Re: [Talk-us] Forest Routes

[Paul Johnson]

On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 8:06 PM Kevin Broderick 
wrote:

> I don't think that the way to is a reliable indicator of trail vs road.
> Particularly in areas managed for forestry, I believe it's fairly common
> for a disused skid road to be managed and used as a non motorized trail (I
> can think of a few examples around here), which is a distinct situation
> from a road being closed to vehicle traffic without special permission, but
> both cases could be a track with the same access tags.
>

Singletrack versus doubletrack.  The roads are always doubletrack (but
don't always allow vehicles save for forestry and fire), the trails are
always singletrack (and quite typically incapable of passing a doubletrack
vehicle).
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Forest Routes

[Kevin Broderick]

I don't think that the way to is a reliable indicator of trail vs road.
Particularly in areas managed for forestry, I believe it's fairly common
for a disused skid road to be managed and used as a non motorized trail (I
can think of a few examples around here), which is a distinct situation
from a road being closed to vehicle traffic without special permission, but
both cases could be a track with the same access tags.

On Thu, Dec 6, 2018, 20:44 Paul Johnson 
>
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 6:42 PM Eric H. Christensen  wrote:
>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA256
>>
>> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>> On Thursday, November 29, 2018 3:13 PM, Kevin Broderick <
>> k...@kevinbroderick.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Doesn't the Forest Service use FR for "Forest Road" at the reference?
>> I'd think that, or NFR to distinguish from state forest roads, would be the
>> more appropriate ref, as FS is ambiguous (it doesn't distinguish between a
>> forest road and a forest trail).
>>
>> I think the highway type would be a better way to distinguish between a
>> roadway and a trail.
>>
>>
> My thoughts, too.  And the route relation type, since a trail's not going
> to be route=road, even if it is the same network.
> ___
> 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] Forest Routes

[Paul Johnson]

On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 6:42 PM Eric H. Christensen  wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Thursday, November 29, 2018 3:13 PM, Kevin Broderick <
> k...@kevinbroderick.com> wrote:
>
> > Doesn't the Forest Service use FR for "Forest Road" at the reference?
> I'd think that, or NFR to distinguish from state forest roads, would be the
> more appropriate ref, as FS is ambiguous (it doesn't distinguish between a
> forest road and a forest trail).
>
> I think the highway type would be a better way to distinguish between a
> roadway and a trail.
>
>
My thoughts, too.  And the route relation type, since a trail's not going
to be route=road, even if it is the same network.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Forest Routes

[Eric H. Christensen]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Thursday, November 29, 2018 3:13 PM, Kevin Broderick 
 wrote:

> Doesn't the Forest Service use FR for "Forest Road" at the reference? I'd 
> think that, or NFR to distinguish from state forest roads, would be the more 
> appropriate ref, as FS is ambiguous (it doesn't distinguish between a forest 
> road and a forest trail).

I think the highway type would be a better way to distinguish between a roadway 
and a trail.

Eric
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: ProtonMail
Comment: https://protonmail.com
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=NIqb
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


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

Re: [Talk-us] Forest Routes

[Paul Johnson]

The numbering is consistent only within a single National Forest and
numbers will likely repeat even where multiple national forests are
contiguously adjacent.  The numbers are unique within each individual
forest, though.

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018, 16:21 Tod Fitch 
> > On Nov 29, 2018, at 1:28 PM, Jack Burke  wrote:
> >
> > As Paul said, it depends on the type of road.  In Georgia, the signage
> > has been the brown keystone one for roads that mere mortal cars can
> > drive on:
> > https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/HD_cjbQunrGWEQCViX-Now
> >
> > And the vertical ones with FS on them for people with more advanced
> vehicles:
> > https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/3Il7nk3S4MuMX9jR_SIQnw
> >
> > And, as I said, their IVR map uses NF for all of them
> >
> > --jack
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 3:36 PM Paul Johnson 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018, 14:14 Kevin Broderick  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Doesn't the Forest Service use FR for "Forest Road" at the reference?
> I'd think that, or NFR to distinguish from state forest roads, would be the
> more appropriate ref, as FS is ambiguous (it doesn't distinguish between a
> forest road and a forest trail).
> >>
> >>
> >> Maybe on visitor brochures, but on signage they get keystone shields
> for two digit routes and either a vertical or horizontal rectangle sign
> (depending on whether or not motor vehicles are expected to travel) for
> minor routes, and the numbers all constitute a single network regardless of
> if it's a road or a trail.
> >>
> >> I seem to recall when I lived near a national forest that TIGER and the
> USGS would use Forest Service XX when spelling out major routes, and
> National Forest Development XXX or NFD  on the minors.
> >>
> >> In either case, most people that travel in or near national forests
> regularly will find FS and NFD immediately recognizable.
> >>
>
> Having just been hiking and sightseeing in the Coconino National Forest,
> sightseeing in the Prescott National Forest, frequently hiking in the
> Angeles National Forest and Cleveland National Forest, occasionally hiking
> in the Coronado National Forest as well as volunteering regularly in the
> Los Padres National Forest, my impression is that signage is inconsistent
> between at least different USFS regions and likely between forests within a
> region. For example, the signage I saw in the Red Rock area of the Coconino
> NF last week were just numeric (and pretty visible) while much of the
> signage in the Los Padres is less visible and in the form of 8N05 (might be
> a “W” instead of “N” if a trail/path).
>
> So I think this thread is attempting to establish a higher level of
> consistency in tagging USFS roads (and possibly trails) than the USFS has
> been able to achieve itself. Not to say this is a bad thing, but I expect
> any photos of signage from one forest can be contradicted by photos of
> signage from another.
>
> For roads and trails with a purely numeric forest service ID, I think a
> prefix of “FR” or “FS” in OSM could make sense.
>
> I suspect, however, that purely numeric ID values are likely not unique
> between different forests, or if not forests then between regions. So “FS
> 525” might well exist in two different parts of the country. Is this a
> problem in OSM? Do we wish to guarantee that a search for a specific
> reference value only turn up one route?
>
> The forest service seems to have a unique short alphabetic code for each
> forest (at least within a region) that is displayed on the vehicles (e.g.
> LPF for Los Padres National Forest) which I think they use to keep things
> less confused when resources, especially fire crews, are dispatched to
> other forests. From that point of view those alphabetic codes might be
> useful in also tagging routes/road reference if we desire to have each
> unique USFS road/route have a unique OSM reference value.
>
> Cheers!
>
>
>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Forest Routes

[Jack Burke]

As Paul said, it depends on the type of road.  In Georgia, the signage
has been the brown keystone one for roads that mere mortal cars can
drive on:
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/HD_cjbQunrGWEQCViX-Now

And the vertical ones with FS on them for people with more advanced vehicles:
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/3Il7nk3S4MuMX9jR_SIQnw

And, as I said, their IVR map uses NF for all of them

--jack

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 3:36 PM Paul Johnson  wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018, 14:14 Kevin Broderick >
>> Doesn't the Forest Service use FR for "Forest Road" at the reference? I'd 
>> think that, or NFR to distinguish from state forest roads, would be the more 
>> appropriate ref, as FS is ambiguous (it doesn't distinguish between a forest 
>> road and a forest trail).
>
>
> Maybe on visitor brochures, but on signage they get keystone shields for two 
> digit routes and either a vertical or horizontal rectangle sign (depending on 
> whether or not motor vehicles are expected to travel) for minor routes, and 
> the numbers all constitute a single network regardless of if it's a road or a 
> trail.
>
> I seem to recall when I lived near a national forest that TIGER and the USGS 
> would use Forest Service XX when spelling out major routes, and National 
> Forest Development XXX or NFD  on the minors.
>
> In either case, most people that travel in or near national forests regularly 
> will find FS and NFD immediately recognizable.
>
> ___
> 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] Forest Routes

[Paul Johnson]

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018, 14:14 Kevin Broderick  Doesn't the Forest Service use FR for "Forest Road" at the reference? I'd
> think that, or NFR to distinguish from state forest roads, would be the
> more appropriate ref, as FS is ambiguous (it doesn't distinguish between a
> forest road and a forest trail).
>

Maybe on visitor brochures, but on signage they get keystone shields for
two digit routes and either a vertical or horizontal rectangle sign
(depending on whether or not motor vehicles are expected to travel) for
minor routes, and the numbers all constitute a single network regardless of
if it's a road or a trail.

I seem to recall when I lived near a national forest that TIGER and the
USGS would use Forest Service XX when spelling out major routes, and
National Forest Development XXX or NFD  on the minors.

In either case, most people that travel in or near national forests
regularly will find FS and NFD immediately recognizable.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Forest Routes

[Kevin Broderick]

Doesn't the Forest Service use FR for "Forest Road" at the reference? I'd
think that, or NFR to distinguish from state forest roads, would be the
more appropriate ref, as FS is ambiguous (it doesn't distinguish between a
forest road and a forest trail).

(c.f.
https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/46813797_2221923898134508_7562112324945838080_o.jpg?_nc_cat=111&_nc_ht=scontent-lga3-1.xx=9e0a64f5858322fe626a1fe4b4a8fed1=5C656682,
posted by the White Mountain National Forest, or the abbreviated form FR
2421 in the Glacier Lake Trail directions at
https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3831474.pdf)


On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 2:49 PM Jack Burke  wrote:

> Oh I am so happy that Frederik brought this up.  I've been thinking
> about this topic for a while, but just haven't said anything.  I love
> the ensuing discussion, too.
>
> So, first, the wiki page on now to tag the refs
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging#National_Forest_Road_System
> says to use NFR and NFH, as Kevin Kenny does.  I use neither.  As
> others are doing, I use FS for Forest Service.  I'll note that on the
> wiki page's Discussion tab, there are several people who question the
> use of NFR/NFH, which seems to have been arbitrarily selected by one
> person and added to the wiki without any real discussion about it.
>
> Just to pick nits, Martijn, I'd like to point out that the example
> sign for forest road 858 on that page you linked to has "National
> Forest" on it, not FS or Forest Service.  If we were to go purely by
> the sign, we should be using NF.  The National Forest Service
> website's Interactive Visitor's Map at https://www.fs.fed.us/ivm/ uses
> exactly that in an underlay layer for those maps.
>
> That said, I still prefer FS because that's generally how most people
> seem to refer to them (forest service).
>
> Side note:  there are several forest service roads in north Georgia
> that are represented on Mapillary and OpenStreetCam, if anyone wants
> to "drive" one of them from the comfort of your living room.  (More
> are apparent on Mapillary than OSC because of the different ways those
> two services process sequences that don't have a matching OSM road.)
>
> --jack
>
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 4:03 PM Paul Johnson  wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 2:51 PM Eric H. Christensen 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 9:49 AM, Martijn van Exel 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I think you are right. It would be good if we can arrive at a common
> >> > prefix and document it on the wiki. 'FS' makes sense. Perhaps even a
> new
> >> > page dedicated to roads that are maintained directly by federal
> agencies
> >> > (NPS, USDA, others?) would make sense. I'd be happy to help set it up.
> >>
> >> I've noticed that some of these "roads" are showing FS, FT, and another
> F something when they were imported.  Should all these ways use 'FS' or
> should they use the different prefix based upon what type of way they are
> (outside of the proper tagging for the way)?
> >
> >
> > Note that the Forest Service uses the same numbering scheme for trails,
> with 2 digit Forest Service routes being the main routes (be it a hiking
> trail or a road), 3 digit and 4 digit routes being of lesser importance in
> the overall network and usually being referred to as National Forest
> Development or NFD trails/roads.
> > ___
> > 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
>


-- 
Kevin Broderick
k...@kevinbroderick.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Forest Routes

[Jack Burke]

Oh I am so happy that Frederik brought this up.  I've been thinking
about this topic for a while, but just haven't said anything.  I love
the ensuing discussion, too.

So, first, the wiki page on now to tag the refs
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging#National_Forest_Road_System
says to use NFR and NFH, as Kevin Kenny does.  I use neither.  As
others are doing, I use FS for Forest Service.  I'll note that on the
wiki page's Discussion tab, there are several people who question the
use of NFR/NFH, which seems to have been arbitrarily selected by one
person and added to the wiki without any real discussion about it.

Just to pick nits, Martijn, I'd like to point out that the example
sign for forest road 858 on that page you linked to has "National
Forest" on it, not FS or Forest Service.  If we were to go purely by
the sign, we should be using NF.  The National Forest Service
website's Interactive Visitor's Map at https://www.fs.fed.us/ivm/ uses
exactly that in an underlay layer for those maps.

That said, I still prefer FS because that's generally how most people
seem to refer to them (forest service).

Side note:  there are several forest service roads in north Georgia
that are represented on Mapillary and OpenStreetCam, if anyone wants
to "drive" one of them from the comfort of your living room.  (More
are apparent on Mapillary than OSC because of the different ways those
two services process sequences that don't have a matching OSM road.)

--jack

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 4:03 PM Paul Johnson  wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 2:51 PM Eric H. Christensen  wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 9:49 AM, Martijn van Exel  
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I think you are right. It would be good if we can arrive at a common
>> > prefix and document it on the wiki. 'FS' makes sense. Perhaps even a new
>> > page dedicated to roads that are maintained directly by federal agencies
>> > (NPS, USDA, others?) would make sense. I'd be happy to help set it up.
>>
>> I've noticed that some of these "roads" are showing FS, FT, and another F 
>> something when they were imported.  Should all these ways use 'FS' or should 
>> they use the different prefix based upon what type of way they are (outside 
>> of the proper tagging for the way)?
>
>
> Note that the Forest Service uses the same numbering scheme for trails, with 
> 2 digit Forest Service routes being the main routes (be it a hiking trail or 
> a road), 3 digit and 4 digit routes being of lesser importance in the overall 
> network and usually being referred to as National Forest Development or NFD 
> trails/roads.
> ___
> 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] Forest Routes

[Michael Patrick]

I'm not familiar with OSM routing, but these roads enter and cross some of
the most inhospitable mountainous terrain in the United States.

Some, like the 101 mile long Magruder Corridor (
https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5109483.pdf ) are
only open a few months of the year, or never open at all ( especially when
fire fighting is going on ). So it would behoove the mapper to research the
routes in detail. Elk Mountain Pass in Wyoming is  11,171ft and has 14
passes over 10,000+ alone.

Even if they are 'open' the weather can make conditions untenable in a
heart beat. The US Forest Service sometimes requires that an axe,shovel and
a bucket be carried in your vehicle when traversing on USFS property and
roads during fire season and states follow the lead of the USFS.

Hmmm ... maybe there needs to be 'Local Knowledge' tag.

Sigh. Makes me home sick.

Michael

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

Re: [Talk-us] Forest Routes

[Paul Johnson]

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 2:51 PM Eric H. Christensen  wrote:

> On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 9:49 AM, Martijn van Exel 
> wrote:
>
> > I think you are right. It would be good if we can arrive at a common
> > prefix and document it on the wiki. 'FS' makes sense. Perhaps even a new
> > page dedicated to roads that are maintained directly by federal agencies
> > (NPS, USDA, others?) would make sense. I'd be happy to help set it up.
>
> I've noticed that some of these "roads" are showing FS, FT, and another F
> something when they were imported.  Should all these ways use 'FS' or
> should they use the different prefix based upon what type of way they are
> (outside of the proper tagging for the way)?
>

Note that the Forest Service uses the same numbering scheme for trails,
with 2 digit Forest Service routes being the main routes (be it a hiking
trail or a road), 3 digit and 4 digit routes being of lesser importance in
the overall network and usually being referred to as National Forest
Development or NFD trails/roads.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Forest Routes

[Paul Johnson]

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 3:58 AM Minh Nguyen 
wrote:

> On 2018-11-20 08:57, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> > When I map these roads I include the FS number (just the number) as a
> > ref, since that is how they are signposted in the field.
>
> I think the ref tag on the ways should have a prefix and not just
> consist of a bare number. Otherwise, it's just as ambiguous for data
> consumers as the (123) refs all over New Jersey, since the U.S. doesn't
> have a highway tag that corresponds one-for-one with forest routes.
>

Agreed, I tend to follow the Forest Service's own convention of going with
FS for 2 digit routes and NFD (National Forest Development) for 3 and 4
digit routes.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Forest Routes

[Eric H. Christensen]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 9:49 AM, Martijn van Exel  
wrote:

> I think you are right. It would be good if we can arrive at a common
> prefix and document it on the wiki. 'FS' makes sense. Perhaps even a new
> page dedicated to roads that are maintained directly by federal agencies
> (NPS, USDA, others?) would make sense. I'd be happy to help set it up.

I've noticed that some of these "roads" are showing FS, FT, and another F 
something when they were imported.  Should all these ways use 'FS' or should 
they use the different prefix based upon what type of way they are (outside of 
the proper tagging for the way)?

Eric
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: ProtonMail
Comment: https://protonmail.com
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=swxb
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


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

Re: [Talk-us] Forest Routes

[Minh Nguyen]

On 2018-11-28 06:49, Martijn van Exel wrote:

On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 02:07:45 -0800
Minh Nguyen  wrote:


On 2018-11-28 01:57, Minh Nguyen wrote:

On 2018-11-20 08:57, Martijn van Exel wrote:

When I map these roads I include the FS number (just the number)
as a ref, since that is how they are signposted in the field.


I think the ref tag on the ways should have a prefix and not just
consist of a bare number. Otherwise, it's just as ambiguous for
data consumers as the (123) refs all over New Jersey, since the
U.S. doesn't have a highway tag that corresponds one-for-one with
forest routes.


(I hit send too soon.) Lots of shields show only the number and no
prefix, such as the U.S. Route shield, but we still use the "US"
prefix anyways.

Data consumers really should be using route relations instead of ref
tags on ways whenever possible. Some ambiguity is unavoidable on way
refs, which IMO should reflect what's on plain-text signage or in
publications. If one thinks of the way refs as a compatibility shim,
then "FS" doesn't seem unreasonable as a prefix.


I think you are right. It would be good if we can arrive at a common
prefix and document it on the wiki. 'FS' makes sense. Perhaps even a new
page dedicated to roads that are maintained directly by federal agencies
(NPS, USDA, others?) would make sense. I'd be happy to help set it up.


One page already documented an "NFH" prefix on ways and 
network=US:NFSR: on relations. [1] I think I added that entry to 
the table after seeing it on some forest routes in California. [2] But 
I've changed it to an "FS" prefix since so many more ways are tagged 
with that prefix. [3]


[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging/Routes
[2] http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/E5V
[3] http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/E5W
--
m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us



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

Re: [Talk-us] Forest Routes

[Martijn van Exel]

On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 02:07:45 -0800
Minh Nguyen  wrote:

> On 2018-11-28 01:57, Minh Nguyen wrote:
> > On 2018-11-20 08:57, Martijn van Exel wrote:  
> >> When I map these roads I include the FS number (just the number)
> >> as a ref, since that is how they are signposted in the field.   
> > 
> > I think the ref tag on the ways should have a prefix and not just 
> > consist of a bare number. Otherwise, it's just as ambiguous for
> > data consumers as the (123) refs all over New Jersey, since the
> > U.S. doesn't have a highway tag that corresponds one-for-one with
> > forest routes.  
> 
> (I hit send too soon.) Lots of shields show only the number and no 
> prefix, such as the U.S. Route shield, but we still use the "US"
> prefix anyways.
> 
> Data consumers really should be using route relations instead of ref 
> tags on ways whenever possible. Some ambiguity is unavoidable on way 
> refs, which IMO should reflect what's on plain-text signage or in 
> publications. If one thinks of the way refs as a compatibility shim, 
> then "FS" doesn't seem unreasonable as a prefix.

I think you are right. It would be good if we can arrive at a common
prefix and document it on the wiki. 'FS' makes sense. Perhaps even a new
page dedicated to roads that are maintained directly by federal agencies
(NPS, USDA, others?) would make sense. I'd be happy to help set it up.

Martijn

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

Re: [Talk-us] Forest Routes

[Minh Nguyen]

On 2018-11-28 01:57, Minh Nguyen wrote:

On 2018-11-20 08:57, Martijn van Exel wrote:
When I map these roads I include the FS number (just the number) as a 
ref, since that is how they are signposted in the field. 


I think the ref tag on the ways should have a prefix and not just 
consist of a bare number. Otherwise, it's just as ambiguous for data 
consumers as the (123) refs all over New Jersey, since the U.S. doesn't 
have a highway tag that corresponds one-for-one with forest routes.


(I hit send too soon.) Lots of shields show only the number and no 
prefix, such as the U.S. Route shield, but we still use the "US" prefix 
anyways.


Data consumers really should be using route relations instead of ref 
tags on ways whenever possible. Some ambiguity is unavoidable on way 
refs, which IMO should reflect what's on plain-text signage or in 
publications. If one thinks of the way refs as a compatibility shim, 
then "FS" doesn't seem unreasonable as a prefix.

--
m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us



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

Re: [Talk-us] Forest Routes

[Clifford Snow]

On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 9:50 AM Clifford Snow 
wrote:

>
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 9:44 AM Martijn van Exel  wrote:
>
>> It is worth noting that the current shape file available from USDA seems
>> to be more comprehensive than the forest service roads layer available:
>> https://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/edw/datasets.php?dsetCategory=transportation
>>
>>
>> Perhaps the layer was created based on a filtered or older version of
>> this file. I don’t know who maintains it but it may be due for an update.
>>
>
> Martijn,
> I added the USFS roads as an overlay in JOSM sometime back. I'll compare
> it with
> https://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/edw/datasets.php?dsetCategory=transportation
> and update the background if its more current.
>
> From a quick comparison between Nov 2018 and what's available in JOSM,
there is no discernible difference.  The JOSM version is using March 2018
data from the same source.


-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Forest Routes

[Kevin Kenny]

On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 12:27 PM Max Erickson  wrote:

> As other have mentioned, there are many numbered roads managed by the
> USFS. They range in development from closed, abandoned log roads to
> well maintained pavement. I map them using the FS prefix.
>
> For the general public one of the main uses is the publication of
> motor vehicle access conditions:
>
> https://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/ohv/ohv_maps.shtml
>
>
I have shaped shields for them. I work from road routes, rather than direct
tagging of the ways (I've discussed in the past why direct tagging of the
ways is NOT workable for the complex overlays of route networks in North
America.) The FS routes that I'm currently capable of rendering are not
quite consistently tagged. I recognize, equivalently, network=US:FS,
network=US:NFSR:*:NFH and network=US:NFSR:*:NFR. In both of the latter
cases, the * has the name of the national forest in question, which is on
the sign.

The shield template is
https://github.com/kennykb/osm-shields/blob/master/templates/US:NFSR.svg

For the ref=* tagging on ways, again I don't see quite a consistent system
yet. Over in Vermont east of me, I see ways tagged with ref=USFS 70, ref=FS
67 and ref=FR 224; all of these are the same network. Elsewhere in the
country, I also see FSR nnn, NFSR nnn, and probably others.  I'm continuing
to pursue rendering based on route=road, on the 'build it and they will
come' principle.

Many of these roads need unsigned_ref, since many of them aren't signed at
all (with any sort of directional signs, and often they lack hazard signs
as well).I wouldn't advise importing reference numbers without some sort of
verification that they are indeed bannered. (And yes, the Forest Service
will publish closures *by number* on unsigned roads. Go figure.)

The forest service roads range from two-lane hard-surfaced roads that can
support heavy truck traffic at 90 km/h (55 mi/h is a typical posted speed
limit on these) to rutted dirt tracks with far more than the usual quantity
of rocks and roots, requiring an off-road vehicle to navigate.

There are a lot of them.
http://kbk.is-a-geek.net/catskills/test4.html?la=35.9283=-81.8602=12
isn't atypical for the national forest road network. (Note that my renderer
does rendering in a style like Carto's if a road has ref=* but is not a
member of a road route - that's where the plain rectangular shields are
coming from.)
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Forest Routes

[Clifford Snow]

On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 9:44 AM Martijn van Exel  wrote:

> It is worth noting that the current shape file available from USDA seems
> to be more comprehensive than the forest service roads layer available:
> https://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/edw/datasets.php?dsetCategory=transportation
>
>
> Perhaps the layer was created based on a filtered or older version of this
> file. I don’t know who maintains it but it may be due for an update.
>

Martijn,
I added the USFS roads as an overlay in JOSM sometime back. I'll compare it
with
https://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/edw/datasets.php?dsetCategory=transportation
and update the background if its more current.

BTW - around here they are called forest service roads, aka logging roads,
and believe me we have thousands of them.

-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Forest Routes

[Martijn van Exel]

It is worth noting that the current shape file available from USDA seems to be 
more comprehensive than the forest service roads layer available: 
https://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/edw/datasets.php?dsetCategory=transportation 
 

Perhaps the layer was created based on a filtered or older version of this 
file. I don’t know who maintains it but it may be due for an update.

Martijn

> On Nov 20, 2018, at 9:57 AM, Martijn van Exel  wrote:
> 
> Frederik,
> I don’t remember it being widely discussed / agreed upon.
> When I map these roads I include the FS number (just the number) as a ref, 
> since that is how they are signposted in the field. 
> https://dcasler.com/2011/06/16/owl-creek-pass-getting-there-from-ridgway/ 
>  
> has an example (very bottom image) but other variations of such a sign are 
> common as well.
> The printed maps I have include these numbers as well and generally they are 
> an important guidance instrument when navigating FS terrain.
> Martijn
> 
>> On Nov 20, 2018, at 9:39 AM, Frederik Ramm > > wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> apparently you have something in the US called "Forest Routes"
>> 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_Highway 
>> 
>> 
>> which even has its own kind of shield! (Yes I know, there are *many*
>> shields. I've followed the discussions!)
>> 
>> Is there some common understanding of how to map these, if at all? I've
>> looked around a bit and found some roads marked "ref=FS" but
>> these were few and far between.
>> 
>> Bye
>> Frederik
>> 
>> -- 
>> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>> 
>> ___
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> 
> ___
> 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] Forest Routes

[Evin Fairchild]

Worth noting that most people just call them forest service roads. I've
never heard anyone call them "forest highways."

On Tue, Nov 20, 2018, 9:27 AM Max Erickson  As other have mentioned, there are many numbered roads managed by the
> USFS. They range in development from closed, abandoned log roads to
> well maintained pavement. I map them using the FS prefix.
>
> For the general public one of the main uses is the publication of
> motor vehicle access conditions:
>
> https://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/ohv/ohv_maps.shtml
>
>
> Max
>
> ___
> 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] Forest Routes

[Max Erickson]

As other have mentioned, there are many numbered roads managed by the
USFS. They range in development from closed, abandoned log roads to
well maintained pavement. I map them using the FS prefix.

For the general public one of the main uses is the publication of
motor vehicle access conditions:

https://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/ohv/ohv_maps.shtml


Max

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

Re: [Talk-us] Forest Routes

[Martijn van Exel]

Frederik,
I don’t remember it being widely discussed / agreed upon.
When I map these roads I include the FS number (just the number) as a ref, 
since that is how they are signposted in the field. 
https://dcasler.com/2011/06/16/owl-creek-pass-getting-there-from-ridgway/ 
 has 
an example (very bottom image) but other variations of such a sign are common 
as well.
The printed maps I have include these numbers as well and generally they are an 
important guidance instrument when navigating FS terrain.
Martijn

> On Nov 20, 2018, at 9:39 AM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> apparently you have something in the US called "Forest Routes"
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_Highway
> 
> which even has its own kind of shield! (Yes I know, there are *many*
> shields. I've followed the discussions!)
> 
> Is there some common understanding of how to map these, if at all? I've
> looked around a bit and found some roads marked "ref=FS" but
> these were few and far between.
> 
> Bye
> Frederik
> 
> -- 
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
> 
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

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

Re: [Talk-us] Forest Routes

[Roff, Thomas (FHWA)]

FrederiK:
The US Forest Service is part of the Department of Agriculture(USDA) and has 
quite an extensive network of all of their roads including logging trails.
In fact it is almost too much.
Here is a link to the Authority,  I hope it helps.

https://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/

Tom Roff-
HPMS/ ARNOLD Project Manager
 Federal Highway Administration

-Original Message-
From: Frederik Ramm [mailto:frede...@remote.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2018 11:40 AM
To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org Openstreetmap 
Subject: [Talk-us] Forest Routes

Hi,

apparently you have something in the US called "Forest Routes"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_Highway

which even has its own kind of shield! (Yes I know, there are *many* shields. 
I've followed the discussions!)

Is there some common understanding of how to map these, if at all? I've looked 
around a bit and found some roads marked "ref=FS" but these were few 
and far between.

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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