether additional 
TIGER tags (tiger:cfcc, tiger:zip, etc.) should remain or be deleted, I also pose this question to the 
greater talk-us community.  What DO we do with these additional TIGER tags as we endeavor to "clean up 
TIGER" in the USA?  Is there consensus on a definitive "best practice" for removing or leaving 
them?  (Consensus is clear that we remove tiger:reviewed=no after we've reviewed the way).


JOSM has an internal list of TIGER tags that are silently removed on any 
edit - I find tiger:zip and tiger:county to be somewhat useful on 
maproulette challenges so I know where I landed.   There's probably 
another way to get that information though.  I'm not sure if tiger:cfcc 
has any supporters.   There's also this patch, and I don't know if any 
others have been added.


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

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

[Mike N]

The OSM Upstate SC group is planning an import of Microsoft building 
shapes for the city of Greenville, SC.   The candidate wiki page is at


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Greenville_SC_Building_Import

  The actual import won't take place for 1-2 months yet to allow time 
to review the plans.


  Mike

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] TIGER 2017 Pennsylvania county line import?

[Mike N]

On 1/23/2018 8:29 PM, Albert Pundt wrote:
I certainly don't intend to delete and recreate any relations for no 
reason. Links with other boundary types will of course also be kept. The 
state boundary itself will likely be redone as well to match the more 
accurate newer TIGER data, though along the Mason-Dixon Line the border 
is defined by boundary stones which are already mapped, so I won't touch 
that part.


  I second the "Replace Geometry" tool for this type of update.  I was 
able to create a new way matching the length of the old and then replace 
geometry and join the ends.   One thing to check carefully is for any 
other object which has been attached to the old boundary.  That got me 
where 2 roads terminated on the boundary and each other; that point 
would be lifted and cause a gap in roads for example.


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [OSM-talk] place=hamlet in cities

[Mike N]

On 1/17/2018 6:53 PM, Dave F wrote:
Have you been in contact with the two contributors to see if they can 
revoke/reupload?
I presume it came from a database. If it's still available it can be 
amended as required.


  At this point it would be much better to just manually fix anything 
that doesn't look right - it will be much more up to date than trying to 
conflate any new data with potentially edited data which could be a mix 
of nodes and areas.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] place=hamlet in cities

[Mike N]

On 1/17/2018 5:55 PM, Kevin Broderick wrote:
Does anyone see a problem with armchair-mapping these to 
place:neighbourhood? I am not planning to do this in an automated 
fashion, but instead to pick away at it while reviewing areas of 
interest to some of my coworkers, who have noted that an appropriate 
rendering for an isolated hamlet doesn't make a lot of sense in a 
more-populated area.


 This happened quite a bit in the US.  I have been converting the 
hamlet points to area where I could identify a subdivision, and add the 
name if I knew it along with place=neighborhood.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Automatically generated changeset discussion comments by OSMCha

[Mike N]

On 1/13/2018 5:02 AM, joost schouppe wrote:


If we agree it's a problem that users get a message everytime someone 
reviews one of their changesets, then maybe we need a separate database 
for reviewing status. OSMcha has that, but we might integrate the 
reviewing status into OSM.org


There have been mentions of having a reviewed status on changesets. 
This could be shown as summary feedback in editors as "toast-style" 
status balloons the way waiting OSM messages is shown.   An addition to 
the OSM.org changeset would be the review status (good, bad, mixed) and 
who reviewed.  That would be a natural way to use OSMcha, with optional 
messages only when it would be helpful.Otherwise a flurry of 
messages for edits is unexpected, as in


https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/55390192

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Automatically generated changeset discussion comments by OSMCha

[Mike N]

On 1/12/2018 9:13 AM, Bryan Housel wrote:

I love this feature, and I hope Wille keeps it in.
The message is very well written, and it’s not spam if the user asks for their 
changeset to be reviewed and then somebody actually does it.


  I haven't used this yet because I wanted to add my own detail to the 
message.   A quick sampling of these shows that most are in response to 
review_requested.   I did run across 2 that did not have review 
requested however - the message is occasionally being used instead of a 
dedicated thumbs up/down flag on changesets.



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-us] Leonia, NJ doesn't want you to navigate through

[Mike N]

On 1/9/2018 8:47 PM, Jack Burke wrote:
Someone on the osmus Slack channel pointed out that this would affect 
routing for people who are in the town and want to go somewhere else in 
town, where that route wouldn't normally involve travelling on the major 
through roads.


  I haven't thought through this, but wouldn't that be the same as 
going down a road access=destination, then trying to find a new route 
back out?   Otherwise they are heading to a destination in town, so it's 
still access=destination.



___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Leonia, NJ doesn't want you to navigate through

[Mike N]

On 1/8/2018 2:17 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:

I might suggest a solution OSM might consider can be to tag access=destination 
and/or residential=living_street.


 From the video, they're definitely not living_street, so most likely 
access=destination.


But the streets should not "be deleted" as the mayor and residents wish.

   The 'deleted' term is likely a casual way to phrase "remove from 
through-routing", and they're not really seeking blank maps for their 
region.


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [OSM-talk] no osmf-talk link at listinfo

[Mike N]

On 12/18/2017 2:49 PM, Sérgio V. wrote:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo?

I've read  in http://www.weeklyosm.eu  about
some interesting discussions there,

but I can't find the link to osmf-talk in the listinfo.


 I'm not sure why it wasn't listed on that page, but there is a link to 
the OSMF-talk archives from the Wiki


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mailing_lists



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] What would make MapRoulette better?

[Mike N]

On 11/24/2017 6:45 AM, James wrote:

Yeah I'd like the skipped tasks to comeback eventually, sometimes I look
at objects and its either too complicated to fix for my current state of
mind or the imagery makes it hard but I'd like to get back to it eventually


 From what I have seen, the skipped tasks do come back randomly.   But 
it would be useful for advanced users or administrators to be able to 
select and work on only the skipped tasks.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-us] Multipolygonizing

[Mike N]

On 11/20/2017 2:36 PM, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:

In the simple way you need to follow
all nodes your predessor had drawn, clicking all the nodes, be it
25 nodes or 100. In the advanced way, you don't. You instantly
reuse his line for your new polygon. This was a most typical example
of benefits that advanced multipolygons provide.


  This is a good example where multipolygons make sense.   I have run 
into this in the past and naturally migrated to a multipolygon instead 
of clicking through hundreds of nodes.


  However for smaller landuse areas such as residential neighborhoods 
or shopping centers, there may be only 4-20 nodes per adjacent polygon. 
 For those cases, I find that multipolygons only increase the load on 
future maintenance and present a major confusion factor for new users.


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Multipolygonizing

[Mike N]

On 11/19/2017 5:48 PM, Douglas Hembry wrote:

I told glebius that I wanted to find out  what the
community thought. Is this just one more valid optional way of mapping?
To be recommended for adoption if possible? Or to be avoided? Thoughts?


  I have this situation locally where much of the adjacent landuse was 
created as multipolygon.  It definitely takes longer to modify these 
areas for new construction.  That is in JOSM without that special 
toolbox which I hadn't used before.


  I can't imagine what it must be like for a newcomer (with any editor).


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] NAIP for 2017

[Mike N]

The updated NAIP for some states scheduled to update in 2017 is 
beginning to roll out  (Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas etc).  This is 
the same as the "USGS Large Scale Imagery", but at times is newer right 
after an update.


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/National_Agriculture_Imagery_Program

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Comparing Tiger 2017 dataset with OSM in a automatedway.

[Mike N]

On 10/12/2017 9:52 AM, Ian Dees wrote:

The vast majority of roads seem to be correctly missing from OSM.


 Along that line of thought - for cases where local government data is 
not open, I'd find it useful to detect where a name changed in TIGER 
from previous year, or a road was added.


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Bicycle infrastructure

[Mike N]

I'm not sure about the syntax, but there's

  cycleway=shared_lane   (for sharrows)

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] TIGER fixup for Hurricane Harvey potential impact areas

[Mike N]

On 9/6/2017 12:42 AM, Nick Hocking wrote:

A couple of years ago there was a "Tiger missing and misaligned 2015"
layer that I found really usefull for bringing many US cities and towns
up-to-date.

Do you know if there is (or plans for) a more recent version of this,
maybe Tiger 2017???


This one has TIGER 2016, and probably will be updated to TIGER 2017 when 
it is released.  The JOSM Imagery URL would be


tms:https://api.mapbox.com/styles/v1/openstreetmapus/ciskq55qi003d2yn18dllw09w/tiles/256/{zoom}/{x}/{y}?access_token=pk.eyJ1Ijoib3BlbnN0cmVldG1hcHVzIiwiYSI6ImNpc2x0eGF1MjBhZTIydXB1eTkxbTdrdXoifQ.9reDkEfppIvAOfAD3tRDJQ

   I agree that it's very useful when that area's TIGER data is updated.




___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] US Maproulette Railway crossing challenge complete

[Mike N]

The series of US railway crossing challenges on MapRoulette is now 
complete!  Thanks to the many people who helped with this project!   The 
topology of the US rail-road intersection areas is now much more 
accurate, since many of the crossings also required a geometric 
alignment of roads and rails in the area.  I'll write a diary entry 
later with more details when I get time.


  Mike

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] SEO Damage to OSM

[Mike N]

On 7/6/2017 5:42 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Reverting all these edits would probably create a lot of collateral
damage. We could manually go through them and revert all that contain
marketing speak, but even that would probably throw out a few babies
with the bathwater here and there.


  In the larger picture, what damage is being done to OSM by the 
'spam', once the correct and standard tags are being used?  I'd like to 
have it clear that it's being reverted on the basis of being a stealth 
import where the origin of the geolocation data is suspect, rather than 
just having more words in the description tag than an average mapper 
would include.


Some local business owners also include that sort of verbage when they 
add their own business.



___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Need advice on a project i've taken on

[Mike N]

On 6/10/2017 10:51 PM, Jason Remillard wrote:

It is my opinion that removing imported non standard tags is
almost always ok.

It has been 10 years since tiger was imported, any effort to maintain it
should be welcomed. We own it now, no script is comming to automatically
update it.

You might want to run it as an automated edit.


 I agree that removing the non standard tags is almost always OK.

 What is the advantage of removing them all with an automated edit? 
Their presence doesn't damage anything, and editors can add those tags 
to their passive removal list.


  The TIGER name expansion resulted in a large benefit by removing a 
manual task.   Changing unused tags would only add to the history file 
for a small benefit.



___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Response from TIGER about "driveways

[Mike N]

On 4/5/2017 3:10 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2006-November/002561.html
for details.

(I chuckled when I read that message which begins with a complaint about
the mailing lists.)


  I chuckled when I read that the first problems involved developing 
robust recoverable upload code.   We can still use that to pounce on 
anyone who uploads an import using JOSM and experiences a network 
hiccup.  "A Ha - you have 1734 duplicate nodes and 378 duplicate ways... 
bad import"


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] greenways tagging

[Mike N]

I have tagged 2 local living_streets that don't quite meet the strict 
European definition, but they are blocked by bollards, which are rarely 
dropped to allow service vehicles to enter.


On 3/23/2017 9:27 PM, Nathaniel V. Kelso wrote:

The existing OSM wiki documented tags for bicycle needs to grow a bit to
describe things like bike boulevards, greenwaves, and buffered_lanes.


 Thanks for the detail - I also get the feeling that OSM tags should be 
expanded to cover more variations  of bike infrastructure.




___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Is this a bad import or an experiment?

[Mike N]

On 3/22/2017 2:02 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote:

Are small driveways offensive, or is it just the polygonal ones that
don't connect to anything?


To me, it's just the disconnected polygons.   Small driveways don't hurt 
anything, and can only provide information such as telling self-driving 
cars which driveway to pull into.


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [OSM-talk] Responding to vandalism

[Mike N]

On 3/16/2017 2:04 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:

And in vandalism, I would also distinguish between teenage doodles
("penis! ha ha ha!"), and serious concerted efforts to harm OSM.


  Then there's the serious and real ha ha ha 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/41.84196/-89.48580


http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/10/31/from-the-sky-dixon-church-looks-like-a-penis/


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-us] Key:man_made... Outdated language?

[Mike N]

On 3/10/2017 4:27 PM, Joshua Houston wrote:

It occurred to me that "man_made" is an outdated term that should be
phased out from OpenStreetMap language.


  Changing any long-established tag will have long lasting ripple 
effects in the many data consumers.   Any such tag migration would need 
to have a high degree of value in the change to justify the change.


  In general, tags are just a token and are increasingly hidden by 
editors and not seen by mappers unless they prefer to create tag values 
manually.



___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] MO Stare Road Classifications.

[Mike N]

Hi,

   Typically, regional classifications do not map into OSM 
classification, and often conflict.


  If a freeway / expressway is constructed as an OSM motorway, it 
should be motorway.


  If a 'local' road serves an industrial area it should be unclassified 
because it doesn't serve residences.


   And probably others.   Even within OSM in the US, there is not an 
absolute level of classification that has been agreed on and verifiable 
by everyone.


On 3/4/2017 10:55 PM, idn...@gmail.com wrote:



I was thinking of using MODOT Functional classification maps to set
roads to.  Basically the following:



MODOT : OSM



Interstate : motorway

Freeway and Expressway : trunk

Other Principal Arterial : primary

Minor Arterial : secondary

Major Collector : tertiary

Minor Collector : unclassified

Local : residential



You can see maps here:

http://www.modot.org/newsandinfo./functionalclassificationmaps





___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] First new 2016 NAIP imagery is now online (Massachusetts & Tennessee)

[Mike N]

On 1/4/2017 10:46 PM, James Mast wrote:

I tested out the new 2016 TN link in JOSM before I sent the original
email and it worked perfectly fine for me.


  I looked again and all is working now!   It had been unusable for 
several weeks around the USGS transition, and I thought the whole NAIP 
program had also fallen victim.


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] First new 2016 NAIP imagery is now online (Massachusetts & Tennessee)

[Mike N]

On 1/4/2017 9:58 PM, James Mast wrote:

So, hopefully some more new imagery that we can use to update highway
projects will be showing up soon


  I haven't been able to use NAIP WMS links since the USGS scaled back 
on their online services.   Do they work for you?


   Mike

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] An actual mini roundabout!

[Mike N]

On 12/9/2016 9:49 PM, Rihards wrote:

definitely. please only tag as miniroundabouts places that you would
pass straight in a normal car :)

similarly, if there is an island, it is better to map a circle way, not
just a node with turning_circle - the latter should be used only for
"full" circles without any objects in the middle.


There is also turning loop for turning circles containing islands - 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dturning_loop



___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [OSM-talk] addr:interpolation and data consumers

[Mike N]

On 11/21/2016 2:41 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Consumers will often try to simply dissolve the interpolation line into
points which of course has its downsides in schemes like this where 100
interpolated house numbers are assigned but only 10 houses might exist.
(I wonder if we need an interpolation type of "sporadic" for that


  The addr:inclusion=potential tag would seem to cover this : 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Addresses#Using_Address_Interpolation_for_partial_surveys


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] addr:interpolation and data consumers

[Mike N]

On 11/20/2016 11:47 AM, nebulon42 wrote:

In my opinion addr:interpolation is of little value for data consumers.
Personally, I prefer addresses on nodes or buildings where the location
of the address is clear. addr:interpolation rather leaves this open. I
know that addr:interpolation is an established tag, but the Wiki also says:


  Addr:interpolation is a convenient method for mappers to add many 
addresses at once.  Without an addr:inclusion tag, it implies a complete 
collection of addresses along the line.   The calculated addresses may 
not fall in the center of each building, but they are certainly useful 
to OSM.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-us] .... finding areas that are underserved

[Mike N]

On 11/12/2016 5:44 PM, Markus Fischer wrote:

I am new to this and the area where I live is very well mapped (probably
due to high density of tech workers). Where do I go to start mapping
areas that are less well mapped (me aimlessly poking at this does not
sound like a good approach)?


  Assuming that there is less than 100% mapping of all common 
attributes in your area:


 Start in your neighborhood: are all speed limits entered?  Turn 
restrictions? One way streets? -> those would be good to collect with 
Mapillary or as a passenger in a vehicle.


  Have addresses been imported?  If not, and your county has a 
restricted data license, it may be a long time if ever before addresses 
can be imported.   In that case, practice entering the address of every 
building where you routinely travel; restaurants, stores, work, etc.


  Otherwise, just start moving out into nearby towns or places you have 
lived or visited previously.


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] MapRoulette Rail Crossings challenge

[Mike N]

I've brought back the MapRoulette US Railway crossings challenge with a 
slight difference - the remaining tasks are derived from a topological 
look at  the OSM data.


https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/MikeN/diary/39782


[Crossing Ways: Highway-Railway, US] http://maproulette.org/map/980

[Crossing Ways: Pedestrian-Railway, US] http://maproulette.org/map/989

[Crossing Type: Highway-Railway, US] http://maproulette.org/map/990

[Crossing Type: Pedestrian-Railway, US] http://maproulette.org/map/991


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us