Re: [Talk-us] Marking structure as damaged or condemned

[Tod Fitch]

> On Aug 5, 2020, at 6:11 PM, Eric H. Christensen via Talk-us 
>  wrote:
> 
> Tropical Storm Isaias left several homes in my neighborhood severely damaged 
> and condemned.  Is there a proper way to map these structures?
> 

I would look to the lifecycle prefix [1] but I don’t see a tag prefix there 
that exactly corresponds to the situation. abandoned:building=* would be for 
something that could be repaired but the word “abandoned” has a different 
connotation for me than “damaged”. If beyond repair, then destroyed:building=* 
found in the “less common prefix values” section of that page would seem to 
apply.

— Tod


[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix




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

Re: [Talk-us] Marking structure as damaged or condemned

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On 8/5/20 23:47, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> Another thing that will help future mappers is to add a note tag that
> informs them what you did and why so they don't add the building back
> again because it will still be visible in the satellite imagery. Add the
> date as well.

Also, when the building is demolished, you can change the tag to
not:building=house (or whatever it was). This is what I've seen other
mappers do when the imagery still shows buildings that a survey has
revealed are no longer standing. I think demolished:building=house is
also a valid tag as well.

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn 
http://www.rantroulette.com
http://www.skqrecordquest.com

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

Re: [Talk-us] Marking structure as damaged or condemned

[Dave Swarthout]

Another thing that will help future mappers is to add a note tag that
informs them what you did and why so they don't add the building back again
because it will still be visible in the satellite imagery. Add the date as
well.

On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 8:13 AM Eric H. Christensen via Talk-us <
talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Tropical Storm Isaias left several homes in my neighborhood severely
> damaged and condemned.  Is there a proper way to map these structures?
>
> Thanks,
> Eric
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Marking structure as damaged or condemned

[Eric H. Christensen via Talk-us]

Tropical Storm Isaias left several homes in my neighborhood severely damaged 
and condemned.  Is there a proper way to map these structures?

Thanks,
Eric

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

[Talk-us] app for keeping track of relations

[Ray Kiddy]

Hello -

I have an early version of an application that I wanted to share. Please 
be kind with it. There is documentation on the app.


The idea here is that people may want to keep track of the health of a 
set of relations. Governmental entities, if they find a way to use OSM, 
will want to "watch over" the relations that they care about. Someone 
doing thematic analysis of maps using OSM data will most likely have to 
maintain external references to the OSM relations that they are relating 
their data to, so they may want to be aware of the referential integrity 
of the relations.


Does anyone have suggestions or thoughts on this? I am more interested 
in ideas than an evaluation of this particular implementation. I used a 
fairly old-school technology for building the app, but I was in the team 
at Apple that developed these frameworks, so I still use it. Which is 
not the point.


If anyone is interested in having write=access to the app, let me know. 
See the link on "Accounts" for details.


Right now, I have sets for:

- 'Cities of California'

- 'Counties of California'

- 'US Federally Recognized Native American Reservations' - names only, 
no relation links yet. (a work in progress)


- 'States of Countries' - includes Colombia and a start at Peru.

Well, if anyone has ideas, do not be shy. But then, that is not a 
problem for this group, is it? :--)


cheers - ray


ps: the URL will change once I finish tweaking my web server, but 
forwarding information should be up if it is needed.


See: 
http://opencalaccess.org:5/cgi-bin/WebObjects/app.woa/wa/boundaries?i=f9e5024c-2c68-4621-8d6a-1bae0f93dcc3




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

Re: [Talk-us] Talk-us Digest, Vol 153, Issue 3

[Mike Thompson]

On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 6:42 AM Bob Gambrel  wrote:

> It seems to me that having a relationship is absolutely appropriate and
> that it should have the name of entire trail/route, just as you have done.
>
> It also seems to me that having a name on individual segments (the local
> name) is also appropriate. I don't think this is inconsistent and in fact,
> seems very desirable. Highway 65 (a state route that has an OSM relation,
> and is named as such in the relation) also has segments in some places that
> are named "Central Avenue" by the city and locals, and in other places are
> named "Highway 65", again by the locals.
>
> I don't think labeling the individual segments maps for the renderer
> primarily. It attaches a local name to the individual way, which is what
> OSM expects, I believe. It also has rendering advantages, which makes the
> map more useful to real people, not just cartographers.
>
> Thanks.  That seems to be the safest approach as perhaps some data
consumers don't yet process route relations.
Mike
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Talk-us Digest, Vol 153, Issue 3

[Bob Gambrel]

It seems to me that having a relationship is absolutely appropriate and
that it should have the name of entire trail/route, just as you have done.

It also seems to me that having a name on individual segments (the local
name) is also appropriate. I don't think this is inconsistent and in fact,
seems very desirable. Highway 65 (a state route that has an OSM relation,
and is named as such in the relation) also has segments in some places that
are named "Central Avenue" by the city and locals, and in other places are
named "Highway 65", again by the locals.

I don't think labeling the individual segments maps for the renderer
primarily. It attaches a local name to the individual way, which is what
OSM expects, I believe. It also has rendering advantages, which makes the
map more useful to real people, not just cartographers.

IMHO

On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 6:02 AM  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: Mtb Route Relations (Nathan Hartley)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2020 13:12:04 -0400
> From: Nathan Hartley 
> To: Mike Thompson 
> Cc: Open Street Map Talk-US 
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Mtb Route Relations
> Message-ID:
> <
> caae2jozhu015m-mt8ftq8eaxq0f03708r-7nd6h0td06y_x...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
>  Following this thread.
>
> I have the same question, after recently moving the names that folks had
> added to the way (and bridge) segments, of a linear park spanning lower
> Michigan, to the relations representing the trail segment. The entire trail
> is known as " The Great Lake-to-Lake Trails" [image: relation]
>  7962984
> , whereas it has segments known by other
> names. For instance, 22 miles are also known as the "Mike Levine Lakelands
> Trail State Park" [image: relation]
>  272564
> . I felt this was the most accurate way
> to
> map this trail. However, the temptation is strong to "map for the
> renderer", after seeing the trail names disappear from the rendered map
> .
>
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 6:55 PM Mike Thompson  wrote:
>
> > Let's say you have a trail in the US National Forest that was
> specifically
> > created for mountain biking. It has a name and a FS trail number. It is
> > represented in OSM by three ways currently: before a bridge, the bridge,
> > and after the bridge.
> >
> > Is this a good candidate for a route relation?
> > Should name=* tag appear just on the relation, or on all of the member
> > ways as well?
> > Should ref=* tag appear just on the relation, or on all of the members as
> > well?
> >
> > I am assuming that physical and legal access tags should only appear on
> > the member ways, even if every member has the same value, right?
> >
> > Just don't want to break anything...
> >
> > Mike
> > ___
> > Talk-us mailing list
> > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> >
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20200804/7c00b018/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> --
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
> --
>
> End of Talk-us Digest, Vol 153, Issue 3
> ***
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us