Re: [Talk-us] "System Continuity" in the Functional Classification network

[Bradley White]

> In this document is a concept called "System Continuity". In few words, a 
> roadway of a higher classification should not connect to a single roadway of 
> a lower classification, so the network remains interconnected.
> Do you know if this concept applies to OSM roads network also?

Motorway is purely a physical tag, so it does not necessarily follow
this principle. Primary, secondary, etc. should with few exceptions,
and usually do. Trunk, not so much. Most (probably) mappers in the US
use it to mean "expressway", and have arbitrarily varying cutoffs for
what constitutes as such, ranging from sensical (Santa Clara
expressway system, CA), to not so much (this U.S. highway has gone
from 5 lanes single-carriage to 4 lanes dual-carriage and thus has
become a trunk; this extremely important cross-country highway slows
down briefly through a small town and thus is no longer trunk).

Without getting too much into my opinions about this, the majority of
U.S. mappers use trunk to mean "almost a motorway but not quite", in
which case you will _not_ find continuity, while some U.S. mappers use
trunk to mean "most important roads that don't meet strict motorway
standards", in which case you will (or at least should) find
continuity.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Tampa/Clearwater Building Import to aid in Irma Recovery Efforts

[Jordan Brod]

Seems to be a lot of concerns for an import that is meant to bolster data
available prior to a major hurricane strike, when HOT does a task in Africa
I often don't see the same level of concern about the armchair mapper's
local knowledge.  That's just my observation, and I have worked some tasks
for HOT, and I have also done editing for places in the Middle East in
relation to a project I was doing for a customer and I have never come
close to stepping foot in any of those countries.  I know there are many in
the global community that have aversions to imports but if the process can
be held to a great standard, and in the face of a natural disaster, I think
we can put aside our own biases on how the map is made better.

As to the Texas statements, I have lived in Texas my whole life and have
worked for several local/state governments/parties.  There is a strong
backlash within some communities about sharing anything that cannot have
cost recuperated.  It is a stance that is slowly changing due to the strong
push from communities such as OSM, but it hasn't reached the level of other
states or countries.  Part of the problem is that there isn't a central
authority in charge of data.  You have council of governments that produce
data, counties that produce data, the state that produces data, state
agencies that produce data, and local governments that produce data.  Much
of the data could be said to be duplicated efforts but there hasn't been a
strong push from the legislature or the governor to have anything close to
a centralized data portal.  You can add to that problem the inability for
many counties and towns to afford GIS (something I'm hoping to help with as
part of my business) or GIS professionals to make data, let alone to
purchase data when it is offered.  The other issue is licensing.  I live in
North Texas and when the different communities up here get together to fly
aerials and derive planimetrics the operation is carried out by the North
Central Texas Council of Governments, which hires a company to do the
work.  When the work is done the cities that signed up for the project pay
the COG for the data and the COG pays the contractor.  In this process the
data is licensed so that only those who pay for it can use it.  That means
that many of the building footprint data sets are prevented from being
listed as open data because of the license involved.  With TNRIS releasing
LiDAR data openly hopefully some of this will change but for now it is what
it is.

That's my two cents worth on this, I think getting the data in is
important, especially as many of the government entities and news
organizations are using OSM data backed maps for base maps in the disaster
management process.  For example NOAA used a MapBox basemap for their post
Harvey aerial map (https://storms.ngs.noaa.gov/storms/harvey/index.html) I
think it would be important with the high visibility the map is getting in
the US to make sure that it accurately reflects reality on the ground.

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Clifford Snow 
wrote:

> Frederik - I'll attempt to answer your questions below. This is part of
> the effort to help in recovery efforts for hurricane Harvey and Irma.  My
> tasks are using the Microsoft provided building footprints to hard hit
> areas. There are two separate, but with common individuals involved. The US
> community is working on tasks in the US while HOT OSM is working on the
> Caribbean Island recovery efforts.
>
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 12:50 AM, Frederik Ramm 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> could you share some thoughts about your general process with these
>> imports? I notice that you seem to be working on a lot of them. - Have
>> you forgotten to raise Tampa/Clearwater on imports@ or was the Corpus
>> Christi one assumed to be a kind of template for all Microsoft building
>> footprint imports?
>>
>
> I wanted to get the word out to the US community first. By now I expected
> to have it posted to the import list, but i'm having problems with my cloud
> storage.
>
>>
>> I'm unclear about the status. Your posting simply says "the wiki page
>> for the import is available". What does that mean? The wiki page for
>> Corpus Christi says "Pending acceptance", the "stats" tab on
>> http://tasks.openstreetmap.us/project/118 says "0% complete" yet the
>> "activity" tab says "Glassman marked #233 as done about 6 hours ago".
>> Was that a test edit, or is the import already started?
>>
>
> Task 233 was just a small test. ( and I forgot to use my import account)
>  This task has relatively low priority since the major flooding was in
> areas east of Corpus Christi. The 0% is just a rounding error. One of a few
> thousand tasks have been completed.  I've updated the wiki page to remove
> the pending acceptance.
>
>>
>> Do you have plans to prepare further regions for imports? Since you're
>> not local to the areas in question (would it be fair to say you're on
>> the other 

Re: [Talk-us] Tampa/Clearwater Building Import to aid in Irma Recovery Efforts

[Clifford Snow]

Frederik - I'll attempt to answer your questions below. This is part of the
effort to help in recovery efforts for hurricane Harvey and Irma.  My tasks
are using the Microsoft provided building footprints to hard hit areas.
There are two separate, but with common individuals involved. The US
community is working on tasks in the US while HOT OSM is working on the
Caribbean Island recovery efforts.

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 12:50 AM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

>
>
> could you share some thoughts about your general process with these
> imports? I notice that you seem to be working on a lot of them. - Have
> you forgotten to raise Tampa/Clearwater on imports@ or was the Corpus
> Christi one assumed to be a kind of template for all Microsoft building
> footprint imports?
>

I wanted to get the word out to the US community first. By now I expected
to have it posted to the import list, but i'm having problems with my cloud
storage.

>
> I'm unclear about the status. Your posting simply says "the wiki page
> for the import is available". What does that mean? The wiki page for
> Corpus Christi says "Pending acceptance", the "stats" tab on
> http://tasks.openstreetmap.us/project/118 says "0% complete" yet the
> "activity" tab says "Glassman marked #233 as done about 6 hours ago".
> Was that a test edit, or is the import already started?
>

Task 233 was just a small test. ( and I forgot to use my import account)
 This task has relatively low priority since the major flooding was in
areas east of Corpus Christi. The 0% is just a rounding error. One of a few
thousand tasks have been completed.  I've updated the wiki page to remove
the pending acceptance.

>
> Do you have plans to prepare further regions for imports? Since you're
> not local to the areas in question (would it be fair to say you're on
> the other end of the country?), do you undertake any efforts to enlist
> local mappers besides posting on talk-us?
>

Yes we want local mappers involved. To your point, yes i'm far removed from
Florida. But I've been fortunate to have spend quite abit of time in the
state. Not only my travels for business but close relatives living
throughout the state. I even used to host a conference just outside of
Clearwater.

>
> Do you have any statistics about who the participants in these imports
> are? As you know, the reason we're doing these "community imports" is
> that we hope to bring local knowledge to the table; do wo know if this
> works, or is it the same people (potentially from the other end of the
> country) that perform the majority of import tasks on each?
>

I can't answer that question unfortunately. Some of the mappers I know to
be very experienced and others less so. Where they are located and what
local knowledge they have is not information that I have access to. We have
a number of people volunteering to help with these tasks. Building imports
are lower priority task. Getting roads updated and working in hard hit
areas are high on our priority list. Texas is an interesting state - not
much open data and a government that likes to cut corners in my opinion.
What government data is available to help recovery teams is an unknown. We
have put out a call for locals to help with specific tasks, but I'm not
actively involved with those efforts.

>
> I'd also be interested in how long it takes for these imports to
> complete; obviously if we should notice that people add 10k buildings in
> an hour we must assume that the necessary diligence was not applied. --
> I know that when HOT apply their tasking manager they often have a step
> where a second person verifies the data added (or maybe just spot-checks
> it). Is that a feature that the imports you run also have? The wiki page
> for Corpus Christy says "QA: Validation: Use of validation tools in the
> Tasking Manager process", but I assume that just refers to usual
> automatic checks done by JOSM, not a second person inspecting the result?
>

The US Tasking Manager is the same version 2 of HOT's Tasking Manager which
includes a second person's validation step. It's one of the great features
of TM.  If you look at the tasks that are near completion, you can see that
work is being validated.



-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] "System Continuity" in the Functional Classification network

[Greg Troxel]

Frederik Ramm  writes:

> Hi,
>
> On 07.09.2017 16:51, Max Erickson wrote:
>> Broadly speaking, yes, such continuity should apply. Maybe not using
>> exactly the same rule as the US DOT.
>
> I know this is talk-us and I won't attempt to say anything USA specific
> but such continuity definitely does not apply world-wide in OSM (there
> have been cases where people tried to enforce such continuity without
> local knowledge only to be repudiated by locals).

I also don't think there is a continuity notion in the US in OSM.

In particular, in the US, we have a notion of primary is a US highway
(or a state highway that is equally important).   So a continuity
property in OSM tagging tends to follow from continuity in the
underlying networks.

trunk, however, is special.  It more or less means "primary which is
50-90% of the way to motorway".  So that means there are stretches where
it changes, and that's ok.  (it shouldn't change every one mile, but 5
miles is defintely normal)



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

Re: [Talk-us] Hurricane Irma - Puerto Rico

[Jordan Brod]

Yeah and none of those are Puerto Rico, my point being that it will be
overlooked as HOT would view it as part of the U.S.  That's why my post
focused on Puerto Rico, HOT had already activated for Sint Maartens at that
point which is French and Dutch territory, the new activations appear to be
for British territory none of which is Puerto Rico.  I am not saying HOT
isn't doing anything in regards to It a, I'm trying to fill in a gap that
is missed.

On Sep 7, 2017 12:43 AM, "Marc Gemis"  wrote:

> The hot task manager http://tasks.hotosm.org/ already lists 4 tasks :
> 3499, 3501, 3502 and 3504
>
> regards
>
> m.
>
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:33 AM, Jordan Brod  wrote:
> > Hey all,
> >
> > I was curious if anybody was planning to do a response similar to what
> was
> > done in the Houston area for Puerto Rico (technically part of the US) in
> > regards to Irma.  From looking at the map San Juan looks to be well
> mapped
> > but the other areas seem to be lacking in building footprints.  The
> reason I
> > ask is that with Puerto Rico being a commonwealth / unincorporated
> territory
> > of the U.S. and not a state I don't know what kind of attention they will
> > receive from FEMA or any of the other federal disaster departments, and
> if
> > they are really hamstrung on data we might be able to offer assistance.
> I
> > don't think HOT will do an activation for Puerto Rico since they are
> part of
> > the U.S. even if not an official state, and from the looks of the current
> > response they are only activating for islands that have requested their
> > help.
> >
> > ___
> > 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] "System Continuity" in the Functional Classification network

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 07.09.2017 16:51, Max Erickson wrote:
> Broadly speaking, yes, such continuity should apply. Maybe not using
> exactly the same rule as the US DOT.

I know this is talk-us and I won't attempt to say anything USA specific
but such continuity definitely does not apply world-wide in OSM (there
have been cases where people tried to enforce such continuity without
local knowledge only to be repudiated by locals).

Bye
Frederik


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

Re: [Talk-us] "System Continuity" in the Functional Classification network

[Max Erickson]

Broadly speaking, yes, such continuity should apply. Maybe not using
exactly the same rule as the US DOT.

In practice there is an overfocus on observing how a given stretch of
road is built and an underfocus on the role it plays in the network.
My pet example is this stretch of US 2 & 41:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/45.9090/-86.9901

Several times it has been upgraded to trunk, to reflect that it is
dual carriageway. But it doesn't make any sense for a trunk road to
run the short distance between a tiny village and a small town. Lately
I've been leaning towards classifying most of US 2 as trunk, as it is
the major east-west corridor in the region. But the difference between
primary and trunk should be for the longer stretch of road, not just
to distinguish that one stretch is overbuilt.

Another example I see in the data is short cul-de-sacs tagged as
tertiary, sometimes alone and sometimes as the continuation across an
intersection of a longer road. The sensible classification for these
is frequently unclassified, because they serve as the public access
road for a small commercial or industrial area.


Max

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

[Talk-us] "System Continuity" in the Functional Classification network

[Ionut Radu - (p)]

Hi all,

I am researching Functional Classification in Detroit counties and I found a 
pdf from US Department of transportation - FHA entitled Highway Functional 
Classification: Concepts, Criteria and Procedures. (if someone is interested 
here's the link: 
http://www.sddot.com/transportation/highways/classification/docs/HwyFunctionalClassification.pdf)
In this document is a concept called "System Continuity". In few words, a 
roadway of a higher classification should not connect to a single roadway of a 
lower classification, so the network remains interconnected.
Do you know if this concept applies to OSM roads network also?
I would greatly appreciate your feedback.

Some IDs as an example:
way 59511836
way 506656034
way 506656035
way 491105399
way 42372800
way 507025566
way 8697917
way 40788309
way 435476888
way 45806340
way 506710300

Best regards,
Ionut

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

Re: [Talk-us] Tampa/Clearwater Building Import to aid in Irma Recovery Efforts

[Frederik Ramm]

Clifford,

could you share some thoughts about your general process with these
imports? I notice that you seem to be working on a lot of them. - Have
you forgotten to raise Tampa/Clearwater on imports@ or was the Corpus
Christi one assumed to be a kind of template for all Microsoft building
footprint imports?

I'm unclear about the status. Your posting simply says "the wiki page
for the import is available". What does that mean? The wiki page for
Corpus Christi says "Pending acceptance", the "stats" tab on
http://tasks.openstreetmap.us/project/118 says "0% complete" yet the
"activity" tab says "Glassman marked #233 as done about 6 hours ago".
Was that a test edit, or is the import already started?

Do you have plans to prepare further regions for imports? Since you're
not local to the areas in question (would it be fair to say you're on
the other end of the country?), do you undertake any efforts to enlist
local mappers besides posting on talk-us?

Do you have any statistics about who the participants in these imports
are? As you know, the reason we're doing these "community imports" is
that we hope to bring local knowledge to the table; do wo know if this
works, or is it the same people (potentially from the other end of the
country) that perform the majority of import tasks on each?

I'd also be interested in how long it takes for these imports to
complete; obviously if we should notice that people add 10k buildings in
an hour we must assume that the necessary diligence was not applied. --
I know that when HOT apply their tasking manager they often have a step
where a second person verifies the data added (or maybe just spot-checks
it). Is that a feature that the imports you run also have? The wiki page
for Corpus Christy says "QA: Validation: Use of validation tools in the
Tasking Manager process", but I assume that just refers to usual
automatic checks done by JOSM, not a second person inspecting the result?

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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