[Talk-us] Request to review edits by Zowie Polie

[maning sambale]

Hi,

Our team noticed Zowie Polie [0] deleting/modifying/adding major
roads, service roads and buildings, random fictional features such as
parks etc. over the US.  We think a lot of her/his edits are
suspicious.  See changeset here [1].  This user also had a block from
DWG [2].

We commented on one of the changesets and reported the incident to
DWG.  While we fixed many of the changesets already. Would love for
the community to review if there are other data that broke the map.



[0] https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Zowie%20Polie
[1] 
https://osmcha.mapbox.com/?filters=%7B%22date__gte%22%3A%5B%7B%22label%22%3A%22%22%2C%22value%22%3Anull%7D%5D%2C%22users%22%3A%5B%7B%22label%22%3A%22Zowie%20Polie%22%2C%22value%22%3A%22Zowie%20Polie%22%7D%5D%7D
[2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/1348
[3] https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/50470330
-- 

cheers,
Maning Sambale
Data, Mapbox

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

[Talk-us] SEO Damage to OSM

[maning sambale]

Hi,

Our team came across duplicated highways like this:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/144422919/.
Based on the latest changeset, this is probably due to the revertion
of the SEO spam.
We documented the issue here: https://github.com/mapbox/mapping/issues/310


> 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. If anyone has a recommendation... I
> noticed that typical SEO content tends to begin with the business name
> ("Waldo's Warts is a health spa overlooking the beautiful parking lot of
> ...") but that's probably not a hard-and-fast marker.
>
> With regard to blocking or deleting accounts: DWG usually blocks
> accounts only to stop someone from doing someting or to force them to
> read a message; hence we don't see much reason in blocking month-old
> accounts that will in all likelihood never be used again. Pure spam
> accounts (usually that's diary spam) can be deleted by the admins, but
> in these cases that would actually hide the traces of spammers, since
> the edits they made would now be by user "user_1234" instead of user
> "soandsohotel" and it would be more difficult to follow their actions
> through the web interface. So I can see the frustration of spam hunters
> when the spam account is not removed, but I don't think it would
> actually help.


-- 
cheers,
maning
--
"Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden
https://epsg4253.wordpress.com/
http://twitter.com/maningsambale
--

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

[Talk-us] MS Buildings (Re: Talk-us Digest, Vol 112, Issue 25)

[maning sambale]

Hi,

My colleague Chethan played around with visualizing MS buildings in 3D:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Chetan_Gowda/diary/41705

Webmap here: 
https://osmlab.github.io/ms-building-import/#15.72/39.2862/-76.6135/-1.2/60

The quality is generally good, but there are spots where small
buildings are not  orthogonal like these residential areas in Orlando

https://osmlab.github.io/ms-building-import/#18.4/28.45983/-81.38851/53/27
https://osmlab.github.io/ms-building-import/#17.36/28.50154/-81.49417/33.8/27

Obviously, this shouldn't be imported wholesale, so I suggest to
whoever plans to do import/conflate them should review the quality of
each data.


> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 09:37:15 -0700
> From: Clifford Snow 
> To: talk-us 
> Subject: [Talk-us] Available Building Footprints
> Message-ID:
> 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> I am happy to announce that Microsoft has made available approximately 9.8
> million building footprints including building heights in key metropolitan
> areas. These footprints are licensed ODbL to allow importing into OSM.
> These footprints where manually created using high resolution imagery. The
> data contains no funny field names such as tiger:cfcc or gnis:featureid or
> fcode=46003, just building height.
>
>
> Please remember to follow the import guidelines.
>
> The wiki [1] has more information on these footprints as well as links to
> download.
>
> [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/dieterdreist/diary/40727
>
> Enjoy,
> Clifford Snow
>
>
-- 
cheers,
maning
--
"Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden
https://epsg4253.wordpress.com/
http://twitter.com/maningsambale
--

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

[Talk-us] Unreviewed TIGER in Jacksonville (was Re: Talk-us Digest, Vol 114, Issue 22)

[maning sambale]

While our team is working on Jacksonville, we found unreviewed TIGER
(v1, tiger:reviewed:=no) in some areas.
See example here:
https://github.com/mapbox/mapping/issues/300#issuecomment-305399104
We are fixing them as we encounter them in the TM tasks.

We are also reviewing the extent of effort to fix this once we are
done with building tracing.
If there are existing efforts to fix in TIGER data in Jacksonville our
team can help as well.


> Thank you everyone for all the information. To start with our team is going
> to be working on improving the building footprints in Jacksonville, Florida
> [0] on OpenStreetMap. You can track the progress in our /mapping ticket [1].
> Let us know if you have any feedback, please post in this thread or in the
> ticket.
>
> [0] - http://tasks.openstreetmap.us/project/96
> [1] - https://github.com/mapbox/mapping/issues/300
>
>
> Cheers,
> Jinal Foflia
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> 
>
> --
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
> --
>
> End of Talk-us Digest, Vol 114, Issue 22
> 



-- 
cheers,
maning
--
"Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden
https://epsg4253.wordpress.com/
http://twitter.com/maningsambale
--

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

[Talk-us] SF Building Height Import Mapathon (March 14, 2017) @ Mapbox SF

[maning sambale]

Hi,

We are doing a mapathon for the SF building height import at Mapbox SF office.
Details about the event here:
https://www.meetup.com/Maptime-SF/events/232888163/

Brandon Liu will lead this event.  If your in town, please join.

-- 
cheers,
maning sambale

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

[Talk-us] Duplicated buildings in the Miami building import

[maning sambale]

Hi,

To the import team,  great job in importing the buildings in Miami.
While validating the changesets using
[OSMCha](https://osmcha.mapbox.com/), I came across one
[changeset](https://osmcha.mapbox.com/46393859/) where I found some
overlapping and duplicate buildings.

Please advise mappers to run the validator in JOSM before uploading
the data to OSM. Also,  there maybe cases when the mapper indeed ran
the Validator but did not detect any errors.  To fix this, always
uncheck 'Use ignore list' in your JOSM preferences.  See this:
https://github.com/mapbox/mapping/issues/170#issuecomment-277603950

List of edits with a #miabuildings changeset comment
https://osmcha.mapbox.com/?comment__icontains=%23miabuildings+_suspect=False_whitelisted=All=False=All



-- 
cheers,
maning
--
"Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden
https://epsg4253.wordpress.com/
http://twitter.com/maningsambale
--

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

[Talk-us] Open Building datasets for San Jose, Fremont and Berkeley

[maning sambale]

Hi,

Recently we came across three open buildings datasets for San Jose[1],
Berkeley[2] and Fremont[3]. We have evaluated the quality of each of
the datasets and found them to have good coverage and building
extrusions match recent satellite imagery. We have updated the wiki[4]
with the above sources for California.


- San Jose: 
https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/1933377/22969874/09901660-f396-11e6-93a9-225dfab1ccc9.png
- Berkeley: 
https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/1933377/22469786/28cb43b4-e7f3-11e6-979c-0fcc27cea67d.png
- Fremont: 
https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/1933377/22917071/97fb3536-f2a8-11e6-885c-26a5f0a6ce14.png

The datasets for San Jose and Berkeley also contain building heights
and that of San Jose contains building parts as well.

- Building part details in San Jose:
https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/1933377/22919803/e374ba8c-f2b7-11e6-9d03-3693401851fe.png

Our team would be happy to collaborate if you are open to importing
these datasets to OpenStreetMap.

[1] - http://www.sanjoseca.gov/index.aspx?NID=3308

[2] - https://data.cityofberkeley.info/City-Government/Roofprints-2006/gnp8-t9x8

[3] - 
http://egis-cofgis.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/5b4a263844634084af2001f82a5174a5_0

[4] - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Potential_Datasources#California



-- 
cheers,
Maning
Data, Mapbox

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

[Talk-us] Creating dual-carraigeways where there are existing oute relations

[maning sambale]

Hi,

Our team at Mapbox has been adding turn lanes in several cities in the
US. In some cases, bi-directional roads need to be converted to
dual-carriageways when there is a physical separation.  However, we
are finding it difficult to create dual-carriageways since most major
roads already have route relations and there is a danger of breaking
route relations.

We are documenting the process here:
https://github.com/mapbox/mapping/issues/180#issuecomment-279367407
Would love the community's inputs on how we can avoid relation breakage.

-- 
cheers,
Maning Sambale
Data, Mapbox

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

[Talk-us] (Cleanup of LABuilding import (was Re: [Imports] Updates:LA County building import (Los Angeles, California, USA))

[maning sambale]

Hi,

After validation via TM [0], we will implement a series of cleanup[1]
for several issues during the import.  Details on each cleanup will be
documented in the respective ticket and also updated in the wiki later
on. I'm reading the Automated Edits CoC [2] right now and I have a few
questions.

Some cleanup require manual review by the community like the split
buildings, we are proposing they use their previous import account
(username_labuildings) using a micro tasking interface like
maproulette or to-fix.

Others can be scripted like mistagged condos this requires some
scripting knowledge and we want specific users to do this.

Do we need a separate mechanical edit account or their own import
account is enough to do this?

Ideas welcome.



[0] http://labuildingsimport.com
[1] 
https://github.com/osmlab/labuildings/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Acleanup
[2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 8:56 PM, maning sambale
<emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Christoph,
>
> Thank you for the observation.
>
> Specific to "roads now intersect buildings indicating that mapping is
> inaccurate - like here:"
> They are mostly unreviewed TIGER import, I also saw one instance where
> we have building but no roads.
> This was already discussed by the import team and will be fixed during
> the cleanup/validation stage.
>
> Keep your  comments and suggestions coming! Will ticket each one and
> fix whatever we can.
> Thanks!
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 8:14 PM, Christoph Hormann <chris_horm...@gmx.de> 
> wrote:
>> On Tuesday 19 July 2016, maning sambale wrote:
>>>
>>> Another round of updates on LABuildings import.
>>> Last week we've imported ~1.1M buildings in LA City. Over 100
>>> usernames participated.
>>> We are close to finishing Phase 1 (LA City) and will continue data QA
>>> and cleanup if needed.
>>
>> A few observations from looking over the map there:
>>
>> * There are quite a few cases where gaps between buildings are either
>> very small (significantly less than a meter) or buildings touch at a
>> single node.  Both are usually artefacts (probably primarily due to
>> roof based rather than footprint based outlines).
>> * There seem to be a lot of cases where garages and sheds are tagged as
>> building=house or building=residential - like here:
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/409191451
>>
>> * In some cases boundaries of pre-existing landuse polygons (like
>> landuse=residential/landuse=industrial) and roads now intersect
>> buildings indicating that mapping is inaccurate - like here:
>>
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/34.07461/-118.48376
>>
>> All of these problems could probably be turned into maproulette tasks or
>> be otherwise worked into QA tools - although at least the first two
>> will require on-the-ground assessment for proper correction.
>>
>> --
>> Christoph Hormann
>> http://www.imagico.de/
>>
>> ___
>> Imports mailing list
>> impo...@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
>
>
>
> --
> cheers,
> maning
> --
> "Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden
> https://epsg4253.wordpress.com/
> http://twitter.com/maningsambale
> --



-- 
cheers,
maning
--
"Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden
https://epsg4253.wordpress.com/
http://twitter.com/maningsambale
--

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

Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] Updates:LA County building import (Los Angeles, California, USA)

[maning sambale]

Christoph,

Thank you for the observation.

Specific to "roads now intersect buildings indicating that mapping is
inaccurate - like here:"
They are mostly unreviewed TIGER import, I also saw one instance where
we have building but no roads.
This was already discussed by the import team and will be fixed during
the cleanup/validation stage.

Keep your  comments and suggestions coming! Will ticket each one and
fix whatever we can.
Thanks!


On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 8:14 PM, Christoph Hormann <chris_horm...@gmx.de> wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 July 2016, maning sambale wrote:
>>
>> Another round of updates on LABuildings import.
>> Last week we've imported ~1.1M buildings in LA City. Over 100
>> usernames participated.
>> We are close to finishing Phase 1 (LA City) and will continue data QA
>> and cleanup if needed.
>
> A few observations from looking over the map there:
>
> * There are quite a few cases where gaps between buildings are either
> very small (significantly less than a meter) or buildings touch at a
> single node.  Both are usually artefacts (probably primarily due to
> roof based rather than footprint based outlines).
> * There seem to be a lot of cases where garages and sheds are tagged as
> building=house or building=residential - like here:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/409191451
>
> * In some cases boundaries of pre-existing landuse polygons (like
> landuse=residential/landuse=industrial) and roads now intersect
> buildings indicating that mapping is inaccurate - like here:
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/34.07461/-118.48376
>
> All of these problems could probably be turned into maproulette tasks or
> be otherwise worked into QA tools - although at least the first two
> will require on-the-ground assessment for proper correction.
>
> --
> Christoph Hormann
> http://www.imagico.de/
>
> ___
> Imports mailing list
> impo...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports



-- 
cheers,
maning
--
"Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden
https://epsg4253.wordpress.com/
http://twitter.com/maningsambale
--

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

Re: [Talk-us] Updates:LA County building import (Los Angeles, California, USA)

[maning sambale]

Hi everyone,

Another round of updates on LABuildings import.
Last week we've imported ~1.1M buildings in LA City. Over 100
usernames participated.
We are close to finishing Phase 1 (LA City) and will continue data QA
and cleanup if needed.

We've posted OSM diaries on the process:
- On tools we built: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/manings/diary/38969
- On the data: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/manings/diary/39081

As always comments, from the community is appreciated.
- Github - https://github.com/osmlab/labuildings/issues/
- Chat - https://gitter.im/osmlab/labuildings
- Wiki - 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Los_angeles,_California/Buildings_Import



On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 8:07 PM, maning sambale
<emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Over the past month, since we started the LA building import [0],
> ~330K buildings were added by 74 different users [1]. We ran several
> mapathon events [2] in LA to kickstart the import with local mappers.
>
> As this has been going on we've been validating the work, and fixing
> any data quality issues we've encountered. If you have specific concerns,
> please post in the repo [3].
>
> The OSM Operations group has asked that we pause on all large mapping
> import activities for the next two weeks as they prepare for the
> upcoming
> server move. Since we are adding thousands of nodes for each changeset,
> this is slowing down the backup process.
>
> We will update the list once we get the green light again. [4]
>
> [0] 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Los_angeles,_California/Buildings_Import
> [1] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/lacounty:ain#overview
> [2] http://www.meetup.com/MaptimeLA/
> [3] https://github.com/osmlab/labuildings/issues
> [4] https://github.com/osmlab/labuildings/issues/88
>
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 8:48 PM, maning sambale
> <emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> We've started the import this during MaptimeLA [0] last April 2.
>> First project focused on Southside LA [1].
>> For any issues regarding the process and the data please post a ticket
>> in GH [2].
>>
>> [0] http://www.meetup.com/MaptimeLA/events/229861154/
>> [1] http://labuildingsimport.com/project/2
>> [2] https://github.com/osmlab/labuildings/issues
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 12:20 AM, Christoph Hormann
>> <chris_horm...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>> On Thursday 24 March 2016, maning sambale wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > - Tagging still looks vague.  What you have on
>>>> > https://github.com/osmlab/labuildings/blob/master/README.md is just
>>>> > a list of OSM keys to use but there is no information on the values
>>>> > -
>>>>
>>>> Right, I updated the wiki to describe the tags.  Still a work in
>>>> progress, but see here:
>>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Los_angeles,_California/Buildings
>>>>_Import#Data_Preparation
>>>
>>> Thanks, this clarifies things a lot and mostly looks good.
>>>
>>> Regarding tagging plans please consider that building=farm is
>>> exclusively for residential building on a farm, not for other buildings
>>> with farming related use.
>>>
>>>> The initial offset we saw was due to re-projection issues from NAD83
>>>> to WGS84 datum.  By using a custom projection parameters the
>>>> difference is very minimal difference (10 micrometer precision
>>>> range). Reprojection is now step is now added in the wiki.
>>>
>>> OK. I was also concerned about vertical datum (i.e. reference geoid) for
>>> elevation values and feet vs. meters for ele and height.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Christoph Hormann
>>> http://www.imagico.de/
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> cheers,
>> maning
>> --
>> "Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden
>> https://epsg4253.wordpress.com/
>> http://twitter.com/maningsambale
>> --
>
>
>
> --
> cheers,
> maning
> --
> "Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden
> https://epsg4253.wordpress.com/
> http://twitter.com/maningsambale
> --



-- 
cheers,
maning
--
"Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden
https://epsg4253.wordpress.com/
http://twitter.com/maningsambale
--

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

[Talk-us] Updates:LA County building import (Los Angeles, California, USA)

[maning sambale]

Hi,

Over the past month, since we started the LA building import [0],
~330K buildings were added by 74 different users [1]. We ran several
mapathon events [2] in LA to kickstart the import with local mappers.

As this has been going on we've been validating the work, and fixing
any data quality issues we've encountered. If you have specific concerns,
please post in the repo [3].

The OSM Operations group has asked that we pause on all large mapping
import activities for the next two weeks as they prepare for the
upcoming
server move. Since we are adding thousands of nodes for each changeset,
this is slowing down the backup process.

We will update the list once we get the green light again. [4]

[0] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Los_angeles,_California/Buildings_Import
[1] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/lacounty:ain#overview
[2] http://www.meetup.com/MaptimeLA/
[3] https://github.com/osmlab/labuildings/issues
[4] https://github.com/osmlab/labuildings/issues/88

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 8:48 PM, maning sambale
<emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We've started the import this during MaptimeLA [0] last April 2.
> First project focused on Southside LA [1].
> For any issues regarding the process and the data please post a ticket
> in GH [2].
>
> [0] http://www.meetup.com/MaptimeLA/events/229861154/
> [1] http://labuildingsimport.com/project/2
> [2] https://github.com/osmlab/labuildings/issues
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 12:20 AM, Christoph Hormann
> <chris_horm...@gmx.de> wrote:
>> On Thursday 24 March 2016, maning sambale wrote:
>>>
>>> > - Tagging still looks vague.  What you have on
>>> > https://github.com/osmlab/labuildings/blob/master/README.md is just
>>> > a list of OSM keys to use but there is no information on the values
>>> > -
>>>
>>> Right, I updated the wiki to describe the tags.  Still a work in
>>> progress, but see here:
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Los_angeles,_California/Buildings
>>>_Import#Data_Preparation
>>
>> Thanks, this clarifies things a lot and mostly looks good.
>>
>> Regarding tagging plans please consider that building=farm is
>> exclusively for residential building on a farm, not for other buildings
>> with farming related use.
>>
>>> The initial offset we saw was due to re-projection issues from NAD83
>>> to WGS84 datum.  By using a custom projection parameters the
>>> difference is very minimal difference (10 micrometer precision
>>> range). Reprojection is now step is now added in the wiki.
>>
>> OK. I was also concerned about vertical datum (i.e. reference geoid) for
>> elevation values and feet vs. meters for ele and height.
>>
>> --
>> Christoph Hormann
>> http://www.imagico.de/
>
>
>
> --
> cheers,
> maning
> --
> "Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden
> https://epsg4253.wordpress.com/
> http://twitter.com/maningsambale
> --



-- 
cheers,
maning
--
"Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden
https://epsg4253.wordpress.com/
http://twitter.com/maningsambale
--

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

Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] RFC: LA County building import (Los Angeles, California, USA)

[maning sambale]

Hi,

We've started the import this during MaptimeLA [0] last April 2.
First project focused on Southside LA [1].
For any issues regarding the process and the data please post a ticket
in GH [2].

[0] http://www.meetup.com/MaptimeLA/events/229861154/
[1] http://labuildingsimport.com/project/2
[2] https://github.com/osmlab/labuildings/issues


On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 12:20 AM, Christoph Hormann
<chris_horm...@gmx.de> wrote:
> On Thursday 24 March 2016, maning sambale wrote:
>>
>> > - Tagging still looks vague.  What you have on
>> > https://github.com/osmlab/labuildings/blob/master/README.md is just
>> > a list of OSM keys to use but there is no information on the values
>> > -
>>
>> Right, I updated the wiki to describe the tags.  Still a work in
>> progress, but see here:
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Los_angeles,_California/Buildings
>>_Import#Data_Preparation
>
> Thanks, this clarifies things a lot and mostly looks good.
>
> Regarding tagging plans please consider that building=farm is
> exclusively for residential building on a farm, not for other buildings
> with farming related use.
>
>> The initial offset we saw was due to re-projection issues from NAD83
>> to WGS84 datum.  By using a custom projection parameters the
>> difference is very minimal difference (10 micrometer precision
>> range). Reprojection is now step is now added in the wiki.
>
> OK. I was also concerned about vertical datum (i.e. reference geoid) for
> elevation values and feet vs. meters for ele and height.
>
> --
> Christoph Hormann
> http://www.imagico.de/



-- 
cheers,
maning
--
"Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden
https://epsg4253.wordpress.com/
http://twitter.com/maningsambale
--

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

[Talk-us] RFC: LA County building import

[maning sambale]

Hi,

[posted in talk-us and imports-us lists.]

We are proposing a building import of the public domain building and
assessor data for LA County [0].
This covers ~3M buildings for the whole county (2008 - 2014). Two
datasets from LA county will be imported.
The building data for geometry and the assessors data for building use
(i.e. residential, commercial, etc.).
There is also an address data but we are punting this for now due to
various data conflation issues.

Before we go ahead with the process, we are requesting the community
for review and approval:

* Scripts and conversion available in github [1] based on NYC imports process.
* Workflow for a community managed manual import [2].
* Sample data for evaluation, available in a custom Tasking Manager
[3].  Please evaluate the data and test the
workflow.

Do not import any data into the main OSM DB.  If you want to test the
full import process use the OSM dev server.
For any issues, please post in the Github [4].

Thanks!

In behalf of the team,

Alan McConchie, @almccon
Jon Schleuss, @jschleuss
Omar Ureta, @cityhubla
Maning Sambale, @maningsambale

- [0] 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Los_angeles,_California/Buildings_Import
- [1] https://github.com/osmlab/labuildings
- [2] https://github.com/osmlab/labuildings/blob/master/IMPORTING.md
- [3] http://52.74.49.58:6543/project/15
- [4] https://github.com/osmlab/labuildings/issues

-- 
cheers,
maning
--
"Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden
https://epsg4253.wordpress.com/
http://twitter.com/maningsambale
--

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

Re: [Talk-us] rebooting: tagging footways and sidewalks discussion

[maning sambale]

Hi,

2 months ago, we posted this discussion.  So far, we've finished
tagging ~30K ways (sidewalks and crossings)
We focused on several key cities with a lot of sidewalks.  Details of
our efforts here:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/srividya_c/diary/37594

The map is updated daily so anyone can continue working on their own
patch: https://mapbox.com/osm-sidewalker

As usual all OSM related mapping we do is tracked here:
https://github.com/mapbox/mapping/issues

Thanks!

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 9:16 PM, Harald Kliems <kli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 8:59 AM maning sambale <emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Mapbox data team also started editing a few areas today and we found a
>> couple of tagging issues like turn_restrictions for footways, detected
>> sidewalks with bicycle=yes (is this common in the US?)
>
> Yes, this is very common and varies from city to city. Some places, for
> example, have a blanket sidewalk cycling restriction is certain parts of
> town (e.g. Portland OR downtown), whereas others have more arcane rules such
> as "no sidewalk cycling where building directly abut the sidewalk or where
> it is posted."
>
> Turn restrictions: I wonder if someone used those to reflect a "no
> pedestrian crossing" sign at an intersection?
>
> Harald.



-- 
cheers,
maning
--
"Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden
https://epsg4253.wordpress.com/
http://twitter.com/maningsambale
--

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

Re: [Talk-us] rebooting: tagging footways and sidewalks discussion

[maning sambale]

> I hope your team isn't changing trails like the Burke-Gillman to include a
> footway=sidewalk tag. While these do a times run along roads, they are not
> really sidewalks. Can we get some assurances that named footpaths will be
> left to someone with local knowledge to review?
Yes, Clifford. We don't tag named footpaths.

-- 
cheers,
maning
--
"Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden
https://epsg4253.wordpress.com/
http://twitter.com/maningsambale
--

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

[Talk-us] rebooting: tagging footways and sidewalks discussion

[maning sambale]

Hi,

We are working on improving tags for sidewalk in the US.  Details in
this issue [0].
The sidewalk detection algorithm runs OK in most cases but fails in
some [1].  Mostly the contention was whether a footway separated by a
grassy area from the road is considered a sidewalk which was already
discussed in this list [2].

The wiki defines sidewalk as "often separated from the carriageway (or
roadway) by a kerb (also curb)". [3]

As in most cases in OSM, we would like to defer to the local (US)
community on how they define it.



Thanks!

[0] https://github.com/mapbox/mapping/issues/125
[1] https://www.mapbox.com/bites/00186/#
[2] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2014-April/012984.html
[3] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sidewalks

-- 
cheers,
maning
--
"Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden
https://epsg4253.wordpress.com/
http://twitter.com/maningsambale
--

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