Re: [Talk-us] California is too big ;)
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] Timezones in USA?
On Thursday 2016-05-26 22:17 +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: > On 05/26/2016 09:22 PM, L. David Baron wrote: > > Perhaps it would make more sense for the timezones to be their own > > areas on the map, rather than being represented by tags added to > > existing areas? (Most or all of the nodes for such areas should > > already exist.) > > I have deleted a couple of such time zone polygons account of not being > verifiable on the ground. > > I don't know how time zones are defined "at the source" but it is very > unlikely that someone puts up signs. I guess there'll be some kind of > definition that can be kept *outside* of OSM, and can be translated to > polygons with the help of OSM if desired. The same argument could be used to say that administrative boundaries (national, state, local) should not be in OSM, since they are, in general, also not verifiable on the ground. However, they are useful to have in maps, and OSM has them. Timezones are also useful to have in maps. I would think the decision on whether time zone boundaries should be in OSM should center on what the costs and benefits of having them in OSM are. The costs seem likely related to how they will be maintained and whether they will be kept up-to-date, and the benefits are tied to those who would find the data useful. (I should also note that the boundaries of tz database regions change substantially less often than the actual time rules for the regions.) -David -- 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] Timezones in USA?
On Tuesday 2016-05-24 22:37 +, evan.sir...@yahoo.com wrote: > I found and read through this OSM mailing-list discussion about timezones > from a few years ago: > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2013-October/068334.html It > seems there are mixed feelings for how to include timezone data in OSM. Hmmm. A long thread that I didn't read all of, but perhaps a brief summary of the positions would be useful if you've read it? > It seems the current methodology for adding timezone data is adding a tag at > the highest level of administrative boundary that is completely encapsulated > within a timezone. For example, a state that contains multiple timezones > would not have a timezone tag, but instead all of the state's counties would. > However, there are still a few small quirks that would not be covered by > this methodology: 1) cities that use a different timezone and 2) timezone > boundaries that don't share a boundary with any other administrative boundary. This appears (as you point out) to be problematic when timezone boundaries mostly but not completely correspond to other polygons. Perhaps it would make more sense for the timezones to be their own areas on the map, rather than being represented by tags added to existing areas? (Most or all of the nodes for such areas should already exist.) > I'm asking all of this because I'm interested in improving the data quality > of timezone boundary data. I am aware of the shapefile of timezones at > http://efele.net/maps/tz/world/, but it doesn't include territorial waters > and the underlying data doesn't appear to be open/editable. It seems like > OSM could be a place to store at least part if not most of the timezone > boundary data. It seems worth trying to use the existing work there rather than duplicate it. The author seems like he might be willing to help with such an effort based on his commment in http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tz/2015-November/023001.html (Getting territorial waters, or maritime rules in general, correct, may be a lot of additional work.) I suspect that talk-us may not be the right forum for discussion what ought to be a worldwide project, though. -David -- 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] Changing the comment on a changeset after it posts
On Tuesday 2014-08-19 21:22 -0400, Elliott Plack wrote: Is there a way to change a changeset comment after it posts. I'm amidst a large import and a few of the uploads have the wrong note. This is due to the auto-fill function of the comment in JOSM acting up (expletive!). Luckily they still convey basically the correct thing--that this is an import of Baltimore County data. I am hoping that I could just upload a changset to change a changset :) In the past I've been able to change a changeset comment using http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RawEditor . This only works if the changeset is still open, so I think it depends on whether whatever created the changeset closed it, or left it to autoclose after an hour of no activity. -David -- 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: Digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway classification questions
On Tuesday 2013-10-15 16:29 -0700, Tod Fitch wrote: ref: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/California#Highway_types and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging Specific questions: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/37.38554/-122.05217 Should Central Expressway be marked as primary rather than trunk at this point? The existence of a traffic signal indicates that it does not always have right of way. Other sections of Central Expressway are grade separated with limited access and highway=trunk makes sense to me but not here. I'd note that the entire Santa Clara county expressway system all seems to be tagged as highway=trunk, and if memory serves, most of those roads (e.g., Foothill Expressway, Oregon Expressway, Lawrence Expressway) have significant numbers of intersecting traffic lights. I think that section of Central Expressway that's grade-separated (is it all but the northwestern end?) is actually unusual for the system. But it looks like the entire system is tagged as highway=trunk. Such a change would also disguise that there's a massive change in the character of the road (loss of divider, change in speed limit, and drastic change in lane widths) where it crosses San Antonio and turns into Alma Street. (If anything, the spot in the area where I'd question a highway=trunk tagging is Page Mill Road from El Camino to 280.) -David -- 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) ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
