Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 10:22 PM, stevea stevea...@softworkers.com wrote: John Firebaugh writes: The political boundaries of US National Forests should not be tagged landuse=forest unless the entirety of their area is land primarily managed for timber production. I venture to assert that this is not true for *any* of the National Forests. Here are some examples of areas within National Forests that are not primarily managed for timber production. OK, so say so where so. (Tag in OSM accordingly). If you wish to subtract from the polygon areas which you are absolutely certain no timber production is allowed or possible, go for it. It wouldn't be correct to exclude areas where no timber production is allowed or possible from the multipolygon indicating the political boundaries of a National Forest. That would mark such areas as not included inside the boundaries, when in fact they are included. There should be (at least) two separate entities in the database. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests
The political boundaries of US National Forests should not be tagged landuse=forest unless the entirety of their area is land primarily managed for timber production. I venture to assert that this is not true for *any* of the National Forests. Here are some examples of areas within National Forests that are not primarily managed for timber production. http://julialanning.com/files/2011/09/A-Plains-Rainier-RSZ.jpg This is a pumice field in the Plains of Abraham near Mt. St. Helens. It's not producing timber, and is not being managed to so as to do so any time soon. Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument lies within Gifford Pinchot National Forest. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/6507-ShastaLakeFull.jpg Shasta Lake, part of Shasta-Trinity National Forest, is the largest man-made lake in California -- 4,552,000 acre·ft at full pool, though significantly diminished as a result of the drought. None of the lake area is being primarily or even partially managed for timber production. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/Mendenhall_Glacier_%28Winter%29.jpg It won't be possible to produce timber in the area currently covered by the Mendenhall Glacier, in Mendenhall Glacier Recreation Area, a unit of the Tongass National Forest, until global warming significantly advances its melting. It may be sooner than we think, but not today! http://timberlinetrails.net/sitebuilder/Photos/Whitney/EastFaceRoute.jpg The East Face of Mt Whitney, in Inyo National Forest, features one of the world's classic rock climbs. The route lies entirely above 13,000 feet, and climbers on it will be hard pressed to find any substantial vegetation at all, let alone anything that could be used to produce timber -- or even firewood. Even if you happen to believe that personal wood-gathering for building a fire constitutes timber production -- and I, like Frederik, think that this definition is patently ridiculous -- there are many areas within National Forests where it's impossible to do so. We should be tagging the areas within them, where timber production is happening or at least possible, as landuse=forest, not the entire political boundary. On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:57 AM, stevea stevea...@softworkers.com wrote: On 08/19/2015 07:25 PM, stevea wrote: This isn't extreme. Your backyard activity is consistent with the definition of a forest: a land which is used for the production of wood/lumber/timber/firewood/pulp/et cetera. Frederik, Frederik, Frederik...where do I begin?! According to our wiki, which I DO follow when there is ambiguity or any question about what or whether I should map something, landuse=forest is used to mark areas of land managed for forestry. As I have said here before (recently), this is EXACTLY, PRECISELY what a USFS national forest is. If we change what tags mean in this project, we ought to have a better set of tags to use instead, and we are some distance from that. There is a problem with this definition; it is too broad. I use the wiki definition I note above. Consistently. Even on polygons from local zoning/cadastral data marked as Timber Production in my county. Whether there is active felling of trees or not. The heart of the matter here is quite likely that the wiki definition for forest is overloaded: OSM uses at least four different interpretations as the wiki outlines. A solution to this problem might start with consensus-based re-definition, followed by consistent (worldwide) application of the new method, and rendering support to see what we have done. That's a lot of work we ought to get started doing. Even the seabed can fulfil some of these uses and we don't want to tag forests in the sea. What the heck? I know of no trees growing on the seabed! (Although if there were an odd tree, say near the shoreline of the sea, I agree with a natural=tree node there -- but I don't think I've ever seen one). This definition of a forest is unsuitable for OSM and should not inform our tagging. (Luckily the Wiki, which is not always reliable on these issues, says: A forest or woodland is an area covered by trees., and not: A forest is an area where you could potentially find something to light a fire with.) Please don't twist what I say, conflate my meanings or read into what I have written, as it appears you have. What I have done is apply the wiki definition (area of land managed for forestry) to USFS polygons. Stick to that and tell me I'm wrong, because I don't believe I am by that definition and application. There is also a problem with your interpretation of this already-unsuitable definition; you say that if land yields wood for any reason, it is used in the production of wood. But I see a difference here between scavenging and agriculture. Just because there's wild berries somewhere, doesn't make the area an orchard. Just because you are legally allowed to pick up a branch that
Re: [Talk-us] Why we really don't get new users
Hi Charles, Have you looked at iD's preset-based feature editing UI? It's very close to what you describe: - Machine readable ontologyhttps://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/blob/master/data/presets/README.md - Search-based UI - No detailed knowledge of tagging schemes necessary - Customized UI for specific fields We haven't yet gotten to the level of detail necessary to support query terms as specific as bagel, nor to cover the immense complexity of the opening_hours format, but contributions are welcome. A related project is the Name Suggestion Indexhttps://github.com/osmlab/name-suggestion-index, which provides automatic tags for search terms like Walmart or Raiffeisenbank. John On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 11:17 AM, o...@charles.derkarl.org wrote: I'm going to just point out the elephant in the room here. I don't think any normal user cares about the license at all. I think the actual reason its hard to get new mappers, especially those that are not nerdy and obsessive like myself is that *the ontology sucks*. There, I said it, so you don't have to. It's actually a few things related to how the ontology sucks: 1. The tagging of things bears little resemblance to things in the real world: a. A lot of common things just don't have standard tags: examples: tax preparers like HR Block, investment brokers like Charles Schwab, medical marijuana despensers here in California, recreational MJ shops in Colorado. I could go on. b. the whole shop/amenity debate c. common things that have really stupid tags, like barber shops 2. To be a useful mapper, one needs to memorize these arbitrary tags. It wouldn't be so hard if it weren't arbitrary (a salon is a shop? and it's called a hairdresser‽). But even if it weren't arbitrary, it'd still be hard to remember because things have synonyms, and no shop is called a chemist in the US. Corrolary: A bagel shop is a bagel shop, no muggle cares that a bagel shop is fast_food amenity that sells the bagel cuisine. 3. I went to a shop recently that sells espresso drinks, and gelato, but markets itself as a chocolate maker. (Specifically: Snake Butterfly, Campbell, CA). There is absolutely no sane way to tag this in OSM today. 4. The wiki is a terrible platform for documenting the ontology because it's not machine readable and it's just a slow way to get information. I don't just mean to moan, though. What I'd like to do is propose a machine- readable ontology that we could provide to JOSM, Vespucci, etc, that would allow newbies to edit the map. I imagine a dictionary and associated tags. A user could type in bagel and all the reasonable properties show up, along with a description of what they're entering: (A shop that sells primarily bagels, baked goods and breakfast foods) (not what you're looking for? try bakery or diner) name: [ textbox ] opening hours: (a *UI* to enter times of week) vegetarian ( ) friendly ( ) unfriendly ( ) exclusively house number: [ textbox] etc And by filling these properties in, the software would automatically convert it to the OSM ontology. All the client software would need to do is be able to parse our ontology file to provide all of this. And provide a sane UI, at last, for entering opening_hours. Charles ___ 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] OpenLegend (SOTM Sprint Proposal)
Hi Bryce, I can help you with iD presets -- they live here: https://github.com/systemed/iD/tree/master/data/presets I encourage you to use a JSON format rather than XML. It'll be easier for web-based services to consume. John On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: For today's San Francisco SOTM Sprint, I'm writing to propose a design effort to bring together legends. The goal is to inspect each major map and build a legend, then combine those legends into a big cheat sheet. Then, inspect each editor and list the features it has presets for. The design effort would likely create an XML schema to represent the legend/presets for a particular design/editor. One future benefit is a mapper who's mapped a particular feature (say, cell phone towers) can see which map their results will go it. It could reduce pressure to make Mapnik do everything. It is also a good sprinty topic, in that it needs someone familiar with each target codebase. Game on? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Examples Gov using OSM
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: i was under the impression that the Code For America folks had done a bunch of work with local governments on stuff that used OSM as a basemap. Nick Doiron and Jessica Lord were Code for America fellows last year and presented at SotM PDX. How Code for America Makes Maps http://www.slideshare.net/NicholasDoiron/how-code-for-america-makes-maps-14754312 Transit maps for Macon, Georgia https://github.com/codeforamerica/Transit-Map-in-TileMill http://www.mta-mac.com/map.html ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] US-Canada Border between BC and Washington State
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.uswrote: I've been doing some work in the North Cascades National Park. It appears that the border between the US and Canada is wrong. Look at http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=48.9841lon=-121.743zoom=13layers=M It appears that the boarder sags to the south. I see tags man_made = survey_point which would indicate that the border placement is correct. Can anyone recommend how to validate the border placement? It appears to be correct. If you zoom in on the Bing imagery, you can see that the border coincides with a strip of land that has been cleared of vegetation: the border vista. If you wanted to further validate it, you could check that the survey points match those published by the Boundary Commission: http://www.internationalboundarycommission.org/coordinates/49thParallel.htm The border does not follow the 49th parallel exactly: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/28/a-not-so-straight-story/ Clearly, some of the other boundaries in the area (e.g. the Mt. Baker - Snoqualmie National Forest multipolygon) are incorrect and should be sharing the same way. John ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
