Re: [Talk-us] New MapRoulette now in early public beta

[Valerie Anderson]

Martijn,

It looks great on Chromium and Firefox/Iceweasel.

Cheers,

Val

On Wed, 2016-05-25 at 20:29 +, talk-us-requ...@openstreetmap.org
wrote:
> Send Talk-us mailing list submissions to
>   talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>   https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>   talk-us-requ...@openstreetmap.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>   talk-us-ow...@openstreetmap.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Talk-us digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>1. Re: Odd road / odd structure (Paul Johnson)
>2. Re: Proposed import cleanup: NYSDEClands (Kevin Kenny)
>3. New MapRoulette now in early public beta (Martijn van Exel)
>4. Re: New MapRoulette now in early public beta (Rihards)
>5. Re: New MapRoulette now in early public beta (Kevin Kenny)
>6. Re: New MapRoulette now in early public beta (Martijn van Exel)
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 13:12:57 -0500
> From: Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org>
> To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list <talk-us@openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Odd road / odd structure
> Message-ID:
>   <CAMPM96qJv2a3ano+hPkDs55F0wpvhOA=skqjbi8ronf10j6...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 8:55 AM, Steve Friedl <st...@unixwiz.net> wrote:
> >
> > The Irvine GIS guy told me that Paisley Place also servers as a utility
> > easement, which may have impacted some of the design.  These are quite
> > pretty little walkways, with a nice gate to enter, it’s just odd that it’s
> > a street.
> >
> 
> Huh?  The only thing I could see that could be remotely construed as a
> through walkway is the concrete gutter, which would make a natural break at
> the planter that for all practical purposes breaks up the street as a
> traffic calming measure, and appears to have barely slowed down the Google
> car, much less anyone on foot.
> 
> 
> > But regarding the big water catchment surface:
> >
> >
> >
> > Ø  Depending on the cant and the surface, it could actually be some sort
> > of French drain or infiltration pad designed as potentially an emergency
> > helipad.  I, personally, would make no assumption as to what it was without
> > at least cursory knowledge of the region's drainage and/or rescue tropes …
> >
> >
> >
> > I have some of that cursory knowledge, plus I actually hiked up there and
> > checked it out myself – there’s no question that it’s there to collect
> > water, drain it into the two cisterns to the southeast, and there’s a water
> > tap a little farther to the southwest.
> >
> >
> >
> > What you can’t see from the satellite imagery is that it’s at the top of a
> > hill, the only water it can possibly collect is rainwater.  It’s also clear
> > that this isn’t being used any more, but back in the forties I’m certain it
> > was a great place to water your horse.
> >
> >
> >
> > I think it would serve as a fine helipad, though these were constructed
> > before helicopters were in widespread enough use to be considered for
> > that.  I’m going to ask the local fire agency if they have records of using
> > that spot for helo.
> >
> 
> Very interesting edge case; I'd honestly be surprised based on aerial
> imagery if the cisterns aren't still in use as at least an emergency water
> supply, given that particular stretch of hills' propensity for fire.  It
> has a dry climate, some plants that depend on fire for reproduction, and
> eucalyptus, which the AU crowd can testify sets itself on fire for like, no
> reason.
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20160525/16f7566c/attachment-0001.html>
> 
> --
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 14:47:48 -0400
> From: Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com>
> To: "talk-us@openstreetmap.org" <talk-us@openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Proposed import cleanup: NYSDEClands
> Message-ID:
>   

Re: [Talk-us] New MapRoulette now in early public beta

[Kevin Kenny]

Logging out, flushing cookies, and logging in again brought me to
'Saint Charles Smartt Airfield' and 'False Positive' worked this time.

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

Re: [Talk-us] New MapRoulette now in early public beta

[Kevin Kenny]

Should I expect it to be operating? I tried logging in, and the first
purported aerodrome I got was the actual 'Branson West Airport'. It
was well-mapped, so I clicked 'False Positive' and 'Next' - and got
"KO: Invalid task status supplied".



On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Martijn van Exel  wrote:
 MapRoulette has been completely redone, hopefully keeping the good parts and
> improving on some things that were not so great. I’m pretty excited to
> announce that I have a public beta up now at http://maproulette.org:8080. I
> am very much looking forward to your feedback. Old MapRoulette will be
> around for a month or so more, then we will switch over. Some more details
> below. Let me know what you think, or if you want to help out!

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

Re: [Talk-us] New MapRoulette now in early public beta

[Rihards]

On 2016.05.25. 22:01, Martijn van Exel wrote:

Hi all,

MapRoulette has been completely redone, hopefully keeping the good parts
and improving on some things that were not so great. I’m pretty excited
to announce that I have a public beta up now at
http://maproulette.org:8080. I am very much looking forward to your
feedback. Old MapRoulette will be around for a month or so more, then we
will switch over. Some more details below. Let me know what you think,
or if you want to help out!


a really minor thing, but you might want to change "why not add hangers" 
to "hangars" ;)



Map on,
Martijn

Some resources
Mailing List:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/maproulette/ (low volume)
Slack: maproulette.slack.com 
Code: https://github.com/maproulette/
API: https://github.com/maproulette/maproulette2/blob/master/docs/api.md

Major changes / improvements are
* Much improved metrics (this part particularly under heavy development
and feedback welcome)
* Challenges now grouped in Projects that can be managed by multiple users
* Project / Challenge administration now fully integrated in the user
interface
* Survey challenges let you ask questions about things with multiple
choice answers
* Tasks can have tags for another layer of organization
* Challenge search and discovery through a one box search (still very
early, more to come here and feedback welcome)
* API is more consistent and more RESTful
* Due to new challenge model, there is no backward compatibility with
the old API
* Switching to API keys, no more tunneling / ease
* Back end now completely written in Scala
* Deployment fully automated through Docker





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




--
 Rihards

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

[Talk-us] New MapRoulette now in early public beta

[Martijn van Exel]

Hi all, 

MapRoulette has been completely redone, hopefully keeping the good parts and 
improving on some things that were not so great. I’m pretty excited to announce 
that I have a public beta up now at http://maproulette.org:8080 
. I am very much looking forward to your 
feedback. Old MapRoulette will be around for a month or so more, then we will 
switch over. Some more details below. Let me know what you think, or if you 
want to help out!

Map on,
Martijn

Some resources
Mailing List: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/maproulette/ 
 (low volume)
Slack: maproulette.slack.com 
Code: https://github.com/maproulette/ 
API: https://github.com/maproulette/maproulette2/blob/master/docs/api.md 


Major changes / improvements are
* Much improved metrics (this part particularly under heavy development and 
feedback welcome)
* Challenges now grouped in Projects that can be managed by multiple users
* Project / Challenge administration now fully integrated in the user interface
* Survey challenges let you ask questions about things with multiple choice 
answers
* Tasks can have tags for another layer of organization
* Challenge search and discovery through a one box search (still very early, 
more to come here and feedback welcome)
* API is more consistent and more RESTful
* Due to new challenge model, there is no backward compatibility with the old 
API
* Switching to API keys, no more tunneling / ease
* Back end now completely written in Scala
* Deployment fully automated through Docker



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

Re: [Talk-us] Proposed import cleanup: NYSDEClands

[Kevin Kenny]

Oh, another question.  Some of the New York state land parcels have
rather complicated topology, and the previous import didn't get them
entirely right: duplicated nodes, crossing ways, nodes close to other
ways, and so on. Moreover, the upstream data are fairly arbitrarily
divided. An example is Burnt-Rossman Hills State Forest (which has
some recent changes from me that consisted of detaching the boundary
from crossing ways and deduplicating nodes).

From the upstream system, this arrives as six separate chunks,
corresponding to ways 32035570, 32026630, 32002834, 32047624, 32035988
and 39186229. Some of the fragmentation appears to be simply to avoid
having holes in any of the polygons (Why this is done is unclear: the
shapefile uses multipolygons to represent the parcels, so they can
support inner rings.)

My inclination would be to use PostGIS to coalesce all of these using
ST_Union, and then import the simplified multipolygon, which the tools
surely know how to do. I think that would be more in keeping with our
data model, and would keep us from rendering internal borders on the
parcels. It loses the LANDS_UID of the parcels, but I don't think
that's a particularly useful thing to keep around.

The rule for coalescing would be to group by facility number, so all
the parcels of Burnt-Rossman Hills State Forest would be one relation,
while the ones of adjacent Mallet Pond State Forest would be another.

With all this said, I'm better at PostGIS programming than at OSM
modeling, so I could be off in the weeds here. Does this idea make
sense?

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

Re: [Talk-us] Odd road / odd structure

[Paul Johnson]

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 8:55 AM, Steve Friedl  wrote:
>
> The Irvine GIS guy told me that Paisley Place also servers as a utility
> easement, which may have impacted some of the design.  These are quite
> pretty little walkways, with a nice gate to enter, it’s just odd that it’s
> a street.
>

Huh?  The only thing I could see that could be remotely construed as a
through walkway is the concrete gutter, which would make a natural break at
the planter that for all practical purposes breaks up the street as a
traffic calming measure, and appears to have barely slowed down the Google
car, much less anyone on foot.


> But regarding the big water catchment surface:
>
>
>
> Ø  Depending on the cant and the surface, it could actually be some sort
> of French drain or infiltration pad designed as potentially an emergency
> helipad.  I, personally, would make no assumption as to what it was without
> at least cursory knowledge of the region's drainage and/or rescue tropes …
>
>
>
> I have some of that cursory knowledge, plus I actually hiked up there and
> checked it out myself – there’s no question that it’s there to collect
> water, drain it into the two cisterns to the southeast, and there’s a water
> tap a little farther to the southwest.
>
>
>
> What you can’t see from the satellite imagery is that it’s at the top of a
> hill, the only water it can possibly collect is rainwater.  It’s also clear
> that this isn’t being used any more, but back in the forties I’m certain it
> was a great place to water your horse.
>
>
>
> I think it would serve as a fine helipad, though these were constructed
> before helicopters were in widespread enough use to be considered for
> that.  I’m going to ask the local fire agency if they have records of using
> that spot for helo.
>

Very interesting edge case; I'd honestly be surprised based on aerial
imagery if the cisterns aren't still in use as at least an emergency water
supply, given that particular stretch of hills' propensity for fire.  It
has a dry climate, some plants that depend on fire for reproduction, and
eucalyptus, which the AU crowd can testify sets itself on fire for like, no
reason.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Proposed import cleanup: NYSDEClands

[Kevin Kenny]

I've been continuing to investigate the NYS DEC Lands file, because,
as Paul Norman identified, the original import is not up to current
OSM standards. I'm not going to apologize for reimporting - a reimport
will surely leave less of a mess than what is there!

It's become clear to me that for most of these lands, and certainly
for the entirety of the Forest Preserve, leisure=nature_reserve is a
correct description for legacy renderers. landuse=forest is
emphatically not correct. These lands are not used for timber
production. natural=wood may or may not be correct, depending on
landcover. boundary=national_park would also be semantically close for
the Forest Preserve lands, except that the Forest Preserve is not
administered at the national level.

It would be desirable to include boundary=protected_area for these
parcels, since all of them enjoy some sort of legal conservation
protection, and the Forest Preserve lands enjoy extremely strong
protection - stronger than the US National Parks. If we include this,
it's also desirable to include a protect_class. IUCN's web site
describes all these lands as class VI. The description of class 6,
nevertheless, does not fit the Forest Preserve. It might fit the
Adirondack and Catskill Parks in their entirety, where sustainable use
of natural resources is the goal. The State-owned lands within the
parks, however, are conserved to a much stricter standard.

The purpose of this writeup is to review New York State's land
classification scheme and attempt to assign appropriate protect_class
for the lands, in hopes of not creating yet another mess for someone
else to clean up down the road.

Feel free to scroll all the way down to the summary if you don't care
to follow the arguments for each decision. The summary gives
protect_class and protection_object for each classification of State
land.


1. THE FOREST PRESERVE
==

New York's Forest Preserve was created in 1894 by Article XIV of the
New York State Constitution. Its original wording still stands:

The lands of the State, now owned or hereafter acquired,
constituting the Forest Preserve as now fixed by law, shall be
forever kept as wild forest lands. They shall not be leased, sold
or exchanged, or be taken by any corporation, public or private,
nor shall the timber thereon be sold, removed or destroyed.
http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/55849.html

It has been amended with many codicils, but in fact remains as strong
as ever. The amendments still must be placed on the ballot by a
supermajority of both houses of the state legislature in two sessions
with a general election intervening, and then presented as a popular
referendum. I can remember one election where there were six such
measures on the ballot, all widely supported by both development
advocates and conservationists. The consensus arose from the fact that
both sides got something: the Forest Preserve was expanded while the
lost land served an economic purpose. One typical example was that the
Sagamore Institute, a non-profit educational foundation, was allowed
to take title to ten acres containing historic buildings (placing them
under unitary ownership) on condition that the site would be conserved
as a historic site and remain open to the public - in return for two
hundred acres of wild forest land.

The Forest Preserve comprises the State-owned lands within the
Catskill and Adirondack Parks. The line fixed by the 1894 law defining
the parks is often called the Blue Line because it is traditionally
drawn in blue on maps of New York State. It also includes several
'detached parcels' that are outside the Blue Line but still located in
the counties that contain the Forest Preserve. These parcels enjoy the
same constitutional protection.

The State-owned lands in the Forest Preserve fall in several
administrative categories.
http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/7811.html

A. WILDERNESS

The formal definition is found at the above URL. It is close to the
IUCN definition of Class Ib and the Federal definition of Wilderness
Area. It is "an area where the Earth and its community of life are
untrammeled by Man - where Man himself is a visitor who does not
remain." It cannot be class Ia, because public access is unrestricted.
Ordinarily, a parcel will be designated as Wilderness only
if it is at least ten thousand acres (4500 ha) in extent; preserving
smaller parcels in an unimpaired condition is usually impracticable.

Wilderness areas constitute 1.3 million acres (2100 square miles,
5400 km**2) of the lands in question.

I would suggest that Wilderness ought to be protect_class=1.

B. PRIMITIVE, PRIMITIVE BICYCLE CORRIDOR, CANOE

All of these are essentially the same as Wilderness. In the case of
Primitive Areas, there is usually some existing nonconformant use that
cannot be removed on a fixed timetable or are adjacent to private
lands that are sufficiently influential that wilderness designation
cannot be supported. 

Re: [Talk-us] Odd road / odd structure

[Paul Johnson]

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 10:19 PM, Bill Ricker  wrote:

>
> ​While 'livable street'​
>
> ​is an Urban Design term of at for the concept in some areas, I don't see
> it in OSM wiki or taginfo ? [5] .  OSM seems to use the similar
> highway=living_street  [6]  for low speed limits, pedestrian as primary but
> not exclusive, which doesn't seem to be the case in the grassy-and-walk
> shared front yards shown by the original question on thread here (but
> without Mews/alley in rear).
>

While I agree mostly with this, I don't think the grass is even remotely
intended as a pedestrian facility in this case, but what passes for a front
yard in what would almost certainly be a mews or alleyway.  This particular
execution of the concept would fall into the territory of "I could do this,
but don't expect me to cut the grass ever" and "butthurt HOAs" from
experience, as if literally anyone spends time on the street side of their
home in this kind of layout, much less enough to even remotely care that
someone's lawn is...really anything even remotely close to fire code height.

The living_street examples in OSM wiki appear to be extreme traffic calming
> to restore in-street playability to 1950s suburban, 1930s urban level but
> still tolerate commuter cars returning home and a UPS delivery through the
> street-ball play, which is not the feature exhibited by original post.​


There just plain isn't a direct mapping to the source material (ie, UK)
concept and the US concept at all, and the US is a weirdly variable system,
so there's a lot of approximation in play.  I'm not saying there isn't room
for negotiation for certain concepts (trunk versus motorway versus primary;
service versus living street versus residential are seemingly vi vs emacs
arguments in the American OSM community when these have very clearly
identifiable mappings in the UK OC).  However, I believe that things like
apartment driveways and this particular way are strong candidates for the
closest American equivalent to a living street, in much the same sense that
a trunk maps relatively nicely to surface expressways (New Englanders and
urban midwesterners would call it a parkway, folks in the pacific northwest
would call it an expressway) whereas motorway maps immaculately to roads
that meet the Eisenhower Interstate standard with extremely rare
exception).  And then there's footway/path/cycleway issues.

I may (and probably should) flesh out a blog post with my examples for each
in a US perspective at this point, even if my regions of expertise are
largely Hawaii plus what is part of the NBA Northwest Division or the
Canadian Hockey League's Western League, with a strong specialization at
this point for southern plains situations as a summarization.  I'm not
saying my way is the right way, but we've all run into this "bad congruence
to the original concept" situation with the UK's immaculate equivalences to
OSM tagging by definition that I'd like to compare fleshed out
perspectives...
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] iD news: v1.9.5 released

[Bryan Housel]

iD v1.9.5 was released May 25 2016 and is now available for editing on 
openstreetmap.org 

The release includes:
- Fix bug causing Russian track type translated strings to sneak into tag values
- Change color of save button as user edits increase (built by tanerochris)
- Spacebar can now be used to click for faster drawing (built by brandonreavis)
- Localized phone number placeholder (built by dobratzp)
- Command-B / Control-B will switch to recently used Background imagery (built 
by RoPP)
- Fix bug causing greedy autocompletion of dropdown control (built by Kushan 
Joshi)
- More presets, bug fixes, usability improvements

Many thanks to everyone who contributed to this release!  I’m really excited 
about how many people are contributing to iD these days. 

Changelog: https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/blob/master/CHANGELOG.md#195 

Twitter:   https://twitter.com/bhousel/status/735468105435119616 



Thanks,
Bryan

Follow me on Twitter https://twitter.com/bhousel , 
or follow the iD project on GitHub https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD 
 for more iD tips and updates.___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Odd road / odd structure

[Kevin Kenny]

One more try - I'm still getting used to this 'gmail alias' stuff. My
apologies if people are getting multiple copies - I'm getting
bouncemail.

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Steve Friedl  wrote:
> I have some of that cursory knowledge, plus I actually hiked up there and
> checked it out myself – there’s no question that it’s there to collect
> water, drain it into the two cisterns to the southeast, and there’s a water
> tap a little farther to the southwest.

It sounds as if it's a landuse=basin.

None of the basin types on the Wiki seem right for it, though; I might
tag it basin=catchment or some such.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Odd road / odd structure

[Steve Friedl]

I appreciate the many thoughtful replies here, thank you.

 

For the street that’s not a street, somebody else had added it as a footway, 
which feels like exactly the right thing anyway. 

 

But, to the Civil Engineer :)

 

*  Ugh...this actually pains me as a civil engineer.  Not for the traffic 
calming effort but the fact that they very evidently designed this whole thing 
with AutoCAD blocks without any thought whatsoever, to the point of running the 
concrete gutter through the green space without so much as considering a 
bollard and french drain instead, amongst many possible alternatives

 

The Irvine GIS guy told me that Paisley Place also servers as a utility 
easement, which may have impacted some of the design.  These are quite pretty 
little walkways, with a nice gate to enter, it’s just odd that it’s a street.

 

But regarding the big water catchment surface:

 

*  Depending on the cant and the surface, it could actually be some sort of 
French drain or infiltration pad designed as potentially an emergency helipad.  
I, personally, would make no assumption as to what it was without at least 
cursory knowledge of the region's drainage and/or rescue tropes …

 

I have some of that cursory knowledge, plus I actually hiked up there and 
checked it out myself – there’s no question that it’s there to collect water, 
drain it into the two cisterns to the southeast, and there’s a water tap a 
little farther to the southwest.

 

What you can’t see from the satellite imagery is that it’s at the top of a 
hill, the only water it can possibly collect is rainwater.  It’s also clear 
that this isn’t being used any more, but back in the forties I’m certain it was 
a great place to water your horse.

 

I think it would serve as a fine helipad, though these were constructed before 
helicopters were in widespread enough use to be considered for that.  I’m going 
to ask the local fire agency if they have records of using that spot for helo.

 

Thanks for the really useful input.

 

Steve

 

From: Paul Johnson [mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 2:19 PM
To: Steve Friedl 
Cc: OpenStreetMap talk-us list 
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Odd road / odd structure

 

 

 

On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Steve Friedl  > wrote:

Hi all,

 

I have two things that I just don’t quite know how to map.  Sorry that I have 
to provide Google Maps views to demonstrate.

 

1)  How does one represent a named street which is really a greenbelt: 
never been drivable, was assigned a name just to allow attaching a street name 
to the houses on either side.

 

Example: In Irvine California there’s a residential area shown here:

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7298257,-117.7572128,19z

 

I’m referring to Paisley Place, which is shown as a named alley connecting 
Garden Gate Lane and Winslow Lane.

 

After surveying the area and seeing that the City of Irvine GIS showed Paisley 
as that greenbelt, I reported it as an error (as I’ve done dozens of times for 
other things), but the very helpful GIS manager reported that this is correct 
(but certainly odd), and the two street-like things on either side of it are 
just unnamed alleys.

 

How do I represent this in OSM?  It’s not a street that doesn’t allow access, 
it’s not really even a street!

 

I wouldn't really call that a greenbelt.  In the American context, this is an 
edge case, big time.  I would lean towards livable_street, since there's no 
separate sidewalk, no reasonable expectation you're going to go more than 
cycleway speed, and the main entries to buildings are on it.  Given my 
experience with most developments, if they literally had another street with 
the front doors, this would be highway=service, service=alley instead of being 
a worst-of-both-worlds example of trying to make a pedestrian and bicycle 
friendly space in a car-centric area by force...I don't even know what to call 
the planter midway down anything but stupid, though I would probably go 
barrier=block, vehicle=no, though it seems we have evidence that the Google Car 
has just squeezed between the trees (and there's obvious evidence that 
literally anyone that isn't a full-track vehicle and some that are go through 
there anyway).  And I don't think there's anything legally stopping you from 
stepping over the planter on foot.

 

Ugh...this actually pains me as a civil engineer.  Not for the traffic calming 
effort but the fact that they very evidently designed this whole thing with 
AutoCAD blocks without any thought whatsoever, to the point of running the 
concrete gutter through the green space without so much as considering a 
bollard and french drain instead, amongst many possible alternatives..

 

In the Santa Ana Mountains in Southern California, the satellite views show 
something that looks exactly like a helipad: