Re: [OSM-talk] Announcing State of the Map 2024: Join us in Nairobi and online on 6-8 September 2024!

[Clay Smalley]

As a gay man, I was considering attending SOTM 2024, but I'm having
reservations after reading what Aimee and Amanda have brought up.

The bid for SOTM 2024 put forward by OSM Kenya [1] has the following
paragraph:

> Nairobi has a more progressive outlook compared to other regions in the
> country, and there is a growing LGBTQ+ community and support organisations
> within the city. Nairobi is a multicultural city, with people from all over
> the world calling it home. Being a major economic and commercial center in
> Kenya, the city attracts people from all over the world. This gives the
> city its diversity and unique features making it one of the best and most
> tourist connection hubs in Africa. Nairobi also serves as a host to several
> international and regional conferences, conventions and seminars and boasts
> of a zero-tolerance policy on discrimination, harassment or any form of
> mistreatment. This includes conferences like the Internet Governance Forum
> in 2023, the United Nations Environment Assembly in 2022 and the
> International Conference on Population and Development in 2019.
>
> In relation to the local LGBTQ+ laws, in 2023, the Supreme Court of Kenya
> ruled that the National Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (NGLHRC)
> must be allowed to officially register as a non-governmental organization
> allowing for the community to associate freely. These rulings are a major
> victory for the LGBTQ+ community in Kenya and are also a significant step
> forward for human rights in Kenya.
>
I appreciate the time and effort the OSM Kenya team put into their bid, and
I'm sure their heart is in the right place regarding LGBT rights. However,
I would like more context from the team here, considering the presence of
anti-LGBT legislation in the country.

Does Equaldex's assessment [2] of LGBT legal rights and public opinion in
Kenya match your understanding of the country?

Are anti-LGBT laws enforced in Kenya? If so, how? Are they enforced
uniformly across the country, in both rural and urban areas?

Is public opinion different towards visiting LGBT foreigners vs. LGBT
locals? If so, how?

If I visit Nairobi, how likely is it that I will experience harassment or
discrimination, whether by ordinary citizens or legal authorities?

[1]
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/State_of_the_Map_2024/Call_for_venues/Nairobi#Is_it_a_LGBT_friendly_space
?
[2] https://www.equaldex.com/region/kenya


On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 2:02 PM Federica Gaspari 
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
>
>
> Get ready to meet and connect with old and new mappy friends from the
> global OpenStreetMap community again!
>
>
>
> The State of the Map Organising Committee is thrilled to officially
> announce that the global conference of the OpenStreetMap community, State
> of the Map (SotM), will be making its way to Nairobi, Kenya from September
> 6th-8th 2024! This landmark event will bring together passionate mappers,
> data enthusiasts, technologists, and community members from all corners of
> the globe to celebrate the spirit of collaboration and open mapping.
>
>
>
> Following the good feedback for State of the Map 2022 Firenze, the
> upcoming State of the Map 2024 will once again be held in a hybrid format.
> Building on the valuable lessons and experiences from the previous events,
> the SotM Organising Committee is committed to making this edition even more
> accessible to everyone who wishes to partake in this grand celebration of
> open mapping, sharing passionate voices with the entire community.
>
>
>
> Learn more about the SotM 2024 announcement on the OpenStreetMap blog: 
> https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2023/08/14/announcing-state-of-the-map-2024-september-6-to-8-2024-join-us-in-nairobi-and-online/
>
>
>
> More details about the organization will be soon communicated.
>
>
>
> Federica Gaspari on behalf of the SotM Organising Committee
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Call to Take Action and Confront Systemic Offensive Behavior in the OSM Community

[Clay Smalley]

On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 5:52 PM Florimond Berthoux <
florimond.berth...@gmail.com> wrote:

> La loi française contre les propos haineux s'applique à tous en France.
>

Va téléphone à la police.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Call to Take Action and Confront Systemic Offensive Behavior in the OSM Community

[Clay Smalley]

On Wed, Dec 9, 2020, 4:08 PM john whelan  wrote:

> In the diverse collection of people we have in OSM you will be hard
> pressed not to offend someone.
>

Really? That hasn't been a problem for me.

I hadn't realised the name Kathleen was one that either gender could use
> and I apologise for making an assumption about the gender of the person
> using it.
>

I typed out my message and sent it before my mail client refreshed and
showed Kathleen's reply. She's clearly a woman. Quit being obtuse.

-Clay (they/them)

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Call to Take Action and Confront Systemic Offensive Behavior in the OSM Community

[Clay Smalley]

I'm noticing a pattern here in the replies to this email:

Only men have replied. This is, unfortunately, par for the course on the
OSM mailing lists. The lack of discussion by non-men is an undeniable fact.
The simplest explanation for this is the systematic institutional hostility
towards women in the OSM community. The replies themselves are the best
evidence of this.

These men replying have taken it upon themselves to explain to a woman what
constitutes misogyny. News flash: you do not get to decide what offends
other people. If you are a man, misogyny will never happen to you by
definition. If you are a man, you have never been, are not, and will never
be a victim of misogyny. This isn't your area of expertise. Listen to the
experts.

Some men replying have even mentioned how this draft letter hurts their
feelings. These men need to slow down and consider for a moment that their
temporarily hurt feelings are less important than the safety of women.
Men's feelings are irrelevant to issues where women are victims.

As far as I know, various OSM-affiliated groups have codes of conduct, but
there isn't one governing these mailing lists. We need to adopt a code of
conduct yesterday.

-Clay (they/them)

On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 2:13 PM Celine Jacquin  wrote:

> Hello everybody
> I hope you are all well
>
> We, several groups, chapters, organizations and individuals, have reacted
> to the conversation in the osm-talk-list (
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2020-December/085692.html)
> considering that it is an incident symptomatic of the problem we have faced
> for many years in the community, which is one of the greatest obstacles to
> diversity at all levels of OSM. Time to make a real change.
> That is why we have developed a beginning of statement on the desirable
> mechanisms to work solidly on the rules of coexistence and improve
> diversity.
>
> We bring it to your attention and invite anyone who feels represented to
> sign it. Translations are in preparation (any help is welcome):
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/130JCTX9ve4H4ORXznmIVTpXiN3TX8nRGA8ayuTZ9ECI/edit?usp=sharing
>
>
> On behalf of the signatories
> Best regards
>
> Céline Jacquin
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-us] [Tagging] Extremely long Amtrak route relations / coastline v. water

[Clay Smalley]

On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 11:12 AM Dave F via Tagging <
tagg...@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> On 22/11/2020 11:24, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>
>
> I sincerely hope "I'm in favor of fixing" translates as "I'm planning to
> fix", though I fear I may be disappointed.
>
> More broadly, we need to nip this "oh just fix the tools" stuff in the
> bud. (etc)
>
>
> Likewise we need to stop software developers from expecting contributors
> to add data purely because they can't be bothered/not competent enough to
> write a few lines of code. (OSM-carto demanding boundaries on ways &
> numerous routers expecting multiple foodways to criss-cross pedestrian
> areas, are just two examples)
>
> Contributing to the database (also *volunteers*) are expected to map to a
> certain standard. There shouldn't be a reason to expect develops not to do
> the same.
>

If it's so easy, why don't you write the "few lines of code" necessary to
fix this issue?


> Desiring relations to list in their entirety is *not* a "0.1% case".
> Splitting them into 'super relations' should not be the desired, final
> solution.
>

Amtrak routes, like many other public transit routes, are already split
into super-relations (see [1], [2]). This is a non-issue. I've already
decided to split up long-distance Amtrak routes into more manageable
chunks, especially since I'm the one who takes on most of the work of
managing them. My original question was *how* to split them up, not
*whether* to split them. I'm not convinced that attempts to persuade me not
to do so are helpful in any way, so I'm going to consider them off-topic
and ignore them.

-Clay

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route_master

[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Amtrak
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Extremely long Amtrak route relations

[Clay Smalley]

I posted this on the Slack but I figured I should put this on the mailing
list to make sure it reaches everybody:

Many long-distance Amtrak trains have route relations with 1000+ members.
If I split one way that happens to be a member of one of these routes, I
end up with a changeset with a gigantic bounding box, and often get edit
conflicts due to someone doing a similar change hundreds of miles away
along the same line. I really would like to split up these relations into
smaller chunks to make them more manageable.

One way of doing that would be to split them up by state (as US and
Interstate highways are) but that seems odd for a train relation, since
they'd start and end at places that aren't train stations (except maybe
Texarkana). My other thought would be to split them up at "station stops",
where trains dwell for 10+ minutes to facilitate crew changes and allow
passengers to step off the train and get some fresh air. These are roughly
every 4 hours apart schedule-wise (typically 200-300 miles apart). The
annoying part is that station stops are not well-advertised and you pretty
much need to ride the train to figure out where they are.

Other suggestions on the Slack include splitting them up by the underlying
railway infrastructure lines (aka subdivisions). I'm not convinced this is
an intuitive way to approach splitting long routes into sub-relations.

Anybody have opinions one way or the other?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Your experience in reaching out to Maps.me users ?

[Clay Smalley]

On Thu, Nov 12, 2020, 9:51 AM Tomas Straupis 
wrote:

> 2020-11-12, kt, 16:41 Clay Smalley rašė:
> > Anyway, this is clearly off topic and has veered into your personal
> > bugaboos about governments you don't like.
>
>   I see you do not manage to differentiate historical episodes and
> CURRENT situation.
>

Is May 2020 not recent enough?

> Maps.me doesn't seem to have any involvement in Russian military
> > operations. Please keep your criticisms relevant to the subject at hand.
>
>   If you are not familiar with how things work in Moscow or relations
> of owners of maps.me to Kremlin then refrain from pointless
> commenting.
>

Would you like to share this information with me and the rest of the
mailing list, and demonstrate how it is relevant?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Your experience in reaching out to Maps.me users ?

[Clay Smalley]

On Thu, Nov 12, 2020, 9:25 AM Tomas Straupis 
wrote:

> > Besides, Mapbox is known to work with United States government
> > agencies as well as military weapons manufacturers (so-called
> > "defense contractors"). Does this bother you at all?
>
>   I have no information about the United States being involved in
> starting wars against neighbours and annexing their territories.
>

Here, let me help you out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gideon_%282020%29

Anyway, this is clearly off topic and has veered into your personal
bugaboos about governments you don't like. Regardless of your views on
Russia, Maps.me doesn't seem to have any involvement in Russian military
operations. Please keep your criticisms relevant to the subject at hand.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Your experience in reaching out to Maps.me users ?

[Clay Smalley]

On Thu, Nov 12, 2020, 5:36 AM Tomas Straupis 
wrote:

> Maps.me (or crap.me as it is known in some places) is a known bad actor:
> * It disguises as made in Holland, when it is actually made in Moscow
> by a company having close ties with the Kremlin.
>

I don't think this is accurate or even relevant. I took a quick look around
their website and found that they clearly display that they have five
offices in Russia and four elsewhere. Every interaction I've had with
Maps.me maintainers has been with someone who has a Russian surname. I
couldn't find any dishonest messaging about being primarily located in the
Netherlands.

Besides, Mapbox is known to work with United States government agencies as
well as military weapons manufacturers (so-called "defense contractors").
Does this bother you at all?

-Clay

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

Re: [Talk-us] [Talk-transit] [OSM-talk] Call for verification (Was: Re: VANDALISM !)

[Clay Smalley]

Everyone knows who you're talking about at this point, and nobody cares.
Use the remaining day or so of your temporary ban to work on some hobbies
outside of OpenStreetMap.

And be careful about who you say isn't local. I'm moving to Northern
Indiana next week and I'll certainly get the chance to survey many of the
estimated stop positions I remotely mapped. I hope to see you around as we
continue working on the same things.

On Sat, Aug 22, 2020, 12:21 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-transit <
talk-tran...@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> it was one person in CA adding 400 unverified tags to rail service in
> chicago.
>
> one just 818 m, away from my home.
>
>
> SATURDAY, August 22, 2020 12:32 PM -05:00 from Martin Koppenhoefer <
> dieterdre...@gmail.com >:
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 22. Aug 2020, at 10:15, pangoSE  wrote:
> >
> > Here is yet another example of bad data in our database:
>
> fix it ;-)
>
> Of course OpenStreetMap contains errors, just like any other source, and
> probably more, given that most contributors are laymen and have very few
> experience (few total edits, often just 1).
>
> On the other hand, we may be very fast when something changes, very
> flexible in emergencies (think Haiti), and have interesting niche data that
> commercial and public data providers don’t care for.
>
> It all depends on the local community in the end. If you have reached a
> critical mass to have locals everywhere, it will work great and bugs will
> wash out. Otherwise the data might get stale just like any other data. Also
> using the data is essential to find the problems, for example the 212 story
> garage is likely fixed now ;-)
>
> I tend to agree with Steve A.
>
> Cheers Martin
> ___
> talk mailing list
> t...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-transit mailing list
> talk-tran...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-transit] Call for verification (Was: Re: VANDALISM !)

[Clay Smalley]

Everyone knows who you're talking about at this point, and nobody cares.
Use the remaining day or so of your temporary ban to work on some hobbies
outside of OpenStreetMap.

And be careful about who you say isn't local. I'm moving to Northern
Indiana next week and I'll certainly get the chance to survey many of the
estimated stop positions I remotely mapped. I hope to see you around as we
continue working on the same things.

On Sat, Aug 22, 2020, 12:21 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-transit <
talk-tran...@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> it was one person in CA adding 400 unverified tags to rail service in
> chicago.
>
> one just 818 m, away from my home.
>
>
> SATURDAY, August 22, 2020 12:32 PM -05:00 from Martin Koppenhoefer <
> dieterdre...@gmail.com >:
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 22. Aug 2020, at 10:15, pangoSE  wrote:
> >
> > Here is yet another example of bad data in our database:
>
> fix it ;-)
>
> Of course OpenStreetMap contains errors, just like any other source, and
> probably more, given that most contributors are laymen and have very few
> experience (few total edits, often just 1).
>
> On the other hand, we may be very fast when something changes, very
> flexible in emergencies (think Haiti), and have interesting niche data that
> commercial and public data providers don’t care for.
>
> It all depends on the local community in the end. If you have reached a
> critical mass to have locals everywhere, it will work great and bugs will
> wash out. Otherwise the data might get stale just like any other data. Also
> using the data is essential to find the problems, for example the 212 story
> garage is likely fixed now ;-)
>
> I tend to agree with Steve A.
>
> Cheers Martin
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-transit mailing list
> talk-tran...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-transit] [OSM-talk] Call for verification (Was: Re: VANDALISM !)

[Clay Smalley]

Everyone knows who you're talking about at this point, and nobody cares.
Use the remaining day or so of your temporary ban to work on some hobbies
outside of OpenStreetMap.

And be careful about who you say isn't local. I'm moving to Northern
Indiana next week and I'll certainly get the chance to survey many of the
estimated stop positions I remotely mapped. I hope to see you around as we
continue working on the same things.

On Sat, Aug 22, 2020, 12:21 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-transit <
talk-transit@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> it was one person in CA adding 400 unverified tags to rail service in
> chicago.
>
> one just 818 m, away from my home.
>
>
> SATURDAY, August 22, 2020 12:32 PM -05:00 from Martin Koppenhoefer <
> dieterdre...@gmail.com >:
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 22. Aug 2020, at 10:15, pangoSE  wrote:
> >
> > Here is yet another example of bad data in our database:
>
> fix it ;-)
>
> Of course OpenStreetMap contains errors, just like any other source, and
> probably more, given that most contributors are laymen and have very few
> experience (few total edits, often just 1).
>
> On the other hand, we may be very fast when something changes, very
> flexible in emergencies (think Haiti), and have interesting niche data that
> commercial and public data providers don’t care for.
>
> It all depends on the local community in the end. If you have reached a
> critical mass to have locals everywhere, it will work great and bugs will
> wash out. Otherwise the data might get stale just like any other data. Also
> using the data is essential to find the problems, for example the 212 story
> garage is likely fixed now ;-)
>
> I tend to agree with Steve A.
>
> Cheers Martin
> ___
> talk mailing list
> t...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-transit mailing list
> Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
>
___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] VANDALISM !

[Clay Smalley]

For those who aren't following, the DWG recently decided on a two-day ban
for the person who posted this, for the exact behavior they're exhibiting
right now: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/3850

jdd 3, please take a break. You have better things to do.

I look forward to when you demonstrate the ability to communicate
collaboratively.

Best,
Clay

On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 6:08 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <
talk...@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> FYI;
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Vandalism
>
> Purposeful removal or degradation of data that are known to be correct,
>
> Deliberate adding incorrect data;
>
> People who revert other people's work should expect to be able to
> demonstrate that the reversion was well reasoned and proportionate to the
> issue.
>
> Not There;
> Unverified  if someone puts in 400 +  unverified tags in one edit,
>
> If someone reverts, 400 + edits,  in one edit, done on good faith by
> others over the years to conform to there way of thinking,
>
> If someone deletes, 400 + edits,  in one edit, done on good faith by
> others over the years to conform to there way of thinking,
>
> If someone refuses to let others, edit because they have taken over
> that type edit, all bus stops in the same area,
> all train stations in the same area, all boundaries in the same area.
>
> Edits that do not conform to the subject wiki.
>
> if someone downloads data that will create one mulitipolygon, against all
> wikis
>
> Also there is no wiki on unverified edits.
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> talk...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-us] VANDALISM !

[Clay Smalley]

For those who aren't following, the DWG recently decided on a two-day ban
for the person who posted this, for the exact behavior they're exhibiting
right now: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/3850

jdd 3, please take a break. You have better things to do.

I look forward to when you demonstrate the ability to communicate
collaboratively.

Best,
Clay

On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 6:08 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <
talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> FYI;
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Vandalism
>
> Purposeful removal or degradation of data that are known to be correct,
>
> Deliberate adding incorrect data;
>
> People who revert other people's work should expect to be able to
> demonstrate that the reversion was well reasoned and proportionate to the
> issue.
>
> Not There;
> Unverified  if someone puts in 400 +  unverified tags in one edit,
>
> If someone reverts, 400 + edits,  in one edit, done on good faith by
> others over the years to conform to there way of thinking,
>
> If someone deletes, 400 + edits,  in one edit, done on good faith by
> others over the years to conform to there way of thinking,
>
> If someone refuses to let others, edit because they have taken over
> that type edit, all bus stops in the same area,
> all train stations in the same area, all boundaries in the same area.
>
> Edits that do not conform to the subject wiki.
>
> if someone downloads data that will create one mulitipolygon, against all
> wikis
>
> Also there is no wiki on unverified edits.
>
>
> ___
> 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] [Talk-us] changeset: 89516909

[Clay Smalley]

Do you have a more authoritative source for municipal boundaries than the
US Census Bureau?

If you don't, it'll be hard for you to convince everyone here that the US
Census data is wrong.

On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 5:03 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <
talk...@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> FYI;
>
> for all of you who are not in country and do not understand about usa
> city bounders.
>
> https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/contact.html
>
> and did you read what the other guy said, this is the census data not true
> map data.
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89598349.
>
>
> Tuesday, August 18, 2020 10:52 AM -05:00 from James Umbanhowar <
> jumba...@gmail.com>:
>
> What link are you using for this? I downloaded the places boundary
> information from here:
> https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/geo/shapefiles/index.php
>
> As I said, I'm happy to change, but I can't change without actual
> information.
>
> On Tue, 2020-08-18 at 18:43 +0300, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us wrote:
> > i am looking at the TIRGER web, show’s the real map online and
> > nothing you did matches.
> >
> > i live here and a block away from the edens spur just saying.
> >
> > > Tuesday, August 18, 2020 10:38 AM -05:00 from James Umbanhowar <
> > > jumba...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > It would probably be best if these suggestions were added in the
> > > changeset comments, as they don't need to be discussed on the
> > > mailing
> > > list.
> > >
> > > On Tue, 2020-08-18 at 11:36 -0400, James Umbanhowar wrote:
> > > > I'm the person who made the changes and am happy to adjust the
> > > map to
> > > > better authoritative data or information. My motivation for this
> > > was
> > > > to fix a mangled boundary relation that didn't have consistent
> > > outer
> > > > and inner members. The changes came in two changesets,
> > > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89220282 and
> > > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89516909
> > > >
> > > > The first changeset just made the relation consistent with outer
> > > ways
> > > > and inner ways. I preserved all the ways that were in the
> > > relation
> > > > that
> > > > lead to the inconsistency and they are still in the database with
> > > a
> > > > note attached to them. The second came after a changeset comment
> > > that
> > > > noted that the fixed relation didn't match and earlier unbroken
> > > > relation, in particular around the Edens Spur. I then changed the
> > > > border in this area to match the 2019 Tiger data in that area
> > > only.
> > > >
> > > > James
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 2020-08-18 at 02:37 +0300, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us
> > > wrote:
> > > > > Changeset #89220282
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Monday, August 17, 2020 6:34 PM -05:00 from Mike Thompson <
> > > > > > miketh...@gmail.com>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 5:24 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <
> > > > > > talk...@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > tiger is up to date on the web map using the current data i
> > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > think he picked the wrong year,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That relation was first created in 2009. According to the
> > > source
> > > > > > tag, it used 2008 Tiger data, so the original mapper probably
> > > > > > used
> > > > > > the best available TIGER data at the time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > also all he got was a white line in his first try.
> > > > > > > Way: 813726663
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That way needs to be added to the relation, and the relation
> > > must
> > > > > > close.
> > >
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> talk...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-us] changeset: 89516909

[Clay Smalley]

Do you have a more authoritative source for municipal boundaries than the
US Census Bureau?

If you don't, it'll be hard for you to convince everyone here that the US
Census data is wrong.

On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 5:03 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <
talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> FYI;
>
> for all of you who are not in country and do not understand about usa
> city bounders.
>
> https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/contact.html
>
> and did you read what the other guy said, this is the census data not true
> map data.
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89598349.
>
>
> Tuesday, August 18, 2020 10:52 AM -05:00 from James Umbanhowar <
> jumba...@gmail.com>:
>
> What link are you using for this? I downloaded the places boundary
> information from here:
> https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/geo/shapefiles/index.php
>
> As I said, I'm happy to change, but I can't change without actual
> information.
>
> On Tue, 2020-08-18 at 18:43 +0300, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us wrote:
> > i am looking at the TIRGER web, show’s the real map online and
> > nothing you did matches.
> >
> > i live here and a block away from the edens spur just saying.
> >
> > > Tuesday, August 18, 2020 10:38 AM -05:00 from James Umbanhowar <
> > > jumba...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > It would probably be best if these suggestions were added in the
> > > changeset comments, as they don't need to be discussed on the
> > > mailing
> > > list.
> > >
> > > On Tue, 2020-08-18 at 11:36 -0400, James Umbanhowar wrote:
> > > > I'm the person who made the changes and am happy to adjust the
> > > map to
> > > > better authoritative data or information. My motivation for this
> > > was
> > > > to fix a mangled boundary relation that didn't have consistent
> > > outer
> > > > and inner members. The changes came in two changesets,
> > > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89220282 and
> > > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89516909
> > > >
> > > > The first changeset just made the relation consistent with outer
> > > ways
> > > > and inner ways. I preserved all the ways that were in the
> > > relation
> > > > that
> > > > lead to the inconsistency and they are still in the database with
> > > a
> > > > note attached to them. The second came after a changeset comment
> > > that
> > > > noted that the fixed relation didn't match and earlier unbroken
> > > > relation, in particular around the Edens Spur. I then changed the
> > > > border in this area to match the 2019 Tiger data in that area
> > > only.
> > > >
> > > > James
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 2020-08-18 at 02:37 +0300, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us
> > > wrote:
> > > > > Changeset #89220282
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Monday, August 17, 2020 6:34 PM -05:00 from Mike Thompson <
> > > > > > miketh...@gmail.com>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 5:24 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <
> > > > > > talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > tiger is up to date on the web map using the current data i
> > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > think he picked the wrong year,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That relation was first created in 2009. According to the
> > > source
> > > > > > tag, it used 2008 Tiger data, so the original mapper probably
> > > > > > used
> > > > > > the best available TIGER data at the time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > also all he got was a white line in his first try.
> > > > > > > Way: 813726663
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That way needs to be added to the relation, and the relation
> > > must
> > > > > > close.
> > >
>
>
>
> ___
> 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-transit] bus stop name

[Clay Smalley]

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020, 9:10 AM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-transit <
talk-transit@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> i think it is the same tag format that only will show on the standard map
> the street name because no one puts the
>
> the route no on the name line and that is the only thing the non editor
> see’s
>
> not like the transit map where there is a route line.
>
> the point is there is no pop up on the standard map so how do you know
> what the route no. it is ?
>
>

By using something other than the standard map.

-Clay

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

Re: [Talk-us] Railroad Tagging Location codes

[Clay Smalley]

I think it's helpful. Looks like these would go in the railway:ref=* tag of
railway=yard nodes.

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 4:28 PM Natfoot  wrote:

> Hello to the list,
> Quick question
> Would location codes be helpful? Would they be helpful to list on the NA
> railway wiki?
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Natfoot_footnat#Location_Short_Hand
>
> See my profile on wiki for as an example.
>
>
> Nathan P
> email: natf...@gmail.com
> ___
> 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] [OSM-talk] fake, edit, FAKE map.

[Clay Smalley]

To be clear, you mean that everyone is mapping incorrectly if they are not
local? That's an absurd premise—lots of mappers do valuable remote work
without having to be on the ground and see what they're mapping in person.
Of course, disputes arise between local mappers and remote mappers, and
it's best to follow the judgment of local mappers in such situations. But
it's a stretch to say that remote mappers are always wrong.

Complaining to the mailing list won't make anything better. You have the
power to fix this yourself. What's holding you back?

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:20 AM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <
talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> I meant everbody is if they are not local.
>
>
>
> Tuesday, June 16, 2020 12:17 PM -05:00 from Maarten Deen  >:
>
> On 2020-06-16 18:09, 80hnhtv4agou--- via talk wrote:
> > Added a service road.
> >
> > Edited about hours ago by
> >
> > Version #1 · Changeset #86698283
> >
> > https://imgur.com/gallery/k6Zjnqm
>
> If you think it is fake, you first comment on the changeset and ask the
> mapper to explain. Or look at his profile and see if you can get more
> information about the mapper.
> If you think the mapper is continuously mapping incorrectly you can
> address the OSMF. But than you need to be able to show some kind of
> dialog with the mapper in question and show that he is repeatedly and
> purpousfully mapping incorrectly.
>
> Regards,
> Maarten
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] fake, edit, FAKE map.

[Clay Smalley]

Not sure what it is you're trying to point out here. Have you started a
conversation with the person who made that edit?

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 9:11 AM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <
talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Added a service road.
>
> Edited about  hours ago by
>
> Version #1 · Changeset #86698283
>
> https://imgur.com/gallery/k6Zjnqm
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Rail tagging in US (and North America): operator=* and reporting_marks=*

[Clay Smalley]

If I'm not mistaken, the examples you've given are instances of
railway:track_ref=*, not ref=*.

Throwing my two cents in here—that coincides with the way I personally use
railway:track_ref=*. My understanding is that this uniquely identifies
tracks within a line, station or yard, and is not synonymous with ref=*
which seems to be a globally (nationally? operator-wide?) unique identifier.

Here's an example in a station in Germany:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/20889332

In this case, track segment (ref=) 2610 is the (railway:track_ref=) 4th out
of 8 parallel tracks at Neuss Central. In my experience, tracks in North
America tend to be numbered extensively this way (Main Track 2, Yard Track
57, etc.). I've been filling railway:track_ref=* in with this information
throughout California and the Northeast. I think ref=* would be useful
information to fill in though I want to be sure about the definition of
ref=* and that the source of information is authoritative and freely usable.

Looking forward to how this discussion turns out.

-Clay

On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 12:12 PM Natfoot  wrote:

> Chuck,
> I think you make some good points in your email.  I would discourage the
> hang ups on the diffring railroad terminology as it is different by
> railroad and location.  Coming to a decision on how we are going to tag is
> more important. I agree that line segments are useful and interested to
> hear how you would suggest to tag them.
>
> Here some examples of the use of the ref=* tag
> https://www.openrailwaymap.org/?lang=null=39.77267707885666=-104.98619109392166=18=standard
>
>
>
> https://www.openrailwaymap.org/?lang=null=39.78832735578315=-104.99941036105156=19=standard
>
>
> https://www.openrailwaymap.org/?lang=null=41.860825816587464=-87.63588219881058=18=standard
>
>
> Regards,
> Nathan P
> email: natf...@gmail.com
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 9:28 AM Chuck Sanders  wrote:
>
>> Nathan, thanks - I've been thinking over your email and use case since
>> coffee this morning, and looking for the right questions to pick your brain
>> too, so that we can get the documentation right in the NA tagging wiki, and
>> all of us on the same page.  I also started working up a a NA-specific and
>> simplified JOSM tagging preset, so that's part of my impetus to really
>> start getting into the weeds on this - part of my goal of the preset is to
>> make it easy for all of us to tag consistently on the important tags ... so
>> a huge part of that is making sure everything I do *agrees* with what
>> everyone else understands those important tags to be!
>>
>> In particular, I can see the value of that BNSF track segment document
>> you've been working on with others, and completely agree that's also
>> information that should be captured properly in our metadata as well, I'm
>> just trying to understand myself whether the ref tag is likely to be the
>> right tag to do that.
>>
>> So far, I'm familiar with at least two different sets of "line numbers"
>> in the US, and I haven't seen either used consistently before in the US in
>> the way I understand that ref tag was meant to be used.
>>
>> One is the number set that started with the ICC Valuation Map Sections
>> 100 years ago.  A lot of that data persisted long term, and I still see
>> references in current documents, especially with NS material (I'm an east
>> coast guy).  I also still see that referenced and used in a good bit of my
>> CSXT documentation.  I've seen some of the related numbers also referred to
>> as accounting numbers, and these do appear in certain current FRA records
>> as well.
>>
>> The second is the "newer" FRA Line Segment numbers.  I believe the way
>> FRA intended these to be used when they directed the creation of this
>> system is the closest analogy we have to the German route numbers I was
>> referring to.  NS does keep them on their track charts, but I haven't seen
>> them on much CSX documentation.  Interestingly, even though these are meant
>> to be used in the crossing number inventory forms, I often see this omitted
>> in NS forms (even ones revised and completed recently), though it's usally
>> completed in CSX forms.
>>
>> Unfortunately, as I work as a bridge inspector and designer and not a
>> track inspector (and have always worked peripherally to the railroads and
>> not directly for them), I'm not directly working with the same information
>> you are as a track inspector.  Have these line segment numbers really
>> finally been adopted as real, working route numbers?
>>
>> Chuck
>> VA
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 12:30 AM Natfoot  wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry I saw your email in the ORM list and responded directly.
>>> I find line segment numbers on track charts and timetables. I mostly
>>> work with lines that have left BNSF or its predecessors so I have
>>> line segments that were assigned by those railroads.  Here is a great list
>>> of line segments of the BNSF/BN/GN/NP Etc.
>>> .
>>> 

Re: [Talk-us] Edit Attacks

[Clay Smalley]

On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 9:24 AM <80hnhtv4a...@bk.ru> wrote:

> as you say stop talking about my troubles so i sent this to you alone, but
> in a revenge mode he when’t after
> that days edits.
> he sent me a change-set discussion telling me he was right and to stop
> editing.
>

Yes, I've looked through your changesets and their discussions. What he
said may have been blunt, but I think it's valid criticism, and deserves
some friendly discussion before assuming malicious intent. I think there's
plenty of room for both of you to be correct, but you have to make space
for it.

When someone criticizes or changes something I've worked on, sometimes I
get frustrated. It's okay to feel bad about being criticized. But I have to
set that aside and remind myself that everyone's just trying to improve the
map, and I'd rather get along with them and come to an agreement on how to
map things. As a result, I have eleven years' worth of amicable working
relationships under my belt with mappers all over the country.


>  Please do not delete anymore river area polygons as that is the proper
> way to map rivers. Please see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Rivers for
> more info.
> i sent him this
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Rivers#Using_one_multipolygon_relation_for_the_whole_river_area
> and this
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:waterway%3Driverbank#Problems_with_giant_river_multipolygons
>

I see "please do not delete anymore river area polygons", which looks like
collaborative discussion to me. If you are interpreting that as "I'm right,
stop editing" then I think you are assuming he's attacking you. You've now
responded to a *perceived* personal attack with actual personal attacks,
meaning you are responsible for escalating this from a technical
disagreement to a petty feud. Chances are, if you started a collaborative
discussion with him about river polygons, you could resolve your conflict
pretty easily and get back to mapping river polygons without him or anyone
else bothering you.

I suggest taking a break from mapping for a few days until things calm down
and you can take a second look at this dispute. It sucks to have your work
criticized, especially if you're proud of it. But criticism is how we grow
and learn, and in a massive collaborative project like OpenStreetMap, it's
worth it to see past the personal conflicts so we can move on and build
collaborative relationships.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Edit Attacks

[Clay Smalley]

Have you tried talking to this mapper about his criticisms and finding some
common ground? I'm certain you can find an agreeable way to map the things
you want to map.

The mailing list is not the place to air your interpersonal disputes. If
you don't want to draw scrutiny and criticism to your own edits, I suggest
trying to resolve conflicts privately and collaboratively before escalating
them to a public forum.

Best,
Clay

On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 6:29 AM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <
talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Last week I edited a 10 year old, 81 mile MultiPolygon with GHOSTS in
> the ID editor, all I know, Someone
>
> took offence to that,
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/85357849#map=13/42.0813/-87.8854
>
> and attacked all my edits of that day, and as he moved from north to
> south, every thing I did for the
>
> last year.   https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/86230442 , with
> things other people had already
>
> called me on, (discussion). so  exposing my self everything I have done
> in the last 24 hours is under question
>
> from people who are not local but in Europe. even my visit to the golf
> course is in question a 7 year stale edit.
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Underground railways, indoor mapping, and overlapping features

[Clay Smalley]

Hi all,

Lately I've been tasking myself with mapping underground railway tracks
across the US, adding features like parallel tracks, crossovers, and
platforms wherever I can. My work includes the Market Street Subway in
downtown San Francisco and various lines in Philadelphia. I recently began
doing this work on the NYC Subway—a huge system and a daunting task.
Fortunately, a local contributor (IsStatenIsland) has been working on it as
well and we've had some friendly collaborative discussion.

We're stumped on how to properly handle railways directly on top of each
other. I've been able to avoid this issue for the most part, as it's rare
in Philly (save some bits of non-revenue trackage) and the double-decker
subway in San Francisco supports two railways with different gauges, making
their centerlines differ by a few inches. But railways with identical
centerlines are a frequent occurrence in New York, with its various
configurations of local and express tracks.

For example, the IRT Lexington Avenue Line (supporting 4, 5, 6, and <6>
trains) between 42nd and 103rd Streets, a length of about 3 miles, was
constructed as a double-decker cut-and-cover tunnel. In this case, the
express tracks lie directly beneath the local tracks. Currently this
segment is mapped on OSM as a single track with minimal detail [1]. How
should we go about adding these details?

We've come up with some potential solutions, each of which seems to have
its own drawbacks:

1. Sharing nodes between levels, as in the Simple Indoor Tagging schema.
This is the approach IsStatenIsland has taken, with a working example at
the West 4th Street–Washington Square station [2].
2. Duplicate nodes with identical positions.
3. Duplicate nodes, but positions scooched off-center a negligible
distance. This is how I mapped out Grand Central Terminal [3], with the
lower level mapped a foot or so away from where it should be.

Personally, I'm leaning more towards #2. My qualm with #1 is that it adds
intersections to the two overlapping levels of railways, which I find
misleading. And with #3 I worry that I'm mapping for the renderer.

Thoughts?

-Clay

[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/569345492
[2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/597928309
[3] https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7099182377
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Railway improvements; stations vs. halts

[Clay Smalley]

Thanks, all. This pretty much confirms what I expected. I'll go ahead and
bring them back to railway=station.

-Clay


On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 9:34 AM Harald Kliems  wrote:

> FWIW, the German wiki page for railway=halt has a section that
> acknowledges that the German definition and international usage differ:
> "Outside the German-speaking world, railway=halt is defined as an
> unimportation railway station that only has the most basic equipment and
> isn't staffed (in Germany this would correspond to railway station
> categories 6 to 7)."
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:railway%3Dhalt#Internationale_Definition
>
>  Harald.
>
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 10:23 PM Joseph Eisenberg <
> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> According to the wiki page, railway=halt is mainly used for "A small
>> station, may not have a platform, trains may only stop on request."
>> The presence of points/switches is only significant in Germany.
>>
>> I would recommend reverting to railway=station for any which have
>> platforms and are regularly scheduled places for the train to stop.
>>
>> -Joseph Eisenberg
>>
>> On 1/8/20, Clay Smalley  wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > Over the last few months, I've been doing some systematic improvements
>> to
>> > the passenger railway network across North America. Much of this has
>> been
>> > filling out public_transport=stop_area relations for every railway
>> station,
>> > including stop positions and platforms, as well as verifying the
>> geometry
>> > of the underlying railways and classifying them (usage=*, service=*). My
>> > goal here is to prepare the map such that route relations can be more
>> > meaningful and accurately describe which track each train uses.
>> >
>> > In the course of doing this, I got a tap on the shoulder [1] and found
>> out
>> > I was using a definition of railway=halt that may not match up with what
>> > people were expecting. As far as I know now, railway=station was
>> originally
>> > intended for stations where trains are always scheduled to stop, and
>> > railway=halt for flag stops (aka request stops). In the German OSM
>> > community, there was a decision made for railway=halt to be used on
>> > stations that are missing switches, which means trains cannot switch
>> > tracks, terminate or reverse direction there—a distinction more
>> relevant to
>> > railway operations and scheduling. Naturally, there are quite a lot
>> more of
>> > these than flag stops.
>> >
>> > I'm in a predicament here. So far, I've mapped all Amtrak stations and
>> > various commuter rail stations across the Northeast according to the
>> > no-switches definition of halt. I'm happy to revert these back to
>> stations
>> > (wherever they aren't flag stops), though I'd like to hear others'
>> thoughts
>> > before going through with that.
>> >
>> > -Clay
>> >
>> > [1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/77959450
>> >
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
>
>
> --
> Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
> Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Railway improvements; stations vs. halts

[Clay Smalley]

Hi all,

Over the last few months, I've been doing some systematic improvements to
the passenger railway network across North America. Much of this has been
filling out public_transport=stop_area relations for every railway station,
including stop positions and platforms, as well as verifying the geometry
of the underlying railways and classifying them (usage=*, service=*). My
goal here is to prepare the map such that route relations can be more
meaningful and accurately describe which track each train uses.

In the course of doing this, I got a tap on the shoulder [1] and found out
I was using a definition of railway=halt that may not match up with what
people were expecting. As far as I know now, railway=station was originally
intended for stations where trains are always scheduled to stop, and
railway=halt for flag stops (aka request stops). In the German OSM
community, there was a decision made for railway=halt to be used on
stations that are missing switches, which means trains cannot switch
tracks, terminate or reverse direction there—a distinction more relevant to
railway operations and scheduling. Naturally, there are quite a lot more of
these than flag stops.

I'm in a predicament here. So far, I've mapped all Amtrak stations and
various commuter rail stations across the Northeast according to the
no-switches definition of halt. I'm happy to revert these back to stations
(wherever they aren't flag stops), though I'd like to hear others' thoughts
before going through with that.

-Clay

[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/77959450
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Edit war after MapRoulette motorway downgrading task

[Clay Smalley]

There is a MapRoulette task out for downgrading short sections of highways
that had been mistakenly upgraded to motorways. I had been contributing to
this task, and then today I got a foul message from a local contributor.
They subsequently went through my recent edits and undid them, calling them
"vandalism" in the changeset comments.

The changesets in question:
57754161
57754261
57754283
57754364
57754463
57754500
57754519
57754581
57754609
57754659
57754778
57754847

I'm... shocked. This is a really confrontational way of addressing things,
and it really doesn't make me feel good contributing here. I'm just gonna
take a break from editing for a bit. I don't want to add fuel to the fire
by reverting the edits.

What's the best way to address this?

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

Re: [Talk-us] Deletion rampage by a certain user

[Clay Smalley]

That is in fact on the list, and it's actually the changeset that I
reverted.

On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 3:20 PM Shawn K. Quinn skqu...@rushpost.com wrote:

 On Mon, 2015-05-18 at 22:51 +, Clay Smalley wrote:

 
  [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Cam4rd98
  [2] http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~clay/deletions.html

 Missing from this list is
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/29727822 which breaks TX 99 near
 US 290. I just now found this today. (with help from someone on IRC)

 --
 Shawn K. Quinn skqu...@rushpost.com


 ___
 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] Deletion rampage by a certain user

[Clay Smalley]

On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 1:11 AM Shawn K. Quinn skqu...@rushpost.com wrote:

 If we were able to look at his
 changeset comments and see withdraw additions tainted by Google data
 or similar, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion right now.


I disagree. In this group of changesets, he has deleted things that were
not added by himself. He deleted my own original work that I surveyed and
traced. And I'm baffled as to why.

I do agree that he needs to comment his changesets. This would save me
quite a lot of frustration.

In good faith, I'm going to go ahead and undelete all the neighborhoods
that I mapped out in Katy. I can't say anything about the other areas where
he deleted things - looks like we need to investigate more on that.

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

[Talk-us] Deletion rampage by a certain user

[Clay Smalley]

Hi all,

Last winter, I drove around a bunch of neighborhoods with my GPS and
manually added them into OSM. I wanted to add a few more neighborhoods
today, so I opened up OSM and went to that area, and a significant chunk of
my additions were mysteriously deleted.

I investigated a little, and it looks like Cam4rd98 [1] went to various
parts of the US and deleted a lot of ways without any explanation over the
course of 3 days [2]. In my area in particular (Katy, TX), I noticed he
specifically deleted neighborhoods mapped by me and left intact the
neighborhoods others had mapped.

(side note, this might be retaliation for me calling him out on copying
from Google Maps? I'm not sure if he knows that was me, but it might be
relevant.)

I sent him a message about it, and he hasn't responded. This is pretty
frustrating. What can I do about this?

Clay

[1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Cam4rd98
[2] http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~clay/deletions.html
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] OSM Attribution

[Clay Smalley]

I'm doing an internship at Square this summer. In fact, I'm in the office
right now - do you want me to go bring this up to anyone?


On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:

 It looks like Square is using OSM from MapBox in receipt emails without
 attribution on the map, or on the website anywhere:

 https://www.google.com/#q=openstreetmap+site:square.com

 I’m going to reach out as I know some people there.

 Steve

 ___
 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] Street Name

[Clay Smalley]

Weg is German, approximately means way. It's right as it is, no
abbreviation.

Funny though that it's outside of the German Sprachraum. Is Leavenworth a
town with a lot of German heritage?
On May 29, 2014 4:37 PM, Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us wrote:

 I need help with a street name. In Leavenworth, WA there is a street named
 Edelweiss Weg that I want to add. Is Weg an abbreviation for something?
 It will be tagged highway=service service=alley. Google translate doesn't
 help.

 If it is an abbreviation, should it be expanded as we usually do?

 Thanks from someone with a language deficit.

 @osm_seattle
 osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
 OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch

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


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

Re: [Talk-us] OSM Inspector and streets with E/N/S/W in their name

[Clay Smalley]

On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Saikrishna Arcot saiarcot...@gmail.comwrote:

 I vote for keeping this check in place (i.e. an exact match of the street
 name), because there are some places (in California, I think) where the
 prefix/suffix changes from North to West as you are driving down the road,
 and I believe it's important that we distinguish between the two.


This is true. In many cases there will be a separate 123 North Elm Street
and 123 South Elm Street, and by chopping off the directional prefix, these
two houses get ambiguous addresses. My best guess is that the addr:street
tag is mistaken.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[OSM-talk] Best way to download data of route relations?

[Clay Smalley]

I want to make a map of San Francisco bus routes using the route relations
in SF. Is there a good way for me to get data consisting of a line (or
lines) for each bus route? My problem with downloading OSM data directly is
that a single way could be part of many different routes. Essentially what
I want is a set of lines for each individual route, with overlapping lines
wherever multiple routes share the same street.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Crimea/Russia/Ukraine Borders

[Clay Smalley]

Interesting. How much of a connection is there between the Russian OSM
community and the English-speaking OSM community (that essentially runs the
project)?
On Mar 18, 2014 11:45 AM, Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote:

 You might be interested in this blog post:

 http://shtosm.ru/all/chto-s-krymom/

 I use Google translate to turn it into English. The Russian mappers
 already have a proposal in place to update the borders

 regards

 m


 On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Ed Loach edlo...@gmail.com wrote:

 Clifford Snow wrote:

  Should this section be restated in the OSM wiki under boundaries?

 Perhaps better to link to the OSMF document?

 Ed


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



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


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

Re: [Talk-us] State ref tags on ways: Use of unique ISO/ANSI/USPS 2-letter state codes in RELATIONS as well as WAYS?

[Clay Smalley]

On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Shawn K. Quinn skqu...@rushpost.comwrote:


 Weird is a matter of opinion, but I only know of Farm Road (FM), Ranch
 Road (RM or RR), Park Road (PR), the one-off NASA Road 1 (which I can
 concede is a bit unusual), the semi-standard Spur and Loop, and normal
 state highway. Am I missing any?


Texan here. Off the top of my head:

FM (Farm to Market)
RM (Ranch to Market)
Park Road
Recreational Road
Spur
Loop
Toll

And the one-off routes:
Beltway 8
NASA Road 1
OSR

I know that the MapQuest Open renderer recognizes a lot of these without
the road being in a relation (which is super useful, because Texas has a
lot of roads and it's difficult, and in my opinion unnecessary, to make a
relation for each one). Because of this, I'm hesitant to change the ref=*
tags of these roads.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Proposal to Remove Two Duplicate Route Relations in Texas

[Clay Smalley]

Cam4rd98 is an interesting character, I'll say that. He's new and
enthusiastic about mapping, but doesn't quite understand the conventions of
OSM. I haven't had to talk to him recently, but previously he's been
unresponsive to messages.

In this case, I'd say send him a message and delete the relation. If he
notices it gone, maybe he'll read his inbox for once.
Am 07.01.2014 18:20 schrieb Kam, Kristen -(p) krist...@telenav.com:

 Hello,



 I am writing in regards to the highway route relations representing US 59
 and US 281 in the state of Texas.



 For US Highway 59, I edited route relation 71232 (
 http://osm.org/relation/71232). After editing said relation (1475243;
 http://www.osm.org/relation/1475243), I noticed there is a relation that
 has members that are also members to 71232.  Relation 1475243 is
 essentially a duplicate of 71232 and I would like to delete this relation
 from the database. I contacted a user (Cam4rd98) who previously edited
 1475243 and mentioned the action the subject to him/her. To date, I have
 not received a response. Instead of following up with the user it was
 suggested to me that I ought to message the list. Therefore I am proposing
 to you all the removal of relation 1475243.



 In addition, I would like to remove relation 1475274 (
 http://www.osm.org/relation/1475274) because its members are also members
 of relation 1628532 (http://www.osm.org/relation/ 1628532) and thus is a
 duplicate.



 Does anyone object to my proposal to remove both relations?



 Best,



 Kristen



 ---



 OSM Profile à http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/KristenK



 *From:* Sebastian Arcus [mailto:s.ar...@open-t.co.uk]
 *Sent:* Monday, January 06, 2014 1:07 PM
 *To:* talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 *Subject:* Re: [Talk-us] Help with non-existent school in Big Sur, CA area



 Thanks Volker. It's interesting that there is at least one source that
 suggests the existence of that school at some point in time, at least.

 On 06/01/14 13:39, Volker Schmidt wrote:

 According to the USGS Scanned Topographic Maps Layer (in JOSM) there was a
 Sur School (abandoned) exactly on the other side of the road from where
 the actual node is in OSM (I suppose where the stand of trees is on the
 areal photograph). I mapped in that area in 2011 and was also looking for
 it, but did not find anything on the ground, but I did not look on the
 other side of the road (I did not use the scanned maps layer at the time).

 I suggest you move the node across the street, add a source USGS Sacnned
 Topographic Maps and mark it as abandoned. There is certainly no building
 there any more.

 Volker

 (Padova, Italy)



 On 6 January 2014 13:00, talk-us-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:

 Send Talk-us mailing list submissions to
 talk-us@openstreetmap.org

 To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
 or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
 talk-us-requ...@openstreetmap.org

 You can reach the person managing the list at
 talk-us-ow...@openstreetmap.org

 When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
 than Re: Contents of Talk-us digest...


 Today's Topics:

1. Help with non-existent school in Big Sur, CA area
   (Sebastian Arcus)
2. Re: Help with non-existent school in Big Sur, CA area
   (Richard Welty)
3. Mappy New Year (Richard Weait)


 --

 Message: 1
 Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2014 20:21:43 +
 From: Sebastian Arcus s.ar...@open-t.co.uk
 To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: [Talk-us] Help with non-existent school in Big Sur, CA area
 Message-ID: 52c9bed7.9060...@open-t.co.uk
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

 I'm doing a bit of mapping south of Monterey based on some notes I've
 taken two months ago, and I've stumbled over this school on the map:

 http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/36.31044/-121.88636

 A search on the Internet doesn't reveal anything called Sur School. A
 search for schools in the area reveals some schools further south - but
 nothing close to where this school is on the map and nothing similar
 sounding. Also, looking at the satellite imagery, there is nothing close
 to this point on the map that looks like either a building or some
 remnants of one. There are the disused Point Sur Naval Facility
 buildings on the other side of the road, but we know what those are and
 they are not a school.

 I think the best thing to do is to delete this object. However, could
 someone who either lives in the area or has local knowledge confirm that
 this school really doesn't exist. All the evidence so far points to it
 being the case, but it would be nice if we could have on the ground
 confirmation before I delete it.

 Thanks



 --

 Message: 2
 Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2014 18:04:49 -0500
 From: Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net
 

Re: [Talk-us] Proposal to Remove Two Duplicate Route Relations in Texas

[Clay Smalley]

My bad, I could have worded that better. I shouldn't let personal
grievances spill into public discussion. Thanks for keeping the mailing
list clean and civil.
Am 07.01.2014 20:25 schrieb Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com:

 Hi folks,

 Please be careful when talking about a specific person. I realize it's
 relatively pertinent to the discussion, but lets not make it any more
 personal here on the mailing list.

 Thanks,
 Your friendly talk-us moderator

 On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 8:15 PM, Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.comwrote:

 Cam4rd98 is an interesting character, I'll say that. He's new and
 enthusiastic about mapping, but doesn't quite understand the conventions of
 OSM. I haven't had to talk to him recently, but previously he's been
 unresponsive to messages.

 In this case, I'd say send him a message and delete the relation. If he
 notices it gone, maybe he'll read his inbox for once.


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

[Talk-us] Burning Man old data, publicity opportunity

[Clay Smalley]

So Black Rock City is mapped on OpenStreetMap... twice. And both are old
versions (the city as it was in 2008 and 2009). Anyone know why this is?
Should the two old cities be deleted and replaced with the 2013 city?

I have a feeling that this could be a fun publicity opportunity for OSM, if
we're the first ones to map out Black Rock City during Burning Man. Not to
mention that the kind of people who go to Burning Man would probably rather
support OSM over Google Maps, given someone tells them about OSM. It brings
in people from everywhere, so ideally they could go back to their
respective communities and possibly get more involved in local OSM mapping.

Just ranting a pipe dream. Does this sound realistic?
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Shields are up!

[Clay Smalley]

Most shields that have black backgrounds have them removed. It seems like a
stylistic thing, and I think it looks good.
On Jul 28, 2013 8:59 PM, Shawn K. Quinn skqu...@rushpost.com wrote:

 On Sun, Jul 28, 2013, at 10:38 PM, Toby Murray wrote:
  We finally managed to get Phil's highway shield rendering up on the
  OSM-US
  server today! You can see the tiles here:
 
  http://tile.openstreetmap.us/osmus_shields/preview.html
 
  This is a pretty basic preview for now. I'll look at getting the tiles
  set
  up in a pretty leaflet UI or something.
 
  Toby

 Most of them look pretty good. The Texas FM/RM road shields need work
 though (missing the black backgrounds), and I'm assuming Louisiana
 shields aren't done yet?

 --
   Shawn K. Quinn
   skqu...@rushpost.com

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Double-clicking on OSM map does not centre the map

[Clay Smalley]

I've noticed the same issue. I liked having an easy way to center the map.
Is anyone averse to having this changed back?
On Jul 21, 2013 8:02 PM, Andrew Errington erringt...@gmail.com wrote:

 It used to be that if you double-clicked on the map it would re-centre
 on the clicked point and zoom in by one level.  Now it doesn't.  It
 zooms in, but doesn't re-centre the map.  When did this behaviour
 change?  Is it desirable?

 I don't like it because now I can't centre the map (by
 double-clicking) and make a markerlink (by editing the permalink
 lat/lon to mlat/mlon).

 Best wishes,

 Andrew

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Double-clicking on OSM map does not centre the map

[Clay Smalley]

That's totally understandable. Though to do that, I usually scroll. I'm
accustomed to behavior where I scroll if I want to zoom without centering,
and double click if I want to zoom and center.

Though I'm sure there are issues like touch screen interfaces where using a
scroll wheel isn't an option. I totally support the change, and I'm sure
I'll get used to it soon enough.
On Jul 21, 2013 9:36 PM, John Firebaugh john.fireba...@gmail.com wrote:

 The rationale for making the change in Leaflet is to make it so that you
 can zoom in several levels on a given point without needing to reposition
 your cursor at each zoom level. For that reason, I prefer the new behavior.

 Included in the next set of changes to the map UI is the ability to add a
 marker to the permalink. It will be positionable via dragging. No URL
 editing required:

 http://mapui.apis.dev.openstreetmap.org/


 On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Tom MacWright t...@macwright.org wrote:

 The relevant change in Leaflet:
 https://github.com/Leaflet/Leaflet/pull/1582?source=cc - the new
 behavior matches all other map sites and frameworks I can think of, with
 the exception of Bing. You can replicate the old behavior by clicking the
 map and dragging it to change the center.

 There's no easy way to 'get the old behavior back' without doing a core
 patch to Leaflet, and given that this is the expected behavior with a clear
 'other way to do it', I personally don't think it's a high priority to
 change.


 On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 11:26 PM, Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.comwrote:

 I've noticed the same issue. I liked having an easy way to center the
 map. Is anyone averse to having this changed back?
  On Jul 21, 2013 8:02 PM, Andrew Errington erringt...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 It used to be that if you double-clicked on the map it would re-centre
 on the clicked point and zoom in by one level.  Now it doesn't.  It
 zooms in, but doesn't re-centre the map.  When did this behaviour
 change?  Is it desirable?

 I don't like it because now I can't centre the map (by
 double-clicking) and make a markerlink (by editing the permalink
 lat/lon to mlat/mlon).

 Best wishes,

 Andrew

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


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



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



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


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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk vs motorway for rural Interstates with grade crossings

[Clay Smalley]

I remember this specific issue being brought up multiple times before. It's
been my understanding that this is the consensus: the pieces of I-10 and
I-40 in West Texas should be trunk wherever they have at-grade
intersections, because they have multiple at-grade intersections and not a
single rare one.

I'm willing to go with this, because tagging them as motorway seems like an
issue of tagging for the renderer, or otherwise making a special exception
because the highway happens to be an Interstate. There are a few other
cases where Interstates with at-grade intersections are tagged as trunk
(e.g. Holland Tunnel approach, and I-70 in Breezewood, PA). These cases
tend to have traffic lights, but the West Texas Interstates don't seem like
too different of a case to me.
On Jul 21, 2013 1:27 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:


 On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 11:58 PM, Shawn K. Quinn skqu...@rushpost.comwrote:

 I noticed that most of these were recently changed back to motorway. Is
 this the consensus of the community at large that these should be
 motorway, or should any section with grade crossings be trunk?

 I'm slightly in favor of keeping the change back to motorway, but am
 willing to go along with a clear consensus either way.


 If it has more than an exceptionally rare at-grade junction, it should be
 a trunk.  If it's not divided, it should be a trunk even if it doesn't have
 at-grade junctions.

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


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

Re: [Talk-us] Bridge naming

[Clay Smalley]

I think it makes perfect sense to separate it into name=* and bridge:name=*
tags. The bridge:name=* currently isn't rendered, but theoretically, it
could be rendered differently and in a more appropriate/eye-catching way
than name=*. This leaves the case though, what if a bridge doesn't carry a
street name but only a bridge name (such as the aforementioned Golden Gate
Bridge and Brooklyn Bridge)?


On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote:

 Hi all,

 Thinking about bridge naming. Usually, a bridge will just have the same
 name as the ways surrounding it. In those cases, the name= tag on the
 bridge should just be the same as the name= tag on the connecting ways,
 right?

 Here's an example:
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/172208150

 On the other end of the spectrum, there's iconic bridges that everyone
 knows by their specific name, like the Brooklyn Bridge or the Golden Gate
 Bridge. These both have the specific bridge name as the name= tag on the
 corresponding way(s):

 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/122660450
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/52477381

 There are actually several approaches suggested on the Bridge wiki on how
 to tag bridge names[1]. The above cases represent the first approach: using
 the name tag. This may not be appropriate everywhere, however: if the road
 running across the bridge has a street name, wouldn't it be more
 appropriate to reserve the name= tag for the street name and put the bridge
 name in a name_1 or bridge:name tag? (The wiki suggests this in approach
 #2. There is also an approach using bridge / tunnel relations. I am not a
 big fan of that one myself).

 Disadvantage of using a separate tag for bridge names is that they won't
 get rendered on the default map, as far as I know. (Though that can be
 changed.) The advantage is that the road itself maintains consistent
 naming, in concordance with what I feel is the proper use of the name tag -
 namely to reflect the official (signposted) name of the street.

 How do you all feel about this? Bridge name on separate tag where the road
 has a name itself or not?

 [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bridge - see 'How to map'
  --
 Martijn van Exel
 http://oegeo.wordpress.com/
 http://openstreetmap.us/

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


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

Re: [Talk-us] Onboarding new mappers | Keeping track of changes

[Clay Smalley]

I make an effort to welcome new mappers when I see them, but it's
unrealistic to ensure every new mapper is onboarded this way. There needs
to be a more formal process, and I like a lot of the ideas that have been
presented.
On Jun 26, 2013 12:54 PM, stevea stevea...@softworkers.com wrote:

 **
 Good discussion!

 I regularly click on the History tab in a wide swath of Bay Area (my home
 turf) looking for new edits, and especially, new mappers.  I virtually
 always make it a point to welcome new mappers in the area with something
 along the lines of great job, welcome to the community!  Depending on
 their response (from none to enthusiasm) I will friend them and/or offer
 my technical expertise, history of the area, suggestions, answers to their
 questions or whatever else they want/need to know.

 I realize not everybody can or will do this, but imagine what a very nice
 and welcoming place OSM would be if most OSM volunteers (who are
 intermediate and advanced contributors) DID do this!  (OSM is a fairly
 friendly place right now, don't get me wrong).

 Just like my mother taught me about waving to the neighbors:  it doesn't
 cost ANYthing to be friendly!

 (Being HELPFUL can take time, yes, but please, give what you can.)

 It isn't creepy or Big Brother to click on the History tab and watch what
 is going on around you.  Rather, it makes for a better and friendlier
 mapping community.  Those who are ham radio operators, think of the
 deep-knowledge Elmers in the community who give back so much.  It's the
 same thing:  shared wisdom.

 SteveA
 California


 Bryce Nesbitt writes:

 3) A first edit could go in a queue for an experienced mapper to look at
 and comment on.  Hopefully that comment is *great job, welcome to the
 community!*


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


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

[Talk-us] Cam4rd98 just doesn't get it

[Clay Smalley]

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/16078863
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/16080822
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/16495595
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/16497029
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/16540719

I've tried to be civil with this person but they don't read their messages.
They're adding a bunch of useless and wrong data. What can we do to help
get the message through that this is just a pain in the neck to work with?
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Cam4rd98 just doesn't get it

[Clay Smalley]

They seem to put in a lot of future things using tags that imply
something is currently there. On top of that, they use the wrong tags
(landuse=industrial instead of landuse=retail). They've also screwed up a
bit of TX 71 and US 290, removing them from relations, in an erroneous
attempt to make the road dual-carriageway.


On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:52 PM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.comwrote:

 What's your more specific concern, and what wording have you tried?
 Is your concern the future shopping centers as a concept, or the way
 they are tagged?


 On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:44 PM, Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.comwrote:

 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/16078863
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/16080822
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/16495595
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/16497029
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/16540719

 I've tried to be civil with this person but they don't read their
 messages. They're adding a bunch of useless and wrong data. What can we do
 to help get the message through that this is just a pain in the neck to
 work with?


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

Re: [Talk-us] Cam4rd98 just doesn't get it

[Clay Smalley]

I agree that OSM needs to be more noob-proof than Wikipedia. Erroneously
changing one thing on Wikipedia won't make much of a difference, whereas
erroneously changing one thing on OSM could throw off a lot of software
that depends on the data being correct. There's only so far OpenStreetMap
can go without some kind of quality control.
On Jun 25, 2013 6:34 PM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote:

 On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:29 AM, James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.comwrote:

 I'll let his comments here[1] on a note page speak


 Again, all I see is a well meaning user who very clearly is not yet
 absorbed OSM culture.
 There is no belligerence, just a bit of confusion.

 The tools could help:
 1) After the first edit from a new user, the tools could present a list of
 rules (chief among them don't copy from unapproved sources!).
 2) A new users could be required to take a small quiz, like certain dating
 sites do, prior to finalizing the edit.
 3) Your first edit could go in a queue for an experienced mapper to look
 at and comment on.
 4) Editing part of a route relation could bring up education on route
 relations.
 5) New users could be given 10 free edits, prior to needing to provide
 more contact information and/or pass an editing quiz.
 6) New users could be given their choice of a mapping challenge, where the
 correct results are known.
 7) etc.

 With all this effort to get new mappers in the USA we should be thrilled a
 mapper wants to contribute...
 ... and put in the work to ensure such new users be onboarded
 and brought into OSM culture.

 Note that:
 Wikipedia has a strong reasons to allow completely anonymous edits. OSM I
 think not so much.  We could ask
 more of people who want to edit, with the goal of making more good
 mappers, rather than just more mappers.
 We should honor an support mappers who have narrow interests (e.g. single
 feature types, certain types of corrections, certain
 events) as well as those who want to map regionally.

 If this particular user wants to map planned and under-construction
 features (and clearly he or she does), there's a way to bring that energy
 into OSM and make it productive.

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


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

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

[Clay Smalley]

I checked the Wikipedia page and couldn't find anything. Could you do me a
favor and point me to the part of the article you're referring to, and/or
the cited source?

I'd rather solve this without more mailing list drama, if possible.
On Jun 20, 2013 9:06 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:

 Check the Farm-to-market page on Wikipedia.
 On Jun 19, 2013 11:00 PM, Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.com wrote:

 Does the Wikipedia bit have a cited source? I can understand that being
 true; I just want to verify. The Texas Highway Designation Files list them
 as two separate types.
 On Jun 19, 2013 8:25 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:

 TxDOT is cited in Wikipedia as documenting them as being the same
 network (farm to market), and no RM and FM have the same number.  They just
 change the sign to RM when the route primarily passes through ranches
 instead of farms.  According to TxDOT, there is exactly one Ranch Road,
 being RR 1, the rest are farm to market.  It's definitely one of the more
 confusing aspects of the Texas highway system, sort of like the nebulous
 distinction between Park Roads and Rec Roads.
 On Jun 19, 2013 5:22 PM, Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.com wrote:

 It's US:TX:FM for FM roads, and US:TX:RM for RM roads. There may be
 little to no overlap between RM and FM, and they may serve the same
 purpose, but I see no need to go through them all and change all of them to
 one network. They are different networks according to the state of Texas.
 On Jun 19, 2013 12:52 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:

 Curious if the network for RM and FM is consistently US:TX:FM for
 both, since they're both part of the same network.
 On Jun 19, 2013 10:52 AM, Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Fortunately most of Texas has been done, but unfortunately the FM/RM
 roads haven't been completed and there are quite a lot of them. I made a
 Mapcraft to help add relations to them all:
 http://mapcraft.nanodesu.ru/pie/269

 I've made a little progress in the Texas Panhandle but we definitely
 need more people to help out if it's gonna get done.
 On Jun 19, 2013 7:39 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:


 On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Martijn van Exel 
 m...@rtijn.orgwrote:

 Also, how is the situation on the state level? I notice that for
 some states, there are no State Route relation pages. (
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_Numbered_Highway_Relations#See_also
 )


 I'm working on Oklahoma right now and keeping it documented.
  Progress has been slow since I'm not satisfied in just slapping down
 relations, I'm checking each highway for continuity and connectivity as 
 I
 go along.  I've been going somewhat sequentially but if I come across a
 state highway I know goes through but things refuse to route down it 
 while
 I'm working, I'll go through and fine-tooth-comb it when I get back (as 
 I'm
 doing with OK 48 right now).

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


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

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

[Clay Smalley]

Also, even if it were the case that they were the same network, it makes
sense to keep them separate because that is how the shield renderer
determines which shield to put on the road.

Tagging for the renderer, grumble grumble.
On Jun 20, 2013 9:23 AM, Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.com wrote:

 I checked the Wikipedia page and couldn't find anything. Could you do me a
 favor and point me to the part of the article you're referring to, and/or
 the cited source?

 I'd rather solve this without more mailing list drama, if possible.
 On Jun 20, 2013 9:06 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:

 Check the Farm-to-market page on Wikipedia.
 On Jun 19, 2013 11:00 PM, Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.com wrote:

 Does the Wikipedia bit have a cited source? I can understand that being
 true; I just want to verify. The Texas Highway Designation Files list them
 as two separate types.
 On Jun 19, 2013 8:25 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:

 TxDOT is cited in Wikipedia as documenting them as being the same
 network (farm to market), and no RM and FM have the same number.  They just
 change the sign to RM when the route primarily passes through ranches
 instead of farms.  According to TxDOT, there is exactly one Ranch Road,
 being RR 1, the rest are farm to market.  It's definitely one of the more
 confusing aspects of the Texas highway system, sort of like the nebulous
 distinction between Park Roads and Rec Roads.
 On Jun 19, 2013 5:22 PM, Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.com wrote:

 It's US:TX:FM for FM roads, and US:TX:RM for RM roads. There may be
 little to no overlap between RM and FM, and they may serve the same
 purpose, but I see no need to go through them all and change all of them 
 to
 one network. They are different networks according to the state of Texas.
 On Jun 19, 2013 12:52 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:

 Curious if the network for RM and FM is consistently US:TX:FM for
 both, since they're both part of the same network.
 On Jun 19, 2013 10:52 AM, Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Fortunately most of Texas has been done, but unfortunately the FM/RM
 roads haven't been completed and there are quite a lot of them. I made a
 Mapcraft to help add relations to them all:
 http://mapcraft.nanodesu.ru/pie/269

 I've made a little progress in the Texas Panhandle but we definitely
 need more people to help out if it's gonna get done.
 On Jun 19, 2013 7:39 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:


 On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Martijn van Exel 
 m...@rtijn.orgwrote:

 Also, how is the situation on the state level? I notice that for
 some states, there are no State Route relation pages. (
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_Numbered_Highway_Relations#See_also
 )


 I'm working on Oklahoma right now and keeping it documented.
  Progress has been slow since I'm not satisfied in just slapping down
 relations, I'm checking each highway for continuity and connectivity 
 as I
 go along.  I've been going somewhat sequentially but if I come across a
 state highway I know goes through but things refuse to route down it 
 while
 I'm working, I'll go through and fine-tooth-comb it when I get back 
 (as I'm
 doing with OK 48 right now).

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


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

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

[Clay Smalley]

Fortunately most of Texas has been done, but unfortunately the FM/RM roads
haven't been completed and there are quite a lot of them. I made a Mapcraft
to help add relations to them all: http://mapcraft.nanodesu.ru/pie/269

I've made a little progress in the Texas Panhandle but we definitely need
more people to help out if it's gonna get done.
On Jun 19, 2013 7:39 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:


 On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote:

 Also, how is the situation on the state level? I notice that for some
 states, there are no State Route relation pages. (
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_Numbered_Highway_Relations#See_also
 )


 I'm working on Oklahoma right now and keeping it documented.  Progress has
 been slow since I'm not satisfied in just slapping down relations, I'm
 checking each highway for continuity and connectivity as I go along.  I've
 been going somewhat sequentially but if I come across a state highway I
 know goes through but things refuse to route down it while I'm working,
 I'll go through and fine-tooth-comb it when I get back (as I'm doing with
 OK 48 right now).

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


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

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

[Clay Smalley]

It's US:TX:FM for FM roads, and US:TX:RM for RM roads. There may be little
to no overlap between RM and FM, and they may serve the same purpose, but I
see no need to go through them all and change all of them to one network.
They are different networks according to the state of Texas.
On Jun 19, 2013 12:52 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:

 Curious if the network for RM and FM is consistently US:TX:FM for both,
 since they're both part of the same network.
 On Jun 19, 2013 10:52 AM, Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.com wrote:

 Fortunately most of Texas has been done, but unfortunately the FM/RM
 roads haven't been completed and there are quite a lot of them. I made a
 Mapcraft to help add relations to them all:
 http://mapcraft.nanodesu.ru/pie/269

 I've made a little progress in the Texas Panhandle but we definitely need
 more people to help out if it's gonna get done.
 On Jun 19, 2013 7:39 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:


 On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote:

 Also, how is the situation on the state level? I notice that for some
 states, there are no State Route relation pages. (
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_Numbered_Highway_Relations#See_also
 )


 I'm working on Oklahoma right now and keeping it documented.  Progress
 has been slow since I'm not satisfied in just slapping down relations, I'm
 checking each highway for continuity and connectivity as I go along.  I've
 been going somewhat sequentially but if I come across a state highway I
 know goes through but things refuse to route down it while I'm working,
 I'll go through and fine-tooth-comb it when I get back (as I'm doing with
 OK 48 right now).

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


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

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

[Clay Smalley]

Does the Wikipedia bit have a cited source? I can understand that being
true; I just want to verify. The Texas Highway Designation Files list them
as two separate types.
On Jun 19, 2013 8:25 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:

 TxDOT is cited in Wikipedia as documenting them as being the same network
 (farm to market), and no RM and FM have the same number.  They just change
 the sign to RM when the route primarily passes through ranches instead of
 farms.  According to TxDOT, there is exactly one Ranch Road, being RR 1,
 the rest are farm to market.  It's definitely one of the more confusing
 aspects of the Texas highway system, sort of like the nebulous distinction
 between Park Roads and Rec Roads.
 On Jun 19, 2013 5:22 PM, Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.com wrote:

 It's US:TX:FM for FM roads, and US:TX:RM for RM roads. There may be
 little to no overlap between RM and FM, and they may serve the same
 purpose, but I see no need to go through them all and change all of them to
 one network. They are different networks according to the state of Texas.
 On Jun 19, 2013 12:52 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:

 Curious if the network for RM and FM is consistently US:TX:FM for both,
 since they're both part of the same network.
 On Jun 19, 2013 10:52 AM, Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.com wrote:

 Fortunately most of Texas has been done, but unfortunately the FM/RM
 roads haven't been completed and there are quite a lot of them. I made a
 Mapcraft to help add relations to them all:
 http://mapcraft.nanodesu.ru/pie/269

 I've made a little progress in the Texas Panhandle but we definitely
 need more people to help out if it's gonna get done.
 On Jun 19, 2013 7:39 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:


 On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.orgwrote:

 Also, how is the situation on the state level? I notice that for some
 states, there are no State Route relation pages. (
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_Numbered_Highway_Relations#See_also
 )


 I'm working on Oklahoma right now and keeping it documented.  Progress
 has been slow since I'm not satisfied in just slapping down relations, I'm
 checking each highway for continuity and connectivity as I go along.  I've
 been going somewhat sequentially but if I come across a state highway I
 know goes through but things refuse to route down it while I'm working,
 I'll go through and fine-tooth-comb it when I get back (as I'm doing with
 OK 48 right now).

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


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

Re: [Talk-us] Neighborhoods / Zillow

[Clay Smalley]

I support this. Go to Google Maps and search for SoMa, South Beach, and
Rincon Hill. The office I am sitting in right now is in all of those
polygons.

Some cities formally define their neighborhoods, and OSM could use that
data. Some neighborhoods are more informal, and those may make sense as
nodes rather than polygons.
On Jun 12, 2013 11:30 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:


 2013/6/12 stevea stevea...@softworkers.com

  Is Jane Street (NYC) in Chelsea or Greenwich Village?  Well, kind of
 both.  This is where nodes work better.



 well, they could also overlap (so you could see from the polygons that
 there is a certain area which somehow belongs to both neighbourhoods (and
 probably to none of them clearly, as it is distant from both centers).



  And again, neighborhood nodes belong not in some
 mathematically-determined center but rather at a cultural crossroads
 that represents the heart of the center of that neighborhood.




 +1, I agree that if you have no idea where the actual boundary might be
 (perceived by the locals) it is best to put a node to where you are sure it
 is a central place for this neighbourhood.

 cheers,
 Martin

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


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

Re: [Talk-us] User Cam4rd98 gun-jumping new highways + adding fictional alignments

[Clay Smalley]

I've had to clean up his edits before. What bothers me is that he's
unresponsive and never leaves any comments on his edits. I've brought him
up before to DWG but nothing's been done.
On May 31, 2013 9:59 PM, James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com wrote:

  This user has been brought to my attention with him gun-jumping highways
 marking them as open when they aren't yet (I-74/US-311 [1] - I've already
 fixed this one), or adding completely fictional alignments for highways
 that aren't even under-construction yet or proposed (I-66 in IN [2], and an
 alignment of NC-540 [3]).

 I'm pretty sure these aren't the only ones he's done, so this could be
 just the tip of the iceberg.  Has anybody had any prior contact with this
 user?  Just wish that all the editing programs forced a comment before
 upload.  Really hate the no comment changesets.

 -James

 [1] - http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/note/2725
 [2] - http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/note/3136
 [3] - http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/note/3160

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


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

[Talk-ca] Highways in Yukon missing

[Clay Smalley]

I vaguely remember tracing a large chunk of the Robert Campbell Highway
(Yukon Highway 4) sometime after the license redaction removed it. I just
noticed now that it's gone missing a second time (the stretch between
Watson Lake and Ross River).

I also noticed that a large chunk of the Klondike Highway (Yukon Highway 2)
went missing too between Whitehorse and Carmacks, along with land use data
nearby. I could see certain parts of the data cached in the renderer at
certain zoom levels, but the data's gone.

Does anyone know what's going on in Yukon? Surely this can't be vandalism.
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-us] Admin boundary level quirk in NYC

[Clay Smalley]

On May 19, 2013 4:31 PM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote:
 (which, I suspect, is why
 NYC is currently mapped as admin_level=5).

Well, that's what's in the specification in the wiki. But NYC is currently
mapped as level 8 in OSM.

Although now that I think about it, NYC does seem more functionally
equivalent to an independent city like Baltimore or the various cities in
Virginia. However, the counties still exist as purely geographical entities
and shouldn't be left out.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Admin boundary level quirk in NYC

[Clay Smalley]

In the entry for the United States in this wiki article:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dadministrative

Admin levels are listed like this:

Cities: 8
Counties: 6
New York City: 5

In the OSM database as I write this, this is not the case, as New York City
is on level 8 with all other cities. Is there any case for this quirk?
Certainly the counties (boroughs) do function as subordinate to the city,
but technically the counties are now only geographical entities with no
government, which happen to each share the same boundary as a borough with
government subordinate to the city.

So I propose a different schema:

New York Boroughs: 9
Cities (incl. NYC): 8
Counties: 6

and have separate relations for the counties and boroughs (e.g. Brooklyn
and Kings County), sharing the same ways.

Level 9 is used similarly in other countries for sub-city governments. I
think this would be a good use of it. Thoughts?
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [OSM-talk] Impossible changeset

[Clay Smalley]

Could this be related to the current OS upgrade on the OSM US server? Can
we get some input from Ian?
On Apr 11, 2013 2:43 AM, Vincent Pottier vpott...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi all,
 I've made few changes near [1]

 I have made changes with JOSM yesterday. I was unable to upload them. So I
 have saved the file. I have tried also yesterday to make some changes with
 Potlatch2 in the same hamlet. Potlatch could not create a changeset.


 Today, I have tried to upload my changes from yesterday with JOSM. But
 JOSM can't create a changeset. So I canceled the upload.
 I have tried again to make some changes with Potlatch. Few changes were
 accepted in the changeset 15685756 : modifying the name of a church, adding
 a hamlet.
 So I tried to upload my JOSM's changes. And I have stille the same problem
 : JOSM stops on the stage creating a changeset... (into French)...
 And again I tried to make some changes with Potlatch2 (adding a point
 cemetary). Now Potlatch is still trying : Saving to changset 15685756.

 Is it a problem linked to my account ? Is it a known issue ?

 Some infos :
 OSM account : FrViPofm
 IP : 86.218.199.87 (probably other yersterday)
 I have updated JOSM latest yersterday : my version is 5837

 Both JOSM and Potlatch are still trying to create the changeset or upload
 changes.

 [1] http://osm.org/go/xVefgMCmp--
 --
 FrViPofm

 __**_
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talkhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?

[Clay Smalley]

This seems silly and useless. The imagery is subject to change and the way
will become obsolete. I don't see a point in mapping this, and I'm okay
with deleting these ways. But I'd rather hear from someone with more
experience before anything happens.
On Mar 31, 2013 10:39 AM, ingalls nicholas.inga...@gmail.com wrote:

 It doesn't look like this is an isolated example, there are over a hundred
 of these

 http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/boundary=imagery#overview


 On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 12:35 PM, ingalls nicholas.inga...@gmail.comwrote:

 Hey guys came across a really weird way.

 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/104974280

 Not sure exactly what it is supposed to represent? Is it showing where
 bing has high quality imagery? And secondly can I remove it!



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


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

Re: [Talk-us] Overpass API and T-mobile

[Clay Smalley]

Working fine on ATT.
On Mar 29, 2013 2:57 PM, Roland Olbricht roland.olbri...@gmx.de wrote:

 Dear all,

 a user of the OSM readonly mirror Overpass API has complained about getting
 always the HTTP error code 504 instead of a valid response with HTTP 200.
 After we have excluded all potential obvious problems on both the client
 and
 the server, he still sees the 504 and his requests never arrive at
 overpass-
 api.de.

 At this point I ask every reader for some help. I would like to exclude the
 possibility that T-mobile is blocking overpass-api.de.

 Can you open without problems
 http://overpass-api.de/index.html
 in your browser? If not, please tell me with your time of access and IP
 adress
 to get a picture of how much users are affected.

 Best regards,

 Roland


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

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

Re: [Talk-us] Possible coping from Google Maps

[Clay Smalley]

If I weren't confined to my phone right now, I'd check it myself, but are
there any GPS tracks along the new interchange?
On Feb 20, 2013 9:58 PM, James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com wrote:

  I just happened to spot a place where there is a possible coping from
 Google Maps.


 http://tools.geofabrik.de/mc/?mt0=mapnikmt1=googlemapmakerlon=-75.5301lat=40.07484zoom=16

 While it doesn't look exact on the curves, the places where the ramps
 start/end/merge seems to be an exact match to Google's.  The only reason
 I'm bringing this up is because of Bing Imagery not even showing the
 construction, let along the completion, of this new interchange on the PA
 Turnpike (I-76).

 This interchange was added in Changeset 14937179. -
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/14937179

 Anybody else have a comment on this changeset.  Also, anybody who has
 previous experence with the user that did this change be willing to contact
 him?

 --James

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


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

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute FHP

[Clay Smalley]

I think it's a little ridiculous that this dispute is going so far that
anyone even consulted an expert. Obviously NE2 is wrong; we get it. This
dead horse hasn't just been beaten; it's been liquefied. Let's just let the
OSM gods deal with it, and go on with our lives.
On Feb 11, 2013 10:35 AM, Michael Patrick geodes...@gmail.com wrote:

 FYI, an official ruling from Mouseland. This email stuff is pretty cool,
 one can actually directly ask somebody who is a Subject Matter Expert! ;-)

 Michael

 -- Forwarded message --
 From: FHP f...@flhsmv.gov
 Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 8:08 AM
 Subject: RE: Legal Intersection Crossing
 To: Michael Patrick geodes...@gmail.com


  Dear Michael,

 ** **

 Thanks for your inquiry. Your question is:

 ** **

 The maneuver in question is whether one can proceed from the off ramp stop
 line, proceed perpendicular across Buena Vista Dr. , and enter onto the
 southbound onramp back onto southbound World Drive.  

 ** **

 The answer is *“not without violating Florida law”.* 

 ** **

 Point #1: The off ramp lane in your scenario is clearly marked as a “Left
 Turn Only” lane by the turn arrows painted on the roadway. In your
 scenario, instead of making a legal left turn, you would drive straight
 across the intersection and cross a “solid white line” and enter a “Right
 turn only lane” as indicated by the right turn arrows painted on the
 roadway.

 ** **

 Point #2: The right turn lane on Buena Vista Dr in which you would be
 entering, has a *solid white line* on both sides of the lane which means
 that a vehicle that has lawfully entered the lane cannot exit or change
 lanes and no other vehicles are permitted to cross the solid white line to
 enter the lane at that location.

 ** **

 The Florida Driver Handbook states on page 47:

 ** **

 *Solid White Line*

 A solid white line marks the right edge of the roadway or separates lanes
 of traffic moving in the

 same direction. You may travel in the same direction on both sides of this
 line, but you should

 not cross the line unless you must do so to avoid a hazard.

 ** **

 Since no hazard exit, this would be a violation of Florida Law. 

 ** **

 *Customer Service Center*

 *Correspondence/Email Unit*

 *Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles*

 *www.flhsmv.gov***

 ** **


 The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles is committed to
 Service, Integrity, Courtesy, Professionalism, Innovation and Excellence in
 all we do. Please let us know how we are doing via our online customer
 service survey at *https://www.research.net/s/MLR9RGC.*

 **


   *From:* Michael Patrick [mailto:geodes...@gmail.com]
 *Sent:* Monday, February 11, 2013 1:47 AM
 *To:* FHP
 *Subject:* Legal Intersection Crossing

 ** **

 We are embedding turn restrictions in automated routing software. 

 ** **

 What is contested: 

 ** **

 The general area is west of Epcot Center, the end of the southbound off
 ramp from southbound World Drive to the intersection with Buena Vista Dr.*
 ***

 See attached photo BuenaVistaDrive-004.jpg ( or 


 https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bxor0dnxUrN2S25sLXRLUW4wb0E/edit?usp=sharing
  )

 ** **

 The maneuver in question is whether one can proceed from the off ramp stop
 line, proceed perpendicular across Buena Vista Dr. , and enter onto the
 southbound on ramp back onto southbound World Drive.  This is shown as the
 red arrow on BuenaVistaDrive-001.jpg ( or see 


 https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bxor0dnxUrN2M0lIY0RoUUEzUTA/edit?usp=sharing)
 

 ** **

 This seems to be indicated because of the double signal visible from the
 off ramp stop line, even though at this point the road is a single lane.
 Also,there is a white left turn pavement arrow on the exit ramp.

 See the red arrow on BuenaVistaDrive-002.jpg ( or 


 https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bxor0dnxUrN2em84TG1jb2hTcTQ/edit?usp=sharing)
 

 ** **

 Superficially, at least, it seems possible to do this without crossing the
 gore markers in the intersection.

 BuenaVistaDrive-003.jpg ( or 


 https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bxor0dnxUrN2X1RKVzI3RXdzQzA/edit?usp=sharing)
 

 ** **

 Also, although there is only a double signal on Buena Vista Dr. eastbound
 at this intersection, the stop line extends all the way across all three
 lanes of traffic, including the exit only onto the southbound World Drive
 ramp. 

 BuenaVistaDrive-005.jpg ( or 


 https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bxor0dnxUrN2YlotaTVMRHA2OW8/edit?usp=sharing)
 

 ** **

 After researching the Federal Highway Standards, the Florida Driver's
 Manual, etc. we were unable to make a conclusion. **

 ** **

 Thank you for your time and consideration,

 ** **

 Michael Patrick

 Open Street Map

 http://www.openstreetmap.org/

 ** **

 ** **


 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

[Clay Smalley]

The SR and SH designations were mostly put in by NE2, IIRC. Go figure.

I'm personally okay with this mass edit, but expect a lot of hate mail from
NE2.
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 11:36 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
 Someone with local knowledge might want to look over the ref=* tags in
 Florida, a lot seem to be missing the context that let you know what
network
 they're a part of.

I'd actually been kicking around proposing a bulk edit of ref=* tags
to conform them with the quasi-standard of two-letter USPS state
prefix + space + route number (+ one-char suffix)?(+ space + any long
modifiers) but didn't want things to devolve into a pissing match.
Since Mapquest seems to need ref tags to include the proper state
shield, and this standard is valid, even if alternative styles might
also be valid including the USPS prefix would seem to help.
Personally I'd prefer downstream consumers like MQ just use the
relations, like on the shield renderer at
http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/ (they also can encode proper
directional information, which would be very useful if OSRM understood
route relations) but baby steps.

The only drawback I can see is that many of the route numbers in
Georgia would disappear from the default Mapnik style, due to GDOT's
insistence on cosigning virtually every US-designated highway with a
visible state designation, which would make the shields too big to
render.  But this problem wouldn't affect most of the states where the
bare number and SR plague has set in.


Chris
--
Chris Lawrence lordsu...@gmail.com

Website: http://www.cnlawrence.com/

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

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

[Clay Smalley]

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Chris Lawrence lordsu...@gmail.com wrote:

 He does reiterate the point it would lead to long ref tags that would
 conflict with Mapnik's limitations.  He also argues that it would make
 the Mapnik rendering erroneous

Tagging for the renderer.

As far as the blade sign issue goes, I expect that directions are more
 likely to use street names rather than the ref tags for routes that
 have both, and that the average driver is unlikely to be confused by a
 reference to Florida xx or Florida Highway xx instead of State
 Road xx, even if it's not the local vernacular, especially since the
 shield in most of these cases - Florida, Georgia, and Alabama -
 actually looks like the state itself* (and certainly less likely to be
 confused by Florida xx than xx - Turn left on 46? 46 what?) -
 after all, I don't think anyone has seriously proposed renaming the
 ref tags on US 101 in Los Angeles as The 101.

+1

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

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

[Clay Smalley]

You. You have the ground truth. He has no right deleting useful data from
OSM.

I think it's a general rule that when NE2 fights with other OSM
contributors, he loses.
On Feb 8, 2013 2:59 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:

 NE2 is going on the World according to NE2 bender again, need a ruling
 on this relation before I revert:
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2249811

 Turn in question is southbound World Drive at Buena Vista Drive in
 Orlando, http://binged.it/128OlwZ.  Despite left turn only markings on
 the southbound approach and a flush median gore preventing a straight-on
 movement, NE2 is of the opinion, and removed the relation, on the excuse
 that Anyway, I've deleted the turn restriction, since I cannot recall
 having seen any signs prohibiting the movement, and you have not seen any
 such signs because you have not been there. Never mind that the left
 turn only sign is clearly marked on the pavement. He questioned the legal
 standing of the marking since it omits ONLY, despite the fact that
 section 4.2.1 of the Florida Traffic Engineering Manual requires ONLY to be
 omitted in situations such as the ramp in question (a straight/left arrow
 would be required for a through-or-left-turn lane).

 Who's right?

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


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

Re: [Talk-us] Addresses with no house number

[Clay Smalley]

On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 5:38 PM, stevea stevea...@softworkers.com wrote:

 **
 For example, a particular residential house in Carmel might be assigned as
 an address node tag:

 addr:housename=Casanova Street, East side, third house south of 9th

I think that's better fit for the key addr:full=*. See
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr

 I'm whole-cloth inventing this as an example, and again, it would be good
 to know what the Post Office does.

I believe the common way to do things over there is to say Dolores 3rd NW
of 8th if you want to describe the place on the west side of Dolores
Street that is the third house north of 8th Street.
-- 
Clay
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [OSM-talk] Overlapping ways

[Clay Smalley]

On Jan 9, 2013 5:03 PM, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote:
 For example, if I draw the layer 0 way, then draw the layer 1 way on top,
using the same nodes as a guide, BUT THEN unglue all the nodes by
pressing G in JOSM, does this still count as a shared node?
That is perfectly valid as they are separate nodes according to OSM. Some
validators might pick up on these and call them errors, but that's a false
negative.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[Talk-us] Texas business route letter subscripts, or how I learned to stop arguing and ignore a certain user

[Clay Smalley]

In Texas, every business route has a unique letter attached to it. In this
image from TxDOT, there are a few examples:
http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/fsh/images/Figure%204-2.gif

These are what show on the vast majority of highway signs. They are useful
for navigation, and and official designation used by TxDOT for identifying
which city a business route runs through.

A while back, I took the liberty of adding these letters to the ref=* tags
of these business routes, as well as their relations, to reflect this (e.g.
ref=US 377A Business in the example).

Along came an armchair retagger from outside of Texas.

First he claimed that they're not part of the official route number, which
is not true according to TxDOT's highway designation files, which are
freely available and easily accessible online.

But my main problem came when he started removing them without notice
whenever he made an edit to any of these ways.

He also made a point that I 35E Business which goes through the town of
Pearsall, Texas is not a business route of the I 35E that goes through
Dallas. That made sense to me, so I'm going through and retagging all the
business routes with hyphenation (e.g. ref=US 377-A Business). But he
seemed to still have a problem with the business letters existing in the
data.

What sayest thou, community? I'm honestly tired of edit wars and pointless
bickering, and would rather just get this question out of the way.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Texas business route letter subscripts, or how I learned to stop arguing and ignore a certain user

[Clay Smalley]

On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:

 On Friday, December 21, 2012, Clay Smalley wrote:


 What sayest thou, community? I'm honestly tired of edit wars and
 pointless bickering, and would rather just get this question out of the way.


 Sounds like yet another problem brought to us by the letters N and E, and
 the number 2...


bingo.

So it's safe to assume the business letters can stay? I don't want hours of
work deleted again.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Texas business route letter subscripts, or how I learned to stop arguing and ignore a certain user

[Clay Smalley]

On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:

 Just so I'm on the same page...are we adding modifiers to ref=* or
 seperately in modifier=* in the relations?


The ref=* tags of the ways were originally e.g. US 377 Business and I'm
changing them to US 377-A Business.
The route relations have separate modifier=* and ref=* tags. The modifier=*
tag will remain Business and the ref=* tag is being changed from 377 to
377-A.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Bug fixes multilingual map

[Clay Smalley]

In that case, for line placement, I suggest using  -  in between the
names in different languages, e.g. Rue des Bouchers - Beenhouwersstraat.
That's what's done in the name=* tag in many bilingual places like Brussels.


On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.dewrote:

 Andrew Errington writes:

 It doesn't matter if I use en|ko or ko|en, it seems there is an LF
 character between the two strings which is not present in the original
 data.


 It could be that the symbolizer does not support multi-line for line
 placement. Then it's a mapnik issue.
 I think on my bilingual map on thaimap.osm-tools.org I had not used a
 linebreak for street labels for this reason. Unfortunately I can't check
 the style at the moment.
  Stephan


 __**_
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talkhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk




-- 
Clay
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-us] Utah voronoi mapcraft

[Clay Smalley]

I'm not Martijn, but I'm going to guess he may have pulled GIS data of a
few selected cities in Utah and used a GIS application to create the
Thiessen polygons. I did just that for the Operation Cowboy - Texas map
(with a few liberties taken).


On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 10:00 PM, Brian DeRocher br...@derocher.org wrote:

 Martijn,

 How did you create the voronoi partitions for this mapcraft map?

 http://mapcraft.nanodesu.ru/**pie/168http://mapcraft.nanodesu.ru/pie/168

 Brian

 --
 Brian DeRocher
 http://brian.derocher.org
 http://mappingdc.org
 http://about.me/brian.derocher


 __**_
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-ushttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us




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

Re: [Talk-us] SOTM-US 2013

[Clay Smalley]

Can I nominate Austin for 2013?


On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:

 I'm going to go ahead and get it started by nominating beautiful Tulsa,
 Oklahoma for SOTM 2013.


 On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote:

 Hey Kate -

 Good question. Given the fact that we're shooting for an early SOTM next
 year, we're really strapped of time for a formal bid process. I know this
 is not ideal but I think the ability to move SOTM-US to a better date in
 regards to the international conference is worth it. If you were plannning
 on bidding or if you know of anyone bidding I would suggest to make it
 known here or just get in touch with bon...@mapbox.com. We should
 absolutely open a formal bidding process at the SOTM-US 2013 conference for
 2014.

 On Nov 6, 2012, at 6:46 PM, Kate Chapman k...@maploser.com wrote:

  Hi Alex,
 
  Is there going to be a bid process as with previous years?
 
  Thanks!
 
  -Kate
 
  On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 5:32 AM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote:
 
  OpenStreetMap US is kicking off planning for State of the Map 2013.
 With an international conference likely taking place in the fall of 2013
 (no confirmation from official places, this is an educated guess at this
 point), we are shooting for a first half of the year date - thinking around
 April, May or June. Not being too close to important international OSM
 dates will allow us to continue to build out the international appeal of
 the US SOTM.
 
  Bonnie Bogle, who did much of the organizing at this year's SOTM in
 Portland, is starting right now with researching viable locations and
 dates. We are looking for places that will allow for an affordable
 conference at a great location and date.
 
  If you'd like to help organize, I invite you to join the planning
 committee, please let it be known here on this thread or shoot Bonnie an
 email at bon...@mapbox.com.
 
  Alex Barth (Secretary OpenStreetMap US)
 
 
 
 
  ___
  Talk-us mailing list
  Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
  http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

 Alex Barth
 http://twitter.com/lxbarth
 tel (+1) 202 250 3633





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



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




-- 
Clay Smalley
University of Texas at Austin, Class of 2015
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] My personal Difficult USA Mapper situation update

[Clay Smalley]

, former resident, tourist, etc.
 I will use myself for this example. I currently live in San Antonio, TX but
 I have lived in Madison, Wisconsin.  Should I edit an area in Madison, an
 alert of the changeset could be sent to a local resident to review and
 can give feedback to my username. Their review would not be an
 accept/reject level, but if the edit is ranked very poor, this could be
 noted in the offending user's profile. There could also be restrictions
 based on deleting/editing existing data vs. adding new data based on the
 person's knowledge of the area. This could also limit large-scale data
 edits or changesets with very large bounding boxes to those who are
 trusted/verified by admins. On the downside, this opens the door to rogue
 admins and or moderators, but maybe there could be additional safeguards
 put in place.

 -However, none of this could be possible without a system of user ranking.
 Feedback, types/validity of edits, ability to buddy users, edit larger
 areas, etc. could all be rolled into this. There would need to be some sort
 of leveling system built into this.

 I've been thinking about this for a long time, but have not brought them
 up because the need for them didn't seem to be there. However, with my
 email to the US group earlier this week showed that I am not necessarily
 alone in thinking that there needs to be some sort of additional levels of
 moderators. I realize that most of my ideas are impossible to implement,
 especially retroactively. Part of the beauty of OSM is that the mappers are
 mostly self-policing, but the ease of editing large amounts of data has
 shown that a few number of people can have a large impact.

 Sam Iacullo

 San Antonio, TX









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




-- 
Clay Smalley
University of Texas at Austin, Class of 2015
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Schizophrenic highway

[Clay Smalley]

On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 6:05 PM, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote:

   I would not tag something as
   motorway when it's only sometimes motorway unless it's ~10 miles long.
Going off this: I remember a discussion earlier about this sort of
thing. Someone (I forgot who) said that the Is this a freeway?
question should be asked about every 5-10 miles.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Consensus on SR for state route versus state abbreviation?

[Clay Smalley]

It was mainly NE2 that went around changing everything to SR and SH. I'm
pretty sure the consensus has always been the postal abbreviation.

On Sep 12, 2012 8:31 PM, Kristian M Zoerhoff k...@lavabit.com wrote:

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256


Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Charlotte Wolter
tec...
 **Was there ever consensus on whether to use SR (or some

 variation on that) for state highways versus an abbreviation of the
state
 name (CA or NY)...
Michigan is a notable exception to these rules. State highways are all of
the form M-nnn, *not* MI-nnn.
- --
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: APG v1.0.8
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=d0EA
-END PGP SIGNATURE-




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

Re: [Talk-us] Another random road reclassification

[Clay Smalley]

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 9:26 PM, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com wrote:
 I know there is some disagreement about road classification,
 especially when it comes to trunk but I'm pretty sure most people
 would agree that this is incorrect. Thoughts?

I've been told you should use highway=trunk, expressway=yes for this.
Not sure of the validity or widespread use of the tag.

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

Re: [Talk-us] TIGER fixup and mapping more

[Clay Smalley]

I like this idea. That would encourage more people to TIGER-review streets,
as highway=road shows up pretty ugly on Mapnik, and people like getting rid
of ugly. What would be the drawbacks of doing this? It seems like there
would be some but I can't think of any.

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:

 Richard Weait schrieb:

  Larger cleanups can be imposing at first glance.  Other mappers will
 understand that a single mapper can't do everything at once, so you
 shouldn't be criticized if you fix a few things but not others.


 After having spent another vacation in the US (in Northern California this
 time), I started wondering if there should be a mass edit to switch all the
 highway=residential (or other highway values set en masse and mostly wrong)
 that are from TIGER imports and still on v1 objects to highway=road instead.
 The reason for this is that we have a ton of dirt/gravel roads through the
 woods that are mapped as residential and therefore are highly misleading
 for both routing services as well as people looking at a map and trying to
 figure out which way to go manually.
 Note that this is just an idea, and I wouldn't be the one actually doing
 this as I have no ideas about how to do mass edits in a good way. I just
 wanted to bring this up with the US community.
 AFAIK, the highway=road tag for unspecified road, needing someone to
 review and switch to correct classification did not exist back when those
 imports were made initially and would be the right choice for such imports
 nowadays.

 Robert Kaiser



 __**_
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-ushttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

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