Re: [Talk-us] Cooper Country State Forest in Keweenaw County, MI [parcel ownership]
That is made up of two properties. The southern, larger square is owned by Thomas & Jane Griffith. The northern, smaller square is owned by the John & Jane Griffith. The other square to the west of that, not included, is owned by John & Jane Griffith. That is just ownership. That does not say whether is any sort of "easement" (possibly the wrong choice of word) that could cause it to be included. This can be referenced from Landgrid. https://landgrid.com/us/mi/keweenaw/allouez#b=none=property=/us/mi/keweenaw/27 https://landgrid.com/us/mi/keweenaw/allouez#b=none=property=/us/mi/keweenaw/15 Thank you, Doug Peterson talk-us-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote .. > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 19:26:20 +0200 > From: Frederik Ramm > To: "talk-us@openstreetmap.org Openstreetmap" > > Subject: [Talk-us] Cooper Country State Forest in Keweenaw County, MI > Message-ID: <4d1f12fa-41f4-12ab-f0c5-48f532350...@remote.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Hi, > > the DWG has been asked to remove this bit of land > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/146418027#map=13/47.3306/-88.4441 > > from the "Cooper Country State Forest" protected area since it has been > purchased from the state by private individuals in 2006 and "the recent > plat books show this". > > I have been unable to find an online resource to corroborate this claim. > Googling for "plat books" turned up some very pretty scans of 1800's > surveyor records ;) Perhaps someone more knowledgeable in the US public > records landscape can help? > > 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] Cycleway Crossings
That wiki page was helpful. In one set of cases the change was from highway=cycleway on the way to highway=footway and adding footway=crossing. In another set it added highway=crossing to the intersection node. It looks like from the crossing wiki that the tagging should really be on the node. Way can be tagged as a crossing but it seems discouraged. The footway wiki indicates footway=crossing should also be on the node. Thanks, Doug Mateusz Konieczny wrote .. > > > > Aug 7, 2020, 13:11 by dougpeter...@dpeters2.dyndns.org: > > > I have noticed in my area where some people have been adding crossings to a > > designated > cycleway (named and signed as a bike trail). The crossings are fine. It is > that > the crossing is then been changed to a footway. > > > link? > > > > > I have looked at the highway=cycleway wiki and not seen anything addressing > > crossings. > There was one screenshot that seemed to show intersections or crossings with > roads > remaining as cycleways. Before I made any effort on changing these back I > wanted > to ask if there was any other knowledge out there about this. > > > is https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing maybe helpful? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Cycleway Crossings
I have noticed in my area where some people have been adding crossings to a designated cycleway (named and signed as a bike trail). The crossings are fine. It is that the crossing is then been changed to a footway. I have looked at the highway=cycleway wiki and not seen anything addressing crossings. There was one screenshot that seemed to show intersections or crossings with roads remaining as cycleways. Before I made any effort on changing these back I wanted to ask if there was any other knowledge out there about this. Thanks, Doug ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Finding Changesets to Correct or Revert (Clifford Snow)
I did participate in some of the discussion on the topic on the list. I am fine with the change in tagging tp something associated with state or county. I disagreed with some of the rationale as there are state and county parks that fit the definition of leisure=park in their location and how they are managed. I have several in my area. At that point it becomes a distinction on operator. In the end, all that does not matter that much to me. What matters to me is a conformity in the interim that removes important features from view. That seems counterproductive. I had read the public lands page. Tagging a state park as a national park seems to me like tagging for the renderer as well. I have sent a message to the owner of the changeset. I have not heard back. Thanks, Doug Peterson stevea wrote .. > It has distinctly emerged over the last year or two that leisure=park on such > "larger" > parks (county parks and especially state parks) is incorrect tagging. Some > have > substituted leisure=nature_reserve, but these semantics may or may not > logically > map very well in the eye of the contributor. However, this renders, so go > figure. > > Our "slowly emerging" wiki > https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/United_States/Public_lands > suggests the following: > > It is important to note that boundary=national_park is also tagged on state > parks, > states being as sovereign as the federal government for purposes of declaring > a > park a park. So, for a "State Park," > > Tag boundaries: > > • boundary=national_park or boundary=protected_area with protect_class=2 > • protection_title=State Park > • name=Name of the State Park > • ownership=state > • operator=Name of the state Department of Parks & Recreation (as > appropriate) > • protected=perpetuity > > It may be that this tagging does not render to your liking, or as Doug may > have > noticed "the park disappears." I suggest bringing that up with the author(s) > of > your chosen renderer. > > This is a difficult and contentious (less so, but still) topic in OSM in the > USA, > so tag your best, map your best. OSM can keep kicking this can down the road, > but eventually will need to harmonize parks / public lands tagging with better > rendering. > > SteveA ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Finding Changesets to Correct or Revert
It's my fault for not zooming in more. I did not see it at all when I downloaded that area in JOSM. I sent a note to tyndale about that. I understand that there is a direction towards using boundary to replace state and county use of leisure=park. I have seen plenty of expections to those description, meaning state and county parks that are urban manicured parks. However, it is not an argument I'm going to pick. I would just like to be sure the parks don't disappear in the process, like this one. What query feature did you use? Thank you, Doug Peterson Clifford Snow wrote .. > I believe this is the park > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/549549501#map=14/41.9987/-86.5489. > Looking at the history, I see when you created it. It was changed to > boundary=park by user tyndale on changeset > openstreetmap.org/changeset/86836794 > > I don't believe boundary=state_park is appropriate. User tyndale didn't > offer any insight on why the change in the changeset comment. You might ask > them. > > BTW - I found the park by using the query feature and looking at the > history. > > Best, > Clifford > ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Finding Changesets to Correct or Revert
I have noticed that a state park has disappeared in Michigan. It is one that I had worked on. Many years ago I had used a tool to find changesets that affected a particular area but don't seem to be able to find something like that in my bookmarks or searching. I could put the boundaries back but I don't know what else might have been deleted in the process so I would like to find the changeset. Any recommendations? https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/42.0054/-86.5469 Thank you, Doug Peterson ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type
To be honest, I have a level of indifference to improvements here because I have seen so much variety or exceptions to the rule. In the area that I live there are state parks that have been turned into city / suburban parks. There is a city / urban park that has been turned into a state park. There are county parks that function like state parks with camping. There are county parks that are not any different than city parks in what they look like and some are in suburban areas. There are also township parks to consider. They often have ball fields, a playground and a picnic shelter. They are not any different in look or appearance except where they are located. With time and development, townships then sometimes turn into cities / suburbs so how does that change the park? Maybe there are improvements that can be made. It is just that there is so much variety to deal with. Thanks, Doug Peterson > Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 19:30:56 -0700 > From: OSM Volunteer stevea > To: talk-us > Subject: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type > > I'll try to be brief, but there's a decade of history. The leisure=park wiki recently > improved to better state it means "an urban/municipal" park, while boundary=national_park > (or perhaps leisure=nature_reserve, maybe boundary=protected_area) works on > large, > national (and state or provincial in North America) parks. As the sharper > wiki > focus means a "city_park" (a sometimes-found park:type value, I've written > brand > new wiki on park:type) certainly qualifies as a leisure=park, this leaves county_parks > (and their ilk, like county_beaches) in a quirky "how best do we tag these > now?" > quandary. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Trunk
> Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 11:59:11 -0600 > From: Martijn van Exel <m...@rtijn.org> > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Trunk > > Hi all, > > I haven't abandoned this thread or thinking about it. It has just taken me > a while to read through all the diary comments + what is being said in this > thread. I intend to follow up with another diary post where I try to > collect this smart crowd's thoughts and suggestions, but it will probably > not until after State of the Map US that I get to this. > > In the mean time, I decided to test some of the ideas posted here on a real > case: The part of Michigan SR 10 northwest of the I-696 interchange: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/252973#map=13/42.5132/-83.3168 > > Since 1) this road does not seem to serve an important connecting role in > the long distance road network 2) the density of abutters and related > driveway / parking exits I judged a downgrade warranted. Please discuss > here or on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/52903464 . > > On the topic of tagging for the renderer, two things: 1) A US-specific > rendering would be really neat 2) Trunk 'appendices' like the one I just > downgraded do make rendering at low zooms tricky -- you end up with short > segments that seem to end in nothing. > > Martijn > I'm not arguing the change. I would point out that the bike lane now masks what functioned as basically an entrance / exit lane on the highway. The abutting entrances were not an issue to maintaining highway speed on the road. They do not now with the bike lane. The bike lane is basically treated the same way without apparent risk to the bikes as I have never seen one in it. That is a comment on what I think of the wisdom of overlaying a bike lane there for how the lane has functioned. Northwestern Highway / M-10 is similar in nature and use to nearby Telegraph Road / US-24 which has been tagged as Primary since at least 2009. Thank you, Doug Peterson ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Android Phone App that Uses Garmin Format
> Message: 3 > Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 14:44:01 -0700 > From: Greg Morgan <dr.kludge...@gmail.com> > To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org > Subject: [Talk-us] Android Phone App that Uses Garmin Format -- Was > Whole-US Garmin Map update - 2015-09-30 > > > I think my Garmin GPS finally died. Has anyone had experience with or > can recommend an Android app that uses the Garmin file format? I seem > to be in areas where the data roaming does not shine. It would be > nice to toss one of these US Garmin files on the SD card and still be > able to navigate. The primary concern is navigation so the other > editing features and such are not as great of a concern. > > Thanks, > Greg > Personally I use Locus Map Pro. It was one of the first apps I bought. It does a lot of mapping functions quite well. There are some apps that are more focused and may have better features in those contexts. I understand that OruxMaps can read Garmin files. I do not have a Garmin and have not used OruxMaps enough to comment one way or another on that. Thank you, Doug Peterson ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Talk-us Digest, Vol 92, Issue 11
Martijn - The only group here in Detroit that I am aware of is the one organized through Meetup: http://www.meetup.com/Maptime-Detroit/ It is possible some of the people in the group are ones you met. The events have been organized by people who work for Loveland Technologies. https://makeloveland.com/ Thanks, Doug Peterson Message: 3 Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 10:53:49 -0600 From: Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org To: OSM US Talk talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Talk-us] Detroit Message-ID: c2cb430c-ce8e-4599-9eda-2950c6faa...@rtijn.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Hey all, Anyone from Detroit on this list? I met at least a couple folks from Detroit at SotM US but don’t remember their names now! I was wondering if there is an organized community locally. All I could find was a local Maptime group. Martijn ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
