Re: [Talk-us] U turn restrictions in areas
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Tod Fitch t...@fitchdesign.com wrote: prima-facia speed limits in most of the US At least with relatively simple examples (such as the county-wide and city-wide speed limits found commonly in Oklahoma, Kansas, northern Texas and southeastern Colorado, posted once at the boundary and assumed for the entire interior space unless otherwise posted), it's reasonably feasible to tag all ways larger than a footway that isn't private or permissive or already have a maxspeed within the boundary polygon with a maxspeed and a maxspeed:note explaining the situation. On the other end of the spectrum, Oregon makes it hard with multi-tiered prima-facia speeds http://www.oregon.gov/odot/hwy/traffic-roadway/pages/speed_zone_program.aspx#Speed_Zone_Standards . Of course, the above gets turned on it's head with du jure speed limits that are posted, since the Oregon Department of Transportation is in charge of all speed limits in Oregon and makes every single speed zone order statewide public record in excruciating detail http://www.oregon.gov/odot/hwy/traffic-roadway/pages/speed_zone_program.aspx#Speed_Zone_Orders_On_Line, which might make for a Very Hard or Expert level Maproulette. Oklahoma doesn't publish speed orders and OklaDOT only sets speed limits on state highways. Oklahoma Turnpike Authority sets speed limits on the turnpikes. Local counties have their own speed limits that the local cities often override. It basically takes a *lot* of observation and local knowledge to get things to a level where things are reasonably accurate (after 4 years of hard work, I have around a dozen Oklahoma counties completely tagged with speed limits, with a modulo of locations where I'm not sure what the posted limit is, just what the presumed prima facia is on a vast *minority* of ways, almost all of which are going to be within some moderately small towns (probably lower) or state highways (probably higher). ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests
On 8/18/2015 10:01 AM, Torsten Karzig wrote: As mentioned earlier part of the problem is a confusion between tagging what is there (landcover) and what it is used for (landuse). In the wiki we actually have a consistent approach (Approach 1) to make this distinction. Using natural=wood as a landcover tag and landuse=forest for areas of land managed for forestry. On top of this we of cause still have administrative boundaries. For me applying this to National Forests would mean: Using administrative boundaries to mark the entire National Forest. Remove the landuse=forest tag except for regions that are clearly used for forestry. This does not apply to most parts of the National forests in Southern California that I have seen. Although these areas are managed in the sense that someone administrates it (hence the administrative boundary) most parts of these National Forest are largely left alone and the possibility to collect deadwood does in my opinion not qualify as forestry. Finally, any larger regions that are covered with trees should be tagged as natural=wood. Other landcovers (scrub,water) can also be tagged as appropriate. The great advantage of the above tagging scheme is in my opinion that it is very easy to follow for the mapper on the ground. Knowing whether I am allowed to collect deadwood or not in a particular area is not easy to verify on the ground, and, in my opinion, not as important as defining landcovers or obvious landuses. Moreover, it is very confusing for someone that uses the map if there is a large green region marked as landuse=forest and on the ground there is no forestry, or obvious management, or trees. Torsten Been following the thread and want to say Torsten sums up the issue very well. Its an issue of administrative boundary + landcover + land use. And its going to get complicated to properly model land use and landcover. Relations using multi-polygons may be needed. Also I think its been mentioned the boundary should be tagged as boundary=protected_area which handles the overall mission of national forests is to conserve our forests. However, the issue comes up that there are different levels of conservation ranging from untouched wilderness to actively managed areas, e.g. sustainable forestry, so a blanket boundary=protected_area may not be appropriate. Is there another tag that covers a more mixed bag? Is a new tag needed? Brian ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] U turn restrictions in areas
There are a number of traffic laws that are not always posted and vary for each administrative area. U-turns in Oregon, prima-facia speed limits in most of the US, etc. I think there should be a way of tagging the bounding polygon or boundary relation with that information to see the defaults a router should use. Nested administrative areas should work just fine too (city overrides county, county overrides state, etc.) if the road is contained within more than one administrative boundary. I suggested this on speed limits a while back and it did not seem to be well received. But it sure would handle a lot of traffic routing and speed limit cases in the United States pretty well. -Tod On Aug 18, 2015, at 9:45 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org mailto:m...@rtijn.org wrote: A colleague pointed out that there are areas (towns) where U turn restrictions are in place that govern all streets in that area. I wonder: 1) Does anyone know if this is common? I don't have any anecdotal experience. Oregon. All of it. Unless otherwise posted, U-turns are prohibited in the following conditions: a) Any intersection with an electrical signal (this includes single-aspect, always-flashing signals; HAWKs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAWK_beacon and half-signalized intersections (the cross street faces a stop sign and a pedestrian signal, the through street faces a traffic light; only pedestrians can trigger the traffic light)), anywhere in the state. b) Any point between intersections when inside city limits. c) Anytime oncoming traffic can't see you make such a turn in advance at least 500 feet ahead in the city or 1000 feet outside city limits. Fine is $120 (and a mark on whatever strikeout system they have now for motorists if you're not on a bicycle, skateboard or other human powered locomotion when you do it; yes, making such a turn on a motorized wheelchair would count as a motor vehicle for this enforcement!). Yes, this means the number of places you can legally make a U-turn anywhere in the state is countable on your digits if you take your shoes off. Then ODOT just gets plain asshole with this in Beaverton, where there's signage on OR 8 at the first few signals leading west from OR 217 where there's a U TURN PERMITTED sign with a CARS ONLY supplemental placard, in which any reasonable person would assume they mean NO TRUCKS or other long vehicles with a wide turning radius, but Beaverton Police routinely pop bicycles and motorcycles for the move... 2) Is there a known tagging scheme for this? Area based traffic resctrictions? No, but it would be handy, because there's literally no way anybody's tagging this for every approach of every intersection with a traffic light, HAWK or half-signal in Oregon that doesn't have an explicit exception. ___ 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] Tagging National Forests
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Brian May b...@mapwise.com wrote: Also I think its been mentioned the boundary should be tagged as boundary=protected_area which handles the overall mission of national forests is to conserve our forests. However, the issue comes up that there are different levels of conservation ranging from untouched wilderness to actively managed areas, e.g. sustainable forestry, so a blanket boundary=protected_area may not be appropriate. Is there another tag that covers a more mixed bag? Is a new tag needed? As you point out, the level of protection varies. For example the Indian Peaks Wilderness Area overlaps with the Roosevelt National Forest [1]. Wilderness Areas are IUCN 1b category protected areas [2] while US National Forests as a whole are IUCN VI protected areas [2][3]. In addition, regulations, and thus levels of protection, vary from place to place within National Forests that are not part of Wilderness Areas. For example target shooting is prohibited in a number of areas within the Roosevelt National Forest, but is allowed in other areas.[4] National Forests are an administrative area only. They are protected, but the protection level varies. Tagging National Forests as protected areas is acceptable as I said before (but not ideal as I think more about it) in my opinion because an authoritative source, the US Government, says National Forests are categorized as IUCN Category VI protected areas [3]. If we tag them as protected areas, we will have overlapping protected areas (e.g. National Forests and Wilderness Areas) and data consumers will have to select the highest level of protection. Ideally there would be an administrative boundary tag that could be used for National Forests and protected areas would be tagged separately. Not to complicate matters, but this same issue of administration vs protected areas applies to US (and perhaps other) National Parks. For example, there are Wilderness areas within National Parks[5], as well as Research National Areas [6] which I believe are IUCN 1a protected areas. Mike [1] http://www.fs.usda.gov/recarea/arp/recarea/?recid=80803 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IUCN_protected_area_categories [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Forest [4] http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/arp/recreation/?cid=STELPRD3836311 [5] http://www.wilderness.net/NationalParkService [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_Natural_Area ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests
Tod Fitch writes: We are using British English here and timber appears to mean production of wood for building. See, for example, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/timber You may define casual wood gathering of firewood a timber operation but I am pretty sure the forest service and others do not even in the US with a slightly different concept of the word. Nope. I collect wood in Los Padres National Forest (LPNF) and build campfires with it. Ergo, this is a forest. It is my forest, and I am using it as a forest by collecting wood. I WANT to see this on OSM with the tag landuse=forest because it is correct. I wouldn't be too surprised if you could call someone at the Region 5 offices and get a list of the forests in California and Hawaii that currently have timber operations permitted. It would greatly surprise me if any forest in Region 5 is being totally or even largely managed for timber production. OK, be surprised. But _I_ myself, personally, recently, collect firewood at LPNF. Visit Bottcher's Gap Recreation Site off of Palo Colorado Road (Monterey County, California, Region 5 USFS, LPNF) and see if Larry (he also goes by Lorenzo, as he and I are bilingual in Spanish together) tells you otherwise. He will not: he will tell you that you are welcome to collect downed wood. Why? BECAUSE THE LANDUSE HERE IS A FOREST. In your back yard, at least some districts in the Los Padres National Forest allows wood cutting (dead and down, with permits, usually in the fall) and Christmas tree cutting (with permit, marked trees only). And they will thin small trees out areas for fire safety. But at least in the Mt. Pinos Ranger District there is no timber production now nor since, I believe, the early 1950s. The only large stands of commercial grade trees in the Los Padres are in the Mt. Pinos District and most of the high country where such trees are likely to grow are designated wilderness areas. So I am very sure that there is no trees grown for use in building or carpentry (i.e. timber operations, which in OSMese is landuse=forestry) in the Los Padres. Then tag it so EXACTLY where you know this to be true. Where LPNF is designated Wilderness (I have carefully tagged Ventana Wilderness and Silver Peak Wilderness and all of the other half-dozen or so Wildernesses in LPNF exactly as such) then I don't collect firewood. Me collecting firewood makes this a forest producing timber. Full stop. Disclosure: I have performed volunteer work for the Mt. Pinos Ranger District in the Los Padres for quite some time and while I most of my contacts are with recreation and fire staff I have had a number of discussions with people in resource management. This doesn't seem to be of the nature of disclosure, but thank you for sharing these experiences of yours. SteveA California Owner, National Forests of the USDA (along with hundreds of millions of other People) ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests
On Aug 18, 2015, at 4:17 PM, stevea stevea...@softworkers.com wrote: Torsten Karzig wrote: Remove the landuse=forest tag except for regions that are clearly used for forestry. Now, slow down here. It has been (and is, I argue) quite reasonable to tag National Forests landuse=forest, EXCEPT where it is SPECIFICALLY known that absolutely NO timber production is occurring anywhere within the polygon. It is a tall order to know this to be true, and I again argue that even an administrative boundary called a forest SHOULD sensibly start with a tagging of landuse=forest, UNLESS you KNOW either the whole area or specific sub-areas to NOT allow timber production under any circumstances (and then it is OK to remove the landuse=forest tag). Where are those specific sub-areas? Well, find out and map them. Otherwise, leave alone the landuse=forest tag. And listen up: me collecting downed wood for a camp fire is darn-tootin' timber production, as this is my/our forest, and I use it as such. So don't take away from me/us (or the map) a landuse=forest tag when I (or another owner) can do this, as it is flat out incorrect to remove landuse=forest when it is being used as a forest. Even one person collecting firewood makes this so. Don't like this? Please defend your argument. Our forests are forests, because we use the land this way. We are using British English here and timber appears to mean production of wood for building. See, for example, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/timber You may define casual wood gathering of firewood a timber operation but I am pretty sure the forest service and others do not even in the US with a slightly different concept of the word. I wouldn’t be too surprised if you could call someone at the Region 5 offices and get a list of the forests in California and Hawaii that currently have timber operations permitted. It would greatly surprise me if any forest in Region 5 is being totally or even largely managed for timber production. In your back yard, at least some districts in the Los Padres National Forest allows wood cutting (dead and down, with permits, usually in the fall) and Christmas tree cutting (with permit, marked trees only). And they will thin small trees out areas for fire safety. But at least in the Mt. Pinos Ranger District there is no timber production now nor since, I believe, the early 1950s. The only large stands of commercial grade trees in the Los Padres are in the Mt. Pinos District and most of the high country where such trees are likely to grow are designated wilderness areas. So I am very sure that there is no “trees grown for use in building or carpentry” (i.e. timber operations, which in OSMese is landuse=forestry) in the Los Padres. Disclosure: I have performed volunteer work for the Mt. Pinos Ranger District in the Los Padres for quite some time and while I most of my contacts are with recreation and fire staff I have had a number of discussions with people in resource management. Cheers! ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests
Torsten Karzig wrote: As mentioned earlier part of the problem is a confusion between tagging what is there (landcover) and what it is used for (landuse). In the wiki we actually have a consistent approach (Approach 1) to make this distinction. Using natural=wood as a landcover tag and landuse=forest for areas of land managed for forestry. On top of this we of cause [sic] (course) still have administrative boundaries. For me applying this to National Forests would mean: Using administrative boundaries to mark the entire National Forest. I agree with this approach and have said and done so many times: boundary=protected_area and protect_class=6 are appropriate tags on USFS (National Forest) polygons. However, as mentioned, there are other appropriate tags in this schema which might ALSO be appropriate, too. For example, many National Forests have included within them designated Wilderness area, then boundary=protected_area and protect_class=1b are appropriate. While it may be true that in some places 6 and 1b overlap, where that is true it should be corrected to be one or the other (6 OR 1b OR whatever protect_class is appropriate). Remove the landuse=forest tag except for regions that are clearly used for forestry. Now, slow down here. It has been (and is, I argue) quite reasonable to tag National Forests landuse=forest, EXCEPT where it is SPECIFICALLY known that absolutely NO timber production is occurring anywhere within the polygon. It is a tall order to know this to be true, and I again argue that even an administrative boundary called a forest SHOULD sensibly start with a tagging of landuse=forest, UNLESS you KNOW either the whole area or specific sub-areas to NOT allow timber production under any circumstances (and then it is OK to remove the landuse=forest tag). Where are those specific sub-areas? Well, find out and map them. Otherwise, leave alone the landuse=forest tag. And listen up: me collecting downed wood for a camp fire is darn-tootin' timber production, as this is my/our forest, and I use it as such. So don't take away from me/us (or the map) a landuse=forest tag when I (or another owner) can do this, as it is flat out incorrect to remove landuse=forest when it is being used as a forest. Even one person collecting firewood makes this so. Don't like this? Please defend your argument. Our forests are forests, because we use the land this way. This does not apply to most parts of the National forests in Southern California that I have seen. Although these areas are managed in the sense that someone administrates it (hence the administrative boundary) most parts of these National Forest are largely left alone and the possibility to collect deadwood does in my opinion not qualify as forestry. I wholeheartedly disagree: this needs to be bolstered with more authority than simply this. (What you have seen and in your opinion). Finally, any larger regions that are covered with trees should be tagged as natural=wood. Other landcovers (scrub,water) can also be tagged as appropriate. M, be careful: the natural=wood tag is for what are essentially primeval trees, never logged or only having been timber production long, long, long ago. I think you are wishing this tag to be used to denote what is better stated using a landcover=* tag, something that remains still fuzzily-defined. Please don't conflate natural=wood with what is better stated using a landcover=* tag. This is subtle, but we need to establish a correct/best way to do this. The great advantage of the above tagging scheme is in my opinion that it is very easy to follow for the mapper on the ground. Knowing whether I am allowed to collect deadwood or not in a particular area is not easy to verify on the ground, and, in my opinion, not as important as defining landcovers or obvious landuses. Here, we disagree on numerous points: the mapper on the ground cannot tell that collection of downed wood to make a campfire is or is not allowed, yet it may or may not be. So, get that point right (with landuse=forest if so), as it is an important one. It IS important to many users of the map, this one, Charlotte and others here have said so. You want to define landcovers? Fine, define them. Leave the landuse=forest tag alone where it is true and you cannot verify otherwise. If you can verify otherwise, do so with exact polygons with appropriate tags. Moreover, it is very confusing for someone that uses the map if there is a large green region marked as landuse=forest and on the ground there is no forestry, or obvious management, or trees. No, it is not confusing to me. There are large segments of National Forest so tagged in Nevada, for example, which (by my personal experience) have no trees, but have deadwood (tumbleweeds and other downed wood blown by the wind...) available for me to make a campfire. BECAUSE this is a National
Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests
On 8/18/2015 1:58 PM, Ben Discoe wrote: As someone who has worked on protected areas in OSM globally, it has always been obvious that the landuse tags and the boundary tags serve clear and different purposes. US National Forests are boundaries around land which contain many uses(*), and landuse=forest is only one of the uses. If i find that any area is marked as landuse=forest when it does not actually contain all forest, i fix it, re-mapping the areas which actually contain forest as landuse=forest (or natural=wood, as appropriate). Often, this is very labor-intensive. I have done this across many national parks globally, e.g. Ethiopia, Panama and India. Yes, I've been slowly doing doing this in Washington, creating new polygons. I should probably be less of a perfectionist about the exact forest edges, as there's no existing data, it's a remote area, there's few other features around, and there's a lot to do. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:02 AM Torsten Karzig torsten.kar...@web.de wrote: As mentioned earlier part of the problem is a confusion between tagging what is there (landcover) and what it is used for (landuse). In the wiki we actually have a consistent approach (Approach 1) to make this distinction. Using natural=wood as a landcover tag and landuse=forest for areas of land managed for forestry. On top of this we of cause still have administrative boundaries. For me applying this to National Forests would mean: Using administrative boundaries to mark the entire National Forest. Remove the landuse=forest tag except for regions that are clearly used for forestry. This does not apply to most parts of the National forests in Southern California that I have seen. Although these areas are managed in the sense that someone administrates it (hence the administrative boundary) most parts of these National Forest are largely left alone and the possibility to collect deadwood does in my opinion not qualify as forestry. Finally, any larger regions that are covered with trees should be tagged as natural=wood. Other landcovers (scrub,water) can also be tagged as appropriate. The great advantage of the above tagging scheme is in my opinion that it is very easy to follow for the mapper on the ground. Knowing whether I am allowed to collect deadwood or not in a particular area is not easy to verify on the ground, and, in my opinion, not as important as defining landcovers or obvious landuses. Moreover, it is very confusing for someone that uses the map if there is a large green region marked as landuse=forest and on the ground there is no forestry, or obvious management, or trees. Torsten Agree.. Not every square inch of a National Forest has (or will have) trees on it. There are grasslands, mountains, lakes. Plus, the stated goal of the USFS isn't solely to grow trees in a national forest. Land management of these areas focuses on conservation, timber harvesting, livestock grazing, watershed protection, wildlife, and recreation. So it's not all about the forest. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Arm chair mapping challenges
Yeah, I've had some problem edits from the MapBox paid editors as well not paying attention and believing that the Tiger data and Bing is pretty much 'always right'. They most of the time don't even check the history of ways before they edit and add back in stuff that another 'on-the-ground' mapper removed when a road was rerouted (and clearly mentioned this in the changeset comment). Or even take 2 seconds to see that the new 'residential' road they just added w/ a name is obviously in the wrong place when there's another road already in the OSM database with the same name less than 500 yards away and the one they're adding is smack dab right in the middle of a parking lot. Best thing to do here IMO, is to call them out the edit(s) in the changeset comment(s) area and tell them why it shouldn't have been done and hopefully they'll learn from this. Since I think they are all from out of the USA (kinda wish they'd hire a few of us USA mappers from here on talk-us as well for QC who know highway standards here in the US/Canada), odds are they haven't seen some of these setups in their home country, which can also lead to some of the errors. You could also maybe contact Arun Ganesh [1] [2] since he's supposedly in charge of them per their profiles about all of this. -James [1] - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mapbox#Mapbox_Data_Team [2] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/PlaneMad From: t...@fitchdesign.com Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 07:27:15 -0700 To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Talk-us] Arm chair mapping challenges I live a few miles from the new Apple campus that is currently under construction, so I see change sets for that area in my Who Did It RSS feed. The site is fenced off and the satellite imagery available for OSM is out of date so I can’t say exactly what the status is other than some of the new “spaceship” building is starting to appear over the top of the fence. Some other mapper has updated the area to remove the old buildings and streets and marked the area as under construction. All of that seems correct from what I’ve read in the paper and what little I can see on the ground. But it means the area differs from the Tiger data for the area. And now I am seeing multiple change sets from mappers I don’t recognize as local re-instating the now missing features. For example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/366208964#map=15/37.3338/-122.0097 A number of the “fixes” have a mention of http://osmlab.github.io/to-fix/?error=tigerdelta-named#/task/tigerdelta in their change set comments. I don’t have a good solution to this. But it does indicate to me that automated challenges can actually make the map worse in areas where local mappers have correctly accounted for recent changes. At the very least, their ought to be a big click through dialog box on any challenge stating that satellite imagery may be out of date and if there are newer local changes, especially ones marking the area as under construction that the individual task/challenge should not be implemented. On the other hand, if you are adding a road back and it is going through a building=construction maybe you are clueless enough that a big click-through warning would not help. Cheers, Tod ___ 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] Tagging National Forests
As mentioned earlier part of the problem is a confusion between tagging what is there (landcover) and what it is used for (landuse). In the wiki we actually have a consistent approach (Approach 1) to make this distinction. Using natural=wood as a landcover tag and landuse=forest for areas of land managed for forestry. On top of this we of cause still have administrative boundaries. For me applying this to National Forests would mean: Using administrative boundaries to mark the entire National Forest. Remove the landuse=forest tag except for regions that are clearly used for forestry. This does not apply to most parts of the National forests in Southern California that I have seen. Although these areas are managed in the sense that someone administrates it (hence the administrative boundary) most parts of these National Forest are largely left alone and the possibility to collect deadwood does in my opinion not qualify as forestry. Finally, any larger regions that are covered with trees should be tagged as natural=wood. Other landcovers (scrub,water) can also be tagged as appropriate. The great advantage of the above tagging scheme is in my opinion that it is very easy to follow for the mapper on the ground. Knowing whether I am allowed to collect deadwood or not in a particular area is not easy to verify on the ground, and, in my opinion, not as important as defining landcovers or obvious landuses. Moreover, it is very confusing for someone that uses the map if there is a large green region marked as landuse=forest and on the ground there is no forestry, or obvious management, or trees. Torsten ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 6:18 PM Mike Thompson miketh...@gmail.com wrote: The common meaning of forest is a large tract of land covered with trees and underbrush; woodland[1] However, many parts of US National Forests do not have trees, and either will never have trees, or will not have them for many decades, and therefore are not forested * Many ski resorts are within National Forests, e.g. [3]. Areas occupied by buildings, parking lots and most ski runs do not have trees and are not likely to for many years. * Areas above treeline do not have trees and will probably not have trees for centuries. * Meadows, prairies, lakes/reservoirs, areas of scree and mines[4] are all found within National Forests and no or few trees will exist in these areas Therefore significant parts of National Forests are not being used as a forest and tagging them as landuse=forest is not appropriate in my opinion. +1 boundary=protected_area is more appropriate. Modoc National Forest has large swaths of land (compare [1] and [2]) that is not covered by trees, managed or not. Tagging the whole area as landuse=forest doesn't reflect what's actually on the ground. I agree with an earlier poster (apologies, I forgot who) who suggested replacing landuse=forest with landuse=timber. timber has a more unambiguous meaning than forest [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/41.8233/-121.0963 [2] http://binged.it/1NCIf0Q ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] U turn restrictions in areas
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote: A colleague pointed out that there are areas (towns) where U turn restrictions are in place that govern all streets in that area. I wonder: 1) Does anyone know if this is common? I don't have any anecdotal experience. Oregon. All of it. Unless otherwise posted, U-turns are prohibited in the following conditions: a) Any intersection with an electrical signal (this includes single-aspect, always-flashing signals; HAWKs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAWK_beacon and half-signalized intersections (the cross street faces a stop sign and a pedestrian signal, the through street faces a traffic light; only pedestrians can trigger the traffic light)), anywhere in the state. b) Any point between intersections when inside city limits. c) Anytime oncoming traffic can't see you make such a turn in advance at least 500 feet ahead in the city or 1000 feet outside city limits. Fine is $120 (and a mark on whatever strikeout system they have now for motorists if you're not on a bicycle, skateboard or other human powered locomotion when you do it; yes, making such a turn on a motorized wheelchair would count as a motor vehicle for this enforcement!). Yes, this means the number of places you can legally make a U-turn anywhere in the state is countable on your digits if you take your shoes off. Then ODOT just gets plain asshole with this in Beaverton, where there's signage on OR 8 at the first few signals leading west from OR 217 where there's a U TURN PERMITTED sign with a CARS ONLY supplemental placard, in which any reasonable person would assume they mean NO TRUCKS or other long vehicles with a wide turning radius, but Beaverton Police routinely pop bicycles and motorcycles for the move... 2) Is there a known tagging scheme for this? Area based traffic resctrictions? No, but it would be handy, because there's literally no way anybody's tagging this for every approach of every intersection with a traffic light, HAWK or half-signal in Oregon that doesn't have an explicit exception. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] U turn restrictions in areas
2) Is there a known tagging scheme for this? Area based traffic resctrictions? No, but it would be handy, because there's literally no way anybody's tagging this for every approach of every intersection with a traffic light, HAWK or half-signal in Oregon that doesn't have an explicit exception. Someone could make a robot-script to put them everywhere. Joel ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests
Just to chime in.. As someone who has worked on protected areas in OSM globally, it has always been obvious that the landuse tags and the boundary tags serve clear and different purposes. US National Forests are boundaries around land which contain many uses(*), and landuse=forest is only one of the uses. If i find that any area is marked as landuse=forest when it does not actually contain all forest, i fix it, re-mapping the areas which actually contain forest as landuse=forest (or natural=wood, as appropriate). Often, this is very labor-intensive. I have done this across many national parks globally, e.g. Ethiopia, Panama and India. -Ben (*) In fact, Land of Many Uses is an official slogan found on most national forest signs. e.g. http://www.nps.gov/features/yell/slidefile/graphics/signs/Images/16880.jpg On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Mike Thompson miketh...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Brian May b...@mapwise.com wrote: Also I think its been mentioned the boundary should be tagged as boundary=protected_area which handles the overall mission of national forests is to conserve our forests. However, the issue comes up that there are different levels of conservation ranging from untouched wilderness to actively managed areas, e.g. sustainable forestry, so a blanket boundary=protected_area may not be appropriate. Is there another tag that covers a more mixed bag? Is a new tag needed? As you point out, the level of protection varies. For example the Indian Peaks Wilderness Area overlaps with the Roosevelt National Forest [1]. Wilderness Areas are IUCN 1b category protected areas [2] while US National Forests as a whole are IUCN VI protected areas [2][3]. In addition, regulations, and thus levels of protection, vary from place to place within National Forests that are not part of Wilderness Areas. For example target shooting is prohibited in a number of areas within the Roosevelt National Forest, but is allowed in other areas.[4] National Forests are an administrative area only. They are protected, but the protection level varies. Tagging National Forests as protected areas is acceptable as I said before (but not ideal as I think more about it) in my opinion because an authoritative source, the US Government, says National Forests are categorized as IUCN Category VI protected areas [3]. If we tag them as protected areas, we will have overlapping protected areas (e.g. National Forests and Wilderness Areas) and data consumers will have to select the highest level of protection. Ideally there would be an administrative boundary tag that could be used for National Forests and protected areas would be tagged separately. Not to complicate matters, but this same issue of administration vs protected areas applies to US (and perhaps other) National Parks. For example, there are Wilderness areas within National Parks[5], as well as Research National Areas [6] which I believe are IUCN 1a protected areas. Mike [1] http://www.fs.usda.gov/recarea/arp/recarea/?recid=80803 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IUCN_protected_area_categories [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Forest [4] http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/arp/recreation/?cid=STELPRD3836311 [5] http://www.wilderness.net/NationalParkService [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_Natural_Area ___ 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] U turn restrictions in areas
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: That'd have to be some super-script, aware of sightlines What would you need besides elevation information in order to be able to more or less do that? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Arm chair mapping challenges
On 8/18/2015 10:27 AM, Tod Fitch wrote: Some other mapper has updated the area to remove the old buildings and streets and marked the area as under construction. All of that seems correct from what I’ve read in the paper and what little I can see on the ground. But it means the area differs from the Tiger data for the area. And now I am seeing multiple change sets from mappers I don’t recognize as local re-instating the now missing features. For example:https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/366208964#map=15/37.3338/-122.0097 To borrow from the Stop deleting abandoned railroads thread, nothing should be deleted. g But seriously, I now leave an empty way with a note saying that Bing is out of date. That will head off some problems. Of course, this leaves lots of empty cruft floating around, and discourages new editors who are confused by all the jumble. A number of the “fixes” have a mention ofhttp://osmlab.github.io/to-fix/?error=tigerdelta-named#/task/tigerdelta in their change set comments. A partial technical improvement is that the challenge on osmlab.github.io should only flag missing TIGER data that was added to TIGER since the original 2007 import. But that misses the very real problem when someone accidentally deletes an existing street. But definitely comment politely on the changeset. I'm a firm believer in the value of armchair mappers and what they're doing. A bit of feedback helps them learn and improve, since I'm sure they mean to do well. [ PS - 3 out of 5 of the Bing is right edits have come from local mappers ] ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests
Hi all, I really appreciate the productive discussion that ensued my initial question! In the mean time, a mapper approached me with concerns about my removing the landuse tags from the National Forests in Utah, so I reverted those changes: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33419230 -- I don't want this to get in the way of folks putting time and energy into mapping these areas. It's probably better to let the discussion play out first anyway. Martijn Martijn van Exel skype: mvexel On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 8:17 AM, Eric Ladner eric.lad...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:02 AM Torsten Karzig torsten.kar...@web.de wrote: As mentioned earlier part of the problem is a confusion between tagging what is there (landcover) and what it is used for (landuse). In the wiki we actually have a consistent approach (Approach 1) to make this distinction. Using natural=wood as a landcover tag and landuse=forest for areas of land managed for forestry. On top of this we of cause still have administrative boundaries. For me applying this to National Forests would mean: Using administrative boundaries to mark the entire National Forest. Remove the landuse=forest tag except for regions that are clearly used for forestry. This does not apply to most parts of the National forests in Southern California that I have seen. Although these areas are managed in the sense that someone administrates it (hence the administrative boundary) most parts of these National Forest are largely left alone and the possibility to collect deadwood does in my opinion not qualify as forestry. Finally, any larger regions that are covered with trees should be tagged as natural=wood. Other landcovers (scrub,water) can also be tagged as appropriate. The great advantage of the above tagging scheme is in my opinion that it is very easy to follow for the mapper on the ground. Knowing whether I am allowed to collect deadwood or not in a particular area is not easy to verify on the ground, and, in my opinion, not as important as defining landcovers or obvious landuses. Moreover, it is very confusing for someone that uses the map if there is a large green region marked as landuse=forest and on the ground there is no forestry, or obvious management, or trees. Torsten Agree.. Not every square inch of a National Forest has (or will have) trees on it. There are grasslands, mountains, lakes. Plus, the stated goal of the USFS isn't solely to grow trees in a national forest. Land management of these areas focuses on conservation, timber harvesting, livestock grazing, watershed protection, wildlife, and recreation. So it's not all about the forest. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] U turn restrictions in areas
Hi, A colleague pointed out that there are areas (towns) where U turn restrictions are in place that govern all streets in that area. I wonder: 1) Does anyone know if this is common? I don't have any anecdotal experience. 2) Is there a known tagging scheme for this? Area based traffic resctrictions? Thanks! Martijn van Exel skype: mvexel ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
