Re: [Talk-us] Request revert on Changeset #33669446

[Paul Johnson]

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Tod Fitch  wrote:

> I believe that as long as there is at least a solid barrier between
> opposing traffic and access is limited to slip/link/ramp ways then that
> section is classified as a freeway by CalTrans.


Actually, just the latter.  There's a fair number of mostly mountainous and
rural examples in southern and Sierra parts of California where you'll see
freeway entrances leading to a four-lane undivided.  Or the division is
basically a token move; I recall there's a segment of the 118 around Rocky
Peak that allows you to drive on the lefthand shoulder, left of the
single-orange line (as opposed to the flush median usually painted to
provide the carpool lane some distance from substantially slower general
access traffic found closer to central LA) if you're a carpool during peak
hours with the only thing separating you from oncoming traffic doing the
same thing is a flimsy chain-link fence I wouldn't trust to stop a bicycle
from crossing over.  Checking street view if they finally fixed it suggests
that as of June 2012 it appears to be freshly renovated to use a flush
median to seperate now 24-hour carpool access and replaced the chain link
with a K-rail.


> On the other hand, there is a nearly 40 mile sections of CA152 between
> Casa De Fruita and I-5 which at either end have miles of limited access but
> which I think are offically non-freeway (tagged as trunk in OSM). So it
> could be that the length of the limited access section is taken into
> consideration by CalTrans when deciding to put up a “begin freeway” sign.
>

 Well, controlled access.  I consider controlled access a little higher
than limited access, the difference being whether or not surface
intersections and property access is banned unless otherwise unfeasible.  I
would consider limited access or a mix of limited and controlled access as
a trunk.  About the only thing I really consider a motorway would be
multilane, controlled access,
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] understanding administrative boundary relations

[Ray Kiddy]

Hello -

I am on a quest to learn more about how administrative boundaries can
be managed as relations. I have a bit of experience with these
things, but I am discovering the limitations of my knowledge also.
Which was the point, actually.

I would like to be able to suggest that governmental entities could
manage their district geo data with OSM. I am interested in seeing why
this does not work now and what can be done. Well, and it would be
interesting to find out why so few cities in California actually seem
to have a relation. Or perhaps I am missing it.

I know that TIGER data was imported into OSM, but I am seeing some
disconnects. To be precise:

Using QGIS, I can load the vector files (SHP) from the following as two
different layers:

ftp://ftp2.census.gov/geo/tiger/TIGER2015/ELSD/tl_2015_06_elsd.zip
ftp://ftp2.census.gov/geo/tiger/TIGER2015/EDGES/tl_2015_06085_edges.zip

Using JOSM, I can see the "Sunnyvale East Channel":

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/37.364537971457935/-122.02110206207291

I cannot see how to get the id of this way from JOSM and its tag info
seems to be:

boat=no
intermittent=yes
name=Sunnyvale East Channel
scvwd:FACILITY=2026
scvwd:ROUTEID=20260
waterway=drain

And in QGIS, I can see the same feature (removing empty TIGER fields):

wkt_geomLINESTRING
-122.02132171 37.364089025
-122.0209720001465 37.364640178
-122.019929475 37.366293634
-122.0196390001217 37.366754025
STATEFP 6
COUNTYFP85
TLID618169892
TFIDL   229597201
TFIDR   230278901
MTFCC   P0001
HYDROFLGN
RAILFLG N
ROADFLG N
OLFFLG  N
EXTTYP  N
GCSEFLG N
OFFSETL N
OFFSETR N
TNIDF   39083667
TNIDT   409312163

But there seems to be no connection between the feature in OSM and the
TIGER data. So, TIGER data was used to define new features? But perhaps
TIGER id data was not merged onto existing features?

I am certainly not seeing "tiger:tlid"="618169892" associated with this
object in OSM anywhere.

So, if I want to give the Sunnyvale District the relation that defines
its boundaries, I cannot use TIGER data to find those lines? Or rather,
I must use the TIGER data and find the line in OSM and set up the
connection myself?

Ok Any other suggestions?

thanx - ray


ps:

My early stumblings are in my diary:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/rayKiddy/diary

Please excuse any ignorance on my part. I know a bit about the GIS
practices of the state of California. I have a very small bit of
experience with Santa Clara County. I have a smidgen of knowledge about
the city of Sunnyvale. And I have more exposure to the Sunnyvale
Elementary School District, having once been on the Board. And I
develop database software and am interested in mapping applications.



___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] understanding administrative boundary relations

[Toby Murray]

The area you linked to has no boundary data in OSM. You don't state
this in your email but by pulling up the TIGER shapefile, it looks
like you are wanting school district boundaries? I see one runs
through the area you linked to, in the shapefile. School districts
were not imported into OSM. The only things that were imported from
TIGER is roads, state, county and city boundaries.

Administrative boundaries in OSM have always been a tricky subject.
OSM thrives on information that can be verified by someone standing on
the ground, looking around and seeing something that can be put into
the map. Administrative boundaries are (usually) not that way. They
are imaginary lines drawn on the map. Sometimes they follow physical
features but often they don't. So the only source to verify or update
them is to go back to the imaginary line drawer and ask for an update.

Because of this, I think boundaries in OSM tend to deteriorate in
quality quicker than other features. Sometimes people modify a way
that is part of a boundary relation and don't realize that they are
affecting the boundary. I have done a lot of work fixing up boundaries
(mostly county) across the country and there are definitely a million
ways to break them.

If you want an example of an admin boundary in OSM, here is the
Sunnyvale city boundary relation:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/112145

Toby


On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 5:40 PM, Ray Kiddy  wrote:
>
> Hello -
>
> I am on a quest to learn more about how administrative boundaries can
> be managed as relations. I have a bit of experience with these
> things, but I am discovering the limitations of my knowledge also.
> Which was the point, actually.
>
> I would like to be able to suggest that governmental entities could
> manage their district geo data with OSM. I am interested in seeing why
> this does not work now and what can be done. Well, and it would be
> interesting to find out why so few cities in California actually seem
> to have a relation. Or perhaps I am missing it.
>
> I know that TIGER data was imported into OSM, but I am seeing some
> disconnects. To be precise:
>
> Using QGIS, I can load the vector files (SHP) from the following as two
> different layers:
>
> ftp://ftp2.census.gov/geo/tiger/TIGER2015/ELSD/tl_2015_06_elsd.zip
> ftp://ftp2.census.gov/geo/tiger/TIGER2015/EDGES/tl_2015_06085_edges.zip
>
> Using JOSM, I can see the "Sunnyvale East Channel":
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/37.364537971457935/-122.02110206207291
>
> I cannot see how to get the id of this way from JOSM and its tag info
> seems to be:
>
> boat=no
> intermittent=yes
> name=Sunnyvale East Channel
> scvwd:FACILITY=2026
> scvwd:ROUTEID=20260
> waterway=drain
>
> And in QGIS, I can see the same feature (removing empty TIGER fields):
>
> wkt_geomLINESTRING
> -122.02132171 37.364089025
> -122.0209720001465 37.364640178
> -122.019929475 37.366293634
> -122.0196390001217 37.366754025
> STATEFP 6
> COUNTYFP85
> TLID618169892
> TFIDL   229597201
> TFIDR   230278901
> MTFCC   P0001
> HYDROFLGN
> RAILFLG N
> ROADFLG N
> OLFFLG  N
> EXTTYP  N
> GCSEFLG N
> OFFSETL N
> OFFSETR N
> TNIDF   39083667
> TNIDT   409312163
>
> But there seems to be no connection between the feature in OSM and the
> TIGER data. So, TIGER data was used to define new features? But perhaps
> TIGER id data was not merged onto existing features?
>
> I am certainly not seeing "tiger:tlid"="618169892" associated with this
> object in OSM anywhere.
>
> So, if I want to give the Sunnyvale District the relation that defines
> its boundaries, I cannot use TIGER data to find those lines? Or rather,
> I must use the TIGER data and find the line in OSM and set up the
> connection myself?
>
> Ok Any other suggestions?
>
> thanx - ray
>
>
> ps:
>
> My early stumblings are in my diary:
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/rayKiddy/diary
>
> Please excuse any ignorance on my part. I know a bit about the GIS
> practices of the state of California. I have a very small bit of
> experience with Santa Clara County. I have a smidgen of knowledge about
> the city of Sunnyvale. And I have more exposure to the Sunnyvale
> Elementary School District, having once been on the Board. And I
> develop database software and am interested in mapping applications.
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Anybody had any contact with this user?

[James Mast]

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Sarr_Cat

Has anybody had any contact with that user and have him respond back?  I don't 
think many of his edits are troublesome, but I've sent him two messages in the 
last 2 months without any response back from him, asking him if he could please 
add a 'comment' to his changesets after he was mass adding some data in my 
local area a few times (mostly just buildings from Bing as far as I could 
tell).  Also, he's only been part of the OSM community for 4 months, but has 
almost 6,000 changesets in that time (none, as far as I can tell, have a 
comment).  I'd just wish he'd respond back to me on the 'changeset comment' 
part. :(

-James
  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Anybody had any contact with this user?

[Martijn van Exel]

Wow, that is more changesets than I racked up in 10 years. Haven't had
contact with this particular mapper but I can say with certainty that
they're not with Telenav.

Martijn van Exel
Secretary, US Chapter
OpenStreetMap
http://openstreetmap.us/
http://osm.org/
skype: mvexel

On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 9:55 PM, James Mast 
wrote:

> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Sarr_Cat
>
> Has anybody had any contact with that user and have him respond back?  I
> don't think many of his edits are troublesome, but I've sent him two
> messages in the last 2 months without any response back from him, asking
> him if he could please add a 'comment' to his changesets after he was mass
> adding some data in my local area a few times (mostly just buildings from
> Bing as far as I could tell).  Also, he's only been part of the OSM
> community for 4 months, but has almost 6,000 changesets in that time (none,
> as far as I can tell, have a comment).  I'd just wish he'd respond back to
> me on the 'changeset comment' part. :(
>
> -James
>
> ___
> 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] understanding administrative boundary relations

[Marc Gemis]

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 3:56 AM, Ray Kiddy  wrote:

> It has occurred to me that there will probably need to be a "boundary
> watcher" tool, which can let an interested group know about it when a
> boundary gets broken in some way. And I have started playing with the
> python libraries for accessing OSM data with this in mind.
>

There is a German team that does this. They maintain the website
https://osm.wno-edv-service.de/boundaries/ from which you can download all
administrative boundaries in a number of formats.
They also have a website with all missing (or broken) administrative
boundaries:
https://osm.wno-edv-service.de/index.php/projekte/internationale-administrative-grenzen/missing-boundaries
 (in German)

regards
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] understanding administrative boundary relations

[Ray Kiddy]

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 18:51:50 -0500
Toby Murray  wrote:

> The area you linked to has no boundary data in OSM. You don't state
> this in your email but by pulling up the TIGER shapefile, it looks
> like you are wanting school district boundaries? I see one runs
> through the area you linked to, in the shapefile. School districts
> were not imported into OSM. The only things that were imported from
> TIGER is roads, state, county and city boundaries.

Interesting. There are lots of linear features that are not roads or
the boundaries mentioned. The water feature I described is one.

And, yes, I am looking at school district boundaries right now. But
really, the question is about any other set of relations that are
supposed to tile the map. For example, I knew about Sunnyvale's
relation, which you mention below, but there are over 350 cities in
California and there do not seem to be that many relations, or I cannot
find them (despite some banging of my head against OverPass), or both.

I was hoping that city boundaries would follow conventions like
"admin_level"="8", "place"="city" and so on. More fool I. Most of these
"rules" definitely seem to be honored in the breach.

> Administrative boundaries in OSM have always been a tricky subject.
> OSM thrives on information that can be verified by someone standing on
> the ground, looking around and seeing something that can be put into
> the map. Administrative boundaries are (usually) not that way. They
> are imaginary lines drawn on the map. Sometimes they follow physical
> features but often they don't. So the only source to verify or update
> them is to go back to the imaginary line drawer and ask for an update.

I had not heard this perspective. I am not sure what to say, other than
that though it is a "tricky" subject, it is not really something that
can be ignored. Too many things in real life depend on these
boundaries.

> Because of this, I think boundaries in OSM tend to deteriorate in
> quality quicker than other features. Sometimes people modify a way
> that is part of a boundary relation and don't realize that they are
> affecting the boundary. I have done a lot of work fixing up boundaries
> (mostly county) across the country and there are definitely a million
> ways to break them.

It has occurred to me that there will probably need to be a "boundary
watcher" tool, which can let an interested group know about it when a
boundary gets broken in some way. And I have started playing with the
python libraries for accessing OSM data with this in mind.

> 
> If you want an example of an admin boundary in OSM, here is the
> Sunnyvale city boundary relation:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/112145
> 

Yep. Knew about that one. Here is the table I am keeping my "meta-data"
list of relations that I am interested in:

mysql> select * from osm_relations;
++--+--+-+
| pk | url  | name  
   | place   |
++--+--+-+
|  1 | http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/112145 | Sunnyvale, CA, USA
   | city|
|  2 | http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/148838 | United States of America  
   | country |
|  3 | NULL | Sunnyvale Elementary 
School District | school district |
++--+--+-+

As you can see, the relation for the SESD still needs to be defined.
And there are some others TBD.

- ray


> Toby
> 
> 
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 5:40 PM, Ray Kiddy  wrote:
> >
> > Hello -
> >
> > I am on a quest to learn more about how administrative boundaries
> > can be managed as relations. I have a bit of experience with these
> > things, but I am discovering the limitations of my knowledge also.
> > Which was the point, actually.
> >
> > I would like to be able to suggest that governmental entities could
> > manage their district geo data with OSM. I am interested in seeing
> > why this does not work now and what can be done. Well, and it would
> > be interesting to find out why so few cities in California actually
> > seem to have a relation. Or perhaps I am missing it.
> >
> > I know that TIGER data was imported into OSM, but I am seeing some
> > disconnects. To be precise:
> >
> > Using QGIS, I can load the vector files (SHP) from the following as
> > two different layers:
> >
> > ftp://ftp2.census.gov/geo/tiger/TIGER2015/ELSD/tl_2015_06_elsd.zip
> > ftp://ftp2.census.gov/geo/tiger/TIGER2015/EDGES/tl_2015_06085_edges.zip
> >
> > Using JOSM, I can see the "Sunnyvale East Channel":
> >
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/37.364537971457935/-122.02110206207291
> >
> > I cannot 

[Talk-us] Strategy for 'updated' TIGER regions

[Mike N]

There have been analysis and strategy about fixing TIGER 'Deserts'[1], 
but what is the best way to manage regions that have been thoroughly 
updated to match TIGER, and possibly enhanced beyond that with local 
knowledge?


Background - An essential task in keeping OSM updated and relevant in 
the US has been to compare existing OSM data to the latest TIGER data 
and add new roads.   This generally means adding the endless new streets 
for subdivisions or possibly a single new cul-de-sac development street.


  The problem is that once an area has been completely synchronized to 
TIGER, what is the best way to update it in the future?  The problem 
comes when revisiting a completed area looking for new roads.  What if 
someone had deleted or modified those streets based on local research or 
knowledge?   The old TIGER street shows up as a 'new' street, and 
there's no way an armchair mapper would know what to do.[2]  The street 
or segment gets added back to the map and OSM becomes a museum relic 
holding old TIGER data unless someone knowledgeable happens to notice.


  I'm starting to keep an empty way with a note on the old TIGER trace, 
but I suspect that almost no one has historically done this in the US.


  I propose 2 changes to TIGER challenge tasks -

1.  Future TIGER challenges in completed areas should highlight only 
changes relative to the previous year, or 2010 and not treat all TIGER 
data as authoritative.   Roads are sometimes accidentally deleted in OSM 
but those could be flagged by telemetry from Scout.


 2. Focus on areas that desperately need alignment, but may not have 
even updated TIGER.   Just aligning streets to aerial imagery will make 
the area usable by navigation systems.   Admittedly since those areas 
are also likely to be low population, there may not be a payback for 
paid mappers to help.


  This is not meant to be anti-armchair mapping but a way to continue 
to make better use of armchair mapping resources.


  Mike
 ---

[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/TIGER_fixup#TIGER_desert
[2] In the past, I demonstrated OSM's local mapping advantage to a 
friend by comparing Skobbler's turn by turn to Garmin soon after this 
frontage road access was closed for safety reasons.  Google and Garmin 
finally corrected their routing after some years, but OSM went back to 
the old days -

 http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/30249051

More armchair mapping challenges -
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33549289 !
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/32398213
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/32373023

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us