Re: [Talk-us] California is too big ;)

[Vivek Bansal]

I told you Californians loved attention!

I picked 6 Californias because I thought it was the nicest way to divide up
the state into equally sized shapes with some reference to political
boundaries.  I also "detest" the politics of breaking up California but I
like the geospatial organization.

I don't have an opinion where a north south line would go.

That being said, (I think i'm repeating myself in a slightly different way
i'm sorry for that) alternatively would you consider adding a few of the
most populous regions and cities to the sub of California like you do for
Germany?  Just as you have an extract for Brandenberg (mit Berlin) as well
as Berlin, could you do the San Francisco Bay area as well as San
Francisco?  To make it easy, perhaps just use similar boundaries that
existed for Metro Extracts -
https://github.com/mapzen/metro-extracts/blob/master/cities.json namely:
- san-francisco-bay_california
- san-francisco_california
- san-jose_california
- los-angeles_california
- san-diego_california

There must have been a demand for those regions to be added to that list
and I think the vast majority of analyses would take place at these levels.

Thanks so much!

-Vivek

On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 8:11 PM Tod Fitch  wrote:

>
> > On Nov 6, 2018, at 1:58 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea <
> stevea...@softworkers.com> wrote:
> >
> > Taken "straight across the state" (west to east), following the
> political boundaries of "the northern edges of three counties"
> (admin_level=6) to break up a state (admin_level=4), it's both easy
> (technically, simply "10 counties out of 58" or "northern edges of three
> counties"), agreeable by many, a political reality right now, mostly
> straight along a similar latitude line and already somewhat harmonious
> among the relatively small sample of people here on this list who have
> something to say about it.  (Not that we're definitive, nor am I,
> personally).  But, look, we did come to a rough consensus on a relatively
> simple solution rather quickly and easily.
> >
> > I say "we've thrown it against the wall, and it seems to stick."
> (Though of course, more discussion is welcome).
> >
> > SteveA
> > California
>
> +1 to this. Seems like a reasonable place to make a division to me.
>
> Tod
> also in California
>
> ___
> 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] California is too big ;)

[Tod Fitch]

> On Nov 6, 2018, at 1:58 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea  
> wrote:
> 
> Taken "straight across the state" (west to east), following the political 
> boundaries of "the northern edges of three counties" (admin_level=6) to break 
> up a state (admin_level=4), it's both easy (technically, simply "10 counties 
> out of 58" or "northern edges of three counties"), agreeable by many, a 
> political reality right now, mostly straight along a similar latitude line 
> and already somewhat harmonious among the relatively small sample of people 
> here on this list who have something to say about it.  (Not that we're 
> definitive, nor am I, personally).  But, look, we did come to a rough 
> consensus on a relatively simple solution rather quickly and easily.
> 
> I say "we've thrown it against the wall, and it seems to stick."  (Though of 
> course, more discussion is welcome).
> 
> SteveA
> California

+1 to this. Seems like a reasonable place to make a division to me.

Tod
also in California



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Review named junction nodes

[Harald Kliems]

Yeah, this seems to be a PA Turnpike thing. The first Maproulette task I
got was this https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/xaK6JK7CzFYTEfkAp_kwtQ
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/345383389

 Harald.

On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 4:39 PM Martijn van Exel  wrote:

> I found a case[0] where the name is definitely legitimate, so I added a
> warning to double check with available street level imagery, plus an
> example to the challenge instructions.
>
> Martijn
>
> [0] https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/33991781, and see
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?focus=photo=shRl1-KeI59im7hZSmsJig=40.21940429158758=-79.60234247987415=17=0.6058084012090132=0.35483101059177824=2.2895309990765194
>
>
>
> On Nov 6, 2018, at 1:17 PM, Martijn van Exel  wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I created a MapRoulette challenge to review named junction nodes. Since
> named junctions are very uncommon, most of these should probably be edited.
> There’s only a few hundred of them so we should be able to review these
> together pretty quickly.
>
> https://maproulette.org/mr3/challenge/3253/task/5881462
>
> (I also wrote a post on how to create challenges in the new MapRoulette
> because some things have changed / are new:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/mvexel/diary/46863 )
>
> Let me know if this makes sense to review!
>
> Martijn
>
>
> ___
> 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] Review named junction nodes

[Martijn van Exel]

I found a case[0] where the name is definitely legitimate, so I added a warning 
to double check with available street level imagery, plus an example to the 
challenge instructions.

Martijn

[0] https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/33991781 
, and see 
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?focus=photo=shRl1-KeI59im7hZSmsJig=40.21940429158758=-79.60234247987415=17=0.6058084012090132=0.35483101059177824=2.2895309990765194
 

 

> On Nov 6, 2018, at 1:17 PM, Martijn van Exel  wrote:
> 
> Hi, 
> 
> I created a MapRoulette challenge to review named junction nodes. Since named 
> junctions are very uncommon, most of these should probably be edited. There’s 
> only a few hundred of them so we should be able to review these together 
> pretty quickly.
> 
> https://maproulette.org/mr3/challenge/3253/task/5881462 
>  
> 
> (I also wrote a post on how to create challenges in the new MapRoulette 
> because some things have changed / are new: 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/mvexel/diary/46863 
>  )
> 
> Let me know if this makes sense to review!
> 
> Martijn

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

Re: [Talk-us] California is too big ;)

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

Simon Poole  wrote:
> I think the question is less where N vs S California is but more if
> there is a regional split of California that would make sense from a
> processing pov. Is for example somebody likely to do something with a
> North-CA extract, or if you would want to do something on a smaller
> scale, would that clearly be at a county level. Frederik is likely to
> groan at that idea, but some how I suspect that CA county level extracts
> would be comparable with states in other countries.

Simon, I hear you, yet "processing" is what would happen data-wise after this 
split, yet it's also what Californians do in their brains when they hear of or 
think of "Northern"  vs. "Southern:"  we tend to think right around that 
"pretty close to straight line" (it's not, though it's darn close, and it looks 
straight on a larger-scale county map) we are all huddling around as "about" 
where the chop is or should be.  Remember, Frederik's ask is for a sensible 
methodology to break apart something that is now or soon "too big."  Basic 
computer science implies a binary "chop it in half" approach (for now, we can 
do this again, and again...), which is exactly what we're doing.

And, nothing stops anybody from "drilling down" to a county level (or deeper) 
if, as you say, they want to "do something smaller."

I'm a couple of counties away from SLO and know people who live there, work 
there and go to university there; SLO really is a "could go either way" case, 
which makes it a good place to at least start to define (beginning at the 
ocean) a "north-south boundary" of sorts (the only sort of binary chop that 
makes sense:  nobody realistically talks about "Western California" or "Eastern 
California" though "the coast" is both a useful demographic/population concept 
and a geographical reality, however, much fuzzier about "how far inland" is 
meant by "the coast").

Taken "straight across the state" (west to east), following the political 
boundaries of "the northern edges of three counties" (admin_level=6) to break 
up a state (admin_level=4), it's both easy (technically, simply "10 counties 
out of 58" or "northern edges of three counties"), agreeable by many, a 
political reality right now, mostly straight along a similar latitude line and 
already somewhat harmonious among the relatively small sample of people here on 
this list who have something to say about it.  (Not that we're definitive, nor 
am I, personally).  But, look, we did come to a rough consensus on a relatively 
simple solution rather quickly and easily.

I say "we've thrown it against the wall, and it seems to stick."  (Though of 
course, more discussion is welcome).

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

Re: [Talk-us] California is too big ;)

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Counties in California are very different in size and population. A few in
the mountains have under 20,000 people and a rather small area. But Los
Angeles county has 10 million people and covers a huge area.

If 2 files become too big in a few years, it would be most useful to break
up the states into metropolitan statistical areas plus rural regions, but I
think this can wait. In the meantime NorCal / SoCal will work.
On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 6:29 AM Simon Poole  wrote:

> Jumping in here slightly unwarranted, but what the heck :-).
>
> I think the question is less where N vs S California is but more if
> there is a regional split of California that would make sense from a
> processing pov. Is for example somebody likely to do something with a
> North-CA extract, or if you would want to do something on a smaller
> scale, would that clearly be at a county level. Frederik is likely to
> groan at that idea, but some how I suspect that CA county level extracts
> would be comparable with states in other countries.
>
> Simon
>
>
> ___
> 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] California is too big ;)

[Simon Poole]

Jumping in here slightly unwarranted, but what the heck :-).

I think the question is less where N vs S California is but more if
there is a regional split of California that would make sense from a
processing pov. Is for example somebody likely to do something with a
North-CA extract, or if you would want to do something on a smaller
scale, would that clearly be at a county level. Frederik is likely to
groan at that idea, but some how I suspect that CA county level extracts
would be comparable with states in other countries.

Simon




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

[Talk-us] Proposed building import in Hamilton County, Ohio

[Nate Wessel]

Below is a link to a proposed import for building footprints (with some 
address tags, height info, etc.) in Hamilton County Ohio.


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hamilton_County_Building_Import

We've been planning this on the OSM Ohio slack channel, but I figured I 
should reach out here in case anyone is interested but not on there! I'd 
love some feedback on the proposal or any offers of help with the actual 
import once it starts.


Best,

Nate Wessel


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

[Talk-us] Review named junction nodes

[Martijn van Exel]

Hi, 

I created a MapRoulette challenge to review named junction nodes. Since named 
junctions are very uncommon, most of these should probably be edited. There’s 
only a few hundred of them so we should be able to review these together pretty 
quickly.

https://maproulette.org/mr3/challenge/3253/task/5881462 
 

(I also wrote a post on how to create challenges in the new MapRoulette because 
some things have changed / are new: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/mvexel/diary/46863 
 )

Let me know if this makes sense to review!

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

Re: [Talk-us] California is too big ;)

[L. David Baron]

As another Californian (from the SF Bay Area) with some amount of
opinion here, I suppose I'll chime in.

The straight-ish line (northern boundaries of San Luis Obispo, Kern,
and San Bernardino counties) seems largely reasonable to me as a
possible North/South two-way split.

(Other possible splits are a 3-way North/Central/South split as the
official wine regions do ("North Coast AVA", "Central Coast AVA",
"South Coast AVA"), or a 4-way split as the federal judicial
districts do (Eastern/Northern/Central/Southern), but I think both
of those, particularly the 3-way that splits the San Francisco Bay
Area in half, involve more awkward decisions.  Note that the 4-way
judicial split aligns with the proposed 2-way split with the
exception of Kern county.)

The counties that feel most ambiguous to me in the North/South split
we're discussing are perhaps:

 - San Luis Obispo, which Luis wrote about

 - Kern, which is part of the central valley but in this split falls
   as the only central valley county in the south half of the split

 - Inyo and maybe even Mono counties, east of the Sierras, which are
   perhaps better connected to San Bernardino county to their south
   than to the Central Valley on the other side of the Sierras.

but I don't have any particular local knowledge of these parts of
California.  The article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_California reflects the first
two ambiguities, but
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_California does not reflect
any.  I'd note that district lines drawn in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California%27s_congressional_districts
seem to pull Kern county to the north, and Inyo and Mono to the
south.


The one other thought is that the Northern/Southern split may be
somewhat awkward to outsiders looking at a map of California, who
may be surprised that a point 35% of the way from California's
southern border to its northern border would count as Northern
California.

That said, I guess if California needs to be split, the two-way
split at this straight-ish line seems like it may be the most
straightforward option.

-David


On Tuesday 2018-11-06 10:27 -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:
> Luis Villa  writes:
> 
> >> My guess is the only split that the majority in the state would instantly
> >> recognize would be “Northern California” and “Southern California”. However
> >> exactly where that split occurs is likely to be contested. :)
> >>
> >> Were I to hazard a guess, I would start on the coast somewhere around San
> >> Luis Obispo
> >
> > I think Tod is correct here that north/south is the only split most
> > Californians would recognize, and that the dividing line is not consistent.
> > (You might also get a "Central California" from some folks, but the
> > dividing lines there would be similarly fuzzy.) My wife grew up in San Luis
> > Obispo, and people from LA tend to say she's from Northern California and
> > San Franciscans say she's from Southern California.
> 
> I'm someone who has only been to California occasionally, and for me
> also the north/south split is the one that seems the most likely for
> many to be able to grasp.
> 
> I have never heard of "six californias" in any coherent way; it seemed
> new on reading.  And I would have little clue about the edges of those
> boundaries even seeing the list of names.  So I think that's not a good
> idea, because split extracts need to target being understood by
> nonlocals.
> 
> I would of course recommend listening to locals about exactly shere
> between SF and LA the line is, and I would align to counties so that
> each county is in north or south, and have the east-west line more or
> less try to follow latitude from the breakpoint from the coast.
> 
> With a N/S split like we are converging on, most users that are ok with
> half will guess right the first time, and people that care about areas
> near the border will get it that they are near the border and need both
> or the whole thing.
> 
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

-- 
턞   L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/   턂
턢   Mozilla  https://www.mozilla.org/   턂
 Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
 What I was walling in or walling out,
 And to whom I was like to give offense.
   - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)


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

Re: [Talk-us] California is too big ;)

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

Bradley White  wrote:
> I would suggest splitting into North & South along the northern edge
> of the SLO/Kern/San Bernardino county lines as the first step; this
> will at least split the LA and SF Bay areas into separate files, both
> of which I assume account for a significant portion of CA's data.

Exactly what I proposed, but Bradley said it in fewer words (thanks, Bradley), 
something I often find challenging.

The "10 counties + 48 counties" (Southern California and Northern California, 
respectively) method I described is the same thing, it's along northern edges 
of San Luis Obispo, Kern and San Bernardino counties.

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

Re: [Talk-us] California is too big ;)

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Northern and Southern California would work; make the split along the
county boundaries just north of Bakersfield, which conveniently follow one
line of latitude.

It would also be possible to split the State into Northern, Central and
Southern regions, but this would be harder to define.

Joseph

(PS: having separate files for each large island or region in Indonesia
would be very helpful; eg Sumatra, Java, Kalimantan/Borneo, Sulawesi, Bali,
NTT, the Moluccas, and Papua. The French server has individual provinces)
On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 5:40 PM Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> on the Geofabrik download server, we usually split up countries into
> sub-regions once their single .osm.pbf has gone over a certain size. The
> aim is to make it easy for people to work with data just for their
> region, even on lower-spec hardware where it might be difficult to
> handle huge files.
>
> Every once in a while I check the list of not-yet-split countries and
> split up the largest of them. The current top of the list is
>
> 1. Netherlands
> 2. California
> 3. Indonesia
> 4. Spain
> 5. Czech Republic
> 6. Brazil
> 7. Ontario
> 8. Norway
> 9. Austria
> 10. India
>
> Hence the next country I'll split up is the Netherlands, but after that,
> for the first time ever, a second-level entity (California) will be
> larger than all not-yet-split countries.
>
> So I wonder:
>
> 1. is there already a site where someone interested in only a subset of
> California can download current data and potentially also daily diffs?
>
> 2. is there a demand for this?
>
> 3. what would be a sensible way to split California - in 58 counties, or
> maybe just go with SoCal and NorCal for now?
>
> 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
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] California is too big ;)

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

On Nov 6, 2018,at 12:38:05 AM PST, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> ...on the Geofabrik download server, we usually split up countries into
> sub-regions once their single .osm.pbf has gone over a certain size. The
> aim is to make it easy for people to work with data just for their
> region, even on lower-spec hardware where it might be difficult to
> handle huge files.
> ...but after that,
> for the first time ever, a second-level entity (California) will be
> larger than all not-yet-split countries.
> 
> So I wonder:
> 
> 1. is there already a site where someone interested in only a subset of
> California can download current data and potentially also daily diffs?

Whether you know this or not, your algorithm of "splitting" makes too much 
sense to ignore, especially as there really are those with older hardware and 
"making geographic entities 'bite-sized'" is a technical reality, hence 
necessity.  The data are otherwise simply too large.

> 2. is there a demand for this?

Not by me, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it VERY likely does exist.  
Let's keep OSM "human sized" by making the data that reasonable people and 
reasonable hardware/software toolchains can handle "bite sized," lest we and 
our machines choke on too much data.

> 3. what would be a sensible way to split California - in 58 counties, or
> maybe just go with SoCal and NorCal for now?

I haven't known personally that this "splitting" goes on in OSM (planet.osm 
becoming a smaller .osm or .osm.pbf), but it makes perfect technical sense.

And while I read and understand Vivek Bansal's suggestion about "six 
Californias" and Tod Fitch's "I detest this" (incidentally, I "detest this," 
too), I have suggestion which is likely easier, more "politically simple" and I 
believe is rather geographically elegant.

There is a "straight across" (west to east, "latitudinal") split of California 
(almost) which nicely keeps the major population centers (of Southern and 
Northern California) apart, as well as neatly falls across county lines 
(political boundaries of admin_level=6), as well as is almost a "straight line" 
(geographically, a great circle, because Earth is spheroid).

It works like this:  there are 58 counties in California.  Split these 10 
counties into "Southern California:"

San Diego, Imperial, Orange, Riverside, Los Angeles, Ventura, San Bernardino, 
Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo and Kern.

And split "the rest" (48 of them) into "Northern California."

Geographically, this is very close to a "straight line" (east west) at about 
latitude 35.7889805 although this wanders very slightly in Sequoia National 
Park (because of a mild survey error 150 years ago near the Kern River, I 
think) and it does take a few minor "jogs" in far eastern California on this 
"line" near Lamont Peak (between two national Wilderness boundaries), another 
"north, then easterly again" jog of about a kilometer near Boulder Peak close 
to United States Highway 395 and finally a similar "north, then easterly again" 
jog of about a mile (~1.6 km) in the Pahrump Valley Wilderness Area very close 
to the Nevada boundary, then easterly a few kilometers to the Nevada State 
Line.  That's it.

Honestly, it sounds more complicated than it is:  most people look at a 
wider-scale map of California's counties and "see" this east-west line rather 
neatly divides California into two, a northern and southern, and simply with 
the designation of "those ten counties" as the method to do so.  It isn't 
"perfectly straight" but it is "perfectly suited" to do this division of 
California, in my opinion.

I hope this helps.  It is one of the few times that living in California has 
intersected with OSM and the talk-us pages where I can say "I think I know what 
I'm talking about here."  Although, I certainly welcome other suggestions:  
these are the "talk" pages, after all!

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

Re: [Talk-us] California is too big ;)

[Greg Troxel]

Luis Villa  writes:

>> My guess is the only split that the majority in the state would instantly
>> recognize would be “Northern California” and “Southern California”. However
>> exactly where that split occurs is likely to be contested. :)
>>
>> Were I to hazard a guess, I would start on the coast somewhere around San
>> Luis Obispo
>
> I think Tod is correct here that north/south is the only split most
> Californians would recognize, and that the dividing line is not consistent.
> (You might also get a "Central California" from some folks, but the
> dividing lines there would be similarly fuzzy.) My wife grew up in San Luis
> Obispo, and people from LA tend to say she's from Northern California and
> San Franciscans say she's from Southern California.

I'm someone who has only been to California occasionally, and for me
also the north/south split is the one that seems the most likely for
many to be able to grasp.

I have never heard of "six californias" in any coherent way; it seemed
new on reading.  And I would have little clue about the edges of those
boundaries even seeing the list of names.  So I think that's not a good
idea, because split extracts need to target being understood by
nonlocals.

I would of course recommend listening to locals about exactly shere
between SF and LA the line is, and I would align to counties so that
each county is in north or south, and have the east-west line more or
less try to follow latitude from the breakpoint from the coast.

With a N/S split like we are converging on, most users that are ok with
half will guess right the first time, and people that care about areas
near the border will get it that they are near the border and need both
or the whole thing.

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

Re: [Talk-us] California is too big ;)

[Bradley White]

> 3. what would be a sensible way to split California - in 58 counties, or
> maybe just go with SoCal and NorCal for now?

I would suggest splitting into North & South along the northern edge
of the SLO/Kern/San Bernardino county lines as the first step; this
will at least split the LA and SF Bay areas into separate files, both
of which I assume account for a significant portion of CA's data.

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

Re: [Talk-us] California is too big :)

[Brian M Hamlin]

Hi OSM US List -

  California native and current resident here --
while implementing California urban planning analysis a few years ago, 
we used a grouping based on the transportation governance here. 
The grouping is shown graphically in a blog post [0]
 
  CA Landuse is governed at the county level, with associations of counties
for regional planning (water, public transportation). So the groups are
by county, without a doubt. 
 
  Intuitively, large metro areas are one group each - Sacramento area, 
San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles.   San Diego county stands alone. 
The remainder of the state has so few people, that very large areas are
just one group each - Central Coast, Sierras, Northern California (vast). 
 
   This might be a guide for some future OSM extracts.. 
County details on request. 
 
[0] http://blog.light42.com/wordpress/?p=1439

--
Brian M Hamlin
blog.light42.com

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

Re: [Talk-us] California is too big ;)

[Luis Villa]

On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 5:59 AM Tod Fitch  wrote:

>
> For background, I a 40 year resident of California and have lived, worked
> and/or performed volunteer work in five of the “six Californias”. At
> present I live in Orange County (part of the Six California’s “South
> California” and perform volunteer work, including map generation, for an
> area where the boundary between Ventura County and Kern County (“West
> California” and “Central California”) runs through the middle of the
> parking area.
>
> My guess is the only split that the majority in the state would instantly
> recognize would be “Northern California” and “Southern California”. However
> exactly where that split occurs is likely to be contested. :)
>
> Were I to hazard a guess, I would start on the coast somewhere around San
> Luis Obispo
>

I think Tod is correct here that north/south is the only split most
Californians would recognize, and that the dividing line is not consistent.
(You might also get a "Central California" from some folks, but the
dividing lines there would be similarly fuzzy.) My wife grew up in San Luis
Obispo, and people from LA tend to say she's from Northern California and
San Franciscans say she's from Southern California.

I realize this doesn't help much, just pointing out that you're probably
going to end up drawing some arbitrary lines however you slice it. Maybe
want you want is some kind of clustering based on number of nodes?

(As a further data point on the Six Californias plan, note that it is just
one of many plans introduced even this decade
.
So not useful.)

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

Re: [Talk-us] California is too big ;)

[Tod Fitch]

> On Nov 6, 2018, at 5:23 AM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> 
> Tod,
> 
> generally, the Geofabrik OSM PBF extracts are available across the size
> spectrum from continent to smallest extract, so the California OSM PBF
> extract will not go away (sorry if I was unclear about that).
> 
> But my assumption was that there might be a need for smaller files
> because the whole-California file has meanwhile reached a size where it
> takes a while to process.

I understand the issue and appreciate the proactive stance.

> 
> The only thing that *does* go away when I split something in smaller
> files is the free shape downloads - these are only available for the
> "leaves" of the tree, i.e. the smallest regional units.
> 
> On 06.11.2018 13:58, Tod Fitch wrote:
>> In any case, I assume a good description of the extract boundaries will
>> be provided
> 
> Heh, I had hoped that by asking here, I'll be able to find a
> self-explaining split where everyone knows immediately from the name
> what's in it. Apparently not so easy ;)
> 

For background, I a 40 year resident of California and have lived, worked 
and/or performed volunteer work in five of the “six Californias”. At present I 
live in Orange County (part of the Six California’s “South California” and 
perform volunteer work, including map generation, for an area where the 
boundary between Ventura County and Kern County (“West California” and “Central 
California”) runs through the middle of the parking area.

My guess is the only split that the majority in the state would instantly 
recognize would be “Northern California” and “Southern California”. However 
exactly where that split occurs is likely to be contested. :)

Were I to hazard a guess, I would start on the coast somewhere around San Luis 
Obispo and end up on the Nevada border far enough north to include the Mammoth 
Mountain and June Lake resort areas in Southern California. I haven’t a clue 
where the line ought to go through the San Joaquin Valley though.

Cheers!






signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] California is too big ;)

[Frederik Ramm]

Tod,

generally, the Geofabrik OSM PBF extracts are available across the size
spectrum from continent to smallest extract, so the California OSM PBF
extract will not go away (sorry if I was unclear about that).

But my assumption was that there might be a need for smaller files
because the whole-California file has meanwhile reached a size where it
takes a while to process.

The only thing that *does* go away when I split something in smaller
files is the free shape downloads - these are only available for the
"leaves" of the tree, i.e. the smallest regional units.

On 06.11.2018 13:58, Tod Fitch wrote:
> In any case, I assume a good description of the extract boundaries will
> be provided

Heh, I had hoped that by asking here, I'll be able to find a
self-explaining split where everyone knows immediately from the name
what's in it. Apparently not so easy ;)

Best
Frederik

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



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

Re: [Talk-us] California is too big ;)

[Tod Fitch]

I detested the “Six Californias” when it was being proposed as a ballot 
measure. Perhaps that is flavoring my response, but at one time or another I’ve 
generated topo maps for areas that lie within four of those six divisions so it 
would be a bit of a hassle for me to have that.

If a split need be made I would prefer a single one which logically would be on 
a north-south basis, probably based on the number of OSM objects but following 
some county boundaries that can be listed in the description.

In any case, I assume a good description of the extract boundaries will be 
provided (unlike Maps.me and now Osmand where the names of the sub-state areas 
are all that is provided and it is not clear to me the exact extent of coverage 
is for any given map download).

At present there is a us-west extract covering basically the Rocky Mountain 
states and west. Last I checked it was a bit over twice the size of California 
alone. Along that same line, would the current extract for California continue 
in addition to the sub-state extracts? If so, then I will withdraw my opinion 
on where the state extracts should be split as I can continue, at least for the 
while, with using the full state data.

Thank you for your attention to this and for your organization making these 
extracts available!

Cheers!
Tod

> On Nov 6, 2018, at 2:53 AM, Vivek Bansal <3viv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Frederik,
> 
> Yes California is too big!  We also like the attention!
> 
> 1.  Since the demise of metrozen extracts, I don't know of a good site 
> outside of Geofabrik to get regulary updated OSM extracts of California.  
> There is https://www.interline.io/osm/extracts/ 
>  but it is a similar business model 
> to the Geofabrik Downloads.
> 
> 2.  I would certainly love smaller more regularly updated extracts!  I'm not 
> sure how much my team would pay for it though.  We would use them to power 
> our Opentripplanner instance.  We would want the whole San Francisco Bay Area 
> in one extract.
> 
> 3.  I think the most common analysis patterns rely on regions greater than 
> each county, but smaller than just NorCal and SoCal.  The 6 californias here: 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Californias 
> 
> is pretty close to what I would suggest (except i'd have the Bay Area 9 
> county region to be one group, perhaps the 7th California?).  I don't know of 
> any spatial files with this breakdown.
> 
> Sincerely,
> Vivek
> 
> On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 12:40 AM Frederik Ramm  > wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> on the Geofabrik download server, we usually split up countries into
> sub-regions once their single .osm.pbf has gone over a certain size. The
> aim is to make it easy for people to work with data just for their
> region, even on lower-spec hardware where it might be difficult to
> handle huge files.
> 
> Every once in a while I check the list of not-yet-split countries and
> split up the largest of them. The current top of the list is
> 
> 1. Netherlands
> 2. California
> 3. Indonesia
> 4. Spain
> 5. Czech Republic
> 6. Brazil
> 7. Ontario
> 8. Norway
> 9. Austria
> 10. India
> 
> Hence the next country I'll split up is the Netherlands, but after that,
> for the first time ever, a second-level entity (California) will be
> larger than all not-yet-split countries.
> 
> So I wonder:
> 
> 1. is there already a site where someone interested in only a subset of
> California can download current data and potentially also daily diffs?
> 
> 2. is there a demand for this?
> 
> 3. what would be a sensible way to split California - in 58 counties, or
> maybe just go with SoCal and NorCal for now?
> 
> 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 
> 
> On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 12:40 AM Frederik Ramm  > wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> on the Geofabrik download server, we usually split up countries into
> sub-regions once their single .osm.pbf has gone over a certain size. The
> aim is to make it easy for people to work with data just for their
> region, even on lower-spec hardware where it might be difficult to
> handle huge files.
> 
> Every once in a while I check the list of not-yet-split countries and
> split up the largest of them. The current top of the list is
> 
> 1. Netherlands
> 2. California
> 3. Indonesia
> 4. Spain
> 5. Czech Republic
> 6. Brazil
> 7. Ontario
> 8. Norway
> 9. Austria
> 10. India
> 
> Hence the next country I'll split up is the Netherlands, but after that,
> for the first time ever, a second-level entity (California) will be
> larger than all not-yet-split countries.
> 
> So I 

Re: [Talk-us] California is too big ;)

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 06.11.2018 11:53, Vivek Bansal wrote:
> 2.  I would certainly love smaller more regularly updated extracts!  I'm
> not sure how much my team would pay for it though.

The downloads are free of charge. Maybe I should check with the
Interline folks, I don't want to step on their toes with anything.

> 3.  I think the most common analysis patterns rely on regions greater
> than each county, but smaller than just NorCal and SoCal.  The 6
> californias here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Californias 
> is pretty close to what I would suggest (except i'd have the Bay Area 9
> county region to be one group, perhaps the 7th California?).  I don't
> know of any spatial files with this breakdown.

Creating the split bounds is probably the least difficult part of the
puzzle. Reason I'm asking the locals is that I want to create a split
that is as useful as possible so thank you for the pointer - is the "six
Californias" idea well-known enough that someone in, say, Napa County
would immediately know to look for themselves in "North California" and
not in "Jefferson" or "Central California"?

While I don't *like* overlapping areas, it would be *possible* to have
them if it matches what people expect to find. I could do
SoCal+NorCal+Bay Area, or the 6 Californias plus Bay Area, or whatever.

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

Re: [Talk-us] California is too big ;)

[Vivek Bansal]

Hi Frederik,

Yes California is too big!  We also like the attention!

1.  Since the demise of metrozen extracts, I don't know of a good site
outside of Geofabrik to get regulary updated OSM extracts of California.
There is https://www.interline.io/osm/extracts/ but it is a similar
business model to the Geofabrik Downloads.

2.  I would certainly love smaller more regularly updated extracts!  I'm
not sure how much my team would pay for it though.  We would use them to
power our Opentripplanner instance.  We would want the whole San Francisco
Bay Area in one extract.

3.  I think the most common analysis patterns rely on regions greater than
each county, but smaller than just NorCal and SoCal.  The 6 californias
here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Californias
is pretty close to what I would suggest (except i'd have the Bay Area 9
county region to be one group, perhaps the 7th California?).  I don't know
of any spatial files with this breakdown.

Sincerely,
Vivek

On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 12:40 AM Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> on the Geofabrik download server, we usually split up countries into
> sub-regions once their single .osm.pbf has gone over a certain size. The
> aim is to make it easy for people to work with data just for their
> region, even on lower-spec hardware where it might be difficult to
> handle huge files.
>
> Every once in a while I check the list of not-yet-split countries and
> split up the largest of them. The current top of the list is
>
> 1. Netherlands
> 2. California
> 3. Indonesia
> 4. Spain
> 5. Czech Republic
> 6. Brazil
> 7. Ontario
> 8. Norway
> 9. Austria
> 10. India
>
> Hence the next country I'll split up is the Netherlands, but after that,
> for the first time ever, a second-level entity (California) will be
> larger than all not-yet-split countries.
>
> So I wonder:
>
> 1. is there already a site where someone interested in only a subset of
> California can download current data and potentially also daily diffs?
>
> 2. is there a demand for this?
>
> 3. what would be a sensible way to split California - in 58 counties, or
> maybe just go with SoCal and NorCal for now?
>
> 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


On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 12:40 AM Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> on the Geofabrik download server, we usually split up countries into
> sub-regions once their single .osm.pbf has gone over a certain size. The
> aim is to make it easy for people to work with data just for their
> region, even on lower-spec hardware where it might be difficult to
> handle huge files.
>
> Every once in a while I check the list of not-yet-split countries and
> split up the largest of them. The current top of the list is
>
> 1. Netherlands
> 2. California
> 3. Indonesia
> 4. Spain
> 5. Czech Republic
> 6. Brazil
> 7. Ontario
> 8. Norway
> 9. Austria
> 10. India
>
> Hence the next country I'll split up is the Netherlands, but after that,
> for the first time ever, a second-level entity (California) will be
> larger than all not-yet-split countries.
>
> So I wonder:
>
> 1. is there already a site where someone interested in only a subset of
> California can download current data and potentially also daily diffs?
>
> 2. is there a demand for this?
>
> 3. what would be a sensible way to split California - in 58 counties, or
> maybe just go with SoCal and NorCal for now?
>
> 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
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] California is too big ;)

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

on the Geofabrik download server, we usually split up countries into
sub-regions once their single .osm.pbf has gone over a certain size. The
aim is to make it easy for people to work with data just for their
region, even on lower-spec hardware where it might be difficult to
handle huge files.

Every once in a while I check the list of not-yet-split countries and
split up the largest of them. The current top of the list is

1. Netherlands
2. California
3. Indonesia
4. Spain
5. Czech Republic
6. Brazil
7. Ontario
8. Norway
9. Austria
10. India

Hence the next country I'll split up is the Netherlands, but after that,
for the first time ever, a second-level entity (California) will be
larger than all not-yet-split countries.

So I wonder:

1. is there already a site where someone interested in only a subset of
California can download current data and potentially also daily diffs?

2. is there a demand for this?

3. what would be a sensible way to split California - in 58 counties, or
maybe just go with SoCal and NorCal for now?

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