Re: [Talk-us] Recent Trunk road edits

[Mike N]

Based on some likely Wiki-Fiddling, I'd like to see the Trunk road 
comments about the US tagging cleaned up to match reality.   (I realize 
that is harder than just reverting to a previous point in time).




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

Re: [Talk-us] Recent Trunk road edits

[Mike N]

On 9/27/2020 11:22 PM, Jack Burke wrote:

I'm on Slack, and I originally posted a comment about this editor on
some roads in Florida (that I'm familiar with), but the responses I
saw seemed to be somewhat "meh" so I didn't pursue it.


  There are so many small arguments "this is a trunk" "no, a motorway" 
"no, primary", so it's often hard to give a firm fact based opinion. 
I'd say this goes a bit beyond that.


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

Re: [Talk-us] Recent Trunk road edits

[Mike N]

On 9/27/2020 11:22 PM, Jack Burke wrote:

and he has a diary
entry about what he's doing (in addition to what he has on his profile
page about it).  He changed*every single*  trunk road in Georgia to
primary, and from what I can tell, in Florida, too.  I haven't yet
expanded my examination into other states yet.



  Eliminating an OSM class of road in an entire state is an indicator 
of someone with an internal ruleset - something as simple as they don't 
like the color of Mapnik trunk roads in the current rendering scheme.


  It's interesting that someone from Indonesia added some observations 
about eastern US trunk roads to the wiki (which makes no sense). 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:highway%3Dtrunk&diff=1959532&oldid=1959503


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

Re: [Talk-us] place=neighborhood on subdivisions?

[Mike N]

On 9/22/2020 9:26 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:

    The extra hamlet nodes are import remainders that haven't yet been
converted to landuse areas.   The general landuse zones for that area
have been identified, but do not exactly correspond to the named
subdivisions.   As I get a chance to survey, I divide the landuse into
subdivisions and convert the node to a named area for the subdivision.


Please don't expand these as landuse, please expand them as 
place=neighborhood instead.  Landuse polygons should be congruent to the 
actual land use.


That's a good point: the subdivisions often contain one or more landuse 
basins, clusters of trees, etc.   I've been thinking of them as one big 
blob, but it seem correct on a more micromap level to mark them as 
place=, and identify the smaller landuse areas (which are sometimes all 
residential).


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

Re: [Talk-us] place=neighborhood on subdivisions?

[Mike N]

On 9/22/2020 8:56 PM, Karson Sommer wrote:


Looking around the area of the edit, there is a lot of stuff from my 
perspective that seems fishy. There are a bunch of place=hamlet nodes? I 
certainly don't see anything that should be tagged as a hamlet, they all 
look like place=neighborhood to me. Each of these nodes should be mapped 
onto an explicit residential area.


  The extra hamlet nodes are import remainders that haven't yet been 
converted to landuse areas.   The general landuse zones for that area 
have been identified, but do not exactly correspond to the named 
subdivisions.   As I get a chance to survey, I divide the landuse into 
subdivisions and convert the node to a named area for the subdivision.


  I see one multipolygon from back in the day when I was still marking 
subdivision areas as hamlets when converting from a node to an area.


 This is all part of the normal OSM work in progress.



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

[Talk-us] place=neighborhood on subdivisions?

[Mike N]

Thoughts on use of place=neighborhood for subdivisions? 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/91255294


  Note that there are many thousands already tagged this way (5000 plus 
in a section of the southeast alone).


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

Re: [Talk-us] Mapping for emergency services

[Mike N]

On 2/5/2020 9:49 AM, Eric Christensen via Talk-us wrote:


For the record, my team(s) has many cartographic resources at our
fingertips that we can use for search and rescue including, but not
limited to: USGS 7.5' maps, National Park Service maps, OSM, Google
maps, state and local GIS data, and several options for aerial imagery.


  It's great to hear from a data consumer!  It would seem to be useful 
to be able to create some sort of meta-marking about regions of data 
quality in OSM, meaning that "This area has excellent detail", "this 
area has road geometry only", and "this area hasn't been detailed and 
minor roads are known to have poor road geometry", which would somehow 
be indicated in your app.



If you consider an urban search and rescue team's mission, and a large
scale event, buildings on a map can be extremely helpful for planning
and operations where the accountability of many directed searches of
structures is imperative.


  That's good information - I sometimes wonder if there's a use for 
buildings in OSM other than GIS queries for average household square 
footage.



I say all this to really say to all those that go the extra mile to map
a trail (and determine if it's just a walking trail or maybe something
big enough to get an ATV, vehicle, or horse through), add a stream,
outline a dangerous cliff, add a building, align a roadway, mark the
bathrooms at your local park, and so many other tedious, small things
that seem to be totally innocuous...  thank you!


  I'm really happy that some local outdoor /history enthusiasts have 
been exploring and detail mapping all the dirt roads and trails in the 
nature reserve-rich parts of our county.   If the rest of our group adds 
the rest of the buildings and driveways, it will be a great resource for 
the area.



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

Re: [Talk-us] Mapping for emergency services

[Mike N]

On 2/4/2020 9:57 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
.  Oddly enough, for the rural firefighters?  Osmand with Microsoft 
Earth imagery as the background is their most popular pick because it 
works brilliantly offline and we have better map data than the state 
itself does.


  It is useful to learn what works elsewhere and that there are other 
locations already doing this.   Osmand on IOS is a study in frustration 
of almost working.  I suppose that means that I should contribute to 
that project to bring it on par with the Android app.


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

Re: [Talk-us] Mapping for emergency services

[Mike N]

That's a good point, but only if the surrounding areas are well mapped 
in OSM.   In my district of focus, I still encounter TIGER tangles as 
soon as I cross the county border.  I try to go a bit further knowing 
that they answer partner district calls, and it's hard to stop when 
there's so much to do there.  One of my caveats was that it might find 
addresses outside of their district, but routing directions would be 
unpredictable for now.


On 2/3/2020 7:37 PM, Richard Welty wrote:

a  major selling point can focus on out of district response; often
FDs know their own area well, but when they go to support other
companies they often don't know a whole lot about the place they're
responding to.

richard



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

Re: [Talk-us] Mapping for emergency services

[Mike N]

Mike,
 It is a rather unique set of circumstances that make this project 
a good fit:

   - The county does not map most driveways
   - The degree of rural-ness, hills, and trees
   - Most trees are deciduous, making the off-leaf imagery good for 
locating hidden driveways.
   - The region is a mix of economics - some nice newer houses, many 
older houses / trailers.   The FD must manage their budget carefully: 
they declined the $15K app from the county that probably just shows GIS 
data with latest roads and address numbers.  It wouldn't necessarily 
locate driveway entrances since the data doesn't have those.  Even if it 
showed off-leaf imagery, a co-pilot wouldn't have time to study out a 
driveway on the way to a call.


   If the official data source did have driveways and a navigation app, 
I'll admit it would be hard to try OSM.  Or even the fire district I 
live in with much shorter driveways, {CommercialMapper} would find 
nearly every address almost exactly.


  The fire chief is eager to present the project to the next meeting of 
fire chiefs in the area.   I'll be interested to hear the comments from 
the other districts.


  Mike


On 2/3/2020 9:57 AM, Mike Thompson wrote:

Mike,

That is a very compelling story.  Thanks to you and the other OSM folks 
involved for making it happen and to you for writing the diary entry.  I 
have often thought that OSM would be a great resource emergency 
responders because in some areas it contains data that no one else has, 
but generally the reaction that I have gotten when I have suggested this 
to such officials was "we have our own data", "we have already invested 
in xyz system" (sunk cost fallacy), or "how can we trust OSM?".  The 
exception was a search and rescue group that used OSM to help locate 
missing people in the back country because OSM contains trails that no 
other source has.


Is this being publicised outside of the OSM community?  There are 
probably associations for fire fighters and other emergency response 
professionals and perhaps someone from the FD involved could speak about 
this project at one of their conferences to get agencies in other parts 
of the country (or world) interested.


Mike



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

[Talk-us] Mapping for emergency services

[Mike N]

Not an emergency, but still interesting when someone can use OSM data:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/MikeN/diary/392080

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

Re: [Talk-us] When is your doctor a clinic?

[Mike N]

On 1/23/2020 6:51 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:

I'm not trying to apply my understanding of medical establishments to
the US - just asking what the general understanding is on your side of
the pond. Does Jmapb's distinction sound more or less ok for others too?


Jmapb's description matches my general understanding.

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

Re: [Talk-us] User in Florida changing several motorways to trunk

[Mike N]

On 1/8/2020 9:20 AM, James Mast wrote:
Honest mistakes on his end? Perhaps.� But I'm just seeing way too many 
downgrades to be conformable with his 'highway type' changes to be 
honest.� There's probably quite a few roads that he retagged as primary 
that need to be re-upgraded to trunk and so on. Routing algorithms have 
probably been seriously damaged by some of the changes unfortunately.


This is the first case I remember where the trend was to downgrade 
everything in sight, and he hasn't given the usual alternative point of 
reference to clarify where he was coming from.


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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

[Mike N]

On 12/17/2019 10:19 PM, Evin Fairchild wrote:
some US routes are more important than others and lumping them all as 
primary doesn???t make any sense;


The arguments here about relative importance of parallel routes makes 
sense.


  Some massive changes such as in 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/78620805 are raising roads which 
have no other major choices, but are apparently just because they are 
the most important.


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

[Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

[Mike N]

  I think many of the trunk VS motorway VS primary conflicts come from 
2 points of view:  on the one hand, people like to zoom out and see a 
coherent network of interconnected roads.   On the other side, there is 
the group that prefers the road be classed according to its regional 
characteristics, and not necessarily in the same class for its entire 
designated span.


On 12/16/2019 7:54 PM, Evin Fairchild wrote:
>Personally I think US highways should be tagged as trunk roads in most 
cases


  In the end, this would suffer from the same connectivity issue: 
should the US highway remain a trunk as it reduces to 2 lanes and drops 
to 30mph passing through a tourist area?   Would that tend to draw GPS 
navigation routes from nearby faster, parallel streets?  Or would it 
look like an ugly gap in the trunk road if it switched to primary in 
that tourist area?


  As an aside, I sense that the tendency to upgrade results in all OSM 
streets being promoted by one level, resulting in a compression at the 
top end and less class distinction at those levels.   But because of the 
subjective issues I just let it happen rather than re-edit any such 
changes unless they are massively changing everything in a region.



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

[Talk-us] State Of The Map US 2019 videos

[Mike N]

FYI, The State of the map videos are up at 
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLqjPa29lMiE3IqlKQlEwGlodMfJJHz-YV



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

Re: [Talk-us] Request for review of plan for scripted edit

[Mike N]

On 8/8/2019 5:25 PM, Paul Norman via Talk-us wrote:
Given the low numbers of 7-digit numbers I recommend correcting them 
manually rather than writing code to do it.


  On this one I'm not sure how introducing an error-prone keyboarding 
exercise into the mix is an improvement over a programmatic solution. 
At least with the programmatic solution, a typo applies to all and is 
more easily spotted.


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

Re: [Talk-us] What is the meaning of hgv:national_network=yes/terminal_access?

[Mike N]

On 8/5/2019 9:42 AM, Bill Ricker wrote:
So is this the tag the lack of which should keep trucks off my street 
with tight turn radii?


 I'm not an expert, but I'd guess it only keeps the street from seeing 
continuous truck traffic even if it is the best route or turnaround (but 
only in California).


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

Re: [Talk-us] What is the meaning of hgv:national_network=yes/terminal_access?

[Mike N]

hgv=destination is the closest, but I'm not exactly sure how routers 
treat 'destination'.   Some of these look like they carry some 'through 
traffic' in addition to the classic termination at a facility.



On 8/5/2019 9:07 AM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

hgv:national_network=terminal_access means > "a road which can carry
cargo trucks and has an adequate turn-around facility at the end"

Great, that's helpful. So it sounds like this tag is a synonym for
hgv=destination or hgv=yes?

Joseph

On 8/5/19, Mike N  wrote:

Hi, "Terminal Access" appears to be unique to California, and generally
means a road which can carry cargo trucks and has an adequate
turn-around facility at the end.   They most often provide access for
cargo pick-up or delivery.   (at least one area says it does not include
oversize trucks)

Regards,

Mike Nice

On 8/5/2019 6:33 AM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

Ok, thanks! I've created a wiki page at Key:hgv:national_network

It's still not clear to me what the tag
hgv:national_network=terminal_access means - please add if you can
tell from the data in your area, perhaps?

Joseph

On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 1:13 AM Mike N  wrote:



This was part of the iterative road improvement after TIGER as we began
with major highways.?? ?? I believe it came from the public domain
information for the National Network
https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/infrastructure/national_network.htm .

On 8/4/2019 10:56 AM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

I've found this undocumented tag, used 130,000 times, almost
exclusively in the USA.

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/hgv%3Anational_network#overview

Values: yes 86.56%?? ??terminal_access 13.37%

I thought it might be imported from Tiger, but the usage has increased
gradually since 2012: 60k more ways have been tagged in that time.

How are these tags being used?

I'm guessing that hgv:national_network=yes means that a road is
designated for heavy trucks to use for long-distance trips.

Perhaps hgv:national_network=terminal_access means that heavy trucks
can only use a road if their destination is on it, or near it?

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

Re: [Talk-us] What is the meaning of hgv:national_network=yes/terminal_access?

[Mike N]

This was part of the iterative road improvement after TIGER as we began 
with major highways.I believe it came from the public domain 
information for the National Network 
https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/infrastructure/national_network.htm .


On 8/4/2019 10:56 AM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

I've found this undocumented tag, used 130,000 times, almost
exclusively in the USA.

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/hgv%3Anational_network#overview

Values: yes 86.56%   terminal_access 13.37%

I thought it might be imported from Tiger, but the usage has increased
gradually since 2012: 60k more ways have been tagged in that time.

How are these tags being used?

I'm guessing that hgv:national_network=yes means that a road is
designated for heavy trucks to use for long-distance trips.

Perhaps hgv:national_network=terminal_access means that heavy trucks
can only use a road if their destination is on it, or near it?

___
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] Proposed mechanical edit - remove objects that are not existing according to source of GNIS import that added them

[Mike N]

On 3/21/2019 3:04 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
What is the benefit, during survey, of mapped places that are not 
existing anymore?


I encounter many during surveys (usually result of data getting 
outdated) and for me it was
always time sink (as I needed to check is it actually gone) and never 
useful in any way.


Note that it is not obvious, especially for beginner or data users, that 
all of this places

are not existing anymore.


 This has been my experience as well when methodically reviewing 
several hundred GNIS nodes around here.   Everyone is fond of pointing 
out where GNIS is poorly located or out of date, but every GNIS object 
identified as (historical) was 100% accurate.   Let's reserve mapper 
labor and MapRoulette projects for those that benefit from human review. 
 This project would qualify for automated intervention.


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

Re: [Talk-us] Road name update challenges

[Mike N]

On 3/1/2019 12:49 PM, Clifford Snow wrote:


One caution - when doing a building/address import a few years ago, we 
discovered errors in the counties address database. They had different 
street names from address street names. The street names matched the 
street signs but the addresses had a different street name. These were 
reported to the county


   Did you find that the addresses tended to be more correct in your 
case?   In the few cases I cross checked against a business mailing 
address, the address seemed to be correct.


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

Re: [Talk-us] Road name update challenges

[Mike N]

On 3/1/2019 10:09 AM, Aaron Forsythe wrote:

 >> 1. Original TIGER had Ruppe Dr at a nearby but incorrect location.

This seems a common enough occurrence that a TIGER data should not be 
used as permanent source.  It's only there to get the map started and 
adjustments from TIGER are required.


  The "TIGER challenges" began as a way to fill in all the new 
subdivisions in areas with no other public data.  It has been very 
effective for those areas.   TIGER continues to evolve and improve in 
its own way, and is suitable as a reference when there is no better 
public data.




 >> The wrong Tuppe Drive still has a "source" tag which is now misleading.

It's not really misleading, as that is still where it came from.


   Does 'it' refer to the geometry, the current or former name, the 
classification as residential (current) or service (previous)?   What if 
the road has to be split in the future?


Use the source tag and include a date of the survey.  This won’t 
directly stop an overwrite, but will at least give a date to compare 
against.


It seems the whole issue stems from an automatic edit without proper 
integration.


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct


  I don't see these as automated edits; they are automated detection of 
possible places to improve the map.  If the challenges are built with 
the latest data, the problem of disagreeing challenges goes away.


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

[Talk-us] Road name update challenges

[Mike N]

There have been some road name challenge projects which do excellent 
work - updating the road network for current changes.  In some cases, 
there are now dueling sources, for example a recent change -


https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/666170175/history

  (I don't fault any editor involved; they were following best 
practices using the best information they had at the time.)


  Here's my interpretation -
1. Original TIGER had Ruppe Dr at a nearby but incorrect location.
2. Updated TIGER caught Ruppe Dr at the correct location, but introduced 
a typo when entered: Tuppe instead of Ruppe, and didn't remove or just 
move the original Ruppe Dr.
3. All county GIS departments were directed to dump their newest road 
data into info2.scdot.org in 2018.
 4. This was used in a challenge project to create the first version of 
Ruppe Dr at the correct location.
 5. A second update was applied using older / wrong TIGER data. 
Neither noticed the wrong duplicate Ruppe Drive that ran through a house.


  The wrong Tuppe Drive still has a "source" tag which is now misleading.

  We were able to get a local GIS to release data to OSM.  In analyzing 
the data, I notice that address tags are much more carefully updated 
than road names.   So I could create a local project to correct some 
local roads based on corrections from the address data.   I hesitate 
because then those changes will be reverted when they don't match TIGER.


 1.)  For global TIGER comparison maps, would it be possible to 
substitute more current public statewide data as the reference such as 
in SC?


  2.)  Just as if I surveyed the name on a street sign and was able to 
confirm it with public records, how would I detect / prevent loss of 
work when it mismatches our other public sources for several years?


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

[Talk-us] Spartanburg County SC Microsoft Building and Address import

[Mike N]

This is a proposed import of Microsoft building footprints and address 
points for Spartanburg County SC, based on county GIS data and the 
Microsoft Buildings data.


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Spartanburg_County_Address_And_Building_Import

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

Re: [Talk-us] Mapathon Results - Spartanburg SC

[Mike N]

On 2/12/2019 11:01 AM, Ian Dees wrote:

This is great, Mike! Thanks for sharing.

Did you happen to take any photos? It'd be fun to have you write up 
something about how you found this data, set up the Tasking Manager 
project, and did the work at the Mapathon for the OSM US blog.


  Unfortunately no photos, (and no photos of our Meetup last night).  I 
didn't document the actual process very well so I'm likely to omit an 
important detail that might trip up anyone else trying to follow, 
especially on creating the vector background layer.


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

[Talk-us] Mapathon Results - Spartanburg SC

[Mike N]

Hi,

   We had a mapathon coordinated by 
https://tasks.openstreetmap.us/project/76 to visually inspect all roads 
and update them from GIS data as appropriate.   Much of the GIS data was 
newer and there were many road name corrections (names or Road -> 
Avenue, Drive -> Street, etc). In addition there were many residential 
cases of single>dual carriageway or dual>single, blocked streets, etc. 
Some of the GIS road data was out of date or incorrect - we may try to 
feed it back to them if we can find a contact who has the time.


  In any case, more automated conflation techniques can now be applied 
to that area for more focused updates since the roads conform to reality.


  TIGER:Reviewed for the area:
http://product.itoworld.com/map/162?lon=-81.95092&lat=34.96795&zoom=9

  Recent edits (last 90 days):
http://product.itoworld.com/map/129?lon=-81.98411&lat=34.86548&zoom=9


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

Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: Trunk versus motorway

[Mike N]

On 11/28/2018 10:36 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:
Adding the intersection did not change the character of the road south 
of the Gilcrease extension or the rights of adjacent landowners, so I 
don't see any particular reason to reclassify that segment.


  If we're looking for a generalized rule, consider that there may be 
many miles of motorway between the last exit and the next at-grade 
intersection, so it would make sense to keep that section as motorway.


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

Re: [Talk-us] Add street names from TIGER

[Mike N]

On 11/9/2018 5:36 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
As an experiment my colleagues from the Telenav map team churned out 
some local MapRoulette challenges for adding missing street names from 
TIGER. The tasks were created by comparing TIGER (2017) to existing OSM 
data using our conflation tool Cygnus, which outputs ways with no names 
in OSM but that have names in TIGER.


Looks like a great list of challenges!

  Considering that there are a number of counties in my region (Upstate 
South Carolina) where we plan on synchronizing to the newest official 
data and verifying against imagery, a TIGER compare challenge would be 
counter-productive.   There were a great many name changes and street 
additions and deletions compared to 2007 TIGER and probably even recent 
TIGER.


  Of course there's always the chance in the future if all local 
mappers go inactive, it would make sense to have a TIGER challenge to 
add the new and growing areas.


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

Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] [Imports-us] Spartanburg County SC road centerlines import

[Mike N]

On 10/22/2018 2:56 PM, Rory McCann wrote:

Hi Mike.

Thanks for the answers, that clears things up. Bt

On 10/22/2018 5:00 AM, Rory McCann wrote: >> I'm a little unclear 
about one big question: What are you doing with
the existing data in OSM? Existing OSM data seems to have nearly 
identical locations to this new data. You're just going to update 
existing OSM data? Do you know how much existing OSM data needs to be 
updated?


   All existing data will be reviewed.   Most of it will add the 
surface attribute and lanes if visible from imagery and remove the 
tiger:reviewed attribute.   So nearly everything will be modified.


I'm sorry, maybe I'm having a brain fart, but I'm still confused. It
sounds like you're going to look at all existing OSM roads in that
county and manually review them? Just going through and fixing them up
and removing tiger:* tags, and keeping the existing roads in OSM? That
sounds great. But that's a regular map-a-thon, not an import. What do
you need this new data for? If I'm reading you right, this new data from
the county won't be used at all? Right?

You're not going to *replace* the existing OSM data with this new data, 
right? You're not going to delete the existing OSM data, right?


If you (& friends) are going to fix up the roads, you don't need to talk
to this list. Just go ahead and do it! That's not an import. Just 
tracing from the imagery you created from this data isn't an import. 
That's just using a new imagery source. You can just go ahead and do that.


If you want to find new roads that aren't in OSM, load OSM & this new 
data into postgres, and look for roads in the new dataset that are far 
(>10m?) from anything in OSM. Should be quicker than humans looking at 
all. 😉 (Do you know how to do that?)


  There will be 50 to 200 streets of new data used for new 
subdivisions.  I suppose that I could have created sets of data for 
"These might be renamed",  "These might be imported" , "These might be 
adjusted" , "These might be deleted" (Because a diff doesn't identify 
which one is right) , then not bothered to mention the additional review 
which would indeed just be a local project.


  If this is deemed not to be an import, then we will begin immediately.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Spartanburg County SC road centerlines import

[Mike N]

On 10/22/2018 8:46 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

Could I suggest that you act cautiously wrt the tiger:reviewed tag in these
two cases?

If it's an "unknown highway type" it should probably remain as
tiger:reviewed=no. Likewise, if the surface isn't clear, then either
tiger:reviewed should continue to be =no, or there should be some other
tagging to indicate this (surface=unknown, or surface:reviewed=no, or
something).


  As one who grew up in a rural area, a country road lined with 4 
houses in a mile would feel "residential" and I would tend to set it as 
residential in OSM.   That describes most of the rural parts of this 
county also, except for roads that don't happen to have a house.


  We could add Bing streetside to the workflow to confirm the surface 
type in most of the edge cases.


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

Re: [Talk-us] [Imports-us] Spartanburg County SC road centerlines import

[Mike N]

Thank you for your comments.  Answers inline.

On 10/22/2018 5:00 AM, Rory McCann wrote:

On 22/10/2018 05:20, Mike N wrote:
This is a proposed import of road centerlines for Spartanburg County 
SC, based on county GIS data.   This will include a systematic review 
of all roads in the county and qualify to remove tiger:reviewed tags.


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Spartanburg_county_road_center_line_import 



A roads import! 🙂

There's a few lanes that are weird. lanes=7 for a 6 lane road. It's 
weird that some roads have lanes on some parts, not all (e.g. "Hollywood 
Street"). Maybe try to make it consistant? JOSM validator has found a 
handful of topology errors. There's ~100 examples of roads that aren't 
connected properly (nodes on top of each other, but not connected).


You seem to be defaulting to "highway=residential" a lot (e.g. if you 
dohn;t know another, or turning 'Gravel' into 'highway=residential 
surface=gravel'). I don't know a lot about tagging in the USA, but isn't 
there (wasn't there) some problem with the TIGER data using residential 
too much?


  The 'lanes' and highway type were experimental to see what useful 
information could be mined from the source data.   I agree that they are 
all but useless for OSM's purpose.  95% of the work will be checking for 
geometric alignment and name from the background image layer in the 
editor.   For example there have been many projects where sharp 
intersections have been realigned for safety to create right angles. 
And streets have been renamed for E911 purposes.


   The one case where I see direct access to converted data is a new 
residential subdivision - where a new group of roads would be copied 
from the reference data and connected to existing data.   Those would 
nearly all be residential.  So I didn't take the time to go back and 
remove lane attributes from the raw data.


   Defaulting to residential was not totally wrong for this county in 
the same way it was wrong out west.  The most likely mismatch would be a 
new unclassified road into an industrial area - but those will likely be 
single roads, and thus be as easy to hand trace and assign the correct 
classification as to copy from the reference layer.


Can you link to your discussion with the local community, how/where did 
that happen?


  This was mostly verbal discussion with another community member, as 
well as one of the meetups at 
https://www.meetup.com/Open-Street-Map-upstate/ , and using some of the 
ideas presented by Clifford Snow in his "Discover Rural America" 
presentation at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoX2Q2aJXQE&t=1211s .



The link the tasking manager project doesn't work.


   Corrected.

I'm a little unclear about one big question: What are you doing with the 
existing data in OSM? Existing OSM data seems to have nearly identical 
locations to this new data. You're just going to update existing OSM 
data? Do you know how much existing OSM data needs to be updated?


  All existing data will be reviewed.   Most of it will add the surface 
attribute and lanes if visible from imagery and remove the 
tiger:reviewed attribute.   So nearly everything will be modified.


   Stepping back to the big picture - although many hours have been 
spent improving the road network in that county, OSM is the last source 
I would use when planning a trip to an unfamiliar part of the county. 
There have been other US projects in which a group would go into a "fast 
growing region" and review all roads, adding surface and lane attributes 
to improve navigation.   The end goal of this project is similar.   When 
combined with some additional planned work such as address points, OSM 
will be suitable as the primary reference source when planning a trip 
through that county.


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

[Talk-us] Spartanburg County SC road centerlines import

[Mike N]

This is a proposed import of road centerlines for Spartanburg County SC, 
based on county GIS data.   This will include a systematic review of all 
roads in the county and qualify to remove tiger:reviewed tags.


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Spartanburg_county_road_center_line_import

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

Re: [Talk-us] Possible roundabouts?

[Mike N]

On 9/7/2018 2:27 AM, Marian Poara wrote:
In many residential areas (but not only), there isn’t any one way sign 
inside the small “roundabouts” and it seems that both directions are used.


  In places without much law enforcement presence and no mandatory 
driver training, original residents may shortcut the wrong way because 
they resent the newly reconfigured roadway.  Perhaps when there is 
little traffic and they at least check.


  (around here, drivers have even gone the wrong way on new proper 
signed and curbed roundabouts until an extensive barrel network was set 
up for months to train).


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

Re: [Talk-us] Food delivery services: Move-fast-and-break-trust

[Mike N]

On 8/21/2018 11:39 AM, Jmapb wrote:


Don't know how common these sort of predatory tactics are outside NYC, 
but fair warning, there may be businesses out there who are no longer 
delighted at the thought of someone "from the internet" taking notice of 
their publicly-posted information.


  Good story!   I've only been questioned twice: once by a store owner 
who probably thought I was from some municipal code enforcement 
department, and one from a passing jogger.   In both cases I handed out 
a card and a quick explanation and that was the end of it.   But I do 
data entry back on the desktop so my appearance is normally just walking 
by and snapping 1 or 2 photos of each item.


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

Re: [Talk-us] Drop the tiger:reviewed tag from roads

[Mike N]

On 5/11/2018 12:25 PM, Clifford Snow wrote:
I'm proposing to open a ticket for JOSM to add this tag to the list of 
discarded tags. I'd like to hear if there are any objects or think this 
is a good idea.


I did learn from Toby Murray this morning that you can add 
tiger:reviewed to the list of discarded tags in JOSM by going to 
preferences->Advanced Preferences and adding tiger:reviewed to 
tags.discardable. Then just reload JOSM for the changed to be active.



  I'm not quite convinced since there can still be local uses and 
conventions.  I used it to show that I confirmed a road's name and where 
it began and ended.   Others use it to mean full survey with all 
attributes and signage have been collected.  But since JOSM defaults not 
to show that flag visually, I've almost stopped updating it also.   So I 
have to agree that it is no longer as useful as it once was.


 And regarding other projects: where I was thinking of a local mass 
edit to confirm conguency and remove the flag after obtaining and 
following a process to get a county to contribute data to OSM, it 
wouldn't matter if the tiger:reviewed tag was present - I would still 
match OSM roads to new data and investigate any differences.


  Bottom line - no objection here though.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Maximum number of tasks on US tasker

[Mike N]

On 5/8/2018 11:55 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
Then with residential streets where there are no lanes, often lanes=2 
would get tagged anyway despite nothing on the ground suggesting that 
was actually the case.


  I hadn't considered that unstriped roads shouldn't have lane tagging, 
but at least this doesn't cause bad effects for map data users.


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

Re: [Talk-us] Microsoft Building Import for Greenville, SC

[Mike N]

There is some question about the overall accuracy of the height data in 
this import, but I think the units are correct in meters.  For example, 
the Landmark Building [1] is a known height of 305 feet / 92 meters. [2] 
Mapillary view (from a distance) [3] .


   Microsoft measured it at 101 meters / 331 feet; an error of 26 feet. 
 Since the building is on a slope, it's not known what reference was 
used as the base in the Microsoft height measurement.   A measure of 101 
feet would be 1/3 of the actual height and not what I would expect.


  Hopefully the units weren't mixed by using different units for 
different buildings.  I couldn't see any indication of this in the 
original shape file.


[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/41979319#map=19/34.85453/-82.39767
[2] 
https://www.emporis.com/buildings/127342/landmark-building-greenville-sc-usa
[3] 
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=34.855667&lng=-82.39939&z=17&focus=photo&pKey=lPCYDmX9ZV5E8JMd6xG3Kw


On 3/25/2018 2:54 PM, Leon Karcher wrote:

Hello Mike,

I think that you have made the same mistake as they made with the 
Tampa/Clearwater, FL Microsoft building data import: The height is given 
in feet and inches, but you used metre scheme (x.y) instead of x'y". An 
example:


This commercial building 
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/343235673> is never 16 meters tall as 
said in its height tag. (View on Mapillary 
<https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=34.829709115470564&lng=-82.40749038763568&z=14.30535083537551&focus=photo&pKey=ozDDkY97ETw_S7WwI9xZqQ>) 
If you compare further buildings, you will see that this is applicable 
for all others.


I hope you still can fix it, because the managers of the Florida import 
didn't.


Thanks,
Leon

2018-03-25 20:36 GMT+02:00 Mike N <mailto:nice...@att.net>>:


In accordance with Step 6 / item 4 of the imports checklist, the
import and QA is now completed.

Thanks to Microsoft for making building and height data available
    and multiplying the efforts of a few local mappers!


On 3/14/2018 10:21 PM, Mike N wrote:


FYI, this is proceeding with 2 people, on dedicated accounts
Greenville_SC_City_MSImport_1 and Greenville_SC_City_MSImport_2

On 1/24/2018 8:28 PM, Mike N wrote:


The OSM Upstate SC group is planning an import of Microsoft
building shapes for the city of Greenville, SC.   The
candidate wiki page is at

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Greenville_SC_Building_Import
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Greenville_SC_Building_Import>

    The actual import won't take place for 1-2 months yet to
allow time to review the plans.

    Mike



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



___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
<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] Microsoft Building Import for Greenville, SC

[Mike N]

In accordance with Step 6 / item 4 of the imports checklist, the import 
and QA is now completed.


Thanks to Microsoft for making building and height data available and 
multiplying the efforts of a few local mappers!



On 3/14/2018 10:21 PM, Mike N wrote:


FYI, this is proceeding with 2 people, on dedicated accounts 
Greenville_SC_City_MSImport_1 and Greenville_SC_City_MSImport_2


On 1/24/2018 8:28 PM, Mike N wrote:


The OSM Upstate SC group is planning an import of Microsoft building 
shapes for the city of Greenville, SC.   The candidate wiki page is at


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Greenville_SC_Building_Import

   The actual import won't take place for 1-2 months yet to allow time 
to review the plans.


   Mike



___
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] Microsoft Building Import for Greenville, SC

[Mike N]

FYI, this is proceeding with 2 people, on dedicated accounts 
Greenville_SC_City_MSImport_1 and Greenville_SC_City_MSImport_2


On 1/24/2018 8:28 PM, Mike N wrote:


The OSM Upstate SC group is planning an import of Microsoft building 
shapes for the city of Greenville, SC.   The candidate wiki page is at


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Greenville_SC_Building_Import

   The actual import won't take place for 1-2 months yet to allow time 
to review the plans.


   Mike



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

Re: [Talk-us] iD news - v2.7.0, new imagery, upgraded turn restriction editor

[Mike N]

On 3/5/2018 3:52 PM, Bryan Housel wrote:

*• 🗺 We've added support for more background imagery from WMS servers. *
Thanks Martin Raifer and Guillaume Rischard for your work on this..
/Press B to open the Background pane and see if new imagery is available 
in your area./


  Fantastic!   Is there a syntax to specify custom WMS imagery?

  Thanks,

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

Re: [Talk-us] Help fight advertising

[Mike N]

On 3/2/2018 4:11 PM, Dale Puch wrote:
It seems like encouraging SEO firms to operate within OSM guidelines by 
providing an easy way to add the OSM appropriate information in bulk 
(with data validation) in one step would be a good thing.  Easier to 
contact, manage and block or revert as needed.


  This is a great idea; the biggest problem is the GeoCoder for use 
where all addresses haven't yet been entered into OSM.


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

Re: [Talk-us] Help fight advertising

[Mike N]

On 3/1/2018 7:36 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:

Sent to Bright Valley Marketing via their website Contact text box:


  Since there are several SEOs out there doing this, it would also be 
interesting to talk to one of them to find out where they got this idea. 
 If there is some SEO blog that gives the recommendation to advertise 
in OSM, and if we could get that page corrected, it would cut off the 
idea at the source.


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

Re: [Talk-us] Help fight advertising

[Mike N]

This is a good time to bring up the subject because the recent 
'locksmith' advertising was most bothersome: partly because the 
locksmith industry as a whole in the US is as shady as you can get while 
being barely legal, and partly because I'm sure the physical locations 
had no relevance; almost no one goes to a 'locksmith shop' to get their 
car door unlocked, and many of them just operate out of their residence.


On 3/1/2018 5:44 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Advertising is often added to OSM in blatant disregard for what we want;
for those adding advertising to OSM, we are just another vehicle to
carry their marketing message across.


  Ironically, OSM in the US is nearly a black hole to advertisers.  As 
I last knew, adding something unique to OSM does not mean that it will 
ever show up in Google.   So I infer that we don't allow Google-bots to 
sniff the OSM changeset list.  If advertisers get things right, the best 
their client could hope for is to attract OSM app users.   If they get 
the factual part wrong, it goes nowhere.


  In this list for my region, I recognize at least 2 people who live in 
the area because they made additional relevant edits that only a local 
would know.   Otherwise, I haven't bothered to remove the advertising 
text because it's only space in the database, and a tiny percentage of 
the overall data.



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

Re: [Talk-us] Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

[Mike N]

On 2/25/2018 9:14 PM, Nick Hocking wrote:
Paul wrote  "Or maybe the unedited original TIGER that's still around 
dropped to

highway=road.  "


Given that the *vast* majority of these (with no name) are completely 
fictional, and even those that aren't, are so out of position and so 
wrongly connected as to render them worse than useless, I believe that 
deletion is the only sensible option.


  Deletion is highly dependent on the quality of TIGER ways in each 
region: many TIGER roads near me were directly derived from government 
data, probably 0.1cm accuracy.   I haven't gone out to collect surface 
type, speed limits, lane configurations confirmed road name and 
therefore not touched them but they're very serviceable for automobile 
navigation.



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

Re: [Talk-us] Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

[Mike N]

On 2/12/2018 4:25 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:

As I am not familiar with the "things you've read," while also wondering myself whether additional 
TIGER tags (tiger:cfcc, tiger:zip, etc.) should remain or be deleted, I also pose this question to the 
greater talk-us community.  What DO we do with these additional TIGER tags as we endeavor to "clean up 
TIGER" in the USA?  Is there consensus on a definitive "best practice" for removing or leaving 
them?  (Consensus is clear that we remove tiger:reviewed=no after we've reviewed the way).


JOSM has an internal list of TIGER tags that are silently removed on any 
edit - I find tiger:zip and tiger:county to be somewhat useful on 
maproulette challenges so I know where I landed.   There's probably 
another way to get that information though.  I'm not sure if tiger:cfcc 
has any supporters.   There's also this patch, and I don't know if any 
others have been added.


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

[Talk-us] Microsoft Building Import for Greenville, SC

[Mike N]

The OSM Upstate SC group is planning an import of Microsoft building 
shapes for the city of Greenville, SC.   The candidate wiki page is at


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Greenville_SC_Building_Import

  The actual import won't take place for 1-2 months yet to allow time 
to review the plans.


  Mike

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

Re: [Talk-us] TIGER 2017 Pennsylvania county line import?

[Mike N]

On 1/23/2018 8:29 PM, Albert Pundt wrote:
I certainly don't intend to delete and recreate any relations for no 
reason. Links with other boundary types will of course also be kept. The 
state boundary itself will likely be redone as well to match the more 
accurate newer TIGER data, though along the Mason-Dixon Line the border 
is defined by boundary stones which are already mapped, so I won't touch 
that part.


  I second the "Replace Geometry" tool for this type of update.  I was 
able to create a new way matching the length of the old and then replace 
geometry and join the ends.   One thing to check carefully is for any 
other object which has been attached to the old boundary.  That got me 
where 2 roads terminated on the boundary and each other; that point 
would be lifted and cause a gap in roads for example.


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

Re: [Talk-us] Leonia, NJ doesn't want you to navigate through

[Mike N]

On 1/9/2018 8:47 PM, Jack Burke wrote:
Someone on the osmus Slack channel pointed out that this would affect 
routing for people who are in the town and want to go somewhere else in 
town, where that route wouldn't normally involve travelling on the major 
through roads.


  I haven't thought through this, but wouldn't that be the same as 
going down a road access=destination, then trying to find a new route 
back out?   Otherwise they are heading to a destination in town, so it's 
still access=destination.



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

Re: [Talk-us] Leonia, NJ doesn't want you to navigate through

[Mike N]

On 1/8/2018 2:17 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:

I might suggest a solution OSM might consider can be to tag access=destination 
and/or residential=living_street.


 From the video, they're definitely not living_street, so most likely 
access=destination.


But the streets should not "be deleted" as the mayor and residents wish.

   The 'deleted' term is likely a casual way to phrase "remove from 
through-routing", and they're not really seeking blank maps for their 
region.


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

Re: [Talk-us] Multipolygonizing

[Mike N]

On 11/20/2017 2:36 PM, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:

In the simple way you need to follow
all nodes your predessor had drawn, clicking all the nodes, be it
25 nodes or 100. In the advanced way, you don't. You instantly
reuse his line for your new polygon. This was a most typical example
of benefits that advanced multipolygons provide.


  This is a good example where multipolygons make sense.   I have run 
into this in the past and naturally migrated to a multipolygon instead 
of clicking through hundreds of nodes.


  However for smaller landuse areas such as residential neighborhoods 
or shopping centers, there may be only 4-20 nodes per adjacent polygon. 
 For those cases, I find that multipolygons only increase the load on 
future maintenance and present a major confusion factor for new users.


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

Re: [Talk-us] Multipolygonizing

[Mike N]

On 11/19/2017 5:48 PM, Douglas Hembry wrote:

I told glebius that I wanted to find out  what the
community thought. Is this just one more valid optional way of mapping?
To be recommended for adoption if possible? Or to be avoided? Thoughts?


  I have this situation locally where much of the adjacent landuse was 
created as multipolygon.  It definitely takes longer to modify these 
areas for new construction.  That is in JOSM without that special 
toolbox which I hadn't used before.


  I can't imagine what it must be like for a newcomer (with any editor).


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

[Talk-us] NAIP for 2017

[Mike N]

The updated NAIP for some states scheduled to update in 2017 is 
beginning to roll out  (Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas etc).  This is 
the same as the "USGS Large Scale Imagery", but at times is newer right 
after an update.


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/National_Agriculture_Imagery_Program

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

Re: [Talk-us] Integrating our open source data into OSM

[Mike N]

On 11/13/2017 9:23 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

If done right, I'd hope this could be the spur to greatly improving OSM POI
coverage in the US.


  Another useful way to use the Cybo data if it's kept current is to be 
able to subscribe to a feed of opened or closed businesses within an 
area.


  As you mention they would probably need a survey to be added, but 
marking the OSM POI closed could be done without a survey, if it's 
within a review of license restrictions.


  (I frequently come across the first POIs I added, having been closed 
now for 7 years)


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

Re: [Talk-us] Comparing Tiger 2017 dataset with OSM in a automatedway.

[Mike N]

On 10/12/2017 9:52 AM, Ian Dees wrote:

The vast majority of roads seem to be correctly missing from OSM.


 Along that line of thought - for cases where local government data is 
not open, I'd find it useful to detect where a name changed in TIGER 
from previous year, or a road was added.


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

Re: [Talk-us] Bicycle infrastructure

[Mike N]

I'm not sure about the syntax, but there's

  cycleway=shared_lane   (for sharrows)

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

Re: [Talk-us] TIGER fixup for Hurricane Harvey potential impact areas

[Mike N]

On 9/6/2017 12:42 AM, Nick Hocking wrote:

A couple of years ago there was a "Tiger missing and misaligned 2015"
layer that I found really usefull for bringing many US cities and towns
up-to-date.

Do you know if there is (or plans for) a more recent version of this,
maybe Tiger 2017???


This one has TIGER 2016, and probably will be updated to TIGER 2017 when 
it is released.  The JOSM Imagery URL would be


tms:https://api.mapbox.com/styles/v1/openstreetmapus/ciskq55qi003d2yn18dllw09w/tiles/256/{zoom}/{x}/{y}?access_token=pk.eyJ1Ijoib3BlbnN0cmVldG1hcHVzIiwiYSI6ImNpc2x0eGF1MjBhZTIydXB1eTkxbTdrdXoifQ.9reDkEfppIvAOfAD3tRDJQ

   I agree that it's very useful when that area's TIGER data is updated.




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

[Talk-us] US Maproulette Railway crossing challenge complete

[Mike N]

The series of US railway crossing challenges on MapRoulette is now 
complete!  Thanks to the many people who helped with this project!   The 
topology of the US rail-road intersection areas is now much more 
accurate, since many of the crossings also required a geometric 
alignment of roads and rails in the area.  I'll write a diary entry 
later with more details when I get time.


  Mike

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

Re: [Talk-us] SEO Damage to OSM

[Mike N]

On 7/6/2017 5:42 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Reverting all these edits would probably create a lot of collateral
damage. We could manually go through them and revert all that contain
marketing speak, but even that would probably throw out a few babies
with the bathwater here and there.


  In the larger picture, what damage is being done to OSM by the 
'spam', once the correct and standard tags are being used?  I'd like to 
have it clear that it's being reverted on the basis of being a stealth 
import where the origin of the geolocation data is suspect, rather than 
just having more words in the description tag than an average mapper 
would include.


Some local business owners also include that sort of verbage when they 
add their own business.



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

Re: [Talk-us] Need advice on a project i've taken on

[Mike N]

On 6/10/2017 10:51 PM, Jason Remillard wrote:

It is my opinion that removing imported non standard tags is
almost always ok.

It has been 10 years since tiger was imported, any effort to maintain it
should be welcomed. We own it now, no script is comming to automatically
update it.

You might want to run it as an automated edit.


 I agree that removing the non standard tags is almost always OK.

 What is the advantage of removing them all with an automated edit? 
Their presence doesn't damage anything, and editors can add those tags 
to their passive removal list.


  The TIGER name expansion resulted in a large benefit by removing a 
manual task.   Changing unused tags would only add to the history file 
for a small benefit.



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

Re: [Talk-us] Response from TIGER about "driveways

[Mike N]

On 4/5/2017 3:10 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2006-November/002561.html
for details.

(I chuckled when I read that message which begins with a complaint about
the mailing lists.)


  I chuckled when I read that the first problems involved developing 
robust recoverable upload code.   We can still use that to pounce on 
anyone who uploads an import using JOSM and experiences a network 
hiccup.  "A Ha - you have 1734 duplicate nodes and 378 duplicate ways... 
bad import"


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

Re: [Talk-us] greenways tagging

[Mike N]

I have tagged 2 local living_streets that don't quite meet the strict 
European definition, but they are blocked by bollards, which are rarely 
dropped to allow service vehicles to enter.


On 3/23/2017 9:27 PM, Nathaniel V. Kelso wrote:

The existing OSM wiki documented tags for bicycle needs to grow a bit to
describe things like bike boulevards, greenwaves, and buffered_lanes.


 Thanks for the detail - I also get the feeling that OSM tags should be 
expanded to cover more variations  of bike infrastructure.




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

Re: [Talk-us] Is this a bad import or an experiment?

[Mike N]

On 3/22/2017 2:02 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote:

Are small driveways offensive, or is it just the polygonal ones that
don't connect to anything?


To me, it's just the disconnected polygons.   Small driveways don't hurt 
anything, and can only provide information such as telling self-driving 
cars which driveway to pull into.


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

Re: [Talk-us] Key:man_made... Outdated language?

[Mike N]

On 3/10/2017 4:27 PM, Joshua Houston wrote:

It occurred to me that "man_made" is an outdated term that should be
phased out from OpenStreetMap language.


  Changing any long-established tag will have long lasting ripple 
effects in the many data consumers.   Any such tag migration would need 
to have a high degree of value in the change to justify the change.


  In general, tags are just a token and are increasingly hidden by 
editors and not seen by mappers unless they prefer to create tag values 
manually.



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

Re: [Talk-us] MO Stare Road Classifications.

[Mike N]

Hi,

   Typically, regional classifications do not map into OSM 
classification, and often conflict.


  If a freeway / expressway is constructed as an OSM motorway, it 
should be motorway.


  If a 'local' road serves an industrial area it should be unclassified 
because it doesn't serve residences.


   And probably others.   Even within OSM in the US, there is not an 
absolute level of classification that has been agreed on and verifiable 
by everyone.


On 3/4/2017 10:55 PM, idn...@gmail.com wrote:



I was thinking of using MODOT Functional classification maps to set
roads to.  Basically the following:



MODOT : OSM



Interstate : motorway

Freeway and Expressway : trunk

Other Principal Arterial : primary

Minor Arterial : secondary

Major Collector : tertiary

Minor Collector : unclassified

Local : residential



You can see maps here:

http://www.modot.org/newsandinfo./functionalclassificationmaps





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

Re: [Talk-us] First new 2016 NAIP imagery is now online (Massachusetts & Tennessee)

[Mike N]

On 1/4/2017 10:46 PM, James Mast wrote:

I tested out the new 2016 TN link in JOSM before I sent the original
email and it worked perfectly fine for me.


  I looked again and all is working now!   It had been unusable for 
several weeks around the USGS transition, and I thought the whole NAIP 
program had also fallen victim.


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

Re: [Talk-us] First new 2016 NAIP imagery is now online (Massachusetts & Tennessee)

[Mike N]

On 1/4/2017 9:58 PM, James Mast wrote:

So, hopefully some more new imagery that we can use to update highway
projects will be showing up soon


  I haven't been able to use NAIP WMS links since the USGS scaled back 
on their online services.   Do they work for you?


   Mike

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

Re: [Talk-us] Unreviewed rural roads vs Strava heatmap

[Mike N]

On 12/28/2016 8:40 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:


The result is a map of rural roads where people cycle but which are
still tagged as highway=residential, tiger:reviewed=no. I built this for
my own fixup work but I figured others might find it useful.


Very nice tool!

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

Re: [Talk-us] An actual mini roundabout!

[Mike N]

On 12/9/2016 9:49 PM, Rihards wrote:

definitely. please only tag as miniroundabouts places that you would
pass straight in a normal car :)

similarly, if there is an island, it is better to map a circle way, not
just a node with turning_circle - the latter should be used only for
"full" circles without any objects in the middle.


There is also turning loop for turning circles containing islands - 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dturning_loop



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

Re: [Talk-us] .... finding areas that are underserved

[Mike N]

On 11/12/2016 5:44 PM, Markus Fischer wrote:

I am new to this and the area where I live is very well mapped (probably
due to high density of tech workers). Where do I go to start mapping
areas that are less well mapped (me aimlessly poking at this does not
sound like a good approach)?


  Assuming that there is less than 100% mapping of all common 
attributes in your area:


 Start in your neighborhood: are all speed limits entered?  Turn 
restrictions? One way streets? -> those would be good to collect with 
Mapillary or as a passenger in a vehicle.


  Have addresses been imported?  If not, and your county has a 
restricted data license, it may be a long time if ever before addresses 
can be imported.   In that case, practice entering the address of every 
building where you routinely travel; restaurants, stores, work, etc.


  Otherwise, just start moving out into nearby towns or places you have 
lived or visited previously.


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

[Talk-us] MapRoulette Rail Crossings challenge

[Mike N]

I've brought back the MapRoulette US Railway crossings challenge with a 
slight difference - the remaining tasks are derived from a topological 
look at  the OSM data.


https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/MikeN/diary/39782


[Crossing Ways: Highway-Railway, US] http://maproulette.org/map/980

[Crossing Ways: Pedestrian-Railway, US] http://maproulette.org/map/989

[Crossing Type: Highway-Railway, US] http://maproulette.org/map/990

[Crossing Type: Pedestrian-Railway, US] http://maproulette.org/map/991


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

Re: [Talk-us] Deleting / Closing / Renaming all places in a chain

[Mike N]

On 9/7/2016 2:38 PM, Brian Stromberg wrote:

My point was only that applying an automated process nationwide without
any consideration for on-the-ground verification seems likely to make a
less accurate map.


 For the ITT case, there is presumably a reference on the web site that 
lists all schools.  These can be cross-checked against the entity 
address or the nearby street if there was no address.


 There are no formal rules about which types of edits can be made 
without on-the-ground verification.  At best, we want a chance to review 
all automated edits and make the call on a case by case basis.



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

Re: [Talk-us] Deleting / Closing / Renaming all places in a chain

[Mike N]

On 9/7/2016 10:13 AM, Brian Stromberg wrote:

Automated nationwide mapping seems like it would introduce more problems
than it would solve. If maps are intended to represent the truth on the
ground, then the only way to create a useful map is by reporting what is
actually there rather than making assumptions. A map that is inaccurate
because it is outdated is better than a map that is inaccurate because
of a flawed process.


  Welcome to the list!   I've been surprised by both what OSM data is 
applied to, as well as what it is not.  Where it was used, having the 
maximum amount of current information made it the most useful.


You are correct that using a flawed process will lead to inaccurate 
results - there was the famous worldwide edit "Fix and unify all 
MacDonald's restaurant names" which led to wrong results.   The ITT 
closing case is both small enough and well defined that I expect a very 
high quality result.



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

Re: [Talk-us] Deleting / Closing / Renaming all places in a chain

[Mike N]

On 9/7/2016 3:45 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Except those humans who could have used that outdated thing as a marker
to tell them that the map is dated.

Yes they could look at the last modification date of things or analyze
how many contributors the area has or myriad other OSM insider things.
But seeing a "Domino's Pizza" on the map doesn't need an API, or insider
knowledge, it doesn't even need a web site - it is the universal
language of map dating.



  I can't visualize a mapper that is so starved for places to resurvey 
that they rely on a list of stale POIs as a source instead of a more 
methodical system of date checking or any of the many OSM QA tools that 
automatically flag stale data such as a dead web site.



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

Re: [Talk-us] Deleting / Closing / Renaming all places in a chain

[Mike N]

On 9/6/2016 5:36 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Automatically editing away something
country-wide hides the fact that the map lacks attention in an area.


I'm not sure that hiding lack of attention is such a bad thing.  In some 
places I only update items of interest instead of taking the time to 
verify a whole row of POIs.   In either case, the only way to be sure 
the entire area is current is to re-survey everything.   But if one less 
thing is wrong or outdated, that makes the data more useful to all clients.


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

Re: [Talk-us] friendly notice: Atlanta road construction rendering imagery out-of-date

[Mike N]

On 8/24/2016 9:14 PM, Jack Burke wrote:

Since I'm on e-mail tonight, I thought I'd bring folks up-to-date on
some ongoing road construction north and south of Atlanta that is
rendering some pretty important imagery out-of-date.  So before you go
about trying to "fix" something that doesn't match the spy photos,
please check around to be sure that what you're trying to change isn't
already right.


  Thanks for the information!  On local projects here, I always add an 
empty way matching the old image with a note stating that aerials before 
 are out of date.


  I suppose that will be the next frontier in cleanup projects after 
imagery receives the next major update.   On the plus side, since the 
new projects are often 1 or 2 GPS traces, removing them will remind me 
to compare with new aerials.



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

Re: [Talk-us] Check your turn:lanes

[Mike N]

On 8/24/2016 6:19 PM, Jack Burke wrote:


The problem is, it's breaking the values instead.  I found a section of
road that I'd added turn:lanes to in order to provide lane guidance at
an exit.  My original value of "none|none|none|none|none;slight_right"
was replaced by "slight_right".


  I tried to hash this out on the tagging list, and the consensus 
seemed to be that the value 'none' was the correct terminology.


https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2016-June/029335.html

   I began commenting on changesets, some were corrected by the 
original fixer, others I just went back and fixed.


  This message was a direct comment about the task -

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2016-June/029339.html

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

Re: [Talk-us] Mappers in Idaho!

[Mike N]

On 8/8/2016 2:11 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:

But...Anyone want to map? Look at all this stuff that's not in OSM yet :)


  I haven't looked, but what is in the data?   Roads? Trails? 
Addresses?   I could see people being lost on old trail / track data, 
but the road network is generally routable, just lacking most addresses 
with an occasional route bobble.


  In any case, if I cited the source in an upload, it would be handy to 
have a Wiki page that makes it clear that the source was public domain.



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

Re: [Talk-us] Map spam

[Mike N]

On 7/10/2016 3:30 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:

It is just not that big of a problem.  I am weirdly impressed by the odd combination of 
"quite well-formed data tagging, yet I can still (nearly always) determine that the 
node is spam."  In other words, they are trying hard to fly in under our radar, but 
we (experienced OSM editors, AND the DWG's diligence) have pretty good radar.


I have seen a number of these - at first there was some app generating 
invalid OSM tags, but excellent geolocation (to OSM standards, center of 
main business building).Then a handful recently with correct OSM 
tags and excellent geolocaction.   In some cases I add further detail 
such as driveways, improving surrounding roads, perhaps adding a building.



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

Re: [Talk-us] Dual carriage way?

[Mike N]

On 5/14/2016 12:13 PM, Eric Ladner wrote:


I've converted a lot of "FIXME" single ways into dual one way highways,
but I've never converted one back the other way.

Before I embark on converting it to a single way, just wanted to get the
thoughts of other US mappers.


  I ran into this also in one local region where I converted many miles 
of dual carriageway TIGER into a single way because there was no 
divider, but mostly just had a center turning lane.


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

Re: [Talk-us] Improving coverage of exit numbers and destinations on motorways

[Mike N]

On 5/4/2016 4:18 AM, Greg Morgan wrote:

 At one time there was a discussion on the list about moving exit_to
tags as destination tags on the ramp.  I moved most of the exit_to tags
that I mapped to the ramps.  Here you are proposing something different
by leaving some exit_to tags and adding destination tags occasionally.


Just to add to this - someone has added ref:left and ref:right to split 
exits near me, but it appears that this is an abandoned proposal.


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

Re: [Talk-us] Per-State relations for the Appalachian Trail

[Mike N]

On 5/2/2016 11:41 AM, Elliott Plack wrote:

This got me thinking, is there any specific need to have the route
broken up by state? Unlike interstate highways, where maintenance
changes across state lines, at the border, the AT maintenance is handled
by a trifecta of federal agencies and a non-profit. There are also 31
clubs that share some of the maintenance on some sections.


  The advantage of breaking up a relation into smaller relations is to 
minimize the probability of edit conflicts.  I don't know how often 
things change, or more detail is added on the Appalachian Trail.   My 
tendency would be to leave it separated, but I have no strong opinion 
either way.


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

[Talk-us] US 221 (NC) Median U-Turns

[Mike N]

   This is just a new road configuration (to me).   NC Onemap aerials 
updated to show the latest road configuration after they expanded 10 
miles of dual carriageway on US221 in NC.   They used Median U-turn 
configurations along the length rather than straight cross traffic for 
the crossroads


OSRM shows the routing

http://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car&route=35.1950%2C-81.8381%3B35.1956%2C-81.8447#map=17/35.19743/-81.84066

and 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car&route=35.3009%2C-81.9085%3B35.2962%2C-81.9236#map=15/35.3001/-81.9176


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

Re: [Talk-us] Smartphone App that searches OSM addresses?

[Mike N]

On 1/10/2016 12:54 AM, Greg Morgan wrote:

I am using the Android version of Maps.ME and there is a IOS version.


  Thanks - I took a look at it and it worked for me, including the 
voice turn by turn directions!


 I have ended up with 13 apps in my "OSM Nav" folder, and they excel at 
different tasks, but this was the only app I could find that uses OSM 
data and has turn-by-turn directions.



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

[Talk-us] Smartphone App that searches OSM addresses?

[Mike N]

In the case where a county completely revamps its road network and 
addressing scheme for E911 purposes, then authorizes its road and 
address data to OSM, and it's properly imported, are there any 
Smartphone apps for both Android and IOS that would search those 
addresses?   And have turn by turn routing.


  My cursory review:

  OffMaps2 - Yes on address search, no on routing
   GPS Nav - uses commercial address reference over OSM address
   Scout - "  "
OSMAnd - theoretically Yes on Android (I haven't tried it), I can't 
get any OSM address search to work on iPhone


 Any suggestions?


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

Re: [Talk-us] Find missing roads plugin - JOSM

[Mike N]

On 12/9/2015 9:58 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:

Thanks for reporting Mike - I will pass this on to our dev right away so we can 
look into it.
Any additional contextual information that may help reproduce is more than 
welcome.

Martijn



  I checked it again - the problem has cleared up on the server for 
now.I think it can be reproduced by either firewalling off access to 
that server so that a connect takes a long time, otherwise the dev will 
need to connect to a dummy instance of the server that holds the 
connection but never responds.


  It's possible that the plugin function needs to be asynchronous or 
release some resource so that the rest of JOSM isn't affected by a 
future server or network problem.


  Regards,

  Mike Nice


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

[Talk-us] Find missing roads plugin - JOSM

[Mike N]

I ran into a small problem with the missing roads plugin in JOSM.   When 
I have it selected, it goes active when I first download something. 
There is some sort of problem with the missing roads search web service at


 http://missingroads.skobbler.net/missingGeoService

  Wireshark shows that the server goes into some sort of error sequence 
with duplicate ACKs and retransmissions.


  I'm CC'ing the list because JOSM shows some strange behavior when 
this happens - the missingroads server conversation must first time out 
(several minutes) before anything can be uploaded or downloaded again. 
No error message until the timeout - dialogs just disappear with no action.



  I've uninstalled the plugin for now.

  Thanks,


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

Re: [Talk-us] Deleting standalone empty nodes?

[Mike N]

On 12/7/2015 8:39 PM, Steve Friedl wrote:

Most of them are by bots – OSMF Redaction Account, woodpeck_fixbot – and
they appear to be spurious, but I’m not sure if they are there for a
reason.

Is there ever any benefit in a standalone node with no tags, especially
if it doesn’t appear to be in an “interesting” location relative to
underlying imagery?



  There are 2 common reasons for this:

 1 - an import with a partial failed upload that hasn't been cleaned 
up.  Most of the early orphan nodes have been mechanically removed.


  2 - The license change redaction process may have left these nodes 
when the attached way was redacted.


  If the standalone nodes are recent, don't delete them for at least 2 
weeks in case an approved import is in process and will resume later and 
need to use those nodes.   Also be sure they are not contained in a 
relation (I'm not sure how clearly all editors show relation membership).




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

Re: [Talk-us] Railway = racetrack ?!

[Mike N]

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/36.2834/-89.1455


 It seems to be the Green Plains ethanol production plant in Obion, TN.


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

[Talk-us] Railway = racetrack ?!

[Mike N]

I've never noticed this sort of oval railyard in the US before.   At 
first glance, I was thinking railway=racetrack, but of course it isn't. 
  It seems to be some sort of grain depot, but that's the fanciest rail 
network I've ever seen for a grain depot.


http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/36.2834/-89.1455

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

Re: [Talk-us] OpenStreetMap US elections: October 12 townhall with candidates

[Mike N]

On 10/14/2015 1:33 PM, Wolfgang Zenker wrote:

One idea would be to have a mapping party doing TIGER fixup for one
rural county, then contact the local newspaper, write an article what
has been done and ask for help regarding wrong/incomplete road names,
wrong data caused by outdated imagery, etc.
My guess would be that newspapers in rural towns would be happy about
every article regarding their local area that they can get.


 I agree with this - just some armchair work from existing mappers 
won't increase overall participation in rural areas, but some 
preliminary work (untangling TIGER is *hard* for new mappers), followed 
by newspaper announcements to check road names, etc would bring in some 
people.   Also suggesting to add parks, park details, trails, etc would 
further attract some people.


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

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Find missing roads

[Mike N]

On 10/4/2015 3:32 PM, Greg Morgan wrote:

3.) It would be helpful to put in a count of tiles in the red dot.  I
was surprised to see some large red dots contain only three tiles
while others contained many.  It did not feel like the intuitive dot
size matched the actual size of the effort.


 Also, it would be useful to change the red dots to green or remove 
them after the tiles have been marked as solved.


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

Re: [Talk-us] Find missing roads

[Mike N]

On 9/30/2015 2:40 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:

 I do find two things remarkable about this plugin's
output:

 1. It seems to have picked out an incomplete set based on the paths
relative to imagery.
 2. I have no way of being able to survey the exact location of the GPS
output from the plugin from the ground (it's inside a fence factory,
/of course/ it's fenced off!), so I can only assume the GPS was
located on one of those big diesel-powered forklifts.


  I had a look at the plugin - it does find some interesting things.  I 
find that truckers use the Scout App, and the profile where they drive 
around a huge factory to pick up / drop off a load appears the same as 
if a car is going through a previously unknown subdivision.


  So once the plugin identifies an area of interest, confirm with 
imagery or TIGER for the next step

   - add driveways to a factory
   - Add new road(s) from TIGER
   - Schedule the area for a survey


  The odd cloud of points comes from random inaccuracies of a 
smartphone inside a vehicle, and excluded for a certain distance from 
existing roads to minimize false positives.



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

Re: [Talk-us] Should driveways be on OSM?

[Mike N]

On 9/28/2015 1:33 AM, Tom Bloom wrote:

TIGER drew thousands of driveways that are often simply wrong. They are
tagged private and in my opinion spoil the map appearance with little
red squiggles all over the place. No other map I've found includes them.
Looking around the country, I notice some areas where they were removed,
changed to service roads, drawn de novo, and one area (near Rosebud, OR)
where they were inexplicably changed to living_street, which they just
aren't.


  I change them to type 'driveway'  highway=service/service=driveway 
when it's clear that's what they are.   If they're in the wrong place 
with wrong geometry, then it's OK to delete them.


  I think driveways do belong in OSM - we're not necessarily like other 
maps.  If they're cluttering the main map, then it's a rendering issue 
that can be submitted on the bug tracker.  However they aren't the 
default tagging as imported from TIGER (highway=residential / possibly 
private).


> I've been deleting them if wildly wrong, and would like to delete all
> I encounter. Any ideas?

  I don't know of any automated solutions for this.   If they really 
follow a driveway, I'd rather see them changed to type driveway rather 
than a deletion.



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

[Talk-us] Strategy for 'updated' TIGER regions

[Mike N]

There have been analysis and strategy about fixing TIGER 'Deserts'[1], 
but what is the best way to manage regions that have been thoroughly 
updated to match TIGER, and possibly enhanced beyond that with local 
knowledge?


Background - An essential task in keeping OSM updated and relevant in 
the US has been to compare existing OSM data to the latest TIGER data 
and add new roads.   This generally means adding the endless new streets 
for subdivisions or possibly a single new cul-de-sac development street.


  The problem is that once an area has been completely synchronized to 
TIGER, what is the best way to update it in the future?  The problem 
comes when revisiting a completed area looking for new roads.  What if 
someone had deleted or modified those streets based on local research or 
knowledge?   The old TIGER street shows up as a 'new' street, and 
there's no way an armchair mapper would know what to do.[2]  The street 
or segment gets added back to the map and OSM becomes a museum relic 
holding old TIGER data unless someone knowledgeable happens to notice.


  I'm starting to keep an empty way with a note on the old TIGER trace, 
but I suspect that almost no one has historically done this in the US.


  I propose 2 changes to TIGER challenge tasks -

1.  Future TIGER challenges in completed areas should highlight only 
changes relative to the previous year, or 2010 and not treat all TIGER 
data as authoritative.   Roads are sometimes accidentally deleted in OSM 
but those could be flagged by telemetry from Scout.


 2. Focus on areas that desperately need alignment, but may not have 
even updated TIGER.   Just aligning streets to aerial imagery will make 
the area usable by navigation systems.   Admittedly since those areas 
are also likely to be low population, there may not be a payback for 
paid mappers to help.


  This is not meant to be anti-armchair mapping but a way to continue 
to make better use of armchair mapping resources.


  Mike
 ---

[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/TIGER_fixup#TIGER_desert
[2] In the past, I demonstrated OSM's local mapping advantage to a 
friend by comparing Skobbler's turn by turn to Garmin soon after this 
frontage road access was closed for safety reasons.  Google and Garmin 
finally corrected their routing after some years, but OSM went back to 
the old days -

 http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/30249051

More armchair mapping challenges -
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33549289 !
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/32398213
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/32373023

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

Re: [Talk-us] New MapRoulette challenge - fix railway crossings

[Mike N]

On 8/4/2015 4:59 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:

Also, please even if you see the crossing rendered, do go in and
check, because I have seen more than once that the crossing node is
not a shared node between way and rail. (Hint, use 'j' to join node to
way and 'm' to merge nodes that are (almost) on top of each other.)


 I noticed something interesting about JOSM - if I select an 
intersection that may or may not have 2 duplicate nodes, in some cases 
where there were 2 nodes, the JOSM 'M' command has no effect the first 
time.   Now I always watch and try again if the merge was ignored.   But 
that can be another post-challenge fixup - duplicate nodes on rail crossing.


Other notes:

   Please don't (C)ombine sections of railway unless there is a good 
reason.  I don't know if anyone is combining currently, but there was a 
long span across South Dakota spanning 2 counties and 400 nodes which 
was shifted (perhaps to correct a local problem).   Mappers fixed 
various crossings, and the long way was shifted 2 more times.  I finally 
just manually reviewed and fixed the entire shifted way.


https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33235552


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

Re: [Talk-us] Arm chair mapping challenges

[Mike N]

On 8/18/2015 10:27 AM, Tod Fitch wrote:

Some other mapper has updated the area to remove the old buildings and streets 
and marked the area as under construction. All of that seems correct from what 
I’ve read in the paper and what little I can see on the ground.

But it means the area differs from the Tiger data for the area.

And now I am seeing multiple change sets from mappers I don’t recognize as 
local re-instating the now missing features. For 
example:https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/366208964#map=15/37.3338/-122.0097



To borrow from the "Stop deleting abandoned railroads" thread, nothing 
should be deleted. But seriously, I now leave an empty way with a 
note saying that Bing  is out of date.   That will head off some 
problems.  Of course, this leaves lots of empty cruft floating around, 
and discourages new editors who are confused by all the jumble.


> A number of the “fixes” have a mention 
ofhttp://osmlab.github.io/to-fix/?error=tigerdelta-named#/task/tigerdelta in 
their change set comments.


A partial technical improvement is that the challenge on 
osmlab.github.io should only flag missing TIGER data that was added to 
TIGER since the original 2007 import.   But that misses the very real 
problem when someone accidentally deletes an existing street.



  But definitely comment politely on the changeset.   I'm a firm 
believer in the value of armchair mappers and what they're doing.   A 
bit of feedback helps them learn and improve, since I'm sure they mean 
to do well.


 [ PS - 3 out of 5 of the "Bing is right" edits have come from local 
mappers ]



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

Re: [Talk-us] NAIP US Aerial Imagery

[Mike N]

On 8/12/2015 5:51 PM, TC Haddad wrote:

Just to comment on this one point: As a federal agency, the USDA is
*required* to support the open standard option of the WMS service type,
so it *should* be available.

In looking at all the different state NAIP imagery sets listed in their
directory here: http://gis.apfo.usda.gov/arcgis/rest/services/NAIP,
every single other state lists the WMS option, so it's clearly an error
that South Carolina is missing it.

Hopefully the service maintainers will catch on and correct soon, but if
you or others have a contact it is worth an email to make them aware,
both of the mistake, and of the customer base for the open standard option.


  It might be that it is still at some review or implementation stage 
and they haven't generated WMS yet.  I'll keep an eye on it and contact 
them if it doesn't show up eventually.



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

Re: [Talk-us] NAIP US Aerial Imagery

[Mike N]

On 8/12/2015 5:15 PM, Jonah Adkins wrote:

you can use the SC Image Service as a custom background in iD or JOSM
using this link

*http://arcgis-level-fixer.elasticbeanstalk.com/http://gis.apfo.usda.gov/arcgis/rest/services/NAIP/South_Carolina_2015_1m/ImageServer/arcgis/z/{z}/y/{y}/x/{x}
*




That worked for me as a TMS service in JOSM.   Thanks!


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

Re: [Talk-us] NAIP US Aerial Imagery

[Mike N]

From the USGS help, it appears that there is some delay.
http://www.usgs.gov/faq/categories/9861/3655

  I spot checked some places in SC, and it looks like it isn't using 
the latest NAIP yet.   So I would find the ability to always use the 
latest NAIP to be useful.  Hopefully it wouldn't be hard to set up as a 
new layer.




On 8/12/2015 5:01 PM, Ian Dees wrote:

Last I checked the latest and greatest NAIP is included in the USGS's
"large scale imagery" layer, which is tiled and cached on the OSM US
tile server.

I don't have a layer specific to the latest NAIP-only imagery, though.
Is that something you're interested in?

On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Mike N mailto:nice...@att.net>> wrote:

Does anyone know about current NAIP aerial imagery?  SC 2015 imagery
has been acquired and can be viewed, but the page no longer lists
WMS as a format -


http://gis.apfo.usda.gov/arcgis/rest/services/NAIP/South_Carolina_2015_1m/ImageServer

   SC 2013 WMS imagery has already been removed.   Does this mean
that NAIP will be removing WMS from future services and will only
support JSON and SOAP?   (which I cannot get JOSM to accept).


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org <mailto: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