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

[James Mast]

Paul, did you ever take 5 seconds to see that the 'lanes' problem on that side 
of the highway could have been caused by an editor bug?  iD is well know for 
hiding tags from people, and normally not alerting people when the merge ways 
that they might be damaging tags.  That is not jakeroot's fault.  You can 
squarely place that blame on the editor.  So, how about go over to the iD 
Github [1] page and report a bug or two dealing with the merging of tags?  
Don't always assume a person is vandalizing because the editor they are using 
is hiding stuff from them.  on that subject, you should apologize to jakeroot 
since the editing program is to blame there. [2]

-James

[1] - https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD
[2] - https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/908  

Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2015 09:28:00 -0500
From: ba...@ursamundi.org
To: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com
CC: d...@osmfoundation.org; talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Request revert on Changeset #33669446

You're looking farther west where it's a work in progress for lanes (not having 
lanes=* tags were better than having incorrect lanes tags, since the number of 
lanes along those very long ways varies in places).  Look between Fourth Plain 
and 54th Avenue, that's where lane tags were hit with a sledgehammer.  JOSM 
obviates that this was clearly jakeroot's doing, no such apology is owed or 
will be granted.
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 9:47 PM, James Mast  wrote:



Paul, 

I've tried to stay out of this here on talk-us, but being belligerent and 
claiming somebody else removed the 'lanes' tags that didn't do it is just wrong 
Paul.  You honestly owe jakeroot an apology here (and in the Changeset 33669446 
comments) since he didn't remove those tags!!!  You, yourself removed them 
Paul, back in Changeset 32790788 over 2 months ago.  The history here doesn't 
lie about it. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/45846830/history  The 'lanes' 
tag was there for version 19 of that way edited by Bickendan, but gone in 
version 20 edited by you Paul.  The way is now currently on version 23.

If I was part of the DWG, I would recommend making you apologize to jakeroot 
before you could continue editing anything because of that.  If you didn't 
realize Paul, you're kinda acting like NE2 right now when it comes to this.

-James (rickmastfan67)


From: burke...@gmail.com
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 20:07:31 -0400
To: ba...@ursamundi.org; d...@osmfoundation.org; talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Request revert on Changeset #33669446

Paul,



He's not saying that jakeroot isn't the most recent editor. He's saying that 
the specific changes you're referring to are in changesets earlier than 
jakeroot's, and that *those* changesets appear to be yours. 



Not at a computer, so can't look myself. 



-jack



On September 4, 2015 4:44:53 PM EDT, Paul Johnson  wrote:
This is in conflict with what I'm seeing in the area around Vancouver Mall, 
where jakeroot appears to be the most recent editor of everything along WA500.
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Chris Lawrence  wrote:
It's in the OSM way history. I didn't make it up. Look at it yourself if you 
don't believe me.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/45846830/history- "lanes" disappears between 
revisions 19 and 20. You submitted revision 20.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/45846831/history
- "lanes" disappears between revisions 13 and 14. You submitted revision 14.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/201133287/history
- "lanes" disappears between revisions 3 and 4. You submitted revision 4.
I could go on...

Chris
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 12:58 PM Paul Johnson  wrote:
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Chris Lawrence  wrote:
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 3:54 AM Paul Johnson  wrote:
I'm going to have to additionally request this revert due to a fairly 
substantial loss of data that was involved after I spent a good 12-15 hours on 
detail lane tagging this expressway.  It appears many ways got merged and data 
was lost as a result.
Paul - You deleted that data yourself in changeset 32790788 when you made the
road a trunk in the first place.
Patently false.  I still have the last edit I made in the area on my desktop.  
jakeroot vandalized the map in his quest to tag the map NE2 style, and merged 
dozens of ways with zero regard for any tags except the one he was trying to 
game.
-- 
Christopher N. Lawrence 



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


-- 

Typos courtesy of fancy auto-spell technology. 
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
  



___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Talk-us] understanding administrative boundary relations

[Ray Kiddy]

On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 21:40:57 -0400
Richard Welty  wrote:

> On 9/4/15 5:09 PM, Ray Kiddy wrote:
> > So, there is nothing that a relation brings to the table that a way
> > does not? I mean, it is clear that for the purposes of drawing, they
> > are the same. But then are they really just the same?
> i don't know about the current style, but in the past there has been
> an issue
> where a way was contained in a relation, and both the way and the
> relation had the same admin boundary tagging. the stylesheet of 1-2
> years ago would draw the admin boundary twice.
> 
> i haven't checked to see if this problem has been fixed or  not. the
> correct answer is to only tag the relation and remove any duplicate
> tagging from the way, especially because the way may be in multiple
> relations and with different admin levels in the different relations.
> 
> richard
> 

Yes, that is what I would do. It would just be what would make sense.

thanx - ray

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

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

[Richie Kennedy]

This issue has been brought up in the AARoads forum in addition to on talk-us. 
It is the general consensus of the AARoads members that fully controlled access 
highways should be tagged as motorway, and that roads with a mix of full and 
partial controlled access segments are not as a whole partial controlled access 
highways – the segments that clearly have fully controlled access should still 
be tagged as “motorway.”
I have also stated in the past, and will re-iterate again, that I believe that 
*any* fully-controlled access roadway should be tagged as motorway, including 
fully controlled access super-2 and super-4 roadways.
As to what constitutes a fully controlled access segment of roadway, that can 
sometimes be a judgement call. In the current situation, it has been noted that 
WSDOT has cleanly delineated between the fully controlled and partially 
controlled segments of WA 500 with signage and on maps. Taking an example from 
my home turf, KS 7: between Olathe and Bonner Springs, the road alternates 
between at-grade interchanges and interchanges. There is no signage to 
indicated that controlled access is beginning or ending, and KDOT maps do not 
show and difference between fully controlled and partially controlled 4-lane 
non-interstates. My rule of thumb is usually at least three grade separations, 
two if I know there are future plans to convert nearby at-grade intersections 
to grade seperations. There are four interchanges at 119th Street, College 
Blvd, K-10, and Prairie Star Parkway north of Olathe, followed by a private 
at-grade, an interchange at 83rd, and a restricted access at-grade at 75th 
(left and right turns permitted onto 75th, traffic on 75th can only turn right 
onto K-7). North of 75th, there’s an interchange at Shawnee Mission Parkway, a 
grade seperation with Clear Creek Parkway, and an recently completed 
interchange at Johnson Drive. Past Johnson Drive, there are two signalized 
at-grade intersections at 47th and 43rd Streets, followed by the Kansas River 
bridge and two more interchanges at K-32 and at Nettleton Ave. North of 
Nettleton, all intersections are at-grade except for State Avenue, which is a 
six-ramp partial cloverleaf.
The 119th to Prairie Star Parkway segment clearly is a controlled access 
segment, with 4 interchanges. Because 83rd Street is in between two at-grades, 
that interchange is considered part of a partially controlled access segment 
and is left as a trunk. The SMP/Johnson Drive segment only has two 
interchanges, but with the Clear Creek Parkway separation between the two 
interchanges, there is sufficient reason to mark this up as a controlled access 
segment. The K-32/Nettleton interchanges are a little more marginal, but KDOT 
does have future plans to add additional interchanges farther north. Therefore, 
I’m allowing it to be marked as motorway. If there wasn’t any serious plan to 
replace any adjacent at-grade intersections with interchagnes, I would have 
kept it as trunk.
As to the loss of lane data on WA 500, jakeroot has reviewed his edits and has 
stated on AARoads that his removal of the lane data was inadvertant. He does 
appear to support a revert in order to restore the lane data; however, he is 
among those that believe the controlled access segments of WA 500 should be 
tagged as motorway, as noted above.
Richie Kennedy, McLouth KS
OSM/fb/Twitter: route56
www.route56.com___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Whole-US Garmin Map update - 2015-09-03

[Dave Hansen]

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/2015-09-03

Map to visualize what each file contains:


http://daveh.dev.openstreetmap.org/garmin/Lambertus/2015-09-03/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/2015-09-03

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
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us