Re: [Talk-us] Opinions on Devil's Slide Bunker (San Mateo, CA)

[Bill Ricker]

On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 3:42 PM Russell Nelson  wrote:

> On 9/1/20 3:08 PM, Bill Ricker wrote:
> > Tourist Safety is dubiously best as most of the handrails and safety
> > lines are gone
> s/dubiously best/dubious at best/ ?
>

Russ is correct on the missing word !
Might be Auto-Carrot, i was typing on glass ...
-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Opinions on Devil's Slide Bunker (San Mateo, CA)

[Bill Ricker]

On Sun, Aug 30, 2020, 19:55 stevea  wrote:

> .  And if it was historically a bunker, OSM should strive to tag this, I'm
> not exactly sure of the right mix of military=bunker and historic=yes
> flavors that might be absolutely correct, but something like those if not
> exactly those.  Though historic=ruins seems correct, too, so perhaps better
> than "yes."
>

Technically this and most of what the public refers to as military bunkers
aren't bunkers.

 Many of the larger ones are casemated Coast Artillery gun positions and
their magazines. These are protected to a degree better than a "bunker"
from above, but had openings to seaward to fire which had only
splinter-proof shielding, and these were not refuges for personel, so not
true 'bunkers', they were fighting positions.

Devil's Slide was a protected Fire Control post for Coast Artillery, and
included a radar. (One could almost classify the radar control point as a
bunker, as it had no windows nor fire ports, but again it's not a refuge.)

http://www.fortwiki.com/Devil%27s_Slide_Military_Reservation

I am a member of the Coast Defense Study Group (cdsg.org) as well as OSM.
We study and seek to preserve these structures and the memories of those
who built and served in them. One of our members was recently authorized to
inspect Devil's Slide Reservation and reported on its current condition
(and history) in an illustrated article in our Coast Defense Studies
Journal. In addition to no-access signage it is gated and fenced. Tourist
Safety is dubiously best as most of the handrails and safety lines are gone
or deficient.

(The nice thing about touring these sites with CDSG conferences - aside
from knowledgeable companions - is that we negotiate "Authorized Persons
Only" access, for which we sign copious liability waivers, and we equip and
conduct ourselves appropriately for the expected hazards: hard hats or
better, construction boots (or sometimes wellies/waders!), gloves,
torches/flashlights, etc.)

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

Re: [Talk-us] admin_level and COGs, MPOs, SPDs, Home Rule

[Bill Ricker]

On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 10:42 AM Greg Troxel  replied:

Frederik Ramm  writes:
> > I didn't even want to weigh in on the discussion, mine was more a
> > comment on process. You shouldn't delete something that has been there
> > for 10 years and then say "btw let's discuss" ;)
>
> Agreed.  Also, I think OSM has a defer-to-locals notion, and people far
> away changing things in CT/RI against the wishes of locals seems not ok.
>

Agreed.

"Defer to Locals" is, or at least was, one of OSM's core values.

I am rather startled that respected, long-time OSM luminaries Frederik and
SteveA were/are arguing *against* deference to locals and instead applying
armchair political science.

If Frederik is *only* commenting on *process*, and not supporting the old
"consensus" itself, ok, yes, fixing a long accepted mistake should probably
be discussed first, then fixed.
(OTOH, isn't the point of a Wiki that JFDI, it's easier to get forgiveness
than permission?)


If the locals talk among themselves and do it themselves, that's
> something else.  But so far it seesm everybody from New England (as well
> as our neighbors in NY) who has spoken up seems to be in favor of
> letting county boundaries stay regardless of how they fall on some
> strict definition of government.


Agreed and agreed.

I've been holding my tongue on this since Greg (and others) nearby have
been ably stating the New England common sense position, but it's time to
give my support.

A manufactured armchair consensus, however long on a Wiki, may still be
wrong on the ground.

In this case, I submit the "consensus" that 2-3 New England states had
vacated their Counties is wrong for two reasons.

(1) The US Census and rest of US Gov use the so-called "FIPS" Counties for
/everything/.

If we the OSM are the Basemap to the World, not having Counties for CT and
RI as the same admin_level=6  as all the other states very awkward for our
downstream users.

(*If we could standardize tags for GNIS/FIPS
 reference to
FIPS/GNIS/Census/ANSI/INCITS place code standards, that would also be nice
for downstream users of the basemap, but admin_level consistency is a good
start*.)

(2) What is a County is a matter for the local politicians; and it is a
matter of law.

Administrative Boundaries can and do exist in law without a Government if
the relevant law, bylaws, etc say so.

(My Ward and Precinct do not have elective officers nor staff of
government, but are accepted as admin_level=9 and 10 respectively; likewise
Neighborhood admin_level=10, Unincorporated community admin_level=8 need
not have officers nor staff.)

So Disestablishment of Government does not disestablish the County unless
the act of disestablishment says so.

TL;DR :
*Connecticut State Government *(ct.gov) says they still have Counties as an
"*Administrative Boundary*" and as an "*Official Political Boundary*," they
just have no County *Government*.
In other words, the county *government,* the separate political
tax-and-spend entity composed of a more-or-less unitary elective,
appointive, and civil service hierarchy was abolished, and functions
divided among the several state Executive departments and Judicial branch
to be organized as seemed useful to each; but not the *County* *per se*,
which continues.
[These assertions are documented below the /sig. ]

The tag under debate is Admin(istrative) Level, not Government; and
Connecticut says their Counties are  still the former, but not the latter.
*If Connecticut says so, who are we, the OSM armchair mappers, to disagree*?

(RI is the same.)


  *// Bill in Boston, nerd of New England History, geographical and
otherwise*
  = = = = = = =


*APPENDIX ... LOOKING IN THE HORSE'S MOUTH ...*

Let's go to CT.GOV and see what Connecticut says about themselves
officially.

*(1) Public dissemination*. Topically current, the CT Governor (and
presumably thus their Dept of Public Health or whatever they call it) is using
County rollups for COVID-19 reporting
.


So Counties are still important in Connecticut polity in 2020, well into
the 21st Century, 60 years after the county *governments* were dissolved,
communicating to voters most of whom were born in a governmentless county.

*(2) Law*.

CT Secretary of State's website, in the official "*Connecticut State
Register and Manual*":
https://portal.ct.gov/SOTS/Register-Manual/Section-VII/Population-of-Connecticut-by-Counties
POPULATION OF CONNECTICUT BY COUNTIES
County 2010 2017 est.
Fairfield 916,829 949,921
Hartford 894,014 895,388
Litchfield 189,927 182,177
Middlesex 165,676 163,410
New Haven 862,477 860,435
New London 274,055 269,033
Tolland 152,691 151,461
Windham 118,428 116,359
Total for the State 3,574,097 3,588,184
Further,
https://portal.ct.gov/SOTS/Register-Manual/Section-VI/Counties---Table-of-Contents
Composition of Counties
__
THERE ARE 

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

[Bill Ricker]

My US doctor's office *is* a clinic, but that's because they were
previously an all in one HMO before merger/spinoff. On-site blood lab,
x-ray, specialities, pediatrics, coffee shop, PT/OT, optometry, pharmacy,
... . Multiple docs and nurses in each practice for cover. Larger clinics
in chain have urgent care, can even apply a cast if you break a limb early
enough in the day (one shift only).  Can even do light surgery e.g. drain
an abscess.

It has a corporate name, not "Dr P Smith, MD PC".
Otoh the back country family-practice partnership that took care of my
family 50 years ago had a small surgery in the British sense en-suite, in
addition to consulting and examining rooms, and could be called a clinic -
they had an autoclave and a centrifuge.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Jefferson Notch Road and latest "GPS made me do it" in the news

[Bill Ricker]

On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 2:21 PM Kevin Broderick 
wrote:

> However, that assumes that you can trust the news to be accurate,
>

Always a questionable assumption -- whenever you know the facts behind a
story, you see what they get wrong.

> and the distinction between "closed in winter" and "not maintained for
> winter travel" is not one I expect the news media to get right. The article
> I saw quoted the driver has having seen a "Not maintained for winter
> travel" sign and continuing because he didn't think that implied a closure
> (which is true, even if it may be a poor choice in a minivan).
>

At this point i wouldn't trust the driver's statements even without a
reporter re-writing them.

I would want to see, or see a photo of, the sign before I personally
touched that road and it's gate nodes.

(Is there a NH list where that discussion should move? My question here is
what tags are appropriate for the several possibilities.)

Given that it is a snowmachine trail, "closed" seems more likely
>

That the news reports the driver was cited (given a ticket/summons) for
something like driving a car on road closed to cars does indicate that the
cops consider it closed, whatever the sign actually says.

> (and it would be exceedingly impolite to put wheel ruts into a groomed
> trail, even if legal),
>

Yes indeed.
(Emergency services excepted.)


> but it's been long enough since I traveled it that I can't recall the
> signage.
>

I don't recall if we ever used that scenic shortcut - we certainly did
various 2/302/Kancamagus loops, mid last century, through all the other,
major notches, both summer and leaf-peeper.
Now I want to drive this notch sometime before peak-leaf-peeper :-D.

(I am painfully aware how rusty my snowmobile skills are and would not
attempt it in winter unless in a group tour with a paid professional guide
and roustabouts to get me unstuck ! :-D  Knowing your own limits is key in
the back-country.)


> My fuzzy recollection is a gate on the Base Station end.
>

There was already an old Note requesting clarification of the
status/signage of the Gate there in OSM, so you are likely correct that it
is (or was!) there.

I can't find a definitive answer on the NH DOT site, and the WMNF MVUM
> shows it to be a non-forest road through the forest.
>

Thanks for searching !

// Bill, exiled in Boston, Flatland, USA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Jefferson Notch Road and latest "GPS made me do it" in the news

[Bill Ricker]

Kevin asks,
> is Jefferson Notch Road actually closed to wheeled vehicles in winter or
just not maintained?

Per copyright news reports, it is signed as closed to wheeled vehicles,
open to snow-machines only, in winter.
(As should be obvious, to correctly tag this according to our license, we
do need some on-the ground or license0compatible verification of the facts
form the news, as well as a decision on what tags to use.)

OSM has a gate node at at least the south end, with a note calling for more
details. Unclear if it's an actual gate or the seasonal prohibition sign
encoded as a gate. (Problem with gates being if it's locked, and then
frozen, the larger rescue cats/ATV or fire trucks may have to fight it
open. The ATVs that  rescued these folks probably needed any gate open to
get up after them, let alone the tow that recovered the car?)

On the side topic of "The GPS made me do it", I just found out Tim Harford
aka "The Undercover Economist" closes season 1 of his new Podcast
"Cautionary Tales", discussing mistakes and learning from them, with Ep.8  You
have reached your desination

drawing a connection from Greek Oracles to over-faith in modern SATNAV.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Jefferson Notch Road and latest "GPS made me do it" in the news

[Bill Ricker]

> Burlington Family Rescued After GPS Leads Minivan Down Snowmobile Path.
BURLINGTON (CBS)
> It was an early morning rescue by ATV Sunday in Jefferson, New Hampshire.
> ... The family was stranded on Jefferson Notch Road, which is restricted
to snowmobiles only during the winter months.
> 2 days ago
>
https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2019/12/29/burlington-family-stranded-after-following-gps-onto-snowmobile-trail

Yeah, I'm not surprised that a road that goes literally through Jefferson
Notch isn't plowed in the winter; the road's high point in the notch (aka
"col" or "saddle," the diminutive of "pass") is 3,009 feet (917 m), only
barely below the height of Mount Mitten (929 m) which the road passes, and
lower than Currier Mtn (838 m) just beyond.  Yeah that's not high in young
mountains, but at this latitude, that altitude gets plenty snow. I expect
even the winter snowmobile path through the notch should be attempted only
by parties of multiple experienced operators prepared for mountains'
changeable conditions.

(I'm guessing the gating/bollards will get upgraded so that only
snowmobiles, Cats, and emergency 4WD/6WD even /can/ enter during winter.)

In the summer, this road will provide a lovely if challenging shortcut
between US 2 and US 302, of which there are precious few in the environs of
Mt Washington and the Presidential Range of the White Mountains.

OSM - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/18846225#map=12/44.3103/-71.3696
Our way does not (as of this writing) show a tag indicating seasonally
variable access.
Proposed tag winter_service=no
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:winter_service%3Dno=edit=1>
isn't quite strong enough but would be a start.

What is the right way to tag a road which is 3 season dramatic automobile
mountain short-cut and one-season snowmobile trail?


-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Maine leaf-off imagery?

[Bill Ricker]

On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 1:05 PM Kevin  wrote:

> I use https://coast.noaa.gov/inventory/ quite a lot to see what elevation
> products (usually looking for lidar) are available for any given area.
>
> So LIDAR was flown in 2016 in the Bethel area.
> https://coast.noaa.gov/dataviewer/#/lidar/search/where:ID=6264
> There's an option to bulk download the raw laz files.  I'm curious what
> your process is for incorporating the lidar into osm.
>

I'm surprised that NOAA "Coastal" Lidar went so far inland.

I would also be interested in how to use LAZ files with OSM tools or other
FLOSS tools.
(I note there's an open tool to uncompress LAZ to LAS.)
I see some tutorials for extracting buildings, but I'm interested in traces
of former land-use - finding artificial linear ground features under the
foliage.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Opinions on micro parks

[Bill Ricker]

> Mapper 1: "This park doesn't exist." Mapper 2: "It is undeveloped land
> managed by County Parks in a sort of proto park state. How would YOU map
> this?"
>

I find that both mappers here make valid points.


Yes they do.

Generally, in times
> where every teenager maps their back porch as a park in the hope of
> attracting Pokemon, I am leaning towards being careful with parks;


Yes.
(Although metadata hygiene is a valid goal in itself, one that is being
abused needs extra flossing and irrigation.)

> I would love to have a rule of thumb that says "if it doesn't have a name
> (or if it's not more than  sq ft) then it's not a park, it is just
> some trees" or so.


In many other matters we say we map the signage.
That is not a bad place to start here.
So a rule of it needs at least a name and/or a physical sign would be
internally consistent and predictably OSMish.

(And no, "Cabrillo Park Court Undeveloped Tract" is not a Park name, it's a
lot/tract name. It's a Lot.)

An exception to allow for un-named de-facto parks when someone (official or
guerilla) is engaged in improvements and maintenance of the de-facto park
would be wise, to cover the corner cases where it's legally a vacant lot
but in reality it's a public good.
(I type while looking out the window at one such, and no, it's not my
doing.)

There is no useful SQ FT minimum on official parks.
Guinness and Portland Parks (ORE) recognizes a 3 SQ FT park as officially
smallest and official:
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mill_Ends_Park452 sq in (0.292 m2)
(After 20+ years, this guerrilla park was recognized by the city, and now
even has lilliputian signage. Keep Portland Weird folks!)

Just because an area of a few 100 sq ft is
> technically a "park" in some county GIS system, doesn't mean we have to
> call it a park in OSM,


Right.
Landuse / land tenurage imports are interesting sources for alternate
basemap layers, but should not be confused with  primary mapping;  and
entries under landuse / tenurage should not be confused with Amenities.

Parks Dept may not have the budget or approved plans to en-park-ify
everything that is transferred to their control immediately. Transfer of
Ownership doesn't magically confer signage, waste cans, benches, curfew
gates, lighting, and other improvements.

If Parks Dept lists it as a public amenity on their public website - not
just the GIS - then it can be a park even if it isn't yet named or signed.

and the idea that any patch of earth with three
> trees on it and two cars parked on it is a "park" because it is "open to
> the public" and "has amenities" sounds very far-fetched to me.
>

I Agree.
Mapper 2 asks a good question, how to map the proto-park; this is a hint
for where the Wiki needs more wikignome work.
Ownership by County Parks should be reflected as
land-use/tenurage/restrictions; it does not imply an amenity.
De facto public use does not make an un-tended acre a Park.


-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux
___
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?

[Bill Ricker]

So is this the tag the lack of which should keep trucks off my street with
tight turn radii?

On Mon, Aug 5, 2019, 9:38 AM Mike N  wrote:

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

Re: [Talk-us] Typical maxweight signs in USA? (editor developmnent question)

[Bill Ricker]

The silhouettes version is moderately frequent with smaller older bridges,
where spreading the weight out makes a difference. Pretty sure I've seen
the California variant or similar on the east coast / New England too.

On Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 11:52 AM Peter Dobratz  wrote:

> Thanks for trying to standardize on this.  I've seen a few of these
> maximum weight signs and was unsure of how to tag.
>
> From what I've seen in the United States, I've seen maximum weights listed
> as both lbs (pounds) and tons (where 1 ton = 2000 pounds).
>
> In Portland, Oregon, I've recently come across the following following
> text on signs:
>
> WEIGHT
> RESTRICTED
> BRIDGE
> SINGLE AXLE TRUCKS
> 50,000 LBS MAX
> COMBINATION TRUCKS
> 80,000 LBS MAX
>
> WEIGHT LIMIT REDUCED
> ANY SINGLE AXLE 20,000 LBS
> ANY TANDEM AXLE 34,000 LBS
> ANY GROSS WEIGHT 105,500 LBS
> LEGAL AXLE LOADS ONLY
>
> WEIGHT
> LIMIT
> 6
> TONS
>
> Reading this page, I see the potential ambiguity extends deeper than I
> realized (short ton, metric ton, long ton)
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonne
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 3:35 AM Mateusz Konieczny 
> wrote:
>
>> How often weight limit signs other than plain
>> "Weight limit X tons"
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:MUTCD_R12-1.svg
>>
>> and
>>
>> R12-5 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:MUTCD_R12-5.svg
>> appear?
>>
>> Some of them are listed at
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxweight#United_States
>> but I am unsure is it case of something actually popular or rare
>> curiosity?
>>
>> -
>>
>> I am asking as I work on extending StreetComplete by adding max weight
>> quest for bridges
>> and I want to support also USA-style weight limits.
>>
>> 
>>
>> PS StreetComplete is a bit different editor, available as an Android
>> application - it allows to make
>> a very limited set of edits, but all can be done by answering simple
>> questions with no OSM specific
>> knowledge necessary.
>>
>> PPS In case that somebody used StreetComplete and noticed some stupid and
>> preventable behavior,
>> reports at https://github.com/westnordost/StreetComplete/issues are
>> welcomed (or
>> within this thread if someone is unable/unwilling to make a Github
>> account)
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Ashuwillticook Rail Trail in Massachusetts

[Bill Ricker]

On Fri, May 3, 2019, 08:47 OSM Volunteer stevea 
wrote:

> Does anybody local-to-Massachusetts know if the Ashuwillticook Rail Trail
> (ART, in Adams) exists (in real life) north of Hoosac Street?  It both does
> exist in real life and in OSM south of Hoosac Street, but while the
> railtrail "area" is entered in OSM as a leisure=recreation_ground, there is
> no highway=cycleway through there north of Hoosac.
>

The MassDOT blog reports the railtrail was extended north from Hoosac St to
Lime St in 2017.

"Ashuwillticook Rail Trail Section Open, Trail Now 12.2 Miles | MassDOT
Blog"
https://blog.mass.gov/transportation/uncategorized/ashuwillticook-rail-trail-final-section-open-trail-now-12-2-miles/

Alas the DCR (parks and rec) trail page still reports the original length,
hasn't updated the trail map since 2012, so no armchair information if the
northern 1.2 miles extension is same 10' paved width filling the ROW as the
original or not.

(Reported lengths 11.2+1.2=12.2 doesn't quite add up exactly either?)

(I'm at the coastal urban near end of Mass, No.Adams is far end, not
heading that way soon alas.)

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

Re: [Talk-us] Someone from Boston, MA? (off topic - Boston hotel name / address trivia)

[Bill Ricker]

>> This is one of those skyscrapers with a vanity "street" address with
>> no such street.
>> (To confuse matters further, there is also a Copley Place Hotel whose
>> address is NOT Copley Place!)

> Apparently there are even two such hotels.
I should clarify slightly, not that it really matters.

"Copley Place" is an invented name for the new mall/office/hotel
development over the Turnpike air-rights, punning on / borrowing from an
old place name, "Copley Square", which is nearby and is associated with
class.  Two of the four sides of Copley Square are the Boston Public
Library formal entrance and Trinity Church.

The "Westin Copley Place" was part of the Copley Place mall/office
development, is connected by air-bridge, to same, but uses a real street
address (10 Huntington Ave). The "Marriott Copley Place" is actually in the
Copley Place towers (not sure if it's tower 1 or 2?) but uses 110
Huntington Ave as its business address, go figure.

Nearby, the former "Copley Plaza Hotel", now  "Fairmont Copley Plaza" is
actually on Copley Square, while the "Copley Square Hotel" confusingly is
not, it's up a side street, 47 Huntington  (with side entrance on Exeter St
connecting to Copley Square's plaza; 2nd oldest in Boston).
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Someone from Boston, MA?

[Bill Ricker]

On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 11:12 PM Kevin Kenny  wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 11:01 PM Kevin Kenny  wrote:
> > I'm not a Bostonian, but I've been to Copley Place.
> > Copley Place is a named building: 
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/240501783

This local Bostonian concurs.

This is one of those skyscrapers with a vanity "street" address with
no such street.
(To confuse matters further, there is also a Copley Place Hotel whose
address is NOT Copley Place!)

> more information https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copley_Place - the
> building complex, in addition to the shopping mall, has office
> buildings (tenants include the German and Canadian consulates, on the
> fourth and fifth floors respectively of tower 3), hotels and a parking
> garage, all connected.

(and all-weather connections to adjacent malls and hotels too, and to
two T (metro) lines and Amtrak rail.)
(used to have a Cinema, but iirc it got consolidated out of existence?)

> I'm not familiar enough with indoor mapping to be able to direct you
> how to map a suite within the towers.

A Consulate might prefer we not map the interior access?
That level of detail is fine for retail but ... government entities
can attract untoward attention.

-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux

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

Re: [Talk-transit] Proposal for simplification of mapping public transport

[Bill Ricker]

On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 1:19 PM, Jo <winfi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here goes my proposal for a reform in mapping public transport:

[nodes not platforms]

If this applies to Heavy Rail and Light Rail rapid transit and not
just Bus Stops, I object.

The Transport layer on OpenStreetMap is much more useful at high zoom
levels with Platform entities in the DB than it would be without them.

From
https://www.openstreetmap.org/query?lat=42.34752=-71.09989#map=18/42.34678/-71.09936=T
one can see that the two lines do NOT share a platform so that one can
not change directions with a wheelchair without taking two elevators,
either of which may be out of service; but if there was only one
platform between two lines, one could.
THIS IS USEFUL TO MAP.

I support simplicity, but agree with Einstein: Things should be as
simple as possible, but not simpler. This proposal goes too far.


-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux

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

Re: [Talk-us] Whole-US Garmin Map update - 2018-02-10

[Bill Ricker]

> Map to visualize what each file contains:
> http://daveh.dev.openstreetmap.org/garmin/Lambertus/2018-02-10/kml/kml.html


Map is not loading for me in either Chrome or FF. (Nor Chromium).
"Loading data, please wait :spinner:"

(Previously I have not used these maps because the half-gig files
split i-95 (since the coast is inclined) and my old 76csx didn't
behave well with larger, so I did me own subsets on Lambertus's tool,
but since I've upgraded to a newer Garmin 78, your 1G or 2G files will
 be worth trying.)

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

Re: [Talk-us] Walmart Import

[Bill Ricker]

On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Ilya Zverev <i...@zverev.info> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> As some of you know, Brandify company wants to import all the Walmart
> locations in the US into OpenStreetMap.
> ​​
> They have full permission to do that. See the message from their VP
> Product, Damian, for more detailed explanation:
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/2017-Decem
> ber/005279.html
>
> After a brief discussion on the imports@ list, they made a few proposed
> changes, and I re-uploaded the result to my imports validation website.
>

​
Improved quality of the data is great, but compatibility is the first
requirement.

When I look at the linked message, "​They have full permission" means
Walmart gives them permission to share any rights they have in their list
of locations; the linked message did not affirmatively assert on behalf of
both Brandify and Walmart that OSM terms both accepted and compliance
pledged.

Were the follow-up questions on the Imports list regarding the following
ever satisfactorily settled?
* Contributor Agreement by Brandify? and Walmart?
* ODbL  by Brandify? and Walmart?
* provenance of the Latitude-Longitudes to demonstrate  ODbL compatibility


​I see none of those 5 points answered in the thread linked above. ​

I  see only that Brandify claims to have authorization from Walmart to
share list of their locations to as many maps as possible.
​
The statements by Brandify VP made leave
* unclear if Walmart's grant includes acceptance of our ODbL license and
thus passing downstream to others under ODbL,
* and unclear if they have warrantied that the posit data is cleanly
sourced so they indeed have the right to grant use of the Lat-Lons
thereunder.​

Q. Do either Brandify or Walmart understand or care that how they geocoded
the addresses would determine if the import was compatible with the ODbL?
I have not seen anything on thread suggesting they know or care.
Has geocoding provenance been answered where i didn't see it?
Until we see that, the answer must be at best "not yet".

Q. Do we have a prior ruling from OSM Legal on what proof of agency or
power of attorney to act on behalf of the client we need to accept data via
3rd party, in this case an SEO PR firm ?

In one sense, I'm inclined to think we could assume good faith on agency as
we could revert the import in the unlikely case Walmart later denied
Brandify was their agent, but IANAL, I'm also suspecting Legal team might
have different ideas. I seriously doubt Brandify has power of attorney to
accept a binding legal license on behalf of their client.  Walmart likely
doesn't care about our license now, but might be startled if e.g. a
community activist used data under the ODbL to e.g. fight a building permit
somewhere.​

​// Bill ​

-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Coolidge Corner, Brookline, MA has wrong zip code

[Bill Ricker]

I'll note that we've seen other Nominatum issues in Greater Boston, e.g.
County for a point near Somerville/Charles town boundary.

OSM used MassGIS not Tiger in Mass. for initial import. It was better than
Tiger back then but has different problems. I mention this because USA
rules of thumb only partially apply here.

Both Suffolk and Norfolk Co have multipoly and/or relations, so Nominatum
convex hull geo search can easily get confused if the data isn't perfect.
Brookline is one of Norfolk's two exclaves. Of course, zip boundaries cross
government admin boundaries at the USPS convenience, and aren't well
published. Nominatum does best effort ? So we may need to add Zip to some
points or admin poly?

CC-ing the Mass. Talk Group ...


On Dec 4, 2017 9:59 AM, "Marc Gemis"  wrote:

> If you fill in "Coolidge Corner, Brookline, MA" on the nominatim
> website, and run that query:
> http://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/search.php?q=Coolidge+Corner%2C+
> Brookline%2C+MA_geojson=1=
> Then click details, you end on the page
> http://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/details.php?place_id=498867
>
> There you see how the address is computed. The postal code is computed
> a bit different than the other data. From the table you see there is
> no boundary or so defined in OSM with the postal code  (there is no
> "details >").
> This means the postal code comes from either an external source that
> was imported by Nominatim or an as part of an address node. But when I
> click on the address node details for "Coolidge Corner, Brookline, MA"
> or Allston, I do not see a postal code at all.
>
> So I think
>
> 1) whatever you changed is not reflected in the OSM database
> 2) the postal code is coming from an import (most likely Tiger data)
> in the Nominatim database.
>
> hope this make sense
> m.
>
> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 2:42 AM, Andre Robatino
>  wrote:
> > Nominatum's top result for "Coolidge Corner, Brookline, MA" still has
> 02446
> > (as it did immediately after I read your reply), but the other results
> still
> > have 02118. Shouldn't it have been copied to all the mirrors by now?
> >
> > BTW, I was wondering if it would make sense to use a list of specific
> > addresses as a sanity check on edits. Someone could register address(es)
> > they are familiar with, such as their own, and they would be notified
> > automatically if any of the associated data (such as county or zip code)
> > changed. If the change is wrong, they could log in and flag the error,
> and
> > the mistake could be traced back to the offending edit. If this existed,
> I
> > could have used it both for the zip code error, and for the wrong county
> > error that I reported in July, in
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2017-July/017529.html
> .
> >
> > On 11/19/2017 02:57 PM, Clifford Snow wrote:
> >
> > Nominatim should return the correct results now.
> >
> > Problem that Max Erickson discovered was an incomplete edit in Boston
> that
> > caused the problem. By adding a tag to the Boston node to describe the
> > feature, resulted in Nominatim returning the correct results.
> >
> > Clifford
> >
> > On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Clifford Snow  >
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> I just asked about nominatim on the IRC
> >>
> >> On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Max Erickson 
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Nominatim calculates 02118:
> >>>
> >>> http://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/details.php?place_id=498867
> >>>
> >>> Most of the data seems to have the correct addr:postcode:
> >>>
> >>> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/t5e
> >>>
> >>> (The query includes postal_code but there aren't any in the data)
> >>>
> >>> So what is Nominatim looking at to come up with the calculated value?
> >>> I think the next thing to check would be boundaries enclosing
> >>> Brookline, not sure if that is how nominatim works though.
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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] Pokémon Go no officially using OpenStreetMap

[Bill Ricker]

On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 2:27 PM, Peter Dobratz  wrote:
> I'm not sure how many active OSM contributors also play Pokémon Go, but the
> game is now officially using OSM for the basemap that players see in the
> game (previously was using Google Maps data for the base map).  The in-game
> about screen has text in the bottom of the License section correctly
> attributing OSM.


Thank you for sharing this.

I was guessing so, when my daughter said a couple of the walking paths
in our neighborhood had shown up in the game. ( I haven't added them
to GoogleMaps so was pretty sure what map it was :-).)

Glad to hear it's properly attributed.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway exit renumbering

[Bill Ricker]

"unless it’s somehow still used on signage"

I would expect that to be the case.

​
​With the US DOT/FHA quasi-mandatory (compliance conditional greenmail)
renumberings to the revised national standard (exits keyed to mile marker,
border-to-border S-N or W-E, following US Interstate route number -- some
routes had exit #s based on State routes before achieving interstate
numbers and so are doubly non-compliant, e.g. Mass. Rt 128 which spans I-95
& I-93 (in opposite alignments!)), there is usually a temporary add-on e.g.
"Formerly Exit 8" attached to the most important signs mentioning ​"Exit
48" for a transitional period of  year or two so that people with old maps
/ directions / GPS aren't totally confused.

The physical "formerly" bits look like they're designed to be easy to
remove later.

As long as the signage says formerly, we should tag Formerly (and the
routers should consider whether to include it in prompts).


For anyone doing research with Mid/Late-20thC sources, having a record of
the historical signage at an exit will be useful -- where was Exit 8 in the
1970's? Not where it is now by a long shot on many interstates!   A
GIS-friendly form of this history will be ever-more important as it recedes
into deep history. Wikipedia attempts to capture the history, but not in a
GIS-friendly / geo-queriable form.

Whether the main OSM DB is the right long-term repository or whether a
side-schema for historical overlays is the more appropriate GIS-friendly
perpetual record of exit history is a separate question. (History for an
exit or ramp would include opened date, re-numbered date, closed date,
reconfigured date?)

(As I am old as dirt, i will continue to refer to Westbrook/Portland Exit
48 as Exit 8, much as we still turn off Blackstrap Rd at the house that
*used to be* white. To confuse matters, for a while it was indeed "white on
this side" (only). (Thank-you, Anne, you may take off your cloak now.) B-D)
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] I 85 Express Lane (Atlanta, Georgia)

[Bill Ricker]

> We really need to start treating bicycle lanes the same way.
>

​+1​

-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] I-69 east west vs north south

[Bill Ricker]

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 7:55 AM, Josh Lee  wrote:
> While it might be uncommon for two-digit Interstate highways to change
> their directions, it's quite common for three-digit ones to do so, and
> it shouldn't be treated any differently.

And there's a case where it was supposed to be a 3-digit Ring
interstate but got the 2-digit by default, due to cancellation of
other segments.  MA SR-128 (as relocated to freeway) would have been
one of three I-x95 rings, if i-95 had gone through Boston (unbuilt)
with an Inner Ring (unbuilt), as planned. Instead, I-93 (planned to
end at Boston) was extended south, along US-3 freeway, and then
perversely around MA-128 to where I-95 departs ring MA-128 south.
 At that junction, a car traveling MA-128 S counter-clockwise from
Gloucester end to Braintree end will shift from I-95 S / MA-128 S /
US-1 N  to I-93 N / MA-128 S / US-1 N, while compass says they're
still going South-East!
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/76850961
   (US-1 used to go straight through, on Metro.Dist.Comm. Parkways, a
diagonal arterial across Olmsted's Emerald Necklace, but the US Route
1 was relocated to the freeways recently, so US-1 runs S along MA-128N
a couple exits further than i-93 S. There is a rumor that one US-1
shield remains on the old route. AFAIK old-one isn't even signed ALT
or 1A or Old 1 :-(  )

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

Re: [Talk-us] I-69 east west vs north south

[Bill Ricker]

He seems to be correct, using the (not usable for mapping but usable
to inform discussion) G-Streetview, I do indeed see signage as
described, which defies commonly understood version of Fed standards.
Not just BUSINESS route, not just when cotracking i-94, but actual
green, solo "WEST 69 MILE 198" with red white and blue shield.

Do we know if whether there is a Fed exemption, the Feds actually
acknowledge that I-69 actually E-W beyond a certain point, and so can
be E-W here?  Or if  the State of Michigan is defying Federal
standards in the interest of being understandable? After the Feds
threatened to pull our block grant $$ if we didn't renumber our exits
their way, I'm amazed they're letting this slide when they could just
rename the E-W section I-369 E-W  and it'd be a compliant extension of
a N-S route. Perhaps the bureaucracy can be reasonable. [I spent a few
years with DOT, not in Highway. Nice folks really.]

(Probably not the only exception. There are 1xx/2xx/3xx/4xx that don't
fit the spur/loop rule too.)


(Frankly, I'm surprised any of 69's escutcheon route markers remain
unstolen, like the 420 mile markers that keep wandering off.)

So back to original question(s) --
- who should fix the E-W section of I-69 to be E-W
- how - split relation? relation of relation?
- from where ?  At what point does signage change to E-W ?
   [and for mapping purposes no I'm NOT going to suggest we get that
from a copyright source like StreeView, that needs free & open ground
truth. ]

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

Re: [Talk-us] wtsp.com using OSM for detour maps

[Bill Ricker]

Is the current road closure situation adequately reflected in the OSM data
> as well?
>

​Hour by hour? Do we expect it to?
Are breaking-news-reports on commercial media a usable source under our
license?
Do we have coding to expire a closure automatically or trigger periodic
review, or trust the original closure mapper to remember to un-close a
blockage ?
(Reminds me, I need to check status of the new ME-NH bridge and the new
Tapanzee span, but those big projects are month-to-month.)

Should people and routers looking for up-to-the-minute data be using our
DB, or a layer on top of  a basemanp?  Waze, G-traffic Incidents (possibly
just a view of Waze?), state DOT "live closure & construction & incident"
map, etc?

This is why I drive with both OSM in the Garmin, which keeps my position
fully updated;  and G-maps in the Android, to get a live traffic overlay.

FEMA announced this AM that I-75 _was_ closed ​re Santa Fe River,  **BUT**
according to FL DOT,  https://twitter.com/MyFDOT , that appears either
incorrect or out of date.   FL DOT says I-75 is open, but US 41 and US 27
have bridges under water, closed, at Santa Fe River.
(The official available detours are fairly useless too.)

Their live map https://fl511.com/#:Alerts also has
"Flooding in Alachua on SR-26 west at SR-222, all lanes blocked. Last
updated at 12:38:47PM."
(but shows traffic status "Green" both directions?? maybe because they're
u-turning at the stoppage for detour and/or no traffic = no stopped cars =
good to the traffic algorithm ? )
and US-17 further south (Tampa to Ft Myers)  and Miami and Keys of course.
Plenty of action.

Ocalla SR464 detour has no Closure or Incident or Construction description
so no hint to duration.

The Message Sign overlay might be useful at times to see what detours
they're announcing, but ATTM it has a "silver alert" on all units.

The only Terms of Use on the FDOT interactive Map is Google's for the
basemap.
The detour and closed routes vector graphics come from ARCGIS, per the
javascript, but no  rights statement provided.
Incident icons must be coming from fdot java script.
https://fl511.com/about says you can embed the map in your own website, but
no Data Rights statement.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] wtsp.com using OSM for detour maps

[Bill Ricker]

> Thought this was kinda cool.

Since at least one version on their webpage includes the OSM
copyright, yes, yes it is cool !

But kinda tough on the roads and folks using them. That bridge could
be in trouble.

<< Other bridges, including S.R. 47, could be impacted, Gaskins said.
There’s also a chance U.S. 121 could be impacted.
<< The river will likely crest at historic levels, Florida Department
of Transportation officials said.
<< “The Santa Fe River under I-75 has rapidly risen 15 feet within the
past 36 hours due to the heavy rainfall
<< over North Florida from Hurricane Irma,” the officials said.

Well yes. According to the (provisional) data from the stream-gauge
there, it is already at historic levels.
And may be close to crested.
http://water.weather.gov/ahps2/hydrograph.php?wfo=jax=olpf1

Tonight's stage 56.83ft edges the 2012 record historic crest 54.44 ft
on 06/29/2012, which was already an outliers above 9+ mid-forties
stages, all from this decade.
But this appears to be a recent gauge so lack of older history isn't
surprising. (Downstream the gauge at US-441 has records to WW2 or
earlier.)


But from the look of the flood-plain, the bridge and the
raised-roadbed leading to it is at exactly the level of the level of
pre-historic flooding, so I-75 is now a dike separating the flood
plain into two basins with only a small drain under the bridge.

-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux

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

Re: [Talk-us] Pittsburgh neighborhood boundaries mapped with admin level 9?

[Bill Ricker]

​
​> , "about 41 out of 50" states (leaving 9) were believed correct as
described in that table.  (And, that was posted here).
>  On July 10, Peter Dobratz and I (among others) submitted the six New
England states (of those 9) in a sub-table, which I harmonized into that
wiki's "Big Table."

Massachusetts looks correct in the small table to my eye in terms of legal
entities, Wards and Precincts are primary fine-scale legal entities. I know
my Ward and Precint numbers in Boston, so can confirm they exist.

OTOH there are no "signs on the ground" for Wards or Precincts.

As noted in Talk, there are also Council Districts but their mapping onto
Wards/Precincts will *change* for re-gerrymandering after each census
(which in Boston is an on-going process, we don't wait for Federal census
to count noses!)  and could be easily abolished if we opted for all
city-wide seats again.  Wards and Precinct boundaries are less flexible;
deeds reference them; Precincts are  the fundamental unit that City, State
House, State Senate, US House district gerrymanders are built from; but
still even Ward boundaries are adjusted periodically if a precinct
suddenly is built up or industrialized.

Neighborhoods are also formally defined by city planning dept in Boston.

There are also interesting historical boundaries where former towns have
become neighborhoods when amalgamated into the adjacent city (and
disincorporated).

I guess i should post this comment to the talk page too.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Pittsburgh neighborhood boundaries mapped with admin level 9?

[Bill Ricker]

IDK Pittsburgh but City of Boston has semiofficial neighborhoods that sort
of qualify as subordinate administrative units, in that there are official
city hall neighborhood service offices and official borders.

OTOH some of our official neighborhoods are 10x or more large than others
(in both pop and area) and have multiple defacto neighborhoods (and
multiple zipcodes and parishes, but the zips named for neighborhoods do NOT
align - a street will be served by nearest PO even if in another
neighborhood socially. Realtors will use the nicer name, or make one up!)
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

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

[Bill Ricker]

There are jurisdictions where named driveways are required if the house is
out of sight of the street.

 E.g. Cumberland Co. Maine, the newishcountywide E911 dispatch requires
street names be unique across county and that houses not within sight of
the road have a named PVT WAY that becomes their official address for E911.
(Unclear how postoffice andUPS feel about that.)
Requiring a clear number sign at the street might have been sufficient but
they've chosen to mandate identical PVT WAY signage instead.

( looks like none of those have made it into  OSM yet.)
​
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] islands not rendering properly near Troy, NY

[Bill Ricker]

user nfgusedautoparts edited the riverbank two hours ago, approximately
coincident with first post, so maybe it will get better or worse when
re-rendered

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/47179417
​
​Is place=island as a closed polygon correct?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/37893104#map=16/42.7377/-73.6920=ND
​
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] greenways tagging

[Bill Ricker]

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 8:53 PM, Bryan Housel <br...@7thposition.com> wrote:

> I have used the living street tag once in the USA, and that is for this
> street which is completely blocked by gates except for a side way in that
> locals know.  I’m sure there are other similar situations around the USA,
> but they are indeed rare.
>


​There was a catalog of USA Livable Streets here or elsewhere recently.

​A quasi-relative once lived here
   http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/248462064 ​
in Brooklyn (Kings Co, NY) within the ancient precinct of Ft Hamilton.

Researching these people caused me to notice that these houses front on a
pedestrian way "Hamilton Walk" ("highway=footway"
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/5677149) and  back onto an alley
("highway=service" http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/251101956)  .

Not sure if this counts as Livable / Living Street ...  ​but it looks very
livable.​


-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux
___
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?

[Bill Ricker]

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 6:02 PM, Clifford Snow <cliff...@snowandsnow.us> wrote:
> I map driveway when the house is set a distance from the main road, often
> time when the house can't be seen from the road. Mainly rural areas. I
> figure that it might help volunteer fire and rescue operations.


In many rural areas, such drives are now required to be Named Private
Ways with appropriate signage, for just such assistance. (County-wide
consolidated E-911 dispatch is driving this in e.g. Maine.)

-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux

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

Re: [Talk-us] Boston speed limit too Re: Michigan speed limit changes coming soon

[Bill Ricker]

On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 6:31 PM, Greg Troxel <g...@lexort.com> wrote:

> Also, we do have the implicit 30 mph tagged on many roads.   While there
> are usually not signs, it is entirely verifable.  One only has to read
> the law and measure the distance between houses (or observe that the
> area is built up with businesses).   These two tasks are entirely within
> the ability of a typical mapper.
>

​the question then is, can we tell (without driving in circles) is if an
existing ​30 mph tag in Boston was implicit or explicit ... to find which
might need fixing



-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Boston speed limit too Re: Michigan speed limit changes coming soon

[Bill Ricker]

Tod - "Makes sense to have the OSM tagging model the real world in this
regard. If we had that the a local mapper could update one value on the
administrative boundary and all the roads without explicit maxspeed tagging
would be covered."

Agreed. There isn't a better community than OSM to maintain it.
If our allied open routing project provides a side repository outside the
main OSM but linked (the way e.g. our Notes are) I would happily update
that.
Without that being created, OSM admin boundary seems the right place.

​--
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com @n1vux

​[ full reply included below so cc: talk-us-mass has full context ] ​

On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Tod Fitch <t...@fitchdesign.com> wrote:

> > On Jan 7, 2017, at 10:57 AM, Bill Ricker <bill.n1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 12:44 AM, Jack Burke <burke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Hey, Michigan folks, keep an eye out for some speed limit changes
> [1]
> >
> > We have a different change hitting Boston as of this last week -- the
> > statutory limit on *UNSIGNED* roads/streets in Boston has changed.
> >
> > Statutory limit had been the state's 30mph (thickly settled or
> > business district).
> >
> > One might presume since this changes only unsigned speed, we haven't
> > entered it, so nothing to change.
> > But how is a router to know ?
> >
> > [1] http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2017/01/75-mph_
> speed_limits_officially.html
> > [2] http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/ma.html
> >
>
> Too bad that every time someone proposes having default values based on
> administrative boundaries it gets shot down like this one [1] was.
>
> Many, in fact, almost all residential streets in my state are not signed
> with speed limits. I think that is true in most states, but the default
> values definitely change with jurisdiction. If I tag them with the default
> legal limit when there is no signing, I run the risk that they are not
> updated if the law changes. And a person driving the street can’t verify
> the value just by looking. If I don’t tag it, then the routing software
> will make an assumption on what the speed is and the assumption is likely
> based on the part of the world the people writing the software live and
> very likely won’t match my area.
>
> To the people who then say that data should be kept outside of OSM as you
> can’t see it on the ground: Point me to a place were a router can get a
> world wide set of administrative based default speed limits. To be viable
> for routers to use it would need to be an open geographical database.
> Funny, that is what OSM is supposed to be.
>
> Makes sense to have the OSM tagging model the real world in this regard.
> If we had that the a local mapper could update one value on the
> administrative boundary and all the roads without explicit maxspeed tagging
> would be covered.
>
> [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2016-
> October/030330.html
>
>
>
​
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Boston speed limit too Re: Michigan speed limit changes coming soon

[Bill Ricker]

On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 12:44 AM, Jack Burke <burke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey, Michigan folks, keep an eye out for some speed limit changes [1]

We have a different change hitting Boston as of this last week -- the
statutory limit on *UNSIGNED* roads/streets in Boston has changed.

Statutory limit had been the state's 30mph (thickly settled or
business district).

One might presume since this changes only unsigned speed, we haven't
entered it, so nothing to change.
But how is a router to know ?

[1] 
http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2017/01/75-mph_speed_limits_officially.html
[2] http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/ma.html


-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux

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

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Beware Pokemon users

[Bill Ricker]

I have a possible confirmation that PokeGo is using OSM Points of Interest
to populate features, but not of edit vandalism.

We went onto local hiking trails to document some local science history,
taking my daughter along for company and having someone under 50 to keep an
eye on us oldsters. She brought her iPhone and PokeGo of course. (I'd
expected her to be my photographic "2nd shooter", oh well.)  She reported
that our destination included both a PokeGo Gym and a PokeStop.

The PokeStop was at our exact target,  "1899 MIT Observatory site" which is
moderately well known (on the park map, in FourSquare). [1]

But the Gym was a horizontal control benchmark "BLOOM 1934" which is NOT in
published catalogs (USGS, MASSDOT, Geocache.com) of benchmarks. It appears
to be part of the MAGS 1934 survey, does not appear to have elevation
stamped, consistent with other MAGS 1934 disks. Is it not cataloged because
not required in final control mesh?  [2]
(I have added the disk name "BLOOM 1934" to the OSM node today.)

Both were added in a 6 year old trail-improvement changeset based on GPS
hiking track. [3]
(Which was more uptodate than the published park map and was very helpful
for old guys taking the gradual slope trail! )

This six year old OSM "man made/man mad/Survey point" is the only online
reference to this point i've found ... aside from the PokeGo Gym ... for
this disk.

Alas I did not have her take screen-captures to determine if the spelling
of feature names is exactly OSM's.

(There's another point in that change set i need to discuss with
OceanVortex ... will DM on OSM.org ...)

[1]
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/944663159#map=19/42.44109/-71.08359=D
[2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/944663076
[3]
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/6007454#map=16/42.4433/-71.0844=D



-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] highway=trunk for NHS routes?

[Bill Ricker]

On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 8:09 AM, Volker Schmidt <vosc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I have just come across this NHS road that I know well: [1]
> This is a winding mountain road, two lanes, many parts without shoulder.
>
>
​And the only/best  thru road through these mountains; access from LA to
multiple state/national parks.

I would like to bring the discussion back to my main argument. The property
> of a road "belonging to the NHS network" is orthogonal (independent) to the
> OSM road classifications motorway|trunk|primary|seondary|tertiary|
> unclassified-residential
>

​Orthogonal as such yes.
But a useful clue as to which road in a rural region is serving the purpose
of a primary or trunk despite not having all the hallmarks of an urban
trunk.
​


> Being part of the NHS is not recognazable on the ground, and does not
> allow to defer any useful property for data users (may be apart from the
> smoothness of the surface, because generally speaking there is more funding
> available for maintenance).
>

Yes,  being the best maintained road for miles around ​
​(going in that direction) is quite recognizable even if not expressible in
words. Growing up rural, you feel it in your bones. Literally.


​
​​ ​

> Let me turn the argument around:
> NHS roads include roads that fall in many OSM categories, like motorway,
> trunk, primary, secondary (like my last example), and possibly lower
> ​ ​
> If you were to label all NHS roads as highway=trunk you would loose
> important information for the data users.
>

​Richard's comment suggests the current US misuse of pavement
characteristics to mechanically classify roads in US as substitute for UK
A/B classifications is useless.  It appears to be useful where most of us
live in conurbations, and do most of our driving on roads we know well
anyway, but a mechanical pavement -> ​classification is inadequate to
indicate its relative position in the highway network in the great beyond
where limited access dual carriageways are far away, where we cycle or
drive for pleasure.



> The road property "belonging to the NHS" could be easily tagged by an
> independent, additional tag, something like NHS=yes.
>

​This and relations should be done at a minimum, and would allow Richard's
cyclemap to promote NHS links up a level of rendering. ​

But we do need to seriously examine if our US definition of trunk/primary
in lieu of UK M/A/B system is fit for purpose outside the compact urban
zones, and then what to do that can serve both the  feeder of a cluster of
mountain parks and the boulevards of Los Angeles.



-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] highway=trunk for NHS routes?

[Bill Ricker]

On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 4:21 AM, Volker Schmidt <vosc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> You can find detailed PDF maps of all NHS Routes, state-by-state at a web
> page of the Federal Highway Administration
> ​[...]. On these maps you will find plenty of NHS roads that are
> definitively not trunk roads.
> Just two examples in Arizona:
>

I will agree isn't what could handle 'trunk' volume in a densely settled
area in EU or NY.
If we follow the physical description checklist rigidly, we'd conclude
there are few trunk roads outside of metropolises.

Both appear to be well maintained in the photos; the width of paving
greatly exceeds the two marked lanes. Out where "50 Miles to Next Gas"
signs still live, this is a major road.

US160 is the most significant road for literally miles. ​
US180 is the tourist main feeder to the Grand Canyon . .

Wikipedia says [0]

> The *National Highway System* (*NHS*) is a network of strategic highways
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway> within the United States
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States>, including the Interstate
> Highway System <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System> and
> other roads serving major airports, ports, rail or truck terminals, railway
> stations, pipeline terminals
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipeline_transport> and other strategic
> transport facilities. Altogether, it constitutes the largest highway system
> in the world.
>
> Individual states <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state> are
> encouraged to focus federal funds on improving the efficiency and safety of
> this network. The roads within the system were identified by the United
> States Department of Transportation
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Transportation>
>  in cooperation with the states, local officials, and metropolitan
> planning organizations
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_planning_organization> and
> approved by the United States Congress
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress> in 1995.
>

So being on this list should assure the road is among the best maintained.

Oh, because we don't have green A signage on the NHS designated routes, and
we only map what is physically there ?
The Mapillary photos show modern video billboards. If the advertisers
recognize it as a trunk worth their time, we can too.
Being better maintained or wider than other in the greater area is physical.

Richard's comment

>"(FWIW, the current distinction between highway=trunk and
> highway=primary in
> the US seems so arbitrary that I actually render them both the same for
> cycle.travel)"
>
suggests forcefully that our current  rule for US is NOT working.

Looking at states i'm more familiar with than AZ, Massachusetts [1] and
Maine [2] , these NHS roads are pretty much what the locals think of as the
main connections between cities/regions, which is a reasonable "human"
translation of "trunk".

I do see some "MAP-21 NHS Principal Arterials" that are feeders to the
presumed trunks, unclear if they deserve trunk status. I also see some
interesting omissions, US20, MA30, MA9 are not included end to end, but
only selectively.  But if that means federal funding is concentrated on
portions of US20 that are in NHS at expense of those not, then they will be
physically different despite same signage.

This proposal is better than what we have now -- in rural areas at least .

( ​I love that FHWA has these maps posted publicly. 35 years ago i produced
a similar state-and-city atlas for a DOT rail safety office ​... with a
plotter and color Xerox[tm] copier.  Lost to history.
personal to Volker - thanks for pointing these out to me ! )

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Highway_System_(United_States)
​[1]
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/nhs_maps/massachusetts/ma_massachusetts.pdf
​
​[2]
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/nhs_maps/maine/me_Maine.pdf

​

-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Beware Pokemon users

[Bill Ricker]

On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Simon Poole <si...@poole.ch> wrote:

> The ODbL is very clear on what "Publicly" is:
>
> “Publicly” – means to Persons other than You or under Your control by
> either more than 50% ownership or by the power to direct their
> activities (such as contracting with an independent consultant).
> No need to speculate on that point.
>

​Plenty of edge cases remain ... e.g. if a personal work for only family,
is it "public"?  I don't own my mother or adult child 50%+ ... and my
ability to direct their activities has proven limited.
​


> On the other hand, if they were using OSM data to trigger to spawning in a
> specific locations it would still be rather open if that is actually a use
> that is substantial.


​If it's a critical function of the derived work, it's at least arguably
"substantial". ​
PoGo without Pokemon spawning would be no fun at all.


> Up to now I haven't seen any evidence that couldn't be explained in
> numerous other ways that they are really using OSM data.


​Agreed. Hence "Hypothetical" and other hedge words.

I joined this tread to discuss whether a Trap Close would be detectable, to
see if the question is answerable. ​(Is the Poke-rookery named for the
feature it is based upon?)

​Since the # edits with Pokemon in the comment has dropped off sharply,
people aren't being rewarded for doing it; so (at least) one of the
​following is true -
(a) word has gotten out not to put Pokemon in the comment as we'll revert
bogus updates easier that way;
(b) the game has already been fixed to prevent cheating
*  (which may mean delayed data hypothesis is intentionally true )
(c) video's theory isn't true at all
   (the announcement was either hoax or jumping to conclusions based on
coincidence)
(d) delayed data hypothesis is approximately true *but not* by Niantic's
direct intent
 * co-causal: changes to reality induces convergent data changes. Maybe
Google base maps get _some_ approved changes from _their_ (so-called)
"community" eventually, but not coincident with ours (E.g., they got Sarah
Long bridge closure before OSM since it was routing-urgent (i marked it
impassable when it became routing urgent to me!), but we'll often get those
footpaths and local pocket parks first since we our "approval process" is
Admiral Grace M Hopper Approved.)
 * indirect pipeline: or someone (internally or externally to Google)
is filtering our subsets of our changesets into GM/GE inputs and relying
upon (a) not "substantial" use &/or (b) not being noticed &/or (c) not
caring

I think you and I are in general agreement that there is so far little to
no evidence that anything much is happening, so we're just quibbling over
hypothetical potential severity if it were (which would of course depend on
exact particulars and require lawyers) and wondering aloud how/whether we
could ever notice or prove it if so.

Without specific evidence, on the Interwebs, the Bayesian Prior (default
conclusion) should always be high confidence that
 (c) "Someone is Wrong on the Internet" [1]
and low confidence otherwise;
with that as a Prior, the low peak and rapidly decreasing popularity
of "Pokemon" change-set comments in last week increases the other
alternatives somewhat (and the powerset elements likewise as they are NOT
fully mutually exclusive) but doesn't actually degrade (c)'s likelihood
much. I

​[1]  http://m.xkcd.com/386/​

-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Beware Pokemon users

[Bill Ricker]

On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Clifford Snow <cliff...@snowandsnow.us>
wrote:

>
> Can you help me understand what part of the ODbL [1] they are violating?
> As far I can tell, they don't modify the data nor do they display OSM tiles
> or make any of the data available


(​It was not my assertion, I was hypothetically answering a HOW question.)

OTOH & IANAL

Hypothetically speaking,
Not making available tiles or data extracts based on OSM data  relieves a
hypothetical potential infringer from having to make data available (Share
Alike & Keep Open clauses).
Any published use* requires Attribution.
* (Which i interpret as non-intramural use, not contained within a
household or corporate entity, although that is the sort of think lawyers
could argue. It's safest to attribute even intramural use cases, but not
required by license.)

If indeed they are reaping OSM nodes and ways to populate PoGo rookeries
[an unproven assertion], that would make the whole game a "use ... or
work[s] produced from the database" and if PoGo doesn't count as "public",
I don't know what is.  (The players are not employees, contractors, or
family members of Niantic Labs.)

Hiding the _use_ of OSM data doesn't make the derived work private; only
hiding the derived work (game, web map, whatever) does; and i doubt having
to register to play the game would be accepted as making all Niantic
properties "private" not "public".
(IANAL but I would wonder if hiding the use could be construed as willful
and malicious infringement.)
(If Niantic claims any copyright in their work, it is by definition of
"copyright" a "published" work. In theory Trade Secret, Patent, and
Copyright are incompatible IP protections. Only TradeMark plays nicely with
others.)

#IANAL



-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Beware Pokemon users

[Bill Ricker]

On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> wrote:

> I wonder how we would politely license-check Niantic...


​Traditional map copyright violation proof would be adding a Trap Close​
... do the have a map that shows name of feature that spawns critters?
Adding a nonsense footpath to no-where (shaped like a P ? ) in a
non-existent park and checking if it shows up in the PoGo in a few days
would do.



-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

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

[Bill Ricker]

On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 6:16 AM, Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> wrote:
> or car is going to be ouch-o-rama for something is designed to be
> traversable by trucks,

luckily my "car" is eligible for truck or passenger plates; i've
crossed higher medians (un)intentionally (both). If neither
running-boards or transmission touches, i'm good. :-)
But i'd follow the circle anyway.

> whereas mini roundabouts are routinely ignored if
> nobody else is at the junction

That seems dangerous for USA where (most of us) can't even manage to
navigate the normal kind of rotary ("round-about" with shrubbery
center) safely and correctly. Too many of us would take the left turn
the same as they were used to when they should circulate.  No Left
Turn 4-6pm is hard enough to get dubious drivers to observe.


-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux

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

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

[Bill Ricker]

I have seen a number in US with crown height low enough that emergency
vehicle can go right over and trailers can cheat up.

For USAn usage, even if they are eligible for tagging as a mini roundabout
node, that may be  confusing. Routing of "third right on roundabout" works
... "Left at intersection" could be dangerous advice.

Does it do harm to treat a mini as a regular roundabout in the land that
isn't even doing big roundabouts right yet?
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] MassGIS Road Import - Lanes

[Bill Ricker]

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Spencer Gardner
<spencergard...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is anyone on here familiar with the process that was used to upload MassGIS
> road data for the state of Massachusetts? I'm noticing a lot of incorrect
> lane information on one-way residential streets and wondering if the bulk
> import process could be the cause. I'd love to hear if anyone else has come
> across this.


Not intimately knowledgeable here, but aware. I recall there was
widespread problem with one-way streets because the import was
inconsistent in one-way polarity. Those are i hope mostly fixed by
now. I don't recall discussion of lanes, though.

My own street is similar, one-way and we have 1 travel lane plus both
side parking in reality and it's coded as lanes = 2.

IDK how or why.

As to the Bulk import , at the time, MASSGIS had better data than
TIGER so that was the basis in MASS. I'm cc'ing a couple folk who
might remember if lanes was odd in MASS GIS.
But if we're lucky someone from MASSGIS will speak up.

-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux

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

[Talk-us] Sarah Mildred Long Bridge Closed permanently (ME/NH)

[Bill Ricker]

Breaking news - pardon the pun -
   The lift bridge on US 1 Bypass between Portsmouth NH &  Kittery ME is
stuck in the up position. Permanently.
   It initially stuck "down", but they managed to get it up one last time
for a ship that wanted to exit port, by some expedient, but that killed
it.  It was scheduled to close permanently, to be scrapped, in just 10
weeks (November, at end of tourist season), with the under-construction
parallel replacement-span to bear the same name due to open Spring 2017.
   NHDOT & MeDOT considered fixing it one last time but after checking if
the jam, a problem they're rather too familiar with, was a hard or easy
jam, the cost for the short remaining life was deemed excessive.

Reference http://www.maine.gov/mdot/sml/


After waiting a day for a local to do so (after official declaration that
permanent closure was effective immediately), I have applied change-set

http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41726297#map=16/43.0860/-70.7612
to mark the bridge's 3 ways -

   - access=no foot=official bicycle=no
   - note=CLOSED - mid section of bridge is a lifted roadway stuck in up
   position 2016-08-22. Permanently closed 10 weeks early, will not reopen.
   new bridge due to open spring 2017.
   - (except: foot=no, level=4 on center span stuck in UP position; if
   you're official enough to get up there, you don't need OSM to find it! )

For the under-deck​ rail-crossing Way 150771571, v11
<http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/150771571> I only gave it the same 'note'
above, it didn't have access= routing tags, it's rail (and for special
federal trains only these days i hear).

I have also added map notes, one closed, referencing the above change-set
on existing center span, and one open, at approximate offset of the new
span, referencing the  MDOT project page as a TBD next spring.

I'm open to constructive criticism on better tagging ... or fix it and
share why ; e.g.,

   - Should we split the nodes where ways at level=2 joins level=4 ?  I
   could argue that ...
   - Maybe splitting the rail way at the lift towers; if so, its center
   span would be level=3, below center lift level=4, above the approach span
   highway at level=2
   - I considered either foot=no or access=official for the approaches.
   Having seen routing try to jump from way to way if close enough, i
   decided foot=official was fair.
   *Knowing as I did someone who died in an ambulance when this bridge was
   up, i don't want to route anyone that way accidentally ! Never again.*

( I note the retractable section of railroad deck that allowed low boats to
pass one of the side spans was never mapped. Neat feature. )

( *Lest I be accused of strictly armchair mapping, as a once-and-future
Maine-iac, I know that bridge well by its old official name, "Interstate
Bridge" which is ironic as it was never an Interstate System bridge
officially though it used to connect two I-95 segments. Originally was 3
rather narrow lanes ... was hell with trailer mirrors mounted in 1970s!   I
was planning on making extensive use of it in just a couple weeks, while
dragging the GPS around the harbor defenses of Portsmouth harbor. I'll be
reloading the Garmin's NewEngland card after this change-set percolates
through !  I hope to add my Maine retirement home to the map in a year or
three, but first we need to build it ...* )


-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux
​ http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Bill%20Ricker
​ <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:N1vux>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Proposing import of sidewalk data Seattle, WA, USA

[Bill Ricker]

As a mapper and map users whose household includes a wheelchair user, I
applaud the idea of routable curb-cuts and crossings.

What is the DB implication of urban ways trebling in ways, nodes is a
discussion that needs to happen - is this a real or potential problem?   Is
it easy to extract/filter for uses that don't require footpaths ?
​
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] IKEA vs Ikea?

[Bill Ricker]

On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 8:23 PM, Peter Dobratz <pe...@dobratz.us> wrote:

> this is an acronym


Right. IKEA would be correct ​usage everywhere else.
   In general i agree with you on mixed case for legibility, but 'Ikea'
would just be wrong, in this edge case.
Some acronyms e.g. radar laser and scuba have passed into lower case
usage in English, but otheracronyms remain full up, including NATO in
most style guides.  Some originally-acronym companies have nominalizd to a
proper noun, viz Necco and Nabisco, and now are equally or better
recognized thusly. But IKEA has not. Nor has NATO.
  *  (I can understand the Guardian using Nato on the web where they can't
use small-caps to avoid color-shift in in-line body text, but really, small
caps are still the proper way to handle weight/color of  in-line acronyms
in quality style guides. But in-line isn't a map's text's context, and is a
rendering choice the render-er can make.)

3 points-

Mis-rendering it will harm comprehension, not aid it.
  IKEA we recognize, but what word/language is Ikea ?
 - unlike Best Buy vs BEST BUY which is more comprehensible in mixed case,
as per usual

Mis-rendering it should annoy their corporate staff.
Not the way we want to gain corp attention.

​Mis-rendering in data capture prematurely discards information.
A render-er can choose to morph IKEA to Ikea or 'ikea'(small caps style),
but can't reliably choose to up-case Ikea, as it might be a local
place-name or surname.
​Preserve choice, preserve information.​

-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] How are US county boundaries legally defined?

[Bill Ricker]

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Eric Ladner <eric.lad...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Looks like the whole middle section got dragged as a bad edit or something.


​Or a bad import coordinate conversion from state or other local plane
coordinates​ if it affects the entire Co. / State.

-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Timezones in USA?

[Bill Ricker]

> I would think the decision on whether time zone boundaries should be
> in OSM should center on what the costs and benefits of having them
> in OSM are.  The costs seem likely related to how they will be
> maintained and whether they will be kept up-to-date, and the
> benefits are tied to those who would find the data useful.
>

​Agreed. ​

​A compatible layer from elsewhere would be good enough ​

​for most purposes, and possibly better for many.
​

> (I should also note that the boundaries of tz database regions
> change substantially less often than the actual time rules for the
> regions.)
>

​Quite so.
   But they can change both without a political boundary move and will also
move if the boundary they follow moves.
And can be moved unilaterally, it doesn't take consent of the parties
formerly and prospectively on the other side of the moved boundary.
   ​So it's more fluid than we expect in similar meta-relations like
municipality (which likely has on-the-ground markings, not only road signs
but also surveyors benchmarks at corners) or boundary
<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:boundary>=postal_code
<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dpostal_code> (which
typicall has no on-the-ground marking of boundary, only point markings at
the Post Office and Mail collection boxes will be labeled on the ground).

-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Timezones in USA?

[Bill Ricker]

​
​I see the attraction to including TZ data in the OSM, ​but the timezone
definitions are in flux more than most political boundaries.

Importing a snapshot of such without a committed project to keep it correct
with the latest boundary changes as announced regularly on the
tzdata/zoneinfo list ( moved to tz@iana now ) would make matters worse not
better.

Certainly we would like to support someone providing easy access to current
and preferably  past and future IANA TZ borders as overlays in OSM formats.

Whether core OSM is the right place to store and serve this is one
question;
what team/project commits to maintaining it another;
and how it can be structured to reuse OSM existing political entity border
relations without causing problems.

TZ borders are exterior of a sum-and-difference of other political
entities.  So a meta-relation of relations that need to be processed by
polygon combining algos prior to rendering. (Like computing a county
relation from sum of constituents, with interior sub-unit boundaries erased
by cancellation.)
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Odd road / odd structure

[Bill Ricker]

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:

> In the American context, this is an edge case, big time.
> ​
>

​What is old is new again.

Officer housing at old Fort Hamilton (Brooklyn, the Narrows) were laid out
with a Livable Street design before that was a name.  (They had service
alley or mews in the rear and grassy forecourts. The officers were expected
to walk to work on-base in the 1880's - 1910's.) I am familiar with this
because my favorite (maternal) uncle's favorite (maternal) uncle lived
off-post/on-post in old Officers Quarters after the base perimeter had
contracted but it was still Officer country (1928-1930) ... he lived on the
eponymous ​Hamilton Way [1] which is coded highway=footway [2] , which page
on our wiki suggests highway=pedestrian [3] if wider, and cross-references
[4] Path Controversy.
(Per OSM, the house still stands.)

​​ I would lean towards livable_street, since there's no separate sidewalk,
> no reasonable expectation you're going to go more than cycleway speed, and
> the main entries to buildings are on it​
>

​While 'livable street'​

​is an Urban Design term of at for the concept in some areas, I don't see
it in OSM wiki or taginfo ? [5] .  OSM seems to use the similar
highway=living_street  [6]  for low speed limits, pedestrian as primary but
not exclusive, which doesn't seem to be the case in the grassy-and-walk
shared front yards shown by the original question on thread here (but
without Mews/alley in rear). The living_street examples in OSM wiki appear
to be extreme traffic calming to restore in-street playability to 1950s
suburban, 1930s urban level but still tolerate commuter cars returning home
and a UPS delivery through the street-ball play, which is not the feature
exhibited by original post.​

​[1]  http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/5677149 ​
[2] ​http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=footway?uselang=en-US ​
[3] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpedestrian
[4] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Path_controversy
[5a] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=livable#values
[5b] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=livable_street#values
[5c] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=pedestrian#values
[6a] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=living_street
[6b]
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:living_street%3Dyes
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] TopOSM

[Bill Ricker]

On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Lars Ahlzen <l...@ahlzen.com> wrote:

TopOSM was never rendered on-the-fly. It's just a (very large) set of
> static tiles (currently hosted by Stamen).
> ​
>

​And that's appreciated.​

There's already the OSM cycle map which has a lot of the same features,
> though with a slightly different focus. I guess one advantage of something
> like toposm is that it can use higher-resolution data from sources like
> USGS, and uses US conventions for things like units, symbols and other
> cartographic details.
>

​Yes and yes
​


> Would it be would be worth picking it up again?
>

yes, but which goal? ​reordered:
​


> ​​To update it I'd have to either re-render and upload the entire set, or
> improve it until it can be rendered in real time. I was working on the
> latter [1] but never quite finished it.​
>
>
​If the horsepower to render it real-time is available, it would be nice to
have, but seems unnecessary.​
Cyclically updating periodically on a background process would likely be
good enough.
For 'real time', cycle-map is good enough.
The elegance of TopOsm is worth waiting for.​

-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Slack

[Bill Ricker]

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Martijn van Exel <m...@rtijn.org> wrote:

> IRC is still great for some but it’s hardly inclusive.


​Some projects have a web-portal to make IRC inclusive of those who can't
even configure Pipsin for IRC.



-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Slack

[Bill Ricker]

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 11:37 AM, Ian Dees <ian.d...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Slack offers an irc gateway if you'd prefer to connect to slack from your
> irc client. Just sign up for the slack team and look in the "integrations"
> section for information about how to connect your irc client.
>
​Our software consultancy is using Slack for communications both internally
and with the client (who adopted it internally at our suggestion). In
general it s very nice.

1) History evaporates quickly ... unless you have a paid account.​
   This may be good for Corps with (anti)retention policies, but could be a
problem for a FLOSS/OpenData project.

2) The Xmpp / Jabber gateway works with Pidgin etc, but is buggy and
inconsistent in handling of advanced/new  features (re-edited messages
don't re-send; multi-user private chat invites don't, emoji as
:smiley-cat:, display literal as data text with `markdown` only,  ...)
mapping down to traditional and back. I expect the IRC gateway will be
similar. The gateway should not re seen as a a panacea; try it before you
jump hard there!

​I do concur with sentiment of preferring to base open development on open
infrastructure.
​But if the freemium product provides sufficiently better capability, it is
not wrong to use it to enable the project.

-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] OSM in the news - BBC Radio Documentary Mapping the Void

[Bill Ricker]

BBC World Service Radio programme [sic] The Documentary playing for the
last several days has focussed on volunteer mapping, including OSM. Episode
title  Mapping the Void.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01wl743
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/worldservice/docarchive/docarchive_20140408-0906a.mp3


-- 
Bill
@n1vux bill.n1...@gmail.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] osm data on boston.com, perhaps, definitely not atttributed

[Bill Ricker]

Agreed.

The oddest thing to me is the behavior is specifically sensitive to being
iframed.
The src= link used directly has attribution

© OpenStreetMap http://www.openstreetmap.org and contributors, under an open
license http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright

but when used in iframe src= (exactly as shown as entire body)

Tiles courtesy of MapQuest http://www.mapquest.com/


If that's even correct on MapQuest (e.g. due to MapQuest ackn elsewhere on
page),
it should only be true if iframe referer is *.Mapquest.com not some other
site?

added thought -- If  osm.org is serving tiles *rendered* by MQ perhaps
*BOTH* are in order ! )
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] osm data on boston.com, perhaps, definitely not atttributed

[Bill Ricker]

Good work Greg !


-- 
Bill
@n1vux bill.n1...@gmail.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] US-Canadian boarder

[Bill Ricker]

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Metcalf, Calvin (DOT) 
calvin.metc...@state.ma.us wrote:

 I noticed this
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=44.524lon=-67.101zoom=10layers=M and
 really can’t make heads or tails of it. 


Way details
Way 121194904Details http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/121194904

   - *border_status*: dispute
   - *source*: geobase


Aren't you glad Mass isn't responsible for Maine's borders anymore ?  :-)

Bill in Boston
@n1vux bill.n1...@gmail.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-ca] [Talk-us] SOTM US Portland - Call for participation

[Bill Ricker]

On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Stewart C. Russell scr...@gmail.com wrote:

 Pfft ... host it in Franklin, then it could be in any one of 17 states -
 GA, ID, IN, IA, KY, LA, MA, MN, MO, NE, NH, OH, PA, TN, TX, VA, or WI!
 Springfield comes in at #5 in the popular city names, if my frantic
 grepping of the TIGER database is correct.


More useful for distributed function space availability would be ranking by
population of the low quartile, not strict count.   I don't know off-hand
which is the largest Franklin, but real competition is for smallest.

Both N.E. Franklin's are fairly  small (8k and 30k pop).  I'll be driving
near Franklin MA today; it's a speedtrap between the Wrentham Premium
Outlets Mall and the suburb of Milford whose greatest export is soccer-mom
T-shirts. Probably has a wedding reception banquet hall we could use, but
getting bandwidth and  A-V for a distributed event would be a challenge
without renting the big-dish-truck.

(Yes i know All Springfields was likely a joke. I wish it were true. Mary
Kay cosmetics has done distributed annual meetings for years, why are we
techies traveling? Oh, right, microbrews.)

-- 
Bill
@n1vux bill.n1...@gmail.com
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] [Talk-us] SOTM US Portland - Call for participation

[Bill Ricker]

 Do you have a story or project to share at State Of The Map US,
 Portland Oct 13-14? Now is the time to submit your abstract!
 ...



 See you all in Portland!


One assumes you mean the new Portland Oregon not old Portland Maine.

(Is it too much to expect OSM'ers of all people to realize there are more
than one Portland USA? I've rather given up on normals and non-geo-geek
geeks, but mappers ...)


-- 
Bill
@n1vux bill.n1...@gmail.com
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-us] SOTM US Portland - Call for participation

[Bill Ricker]

On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:

 That's pretty pedantic, when most people assume Oregon by default given
 that it's the largest city on the planet with that name.


Damn straight it's pedantic. And parochial. They're both proud traditions
here in old New England.

I accept that remembering that Portland might be ambiguous to some
ignorable percentage of the population that will
be disappointed and embarrassed at being fooled once again when it's of
course not our Portland that some wonderful event is coming to is just too
much to expect from the cool kids spinning off other events in hometown of
OSCON.

But I think it's fair to expect it of self-appointed geo-encyclopedists.

But I was a bit harsh to complain on it to Martijn, who being a recent
transplant may reasonably have assumed the big Portland USA was named for
Portland UK. Sorry Martijn. (Good luck with the Springfields as even the
Simpsons can't keep them straight.)


-- 
Bill
@n1vux bill.n1...@gmail.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Redaction bot is heading our way!

[Bill Ricker]

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com wrote:

 Well, here is a brief overview of the bot's activities for today.
 There are still a couple of areas that errored out or are still in
 progress but this should be most of it.
 http://ni.kwsn.net/~toby/OSM/redaction_bot_USA.png


Are the Red the decliners/blacklist and the Green ? whitelists ? or what
here ?

-- 
Bill
@n1vux bill.n1...@gmail.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Federally Funded Research RD Centers: landuse=military?

[Bill Ricker]

On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 8:21 PM, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote:

 some special deal with the government that they only take federal
 funding.


Actually one MITRE division accepted some State government and Civil
Fedederal (e.g. DOT) contracts as well as DOD over the years. They
typically have separate accounting to keep civil money separate from mil ...

As someone noted, these are all specially chartered non-profits. industrial
/ science park like CERN makes sense.

Regarding Lincoln Labs, I forget if they have military security on their
driveway; if so, landuse remains military and they're a tenant. If they
have their own industrial access, maybe they are industrial.

-- 
Bill
@n1vux bill.n1...@gmail.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] Addition of building footprints in selected U.S. and Canadian cities

[Bill Ricker]

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Kate Chapman k...@maploser.com wrote:

   I personally find [building footprints] makes the map far more usable
 for adding other information.


the coastal-swath NOAA LIDAR footprints imported is MASS are wonderful.
(Especially in Stamen watercolor tiles, but also in TopOSM render too. )

A Buildings layer is most useful if they're ubiquitous, not here-and-there
when interesting. As GPS mapping of individual houses is not accurate
without professional differential GPS -- 10m accuracy means i can't be sure
which corner of my house is which ! -- the choices are bulk imports or
tracing compatible imagery. When NOAA or a state has paid for LIDAR scans
and auto vector conversion, using that is efficient, and we can better use
volunteers to add value -- e.g. naming stores, as Kate says -- rather than
doing rote manual vector extraction from imagery.

There's quite enough for volunteers who *want* to do manual vector
extraction from imagery to do without tracing every darned house and barn
by hand!

-- 
Bill
@n1vux bill.n1...@gmail.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] name expansion bot (Re: Imports information on the wiki)

[Bill Ricker]

On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Val Kartchner val...@gmail.com wrote:

 In my area I know of two separate streets named E Avenue and an E
 Street.


Boston has E St, intersecting W 1st St, between D St and F St as you'd
expect. But W 1st St *crosses*  E 1st St at the grid discontinuity (extends
one block east of the oblique intersection with).

When a street further onto made-land than W 1st St was built, it was named
New Cypher St of course (cypher being an old word for zero).

http://osm.org/go/ZfIvnWyD

(I'd love to get planning approval for Negative One St beyond New Cypher
St, but  the new Convention Center fills the space.)

We also have a St James St, less well known since Greyhound moved their
terminal from there into a shared multi-mode hub.

-- 
Bill
@n1vux bill.n1...@gmail.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Analysis of US road network and TIGER status

[Bill Ricker]

Just a reminder that Mass. appears very edited in part because the
original load here was not Tiger but rather from MASSGIS (which has
not-too-dissimilar problems from Tiger, but at least had one-way
flags, even if it didn't know which way!).

-- 
Bill
@n1vux bill.n1...@gmail.com

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

Re: [Talk-us] Now you can see how much vandalism the OSMF will carry out on April Fools

[Bill Ricker]

On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 8:22 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote:

 remember reading that balrog-kun's automated edits will be exempted,


I wonder if there are other automated edits and imports from public
copyright that should be exempted but haven't been.

For instance, a Red-tagged way in my area (that NE2 edited later) was
imported by 'bemasc' ('Undecided')
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/27844130/history
with v1 attribution = Office of Geographic and Environmental Information
(MassGIS)
source = massgis_import_v0.1_20071009101959
which to me says it was created from the dataset we have permission to keep.
(Mass would be denuded if we retracted all MASSGIS imports, since that was
preferred source here not Tiger. Ben's was not the id used for most such.
Odd.)

-- 
Bill
@n1vux bill.n1...@gmail.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Now you can see how much vandalism the OSMF will carry out on April Fools

[Bill Ricker]

 This was split from http://www.openstreetmap.org/**
 browse/way/8814701/historyhttp://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/8814701/historyby
  bemasc.


ahh. So colored falsely as red, revert will undue all later changes but
leave the original way ?


-- 
Bill
@n1vux bill.n1...@gmail.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Question on connectivity

[Bill Ricker]

 How about using OSM Inspector as a background layer in josm or
 Potlatch?  It will point out possible routing failures.


Thanks that's exactly the workflow improvement I need to make cleaning
those up worthwhile investment of time.

(The other day I thought I'd run into another routing failure so ignored
Garmin telling me to turn here, and found out no, Connecticut really didn't
have a ramp where I expected.)

-- 
Bill
@n1vux bill.n1...@gmail.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Disney (was Re: access=destination vs access=private)

[Bill Ricker]

On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 2:42 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote:

 On 9/14/2011 10:50 PM, Bill Ricker wrote:

 And the sweep of Victory makes it not a useful shortcut to anywhere.


 I assume you mean Vista? Anyway, it could be used as a shortcut, but not
 much shorter than CR 535: http://g.co/maps/6uzx9


Right, from almost everywhere to almost everywhere, 535 would be better than
Vista. As long as the marked cast-member-only section of World Blvd is
access=private, routing should avoid it.

I took a wrong turn and wound up on Backstage Drive once, had to turn around
at the CM-only gate. I wanted the next *thru* right, not *next* right, and
was overzoomed on GPS so non-thru-road still looked like a turn. :-)

As I understand it, the guest-access roads should be access=destination, and
cast-member parking  roads access=private.




-- 
Bill
@n1vux bill.n1...@gmail.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Disney (was Re: access=destination vs access=private)

[Bill Ricker]

On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote:

 Is this still marked cast only? I haven't been on World Drive there in
 years, but I do know that as of last weekend the entrance from Reams i


I'll try to remember to look at signage on World Dr at Contemporary Dr when
I'm there in a few weeks. I don't seem to have a photo in the cross-walk in
the right direction.

If Reams to World is signed for guests, that explains why one of the Annual
Pass podcasters is entering that way routinely. i'll have to detour to come
back from shopping that way in January just for fun once :-)

-- 
Bill
@n1vux bill.n1...@gmail.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Disney (was Re: access=destination vs access=private)

[Bill Ricker]

On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:

 We're trying to figure out whether this sign restricts the use of the
 road, or if it's BS:


It asserts their right to uninvite  someone who provokes them and then order
them to leave, on pain of arrest for tresspass.
The sign prima-facie denies a formal or traditional right of way; it denies
access=yes and access=permissive.

Lacking proof that OC or FL have recorded a formal RoW (i saw that search
for such was, unsurprisingly, negative), the OSM tradition is to map the
signage, right?

So this could be access=destination , which should allow routing at ends but
not for thru traffic.

If they weren't  graded Tertiary or better, they'd highway=service, same as
any shopping mall's access roads -- which ought to used for routes as if
access=destination  -- it's just a bigger and more elaborate road network
within a single bigger, more elaborate enterprise campus, so needs explicit.

( In practical terms it matters not much.  Unless the short-cutting vehicle
is a truck whose cab or trailer is labelled for a retail chain, or gets
stuck under a low overpass, it is very hard for WDW Security to tell
a trespasser is not a guest without following them gate to gate. To become a
guest momentarily, all you need do is pull into a WDW hotel parking area and
walk in to ask a question about diner reservations. And the sweep of Victory
makes it not a useful shortcut to anywhere.   )

Will be down there for a couple days soon, but no car this trip, may not
pass this sign even on bus. Will pass it in January. As an annual pass
holder and DVC member deeded to BLT, I will pass that sign with a
clear conscience.


-- 
Bill
@n1vux bill.n1...@gmail.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Disney (was Re: access=destination vs access=private)

[Bill Ricker]

On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote:

 Yes, although the removal of the guard does make it possible to avoid the
 main gate and parking fee by making the whole loop and turning around at the
 Car Care Center (guests includes all theme park visitors).


A guard on Vista never prevented that, as claiming a reservation(even just
for dinner) at a hotel would have been sufficient to get through either main
gate or side gate and thus to the loop. Only a guard, on the ramp from car
care loop to parking, actively checking parking receipts, could prevent
that.

And one can legitimately pick up or drop kiss-n-ride guests at the TTC
coming thru Victory or World Drive main gate without parking or paying.
(Which means your friends can ride the monorail for free, while you drive
back to Walgreens for free parking. But if they don't eventually go to a
park ticketing point, they're still liable to being deemed trespassing
unless otherwise guests somehow.)

Hmm  when we have a few days at SSP in JAN i may use that loop - will have
parking pass, so no need to go through gate to get a receipt, and would be
using Victory from SSP.

-- 
Bill
@n1vux bill.n1...@gmail.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Disney (was Re: access=destination vs access=private)

[Bill Ricker]

Disney runs its own Reedy Creek Planning District (and Fire Dept], so some
records from the 1960's and 1970's might not be in OC's system; building
permits are filled with OC, but Land Use may not be in the system you're
looking at. Waste/Submerged would be correct status in 1960 prior to Disney
development, not current status. Sounds like that website is not current
source for Reedy Creek documents.

On Oct 1st, WDW will celebrate 40 years since opening day.
Land acquisition started in the mid 60's , as soon as Walt realized DLP was
getting hemmed in by Disney-fueled growth in Anaheim. The Bonnet Creek
parcel is the one enclave of non-Disney land within the development.

 There's a very nice history of the property in the American Surveyor
magazine, Mapping The World.
http://www.amerisurv.com/content/view/4387/153/
 backstory of article
http://www.wintertime.com/OH/Disney/WDW/WDW2006/ACSM.html

The thru-roads across WDW property might or might not be registered as
Public Right of Way against the deeds, but have been open to the public for
up to 40 years.

What is the goal here ?

Bill *o*

On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:

 On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 4:29 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  On 9/12/2011 7:17 PM, Anthony wrote:
 
  The fact that the land is owned by Walt Disney Parks does not preclude
  the fact that they have granted a right of way through it.
 
  According to Orange County property records, the 65.13 acres of land
  is owned by Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US Inc.  However, 11 acres
  of it is under the land use right of way (the rest is wasteland or
  submerged).
   http://beta.ocpafl.org/searches/ParcelSearch.aspx?pid=28241700017
 
  I don't know how this figure was calculated. But I've looked at records
 from
  Disney's beginning to the present day and no easement was ever granted to
  the public for this road.

 How exhaustive of a search have you done?  Did you check the previous
 owners?  When was the road first built?  Who built it?  When did
 Disney purchase the land?


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

Re: [Talk-us] Women trust GPS, drive SUV into Lake

[Bill Ricker]

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 6:15 AM, Mike N nice...@att.net wrote:
  I did check the OSM map to be sure there were no non-existing roads shown
 crossing the lake.

When NOT using turn-by-turn but boater-style azimuth-range guidance, I
have looked to turn down a county/town borders. Those gray lines go
straight to where I want to go, and can cross lakes.

-- 
Bill
@n1vux bill.n1...@gmail.com

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

[Talk-us] Boston parkways, was Re: Long-distance scenic roads

[Bill Ricker]

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
 I have been on Route 2 there, and it goes nowhere near the Science Museum.

Yes, that's correct. Route numbers do not need to follow named roads.
That road's changing names  numbers are never ending source of local
trivia and can confuse even local OSMers.  In Greg's defense, his
daily commute uses the other part of Rt 2 in Cambridge.

Rt 2 leaves Rt 3 as 3 becomes Mem Drive, 2 then crosses into Boston;
US Rt 3 S diverges from MA Rt  16 W and continues on easterly on Mem
Drive and turns into MA Rt 3 at 2A (Mass Ave?) before it crosses
Longfellow Bridge aka Salt'n'Pepper Bridge into Boston (to followed by
 1-93 to Rt 128) - If Land Blvd which extends to MOS.ORG dam and the
Prison Pt Bridge has any route designation, I'm unaware of it. OSM
seems correct on this.

This inter-leaving of US 2, US/MA 3, MA16, and US 20 and MA 9 is
simplified in the folksonomy.

To add to the difficulty the emerald necklace MDC Parkways have the
obvious continuity even though they change name frequently and rarely
carry a route # for long.

The parkways that for a time carried US 1 S had it re-routed along
I-93 S and one exit of I-95 N and are no longer even badged 1A, though
some US 1 signs are as yet out there.  [
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/U.S._Route_1_in_Massachusetts#Relocation_in_Boston
]


-- 
Bill
@n1vux bill.n1...@gmail.com

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

Re: [Talk-us] NE2: Changeset 6612910: What is?

[Bill Ricker]

On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:

  As far as Creek Turnpike and US 169, pics or it doesn't exist.

 Certainly, but given that stopping is prohibited and there is a minimum
 speed limit, how do you propose these be taken?


Dash mounted hands free video seems safer than explosive bolts on the wheel
to arrange for an opportune emergency stop.

A passenger that is a competent photographer in bright daylight might work
too


-- 
Bill
n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Proposal: delete census-designated place polygons

[Bill Ricker]

On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote:

 place=suburb doesn't work for inner-city neighborhoods.


nor for truly rural named crossroad settlements of no legal standing, of
which some yet remain

-- 
Bill
n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Reply-to field in list messages

[Bill Ricker]

On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Mike N. nice...@att.net wrote:

  Actually I inadvertently published a private email when I first joined
 because it was not set up to reply to the list.  I saw the weirdness, and
 thought it was like another list which had a dead reply-to address and got
 in the habit of manually putting in the listserv address instead of just
 reply, and didn't notice that the mail was only addressed to me.


Wow, that's a new one on me  and I've seen this argument for more
decades than most. Congratudelences on a unique use case !

-- 
Bill
n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] umapper, linux, and YOU!

[Bill Ricker]

I am still on Ubuntu Karmic, and can see a map on that link

adobe-flashplugin/karmic uptodate 10.1.53.64-1karmic1
firefox-3.0/karmic-security uptodate 3.5.9+nobinonly-0ubuntu0.9.10.1

-- 
Bill
n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Percentage of data imported vs mapped

[Bill Ricker]

On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 8:56 AM, McGuire, Matthew 
matt.mcgu...@metc.state.mn.us wrote:

 It would be fun to see the relative state to state activity and, of course,
 compare it to international activity



not having to reverse engineer the map since the  TIGER was available (and
other sources are coming available some faster some slower Eg, MASS was
loaded from state data not Tiger) results in much more 'studio' work (fixing
TIGER overpasses to pass over not intersect, fixing TIGER ramps to intersect
the motorway so oneways go right) and much less of what the rest-of-OSM call
'real mapping' field work. Every year in any community, there are a few new
streets, some new big buildings, a few realigned intersections, but there
are no vast areas of white empty map to go on a mapping expedition.

My biggest challenge is figuring out a workflow for fixing turn restrictions
on existing intersections.


-- 
Bill
n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] MassGIS source/attribution tags

[Bill Ricker]

On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 7:39 AM, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote:

 then I'd say that sounds good.


+1

-- 
Bill
n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Resigning in protest

[Bill Ricker]

On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 6:43 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote:
 this change is pretty
 much necessary for OSM to achieve its goals. my new employer runs all
 this stuff through their lawyers; they would probably not approve the
 CCBYSA and probably would approve the new license, as it rather exactly
 addresses the things that they worry about.

My current $DayJob is unlikely to use OSM data* but we likewise have
lawyers review FLOSS licenses same as for commercial licenses, and in
my role I am one of the software people liaising with Legal on these
issues. What we can do with 'copyleft' licenses**  is much more
restricted than things with BY-ish *** or simply CC-ish terms (Apache,
MIT licenses). From that stand-point I see the new license as a great
step forward.

  * (a $DayJob++ which did use OSM data is one of the few upgrades I
can imagine)
 ** (Copyleft is SA for software, GPL is the best known)
*** (and those only if it doesn't require brag screens: BSD2 Ok, BSD1 no)

As to Process:  communications in a volunteer movement is often, if
not alway, deeply flawed. This is to be expected: If we were
communicators not mappers, we'd be in Toastmasters Inc, not in OSM.
The few that are good at both are precious, but may still wish to
spend some of their time mapping!  At least the OSMF is still by and
for the volunteers who choose to upgrade to OSMF membership, and not
run by and for the paid office staff, as so many foundations wind up.
The LWG process appears to have blind-sided some heads-down mappers,
the LWG heard its own message and assumed others did, and has not
chosen to continuously over-communicate outside their list  wiki.
That seems to me a well-intentioned lapse, and might have been
sensible, as continuous argument on all lists might have annoyed More
folks than the seeming blindsiding.
 Why didn't we get much warning here? Lately, talk-us has been
distracted by the urgent necessity of a Chapter, which I will
grudgingly admit has been transparently communicated quite well here,
mostly avoiding misunderstanding (and Kate nipped one or two in the
bud with charming humility).  This may have lead us to expect loud
announcements here on any other changes, but our self selected talk-us
leaders/representatives are busy getting standing to represent us in
license negotiations with Governments, not with OSMF.  If both needed
doing, sooner is better for each. Oh well, murphy strikes again.

I can understand a Process objection, as, although as volunteer
process goes, I'm favorably impressed, that is a matter for personal
opinion and emotion: headsdown mappers who are overtaken by events may
feel real pain this week or soon, and I would not deny that very real
human reaction.

I can understand and respect that someone for whom CCBYSA is a weak
compromise for 'Information wants to be free' who wants to see 19th
Century Intellectual Property concepts whither in the 21st Century
prefer  maximally viral copyleft licences in the meantime. In that
line, I note the PD-User tag proposal, and will give that due
consideration. While agreeing much IP law reform is needed (and that
DMCA  ACTA aren't it), I do wish creatives still be *able* to retain
some rights to their work, whether opt-in or opt-out.

I can understand that someone who sees the slippy map as 'the OSM'
might feel the new license is too weak, but the old saw of Tag for
the database not the renderer applies: OSM is the planet.osm file,
not the Mapnik slippy. If someone copyrights an embellished jpg output
by mapnik with their style guide, it harms me not, as I can still
output any Mapnik jpg I like, however similar or different, so long as
I don't sign THEIR name to it.

For the purposes of building a open central single mapping database,
the new license seems well balanced to my jaundiced eye, and fits my
uses better, and will allow the BBC to show our maps.

-- 
Bill
n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com

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

Re: [Talk-us] Resigning in protest

[Bill Ricker]

On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Dave Hansen d...@sr71.net wrote:
 Some very smart lawyers at very big companies in the US

and in law schools also based on what i read on web

 claim that PD  doesn't really exist,

as Congress has mangled our laws, that seems to be the state here now:
Copyright is innate in all creative works, with no opt in nor opt out,
only licensing. Some Rights signed away in life revert to heirs upon
death, and under the Mickey Mouse Act, survive 75 years. Exactly how
extending the copyrights of the dead retroactively served the single
specific end specified in the Constitution of encouraging practice of
useful arts escapes me ... Walt Disney has drawn no mice by his own
hands since the extension ...

 outside what would otherwise be government-held  copyright.

Yes, According to the IP gurus I've read, the closest to true PD
recognized in current US law is US Govt Copyright.

 PD might make it worse.

CCPD, CC0, MIT, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL are all attempts to
codify the intent of PD or as close as one can get in current US Law.
CCPD/CC0 and the {{PD-user}} tag have the advantage that if the
digital revolution ever results in an opt-in copyright system or legal
establishment of opt-out / real PD in US law, the dedication to PD may
be recognized retroactively.

  Let's just blame the lawyers. :)

It should be a conflict of interest for a lawyer to sit in a legislature.


-- 
Bill
 IANAL but i actually read the stuff
n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com

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

Re: [Talk-us] US meetups?

[Bill Ricker]

 Some of the Meetup groups I organize have switched over to Facebook because
 a majority of the mappers are already using the service, its super easy to
 do and free


Coming from a computer security  privacy background as I do, Facebook is
even more off-putting to me than Meetup. Their open-sourcing their base code
is nice, but ... their privacy policy and App security almost justifies
Apple's closed garden model.

-- 
Bill
n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] US meetups?

[Bill Ricker]

On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Jim McAndrew j...@loc8.us wrote:
 Who is paying for these meetup.com groups?

Even if someone pays -- CloudMade did at one point, back when there
were Ambassadors -- I won't log into that service, period. The local
MySQL group uses it, and I find their Meetup invites a real turnoff.

One yahoo group/list I am on self-spams themselves from a yahoo
calendar, seems less obnoxious.

-- 
Bill
n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com

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

[Talk-us] OSM in the Linux press

[Bill Ricker]

As seen on OpenGeoData @OpenStreetMap Twitter --

@openstreetmap http://twitter.com/openstreetmap Jon '*maddog*' Hall's
Picks OSM for one of Today's Six Best OSS Projects
 http://opengeodata.org/jon-maddog-halls-picks-osm-for-one-of-todays

=
http://www.linux.com/news/software/applications/301412-jon-maddog-halls-picks-for-todays-six-best-oss-projects-

Backstory -- Jon 'maddog' Hall is currently Executive Director of Linux
International, longtime board member of Usenix, and writes a monthly column
for Linux Magazine (the US one, not the UK one). He was one of Linus
Torvold's earliest supporters in industry, and is perhaps the premier
graybeard spokesperson for FLOSS. For ideas for the 'list' column, Jon
polled his local LUG mailing list for nominations. Although I am in Boston,
I subscribe to the GNHLUG list since the groups overlap and they have
interesting discussions, and I shop their table at the big hamfest. Both
GNHLUG and BLU had gotten briefed on OSM by Richard Weait a couple years
ago. So two of us independently nominated OSM to Jon for his list, not
knowing the other was doing so. In a small enough poll, two votes wins!

-- 
Bill
n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Whole-US Garmin Map update - 19-03-2010

[Bill Ricker]

So do all SD-cable Garmins handle huge map files equally well or not ?



-- 
Bill
n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com

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

Re: [Talk-us] the meaning of trunk in the US

[Bill Ricker]

Does  your language

there are generally no driveways with direct access.


refer to single-family driveways or businesses?

I took a look with GoogleEarth. [It's ok, I'm not mapping that road.] The
divided section with 2-lanes plus turn-lanes cut into the median is
certainly not a motorway but is pretty good. There are so many turn lanes
it's in no way limited.

Usage here in Massachusetts, Trunk was used for divided,  limited access
that didn't quite make Motorway for reasons i can't elucidate;  divided with
driveways is is tagged Primary.

So I would say 301 is a Primary, at least in towns and areas where turn
lanes are frequent.
It might be Trunk in the boonies where left turn lanes are far between?

We could use a  biit more guidance in the wiki ..

-- 
Bill
n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging

[Bill Ricker]

On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 5:45 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:

 I can think of several interstates that are unpaved and undivided,
 though all of them are in Alaska.


wow that's news to me. Are they limited access ?
How do those get tagged? highway=trunk, surface=dirt, divided=no  ?

The exception that proves the rule means *tests*  as in proof-testing gun
or armor. ...

-- 
Bill
n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] script for adding layer=1 to bridges

[Bill Ricker]

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 2:13 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:

  I've noticed that a lot of bridges don't include a layer= tag.  I
  suspect this is because they render OK in mapnik...but not so well with
  osmarenderer.  (Consider the railroad
  in
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=33.76931lon=-84.53762zoom=17layers=0B00FTF
 .)

 I'd suggest to modify Osmarender rather than the data, then.


No this is  Tiger import data, the data arrived  wrong and was half
corrected. (much of tiger has intersecting nodes where there should be
bridges. some bridge insertion went without layering), It missing all but
implied layering of bridge-nature. What we can't tell without checking
satellite view is whether the bridge is at grade level with the Railroad in
a ditch, or if the bridge pitches up over the RR.

If two otherwise uncorrected tiger records cross with a bridge, the bridge
should be level-of-other + 1 , which normally would make it layer=1 as Tiger
has no layers.
If three, hard to tell which is top ...



-- 
Bill
n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] script for adding layer=1 to bridges

[Bill Ricker]

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 8:47 PM, David ``Smith'' vidthe...@gmail.comwrote:

 Since some people consider
 the entire layer tag to be tagging for the renderer these people
 probably don't think it's important to add thorough layer information;


I would agree with your disagreement with such people. But I understand
their confusion. The *naming* of layer=* is unfortunately renderish, but it
carries real meaning beyond the oldschool mapmakers' plate masks. I would
wish the tag:layer had been more abstractly named tag:level. ah well.

I would also prefer real altitudes on all points rather than ordinal
relative levels (whether misnamed layer or not), but that's a bit of an ask.
And would cause semantic problems when ways become buildings (foundation or
roof elevation? include vertical segments?).


Ordering of the bridges in
http://www.stockphotopro.com/photo-thumbs-2/stockphotopro_33168BXD_no_title.jpgfrom
top-most to bottom-most is Data.

Likewise ordering of tunnel ramps weaving out of our Big Dig is Data.

It is DATA that a Transit line is in a uncovered ditch even when it's not
under a bridge.

Some non-rendering data-using software (or a person using data access) will
want to know up from down.
Silly example -- I could write a script to find examples of various
topological knots in the interchange ramp network, and which is under or
over at a crossing is critical.
Truck routing really need to know headroom at each underpass too, but we
don't have that usually.


-- 
Bill
n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Nokia N900 ?

[Bill Ricker]

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 6:56 AM, Claudius claudiu...@gmx.de wrote:
 Are you referring to OSM2Go?

I think that is the one the N8x0 owners have recommended. Thanks for the info.

-- 
Bill
n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com

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

Re: [Talk-us] Import of EPA data

[Bill Ricker]

On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote:

 I am generally in favor of imports.  But EPA superfund site data seems
 to be getting close to there should be mashup with this data and osm as
 the baselayer as opposed to importing it.


+1

-- 
Bill
n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Maine Turnpike ?

[Bill Ricker]

Is anyone in Maine (USA) working on the Maine Turnpike?

When down east recently I noticed I was getting routing that wanted to
turn at overpasses. I de-tiger-ied exit 48 and the US 302 overpass,
dropping spuious inter connect nodes and adding bridges, checking
ramps; but the whole thing needs scanning.  If someone who's a
year-round Mainer as opposed to my once-and-future status is working
on it I won't butt in.

-- 
Bill
n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com

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

Re: [Talk-us] More Garmin Maps

[Bill Ricker]

The Lambertus maps are very nice, drove around a bit today.


-- 
Bill
n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com

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

[Talk-us] Routable Mass Re: Whole-US Garmin Map Update

[Bill Ricker]

On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote:
  roads are disconnected at state boundaries due to being cut with a
  non-splitter tool.  (splitter has special logic to insert nodes on
  ways at tile boundaries.)  I think I had this problem when using
  e.g. massachusetts.osm.bz2

i expect Massachusetts to be even stranger routing than rest of US
since the MassGIS file replicated nodes in each town file.  we had
talked of programatically collapsing the dup nodes.

I also am downloading Lambertus maps both from Dave and Lambertus to
experiment with.

(I don't  mind having routing on built-in and details on OSM ... as i
only have coarse builtin map and only use routing for through-routes,
i use range-and-azimuth for terminal guidance.)

-- 
Bill
n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com

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

Re: [Talk-us] More Garmin Maps

[Bill Ricker]

On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Shaun McDonald
sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk wrote:
 I don't think the Cloudmade-created maps I posted last time are really
 meant for daily use.  I think they're intended to help people track down
 and survey things like missing street names.

 That's correct, they are the error/noname edition.

I like those for everyday use ... i can notice the noname streets as i go by.

-- 
Bill
n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com

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

Re: [Talk-us] Whole-US Garmin Map Update

[Bill Ricker]

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 7:55 PM, Dave Hansen d...@sr71.net wrote:

  I'll  try it on my 76csx eventually .

 That's what I've got.  It seems to work pretty darn well.


That's very good news. Here in new england the state files are just too
small, one can drive across several and back on one tank of gas, and my
attempt to follow instructions to merge a newenland img file choked on the
bounding-box overlaps due to non-convex borders.   I was annoyed when i
drove off the map yesterday. -- the cloudmad qa map for Massachusetts covers
98% of Rhode Island since its cradled in Cap Cod's shoulder, but not the
southernmost tip of Newport where i was exploring a fort and incidentally
mapping yesterday. But passenger new the right detours so got some key
waypoints for future use too.

-- 
Bill
n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Whole-US Garmin Map Update

[Bill Ricker]

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.netwrote:

 so is there anything i should do/try/whatever?



have you used your state's cloudmade map that he built these from? they can
be a little hard to read, i crank backlight full and adjust viewing angle to
optimal.

-- 
Bill
n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Massachusetts County reservoir tagging Re: Salt Fork Lake rendering issue

[Bill Ricker]

On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Seth Fitzsimmons s...@mojodna.net wrote:

 That looks likely.  Quabbin Reservoir (Western MA) is also rendering
 similarly:
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.3749lon=-72.2847zoom=12layers=0B00FTF

 Last I checked, landuse=reservoir is being rendered like natural=water
 even though it shouldn't be.  With the MassGIS OpenSpace import, lots
 of landuse=reservoir polys were imported and represent protected
 areas, not water.


Looks like tag use in the import was wrong as well as spelled wrong. So when
Seth fixed the spelling it flooded the county.

too much water in Holden and adjacent towns on all three -
Mapnik,  Osmarender , CycleMap render
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.3728lon=-71.8307zoom=14layers=00B0FTF

compare to
http://toposm.com/ma/?zoom=15layers=B000lat=42.3518lon=-71.8634
which uses MASSgis hydro layer.

Mass GIS landuse of was imported, but those borders are the protected
watershed boudary,  not waterline. Was tagged Landuse=resvoir, and ignored,
until Seth noticed typo. Now are being rendered as wet to the property
boundary.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/29759122
*source*= MassGIS OpenSpace (http://www.mass.gov/mgis/osp.htm)
*landuse*=reservoir

Per Wiki, the three Renders are all correctly interpreting tag
*landuse*=reservoir
as water surface.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dreservoir

landuse=basin looks closer to the sense of the imported poly
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dbasin

Comment?


(I stumbled on this looking at the RailTrail.)

--

-- 
Bill
n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us