Re: [Talk-us] tagging cul-de-sacs
On 5/15/2012 2:23 PM, Alan Mintz wrote: At 2012-05-15 11:19, Clifford Snow wrote: I tag culs-de-sac as turning_circles and only draw a circular way when there is an island in the middle. But I have a question. Where should the turning_circle node be placed? In the middle of the culs-de-sac or where the street enters the culs-de-sac? The center of the circle, like any other node meant to represent an area. If the street is straight leading into a turning circle that's on one side of the road, I'll usually keep it straight and put the node on the edge of the circle. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Blocking of user WorstFixer for removing ele=0 etc
At 2012-05-13 02:49, Frederik Ramm wrote: Removing ele=0 from objects is, in my opinion, totally unnecessary; And maybe incorrect, as ele=0 means we know the elevation is 0, while no ele tag means we do not know the elevation. like created_by, over which WorstFixer made a similar fuss, such information could be removed where an object is touched for some other reason but I don't see why it would have to be mass-removed. The reason for this may not be obvious to some. I assume it's because we store history of all objects, and it's a waste of space, not to mention bandwidth and processing resources to push the changes out to the mirrors, for almost no benefit. I just add created_by='' to my JOSM presets (or maybe it does this automatically now) so I clean it up when performing other edits. Even so, a mass-removal would be ok if proposed, discussed, and accepted by the community like we expect everyone to; it's not ok to just do it on your own and see if someone notices. Yes. Having said all that, OSMTI says there are 23 million nodes (33% of the total) with created_by tags! This seemed surprisingly high to me. I retrieved nodes from 300 random 0.1x0.1 degree bboxes. Of those, only 37 returned any nodes at all**. All but 6 of those areas had no created_by tags on their nodes. Of those, only 2 were significant in percentage*, both in Norway. #137 had 1558 nodes, 801 of which (51%) have created_by tags. BLTR: 68.13713.766 68.237 13.866 #264 had 2297 nodes, 1946 of which (85%) have created_by tags. BLTR: 60.787 4.900 60.887 5.000 In #137, they are mostly tagged: tag k=created_by v=JOSM/ (TI says this makes up 63% of the values) In #264, they are mostly tagged: tag k=created_by v=almien_coastlines/ (TI says this makes up 10% of the values) tag k=source v=PGS(could be inacurately)/ My questions are: 1. Would removing the created_by from 33% of the nodes in the database save significant storage space, dump size, backup time, etc.? 2. Is it possible to remove these in bulk from the database without having to keep the history, push those diffs to mirrors, etc.? Do the mirrors occasionally start fresh from a new dump? Or can they run the same bulk purge? Or do I overestimate the necessity of doing it this way (and we can just clean it up with the regular tools and processes)? * While not a significant portion of the total nodes in the area (only 4%), there were almost 600 created-by-tagged nodes in this file from England: #123 had 14013 nodes, 594 of which (4%) have created_by tags. BLTR: 51.0860.088 51.186 0.188 ** I guess this clarifies why old satellites that fall from their orbits and other space junk never seem to hit anything, even if they survive re-entry :) -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Blocking of user WorstFixer for removing ele=0 etc
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote: At 2012-05-13 02:49, Frederik Ramm wrote: Removing ele=0 from objects is, in my opinion, totally unnecessary; And maybe incorrect, as ele=0 means we know the elevation is 0, while no ele tag means we do not know the elevation. I just did a check on the data. Turns out most of the nodes with ele=0 are probably correct. Most of them are imports from GNIS and are coastal features. Except in Arizona where there are 300 GNIS nodes with ele=0 most of which are probably not at sea level. On the other hand the most popular ele=* tag is ele=0.0 which is overwhelmingly found on ways. (42,000 of them) This seems to be from some bad imports where an undefined elevation in the source or some other misunderstanding seems to have been translated to 0.0 in the OSM upload. One of the bigger offenders seems to be an NHD import in western Colorado with over 13,000 ways tagged with ele=0.0 - yes, that's western Colorado where the Rockies are. Nowhere near sea level... In this case I would actually argue that it should maybe be cleaned up as import maintenance. like created_by, over which WorstFixer made a similar fuss, such information could be removed where an object is touched for some other reason but I don't see why it would have to be mass-removed. The reason for this may not be obvious to some. I assume it's because we store history of all objects, and it's a waste of space, not to mention bandwidth and processing resources to push the changes out to the mirrors, for almost no benefit. I just add created_by='' to my JOSM presets (or maybe it does this automatically now) so I clean it up when performing other edits. Even so, a mass-removal would be ok if proposed, discussed, and accepted by the community like we expect everyone to; it's not ok to just do it on your own and see if someone notices. Yes. Having said all that, OSMTI says there are 23 million nodes (33% of the total) with created_by tags! This seemed surprisingly high to me. Err last time I checked we had over 1 billion nodes. So 2% not 33. I retrieved nodes from 300 random 0.1x0.1 degree bboxes. Of those, only 37 returned any nodes at all**. All but 6 of those areas had no created_by tags on their nodes. Of those, only 2 were significant in percentage*, both in Norway. #137 had 1558 nodes, 801 of which (51%) have created_by tags. BLTR: 68.137 13.766 68.237 13.866 #264 had 2297 nodes, 1946 of which (85%) have created_by tags. BLTR: 60.787 4.900 60.887 5.000 In #137, they are mostly tagged: tag k=created_by v=JOSM/ (TI says this makes up 63% of the values) In #264, they are mostly tagged: tag k=created_by v=almien_coastlines/ (TI says this makes up 10% of the values) tag k=source v=PGS(could be inacurately)/ My questions are: 1. Would removing the created_by from 33% of the nodes in the database save significant storage space, dump size, backup time, etc.? 2. Is it possible to remove these in bulk from the database without having to keep the history, push those diffs to mirrors, etc.? Do the mirrors occasionally start fresh from a new dump? Or can they run the same bulk purge? Or do I overestimate the necessity of doing it this way (and we can just clean it up with the regular tools and processes)? Not even the license change bot is going to completely delete/hide history and I think it is going to be the biggest automated change in the history of the project. It will cause some parts of the history to be hidden from public view but they will continue to exist in the database. Makes me wonder... how many created_by tags are going to be nuked by the license change bot? :) Toby ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Blocking of user WorstFixer for removing ele=0 etc
At 2012-05-15 15:21, Toby Murray wrote: On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote: Yes. Having said all that, OSMTI says there are 23 million nodes (33% of the total) with created_by tags! This seemed surprisingly high to me. Err last time I checked we had over 1 billion nodes. So 2% not 33. I'm guessing that Taginfo drops (understandably) any objects without tags before it analyzes the data, and the percentages are based on this filtered number of objects. There are 1,458,341,105 nodes, only 70,486,257 of which have any tags. 33% of _those_ (70M) have created_by tags. TI maintainers: Would you think about basing the percentages on the total unfiltered counts and possibly adding rows for no tag to the lists where appropriate? My questions are: 1. Would removing the created_by from 33% of the nodes in the database save significant storage space, dump size, backup time, etc.? 2. Is it possible to remove these in bulk from the database without having to keep the history, push those diffs to mirrors, etc.? Do the mirrors occasionally start fresh from a new dump? Or can they run the same bulk purge? Or do I overestimate the necessity of doing it this way (and we can just clean it up with the regular tools and processes)? Not even the license change bot is going to completely delete/hide history and I think it is going to be the biggest automated change in the history of the project. It will cause some parts of the history to be hidden from public view but they will continue to exist in the database. Makes me wonder... how many created_by tags are going to be nuked by the license change bot? :) I can understand why that is - it's being worked on by many people, may need partial revertability, will probably run for a long time, etc. Removal of one tag in bulk doesn't present these issues, and may be possible, which is why I'm asking: a) does it help; and b) is it possible? -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Vandalism by ZeGermanata needs sorting out
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/ZeGermanata/edits Vandalism includes the following: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/21523281/history changing ref=US 41 to US 241 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/163035927/history fake motorway bypass http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/162757131/history fake subway woodpeck_repair reverted some *but not all* of the vandalism (for example, US 241 is still tagged as such). Subsequent edits have also been made by Tom Layo e.g. here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/17892247/history So reverting is complicated. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] U.S. inland waterways
Is anyone familiar with the regulations governing the U.S. inland waterways (such as the Mississippi River and the Intracoastal Waterway)? From my brief look, it seems to be less these barge configurations are allowed and more you can go anywhere but don't crash. Is this correct, or are there defined maximum sizes? In either case, any idea what the suitable tags might look like (other than the generic boat=yes ship=yes)? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] U.S. inland waterways
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 11:01 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: Is anyone familiar with the regulations governing the U.S. inland waterways (such as the Mississippi River and the Intracoastal Waterway)? It's been a long time since I've done any boating, so I'm not an expert or anything... but some of the questions you ask below cross a lot of jursidictional boundaries. From my brief look, it seems to be less these barge configurations are allowed Allowable barge configurations are largely determined by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, because they are the ones that built and operate the locks and dams and dredge river channels to maintain navigability. and more you can go anywhere but don't crash. Mostly, except for: 1) Waterways or shorelines that are privately owned. 2) Wildlife refuges allow some uses but not others 3) Areas near dams or other infrastructure that would be either dangerous or present security issues. Which is pretty much just like on land... Is this correct, or are there defined maximum sizes? Maximum boat sizes on inland waterways is largely a practical matter, although the U. S. Coast Guard has rules and regulations designed to promote safety (much like the NHTSA does for motor vehicles). In the same way that the size of the Panama Canal created the Panamax ship size, locks and dams control the size of boats on inland waterways. In either case, any idea what the suitable tags might look like (other than the generic boat=yes ship=yes)? I guess that depends on what you're trying to do... If you are trying to tag the largest possible vessel that can navigate a waterway (under normal conditions at least) you could probably come up with a reasonable set of tags. Inland waterways are highly dynamic though... -- Jeff Ollie ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] U.S. inland waterways
On 5/16/2012 1:06 AM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote: In either case, any idea what the suitable tags might look like (other than the generic boat=yes ship=yes)? I guess that depends on what you're trying to do... If you are trying to tag the largest possible vessel that can navigate a waterway (under normal conditions at least) you could probably come up with a reasonable set of tags. Inland waterways are highly dynamic though... I'm trying to do something like the European tagging: http://www.itoworld.com/map/24 But there they have some sort of international treaty that defines configurations. Do you know of any reasonable way to define large vs. small? I know there's deep-draft shipping, but most inland waterways don't support that (since barges are apparently shallow-draft). ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
