Re: [Talk-us] Potential Mechanical Edit to remove access=private from Amazon Logistics driveways in NH
First, I'd like to point out that this discussion started off with the question of removing "access=private" from Amazon-logistics-mapped driveways. I still maintain that the mechanical edit would be a good thing, because the tagging as added is based on an assumption that service=driveway implies access=private, which (a) isn't 100% accurate, and (b) adds the appearance of more detail in the database without actually adding any value (i.e. if it is a safe assumption, then adding the tag is superfluous; if it isn't, then adding it is potentially misleading). Second, I'd like to point out that there *are* driveways in New England that are actually public right-of-ways. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/19685143 is one such example; the southernmost portion of the way is arguably service=driveway, except that it is actually a public right-of-way that continues south, eventually connecting to Lincoln Gap Road. While they are certainly the exception and not the rule, the number of such setups in Vermont is non-trivial due to the ancient roads laws there. There are probably some similar cases in New Hampshire and possibly Maine, I believe, but I can't cite any off the top of my head (the documentation of unmaintained public-right-of-ways isn't as good as it is in Vermont, making things a bit more murky). Third, and back to the first point, I'd suggest that while this discussion has teased out a lot of nuance about driveway access (and related social norms and such), I don't think it's big stretch to say that while we don't really have consensus on the implied access status for service=driveway in a residential area, service=private isn't quite right (except when gated or posted), which brings me back to my original thought: the mechanical edit is a good thing to remove the appearance of greater certainty than we actually have. Fourth, related to the last question about whether or not it makes sense to distinguish posted/not posted in the database: yes, knowing whether or not driveways are posted and/or gated matters. Particularly when the distinction between "minor, not-town-maintained road" and "driveway" is murky on the ground (which is not uncommon in rural areas), knowing about barriers and posted signs is rather helpful in route planning, especially when not operating a motor vehicle (at least around here, state law generally implies access=permissive in the absence of signage to the contrary). On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 12:18 PM Greg Troxel wrote: > > A further issue we haven't talk about: > > How much detail is ok on residential property, from a privacy > viewpoint? Is mapping of "no trespassing signs" going too far? > > We show structures, and we show driveways. These don't feel invasive > given imagery. They are very useful for navigation, particularly with > long driveways. We don't map much else. > > To me, marking individual driveways about whether they have a no > trespassing sign or not, is a bit much. It feels a bit dangerous, in > terms of getting it wrong and expectations. Yes, you can see them from > the road, but still. > > I also don't think it's all that useful. When you are going somewhere, > you need to pay attention, regardless of the map. And you know why you > are going, and if you have some kind of permission, and we are not going > to automate that. > > So to me, private_signed and private_unsigned, or whatever, are > extremely close to the same thing. I see signed or not as a minor > detail, and I would prefer not to map it. (But, I won't tell you not to > map it.) > > I do object to a tagging scheme unless it has a tag appropriate for > unsigned residential driveways that is viewed as not-really-wrong for > driveways that happen to be signed. I mean that in the sense that it > isn't objectionable, not that it can't be refined. Sort of like > "building=yes" is not wrong but changing it to "building=barn" is > better. > _______ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > -- Kevin Broderick k...@kevinbroderick.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Potential Mechanical Edit to remove access=private from Amazon Logistics driveways in NH
If I understand correctly, all driveways added by Amazon Logistics (before a certain point in time) have access=private, regardless of the situation on the ground. If that is the case, I'd strongly advocate removing that tagging; access=destination *may* be correct, but since we don't know that (i.e. there are probably some number of driveways included that *are* access=private), it's better to remove the tagging and let the map data reflect that uncertainty rather than provide a guess based only on the regional norm for driveway access (which, IMO, is already implied by service=driveway). On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 12:16 PM stevea wrote: > There are many opinions about driveway access tags in OSM, some > (conflicting ones) even expressed here, if briefly. Plus, such semantics > can be slippery and blur among regions. > > I believe it correct that access=private tag be removed from > highway=service + service=driveway, as "private" seems too strict to > accurately describe a driveway (that's part subjunctive mood where it needs > doing, part indicative where true now). This is especially correct when > entered or deleted by a company performing delivery services — > access=destination seems much more precise, and directly in that exact > circumstance. I only tag access=private when there is a sign explicitly > prohibiting access, a gate which enforces this, or both. > > (And "I believe it correct..." is, after all, simply one person's opinion, > it is important to remind). > > There is an "implied semantic" (in my mind and I believe many others') of > how private property and driveways "work" in USA law and custom: "If > tagged highway=service + service=driveway, this MEANS it is on private > property. If you are invited by having delivery requested or are visiting > the residence (by invitation) or business (because they are open) so > attached to the road network, you may traverse. Otherwise, it should be > respected as private property, access=private is superfluous and too > strict." > > In short, I'm agreeing with Tod that an access=* tag isn't explicitly > needed, but if one is added, access=destination seems most accurate and > seems distinctly more correct than access=private. > > I would ask Alex to consider the slight modification to his proposal that > he tag driveways with access=destination, but I don't consider doing so a > hard-and-fast requirement for me to agree (again, simply one person's > opinion). It would be good for both the OSM community and Amazon Logistics > to reach a firm consensus on this, as AL will continue adding these (it's > good for them, it's good for our map). That AL has agreed to NOT add > access=private is a step in the right direction. Whether this consensus > includes whether access=destination is correct or not awaits more agreement > in our community first, then Amazon can hew to OSM's preferences. > Consensus may differ in different parts of the world, as Rory (for example) > has a better grasp on how driveways are thought of (and used, and > most-ideally tagged in OSM) in the UK, and USA-ans (weird word, I know) I > believe are pretty close to (if not 100% in line with) how I describe it > above. > > So, no access=private on driveways (unless gated or explicitly signed as > such), that's clear. As for access=destination? Requires some more > discussion and consensus and may vary by region to conform with law and/or > custom. We'll get there. > > SteveA > California > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > -- Kevin Broderick k...@kevinbroderick.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] How to map snowmobile trails in US?
Ideally, I'd say that most snowmobile routes should be relations, not ways. At least in the places I'm familiar with (New England and Montana), a significant portion of the snowmobile trail network overlaps with seasonal roads that are open to wheeled traffic in some conditions. Having the summer ground truth mapped accurately is hugely helpful if you're poking around in the summer, whether it be hiking, biking, riding an on/off-road motorcycle, etc; as you noted, some snowmachine trails are virtually invisible in the summer and may even be impassable (I'm familiar with some spots in Vermont where the snowmachine trails transit across swamp or marshland once it's frozen—not something you want to try to cross on foot or wheeled vehicle). Around here, there's also the side issue of someone having mapped one of the ITS routes as a track for a long distance, when it actually should be a series of ways with different data, as some parts are well-maintained gravel roads in the summer, others are less-well-maintained, some are public ways and others aren't. To answer the question about sections that specifically cross fields: I'd still be tempted to tag that as highway=track, with appropriate access and surface tags. I'm not sure it's the best way to do it, but I can't come up with a better way, and the track in question would likely be passable with permission and the right vehicle. As for sections that cross [frozen] marshes, or other areas that aren't passable when the ground is thawed, I don't know. Maybe there is a use case for "highway=frozen" or something similar, as ice_road is applied to another way, and none of the highway= values with which I'm familiar would make sense. On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 10:41 AM Bob Gambrel wrote: > Am newby to talk-us. This may have been discussed in the past but not > handy with searching archives yet. > > In Minnesota I have seen snowmobile trails mapped in OSM as follows: > > highway=track > snowmobile=designated > surface=unpaved > > In both aerial photos and observation on the ground, there is almost > always no track visible. In the winter, with snow cover, the location of > the track is visible because it is compacted by snowmobiles. In the spring > there might be some evidence in areas with grasses that would have been > tamped down by the snowmobiles. > > Question: Is this the right way to map snowmobile trails? The thing that > concerns me, of course, is the use of "track" because of it is not apparent > most of the time. > > Another question: is there a forum or expert group or something that > discusses this? I would like to join that conversation if there is one > going on. > > I think it is a good idea to map these trails. It seems there maybe should > be another type of highway? Something like: "not visible on the ground most > of the year". Note that ice_road=yes is not appropriate here (in most > cases) as (in most cases) these trails are not on frozen water bodies. > > As further info, where I was able to observe there are a number of signs > posted such as stop signs, caution signs, etc. So there clearly is > government involvement. > > Any thoughts? > > _______ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > -- Kevin Broderick k...@kevinbroderick.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Jefferson Notch Road and latest "GPS made me do it" in the news
However, that assumes that you can trust the news to be accurate, and the distinction between "closed in winter" and "not maintained for winter travel" is not one I expect the news media to get right. The article I saw quoted the driver has having seen a "Not maintained for winter travel" sign and continuing because he didn't think that implied a closure (which is true, even if it may be a poor choice in a minivan). Given that it is a snowmachine trail, "closed" seems more likely (and it would be exceedingly impolite to put wheel ruts into a groomed trail, even if legal), but it's been long enough since I traveled it that I can't recall the signage. My fuzzy recollection is a gate on the Base Station end. I can't find a definitive answer on the NH DOT site, and the WMNF MVUM shows it to be a non-forest road through the forest. On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 2:11 PM Mark Wagner wrote: > On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 14:47:35 -0500 > Bill Ricker wrote: > > > Kevin asks, > > > is Jefferson Notch Road actually closed to wheeled vehicles in > > > winter or > > just not maintained? > > > > Per copyright news reports, it is signed as closed to wheeled > > vehicles, open to snow-machines only, in winter. > > (As should be obvious, to correctly tag this according to our > > license, we do need some on-the ground or license0compatible > > verification of the facts form the news, as well as a decision on > > what tags to use.) > > In the United States, facts can't be copyrighted, only specific ways of > expressing them. If a news article says "the road is closed in the > winter from Wherezit Junction to Anytown", you can freely extract the > fact of the closure, look for the OSM ways corresponding to the > description, and apply a "closed in the winter" tag. > > (If the news article instead has a map of the closure, the copyright > situation becomes more questionable, because now you're copying not > just the facts of the closure, but possibly the way they're expressed > as well.) > > -- > Mark > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > -- Kevin Broderick k...@kevinbroderick.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Jefferson Notch Road and latest "GPS made me do it" in the news
If we're going with access:conditional, it *should* be mode-of-transport specific. It's pretty common for closed-in-winter roads to be open to non-wheeled transport (e.g. skis and snowmachines); the other road I've lived near (Beartooth Pass, US 212 between Red Lodge and Cooke City, Montana) falls into the same category. I don't think I ever figured out a good way to tag it, and while it's since been updated with maxspeed and lane data, it's not marked as seasonal (among the ways involved: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/454632622#map=15/44.9886/-109.4233=ND). That road is a particularly interesting case because there's a section that's closed and gated based on a schedule (but open to over-snow vehicles and skiers / cyclists / etc) as well as a portion that's not maintained for winter travel, posted "Road Closed", and regularly traveled (and sometimes even plowed) by locals until snow gets deep enough to make it impassable without a tracked vehicle. Also, is Jefferson Notch Road actually closed to wheeled vehicles in winter or just not maintained? That's a very important distinction for some drivers in the late fall and early spring (i.e. before snow depth is sufficient to make it impassable). winter_service= and access:conditional= both seem important pieces of data to note, but I'm not opposed to adding "closed in winter" as an additional part of the name, assuming most data consumers won't adequately consider access:conditional or winter_service. On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 11:52 PM Zeke Farwell wrote: > This looks like something that there still is not consensus on. > > Here are couple of roads that are not plowed in the winter in my area of > Vermont. Both are tagged differently: > Lincoln Gap Road: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/19729533 > VT 108 through Smugglers Notch: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/48775843 > > Looks like we have a few different overlapping keys: > >- access:conditional > > <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Conditional_restrictions=en-US> >- seasonal ><https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:seasonal?uselang=en-US> >- winter_service ><https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:winter%20service?uselang=en-US> > > winter_service=no looks like the simplest option to me, but not knowing > how the data will be used, the safest bet is probably to put *"closed in > winter"* right in the name as is the case with VT 108. It's not correct > data modeling, but it will mean people looking at a map are sure to see it. > > > On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 10:10 PM Bill Ricker wrote: > >> >> > Burlington Family Rescued After GPS Leads Minivan Down Snowmobile Path. >> BURLINGTON (CBS) >> > It was an early morning rescue by ATV Sunday in Jefferson, New >> Hampshire. >> > ... The family was stranded on Jefferson Notch Road, which is >> restricted to snowmobiles only during the winter months. >> > 2 days ago >> > >> https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2019/12/29/burlington-family-stranded-after-following-gps-onto-snowmobile-trail >> >> Yeah, I'm not surprised that a road that goes literally through Jefferson >> Notch isn't plowed in the winter; the road's high point in the notch (aka >> "col" or "saddle," the diminutive of "pass") is 3,009 feet (917 m), only >> barely below the height of Mount Mitten (929 m) which the road passes, and >> lower than Currier Mtn (838 m) just beyond. Yeah that's not high in young >> mountains, but at this latitude, that altitude gets plenty snow. I expect >> even the winter snowmobile path through the notch should be attempted only >> by parties of multiple experienced operators prepared for mountains' >> changeable conditions. >> >> (I'm guessing the gating/bollards will get upgraded so that only >> snowmobiles, Cats, and emergency 4WD/6WD even /can/ enter during winter.) >> >> In the summer, this road will provide a lovely if challenging shortcut >> between US 2 and US 302, of which there are precious few in the environs of >> Mt Washington and the Presidential Range of the White Mountains. >> >> OSM - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/18846225#map=12/44.3103/-71.3696 >> Our way does not (as of this writing) show a tag indicating seasonally >> variable access. >> Proposed tag winter_service=no >> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:winter_service%3Dno=edit=1> >> isn't quite strong enough but would be a start. >> >> What is the right way to tag a road which is 3 season dramatic automobile >> mountain short-cut and one-season snowmobile trail? >> >> >> -- >> Bill Ricker
Re: [Talk-us] Maine leaf-off imagery?
Thanks for the responses. Unfortunately, the State of Maine LIDAR project doesn't yet have data available where I'm trying to map; in many cases, LIDAR would actually be preferable to even leaf-off-orthoimagery, as forest roads tend to stand out a lot better. The state regional orthoimagery is generally speaking, out-of-date compared to the other datasources available in id (particularly bing when not zoomed in all the way). Thanks for pointing out the NAIP, though, as that is definitely more recent than most and very helpful even if the resolution isn't ideal. Based on foliage coloration, it looks like fall flights, so it's a little better than midsummer at least. On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 11:57 AM Kevin wrote: > Maine has some nice ortho imagery available through their arcgis > services.. > https://gis.maine.gov/arcgis/rest/services/imageryBaseMapsEarthCover > > It looks like you'll want to look at the orthoRegional datasets. You can > just browse what's available here... > > https://maine.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=56500882464149b3ae028b51665e5e56 > > > I'm not sure how to add an image service to iD but it looks like it does > support WMS. > > Also it looks like NAIP was flown in the area in 2018. Although NAIP > isn't typically leaf off or super high resolution, it may be of help. The > USDA image service for the US can be found here. > https://gis.apfo.usda.gov/arcgis/rest/services > > On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 9:20 PM Kevin Broderick > wrote: > >> Anyone have an ODbL-compatible source of leaf-off imagery for Maine, by >> any chance? I'm particularly interested in the area around Bethel, as I'm >> trying to update minor roadways, add buildings with driveways, etc., >> and even switching between the various imagery available in id leaves a lot >> of questions unanswered. Leaf-off imagery would be incredibly helpful, the >> more so if it were actually recent. >> >> (Yes, I've been surveying where feasible, but I'm not about to start >> going up driveways to get building dimensions.) >> >> Many thanks. >> >> -- >> Kevin Broderick >> k...@kevinbroderick.com >> ___ >> Talk-us mailing list >> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us >> > -- Kevin Broderick k...@kevinbroderick.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Maine leaf-off imagery?
Anyone have an ODbL-compatible source of leaf-off imagery for Maine, by any chance? I'm particularly interested in the area around Bethel, as I'm trying to update minor roadways, add buildings with driveways, etc., and even switching between the various imagery available in id leaves a lot of questions unanswered. Leaf-off imagery would be incredibly helpful, the more so if it were actually recent. (Yes, I've been surveying where feasible, but I'm not about to start going up driveways to get building dimensions.) Many thanks. -- Kevin Broderick k...@kevinbroderick.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Historic 66 as highway=trunk in OK
Vermont has at least two state highways that are partially or entirely gravel, too. On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 10:20 AM Wolfgang Zenker wrote: > * Paul Johnson [190829 14:09]: > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 6:40 AM Joseph Eisenberg < > joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > >> That's probably not relevant for anywhere in the USA (even in Alaska > >> the main highways between cities are paved... right?) but it's a > >> reminder that we can certainly choose to do things in a way that makes > >> sense for mapping the USA; we don't have to use the British or German > >> standards. > > > The larger cities in southern Alaska. Most are gravel, including a paper > > interstate. I think Alaska's the last state to still have gravel state > > highways. > > Many (if not most) of Montanas "Secondary State Highways" are gravel. > > Wolfgang > ( lyx @ OSM ) > > _______ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > -- Kevin Broderick k...@kevinbroderick.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Request for review of plan for scripted edit
I'm of mixed feelings on the apparent freshness, but as long as the guidelines are followed so changesets are of reasonable size and easily identified as scripted, I don't see much of an issue. While having an automated script make assumptions caused me to twitch a little, the reality is that a human is going to make the same assumption. If I see a seven-digit number on a sign and want to dial it, I'm going to assume that the area code is 207; if I'm across the state line in New Hampshire, I'm going to assume 603. If that assumption isn't correct, the source data is bad anyhow, and adding the implicit area code isn't making it substantially worse. Have you been able to discern how many seven-digit numbers are in the system? On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 2:56 PM Jmapb wrote: > On 8/8/2019 1:28 PM, Alex Hennings wrote: > > Community, > > > > I'm planning a scripted change and would like feedback. Plans are > > outlined here: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_edits/blackboxlogic > > > > I'd appreciate feedback or questions in the 'Discussion' portion of > > that wiki page, or within this email list. > > Hi Alex! > > First, a possible typo: I think "Nodes, Ways and References" should be > "Nodes, Ways and Relations"? > > I'm a fan of the +1-xxx-xxx- format, since it's the only standard > format that's visually intuitive to North American users. I often switch > numbers to this format when I make updates to an existing POI. > > Personally, though, I've always felt a little uneasy about automated > updates like this because they give a false impression of the freshness > of the data. If it's been five years since any "real" updates to a POI, > I'd rather that the date of last update reflected that. It's hard to > gauge the community consensus on this issue, but IMO running this on > POIs that have been manually updated (ie not by a mass edit) in the last > 6 months would be fine. > > Regarding the single area code question... now that cell phones, VOIP, > and nationwide calling plans are ubiquitous, the idea that a certain > area code refers to a certain area is steadily eroding. I have started > to see a few businesses with out-of-state phone numbers on their > signs... but at this point it's still more likely that an out-of-state > area code is an error or SEO spam. I'd suggest that these would go into > your "Manually review or flag" category. > > Regardless, the idea that an area can have a single "traditional" area > code is still true. Personally I have no problem with prepending the > traditional area code onto 7-digit phone numbers. (I do it all the time > in manual mapping.) > > Finally, thanks for posting your tools... I see these are written in > CSharp, which I'm only tangentially familiar with. What sort of > environment would one need to build these? > > Thanks, Jason > > > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > -- Kevin Broderick k...@kevinbroderick.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] motel vs. hotel
I thought the defining architectural difference was whether access to the room was via interior hallway (hotel) or exterior walkway (motel). On Fri, Mar 8, 2019, 19:51 Shawn K. Quinn wrote: > On 3/8/19 18:47, Peter Dobratz wrote: > > How do you distinguish between the tourism=hotel and tourism=motel tags? > > > > The criteria that I was imagining is that a motel is a single story > > building where you have the ability to park you car directly outside of > > your room. A hotel would be other types of buildings such as multi-story > > where most guests cannot park directly outside their room. > > Some motels have two- or even three-story buildings. For me, the > defining difference would be that a hotel is closer to an airport or > business district and either has limited parking or charges for parking, > whereas motels as I know them never charge for parking, and are often > farther away from the business districts and airports. > > -- > Shawn K. Quinn > http://www.rantroulette.com > http://www.skqrecordquest.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] Spot elevations collected as natural=peak and name=Point (height in feet)
To elaborate on my previous response, now that I'm back at a computer:
Would https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4992960980 be an example of (or
very similar to) what you're talking about?
I've been told that one is a local reference point ("25 Short", ie. 25 feet
short of 10k), and at least one article (
https://rootsrated.com/stories/a-quick-and-dirty-guide-to-the-best-backcountry-skiing-in-jackson-hole)
backs that up. The old USGS quad does have a point elevation of 9975' on
that knob, but it looks to more properly be a shoulder of a larger
mountain, not a proper mountain on its own.
I'm not suggesting that the current tagging is correct, but in this case
(and I believe in some others, although I don't even have anecdotes to back
that up), point elevation marks on USGS maps have become the "names" for
local topographical features. They're a little wonky on the
on-the-ground-verifiability (you can easily verify that a height-of-land
exists there, but I don't know that there's a sign or survey marker
indicating "this is 9975" or "this is 25 Short"), but [some] locals who
travel in the vicinity will use the reference. So it seems like something
that may be very reasonable to map, but I don't know what the best tagging
scheme is. I do think that normalizing to meters loses the meaning in the
current tag-for-the-renderer scheme, because a '3040m' label isn't going to
translate well to '25 Short' or '9975' unless you happen to particularly
good at math.
On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 4:53 AM Dave Swarthout
wrote:
> This is simply a way to get an otherwise unnamed peak to render and also,
> I suspect, to sidestep the inconvenience of converting the elevation to
> meters. AFAIK, there are no peaks with the generic name "Point" on any
> USGS Topos. In addition, placing the elevation into the name is another
> trick that should be discouraged.
>
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 2:38 PM Mateusz Konieczny
> wrote:
>
>> If it is a peak then ele=XXX and noname=yes would be OK.
>>
>> If it is not a peak it should not be present at all - otherwise it opens
>> way to importing
>> LIDAR data into OSM (and there are datasets with resolution of 5 cm,
>> dumping it
>> into OSM would be case of unverifiable data making it impossible to edit).
>>
>> I opened https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1703462 to reduce chance
>> that it will be discussed
>> and forgotten.
>>
>> If this is really used name - then it would be OK but my bet is that this
>> is not an actually used name.
>>
>> Mar 7, 2019, 7:04 PM by miketh...@gmail.com:
>>
>> It seems that there are a couple of mappers in Colorado US (at least,
>> perhaps mapping in other areas as well) who are adding spot elevations
>> (presumably from USGS Topo maps) to OSM tagging them as
>> natural=peak
>> name=Point (elevation in feet)
>>
>> For example:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4601119717
>>
>> What does the community think about this?
>>
>> natural=peak might be ok if said spot elevation is really a local high
>> point (some are not). The name I am less sure of. If this belongs on the
>> map at all, it should probably have an ele tag, with value in meters.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
>
>
> --
> Dave Swarthout
> Homer, Alaska
> Chiang Mai, Thailand
> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
--
Kevin Broderick
k...@kevinbroderick.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Spot elevations collected as natural=peak and name=Point (height in feet)
I'm familiar with some cases where the peaks named thusly on USGS topos have given their names to the backcountry ski runs in the vicinity. From that standpoint, they are valuable (and often-used) local landmarks, and I can understand *why* people would be tagging for the renderer (assuming that is why they're getting tagging natural=peak). On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 1:05 PM Mike Thompson wrote: > It seems that there are a couple of mappers in Colorado US (at least, > perhaps mapping in other areas as well) who are adding spot elevations > (presumably from USGS Topo maps) to OSM tagging them as > natural=peak > name=Point (elevation in feet) > > For example: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4601119717 > > What does the community think about this? > > natural=peak might be ok if said spot elevation is really a local high > point (some are not). The name I am less sure of. If this belongs on the > map at all, it should probably have an ele tag, with value in meters. > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > -- Kevin Broderick k...@kevinbroderick.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Forest Routes
I don't think that the way to is a reliable indicator of trail vs road. Particularly in areas managed for forestry, I believe it's fairly common for a disused skid road to be managed and used as a non motorized trail (I can think of a few examples around here), which is a distinct situation from a road being closed to vehicle traffic without special permission, but both cases could be a track with the same access tags. On Thu, Dec 6, 2018, 20:44 Paul Johnson > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 6:42 PM Eric H. Christensen wrote: > >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA256 >> >> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ >> On Thursday, November 29, 2018 3:13 PM, Kevin Broderick < >> k...@kevinbroderick.com> wrote: >> >> > Doesn't the Forest Service use FR for "Forest Road" at the reference? >> I'd think that, or NFR to distinguish from state forest roads, would be the >> more appropriate ref, as FS is ambiguous (it doesn't distinguish between a >> forest road and a forest trail). >> >> I think the highway type would be a better way to distinguish between a >> roadway and a trail. >> >> > My thoughts, too. And the route relation type, since a trail's not going > to be route=road, even if it is the same network. > ___ > 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] Forest Routes
Doesn't the Forest Service use FR for "Forest Road" at the reference? I'd think that, or NFR to distinguish from state forest roads, would be the more appropriate ref, as FS is ambiguous (it doesn't distinguish between a forest road and a forest trail). (c.f. https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/46813797_2221923898134508_7562112324945838080_o.jpg?_nc_cat=111&_nc_ht=scontent-lga3-1.xx=9e0a64f5858322fe626a1fe4b4a8fed1=5C656682, posted by the White Mountain National Forest, or the abbreviated form FR 2421 in the Glacier Lake Trail directions at https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3831474.pdf) On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 2:49 PM Jack Burke wrote: > Oh I am so happy that Frederik brought this up. I've been thinking > about this topic for a while, but just haven't said anything. I love > the ensuing discussion, too. > > So, first, the wiki page on now to tag the refs > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging#National_Forest_Road_System > says to use NFR and NFH, as Kevin Kenny does. I use neither. As > others are doing, I use FS for Forest Service. I'll note that on the > wiki page's Discussion tab, there are several people who question the > use of NFR/NFH, which seems to have been arbitrarily selected by one > person and added to the wiki without any real discussion about it. > > Just to pick nits, Martijn, I'd like to point out that the example > sign for forest road 858 on that page you linked to has "National > Forest" on it, not FS or Forest Service. If we were to go purely by > the sign, we should be using NF. The National Forest Service > website's Interactive Visitor's Map at https://www.fs.fed.us/ivm/ uses > exactly that in an underlay layer for those maps. > > That said, I still prefer FS because that's generally how most people > seem to refer to them (forest service). > > Side note: there are several forest service roads in north Georgia > that are represented on Mapillary and OpenStreetCam, if anyone wants > to "drive" one of them from the comfort of your living room. (More > are apparent on Mapillary than OSC because of the different ways those > two services process sequences that don't have a matching OSM road.) > > --jack > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 4:03 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 2:51 PM Eric H. Christensen > wrote: > >> > >> On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 9:49 AM, Martijn van Exel > wrote: > >> > >> > I think you are right. It would be good if we can arrive at a common > >> > prefix and document it on the wiki. 'FS' makes sense. Perhaps even a > new > >> > page dedicated to roads that are maintained directly by federal > agencies > >> > (NPS, USDA, others?) would make sense. I'd be happy to help set it up. > >> > >> I've noticed that some of these "roads" are showing FS, FT, and another > F something when they were imported. Should all these ways use 'FS' or > should they use the different prefix based upon what type of way they are > (outside of the proper tagging for the way)? > > > > > > Note that the Forest Service uses the same numbering scheme for trails, > with 2 digit Forest Service routes being the main routes (be it a hiking > trail or a road), 3 digit and 4 digit routes being of lesser importance in > the overall network and usually being referred to as National Forest > Development or NFD trails/roads. > > ___ > > 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 > -- Kevin Broderick k...@kevinbroderick.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Food delivery services: Move-fast-and-break-trust
It's worth noting that at least one business out there (locu) has a nasty habit of scraping menu data and then trying to sign restaurants up for a search-engine visibility package in order to be able to update it (they'll also remove it without a fee, if you ask in the right way, but there are hoops to be jumped through). On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 1:39 PM, Clifford Snow wrote: > When I'm out taking pictures for later entry into OSM, I bring a bunch of > business cards to hand out. The card has my name, phone number, email and > the OSM website. I do this because I'm hoping to get interested businesses > to add more data to OSM. But giving the staff a card might also lessen > their concerns. And it does help spread the word about OSM. > > Clifford > > > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 9:39 AM Jmapb wrote: > >> Hi USA, just wanted to bring up an issue that I've run into recently >> while mapping businesses in NYC. >> >> Whenever I'm walking through the city, I tend to whip out the phone and >> check for anything missing, incorrect, or incomplete. Often this means >> pausing in front of a restaurant and keying in contact info or opening >> hours. Sometimes I also take pictures with the intention of adding tags >> later. >> >> There have always been a few who treat this sort of thing with suspicion >> -- especially taking pictures. But a couple times lately I've met with >> outright hostility from restaurant staff when taking down their data. >> One owner complained he was sick of "people from websites posting his >> information." Turns out the culprits were food delivery services, who >> had been offering delivery from his place without authorization. I plead >> my innocence, but this guy was in no mood to appreciate the differences >> between a crowdsourced map project and a move-fast-and-break-things >> delivery startup. >> >> I discussed this with a friend of mine who owns a restaurant, and he >> recounted a similar story -- an angry customer calling the restaurant to >> complain about a late delivery. This restaurant doesn't do delivery, and >> has never partnered with any third parties for delivery. But a food >> delivery startup (I'm not naming names... actually I can't even keep >> them straight) apparently scouted their location, imported the menu >> (which changes often and is not posted on the web), and listed the >> restaurant as a delivery client -- all without even informing the >> restaurant, much less attempting to make any sort of agreement. They >> wouldn't even take down the listing when confronted -- figured they >> could just bully their way into a business relationship. And they were >> listing dishes that weren't even on the menu anymore! Though they took >> them all down quickly when the restaurant's lawyer called. >> >> Don't know how common these sort of predatory tactics are outside NYC, >> but fair warning, there may be businesses out there who are no longer >> delighted at the thought of someone "from the internet" taking notice of >> their publicly-posted information. >> >> Happy mapping, Jason >> >> >> ___ >> Talk-us mailing list >> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us >> > > > -- > @osm_seattle > osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us > OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > -- Kevin Broderick k...@kevinbroderick.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] SPAM-LOW: Re: Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 6:23 PM, Brian May <b...@mapwise.com> wrote: > ... > > Many times, a residential street having no name is a strong tip as well > that it is not a residential street. > > Kevin, I hear where you are coming from, but I think your case is somewhat > unique. Most people aren't going to look at a GPS with OSM data in it, see > a bunch of residential roads in a rural un-populated area and think, OK, > that must be unedited TIGER, but I know there's a few navigable roads in > there somewhere, I just need to find them, record what I found and make > some OSM edits. If they know the area, they are going to think this data is > junk. If they don't know the area and they head into it they will then > figure out pretty quickly the data is junk. I agree with others that these > roads should probably not be in OSM at all - let the locals add the real > roads and tracks. But we are living with the old TIGER, and there is some > potential usefulness that can come from it. So as others have said, we are > willing to leave them there, downgrade them to track without a grade > assigned for now, maybe make some spatial corrections, delete roads that > are obviously pure fantasy, etc. > > I don't think there should be any requirement to cover a certain size area > when reviewing these areas. We need to be thankful that someone has taken > the time to look at even a small area of rural areas that don't get much > attention normally at all, especially private lands. > Perhaps I'm even weirder than I realized ;). I know that I'm not the *only* one, and yes, it's more of a recognizing bunk data then actually saying, "oh, that's got to be uncorrected TIGER"; I could recognize areas of questionable data on my Garmin well before I got involved in OSM and even knew what TIGER was, and as you noted, "Turn left on Unnamed Road" was one of the warning signs that the route was likely to be interesting (others being minor roads that allegedly go arrow-straight in Vermont for more than half a mile, roads in minimally populated areas that show as higher-grade than the main road connecting two hamlets, etc.). >From what I've seen in both Montana and Vermont, the uncorrected TIGER data generally bears a strong resemblance to *something* on the ground; it does often include long driveways, some private roads, and occasionally paper roads, but in the areas I'm familiar with, a TIGER road usually does have some on-the-ground counterpart, even if many of them are not sedan-friendly. For a lot of reasons, Vermont has very little questionable TIGER left, Montana has a lot more, and I do agree that anyone who can pick away at it is a good thing. I'd still suggest that, whenever possible, modifying a localized road network in one swoop (and thus removing some of the clues that weirdos like me would see as evidence of a good place to explore and a bad shortcut if pressed for time) is helpful and probably less likely to confuse routing engines. -- Kevin Broderick k...@kevinbroderick.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways
If you can cover an entire area (which I'd define as a swath between the nearest state highways), I agree that downgrading to track absent other clues is one reasonable solution. One of my key points is that anyone who's spent a fair bit of time trying to use GPS maps (of any origin) in poorly-mapped areas will quickly recognize an area that is clearly an unverified TIGER import, which signals both (a) that the data is clearly questionable and (b) that it might be an interesting place to explore to find out if the roads do go through or not. The questionable map data can be very useful, especially in conjunction with other data sources, in attempting to piece together a route through an area that lacks fully maintained roadways. If a track doesn't actually exist, yes, then it should certainly be deleted, but I've ridden right-of-ways that were damn near impossible to see with leaf-on imagery and also found other routes that looked more road-like via the same imagery impassable, so I definitely wouldn't delete anything unless you can get there in person and look for evidence of a roadway, perhaps one that hasn't been maintained in decades (e.g. Class IV roads in Vermont and Class VI roads in New Hampshire). Downgrading some ways to tracks without doing so to a whole localized network creates the appearance of a higher level of data accuracy than actually exists, which IMO is more likely to bite someone in the ass than having a localized network of roads that are mislabeled. I know it would make some of the exploring I've done via on/off-road motorcycle more difficult. I'd also suggest that leaving tiger:reviewed at no is appropriate if you haven't been able to travel the road/track in question and determine whether it is really an unclassified road or a track, so it remains flagged for further review if someone has the time and proximity to do so. On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 3:39 PM, Martijn van Exel <m...@rtijn.org> wrote: > I am very happy to see this rekindled interest in TIGER cleanup! > > Having done a fair amount of backcountry exploring, I know that there is a > wide range of road grades and aerial imagery alone is not enough to decide > how navigable a roads is for a particular type of vehicle. Or, for that > matter, what its access limitations are. I do agree with Clifford that > leaving them as poorly aligned 'residential' roads is the worst possible > situation. Yes, worse than deleting the road altogether. What I usually do > is mark the road as track without a track grade tag. This seems to me to be > the most acceptable generic solution for a remote mapper: acknowledging > that something that could potentially be navigated by a 4 wheeled vehicle > exists, without being more specific. Local knowledge can then come to the > rescue to upgrade to unclassified if appropriate. > > Another note on the MapRoulette side of things: I would very much > appreciate your feedback on the new MapRoulette version Clifford linked to. > Just email me, join #maproulette on slack, or file an issue at > https://github.com/maproulette/maproulette3/issues. > > Martijn > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 3:08 PM, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 12:55 PM, Kevin Broderick <k...@kevinbroderick.com >> > wrote: >> >>> Please, please, please don't convert rural roads to tracks based on >>> imagery alone unless it's incredibly clear (and that would exclude anything >>> with forest cover). >>> >>> While many of them should definitely be unclassified, not residential, >>> downgrading the main rural routes to tracks doesn't match local usage nor >>> the functional topology of the road network in such places. There are a lot >>> of USFS and BLM roads around here that are the only way to access >>> significant areas, that commonly see normal passenger-car traffic and that >>> can be traveled at reasonable speed in a sedan (or at 30+ MPH with a little >>> ground clearance and driving skill),. Having these differentiated from true >>> tracks (where even a stock 4x4 is likely going to be operating at 15 MPH or >>> less) is incredibly helpful for routing and visual use of the map, and it's >>> a lot easier to recognize what I'd call "areas of questionable data" when >>> they haven't been aggressively armchair-mapped. Also, the smoothness key is >>> really helpful for tracks and impossible to map from orthoimagery. >>> >>> >> Yes, yes, yes. >> >> In the rural areas that I can travel to readily, TIGER is downright >> hallucinatory (and there are few enough mappers that cleanup has been >> agonizingly slow). TIGER has roads in places where no road is, ever was, or >> even ever could be.
Re: [Talk-us] Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways
n van Exel and I have created a couple of Maproulette tasks to fix > these ways. It's dangerous to leave them. Having a way classified as > residential when they are likely 4WD tracks in the mountain isn't safe. We > don't want some unsuspecting family out on a Sunday drive to get stranded. > If you do work on the tasks be careful not to just delete ways in the > forest as I was reminded recently. They may be used by hikers and hunters. > Correct the highway classification and align the with the imagery. Consider > using Strava heatmaps to assist tracing the ways. > > If you want to help out, jump on one of the tasks below. > Utah: http://maproulette.org/mr3/challenge/2867 (Your chance to try the > beta version of Maproulette 3) > Washington: http://maproulette.org/map/2871 (It doesn't show up when > searching for challenges for reasons that I can't explain) > > Does your state have a problem? Run the following overpass query to find > out: > https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/w74 - just replace "Washington" Need help > creating a Maproulette Challenge - just ask. > > There is one other way to help in a big way. Recruit mappers in rural > areas. Have recommendations on who to target and how to get in touch - > share them. Have some success stories, tell us how you accomplished it. > > Best, > Clifford > > > > -- > @osm_seattle > osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us > OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > -- Kevin Broderick k...@kevinbroderick.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [OSM-talk] place=hamlet in cities
In Annapolis, Maryland, for instance: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/158283000 https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/157577529 http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/150949243 All of the points for which I've reviewed the history were created ten years ago, edited nine years ago, by the same accounts, and have not been updated since. It seems the same issue was brought up on the forum a couple of years ago ( https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=53057), and the suggestion was that landuse polygons were probably most appropriate, and place=subdivision was next-best. I don't think I can effectively armchair-map landuse in cities, but hamlets in densely populated areas clearly don't meet the wiki definition (and, I'd argue, are distinct on-the-ground situations; an isolated hamlet in a rural area is very different than an urban neighbourhood or subdivision). I'm leaning towards place=neighbourhood as being more correct than place=hamlet, although it clearly leaves room for improvement in the form of proper landuse polygons and local knowledge re: names. On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 4:14 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com > wrote: > can you post some examples? > > > cheers, > Martin > -- Kevin Broderick k...@kevinbroderick.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] place=hamlet in cities
It seems like a previous import resulted in a lot of place=hamlet for smaller localities that clearly don't meet the hamlet definition on the wiki. Some are mobile home parks (trailer parks); others are housing developments/apartment complexes, and I think there are probably some that are more properly subdivisions, but all are parts of larger, populated areas, not isolated, rural places with populations less than 200. Does anyone see a problem with armchair-mapping these to place:neighbourhood? I am not planning to do this in an automated fashion, but instead to pick away at it while reviewing areas of interest to some of my coworkers, who have noted that an appropriate rendering for an isolated hamlet doesn't make a lot of sense in a more-populated area. Thanks, Kevin -- Kevin Broderick k...@kevinbroderick.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-us] "toll" related tags appropriate for park entrances?
Functionally, I would argue that payment-required (or pass-required) park entries are effectively the same as a toll, anyhow. I'll give the example of driving to Cooke City, Montana, in the winter—the only way to get there with a wheeled vehicle is via Yellowstone National Park's northwest entrance (and driving through the park). Unless you enter before the entrance booth is manned, they'll be collecting that entrance fee even if you just want to drive through to Cooke.* *: unless you get there late enough at night or early enough in the morning that they don't have the booth staffed. On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 3:16 AM, Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 5:18 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea < > stevea...@softworkers.com> wrote: > >> On Tue Mar 21 21:17:04 UTC 2017 Shawn K. Quinn wrote: >> >On one hand, I can agree withe the principle behind re-purposing of this >> >tag. On the other hand, I can see it being quite possible this is going >> >to throw some routing programs for a loop when "avoid tolls" is selected. >> >> I never thought of that; excellent catch! This feels like one of those >> times where I as human must simply pay attention to "drive with your brain >> making sense of what's right, rather than letting a GPS/computer/navigation >> system/driverless car software... make the decision. >> > > Correct. > > >> (Heh, heh): in the event of a driverless car "stuck" with these data, it >> will be more than its routing software that will be looping! >> >> Seriously, this almost feels like a classic case of trying to tag too >> precisely, then the real world simply intervenes with a "screeching halt" >> exception. >> > > Driving's NP-complete anyway. Don't try to map for something that can't > be fully automated. > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > -- Kevin Broderick k...@kevinbroderick.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Should driveways be on OSM?
In rural parts of the northeast (particularly Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine) it's actually rather helpful to have driveways mapped. In many cases, it's difficult to tell from the main road (with "main" being a relative term) whether a traveled way is the limited-maintenance public right-of-way or a private driveway (and many are privately maintained driveways that also happen to be old roadways with associated public right-of-way, but that's a can of worms for another time). Personally, I'm not opposed to deleting them if it looks like the original TIGER data was drawn by a blind monkey on crack, but if it's a reasonable semblance of reality (even if only for someone who is accustomed to TIGER and its foibles), having it in with reviewed:no is better than deleting it. On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 11:33 PM, Tom Bloom <tombloo...@hotmail.com> wrote: > TIGER drew thousands of driveways that are often simply wrong. They are > tagged private and in my opinion spoil the map appearance with little red > squiggles all over the place. No other map I've found includes them. > Looking around the country, I notice some areas where they were removed, > changed to service roads, drawn de novo, and one area (near Rosebud, OR) > where they were inexplicably changed to living_street, which they just > aren't. > > I've been deleting them if wildly wrong, and would like to delete all I > encounter. Any ideas? > > (I mostly map in the Midwest) > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > -- Kevin Broderick k...@kevinbroderick.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Weigh stations on Interstates
It's worth noting that rules vary heavily by state and, in some cases, may or may not be signed particularly well. South Dakota, for example, has signs posted that all vehicles over 8,000 GVWR, except RVs, should stop (and that would include many pickup trucks and vans), while Montana requires only vehicles at the CDL level (26,000 lbs and above) to stop. Several of the other states I drove through last summer were less descriptive (e.g. All trucks must stop in many cases, without defining exactly what constituted a truck). Personally, I think it could be very helpful to have this data (and, as already suggested, those stations that are almost always open) in OSM, but I don't know what the best ways for tagging it would be. Having recently done a cross-country move in a personally owned box van that was not fully compliant with DOT specification for commercial vehicles, I was very grateful for local advice that led me to avoid a stop at the South Dakota port of entry. On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: While one could get into access tags for weigh stations, it seems like it would create as many problems as it solves. -- A weigh station in the USA is a mandatory stop for heavy goods vehicles, and prohibited entry for everyone else. Heavy goods vehicles with special equipment can bypass the station, if given a bypass signal. Stations are often staffed only during limited hours (many stations are physically present, but open only sporadically). A station, if stopping is required, will add travel time to a hgv. I think you tag it as is is, and let routing software determine the applicable national laws for who it stops. The tagging should relate to a given way, perhaps with addr:street, or a more fiddly relation. -- A related concept is a hunter check station, and a boat check station (checking hunting permits and checking for invasive weeds respectively). California USA has agricultural check stations, mandatory for all vehicles, looking for invasive pests. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us -- Kevin Broderick k...@kevinbroderick.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Tagging a seasonally closed roads with uncertain spring opening
Having recently moved to Red Lodge, Montana, I'm trying to update some of the map data around here, as a lot of it is untouched TIGER data that seems to be fairly imaginative. Just south of town, US-212 is closed for the winter. The closing date is mid-October (varies a little year-to-year, but it is calendar-based) and the opening date is based on when the road is clear of snow, ice, and other debris (i.e. significant variation year-to-year is possible). When the road is closed, it is truly closed (per signs and gate); it's not just a unmaintained, travel at your own risk situation. Anyone have suggestions for tagging this segment of road? date_on and date_off were the best options I came up with in a search, but the variation in opening date seems to make that a bad choice. -- Kevin Broderick k...@kevinbroderick.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Fw: Re: Dirt Roads (formerly: Abandoned railway)
: Abandoned railway) We have seen no major routing disasters because of the largely fictional rural TIGER landscape, and I don’t feel an urgent need to do something about it on this scale. The affected areas mostly have no meaningful destinations anyway, and where they do, people will get around to updating them. We can prioritize the more meaningful areas using a TIGER ghost town analysis along the lines of the TIGER desert analysis I did some time ago: http://oegeo.wordpress.com/2012/10/21/binders-full-of-tiger-deserts/ (this would actually be fun to do. Would people fix TIGER ghost towns if I pointed them out?) highway=residential may be inappropriate, but it’s not as wrong as marking all unedited TIGER residential ways with access=no - which would make entire areas unreachable altogether. Also identifying the ‘untouched TiGER’ ways is not super straightforward as several bots have touched most ways in the US anyway, so you’d need to look at the full history to make that call reliably. -- Martijn van Exel Telenav From: Nick Hocking nick.hock...@gmail.com nick.hock...@gmail.com Reply: Nick Hocking nick.hock...@gmail.com nick.hock...@gmail.com Date: September 1, 2014 at 9:28:45 PM To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org talk-us@openstreetmap.org talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Dirt Roads (formerly: Abandoned railway) While people work out how to remove the multitude of tiger ways that don't actually exist, downgrade others from the incorrect residential to unclassified or track depending on imagery or ground survey, and fix the geometry of all unedited TIGER data, I beleive that it's absolutely essential (from safety and useability perspectives) to immediately mark all these uncertain ways as unroutable. Whether to make them driveways or use access=no , I've no idea. I think thrse ways can easily be identified by... 1) They are original TIGER data import 2) They have not been edited since import 3) They are higway=residential 4) They are unnamed A bot could do this easily and then it really doesn't matter how long it takes to find the best solution. ___ 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 -- Kevin Broderick k...@kevinbroderick.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging of private roads
It varies by jurisdiction within the U.S., too; Vermont has an Ancient Roads doctrine that has kept many right-of-ways legally open despite towns no longer maintaining them. It gets a bit more complicated in that some of them are posted contrary to their legal status, and the only way to definitively answer the question at this point in time is to dig through local records dating back to the founding of the town in question. Vermont has changed the law recently to require all towns document all their right-of-ways on the standard town highway maps within a certain number of years, which I think is coming up soon. I believe that New Hampshire and Maine also have historic right-of-ways that are no longer town-maintained but are still legally open to public travel. To bring this back on topic (at least somewhat), I've been tagging many of the Vermont ancient roads as tracks (which they are) and explicitly setting motor_vehicle=yes, foot=yes, etc to indicate public access. Whether or not to route on such ways is a whole other topic, I suspect. On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 9:47 PM, john whelan jwhelan0...@gmail.com wrote: In the UK there are rights of way which date back in time to the days of pack horses and long distance footpaths. I don't think you have the equivalent in North America. So in the UK a right of way may still follow a privately maintained road. It's probably better to leave the tagging of this to local mappers who hopefully know the rules/laws and they are different in different countries. Cheerio John On 3 August 2014 21:35, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: In the USA, it depends upon whether the property owner has given permission for public use. If a private road through an apartment complex is signed as residents and guests only, for example, an outsider driving through can be charged with trespassing. On August 3, 2014 6:50:55 AM CDT, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: It depends whether a right of way exists. Things are rather complicated in the UK. Private means private, so no entry by default. If you are visiting an address on a private road, you have presumably been invited, explicitly or implicitly. An unofficial sign residents only might not have any force in law. A road in private ownership, with a public right of way, can be used though if it is a byway open to all traffic. Landowners often object to rights of way across their land and might try to discourage their use with misleading signs. On 3 August 2014 12:43:50 CEST, Matthijs Melissen i...@matthijsmelissen.nl wrote: On 3 August 2014 11:18, Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com wrote: Residential roads in the UK often seem to have 'private road' signs, such as: - 'Private road' - 'Private road no parking' - 'Private road no parking no turning' - 'Residents only no unauthorised parking or turning' How do people tag these roads? For which of these would you use access=private? I would tag them all with access=destination, unless there are additional signs that forbid entering. A private road is privately owned and maintained, but you normally may use it to reach the properties facing it as visitor or for delivery purposes. Most private roads are cul-de-sacs, but in the hypothetical situation where a private road connects two non-private roads, would there be a legal reason you couldn't use the private road as shortcut? -- Matthijs ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Kevin Broderick k...@kevinbroderick.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-us] Beach routing
It seems like using the access tags solves the second issue. The first one I'm less sure about, and it will vary greatly depending on the user and the vehicle—one person's sandy day from hell is another's fun day on the beach. And, if my assumption that the whole beach is open to travel by whatever access tags are placed holds, it makes more sense to promulgate the convention that the area may be transited than to mark fictitious paths just to keep the rendering and routing algorithms happy. On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Bryan Housel br...@7thposition.com wrote: I thought about this, but not all beaches are navigable. Some really are pretty treacherous, and I don’t think this is always easy to tell from aerial imagery. I have also been to perfectly navigable beaches where you are specifically not allowed to use vehicles because turtles build their nests there. I think it is safer to assume that a beach should not be used for navigation unless it’s explicitly tagged for it (and I think a path or track is the most straightforward way of tagging this). On Jul 11, 2014, at 9:04 AM, Andrew Guertin andrew.guer...@uvm.edu wrote: Contrary to the other replies, why not just teach the routers that beaches are something that can be walked (or ridden or driven) on? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us -- Kevin Broderick k...@kevinbroderick.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] routing tags used by actual routing applications
Highway=service implies a private road, though; if a public road dead-ends at a single building or facility, it should be =residential or =unclassified, right? The tracktype= key is also not really applicable to many of the unmaintained roads around here, at least as described on the wiki. The description implies that a track is a continuum from a maintained roadway to a virtually invisible path across a field. The unmaintained roads in this part of the country are usually old roadways that were established before modern engineering standards; many of them go up and down the fall line and have waterbars, washouts, rock ledges, or all of the above. For example: https://scontent-a-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t31.0-8/1267970_716253801218_1989759584_o.jpg https://scontent-a-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/t31.0-8/1266483_716253736348_406630391_o.jpg https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/t31.0-8/1264969_716254075668_897288595_o.jpg https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/t31.0-8/10317804_767096626788_7562385056086790114_o.jpg All of these photos are unmaintained roads in Vermont. The last one is probably reasonable for a high-clearance, AWD car (e.g. Subaru) in the hands of a competent driver, and definitely should be passable by a skilled driver in a 4x4 pickup or Jeep. The other three would probably require a modified 4x4 and the right skillset. They are also legal right-of-ways, so clearly access=yes for all vehicle types (even though I wouldn't want to get routed down one of those unknowingly). I've been using the smoothness key to provide additional data on such tracks, which I realize is a universally agreed solution, but it's the best one I've found to date; I'd be open to further suggestions. On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-07-03 17:36 GMT+02:00 Brad Neuhauser brad.neuhau...@gmail.com: Just trying to process this: wouldn't a tracktype 1 be tagged as unclassified or residential anyway? Or to ask a different way, assuming that roads with houses should be tagged as residential, when should one tag a sub-tertiary road as track vs. using unclassified? You'd always tag it as unclassified, unless it is not a connection road and is used only for agricultural / forestry purposes. If it is not a connection road but used to access a certain building / facility, use service. E.g. this is clearly a track: http://binged.it/1odgrTZ or this: http://binged.it/1j0zEud in case of doubt I'd put unclassified ;-) cheers, Martin ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us -- Kevin Broderick k...@kevinbroderick.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] routing tags used by actual routing applications
IMO (based on both the wiki and what I've seen on the map), highway=track implies something that is not reasonably drivable by normal passenger cars at a normal rate of travel. In Vermont, we have a whole lot of unpaved roads that are perfectly fine at 35-45 MPH (well, except for mud season); those seem to fit highway=unclassified or highway=residential better than highway=track. The routing discussion does get into a bit of sticky area that applies at least to Vermont, New Hampshire and Massachusetts—all three have old roadways that remain legal right-of-ways but that are not town-maintained. Some are privately maintained to normal road standards, others are maintained to some lesser standard (e.g. So I can get my pickup up to camp), others have very little to no ongoing maintenance but get traveled by 4x4s and dual-sport motorcycles (whose operators are likely to clear deadfall but not to replace washed-out culverts, for example), and others have reverted to forest or may even have been paper roads that were plotted with inadequate knowledge of topography (up cliffs, etc.). According to the wiki, those should be tagged motor_vehicle=yes because a road-legal vehicle is *legally* allowed to travel them (*Access values* are used to describe the *legal* access for highway http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway=*s), but I sure as heck don't want to get routed down some of them when driving my Taurus. I may very well want to get routed down them while riding my dual-sport motorcycle or if I was out in a 4x4 truck. As I've been updating data in Vermont, I've been relabeling highway=unclassified or highway=residential to highway=track if it would seem to be an unpleasant surprise while operating said Taurus, and I've been using the somewhat debated smoothness= tag to add further data where possible. I've also been adding in missing sections of those unmaintained right-of-ways, usually as highway=track, that were not on the TIGER imports. IMO, the default expected behavior of a routing system should be to avoid highway=track unless specifically encouraged to do so by user input (whether by selecting a particular activity or by the user putting a waypoint on a track), and we should encourage renderers to clearly distinguish tracks from roads. Also IMO, any track that is at all visible on the ground and congruent with a legal, public right-of-way, ought to be on the map. However, we do need to tag them appropriately so that routing and rendering systems can distinguish those ways that are legal for motor vehicles but physically impassible for most from those that are legal and readily passable (and, where possible, also distinguish the converse—those that are passable but not legal ROW). On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: I would expect tracks to be in play except when explicitly excluding unpaved roads, barring surface tags to the contrary, otherwise as a last resort. Much of the US doesn't pave county roads, yet they're often packed and graded to the point someone with a low slung sedan can safely do 45 on them. On Jul 1, 2014 3:37 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Il giorno 01/lug/2014, alle ore 23:15, Jason Remillard remillard.ja...@gmail.com ha scritto: For example, scout does not route over highway=tracks, unless you are in pedestrian mode. It seems like a reasonable decision, perhaps all of the routers do this, no, some routers do use tracks for car routing (I'd expect a router to use tracks for cars, but only as a last resort when there are no alternatives) In your original post you mentioned path and cycleway, those should indeed not route cars but the wiki documentation says nothing of the sort, and it surprised me. I'd file a bug at scout and see what they respond, you should definitely not adapt osm data based on one router cheers, Martin ___ 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 -- Kevin Broderick k...@kevinbroderick.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
