Re: [OSM-talk] Applying different restrictions in different directions on a road
On 20/12/16 11:37, joost schouppe wrote: The bicycle wiki page has examples for many different kinds of situations: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle Basically, you can have restrictions based on mode of transport (eg oneway:bycicle) or if really needed have access tags with a direction (bicycle:forward). Thank you for the pointer. If I read things correctly, it looks like the following tags should achieve what is needed: oneway=yes oneway:bicycle=no oneway:bus=no 2016-12-20 11:34 GMT+01:00 Sebastian Arcus <s.ar...@open-t.co.uk <mailto:s.ar...@open-t.co.uk>>: I think I have asked this before a long time ago here - but I can't find the original message, or remember the answer I'm afraid. I am trying to add tags to a road which has permission for all vehicles forward, but only buses and bicycles backward. I can't get my head around how to do this. Should I make it one-way, and somehow add exceptions for buses and bicycles in the opposite direction? I guess I can't use buslane=*, as it's not just a bus lane - or should I? Also, if I add buslane=*, will that translate automatically into prohibition for the rest of the vehicles in one of the directions? Any suggestions much appreciated. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk> -- Joost Schouppe OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> | Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup <http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/> ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Applying different restrictions in different directions on a road
I think I have asked this before a long time ago here - but I can't find the original message, or remember the answer I'm afraid. I am trying to add tags to a road which has permission for all vehicles forward, but only buses and bicycles backward. I can't get my head around how to do this. Should I make it one-way, and somehow add exceptions for buses and bicycles in the opposite direction? I guess I can't use buslane=*, as it's not just a bus lane - or should I? Also, if I add buslane=*, will that translate automatically into prohibition for the rest of the vehicles in one of the directions? Any suggestions much appreciated. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Lot's of locality names in an otherwise empty area
On 21/11/16 12:49, Andy Townsend wrote:
On 21/11/2016 11:42, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Sebastian Arcus wrote:
Well, looking at the map, it looks like each and every parcel of
land and section of field has a locality tag associated with it.
It's very common in the UK, too, for uninhabited sections of woodland and
hillside to have placenames.
... and fields, of course. Where I was brought up the names in use were
mostly just descriptive ("The Twenty Acre Field", "Piggy Thompson's
Fields", etc.), but they were in OSM terms at least "loc_names". Very
few were verifable beyond "find a local old person and ask them" though.
However "names on a map" doesn't always mean "names of places". Ordnance
Survey data in the UK is riddled with them, and some are little more
than historic names. Anything that's taken OS data on board without
local vetting will share that problem. As an example,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_End,_Derbyshire was originally a
"village" in wikipedia; it got changed to the curious "a place noted on
a map" at
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Common_End,_Derbyshire=next=302498425
when various people (including me, who has lived down the road for 30
years) said "it's not actually a village!".
Obviously names change over time. In the Common End case I suspect it
was never much more than a farm, like Owlcotes to the north (another
"place" according to OS maps). Another example of that is here:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/54.5567/-8.2094
There there's a modern village ("Rossnowlagh") but two townlands
("Rossnowlagh Upper" http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5625290 and
"Rossnowlagh Lower" http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5625293).
Those two were also imported as
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5224127 and
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/52242180. The "Upper" and "Lower"
versions aren't signed on the ground and aren't villages any more
(though likely once had significant populations); the modern village
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2349484921/history I added based on
survey, after checking with #osm-ie what best to do.
it still seems a bit odd - and begs the question if those tags
really need to be there.
Why not? Be conservative in what you change/delete in OSM, be liberal in
what you add.
Indeed - but there's no harm in asking the question, and as Colin Smale
said yesterday, the logical people to ask, if you can't find a local
80-year-old, are the people that added it.
Thank you everybody - this has been an enlightening thread!
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Lot's of locality names in an otherwise empty area
On 21/11/16 09:51, Andrew Errington wrote: It could be tagging for the renderer. A 'locality' tag causes a label to appear on the map. That has crossed my mind. Actually, that is how the issue came to my attention - on my GPS navigation software, which uses OSM maps, it appears as if the area is riddled with lots and lots of villages or something, on every field. Maybe I should contact the Navit developers and suggest that "locality" tag is not rendered any more in Navit. Best wishes, Andrew On Nov 21, 2016 6:43 PM, "Sebastian Arcus" <s.ar...@open-t.co.uk <mailto:s.ar...@open-t.co.uk>> wrote: On 21/11/16 08:36, Rory McCann wrote: Additionally, there might be nothing there *now*, but there might have been things there in the past, and the name as stuck around, as a locality. Just because a place is unpopulated doesn't mean the place doesn't have a name! Well, looking at the map, it looks like each and every parcel of land and section of field has a locality tag associated with it. Even allowing for places which don't exist any more and other local/cultural differences, it still seems a bit odd - and begs the question if those tags really need to be there. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk> ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Lot's of locality names in an otherwise empty area
On 21/11/16 08:36, Rory McCann wrote: Additionally, there might be nothing there *now*, but there might have been things there in the past, and the name as stuck around, as a locality. Just because a place is unpopulated doesn't mean the place doesn't have a name! Well, looking at the map, it looks like each and every parcel of land and section of field has a locality tag associated with it. Even allowing for places which don't exist any more and other local/cultural differences, it still seems a bit odd - and begs the question if those tags really need to be there. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Lot's of locality names in an otherwise empty area
I'm looking at the following section of OSM: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/42.9959/-8.3908 I see lots and lots of locality names, on what the satellite imagery confirms to be otherwise just empty fields and forests. I'm pretty sure I've seen this elsewhere on OSM, in another part of the world. Does anybody know why are all these place names there - in the middle of nowhere? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-us] Merging a GNIS node with a TIGER way - for a town
Note that if you delete the node, the city name will no longer be rendered on osm.org http://osm.org or Mapquest Open. Not sure about other renderings but I'm guessing a lot of them do the same thing. Another way of fixing the nominatim problem is to create a boundary relation for the city. Move the tags from the way to the relation and then add the node to the relation with a role of label as this will cause nominatim to merge the two into a single entity while still rendering the name on the map. Thanks to everybody for pitching in on this. I went in the end with the relation idea and merging all the tags from both the node and the way as tags of the relation. I'm slightly confused as I think it would have made sense that the way should have a membership role of boundary, but JOSM didn't like that, so I had to use boundary as the type of the relation - which I find confusing. It's the first time I work with relations, so if somebody could double-check what I did came out OK, I'd be grateful. As a side-note, I find it a bit bizarre that the municipality has the power to name itself whatever it well pleases in California, as opposed to the state or federal government deciding if a place is a town, city etc. based on some objective criteria. It must be working for them though :-) I have some trouble though with the notion of village in the US. Looking back to what I know about US (which could be partially wrong), I'm not sure they really have the true notion of village as per many other places in the world. In the US, it always seemed to be about isolated farms, and towns. Both from a size point of view, but most importantly from a functional point of view. In Europe and other parts of the world, the notion of village is steeped in a long history of a group of people working the land, and many times being subject to the authority of one local land owner. All of that doesn't really exist in the US, if my knowledge serves me right. Even the smallest of settlements (bigger than a farm) seemed to have started in the US around a group of facilities, such as shops, entertainment venues, trading facilities etc. - which would directly correspond functionally to a town. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Merging a GNIS node with a TIGER way - for a town
If a search is done for Fortuna, CA in OSM, two different entities show up at the top, for the same thing. One is from a TIGER import, one is from a GNIS import. One is a node the other one is for the boundaries of the place. I assume a place doesn't need to have both a node and a way. If I delete the node, do I copy all its tags and place them on the way? Would that result in a confusing soup of both TIGER specific and GNIS specific tags? Is that still OK? On top of it, one of them claims Fortuna, CA is a town, while the other claims it is a city. I suppose this one can be settled with a research through some other online and offline resources - so not a biggie. When I was there it definitely seemed like a town and not a city to me - but I'm not sure what rules are used for this type of classification in the US. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Help needed with polygon/membership of admin area in Willits, CA
I'm doing a bit of mapping in Willits, CA - and a quick search of Willits, CA in OSM returns this lonely polygon in the middle of, pretty much, nowhere: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/39.38187/-123.30127 According to JOSM, it is a member of a larger membership - but I'm not sure how to use JOSM to find the other group members on the map - to try and guess what's going on. I'm assuming this particular element is some sort of mistake - but if anybody can take a look and clear things up a bit - it would help. I know GNIS imports contain some bad data - but maybe someone could guess what it was all supposed to look like - or why is this polygon where it is. Thanks ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Help needed with polygon/membership of admin area in Willits, CA
On 26/01/14 18:54, Richard Welty wrote: On 1/26/14 1:46 PM, Sebastian Arcus wrote: Thanks all. Is it possibly to make it so that a search in OSM for Willits, CA brings up the whole relationship - as opposed to several separate elements, which when clicked send you to some spot in the middle of nowhere? If all of them are part of the same relationship - shouldn't the relationship be named Willits - and shouldn't it be the only one coming up in the search? I'm asking because I'm not sure how these things work. the relation is named Willits, which is as it should be, so this is properly a tools issue rather than a data issue. Nominatim came up with two answers for Willits. one was the individual polygon, and one captured the entire area surrounding the City. not sure why that is. Could it be because the polygon has place_name=Willits as an attribute? In that case, would it be safe to delete this attribute, as it is the name of the relationship that's important? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Help needed with polygon/membership of admin area in Willits, CA
On 26/01/14 19:22, Richard Welty wrote: On 1/26/14 2:13 PM, Richard Welty wrote: On 1/26/14 2:07 PM, Sebastian Arcus wrote: Could it be because the polygon has place_name=Willits as an attribute? In that case, would it be safe to delete this attribute, as it is the name of the relationship that's important? maybe, but the same thing is true of admin boundary relations all over the US. i will delete the tags from the individual ways (as they're unnecessary if the boundary relation is properly tagged) and we'll see if it cleans up. Nominatim updates very quickly so we'll know shortly. deleting the unnecessary did clean things up in Nominatim. Thanks Richard. That looks sweet now. Thanks for the help - I don't yet understand these things very well - so I thought I better ask for some assistance instead of doing something silly. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
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 mailto:talk-us-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: Send Talk-us mailing list submissions to talk-us@openstreetmap.org mailto: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 mailto:talk-us-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at talk-us-ow...@openstreetmap.org mailto: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 mailto:s.ar...@open-t.co.uk To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org mailto: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 mailto: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 mailto:rwe...@averillpark.net To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Help with non-existent school in Big Sur, CA area Message-ID: 52c9e511.9060...@averillpark.net mailto:52c9e511.9060...@averillpark.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 On 1/5/14 3:21 PM, Sebastian Arcus wrote: 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
[Talk-us] Help with non-existent school in Big Sur, CA area
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 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[OSM-talk] Element on OSM which don't exist in real life
First off, I hope this is the right place to ask mapping questions - otherwise could you suggest the best mailing list please. I am doing some mapping along the Interstate 5 in California based on my own notes and data collected. What I keep on finding is elements on OSM which don't seem to exist in reality. For example: 1. Kettleman Station: http://osm.org/go/TY2PBnA1M?node=150964893 This appears to be some sort of industrial installation - why would it be marked as a hamlet? Both the Bing satellite imagery and a peak at Google Streeview confirm that there are no residences in the area. 2. All across these fields: http://osm.org/go/TY2PBU33 there are numerous roads - some of them even with names and/or codes. On satellite view they appear to be nothing more than dirt tracks at best - some of them not even that. When I was there a month ago, those were just empty barren hills. I don't quite understand why the maze of highways giving the impression of some densely populated area. Along the I5 there seem to be numerous examples like the above. Is there some element of local knowledge that escapes me - and those features actually exist? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Element on OSM which don't exist in real life
On 02/12/13 19:32, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 02.12.2013 20:12, Sebastian Arcus wrote: First off, I hope this is the right place to ask mapping questions - otherwise could you suggest the best mailing list please. There's also a talk-us list if you have questions specific to the US of A. But talk is just fine. We can use a diversion. I am doing some mapping along the Interstate 5 in California based on my own notes and data collected. What I keep on finding is elements on OSM which don't seem to exist in reality. For example: Your editor might allow you to inspect an object's author(s) and history, or if not, you can go to the web site, zoom in, and activate the data layer. With that I could see that the roads you mention have been imported from the TIGER data set 6 years ago and not touched since. This means that anything you gather from an aerial image or even personal survey surely trumps that data! Had the research turned up that a mapper edited these roads just weeks or months ago, potentially even indicating they did a survey, then it would be in order to contact that person and discuss the issue. But not with a 6 year old data import. Same but different for the Kettleman Station node, this has been imported 5 years ago from a GNIS data set and deserves no more respect than the rest - if there's nobody living there then it's likely not a hamlet. Thank Frederik. I'm actually working in JOSM, and I've spotted those import tags - but as I still feel like a newbie when it comes to all things OSM, I thought I'd check with the community so that I don't do something silly. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Element on OSM which don't exist in real life
On 02/12/13 20:26, Richard Welty wrote: Thank Frederik. I'm actually working in JOSM, and I've spotted those import tags - but as I still feel like a newbie when it comes to all things OSM, I thought I'd check with the community so that I don't do something silly. Welcome to TIGER and GNIS! what Fredrick said is true; i'm going to add some US specific info. there is some bad data in the GNIS import. when i encounter obviously bogus objects from the GNIS import, i just delete them. just the other day i deleted a GNIS object which suggested someone had a heliport in their back yard a little south of Albany NY. i didn't see a heliport. as for non-existent roads in TIGER, it happens. there are various reasons for it, but if you're looking at unreviewed TIGER (look for a tiger:review=no tag) and you can't find the matching real world entities, you are fully justified in deleting them. if you do verify a road exists, then also verify its topology (is it hooked up the way the map shows), its name (from the road signs) and its location (bing imagery is good for this, as are personally collected GPS tracks). if those check out you are justified in removing the tiger:reviewed tag (if you are fastidious, you can change it to yes, but most of us just delete it. fewer mouse clicks that way.) as for the reasons - TIGER data quality varies quite widely, seemingly from county to county. it is getting better - if you compare the 2005 data which is what we imported to 2013 data you can see the improvement. but there are cases where obviously someone sketched out a map then freehanded it into the database, and there are cases where a developer got their roads into the database before they failed to finance the development project. if you look at the image dropdown, you will see a tiger 2012 underlayment. you can use this to compare what's in OSM to the 2012 data set. so don't be afraid to fix it. there is bad data in TIGER. mistakes happen. richard Thanks Richard. Very helpful explanation and pointers. Sebastian ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
