Re: [Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s)
Please see notes below:
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote:
Right. So what do you think of the set of rules that I posted a bit ago?
Well... I like mine better. ('natch!) Pursue the truth agreement do
no harm. is a little easier to remember and covers all the cases covered
by the 5 rules put forth.
It seems that, if followed, rules 3-5 will almost certainly create more
confusion than they resolve.
There *is* standardization -- the set of Key and Tag descriptions in
the Wiki. Everybody should edit the way they describe. If they are
ambiguous, then you should look at the way people are using the tags,
and put that into the wiki. If people aren't tagging consistently,
then you should ask for help.
The whole point is that everything in the database should have a clear
meaning. It's okay if there are two different ways to enter the same
thing. Yes, that makes life harder on data consumers, but as long as
they can understand what a tag means, they can figure out what that
means for their usage of the map. Chances are good that
highway=path/bicycle=yes and highway=cycleway will get rendered the
same way.
I can vouch only for my own perspective, which is that there does not
appear (to me) that everything has clear meaning and that there are many
flavors of standardization. The fact that there are 2 (or more) different
ways to enter the same thing makes meaning less, not more, clear. I do
think this deserves its own thread will create such a thread (assuming
it's not a retread rethread), but not tonight.
--
--my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
--
Jeff Meyer
Global World History Atlas
www.gwhat.org
j...@gwhat.org
206-676-2347
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Whole-US Garmin Map update - 2012-11-02
These are based off of Lambertus's work here: http://garmin.openstreetmap.nl If you have questions or comments about these maps, please feel free to ask. However, please do not send me private mail. The odds are, someone else will have the same questions, and by asking on the talk-us@ list, others can benefit. Downloads: http://daveh.dev.openstreetmap.org/garmin/Lambertus/2012-11-02 Map to visualize what each file contains: http://daveh.dev.openstreetmap.org/garmin/Lambertus/2012-11-02/kml/kml.html FAQ Why did you do this? I wrote scripts to joined them myself to lessen the impact of doing a large join on Lambertus's server. I've also cut them in large longitude swaths that should fit conveniently on removable media. http://daveh.dev.openstreetmap.org/garmin/Lambertus/2012-11-02 Can or should I seed the torrents? Yes!! If you use the .torrent files, please seed. That web server is in the UK, and it helps to have some peers on this side of the Atlantic. Why is my map missing small rectangular areas? There have been some missing tiles from Lambertus's map (the red rectangles), I don't see any at the moment, so you may want to update if you had issues with the last set. Why can I not copy the large files to my new SD card? If you buy a new card (especially SDHC), some are FAT16 from the factory. I had to reformat it to let me create a 2GB file. Does your map cover Mexico/Canada? Yes!! I have, for the purposes of this map, annexed Ontario in to the USA. Some areas of North America that are close to the US also just happen to get pulled in to these maps. This might not happen forever, and if you would like your non-US area to get included, let me know. -- Dave ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s)
Jeff Meyer writes:
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote:
Right. So what do you think of the set of rules that I posted a bit ago?
Well... I like mine better. ('natch!) Pursue the truth agreement do
no harm. is a little easier to remember and covers all the cases covered
by the 5 rules put forth.
It seems that, if followed, rules 3-5 will almost certainly create more
confusion than they resolve.
People like simple rules because they're simple. But when you go to
figure out what the rules mean, you have to interpret them. What is
agreement? Agreement with you and your buddies as to how to tag?
Agreement with existing tags? Agrement with the documentation in the
wiki? Agreement with some book that somebody wrote once? Agreement
with Steve Coast (all hail the master)?
If you don't start with good rules, you'll have to invent them, under
pressure and with people yelling at you. Which is kinda what we're
doing here, now.
--
--my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s)
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 7:23 AM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: People like simple rules because they're simple. But when you go to figure out what the rules mean, you have to interpret them. What is agreement? Agreement with you and your buddies as to how to tag? Agreement with existing tags? Agrement with the documentation in the wiki? Agreement with some book that somebody wrote once? Agreement with Steve Coast (all hail the master)? If you don't start with good rules, you'll have to invent them, under pressure and with people yelling at you. Which is kinda what we're doing here, now. Agreement should mean among all relevant parties. That said, I think the key is more in the pursue than the specific agreement. If you're *pursuing* agreement... then you're doing all the things you've mentioned... checking the wiki, checking with others, checking IRC, documenting what you're doing so that people can understand why you did what you did, entering into an agreement with the willingness to accept that your way may not be the way that the community accepts. And, in those cases, you're still free to make your own tags, etc., just don't harm other peoples' (and the community's) efforts. The other positive attribute of pursuing agreement is that it mitigates a bully's ability to use pursuit of the truth as a cudgel for braining other mappers. Other things about the rules you've suggested - if the first rule involves the acronym DWG, then we're probably off to the wrong start. It implies that you need to be ready to escalate to the highest levels, rather than seeking more distributed and federated agreement. The second rule is too specific - what about disputes between 2 local mappers or between 2 remote mappers? I do agree, however, that sometimes, inventing rules under pressure can be the way to go. I do hope we can do it without yelling! (whoops) : ) ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] What to do with unnamed NHD streams
On Sun, 2012-10-28 at 20:51 -0700, Paul Norman wrote: Background: I'm working on converting NHD to .osm format NHD is an extremely large data set. It's about 25G of zipfiles and all of this converted to .osm would total about 3 TB. This is about 10x-15x times the size of planet.osm. There are three factors that lead to this large size. The third is what this email is about 1. The NHD covers a massive area. 2. Some ways are very over-noded. The NHD accuracy standard is 12m error 90% of the time. Running a 1m simplify in JOSM reduces the number of nodes to 25%-50% of what it was before. Like everything with the NHD, this varies from region to region. I'm thinking a 2.5m simplification would be best - it's 1/5th of the accuracy standard. Of course, running a simplification on a dataset this large is a challenge in itself. Yes to this. 3. A lot of NHD is very minor streams only of use to hydrologists. There are streams that you would be hard pressed to locate if you were there in person and in some cases they do not exist anymore. A sensible solution in any NHD translation may be to drop any FCode 46003 (intermittent) streams without a name. It may also be worth dropping FCode 46006 (perennial) streams without a name. I think that excluding 46003's is generally O.K. They can be useful, but are not really necessary for the import. I do think that not including 46006's without names would exclude many important and obvious waterways. Here in NC, some of these actually do have (local) names and many are significant especially for hiking/biking trails as they represent places where feet can get wet or there is a big dip/rocky area. My vote would be to keep them. James ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
