Re: [Talk-us] Cycleway Crossings

[Harald Kliems]

Yeah, I think the defaults in iD are most likely what's causing this
tagging. I've seen a lot of it in my area as well.
 Harald (hobbesvsboyle)

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 1:36 PM James Umbanhowar  wrote:

> I think that iD doesn't have a preset for cycleway=crossing so that
> editors may think that is not a valid tag for a crossing.
>
> On Fri, 2020-08-07 at 14:04 -0400, Doug Peterson wrote:
> > That wiki page was helpful. In one set of cases the change was from
> > highway=cycleway on the way to highway=footway and adding
> > footway=crossing. In another set it added highway=crossing to the
> > intersection node. It looks like from the crossing wiki that the
> > tagging should really be on the node. Way can be tagged as a crossing
> > but it seems discouraged. The footway wiki indicates footway=crossing
> > should also be on the node.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Doug
> >
> > Mateusz Konieczny  wrote ..
> > >
> > >
> > > Aug 7, 2020, 13:11 by dougpeter...@dpeters2.dyndns.org:
> > >
> > > > I have noticed in my area where some people have been adding
> > > > crossings to a designated
> > > cycleway (named and signed as a bike trail). The crossings are
> > > fine. It is that
> > > the crossing is then been changed to a footway.
> > > link?
> > >
> > > > I have looked at the highway=cycleway wiki and not seen anything
> > > > addressing crossings.
> > > There was one screenshot that seemed to show intersections or
> > > crossings with roads
> > > remaining as cycleways. Before I made any effort on changing these
> > > back I wanted
> > > to ask if there was any other knowledge out there about this.
> > > is https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing maybe helpful?
> >
> > ___
> > 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
>


-- 
Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] United States Bicycle Route System ballots pending AASHTO approval

[Harald Kliems]

Another quick update: Work on the relatively short USBR 230 segment is
complete as well. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10967108

 Harald (hobbesvsboyle)

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 6:37 PM stevea  wrote:

> I just finished entering the last 15% - 20% of USBR 50 in California as a
> "first draft" into OSM.  Thanks for entering the first 80% or so, Bradley:
> teamwork!
>
> SteveA



-- 
Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] United States Bicycle Route System ballots pending AASHTO approval

[Harald Kliems]

I'm happy to report that the proposed WI segment of USBR 30 is complete
now. My route relation skills are a little rusty, and so it's possible that
some of the forward/backward sections may have QC issues, but based on what
I saw in JOSM's route editor, things look pretty good. If anybody has the
time, a quick check would be appreciated.
https://osmrm.openstreetmap.de/relation.jsp?id=3346668
I'll get the USBR 230 segment up in the next couple of days.
 Harald (hobbesvsboyle)

On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 6:36 PM stevea  wrote:

> Of course, my recent introduction of three PROPOSED routes to the USBRS
> left out the word "proposed."  My apologies.  If/as the routes are approved
> by AASHTO later this year, we may remove the "state=proposed" tag and move
> them in the wiki from the Proposed section to the Approved section.  Just
> dotting my is and crossing my ts.
>
> And thank you both Harald (for asking around) and Bradley for terrific
> progress on USBR 50 in California!
>
> SteveA
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>


-- 
Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] United States Bicycle Route System ballots pending AASHTO approval

[Harald Kliems]

As Bradley pointed out, Google Street View and Microsoft Streetside both
show a "no trespassing" sign. However, Street View imagery is from 2012;
Streetside from 2014. So maybe access restrictions have changed since then.
I'll check the Slack channel to see if anyone has local knowledge about
this.
 Harald.

On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 4:23 PM Kerry Irons  wrote:

> Bradley,
>
> All I can say about Tong Rd. is that this is the recommended route from El
> Dorado County, and that RideWithGPS recognizes it as accessible.  Not to
> say that RWGPS is infallible, but the fact that Strava heatmap shows
> regular usage is a strong indication that it is indeed open.
>
> I'm not familiar with how the "private road" concept is implemented in
> California, but in Michigan I know that unless posted with something like
> "closed to public" private roads are treated as open to the public.
>
> The eastbound route goes to the ramps on Lincoln Hwy to make a U-turn onto
> NB Silva Valley Pkwy and then onto Tong.
>
>
> Kerry
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Bradley White 
> Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 5:08 PM
> To: Kerry Irons 
> Cc: OpenStreetMap talk-us list 
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] United States Bicycle Route System ballots pending
> AASHTO approval
>
> Completed Placerville to Folsom - couple questions.
>
> Is the suggested segment along Tong Road accessible to the public?
> It's a recommended "neighborhood connector" according to the Western El
> Dorado County Bike Map and appears to see decent traffic according to
> Strava heatmap, but the parcel map for El Dorado County doesn't show it as
> a right-of-way, and the old (probably out of date!) California Cross State
> Bicycle Route Study says that the roadway has been gated off and was under
> investigation as to whether it was open to the public or not. Signage at
> the end of Old Bass Lake road seems to suggest the road is private (street
> view with that-which-shall-not-be-named), but I have often seen these signs
> up along a road where the land around the road is private but the road
> itself is a public ROW.
>
> Also, there is no physical crossing to turn EB from Silva Valley Pkwy onto
> Tong Rd - one would be required to either dismount in the middle of the
> road and walk, or bunny hop up over the median crossing four lanes of
> traffic. There are also no crosswalks to circumnavigate the barrier
> anywhere around. I have added a crossing here as a footway with
> crossing_ref=none but this seems dubious to me and difficult to tag
> appropriately.
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>


-- 
Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] United States Bicycle Route System ballots pending AASHTO approval

[Harald Kliems]

Thanks for the update, Steve. I'm user hobbesvsboyle -- anybody who wants
to work on this, feel free to reach out by email or OSM message. Thanks to
the large on-trail sections of the route, getting this into OSM shouldn't
be too difficult.
 Harald.

On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 6:16 PM stevea  wrote:

> There are at least three new national bicycle routes in the USBRS!  To
> help OSM "get ahead of the curve" of the May 2020 Spring AASHTO ballot (may
> not be completed until June / July this year), USBR applications by state
> DOTs are available, allowing OSM to enter these state-at-a-time national
> bicycle route data.  Currently,
>
> USBR 30 in Wisconsin,
> USBR 230 in Wisconsin and
> USBR 50 in California
>
> have been "seeded" as route relations and need to be fully entered into
> OSM.  Please visit our wiki
> https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/United_States_Bicycle_Route_System#Proposed_USBRs_in_OSM
> for links to the route data ballots.  OSM-US has explicit permission to
> enter these.
>
> If you're in Wisconsin, please contact user:hobbesvsboyle via OSM missive
> to coordinate entry of USBRs 30 and 230 into OSM.  If you are in California
> (or even if not!) and want to enter USBR 50, helping to build Earth's
> largest official cycling route network, check out our wiki, follow the
> links to the turn-by-turn and map data and have fun!
>
> SteveA
> California
> USBRS-in-OSM guy (among other hats I wear)
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>


-- 
Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-ca] Tagging sidewalks as separate ways and issues with bicycle routing

[Harald Kliems]

On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 10:17 AM Martin Chalifoux via Talk-ca <
talk-ca@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> What cities allow cycling on sidewalks anyway, seriously ? This sounds so
> inadequate. That it is tolerated is one thing, but outright legal or
> encouraged ? Makes no sense to me.
>
In the US that's pretty common. For example here in Madison (Wisconsin),
sidewalk riding is generally allowed by ordinance, except where buildings
directly abut the sidewalk (I manually tag those as bicycle=no).
 Harald.
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

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

[Harald Kliems]

German native speaker who has lived in the US for a good while and works in
health research.  Jmapb's definition sounds pretty good to me. I think the
"accept walk-ins" may not be a great distinguisher. I can think of several
clinics here that don't accept walk-ins, and my small dentist practice does
accept walk-ins.

For the "usually named": I'd say a clinic would never not be named, but a
small doctor's office may still be named, as in your dentist example. Seems
less likely outside of dentistry.

In general, clinics are just more common in the US than in clinic because
of the structure of the healthcare system, which makes it quite difficult
to run a single-physician office (with the exception of certain
subspecialties or in certain locations).

 Harald.

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 5:52 PM Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 1/23/20 22:42, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > There may be a disconnect with what the US (or that spammer) means.
> > Could I get a clarification on the difference between "doctors" and
> > "clinic" as you understand it?
>
> Personally (and in my country - Germany) there's precious little I would
> tag as a clinic; in everyday language we use the (german version of) the
> word clinic more or less synonymous with "hospital", with the possible
> exception that we'd also apply clinic to something that deals
> exclusively with non-illness-related things like e.g. a beauty clinic or
> a drug rehab clinic. In my language, a clinic would always be something
> where you can (and usually do) have a bed and stay for longer until the
> treatment is over. A building with a couple of different medical
> practitioners might be a "Gemeinschaftspraxis" ("shared practice") or
> perhaps an "Ärztehaus" (doctors' house) but not a "Klinik". Then again
> these would hardly ever be open 24/7...
>
> I'm not trying to apply my understanding of medical establishments to
> the US - just asking what the general understanding is on your side of
> the pond. Does Jmapb's distinction sound more or less ok for others too?
> He wrote:
>
> > amenity=doctors:
> > * are usually operated by (and even named for) a particular doctor (or a
> small partnership)
> > * are usually either a general practice or specialize in a small number
> of areas
> > * often require an appointment
> > * usually have typical daytime business hours
> >
> > amenity=clinic:
> > * are usually named like a business
> > * feature a larger medical staff, often rotating
> > * offer treatment for a wide variety of issues
> > * generally accept walk-in patients
> > * often have extended hours, including 24/7
>
> Is this "usually named ..." really a thing - I have a feeling that
> especially with dentists, even (what seems to me like) one-doctor
> practices will often be called some thing like "Bay Area Smiles Family
> Dentist" or something like that.
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>


-- 
Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Railway improvements; stations vs. halts

[Harald Kliems]

FWIW, the German wiki page for railway=halt has a section that acknowledges
that the German definition and international usage differ: "Outside the
German-speaking world, railway=halt is defined as an unimportation railway
station that only has the most basic equipment and isn't staffed (in
Germany this would correspond to railway station categories 6 to 7)."
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:railway%3Dhalt#Internationale_Definition

 Harald.

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 10:23 PM Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> According to the wiki page, railway=halt is mainly used for "A small
> station, may not have a platform, trains may only stop on request."
> The presence of points/switches is only significant in Germany.
>
> I would recommend reverting to railway=station for any which have
> platforms and are regularly scheduled places for the train to stop.
>
> -Joseph Eisenberg
>
> On 1/8/20, Clay Smalley  wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Over the last few months, I've been doing some systematic improvements to
> > the passenger railway network across North America. Much of this has been
> > filling out public_transport=stop_area relations for every railway
> station,
> > including stop positions and platforms, as well as verifying the geometry
> > of the underlying railways and classifying them (usage=*, service=*). My
> > goal here is to prepare the map such that route relations can be more
> > meaningful and accurately describe which track each train uses.
> >
> > In the course of doing this, I got a tap on the shoulder [1] and found
> out
> > I was using a definition of railway=halt that may not match up with what
> > people were expecting. As far as I know now, railway=station was
> originally
> > intended for stations where trains are always scheduled to stop, and
> > railway=halt for flag stops (aka request stops). In the German OSM
> > community, there was a decision made for railway=halt to be used on
> > stations that are missing switches, which means trains cannot switch
> > tracks, terminate or reverse direction there—a distinction more relevant
> to
> > railway operations and scheduling. Naturally, there are quite a lot more
> of
> > these than flag stops.
> >
> > I'm in a predicament here. So far, I've mapped all Amtrak stations and
> > various commuter rail stations across the Northeast according to the
> > no-switches definition of halt. I'm happy to revert these back to
> stations
> > (wherever they aren't flag stops), though I'd like to hear others'
> thoughts
> > before going through with that.
> >
> > -Clay
> >
> > [1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/77959450
> >
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>


-- 
Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Proposed mechanical edit - remove objects that are not existing according to source of GNIS import that added them

[Harald Kliems]

On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 9:31 AM Martijn van Exel  wrote:

> The benefit is that it gives mappers a reason to examine places - not just
> the disappeared feature itself but also the area around it - that would
> otherwise go unexamined. Since we have so much unexamined space in the
> U.S., any opportunity to spark mappers’ curiosity about some of that space,
> is a welcome trigger.
>

I have certainly have had that experience when participating in various
MapRoulette challenges: You come for the non-existent landing strip; you
stay for half an hour to clean up the messy TIGER roads. However, given
that there are so many other MapRoulette tasks that will lead you to remote
areas and _can't_ be automated, I'm fully in support of Mateusz's automatic
edit.

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

[Talk-ca] Bike infrastructure in OSM

[Harald Kliems]

I just learned that US-based bike advocacy organization People for Bikes is
going to expand their "Bicycle Network Analysis" (BNA) to the following
Canadian cities: Toronto, Calgary, Winnipeg, Vancouver, Ottawa, Halifax,
Saskatoon, Edmonton, Montreal, Hamilton, Mississauga, Brampton.

What is the BNA? It uses data about the a number of characteristics of
roads and paths (e.g. number of lanes, speed limit, existence of bike
lanes) to calculate a "traffic level of stress." For more detail, you can
watch this presentation at SOTM-US:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgyynQDPQnQ

The first round of BNA analysis happened last year in a large number of US
cities: https://bna.peopleforbikes.org/#/

Of course, the analysis can only be as good as the underlying data, and so
I'd encourage everyone to improve the tagging of bike-relevant
infrastructure in those cities. There is a tagging guide available here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HuAXQUnCEcv9aLZyIDHkLTJ5ZSKfB-U4MlJSmN-1BLk/edit

Apparently the data pull will be on February 16. So not a lot of time.

I think it's a great project, and we have used it for our bike advocacy
work in Madison (Wisconsin). And of course having great data about bike
infrastructure in OSM is desirable outside of the project as well.

Cheers,
 Harald (hobbesvsboyle)

-- 
GPG Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] New MapRoulette challenge to address highway class flip-flops

[Harald Kliems]

Hi Martijn:
I just tried the challenge, and all of the first four tasks that came up
produce an "area too big" error in JOSM (long highways in very rural
areas). Is there any way to fix this? Or maybe warn people to not use JOSM
for this challenge?
 Harald.

On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 10:37 AM Martijn van Exel  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Per Matthew Darwin’s request on Twitter, my team prepared a MapRoulette
> challenge for ‘highway class flip-flops’. What does this mean? Consecutive
> ways that have a suspicious change from one highway= value to another and
> then back to the former. This happens sometimes when mappers change the
> highway= value for some way but miss a bridge somewhere. An example is
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/53514358#map=19/51.23309/-116.65373 where
> the bridge is marked as residential but the two adjoining ways are marked
> as unclassified.
>
> You can find the challenge at https://maproulette.org/mr3/challenge/3588 and
> your feedback is very welcome.There are ~300 tasks.
>
> If you have other ideas for challenges to clean up / review existing data
> let me know and we can discuss.
>
> Martijn
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>


-- 
Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Business Improvement Area tagging

[Harald Kliems]

To me this is a clear case of something that doesn't belong in OSM. It
sounds like the boundaries aren't verifiable on the ground and may change
frequently. Therefore any data in OSM would go stale quickly and the only
verification of accuracy would be to go back to the source.
Yes, we have deviations from the "verifiable on the ground" rule, but we've
had similar discussions for census boundaries, ridings/election districts,
and on the the talk-us list recently about Bureau of Land Management
boundaries.

For your analysis of businesses within a BIA, you can just download the OSM
and BIA boundary data separately and do the analysis in the GIS application
of your choice.

 Harald.

On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 6:32 PM Matthew Darwin  wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> I'm not sure if this applies to other provinces or not, so I thought I
> would ask here.
>
> In Ontario there is a concept of "Business Improvement Area" ("BIA" for
> short) that has the power to tax businesses within their zone  (see
> http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page1529.aspx for details).
>
> I want to tag these in OSM, so then you can run a query to find all
> businesses within a BIA. Sometimes the boundaries of the BIA are very tight
> and just cover things that are actual businesses, and sometimes the
> boundaries of a BIA are very loose and cover lots of area including
> residential... and when a new business comes up later in that area it
> automatically is a part of the BIA.
>
> I am thinking that the *relation type=boundary, boundary=local_authority 
> *might
> be applicable here, and define either a Canada specific definition maybe
> just Ontario, depending if the concept exists elsewhere.
>
> I would like to get people's opinion on this idea  Or please suggest
> something else.
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aboundary%3Dlocal_authority
>
>- type =boundary
>
>- boundary =
>local_authority
>- name =*
>- local_authority:CA
>
> 
>=BIA
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>


-- 
Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-us] Review named junction nodes

[Harald Kliems]

Yeah, this seems to be a PA Turnpike thing. The first Maproulette task I
got was this https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/xaK6JK7CzFYTEfkAp_kwtQ
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/345383389

 Harald.

On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 4:39 PM Martijn van Exel  wrote:

> I found a case[0] where the name is definitely legitimate, so I added a
> warning to double check with available street level imagery, plus an
> example to the challenge instructions.
>
> Martijn
>
> [0] https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/33991781, and see
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?focus=photo=shRl1-KeI59im7hZSmsJig=40.21940429158758=-79.60234247987415=17=0.6058084012090132=0.35483101059177824=2.2895309990765194
>
>
>
> On Nov 6, 2018, at 1:17 PM, Martijn van Exel  wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I created a MapRoulette challenge to review named junction nodes. Since
> named junctions are very uncommon, most of these should probably be edited.
> There’s only a few hundred of them so we should be able to review these
> together pretty quickly.
>
> https://maproulette.org/mr3/challenge/3253/task/5881462
>
> (I also wrote a post on how to create challenges in the new MapRoulette
> because some things have changed / are new:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/mvexel/diary/46863 )
>
> Let me know if this makes sense to review!
>
> Martijn
>
>
> ___
> 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] OSM map use w/o attribution at US News & World Report

[Harald Kliems]

Yeah, same for me: https://i.imgur.com/t7VuFDB.png
Maybe they fixed it *very* rapidly?
 Harald.

On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:37 AM Levente Juhász 
wrote:

> Maybe I am missing something here but when I checked the link you provided
> I can see the proper attribution displayed in the Leaflet map. Screenshot:
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EBzE3_0Lc6qVkKeYYhYbpz9CFrWOiGpc/view
>
> Cheers,
> Levente
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 12:51 PM Steve Friedl  wrote:
>
>> [trying this again]
>>
>> Good morning,
>>
>> I've never done a use-without-attribution case before, would like to get
>> some suggestions before I dive in. I'm pretty sure this is a "substantial"
>> violation.
>>
>> It seems that US News & World Report is using OSM data/maps without
>> attribution in their Health website; my opthalmologist's page
>>
>> https://health.usnews.com/doctors/jared-younger-768369
>>
>> includes a map that I instantly recognized as OSM.  I make it a point to
>> enhance the maps every time I have an appointment somewhere, and I had
>> done
>> substantial cleanup of the maps in the northeast corner of Brookhurst &
>> Ellis in Fountain Valley.
>>
>> The *current* map doesn't look much like the one in the US News page:
>>
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/62921271#map=18/33.69463/-117.95174
>>
>> because of my subsequent changes, but - among other things - the spurious
>> and incorrect segment of "Ellis Street" just below the main Ellis Street
>> was
>> leftover Tiger data that I'd fixed as well on changeset
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/62921271
>>
>> Digging in, it seems that US News runs their own tile server (example
>> tile):
>>
>> https://maptile.usnews.com/tile0/12/707/1640.png
>>
>> so this is clearly them and not (say) Leaflet.
>>
>> Their terms & conditions page https://www.usnews.com/info/features/terms
>> has
>> a helpful email address copyrightag...@usnews.com that invites contacts
>> about copyright issues.
>>
>> So, I think I should be following the procedure here:
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lacking_proper_attribution
>>
>> with a polite note to them.
>>
>> Am I on the right track?
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> ---
>> Steve Friedl // Software & Network Security Consultant // 714-345-4571
>> <(714)%20345-4571>
>> st...@unixwiz.net // Southern California USA // I speak for me only
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
> --
> Levente Juhasz
> https://blog.jlevente.com/
> ___
> 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] Gravel roads and surface tags in the US

[Harald Kliems]

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 1:10 PM Rihards  wrote:

> While possibly correct for western Europe, more eastwards that is not
> correct. A lot of compacted roads. By distance, probably more than paved.
> Pure gravel usually is reserved for smaller segments where very low
> travel speed is expected - like service roads for new residential
> development, driveways etc.
>
Yeah, I grew up in Germany, and while we have almost no unpaved
highway=unclassified and above, there is a dense network of agricultural
and forestry tracks that would fall under the current surface=compacted
definition. These generally have access restricted to non-motorized traffic
and forestry/agricultural use. Stuff like this:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/ZAojzG2aPvD01BGF2
Funnily enough, the way in that picture is also tagged as surface=gravel.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/40755302

So I guess we North Americans aren't the only ones confused about this.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Gravel roads and surface tags in the US

[Harald Kliems]

I think compacted is definitely the best way to tag, but I agree with
Toby's point that common terms conflicting with OSM terminology is going to
lead to lots of errors. Looking at my own edits, I have mistakenly used
surface=gravel quite frequently. Not really sure what to do -- a "did you
really mean to tag 'surface=gravel'?" error message/tooltip in the editor?
I think actual gravel in the sense of the wiki is quite rare.

 Harald.

On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 6:38 PM Jack Burke  wrote:

> I've been tagging roads like that as compacted, once I learned more about
> the surfacing tech.
>
>
> -jack
>
> --
> Typos courtesy of fancy auto spell technology
>
> On April 18, 2018 6:19:07 PM EDT, Toby Murray 
> wrote:
>
>> I recently bought a gravel bicycle to ride on the many gravel roads in
>> Kansas. Like this one:
>> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=nYO4JI46L0SWzNAQlLT4kA=photo
>>
>> First question: What would you call this road? Obviously I am calling
>> it a "gravel road" but a couple of people have said they would call it
>> a "dirt road" so I'm curious if there are any other common terms to
>> describe this type of road in different regions of the US.
>>
>> Second question: How would you tag this road? There is a
>> surface=gravel tag that is in pretty common usage in Kansas and
>> neighboring states. However looking at the wiki page for the surface
>> tag[1], this is not wiki-correct. According to that page
>> surface=gravel is to be used for large rocks (4-8cm) that are laid
>> down loosely like those typically used as ballast on railroad beds. I
>> believe The Mapillary picture I linked to would be considered
>> surface=compacted according to the wiki because the rocks are much
>> smaller and the surface is stabilized with a binding agent. There is a
>> big difference between the two when it comes to bicycle riding.
>> Railroad ballast is bone jarring and flat tire inducing whereas gravel
>> roads are pretty manageable on the right kind of bike.
>>
>> But If you call something a "gravel road" and there is a "gravel"
>> option in the editor preset for the surface tag, people are going to
>> choose the gravel option and not look for "compacted" since that is
>> not a common term here. I assume it is a more common term in the UK
>> and that is why it is used in OSM.
>>
>> And lastly there are trails that are surfaced with a similar material
>> but crushed to a smaller size like here:
>> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=iQNqP-dfQ-Rm6AD9REMsgQ=photo
>>
>> I'm trying to decide if that is better as surface=compacted or
>> surface=fine_gravel although fine_gravel seems to be a slightly
>> different process from what I see on the wiki.
>>
>> Maybe this should be directed at the tagging list but I thought I
>> would get thoughts from the US community since we seem to be the ones
>> using the tag incorrectly (according to the wiki)
>>
>> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface
>>
>> Toby
>>
>> --
>>
>> 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-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names

[Harald Kliems]

See also:
https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/19609/saint-or-st-is-there-an-official-osm-policy

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 2:50 PM James  wrote:

> http://saultstemarie.ca/
>
> thats how its written. even on signs to there
>
> On Feb 16, 2018 3:47 PM, "OSM Volunteer stevea" 
> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 16, 2018, at 9:41 AM, Matthew Darwin  wrote:
>> > St. Catharines, St. Thomas, Sault Ste. Marie
>>
>> I dislike sounding nit-picky, this really is meant as constructive
>> criticism, but let's expand these names so there are no abbreviations.  Our
>> wiki https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Names says "If the name can be spelled
>> without an abbreviation, then don't abbreviate it."
>>
>> Thanks,
>> SteveA
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Meaning of lcn tag - designated route, or any cycling infrastructure

[Harald Kliems]

I agree with your interpretation of the meaning of the lcn tag. I suspect
this may be a case of mapping for the renderer, where people want bike
lanes or other infrastructure to visibly show up on OpenCycleMap or
elsewhere.
 Harald.

On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 1:41 PM Mike Boos  wrote:

> Hello
>
> I've noticed some users have begun tagging some roads in a number of
> Canadian cities with lcn=yes tags, which are intended for marking local
> cycling routes. My understanding of the lcn tag was that it was intended
> for marking designated routes, not just any old way that is potentially
> bikeable or personal preferences cycling routes.
>
> For many roads, the lcn tag seems redundant, since these ways are already
> tagged with cycleway=lane or something similar, and there is no
> accompanying lcn_ref tag to provide information on individual route names
> or numbers (if they exist). Other roads have been tagged, but have no
> infrastructure or signage, which suggests someone is simply marking their
> personal routes.
>
> I'd like to think I have some sort of expertise in what constitutes an
> official local cycling route in my area, having served as a member and
> later chair of the Kitchener Cycling and Trails Advisory Committee for
> several years. There are some signed routes that myself and others in the
> area have properly marked with relations. But is my understanding of what
> the lcn tag is for wrong? I'd like to know before I start cleaning things
> up.
>
> Thanks
> Mike
>
> --
> Mike Boos, MASc.
> mike.b...@gmail.com
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] A message aimed more at Ottawa

[Harald Kliems]

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 3:56 PM john whelan  wrote:

> Perhaps what we need is a way to tag cycle friendly streets.  Typically
> I'll use a mixture of minor side streets and paths when using the trike.
>
> So I'd prefer a routing that used these as much as possible rather than
> more major collector roads and you can't always determine from the speed
> limit if it's a cycle friendly road or not although I too avoid highways
> with a speed limit above 40 km/h.
>
There are efforts to identify bike-friendly streets based on OSM attributes
(and possibly additional data such as traffic counts). People for Bikes, a
large industry-sponsored advocacy org in the US has put money forward to
take the concept of "Traffic level of stress" and then use OSM-data to
calculate whether a specific street and intersection is low-stress or
high-stress. You can find a SOTM-US talk about the "Bicycle Network
Analaysis" project here:
https://2017.stateofthemap.us/program/bicycle-network-analysis.html

https://bna.peopleforbikes.org/#/

The bike advocacy group I'm involved with here in Madison (WI) has been
using the map/data generated through the Bicycle Network Analysis process,
and we're working on a validation process to a) figure out where our local
knowledge disagrees with the calculated stress value and then b) figure out
whether that's an issue of the underlying OSM data (spoiler alert: in many
cases it is) or a different issue. Happy to answer any questions about this.

 Harald (formerly Montreal, and therefore still subscribed to talk-ca)
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-us] Potential vandalism or very misguided edits near Madison

[Harald Kliems]

I am local, and yes, there is no good reason/explanation for those
deletions. Looks like a clear case for a revert. I'm not confident enough
in my revert abilities, though.
 Harald, Madison (WI)

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 2:09 PM Simon Poole  wrote:

> See at least the last 5 or so changesets here
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/JuggernautMapper/history
>
> Walter has already commented on one of the changesets but maybe somebody
> local should have a look at the edits and potentially revert.
>
> Simon
>
>
> ___
> 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-ca] Planning mapathon @ McGill in OSM Geo Week

[Harald Kliems]

There is a Montreal-specific listserv: 
Harald (who no longer lives in Montreal)

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 4:38 AM James  wrote:

> I think Pierre is a good contact for the local Montreal group.
>
> On Oct 24, 2017 11:02 PM, "Tim Elrick, Dr."  wrote:
>
>> Hello OSMappers,
>>
>>
>>
>> I am Tim Elrick, heading the Geographic Information Centre at McGill. I
>> am involved with organizing a mapathon at McGill in Montreal in OSM Geo
>> Week in November. I am reaching out to you to find local experienced
>> mappers to support us in the mapathon (I followed the discussion on talk-ca
>> in the last couple of weeks).
>>
>>
>>
>> It would be great if someone could get me in touch with local OSMappers?
>> (My idea was to go to the next OSM event in Montreal; however,
>> unfortunately, it seems too close to OSM Geo Week, to start the contacts
>> only then.)
>>
>>
>>
>> Beside the mapathon, McGill students who worked as volunteers at the last
>> HOT summit are currently setting up a mapping group (OMG McGill, Open
>> Mapping Group McGill). They slowly want to build up OSMapping expertise to
>> work on HOT tasks, Building Canada 2020 tasks as well as adding to OSM in
>> Montreal. The group would appreciate to have a contact to established
>> OSMappers here as well.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks a lot!
>>
>>
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Tim
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-us] Bicycle infrastructure

[Harald Kliems]

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 4:23 PM Richard Fairhurst 
wrote:

> Shoulder information is good, especially on rural roads. A simple
> shoulder=yes/no suffices. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shoulder

Yes to adding shoulder info! You may be talking specifically about
Martijn's query, but I just want to emphasize that surface information for
shoulders IMHO is crucial for biking. In my experience (NY, QC, ON, WI,
IL), an unpaved shoulder is of not much use for biking.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: Open survey on participation biases in OSM

[Harald Kliems]

Dear Zoe:
Thanks for doing the study -- I saw it posted earlier in OSM Weekly. I look
forward to seeing the results, whatever they may be.  And I'm quite ashamed
(but not surprised) by the open hostility your study is facing on this list
and elsewhere.

Best,
 Harald (hobbesvsboyle)

On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 3:51 AM Zoe Gardner  wrote:

> Dear All
>
> Further to my email yesterday regard, I would like to reassure subscribers
> here that the research is bona fide. I included a link to my University
> webpage in the original post which I thought would give the survey the
> required credence.
>
> I agree with Charlotte that it would have been more credible to send the
> post from my University email and this was my error. Apologies for any lack
> of uncertainty in this respect. Please do complete the survey if you are
> inclined!
>
> Best wishes
> Zoe
>
> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 7:36 PM,  wrote:
>
>> If it helps, I can confirm that I have met the researcher concerned at an
>> OSM meetup in Nottingham. We talked about the project a bit, and what's
>> been said about the research here doesn't differ from what was s‎aid then.
>>
>> Happy to answer questions from the US board if anyone thinks it will add
>> to the "web of trust" here :)
>>
>>
>> *From: *Charlotte Wolter
>> *Sent: *Monday, 4 September 2017 19:25
>> *To: *Talk-US@openstreetmap.org
>> *Subject: *[Talk-us] Fwd: Open survey on participation biases in OSM
>>
>> Follks,
>>
>> It would be nice if we could get some confirmation that this is
>> a real research projects being done by an actual researcher at Nottingham.
>> If it is legit, why is the return email address from Gmail rather than the
>> university?
>> Is there some mechanism that we can set up to confirm that the
>> research is for real, such as running it through the US board first? I
>> don't mind contributing to a survey. I just want to be sure it is for real.
>>
>> Charlotte
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Zoe Gardner 
>> To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org ...snip... talk...@openstreetmap.org
>> Subject: [Talk-us] Open survey on participation biases in OSM
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear OSM talk subscriber
>>
>> I am a Research Fellow in the Nottingham Geospatial Institute at the
>> University of Nottingham in the UK, interested in participation biases in
>> geospatial crowd-sourced projects such as OSM and other Volunteered
>> Geographical Information (VGI) projects. My current research project is
>> concerned with the way in which participation biases in OSM may potentially
>> affect the usability of the data that is collected and subsequently what is
>> available to location-based service providers that use OSM as their primary
>> geospatial database.
>> The project is motivated by recent research that has found a strong male
>> bias in OSM participation. This has led to assertions that various
>> geospatial knowledge could be under represented or poorly recorded on the
>> map. However, the actual consequences of this bias remain little explored
>> or reported. By collecting information about contributors to OSM, which can
>> then be analyzed along with their editing patterns, the impacts of this
>> bias might begin to be measured and therefore better understood. I have
>> therefore published an online survey designed to collect information
>> directly from OSM editors and I would like to invite as many of you as
>> possible to participate. The survey is anonymous and takes a couple of
>> minutes to complete.
>> If you are an OSM contributor and are interested in or would like to
>> participate in the study, please click on the link below, which will take
>> you to the Bristol Online Survey website where you will find more
>> information and an opportunity to participate in the survey. As a small
>> incentive, at the close of the survey in a few weeks' time, 60 respondents
>> will be drawn at random to receive a £15 Amazon voucher.
>> To participate in the survey, click on the link below:
>> https://nottingham.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/osm-user-profiles
>> Please do think about participating. It is hoped that knowledge about the
>> way participation biases impact on crowd-sourced maps will enable new
>> strategies to be developed to address any resulting voids in the geospatial
>> information provided by amateur mappers. In turn this could strengthen the
>> role played by platforms such as OSM in urban planning and sustainability,
>> and could raise the profile of the important mapping work that you all do.
>> In the meantime, if you would like to know more about me, my research
>> activities or the project, please visit my University webpage (link below)
>> and do not hesitate to get in touch directly or via the OSM messaging
>> service.
>> https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/engineering/people/zoe.gardner
>> Thank you
>>
>> Zoe
>> ___
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>> 

Re: [Talk-ca] Ferry key on ways

[Harald Kliems]

My question would be how the different levels of ferry are defined. What
makes a ferry a "trunk ferry" versus a "primary ferry"? Its speed?
Capacity? Not allowing pedestrians and bikes? My suspicion is that the
classification in the end comes down to which types of roads the ferry
connects, which IMHO doesn't tell you all that much useful about the ferry
itself. That said, I don't see much harm from classifying ferries according
to their connecting roads.

 Harald.

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 3:54 AM Ionut Rus - (p) 
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> We are looking into adding the ferry key to ferry ways and we would like
> to have your input first. Looking at the wiki [1] it seems that this key is
> only in proposed stage.
>
> As a preliminary check from the 107 ferry elements (route=ferry) in Canada
> only 10 of them have ferry=* tag
>
> How would  you approach this topic? Do you think that it’s OK to add them
> in OSM?
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Ionut Rus
>
>
>
> [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ferry
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing

[Harald Kliems]

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 6:37 AM Marc Gemis  wrote:

> Oh , I thought position 2 was where the physical barrier ended. Must
> have misinterpreted the image
>
I had a quick look at the street level imagery (
https://goo.gl/maps/YYRH4eWpnjz or
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/2rwAZAKMKGnjVXFDgSvJkQ

So now I would actually say that putting the split at position 2 is wrong.
The exit has two exit lanes, and you can exit into the left exit lane all
the way up to where the split is right now. Only the right exit lane has
the solid white line starting at 2.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing

[Harald Kliems]

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 12:09 AM Marc Gemis  wrote:

> I thought the "standard" was to put the exit and entrance nodes at the
> place where there is no physical barrier. Continuous white lines
> should be mapped with change:lanes and should have no impact on the
> position of the node. So definitely position "2".
> IMHO This is illustrated by the picture on
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lanes


Please note the footnote on the wiki page though: "There is *no* physical
separation between the upper two lanes and the lower ones, just a double
solid line. While the editing standards

 recommend to split the ways only when a *physical* separation is present,
in many regions the ways are already splitted in case of a legal separation
like a double solid line. In such a case both resulting ways should be
tagged with lanes =2."

So if we go by what is called the "editing standards," the example that
Horea posted is correct as is, with a split at position 2 being common but
not exactly right because there is no physical barrier. To me that makes
sense, as we also wouldn't map a two-lane road with a double yellow line
but no median as separate ways.

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

Re: [Talk-us] People For Bikes Connectivity Tool

[Harald Kliems]

Clifford:
I've been in touch with Spencer about updating data in Madison, WI. I'm a
longtime OSMer and vice president of a local bike advocacy group, Madison
Bikes. In both those capacities I'm really excited about this project. We
have a supportive Metropolitan Planning Organization with good data, and I
think we'll be able to mobilize a bunch of bike folks with great local
knowledge for a successful mapathon. We're trying to document the whole
process so that other communities can follow the model. I think having the
support of an existing local OSM community, or at least a handful of local
powermappers is pretty important for projects such as these to succeed.

 Harald (hobbesvsboyle)

On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 6:11 PM Clifford Snow 
wrote:

>
> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Spencer Gardner 
> wrote:
>
>
> People for Bikes has been encouraging cities to make sure their bike
> networks are up-to-date in OSM so you may see some activity in your
> respective cities. We have produced some training materials to introduce
> users to tagging bicycle facilities in OSM (and referring them to LearnOSM
> for more general training).
>
>
> Spencer,
> What cities have shown interest into updating OSM? There may be local
> mappers that would be interested in help the city add to OSM.
>
> On another thread, do you plan to submit a presentation to this year's
> SOTM-US conference?
>
> Thanks,
> Clifford
>
>
>
> --
> @osm_seattle
> osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

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

[Harald Kliems]

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 3:28 PM Joshua Houston 
wrote:

> It occurred to me that "man_made" is an outdated term that should be
> phased out from OpenStreetMap language. The philosophy of OpenStreetMap is
> very inclusive and that should be represented even in the way data is
> tagged. I'd like to propose to change the key from "man_made" to
> "human_made" and start a discussion on it. Many parts of society are trying
> to implement a more inclusive language, NASA for instance has changed
> "manned missions" to "crewed missions". I think it is an important goal to
> make OSM inclusive whenever there is a choice.
>
Given that such a change would affect all of OSM, wouldn't it be more
productive to have this discussion on talk@ instead of talk-us?

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

Re: [Talk-us] RRFB Tag

[Harald Kliems]

The wiki page seems to suggest that it should be flashing_lights=button
instead of having the separate button_operated tag. But I'm not sure if
that tagging actually makes more sense than the one you suggested.

 Harald.

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 4:40 PM Spencer Gardner 
wrote:

> Perhaps I can answer my own question. I hadn't noticed the
> flashing_lights=yes suggestion in the wiki. So does a scheme like this make
> sense?:
> crossing=uncontrolled
> flashing_lights=yes
> button_operated=yes
>
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Spencer Gardner  > wrote:
>
> Is there a conventional way to tag Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons
> ?
> These are effectively crosswalks with additional signage and user-activated
> flashing yellow lights. The crossing=traffic_signals tag seems more akin to
> a HAWK 
> signal (similar to European "Pelican") and doesn't really work for RRFBs
> since there's no real traffic control.
>
> Spencer
>
>
> ___
> 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] Combined parking/bike lanes

[Harald Kliems]

Bradley, in colder climates the difference is more than aesthetic. A lot of
these bike become unusable for people riding bikes in the winter because
they don't get fully plowed to the curb and then parked cars take up the
whole remainder of the lane. Admittedly, this often also happens where
there is a striped bike lane, but the paint seems to keep the bad parking
somewhat in check. Example, also from Madison, of painted separation
between bike lane and parking:
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/915muSHHc8hk1qgOe6eDlA You can see that
some cars on the left are encroaching to some extent, but it's much better.
But yeah, not sure what a good solution for tagging is.

 Harald.

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 12:12 PM Bradley White 
wrote:

> > Hi all. Has anyone worked out a good tagging scheme for combined
> > bike/parking lanes? I'm not sure how common they are elsewhere but there
> > are a number of such facilities in my city.
> >
> > For reference, you can see an example here:
> >
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=43.06056159=-89.45121134=17=XByvWxyrk9quLK-noyoB5g=photo=mapbox_streets
> > Notice the bike lane sign above the speed limit sign and the cars parked
> on
> > the side. These are also accompanied with pavement markings indicating it
> > is a bicycle facility. In effect it's like a regular bike lane next to a
> > parking lane, but there's no stripe to separate the two.
>
> These types of lanes are relatively common in parts of northern
> California as well; since the physical space is still set aside for
> both parking and cycling, and the only difference is the inner line of
> paint (which is more a "stylistic" choice on part of the agency), I'm
> not convinced this needs special tagging. The tags suggested earlier
> are what I would use:
>
> > parking:lane:(right/left) = parallel
> > cycleway:(left/right) = lane
>
> ___
> 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-ca] Mapping exit numbers and destinations in Canada

[Harald Kliems]

Hi Manohar:
It is my understanding that including destinations in the name is an
artifact of people tagging for the renderer (and/or tagging destinations at
a time before there was an established tagging scheme). If you search
through the talk-ca archives, you should be able to find some discussions
on the topic.
 Harald.

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 7:25 AM Manohar Erikipati 
wrote:

> Hello everyone!
>
> Turn restriction sprint was met with an amazing response! We loved working
> with you all on adding turn-restrictions in Canada. We appreciate the
> timely help and suggestions we got which helped us add correct restrictions
> and to also maintain the quality of data we were adding on to
> OpenStreetMap. We hope that this support will continue further, as we are
> embarking on mapping exit numbers and destinations in the same 5 cities of
> Canada.
>
> We have made an easier workflow [1] with tasking manager [2] for adding
> exit and destinations. We would like your assistance, participation and
> continued involvement in the project. We have captured the details of this
> task here [3].
>
> After a preliminary look into the already mapped exit numbers and
> destinations, we have these observations:
>
> - We noticed that `destination` (places, cities) and `destination:ref`
> (highways) tags are being added to the nodes of exits as `name` tags.
> - Few exit nodes have destinations given in the `ref` tag.
> - The `destination:street` (towards streets, avenues, boulevard, rue) tags
> were not being used.
>
> To begin with, we have one question: Destinations given in the name tag of
> nodes is not usual protocol for adding these tags. We want to make sure
> whether it is valid or if we could change these tags to the `destination`
> based tags accordingly. For more details, here's the complete breakdown
> [4]. To reach out to more audience, we have captured this in a OSM diary
> post [5]. We would like to hear from the community about the agreed method
> of mapping exit numbers and destinations to take this forward.
>
> 1. https://gist.github.com/manoharuss/3a1b4f640aaf2c052365fcb1ddb09beb
> 2.
> http://cfn-tasking-manager-staging-vpc-387856624.us-east-1.elb.amazonaws.com/project/20
> 3. https://github.com/mapbox/mapping/issues/220
> 4.
> https://gist.github.com/poornibadrinath/9333f1489732c32c3ffadd58e3068b7e
> 5. https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/poornibadrinath/diary/39246
>
> Thank you!
>
> Cheers,
> Manohar Erikipati
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?

[Harald Kliems]

All these discussions are the reason why I almost never touch the highway=*
tag and rather add surface=* or other descriptive tags to TIGER roads.
There just isn't any consensus and many good reasons for many positions
about residential, unclassified, track, etc.

 Harald.

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 5:50 PM Eric Ladner  wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 5:01 PM Kevin Kenny 
> wrote:
>
>> I'm usually talking about mapping in much more remote areas, and I've
>> been using 'track' more to denote more road quality. In some of the
>> places I go, there are public rights-of-way that haven't been
>> maintained by the counties in decades, that would still be lawful to
>> drive on if you had a vehicle that could do it. They range from
>> "completely grown to trees but you can most likely ride an ATV"
>> through "mostly used for forestry, and high-clearance vehicles
>> shouldn't have much problem, but don't try it in a passenger car" to
>> "pea gravel and sugar sand that someone grades once a season, used as
>> an auto road in the summer and a snowmobile track in the winter."
>
>
> Isn't that what "tracktype=gradeX" is for?   The first case would be
> highway=track; tracktype=grade5, the second probably tracktype=grade2 and
> the last tracktype=grade1.  They're all highway=track (utility/farm vehicle
> access), but just different grades (from grassy cow paths up to hard packed
> gravel/clay roads that are, in some places, probably nicer than most back
> water county paved roads.
>
> You mentioned forestry, so naturally I think of logging roads.
> Technically it's public land, so there's no restriction to access, but for
> all intents and purposes, they are highway=track.
>
> The
>> first is "highway=path" with appropriate notations for what uses are
>> permitted, the second is "highway=track" (I could add "access=yes" but
>> I thought that was the default for all highways); the third I'm less
>> sure about, and I'm inconsistent between "track" and "unclassified"
>> (with restrictions of 15 May-15 October, or whatever the season is).
>> These are all roads where I have to keep reassuring my city-bred wife,
>> "yes, this is a public road, even if it looks like an abandoned
>> driveway!" when driving a 4WD down one.
>>
>
> General public access roads, though, in extreme rural areas where the road
> is not what city folks would call a road -- probably would be unclassified
> with a "surface" qualifier (unpaved, compacted, dirt, earth, whatever).
>
> The description for highway=path says it's generally used for
> non-motorized vehicles.  I'd prefer highway=unclassified, also with a
> surface qualifier.  But...
>
> ... I'm not bashing anybody over the head with my opinion, just stating an
> alternate point of view.  I'm fine with whatever anybody wants to do as
> long as it's consistent and has some kind of rationale behind it.
>
> E
>
>
> ___
> 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] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?

[Harald Kliems]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 10:52 AM Steve Friedl  wrote:

> Ø  Unless something changed, I think both Potlatch and JOSM will remove
> the ‘junk’ tags from TIGER if you delete the reviewed=no
>
>
>
> I’ve deleted thousands of tiger:reviewed tags (after proper review) and
> have never seen JOSM take anything else along for the ride.  JOSM **does**
> remove the yellow glow around ways once you remove tiger:reviewed, but
> that’s all I’ve seen.
>
Russell is probably referring to this:
https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/7915
I think most of these are gone by now.

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

Re: [Talk-us] OSM attribution on website store locator pages

[Harald Kliems]

Might make more sense to directly contact Mobify as the map provider. I
have suspicion Pieology will have no clue what you're talking about and
wouldn't be able to fix it themselves anyway. Contact for mobify:
http://www.mobify.com/contact/

 Harald.

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 1:10 AM Hans De Kryger 
wrote:

> I see nothing on the entire site linking/mentioning osm. their emails
> i...@pieology.com if you want to contact them.
>
> *Regards,*
>
> *Hans*
>
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 9:08 PM, Peter Dobratz  wrote:
>
>> I'm seeing OSM data used more and more for generating the basemap onto
>> which things like store location data is displayed on store websites.
>> However, it's not always easy to find links to OSM attribution on such maps.
>>
>> Has anyone seen this?
>>
>> http://locations.pieology.com/
>>
>> There's a link to http://www.mobify.com/ in the lower-left corner, but I
>> can't seem to find any links to http://www.openstreetmap.org/ anywhere
>> on the page.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Gosh ... something about mapping ...

[Harald Kliems]

Very useful, Simon. Thanks!

Slightly OT: Can anybody explain what R5-5, "No vehicles with lugs" means?
I'm assuming it doesn't refer to vehicles like this
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_MyBrrEGexIg/TEIogw5nrdI/AFk/Jl7SF5tfQV0/s1600/L9990154.JPG


 Harald.

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 7:20 AM Simon Poole  wrote:

> To give us all a break from the usual political machinations at this
> time of year I've drawn up the following table
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/US_MUTCD_exclusionary_signs_to_OSM_access
>
> The context is the work I've been doing on
> https://github.com/simonpoole/beautified-JOSM-preset which is the
> default preset for Vespucci http://vespucci.io/ (obviously on mobile
> devices being able to touch an icon is preferable to typing).
>
> Any opinions on the mappings, and what would you consider signs that you
> frequently map?
>
> Feedback and patches welcome!
>
> Simon
>
>
> ___
> 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] Growing OSM (was OpenStreetMap US elections: October 12 townhall with candidates)

[Harald Kliems]

One example I encountered yesterday: A bike friend posted a link to
http://gravelmap.com/ on Facebook. It's a website where people collect the
unpaved roads that have become increasingly popular in the US cycling
community. The GravelMap slippy map is Google Maps, and I'm assuming their
data is also stored using some sort of Google infrastructure. This seems
like a prime candidate for collaborating with an existing community. Of
course the first response when I mentioned OSM was: "OSM surface data is
totally incomplete. Google MapMaker already has the surface data, so we're
better off using that."

 Harald (who started mapping when he still lived in Germany, where free (as
in beer and speech) maps were much harder to come by than in the US)

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 2:18 PM Marc Gemis  wrote:

> After 11 editions of "Mapper of the Month" in Belgium and number 12
> coming, we see that almost all people started mapping because they are
> coming for from Open Source/Data communities or because the other map
> solutions are lacking for their needs.
>
> They need a map for hiking, cycling, etc. and the commercial providers do
> not give them that.
> The map from the commercial providers is not updated fast enough.
> There are features (POIs, amenities) that are not available on the maps of
> commercial providers, examples: AEDs, bread vending machines,
> historical/listed buildings.
>
> Perhaps the maps of the commercial providers fulfil the needs of the US
> users better in those areas ? If not, why not contacting the communities
> for which those commercial map are not sufficient ? Isn't that more
> efficient than PR-message to the "whole" world ?
>
> Do we really understand why OSM is popular in e.g. Germany and the UK ?
> Are those reasons applicable in the USA as well, or why not ?
>
> regards
>
> m
>
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 7:16 PM, Andy Townsend  wrote:
>
>> On 14/10/2015 16:21, Steve Coast wrote:
>>
>>> (snipped)
>>>
>>> What we’ve tried so far:
>>>
>>> * SOTM getting bigger every year
>>> * We tried paid ambassadors at CloudMade, running mapping parties with
>>> some success but the timeframe was very long to see people turn in to
>>> editors.
>>> * We've tried making the web editor nicer multiple times (potlatch,
>>> mapzen, iD etc) and that doesn’t lead to meaningful growth in editors.
>>> * Mapping parties appear to have some traction, but take a long time
>>> * Getting schools involved appears to work briefly, then everyone goes
>>> home or to the next class
>>> * Competitions to map areas (google also tried this for mapmaker)
>>>
>>
>> From a UK perspective, what _definitely_ increases the short-term signup
>> rate is any sort of national press coverage.  Re social meetups, I don't
>> know whether any of other the local groups can report differently, but in
>> the East Midlands of England although we get a few OSM-curious people
>> coming along I don't think we've seen any new "heavy mappers" coming into
>> the project that way; people just stumble across the project somehow and
>> sometimes stick around.
>>
>> The rough analysis I did ages ago (in Italy I think) didn't suggest that
>> local "welcome messages" had an effect on retention (over the couple of
>> months that I looked at the data).  It didn't look at mapping quality
>> though; maybe there was an effect there.
>>
>> I suspect that "trying to be nice to newbies" has an effect (though I've
>> no idea how you'd measure that independently of other variables) and I also
>> suspect that "making the web editor nicer" has an effect too, but that
>> can't really be measured independently either.
>>
>> So I'd suggest just "get lots of press where the OpenStreetMap name is
>> used" and "be really helpful to the new mappers who show up, no matter how
>> many unwritten rules they break with their first edits"*.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> * It's worth mentioning that most "comments to new mappers" _are_ really
>> polite and helpful (see http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussions ).
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Cycle_greenway

[Harald Kliems]

I would map greenways/bike boulevards as lcn=yes or, if they have a name,
maybe as a lcn route relation. Other than that, I think it's more important
to map physical characteristics such as stop signs, bike-specific
infrastructure, diverters, and speed limits on those routes.

 Harald.

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 2:28 PM Clifford Snow 
wrote:

>
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Natfoot  wrote:
>
>> I have found some edits in the Seattle area that have cycleway:
>> cycle_greenway
>> I can find no reference to this tag within the wiki.   Can someone please
>> advise on the credibility of this tag. Also comment if someone is using
>> this tag in a rendering or other application.
>>
>
> Nathan,
> Seattle has a "greenway" [1]  program. I remember adding a route in
> Wallingford. I suspect the program is where the term came from. A number of
> mappers have touched the route in Wallingford since I did so my edits are
> long gone. I don't they they are being rendered other than as cycleways.
>
> Clifford
>
> [1] http://seattlegreenways.org/
>
>
>
> --
> @osm_seattle
> osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

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

[Harald Kliems]

Did you try clicking the Edit in JOSM button instead of using the
keyboard shortcut? For me, when I use the keyboard to get to JOSM,
Maproulette skips the task and opens another one in iD and JOSM at the
same. When I click the button to load in JOSM instead, all works as
expected.
 Harald.

On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 11:09 AM Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote:

 I too tried this task, and it marked as complete tasks that I was not able
 to finish.  The moment I
 pressed the key to load in JOSM, the task was marked as done.  It never
 loaded in JOSM either.
 ___
 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] New MapRoulette challenge - fix railway crossings

[Harald Kliems]

On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 4:01 PM Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote:

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

If that's the case, you should make that clear in the instructions. I have
marked a bunch of tasks as false-positive without checking based on the
rendering.

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

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

[Harald Kliems]

I initially got that message too. But when you re-select the challenge, it
will correctly show you the remaining ~19.5k tasks

On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 3:57 PM Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us
wrote:

 Martijn,
 I just checked and it appears the challenge is complete. Is that true?
 Less than 22 hours after you announced it?

 It is amazing what the community can accomplish is a very short time.

 Clifford

 On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote:

 Hi all,

 Partly inspired by Google making noise about saving lives by warning
 people about crossings (see for example

 http://www.transportation.gov/fastlane/fra-google-team-to-incorporate-rail-data-in-maps
 )
 I decided to take that same railroad crossings data from the Federal
 Railway Administration, massage it a bit and turn it into a
 MapRoulette challenge!

 Here it is: http://maproulette.org/#t=fix-railway-crossings

 I filtered out all 'historic' records in the original FRA file, but I
 did not cross check against existing OSM crossing tags. Even if you
 see a rendered crossing already, please do go in and check though - I
 find that sometimes the crossing node is actually not a shared node
 between the road and the railway.

 Have fun!

 Martijn van Exel
 skype: mvexel

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




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

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

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

[Harald Kliems]

I initially got that message too. But when you re-select the challenge, it
will correctly show you the remaining ~19.5k tasks

On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 3:57 PM Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us
wrote:

 Martijn,
 I just checked and it appears the challenge is complete. Is that true?
 Less than 22 hours after you announced it?

 It is amazing what the community can accomplish is a very short time.

 Clifford

 On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote:

 Hi all,

 Partly inspired by Google making noise about saving lives by warning
 people about crossings (see for example

 http://www.transportation.gov/fastlane/fra-google-team-to-incorporate-rail-data-in-maps
 )
 I decided to take that same railroad crossings data from the Federal
 Railway Administration, massage it a bit and turn it into a
 MapRoulette challenge!

 Here it is: http://maproulette.org/#t=fix-railway-crossings

 I filtered out all 'historic' records in the original FRA file, but I
 did not cross check against existing OSM crossing tags. Even if you
 see a rendered crossing already, please do go in and check though - I
 find that sometimes the crossing node is actually not a shared node
 between the road and the railway.

 Have fun!

 Martijn van Exel
 skype: mvexel

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




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

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

Re: [Talk-us] cycle.travel US bike routing, and unreviewed rural TIGER

[Harald Kliems]

Richard, I would somewhat caution against penalizing unpaved roads too
much. In many areas of the US they actually make wonderful cycling routes,
whereas the paved alternatives are high traffic and unpleasant to ride on.
Of course, proper smoothness tagging would help but that will be a long way
coming. Until then you could consider a user setting to avoid/not avoid
unpaved roads.
 Harald.

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 2:48 PM Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net
wrote:

 Just as a postscript to this discussion I thought I'd cite an example area.
 If you look here, in Georgia:

http://cycle.travel/map?lat=31.9023lon=-84.0398zoom=14

 you'll see that most of the roads are unreviewed TIGER residentials. Of
 those, these are adjacent to each other:

 http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/9359782 - good tarmac, should be
 highway=tertiary
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/9359913 - unpaved road;
 highway=unclassified, surface=unpaved
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/9359784 - probably tertiary, but lousy
 geometry at the S
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/9359783 - whoops, where did the
 connectivity go?

 All of this is trivially fixable but right now there's no way of using them
 for routing or sensible cartography. Do dive in - the cycle.travel
 rendering
 makes it obvious which bits need fixing, and you learn to identify the
 roads
 which are likely to be paved through roads and therefore targets to fix.
 It's quite good fun. :)

 cheers
 Richard





 --
 View this message in context:
 http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/cycle-travel-US-bike-routing-and-unreviewed-rural-TIGER-tp5848084p5848589.html
 Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

 ___
 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-ca] OSM data quality in Canada

[Harald Kliems]

A few things I can think of:

On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 3:13 PM Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote:

 * Are there any Canada-specific mapping and tagging conventions?

- There seems to be a strong consensus that what elsewhere would be
highway=unclassified is highway=residential, no matter if the road is in a
populated area or not.

* Are there any known big (national) issues in the Canadian OSM data?
 (misguided imports / bots, major tagging disputes, that kind of thing)

I believe these mostly affect Quebec, but there are two import problems
that never got systematically fixed, as far as I know:
- CanVec import of highways where lanes=-1 and surface=unpaved.
- CanVec or Geobase import where there is an extra blank between the street
type designation and the name. E.g. Rue__Sherbrooke instead of
Rue_Sherbrooke.

 Harald (now in the US)
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-us] cycle.travel US bike routing, and unreviewed rural TIGER

[Harald Kliems]

Well, you've certainly motivated me to from now on always modify the
tiger:reviewed tag :-)
Thanks again for your efforts!
On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 2:38 PM Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net
wrote:

 Harald Kliems wrote:
  Very nice, Richard! One quick comment: I might not be the only
  who doesn't always change the tiger:reviewed tag when fixing
  TIGER-imported roads. I don't know if that's technically feasible,
  but maybe it would be better to check if a way has been modified
  since import, independent of the tiger:reviewed tag.

 Absolutely. I did consider this and it's very feasible - osm2pgsql can tell
 you the user who last modified a way, and if it's DaveHansenTiger or
 woodpeck-fixbot, you can presume it's unmodified.

 Unfortunately, there are way too many false positives. Partly this is
 consequential damage (in particular, ways which have been split) but also
 bulk edits - for example, in several of states, people have assigned (say)
 maxspeed=35mph to all ways matching certain criteria, including dirt tracks
 tagged as highway=residential. This means the last editor is no guarantee
 that a residential is actually a usable paved road.

 After a few experiments (and I've been working on this all year, pretty
 much) I concluded that the tiger:reviewed tag is the only way of doing it.
 I'd restate that I'm only using this on rural residentials - anything
 unclassified or higher, or in an urban area, is assumed ok. Personally I
 have F6 assigned as a shortcut key in P2 for highway=unclassified for ease
 of quick retagging. :)

 cheers
 Richard





 --
 View this message in context:
 http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/cycle-travel-US-bike-routing-and-unreviewed-rural-TIGER-tp5848084p5848141.html
 Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

 ___
 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] cycle.travel US bike routing, and unreviewed rural TIGER

[Harald Kliems]

Very nice, Richard! One quick comment: I might not be the only who doesn't
always change the tiger:reviewed tag when fixing TIGER-imported roads. I
don't know if that's technically feasible, but maybe it would be better to
check if a way has been modified since import, independent of the
tiger:reviewed tag. I guess you could assign those a slightly lower
priority than the ones that have tiger:reviewed=yes.

 Harald.

On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 1:38 PM Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net
wrote:

 Hi all,

 At State of the Map US last weekend I was really pleased to unveil
 bicycle routing for the US (and Canada) at my site, cycle.travel.

 The planner, at http://cycle.travel/map , will plan a bike route for you
 between any two points - whether in the same city or on opposite sides
 of the continent. It's all based on OSM data but also takes account of
 elevation and other factors.

 I dogfooded it with a three-day ride around New York state after
 SOTM-US, and it found me some lovely quiet roads in and around the
 Catskills. I hope it'll be equally useful for the other two-wheelers
 amongst us. There's still a lot I want to add (as detailed at
 http://cycle.travel/news/new_cycle_travel_directions_for_the_us_and_canada
 )
 but I hope you enjoy it.

 Plug aside, there's a couple of things might be relevant to US mappers.


 First of all, I'm aiming high with this - the aim isn't just to make the
 best OSM-powered bike router of the US, but the best bike router full
 stop for commuters, leisure cyclists and tourers. (I leave the
 athletes to Strava!)

 Here in Britain, experience over the years has been that good bike
 routing and good bike cartography - historically via CycleStreets and
 OpenCycleMap - are a really effective way of driving contributions to
 OSM. So if you know cyclists who aren't yet contributing to OSM, maybe
 throw this at them - and if it doesn't find the route they'd recommend,
 maybe there's some unmapped infrastructure they could be persuaded to add!


 Second, the routing and cartography both heavily distrust unreviewed TIGER.

 In other words, it won't route over a rural road tagged as
 highway=residential
 tiger:reviewed=no

 Any road with tiger:reviewed removed or altered, any road in urban
 areas, and any road with highway=unclassified or greater is assumed to
 be a usable paved road. (There are a few additional bits of logic but
 that's the general principle.)

 Unreviewed rural residentials are shown on the map (high zoom levels) as
 a faint grey dashed line, explained in the key as Unsurveyed road.

 I've been finding this a really useful way of locating unreviewed TIGER
 and fixing it... it's actually quite addictive. :) Looking for roads
 which cross rivers, or with long sweeping curves, is an easy way of
 identifying quick wins. My modus operandi is to retag 2+-lane roads with
 painted centrelines as tertiary, smaller paved roads as unclassified,
 and just to take the tiger:reviewed tag off paved residential roads.
 Anything unpaved gets a surface tag and/or highway=track.

 I can't promise minutely updates I'm afraid - the routing/map update
 process takes two full days to run so it'll be more monthly than
 minutely. But I hope you find it as useful as I do. You'll see there's a
 tiny little pen icon at the bottom right of http://cycle.travel/map
 which takes you to edit the current location in OSM.


 Finally, many thanks to everyone who's tested it so far, particularly
 Steve All - your feedback was and continues to be enormously useful.

 cheers
 Richard

 ___
 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] Paved Shoulder Tag for US Highways

[Harald Kliems]

Larry, I think it's important to keep shoulders and bike lanes separate
because they are governed by different rules. I'm assuming those rules are
different state by state, but for example I would think that in many places
it is illegal for motor vehicles to pass in a dedicated bike lane, whereas
passing on the shoulder is permissible (under certain conditions only, of
course). Similar differences probably exist for the rules regarding
stopping and parking. My rule of thumb is: If there aren't any signs or
pavement markings involving bikes, it's a shoulder, not a bike lane. Then
it becomes important to tag attributes of the shoulder such as surface and
width.

 Harald.

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:12 PM Larry-CalRoadRunner calroadrun...@gmail.com
wrote:

 Hello Everyone,

 I would like to thank everyone for the quick response. I agree that the
 tag cycleway=shoulder is the correct tag to use, but for it to be
 effective, it must be used consistently. Otherwise anyone trying to create
 a cycle map for cyclists, will have a very confusing data. The type of
 Shoulders that cyclists need to know is

 Code (2 or 3)
 [image: xFigure 4.49 shows an example of a bituminous shoulder, which
 would be identified as Code 2 for this Data Item.]

 and

 Code 4
 [image: Figure 4.50 shows an example of a stabilized shoulder, which would
 be identified as Code 4 for this Data Item.]

 Special Thank you to Thomas Roff for this link

 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/hpms/fieldmanual/chapter4c.cfm

 I mentioned before that I added the tag cycleway=lane to the Silverado
 Trail, since the shoulder is marked with bike lane signs and painted bike
 lane signs and logos on the shoulder. I have ridden this road for years and
 I can remember when this was nothing but a highway with paved shoulders and
 nothing to indicate that it is a bike lane. I am going to include a link to
 my personal YouTube Channel, so that everyone can see what I am talking
 about. It starts on Trancas Rd. in Napa, Ca. No shoulder at first, then
 paved shoulder and finally the Silverado Trail with the bike lane signs and
 logo on the paved shoulder

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek0M8wtGhSY
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek0M8wtGhSYindex=21list=PL5do4uwsHN3XRUuCuNPGfs6OX9_CF-j5F

 4 minutes and 35 seconds

 For those of you that would like to see the entire bike ride, then click
 on this link
 to see all of the various road conditions encountered

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lmxxZEb_jk

 This is a fast motion video of most of the total ride including Hwy 29
 with paved shoulders. If you are not a bicycle rider this video will give
 you an idea of what it is to ride a bicycle in the US. This is typical of
 many of the conditions encountered, if you are a long distance cyclist.

 According to current practice this is tagged as cycleway=lane for the
 Silverado Trail.
 For part of Trancas Rd. The appropriate tag should be cycleway=shoulder
 just before arriving at the Silverado Trail. My question is does the
 Silverado Trail qualify as a true dedicated cycleway or is it just a
 highway with paved shoulders. Currently, I see on the current cycle maps
 that roads with paved shoulders are currently tag as cycleway=lane if
 they have the bike signs and logo. I also see roads that do not have any
 bike signs and logo also tagged with cycleway=lane According to the wiki
 tag most of the roads tagged as cycleway=lane, do not fall into the
 strict definition of a dedicated cycle lane. This is why I am asking for a
 published wiki tag describing roads with paved shoulders, so that everyone
 in the world will used the appropriate tag when mapping roads.

 Thank You,

 Larry-California RoadRunner




 ___
 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] Happy weekend - join the #Mapathon!

[Harald Kliems]

Madison Maptime Mapathon will begin in 1.5 hours, and it's a beautiful day
here! In case there are Madisonians on the list who for some strange reason
have missed the event announcment, please do come!
http://maptime.io/madison/event/2015/04/12/event/

On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 11:28 AM Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote:

 Just want to report that the OSM NYC Meetup yesterday went great!

 It's a shame that I didn't know the weather today would be a so much
 warmer, but there's no way to plan for things like that weeks in
 advance...

 - Serge

 On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Alex Barth a...@openstreetmap.us wrote:
  Join this weekend at the US wide spring #mapathon. Find the official
  locations on the OpenStreetMap US blog or just join from home. All you
 need
  to join is tag your edits #mapathon in the changeset comment. As always,
  outdoors surveys and indoors activities are welcome!
 
  http://openstreetmap.us/2015/04/spring-mapathon/
 
  Happy weekend everyone -
 
  Alex
 
  --
  Alex Barth
  Vice President
  OpenStreetMap United States Inc.
 
  ___
  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] Am I doing this right? Houses w/ addresses

[Harald Kliems]

In areas with detached houses, the Android app Keypadmapper has worked
pretty well for me. Once house numbers get too dense (worst case: Montreal,
where each apartment in a duplex or triplex will have it's own house
number) it starts getting tricky assigning the number to the correct
building. And yeah, Mapillary imagery can definitely be useful for address
data.

 Harald.

On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 5:37 PM Tod Fitch t...@fitchdesign.com wrote:

 As to the first: Yes, definitely a great job of mapping address house
 numbers!

 As to gathering numbers: I’ve gone through several iterations on
 collecting data. At first I was using a walking papers style method
 complete with people asking me what I was doing and, in one case, calling
 the police. That was too much attention for my liking.

 My next iteration was to use OSMtracker with a set of ear buds with
 microphone and simply gathering a voice sample as I walked by a house. This
 actually worked pretty well. I was inconspicuous as people are used to
 phone users talking to themselves. I had two problems with it however:
 First there was sometimes ambient noise that made it difficult to hear the
 number when played back. Second, and far worse, it took longer to enter all
 the data than it took to collect. I’d take a two hour walk in the morning
 and spend the rest of the day entering data. Okay to do occasionally but
 not something to make a career of.

 My current method is to use OSMpad and type in the numbers as I walk by.
 Data collection is a little slower and more conspicuous than using
 OSMtracker with a microphone but so far it is inconspicuous enough that I
 don’t attract attention. After all, many people wander the streets
 oblivious to their surroundings while texting. A mapper appearing to do the
 same thing is not remarkable. The big advantage over voice recordings is
 that in JOSM it only takes a couple of minutes to align the address points
 with the satellite imagery, verify street names, add city and upload.

 Regarding doing address collection in a car, or for that matter on a
 bicycle, I don’t think it is really feasible to get each number that way
 unless you are driving at walking speed. Think how long it actually takes
 to 1. Press a record button, 2. Wait a second to assure it is recording, 3.
 speak the number or street name. If you are driving at 25 MPH that is 37
 feet/second. In my neighborhood you need to be consistently entering a new
 address every second to second and a half. Try clearly enunciating a 2, 3,
 4 or even 5 digit house number in 1.5 seconds. Now try doing that
 consistently for hundreds of houses. If you are only interested in house
 number ranges, then collection in a moving vehicle could be feasible. But I
 don’t consider it feasible to get individual numbers for all houses along a
 street that way: Too much typing or speaking in too little time. A solution
 to that would be to be automatically taking geotagged photographs
 continuously the same as the survey vehicles that Google and other employ.
 I suppose the price of that type of thing will drop but for now if you are
 just mapping with a handheld GPS or smart phone walking is the best way I
 know to collect house numbers.

 Cheers,
 Tod

 On Apr 11, 2015, at 1:53 PM, Nick Hocking nick.hock...@gmail.com wrote:

 Excellent job Steve,


 I believe that house addresses is the only thing missing from OSM that is
 stopping it from becoming the mainstream mapping data of choice!
 I’ve always been interested in how to collect addresses, which can be a
 time consuming and difficult task. Walking around a neighborhood with paper
 and pencil peering into people’s letter boxes and at their front doors may
 upset some people, so I’ve though up a (possibly) better way.


 Two people, in a car. Two GPS units, probably both smartphones, one
 recording the track log and the other recording the passengers voice.

 As you drive down the road, the passenger calls out something like…..

 12 left 15right 14 left  16 right….. turning left on main street, 67 left
 etc, etc..
 Then later in an editor you can match times from the two sources and
 compare against Bing imagery to correctly place the house numbers.

 Cheers
 ___
 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] Elevation in local units

[Harald Kliems]

Hi Steve:
one tag where units are in common use is maxspeed. The default is km/h but
you can also use mph or knots. I don't see why this wouldn't be feasible
for the ele tag as well.

If you look at taginfo, you can also see that ft is used quite a bit --
unfortunately often in an inconsistent way, e.g. ele=3643_ft or 3643ft.
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/ele#values (you have to search for ft
in the search box).

 Harald.

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 8:57 PM Steve Friedl st...@unixwiz.net wrote:

 Hi all,



 I appreciated being able to join my first Mappy Hour yesterday, though
 without mic/camera. I’m quite enamoured with this project and hope to fit
 in with the goals and the vibe.



 One thing we talked about, and I’d like to explore more formally, is how
 to deal with elevation in local units.



 I lead hikes in the local Santa Ana Mountains, and there is not a single
 person who hikes here, not even those from Europe or those who personally
 invented the metric system, who thinks of peak  elevations in meters. The
 guides and the maps are all in feet, the surveying markers are in feet, as
 are the topo maps.



 This is just a fact of life even if we all [including me] agree that
 Americans are foolish for not adopting the metric system.



 An obvious thought is to enter the elevation including the units, so
 Sierra Peak would show as “3045 feet” rather than “928”, but this won’t
 work.



 The wiki page for the “ele” key defines the tag as meters, so it’s
 reasonable to expect that some software out there relies on this, and it
 would have no provisions to convert anything on the fly because it ought to
 expect numeric meters.



 But even with this aside, that still doesn’t solve the rendering problem:
 I believe that page tiles are rendered as images, so it’s got to pick *
 *something** for the text, and I don’t think there’s any way of having a
 user preference to show these things in local units.



 My suspicion is that there is no easy fix here, but I think a discussion
 is in order. I’ve added a section to the key:ele page that touches on this,
 not so much to propose a solution, but to let others with this same issue
 know that it’s seen as an issue.



 Ref: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ele#Local_Units



 Is this kind of thing suitable for the key:ele page?



 Steve



 ---

 Stephen J Friedl  | Security Consultant | UNIX Wizard | 714 345-4571

 st...@unixwiz.net | Southern California | Windows Guy |  unixwiz.net


 ___
 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-ca] Jeux d'eau

[Harald Kliems]

A while ago I was also looking for a tag for this type of amenity but
couldn't find anything appropriate. I guess in a way they're a type of
leisure=playground -- so maybe tag them as that, plus some additional tag
(playground=...?) for the fact that they're a water-playground? Or maybe
coming up with a new tag would be the better way. I don't even know what
the correct term for these is, though.

 Harald.

On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 5:11 PM Bruno Remy bremy.qc...@gmail.com wrote:

 Bonjour à tous,

 D'après vous, quel serait le tag idéal pour les fontaines-jeux d'eau
 installées dans les parcs municipaux pour enfants?
 Exemple:
 http://soucyaquatik.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/neuville-81-600x380.jpg

 leisure=water_park me parait dédié à des grosse installations de type
 parc à thème, donc inapproprié.


 Merci !

 --
 Bruno Remy
  ___
 Talk-ca mailing list
 Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Jeux d'eau

[Harald Kliems]

On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 5:32 PM Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:


 It's commonly called a splash pad, but tag usage seems scattered.

 http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=splash_pad#values

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splash_pad

 If you look at the discussion page of the wikipedia entry and the external
links, it seems that the term is not universally established and/or the
name of a specific company offering these kinds of things.

Maybe this discussion should be taken to the tagging list?

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

[Talk-us] Weigh stations on Interstates

[Harald Kliems]

In continuing mapping destination tag on highways based on Mapillary
imagery, I've come across the problem of how to tag weigh stations on
Interstate highways (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weigh_station). I haven't
found anything in the wiki, and I don't know enough how they work to come
up with reasonable tagging. What are the rules for access, for example?
An example would be
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/43.00858/-89.22468layers=N with
Mapillary imagery starting here
http://mapillary.com/map/im/xHw-s0_0RrAt3V-yVq4n9g

Any ideas would be appreciated.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Weigh stations on Interstates

[Harald Kliems]

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:39 PM Paul Johnson

 Only place I've known this to be true is California.  Everywhere else I've
 been, it either reverts to a highway parking area (midwest) or a public
 access scale (northwest) when trucks aren't required to stop, and when
 trucks are required to stop, access is still generally granted to the
 public to use the amenities available

I don't think that's the case in Wisconsin or Ontario/Quebec. When closed,
these stations always look completely deserted, and when they're open, I
only ever see trucks in there. But maybe that's just because nobody knows
that you're allowed to drive in there? It's certainly not covered in the WI
drivers handbook.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Bus flag stops?

[Harald Kliems]

On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:15 AM Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:

 or are they dynamic (meaning you can waive your hand in any place along
 the route and the bus will stop)? In this case I'd not map any bus stops
 (as there aren't actually spots).


 Also possible so much as there isn't an actually signposted stop within 1
 city block.  But that does solve the other question.

From your initial description and then looking at the Tulsa transit page, I
thought what we're talking about is not just the relatively common you can
get off wherever you want _on a fixed route_. With the deviation areas to
me it sounds more like You can get off wherever you want _in an area of x
blocks around the nominally fixed route_. Which seems much harder to tag.
Am I misunderstanding?

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

[Talk-us] Best practices for outdoor mapping party

[Harald Kliems]

With help from the wonderful folks at Maptime Madison, we're planning on
hosting the first Madison (Wisc.) mapping party on the Spring Mapathon
weekend. Nobody involved has ever organized or even attended a mapping
party, so we wouldn't mind some advice. From reading on the wiki and
various user diaries, I've come up with the following rough plan:

- Meet at coffee shop, distribute Field Papers maps of the area to be
surveyed, GPSrs , cameras, calibrate camera clocks. Mention non-obvious
things that can be mapped, e.g. diet, payment method, collection times,
opening hours, backrests on benches.
- Depending on the number of participants, start surveying all together or
in groups of three to four people. Plan on about one hour of surveying.
- Group works it way toward the final meeting point at the local public
library. Have a least two hours to process data and get it into OSM.
Laptops are available at the library.

Does this sound reasonable? Anything else I should be thinking of?

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

Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for outdoor mapping party

[Harald Kliems]

Thanks for the advice, Steven!

On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 12:13 PM Steven Johnson sejohns...@gmail.com wrote:

 It's great to see more events like this popping up all over. Is it due to
 the spring thaw? Or greater community interest?

Let's say that they're probably both necessary ingredients to make this
happen :)


 * I'm a vocal proponent of using local libraries from start to finish for
 these events as they provide a central point from which to operate. It
 makes the field work much easier if you don't have to lug all your stuff.
 Most libraries now allow patrons to bring their own coffee and snacks.

I was thinking coffee shop because the area around the library is already
pretty well mapped. Your point about lugging things around, though, is well
taken


 * Consider using Mapillary during your survey. Here's a case study[2] of
 how we're using Mapillary to conduct street surveys here in WashDC. See
 also how Elliot Plack did it in Baltimore[3].

Yes, definitely had that on my plan. I was also thinking of capturing some
mapillary imagery before the meeting in order for it be up and usable by
the time of the event.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for outdoor mapping party

[Harald Kliems]

On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 2:20 PM Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:


 The real core question is: will you have newbies or not?

I believe we will be more on the newbie side. There was a Maptime meet with
an introduction to OSM in November, which generated a couple new
contributors who will hopefully show up. So I'm personally aiming at
showing people who already know what OSM is how to do non-armchair mapping.
Actually improving data quality is only a secondary goal. If things go
well, we can have follow-up meetings that focus more on the later. But who
knows who's actually going to show up.

It just occurred to me that I have no clue how to edit with iD. Probably
something to look into before the meet-up.


 If you have newbies you need to think about if you want to pair them up
 with old hands or have them go out and learn the ropes on their own
 (I've tried both and there are likely an even number of pros and cons
 for both).

I would have gone with the former option but see how the other option could
work too.

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

[Talk-us] Destination tagging

[Harald Kliems]

I recently captured Mapillary imagery along I-90W between Madison and
Wisconsin Dells with the aim of adding destination tags to exits. The
example section of the documentation in the wiki [1] only has German signs,
which is not that useful. I'm wondering how people handle the highway
destinations commonly found on signs. For a somewhat complex example, take
this sign:

http://mapillary.com/map/im/lE5ZLUjfn-gTLB51nnh9fg

(Not that for some reason the Mapillary has an offset for the location of
the images; the actual location of the sign is about here:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=43.10188mlon=-89.28977#map=18/43.10188/-89.28977
)

So for the left part of the highway I tagged
destination:lanes=I 39 North;I 90 West; I 94 West;Wisconsin Dells|I 94
East;Milwaukee

For the off-ramp: destination=I 39 South;I 90 East;Janesville;Chicago

Questions:
- the wiki page seems to imply that the various interstate references
shouldn't go into the destination tag. That seems wrong to me, as I'd
expect a router to include them (Take the exit towards I 39 South, ...)
and don't see where else they would reasonably go. The wiki (first example)
says Additionally it is possible to set ref=A 2 on the highway=motorway.
-- not sure what that means.
- The ever-recurring abbreviation question: Do I write out Interstate or
not? Abbreviate north/south...? I have the suspicion in some cases that
would lead to exceeding the 255 char limit. If using an abbreviation, we
don't use a dash between I and the number, and a blank between the number
and direction, right?

Thanks for your input. In case there is consensus (one can dream!), I'm
happy to update the wiki with some more US-specific examples.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Destination tagging

[Harald Kliems]

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 10:35 AM Jack Burke burke...@gmail.com wrote:

 I don't see where you're getting the interstate references shouldn't go
 in the destination tag bit...can you quote the sentence/paragraph on that?


Not in the text, but the first and last two examples
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:destination#Examples. I would have
tagged the first one

destination=Berlin;A 2

And the second to last one:

destination:lanes=Oberhausen;Düsseldorf;Köln-Nord;A 3|A
3;Oberhausen;Düsseldorf;Köln-Nord;A
3|Oberhausen;Düsseldorf;Köln-Nord|K-Zentrum;A 3|Olpe;Gummersbach;A 4

Anyway, the method linked to by Duane makes a lot of sense to me. I think
that page should be linked to from the destination wiki page or integrated
into it, as otherwise nobody is going to find that info.

 Harald.


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

Re: [Talk-us] Why does the USA currently lag in OSM map quality?

[Harald Kliems]

On Tue Feb 17 2015 at 1:16:55 PM Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:

 Are there methods of remote sensing (street-level imagery, data from other
 places on the internet) that could help us with the locality problem?

Mapillary[1] seems to have tremendous potential there. They've recently
introduced automatic traffic sign recognition [2] -- no speed limit signs
yet, unfortunately.

 Harald.

[1] http://www.mapillary.com/map
[2] http://blog.mapillary.com/update/2015/01/27/traffic-signs.html
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Why does the USA currently lag in OSM map quality?

[Harald Kliems]

On Tue Feb 17 2015 at 2:53:44 PM Paul Johnson

 Could use a bit of work.  It appears to be detecting Share the Road
 signs as Cycleway Slippery When Wet/Icy signs.

Feel free to help make it better: http://www.mapillary.com/map/games/traffic

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

Re: [Talk-us] The to way does not start or end at a via node.

[Harald Kliems]

Hi Eric:
happy to fix if you can tell me where to put the no-U-turn restrictions.
I'm seeing nine or so of them just for that intersection, which makes me
wonder if all of them are necessary anyway -- are they actually signed,
especially the ones at the two turn lanes?
 Harald.

On Sat Jan 31 2015 at 7:41:01 PM Eric H. Christensen 
e...@christensenplace.us wrote:

 On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 06:30:37PM +, Harald Kliems wrote:
  I think I figured it out. It's the no-U-turn relations (4286903 and
  4286904). Instead of having the same way as from and to, they
 reference
  a segment further down the road as their to. Probably that was caused
 by
  someone splitting the ways near the intersection. I haven't made any
 edits,
  as I can't be sure where the no-U-turn relations should be. But let me
 know
  if you need help fixing it, Eric.

 I'm not sure I understand.  Please go ahead and fix it if you can see
 what's happening there.


 FWIW, any changes there were likely made by me using iD.

 --Eric

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

Re: [Talk-us] The to way does not start or end at a via node.

[Harald Kliems]

I think I figured it out. It's the no-U-turn relations (4286903 and
4286904). Instead of having the same way as from and to, they reference
a segment further down the road as their to. Probably that was caused by
someone splitting the ways near the intersection. I haven't made any edits,
as I can't be sure where the no-U-turn relations should be. But let me know
if you need help fixing it, Eric.

 Harald.

On Fri Jan 30 2015 at 10:11:09 AM Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net
wrote:

 On 1/30/15 10:57 AM, Eric H. Christensen wrote:
  On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 10:52:23AM -0500, Richard Welty wrote:
  On 1/30/15 10:45 AM, Eric Christensen wrote:
  I'm having a problem that I can't seem to figure out. At Node
 2899149410
  (http://osm.org/go/ZZeAdq4EI--?m=) I get an error in JOSM that says
 The
  to way does not start or end at a via node..  This is breaking
  routing.  I'm not sure how to fix this.  I see the same problem at the
  same intersection only on Grovers Turn Road.
 
  Can someone help me fix these problems?
  i just took a look; the JOSM turn restriction plugin is reporting
  no issues.
 
  i'm using JOSM 7906, with appropriate plugins. what version
  are you running?
  I just shut that machine down as I'm running out the door for a few
 hours.  This wasn't a turn restriction error but a general validation error
 in JOSM.  If you aren't seeing this I'll have to get back to you later
 today.
 the JOSM validator is a useful tool, but isn't always correct. i haven't
 tried to upload a turn restriction for a while, i'll try one in a couple
 of minutes
 and see what i get from the validator.
 richard

 --
 rwe...@averillpark.net
   Averill Park Networking - GIS  IT Consulting
   OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
   Java - Web Applications - Search


 ___
 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] GNIS POI populations

[Harald Kliems]

I wonder if this isn't something that could be more elegantly solved via
wikidata [1]. It looks like population data is not yet routinely included
in the entries of cities and towns, but to me this would make a lot of
sense. Much easier to maintain than having to regularly do mass mechanical
edits in OSM. Thoughts?

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Wikidata

On Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 07:50 Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us wrote:


 On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 5:34 AM, Minh Nguyen m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us
  wrote:

 I think we should consider a mechanical edit to update these tags to the
 2010 Census figures en masse. I've been updating individual places as I
 edit them for other reasons, but this tag is most useful when its vintage
 is consistent across the board.


 +1



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

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

Re: [Talk-us] Bike route relation issues

[Harald Kliems]

Okay, why don't we just ask the creator of the relation? I have added Paul
Johnson to the conversation -- he created the first version of the relation
and is usually quite active on this list anyway.

Paul, what was your intention with adding I5 as a bike route?

 Harald.

On Sun Jan 11 2015 at 11:56:23 AM Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us
wrote:

 I did! I need more coffee.. It should read:

 Oregon Department of Transportation publishes a bike map. I5 is not
 included in any of their approved routes.

 On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Kerry Irons irons54vor...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Did you leave our the word “not” from the last sentence?



 Kerry





 

 Oregon Department of Transportation publishes a bike map [1]. I5 is
 included in any of their approved routes.

 Clifford



 --

 @osm_seattle

 osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us

 OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch




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

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

Re: [Talk-us] Routing on Ferries

[Harald Kliems]

Graphhopper doesn't have the problem. It could be that other routers are
using outdated data that did indeed have a tagging problem.


https://graphhopper.com/maps/?point=47.811656%2C-122.379627point=47.809696%2C-122.528286layer=Lyrk

 Harald.

On Thu Jan 01 2015 at 10:20:45 AM Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us
wrote:


 On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 11:18 PM, Natfoot natf...@gmail.com wrote:

 When talking to the Scout team this summer it was mentioned as an issue.
 Also Scout wont route across access roads and if there is an access road
 leading up to the dock/portal then no route. you will notice that it is
 listed as primary road in Edmonds and Kingston.


 It would appear that the router should use a ferry route. However, a check
 of both osrm and mapquest would indicate otherwise. The problem is I don't
 know if that is a routing engine problem, i.e. it won't use a ferry route,
 or a tagging problem.

 The tests were done using http://jsrouting.apis.dev.openstreetmap.org/

 Clifford


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

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

Re: [Talk-us] access road routing - two real world cases

[Harald Kliems]

I don't think that this is a tagging but a routing problem. It seems easy
enough to me to program a router do not use roads with access=private
unless they are the first or last segment of a route or something along
those lines.

RE: access=destination. Not sure  what the convention is in the US, but in
Germany this is mainly used for public roads open only to people living or
having business to do on the road, usually to prevent through-traffic.
There is an official road sign for this
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anlieger#mediaviewer/File:Zusatzzeichen_1020-30.svg


 Harald.

On Thu Jan 01 2015 at 1:40:52 PM stevea stevea...@softworkers.com wrote:

 i suppose OSM could use access=permissive for
 the preferred route, but that usage doesn't match
 well with the current language for permissive.

 Richard, I'm not sure this is a perfect solution, but it could work.
 What about using access=destination (Only when travelling to this
 element...) on that segment where traffic should be directed to by
 a router, then adding a rule to the router to be sensitive to
 access=destination segments?  This would actually solve the problem
 and make the router even better than for just this exact case.
 However, while it might overload the semantics for
 access=destination, through careful implementation of the router
 rule, it could improve it.

 SteveA
 California

 ___
 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-ca] Adding Buildings + Leisure + Corrections To Ottawa Map Over Holiday Season

[Harald Kliems]

It sure is -- as long as the postal code is coming from an appropriate
source, e.g. a store receipt, a business's homepage, or your local
knowledge. Maybe a note about that fact could be added to the instructions.

 Harald.

On Tue Dec 23 2014 at 10:01:50 AM Tom Taylor tom.taylor.s...@gmail.com
wrote:

 I notice you propose addr:postcode as one of the tags in your
 instructions. Is this legal? I suspect Canada Post would object.

 Tom Taylor

 On 23/12/2014 10:37 AM, Richard Burcher wrote:
  Hi Folks,
 
  I've created a new mapping task for the Ottawa area [1]. I really want to
  make our local map super awesome:) I see adding buildings as one of the
  biggest projects we can undertake, so that local mappers like myself
 could
  start adding address data from local surveys. The task focuses on
 buildings
  and leisure areas but also asks those mapping to correct any obvious
 issues
  encountered.
 
  I understand it's a large area to map but I see this as a long term
  project. It's also something I'd like to use to encourage new local
 mappers
  to get involved with through our monthly meetups.
 
  Let me know what you think and if I'm missing anything in the
 instructions
  to make this easier to work with!
 
 
  Join me over the holidays:)
 
  Cheers,
 
  Richard
 
  [1] http://tasks.osmcanada.ca/project/9
 
  --
  Please note:
  I only check email a few times during business hours.
 
  Richard Burcher
 
 
  Twitter:   @richardburcher
  Blog:   www.richardburcher.com
  LinkedIn: http://linkd.in/richardburcher
 
 
 
  ___
  Talk-ca mailing list
  Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
 

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

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

Re: [Talk-us] Beaver dam? Wrecked bridge? Hallucinatory roads in TIGER?

[Harald Kliems]

Access tags seem inappropriate to me in this case. I would only tag the
last node as noexit=yes (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:noexit) as
a way of making clear that the trail does indeed end and hasn't just not
been mapped. Leave the rest to the users of the map -- maybe there is
actually a great spot for hunting/geocaching/sunbathing/beaver watching/
mushroom foraging at the end of the trail that you just don't know about.

 Harald.

On Mon Dec 22 2014 at 11:54:58 AM Jack Burke burke...@gmail.com wrote:

 access=use_at_your_own_risk

 access=two_paths_diverged_in_a_yellow_wood

 access=choose_wisely

 access=plugh

 access=xyzzy

 ?

 -jack


 On December 22, 2014 10:06:15 AM EST, Richard Welty 
 rwe...@averillpark.net wrote:

 On 12/22/14 3:27 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:

   I've frequently wanted to map the trails that peter out for exactly
 the reason you state.

  The choices as a mapper seem wrong:
 1) Map the trail : thus encouraging use of a flawed route.
  2) Don't map the trail.  The casual map reader thinks OSM is missing
 something.


  Possible solutions include a node type of becomes indistinct, or
 dead end.
  How to mark the way is trickier.

 perhaps a new access tag..

 access=deprecated
 access=not_recommended

 something else?

 richard

 -- rwe...@averillpark.net
  Averill Park Networking - GIS  IT Consulting
  OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
  Java - Web Applications - Search

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


 --
 Typos courtesy of fancy auto-spell technology.
 ___
 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-ca] Discussion: zones boisées

[Harald Kliems]

On Fri Nov 21 2014 at 8:05:08 AM Adam Martin s.adam.mar...@gmail.com
wrote:

 It all depends on what you think the line that makes up the road itself on
 the map represents. If it represents a type of land use tag, then the first
 case makes sense as the land is residential in general, except for any area
 marked with a route as that route would mark the land as used for a road
 within the residential area. If roads do not tag the ground beneath it,
 then we need to specifically set what the ground underneath is to be tagged
 as, requiring multiple smaller polygons to map.

I've seen this question pop up again and again, especially in countries
with a lot of small parcels of different land usage. For example, In
Germany it's very common to have several different land uses along one
road. So do we attach them via node to the way of the road or do they stop
x meters from the centerline of the road? What if you have trees
overhanging a road? How wide and developed has a trail have to be for it to
stop being part of a forest and become its own land use? How do you deal
with the editing nightmare of many different land uses glued to a road?

From what I've seen, there are good reasons for both perspectives and it is
highly unlikely that there will be consensus (or even a clear majority) for
either view in the community.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Bicycle Routes

[Harald Kliems]

It is common practice to only tag the ones with actual signs on the road.
For all the other ones you mentioned you should instead add the physical
characteristics that make them popular with cyclists (surface, lane count,
width, shoulder, smoothness, incline, etc.).

 Harald.

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Mike Henson mikehen...@hotmail.com
wrote:

 How can I tag unofficial bicycle routes in my community?
 For example, the City of Stillwater has documented with actual signs on
 the road these routes (
 http://stillwater.org/document_center/Bike_Routes.pdf)
 I have tagged these as lcn=yes and named them all Stillwater Bicycle
 Routes in a relation.

 There is a bicycle club that has created other routes that do not have
 actual signage on the roads. see
 http://www.reddirtpedalers.org/local-routes
 For Club routes, I could tag them as reddirtpedalers routes (i.e.
 Reddirtpedalers Couch Park Loop)
 http://www.reddirtpedalers.org/local-routes/13-couch-park-loop

 For the Club routes:
 Should I use lcn=proposed? (this is not valid, because they are not
 being proposed and most of them are outside city limits. the county does
 not have any routes)
 Should I use lcn=unofficial?
 Should I use lcn=club?
 Should the name include unofficial OR bicycle = undesignated?

 Also, using Stava data, I can see other used roads that are not bicycle
 routes, but they are widely used. see
 http://labs.strava.com/routing-errors/#250/13/-97.06824/36.12651
 Lakeview Road north west of Stillwater going out to Lake McMurtry is a
 nice blacktop road without a lot of traffic, If I was riding a bicycle, I
 would use this road.
 Should I tag these commonly used bicycle routes?

 I assume official = signage on the road.

 Mike Henson

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




-- 
Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] changeset 25081346 spanning contiguous United States

[Harald Kliems]

I use the operator=* tag and sometimes double it up with brand=*

 Harald.

On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Eric H. Christensen 
e...@christensenplace.us wrote:

 -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
 Hash: SHA512

 On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 09:33:08AM -0700, Peter Dobratz wrote:
  After checking a few of the objects, it looks like this change removed
  shop=copyshop and added amenity=post_office.  I don't necessarily
  disagree with this change.  In my mind I had been reserving post_office
 for
  entities controlled by the government-run United States Postal Service,
 but
  after reading the wiki I see that private companies can be also
 designated
  as post_office, and the UPS Store certainly fulfills many of the same
  functions as government-run post offices.

 Isn't there a way to specify the provider of the service (outside the
 name?)?  I've run into this while marking post_box for UPS and FedEx drop
 points that I run across.

 - --Eric
 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
 Version: GnuPG v1

 iQGcBAEBCgAGBQJUMsaoAAoJEB/kgVGp2CYvjSQL/2VDId1i/uM+nYIpBs+YREec
 0KQ7nI47FDUGKJhsyGt6Dnokn8Rj+syZ53/1zHb2WMeS2gZdl9Xw7SghwuAMQwhG
 GzL+y7OkT8pk/AQozj9GIitGmu4xX605tSg6oJDb4V85ey7tMcWSqo7bLSuKLiMs
 r2dus0I7AVdOOyV+muwzxM55NQd+n6o9YGSl2d98VtjScJdXgITQH1KDA1XTOrZj
 5kVZ2yC7TWEaiKSDbRq3v6nr4e8oUr2mnmqIz9v9/RFPA5A17gbZPFsV2+h5aPMf
 /ueclSLU3+Zf5f+JPmS6L0bSRvtTldTCdYmjon8K0uRkUyQ54xEMwWL2/II56zle
 VyAr0QsNeR2+F95NfYfoNXQgnZX4DrgNJAIeWGWhwoUINyJHnB2VU82sxfemUHDz
 vX+onWp/pnqRX5j3AnS7kWaCvkWBkjcsFgvn2+E/opsYJvAUsVL7kGz7VsBhHe4z
 jeT5iaQ04UhX7g4Nhl/oXywgW8zfkxVZyATfLLwHuw==
 =86GP
 -END PGP SIGNATURE-

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




-- 
Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Prima Facie Speed Limits

[Harald Kliems]

On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Greg Morgan dr.kludge...@gmail.com wrote:



 I was thinking more like a stop sign is red and eight sided.  A traffic
 engineer told me that there is a federal standard governing how
 intersections are marked, etc.


You're probably thinking of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD) http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/

Not quite sure how it is relevant to the max speed discussion, though.

 Harald.

-- 
Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-ca] Question on CANVEC

[Harald Kliems]

Just delete and recreate. There have been several discussions on this list
about the data quality of the landuse data and if it should've been
imported in the first place (no data vs. bad data). Working with gigantic
multipolygons is indeed a pain and I don't think there is any value to
preserving the import data.

Just my two cents,
 Harald.


On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Adam Martin s.adam.mar...@gmail.com
wrote:

 Hey all,

 I have a quick question on data that has been imported from CANVEC. I have
 been doing some work on the North-West side of Thunder Bay in Ontario. Part
 of that has been attempting to revamp the land use designations there. At
 the moment, the use has been entered via CANVEC import, but a review
 comparing that data to the actual land underneath from the Satellite shows
 fairly large variances. As well, the Wood polygon itself is oddly shaped,
 with squared lines denoting where it two CANVEC products were imported side
 by side.

 Large multi-polygon areas like these are impossible to edit in ID and
 still difficult in JOSM. So my question is this - if I am editing the area,
 what is the perception on deleting the main Wood polygon altogether and
 re-creating it? My intent would be to increase the accuracy of the map in
 the area based on the satellite data provided by Bing and this would be
 easier if the land use were cleared and re-built. I would leave the
 features that CANVEC imported - only the land use would be re-constructed
 in that case. The other components would simply be moved and edited as
 needed.

 Thanks,

 Adam

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




-- 
Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Question on CANVEC

[Harald Kliems]

Just to clarify, I was only talking specifically about the landuse data.
Much of Canvec is great!

Harald.
On Jul 22, 2014 10:21 AM, Andrew andrew.alli...@teksavvy.com wrote:

 I agree, that the large polygons, are a pain. I would second the
 idea
 of deleting and recreating the wooded areas from imagery. I don't think
 I would go so far to say all of the canvec imported data is bad. i.e.
 Lakes, rivers, roads, address data, train tracks, etc.

 I must from the camp where the goal is to improve the quality of
 the
 map even if it is from an incremental point. (i.e. no data to some data)
 or I guess (no data to PIA data? :-)


 Andrew
 aka CanvecImports.
 aka I guess, one of the offenders :-)


 On Tue, 2014-07-22 at 09:25 -0500, Harald Kliems wrote:
  Just delete and recreate. There have been several discussions on this
  list about the data quality of the landuse data and if it should've
  been imported in the first place (no data vs. bad data). Working with
  gigantic multipolygons is indeed a pain and I don't think there is any
  value to preserving the import data.
 
 
  Just my two cents,
   Harald.
 
 
  On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Adam Martin s.adam.mar...@gmail.com
  wrote:
  Hey all,
 
 
  I have a quick question on data that has been imported from
  CANVEC. I have been doing some work on the North-West side of
  Thunder Bay in Ontario. Part of that has been attempting to
  revamp the land use designations there. At the moment, the use
  has been entered via CANVEC import, but a review comparing
  that data to the actual land underneath from the Satellite
  shows fairly large variances. As well, the Wood polygon
  itself is oddly shaped, with squared lines denoting where it
  two CANVEC products were imported side by side.
 
 
  Large multi-polygon areas like these are impossible to edit in
  ID and still difficult in JOSM. So my question is this - if I
  am editing the area, what is the perception on deleting the
  main Wood polygon altogether and re-creating it? My intent
  would be to increase the accuracy of the map in the area based
  on the satellite data provided by Bing and this would be
  easier if the land use were cleared and re-built. I would
  leave the features that CANVEC imported - only the land use
  would be re-constructed in that case. The other components
  would simply be moved and edited as needed.
 
 
  Thanks,
 
 
  Adam
 
 
  ___
  Talk-ca mailing list
  Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
 
 
 
 
 
  --
  Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
  Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565
  ___
  Talk-ca mailing list
  Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca



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

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

Re: [Talk-ca] coastline between Montreal and Sorel, Quebec

[Harald Kliems]

Just to add to that: The question of coastline versus riverbank is not just
a mapping/geographical question, but also a technical one. Because of the
length and complexity of the coastline and the requirement to render it at
low zoom levels, there is special pre-processing for converting the
coastline data into shapefiles that only happens every couple weeks (at
least that used to be case). You can see the effects of this when between
z4 and z5 the parts of the St. Lawrence that are not tagged with coastline
disappears on the standard map.

Now this doesn't necessarily explain why the coastline ends and restarts,
but it might have something to do with it. I would also suggest contacting
the person who did the revert directly.

 Harald.


On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Adam Martin s.adam.mar...@gmail.comwrote:

 Charles,

 I took a look at the area that you describe and I see what you mean - the
 coastline designation disappears around Sorel and reappears just past
 Montreal. Looking in the area of the gap, the use of Coastline appears to
 suddenly switch to Water and Riverbank. The source of the information
 also switches, from the NRCAN database to Bing.

 I am not aware of a discussion that flagged this area to be left as-is
 on the map. I am also not sure why someone would be protecting the area
 from corrections / changes.

 However, I believe I can see where the confusion came from (at least
 partially). For reference, this is the St. Lawrence River, an enormous
 waterway that drains the Great Lakes into the North Atlantic. A river of
 this size generally cannot be described accurately with a single line in
 the centre of the waterway as it eliminates a vital level of detail of the
 surrounding area. So the St. Lawrence needs to be detailed as a water
 polygon in order to preserve the shoreline. The problem here is that there
 seems to be some confusion as to what sort of shoreline this represents -
 coastline or riverbank. The answer to that is rather complex - where
 exactly does the St. Lawrence River stop being a river and become part of
 the eastern coast of Canada? The switch between descriptions here appears
 to be part of someones attempt to correct the designation of the
 shoreline in the river for an area that they consider to be part of the
 River that is the St. Lawrence (as opposed to the coastline that the
 river drains into).

 I think the question here is the same - where does the St. Lawrence stop
 being a river and start being a part of the coastline?

 Adam


 On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 10:10 PM, Charles Basenga Kiyanda 
 perso...@charleskiyanda.com wrote:

 Anybody know why the coastline stops about midway along the Montreal
 Island (and also Ile Jésus) and then starts again around Sorel? I got one
 report from someone who tried to fix this and was quickly reverted. Should
 it be fixed at some point and it's just such a large undertaking that
 nobody is willing to do it yet or was there a discussion and subsequent
 consensus to adopt the current state of the coastline?

 Thanks,

 Charles

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



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




-- 
Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Seasonal ferry routes

[Harald Kliems]

Hi Bernie,

I believe I looked into this a while ago and came to the conclusion that no
routing engine currently supports conditional access. It's possible that
this has changed in the meantime. But as there is an approved proposal you
should go ahead and add the proper tags, maybe in addition to a short human
readable note=only runs June to September.
I'd say that if you're in Eastern Canada and your route includes a ferry
you should be prudent enough to check for yourself if it's running all-year.

Harald.


On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 1:18 PM, berniejconnors berniejconn...@gmail.comwrote:

 Hello,

 The ferry route from Deer Island, NB to Campobello Island,
 NB is seasonal but it is not properly tagged as seasonal:

 http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/117143395

  I have a friend who was routing a car trip to Campobello
 Island and the route included the above ferry link which is currently out
 of service.  Does anybody have any good examples of seasonal ferry routes
 that are properly tagged to show out of service dates?  Will routing
 software respect conditional restrictions on ferry routes? I was looking at
 the conditional restrictions in the wiki:

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions
 restrictions

   I would like to use the following tags:

 route=ferry

 route:conditional=no @ (Oct-May)

 name= Deer Island-Campobello Island Ferry

 operator=East Coast Ferries Ltd

 url=http://www.eastcoastferriesltd.com/Fares-Schedule.html

 duration=00:15

 foot=yes

 motorcar=yes

 motor_vehicle=yes

 bicycle=yes

 fee=yes

 Any comments or suggestions?


 Thanks,

 Bernie.

 --

 Bernie Connors

 New Maryland, NB

 bernie.connors@unb. bernie.conn...@unb.caca

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




-- 
Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Telecommunications Buildings

[Harald Kliems]

Since this phenomenon is not specific to Canada (see for example
http://www.messynessychic.com/2013/01/29/the-fake-townhouses-hiding-mystery-underground-portals/)
it might be a good idea to ask on the general tagging list. I quickly
looked up the examples mentioned in the article and didn't see any specific
tagging in OSM.
 Harald.


On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 1:35 PM, Colin McGregor colin.mc...@gmail.comwrote:




 On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Adam Martin s.adam.mar...@gmail.comwrote:

 Hey all,

 Quick question regarding tagging buildings. I've come across several that
 are owned and maintained by a local telecom company. These are buildings,
 usually located in residential areas, look somewhat like houses, but are
 there to provide switching and distribution of communications equipment
 (telephone, Internet, etc). What should these be tagged as? My assumption
 would be building = yes and a Works = tag. Thoughts?

 Adam


 Excellent question that I would love an answer for.

 In similar fashion our local electric power company (Toronto Hydro) has
 put up a number of houses (and other buildings), basically fake building
 shells to hide electrical transformers (with signs on/beside the door
 noting the building ownership and warning of possible electrocution to
 trespassers (in other words the buildings and their role is not super
 secret, but also not announced loudly). How should these building shells be
 tagged?

 Colin.

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




-- 
Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] workflow for elevation data

[Harald Kliems]

Hi Charles,

did you see the elevation profile feature on the Lonvia map? It only works
for properly defined trails that have exactly one start and one end point,
but in those cases it seems to do what you want it to. See for example here
http://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/en/relation/3075304?zoom=14lat=44.26735lon=-71.27443hill=0.145(you
might have to expand the elevation profile on the right sidebar). The
source code for the map is available on github -- maybe you can find what
you're looking for there.

Cheers,
 Harald.


On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 6:52 PM, Charles Basenga Kiyanda 
perso...@charleskiyanda.com wrote:

 Thanks all for the replies. (I'm replying only to Richard here, but I've
 read each and every one.) At the point, the project is a demo that I want
 to do and try to impress  people with, so the objectives are really mine.
 What I wanted was to show the leaflet-based slippy map and when the user
 hovers/clicks on a given track, the elevation profile is displayed
 somewhere in a pop-up/frame/etc. Something close to this example:
 http://mrmufflon.github.io/Leaflet.Elevation/example/example.html
 (I think it's using geojson here.)

 The hope was that I would convince them to also contribute the path
 information to osm, though most likely, that would require they maintain
 the data in two places: osm and their local gpx/geojson files with
 elevation.

 I've read somewhere that the srtm data has, at best, 30m resolution. I
 don't know that it's resolved enough for hiking/snowshoeing/cross-country
 skiing? I can think of features where greater than 30m resolution would be
 helpful. Then again, I just looked at opencyclemap for that area again, and
 the resolution might be plenty. I'll have to look again.

 Cheers,

 Charles


 On 02/23/2014 04:40 PM, Richard Weait wrote:

 On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Charles Basenga Kiyanda
 perso...@charleskiyanda.com wrote:
 [ ... ]

  Specific question:
 We don't store elevation data in osm in a standard fashion and I was
 hoping I could show the volunteer organization a tentative alternate
 workflow that would be as little work for them as possible and also give
 them an incentive to keep the osm trail data accurate.

 I think that the main issue here is how do they want to see / use the

 elevation data?

 There are several existing styles / tiles that use contours and or
 hill shading.  There may also be contours and hill shading that are
 available as overly layers for you to add to your own styles.  (If
 their aren't, that may be an idea for a value add service. ;-) )

 There was a service, run by long time OpenStreetMap user lambertus,
 that displayed an elevation profile graph of a selected way.  That
 specific source is gone or moved now, but this wiki page shows some of
 the similar details from a related summer of code project.

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Route_altitude_profiles_SRTM

 It also appears that the routing engine YOURS can interpret elevation
 data to apply variable costing when evaluating or planning routes.

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/YOURS

 And there are certainly more things that we can do with elevation that
 are interesting, depending on the audience.

 Is that enough to get you started?

 But, yeah.  The elevation data doesn't go into the OSM data base.
 Others have used SRTM to inform their OSM objects of elevation matters
 and then done interesting this with it.

 I gave an Intro to OpenStreetMap talk to some trail folks recently.
 It would be great to see them contributing to and benefiting from
 OpenStreetMap.



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




-- 
Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] workflow for elevation data

[Harald Kliems]

Hi Charles,
last summer I messed around a bit with trying to get contour lines into my
homemade maps for my Garmin GPSr, using SRTM2OSM. Unfortunately, I
eventually gave up, as I wasn't proficient enough to in the end combine all
the data with mkgmap into one map. There are pretty good tutorials for
SRTM2OSM in the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Srtm2osm I don't
see anything specific to leaflet, though.

There are also a bunch of hiking/biking-specific, OSM-based maps out there
already, so I'm wondering it those might be good enough for your/their
purposes. And if not they might help you developing your own solution. Some
examples:

http://www.4umaps.eu/online-outdoor-hike-bicycle-map.htm (contour lines and
hill shading)

http://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/en/ (only hill shading)

http://hikebikemap.de/ (hill shading and contours in limited area)

And of course the cycling layer on the main page with contour lines.

There's also this project:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Route_altitude_profiles_SRTM but I'm not
sure if this is still under active development.

As a side note: I had planned to do some mapping with the McGill Outdoors
Club in the Prevost area last spring. They're also maintaining their own
little network of trails. Unfortunately, that didn't happen in the end, but
they were definitely interested in/open to OSM.

 Harald.


On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Charles Basenga Kiyanda 
perso...@charleskiyanda.com wrote:

 I'm asking the question here since I'm in Canada and can't quite find an
 appropriate mailing list. This is a (rather lengthy) question about the
 best workflow to show trail information using osm data, leaflet, and gpx
 data.

 Background:
 I contacted someone at a local volunteer organization that maintains
 mountain biking/nordic skiing/snowshoeing trails in the Ste-Adèle area
 in Québec. They were nice enough to give me their gpx tracks for all the
 trails and I gave one of them a working with OSM tutorial in return.
 At least one person in that organization is interested in using osm.

 I've been wanting to practice using leaflet and decided to use their
 data to make a sample trail viewer that would show the elevation profile
 in a popup (using D3) for the different trails. I figure this is good
 practice for me and if I can show them something nice they might be more
 interested in contributing to osm regularly.

 Specific question:
 We don't store elevation data in osm in a standard fashion and I was
 hoping I could show the volunteer organization a tentative alternate
 workflow that would be as little work for them as possible and also give
 them an incentive to keep the osm trail data accurate. Currently, they
 use their gpx tracks as the master data and load those on handheld
 (commercial) gps units when navigating around to do trail clean up and
 other stuff. They also use the gpx data in a commercial software to
 generate pdf maps that are distributed on their website.

 I wanted to use leaflet and d3, thinking I could create geojson
 polylines (from the osm data) that I show on top of osm image tiles so
 the trails would be clickable. Clicking/hovering a given object would
 show elevation data. Now, the elevation data is not stored in osm, so
 the volunteers would have to keep the gpx files around, which is more
 annoying if there's a change to a trail or a new trail.

 Now, I've found a leaflet plugin that uses d3 to overlay a gpx and show
 elevation data (https://github.com/MrMufflon/Leaflet.Elevation), though
 that actually gives them an incentive to *not* have the trail data in
 osm (otherwise the trails might show up twice when looking at the map:
 in the osm image tile and from the gpx overlay).

 I'm (obviously) having a hard time formulating a concise question. I
 guess I'm wondering if there's been some thinking about the best
 workflow in such a situation.

 Any help would be quite appreciated. I might look in the leaflet
 community as well to see if this topic has shown up there.

 Regards,

 Charles


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




-- 
Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] GPS and Motorway links ...

[Harald Kliems]

I am happy to report that all of Canada should now be free of this issue! I
just fixed the last one all the way west in Saint John's. Yay!

 Harald.


On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 6:03 PM, Harald Kliems kli...@gmail.com wrote:

 Some updates on this issue:

 I contacted Martijn a while ago with the suggestion of running this as a
 Maproulette. He liked the idea but I haven't heard back in a while. He also
 asked me how many cases we're talking about and based on the Overpass query
 mentioned upthread I came to the conclusion that the number is actually not
 that high (maybe 400 cases in all of Canada at the most). Therefore I've
 started fixing the issue manually and already cleaned up all of Quebec. It
 took me several hours, but that's partly because you always discover other
 issues to take care of as you go along (e.g. missing motorway_junction,
 name vs. exit_to on those junctions etc.).

 I'll continue working on this in Ontario now and I encourage others to go
 ahead in the other provinces, too. Just run http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1CIon 
 the appropriate bounding box and then go through each of the spots that
 come up. If there is hi-res Bing imagery available the fix will be obvious;
 and if not common sense should still tell you if a segment is oneway=yes or
 oneway=no. I have added a oneway tag to every motorway_link segment, both
 to avoid any misunderstanding with the default and to allow me to track the
 progress on the Overpass map.

 Cheers,
  Harald.


 On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Harald Kliems kli...@gmail.com wrote:

 So before contacting Martijn I want to be sure that we can properly
 identify the potentially problematic ways. What we are looking for are ways
 that match the following query:

 (highway=motorway_link) AND (NOT oneway=*) AND (lanes!=1)

 Or in natural language: ways that are motorway links but don't have the
 oneway tag nor are tagged as having one lane. If you want to test this
 query, go to this link http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1CI and adjust the
 bounding box coordinates for the desired area.

 Comments?

  Harald.


 On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Daniel Begin jfd...@hotmail.comwrote:

 The example I provided yesterday was not fixed.  Most the exits having a
 similar look along the trans-Canada Highway in Quebec are the same. I have
 also found examples in Alberta and In BC.



 Daniel



 *From:* Harald Kliems [mailto:kli...@gmail.com]
 *Sent:* November-26-13 10:04
 *To:* Daniel Begin
 *Cc:* Connors, Bernie (SNB); Talk-CA OpenStreetMap

 *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] GPS and Motorway links ...



 I can write an email to Martijn with a proposal. Does anyone have a link
 to an exit that has not been fixed yet to use as an example?



  Harald.



 On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Daniel Begin jfd...@hotmail.com
 wrote:

 It seems to me it is the only safe solution. I go for maproulette.org

 Daniel



 *From:* Connors, Bernie (SNB) [mailto:bernie.conn...@snb.ca]
 *Sent:* November-26-13 08:19
 *To:* 'Harald Kliems'; Daniel Begin
 *Cc:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
 *Subject:* RE: [Talk-ca] GPS and Motorway links ...



 +1 for the Maproulette.org solution.



 Bernie.

 --

 Bernie Connors, P.Eng

 Tel: 506-444-2077

 bernie.conn...@snb.ca

 *SNB – We make it happen…*

 [image: SAG_Logo_2013]



 *From:* Harald Kliems [mailto:kli...@gmail.com kli...@gmail.com]
 *Sent:* Monday, 2013-11-25 5:05 PM
 *To:* Daniel Begin
 *Cc:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
 *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] GPS and Motorway links ...







 On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Daniel Begin jfd...@hotmail.com
 wrote:

 Hooo, I see, and I also see there was not a large consensus on that
 point (Discussion) since all other ways are having a different behavior…



 About all motorway_link in Canada are having the same problem!

 I don't know, I rarely encounter this issue in practice. Adding
 oneway=no to all motorway_link seems rather dangerous and
 counterproductive. The best solution would probably be to create a query
 that will find all imported motorway_link that have not been touched since
 the import and then check them. Depending on how big the task is we could
 ask Martijn to set it up as a Maproulette (http://maproulette.org/). Or
 we set up a wiki page to coordinate people going through all the
 motorways/exits and make sure everything is okay by hand. There are only 33
 Autoroutes in Quebec after all :-)



  Harald.







 --
 Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
 Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565




 --
 Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
 Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565




 --
 Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
 Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565




-- 
Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565
image001.jpg___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

[Talk-ca] Motorway_junction ref/exit_to

[Harald Kliems]

Hi everyone,

while working on the oneway issue on motorway junctions I noticed that
there are a lot of exits that lack a number (ref) and destination
(exit_to). You can roughly see the extent of the problem here:
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/27T

Does anyone know of a source for this information that we could use? I know
that Wikipedia lists most of the information but AFAIK their license is not
compatible with OSM.

I think having the exit numbers and destinations would be very useful to
improve routing and navigation. It's nice to have your Satnav tell you to
Leave Autoroute 20 at exit 22 towards Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu and
Chambly.

I don't have a car, but should I undertake any rental car trips I'll make
sure to set up a dashboard cam.

Cheers
 Harald.

PS I also noticed that often people enter the exit_to info in the name tag
of the junction. According to the wiki that's not advisable.

-- 
Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] GPS and Motorway links ...

[Harald Kliems]

Some updates on this issue:

I contacted Martijn a while ago with the suggestion of running this as a
Maproulette. He liked the idea but I haven't heard back in a while. He also
asked me how many cases we're talking about and based on the Overpass query
mentioned upthread I came to the conclusion that the number is actually not
that high (maybe 400 cases in all of Canada at the most). Therefore I've
started fixing the issue manually and already cleaned up all of Quebec. It
took me several hours, but that's partly because you always discover other
issues to take care of as you go along (e.g. missing motorway_junction,
name vs. exit_to on those junctions etc.).

I'll continue working on this in Ontario now and I encourage others to go
ahead in the other provinces, too. Just run
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1CIon the appropriate bounding box and then
go through each of the spots that
come up. If there is hi-res Bing imagery available the fix will be obvious;
and if not common sense should still tell you if a segment is oneway=yes or
oneway=no. I have added a oneway tag to every motorway_link segment, both
to avoid any misunderstanding with the default and to allow me to track the
progress on the Overpass map.

Cheers,
 Harald.


On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Harald Kliems kli...@gmail.com wrote:

 So before contacting Martijn I want to be sure that we can properly
 identify the potentially problematic ways. What we are looking for are ways
 that match the following query:

 (highway=motorway_link) AND (NOT oneway=*) AND (lanes!=1)

 Or in natural language: ways that are motorway links but don't have the
 oneway tag nor are tagged as having one lane. If you want to test this
 query, go to this link http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1CI and adjust the
 bounding box coordinates for the desired area.

 Comments?

  Harald.


 On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Daniel Begin jfd...@hotmail.com wrote:

 The example I provided yesterday was not fixed.  Most the exits having a
 similar look along the trans-Canada Highway in Quebec are the same. I have
 also found examples in Alberta and In BC.



 Daniel



 *From:* Harald Kliems [mailto:kli...@gmail.com]
 *Sent:* November-26-13 10:04
 *To:* Daniel Begin
 *Cc:* Connors, Bernie (SNB); Talk-CA OpenStreetMap

 *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] GPS and Motorway links ...



 I can write an email to Martijn with a proposal. Does anyone have a link
 to an exit that has not been fixed yet to use as an example?



  Harald.



 On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Daniel Begin jfd...@hotmail.com wrote:

 It seems to me it is the only safe solution. I go for maproulette.org

 Daniel



 *From:* Connors, Bernie (SNB) [mailto:bernie.conn...@snb.ca]
 *Sent:* November-26-13 08:19
 *To:* 'Harald Kliems'; Daniel Begin
 *Cc:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
 *Subject:* RE: [Talk-ca] GPS and Motorway links ...



 +1 for the Maproulette.org solution.



 Bernie.

 --

 Bernie Connors, P.Eng

 Tel: 506-444-2077

 bernie.conn...@snb.ca

 *SNB – We make it happen…*

 [image: SAG_Logo_2013]



 *From:* Harald Kliems [mailto:kli...@gmail.com kli...@gmail.com]
 *Sent:* Monday, 2013-11-25 5:05 PM
 *To:* Daniel Begin
 *Cc:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
 *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] GPS and Motorway links ...







 On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Daniel Begin jfd...@hotmail.com wrote:

 Hooo, I see, and I also see there was not a large consensus on that point
 (Discussion) since all other ways are having a different behavior…



 About all motorway_link in Canada are having the same problem!

 I don't know, I rarely encounter this issue in practice. Adding oneway=no
 to all motorway_link seems rather dangerous and counterproductive. The best
 solution would probably be to create a query that will find all imported
 motorway_link that have not been touched since the import and then check
 them. Depending on how big the task is we could ask Martijn to set it up as
 a Maproulette (http://maproulette.org/). Or we set up a wiki page to
 coordinate people going through all the motorways/exits and make sure
 everything is okay by hand. There are only 33 Autoroutes in Quebec after
 all :-)



  Harald.







 --
 Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
 Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565




 --
 Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
 Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565




-- 
Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565
image001.jpg___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

[Talk-ca] Overpass Turbo has gotten even better!

[Harald Kliems]

First the was the Overpass API, a powerful usable only by a few; then there
was Overpass Turbo, usable also by folks like me. And now there is a wizard
for Overpass Turbo, which should make the tool accessible to an even wider
audience: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/tyr_asd/diary/20548

Happy holidays!
 Harald.

-- 
Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Montreal new editor needs help

[Harald Kliems]

I reverted the changeset and recreated the POI, hopefully at its proper
location. Probably not worth contacting the person, but maybe we should
keep an eye on him.

 Harald.


On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:

 www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/19598209


 oops. You need the link for context.  :-)

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




-- 
Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Les licences Creative Commons 4.0 (CC-BY-4.0 et CC-BY-SA-4.0) est-elle acceptée par OSM

[Harald Kliems]

Bonjour Diane,

there recently was a discussion of this topic on the OSM-legal list:
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-About-CC-4-0-and-ODbl-td5779531.html
As per usual, the bottom line is maybe, or maybe not.

 Harald.


2013/12/17 Diane Mercier diane.merc...@gmail.com

 Bonjour,

 Pourriez-vous m'indiquer si OSM accepte les données libérées sous
 les licences Creative Commons CC-BY-4.0 et CC-BY-SA-4.0?

 Si l'information n'est pas encore disponible, pourriez-vous me
 mettre en contact avec un représentant impliqué dans l'homologation
 de licence?

 Merci de votre attention.


 --
 Diane Mercier, Ph. D.
 Docteure en sciences de l'information

 Chargée de projet principale sur les données ouvertes
 Ville de Montréal, Direction des communications
 303, rue Notre-Dame Est, 1A
 Montréal QUÉBEC H2Y 3Y8
 Tél. : 514 872-9702




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




-- 
Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

[Talk-ca] Fwd: Bing

[Harald Kliems]

Oops, this should have gone to the list.

-- Forwarded message --
From: Harald Kliems kli...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 9:47 AM
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Bing
To: Bruno Remy bremy.qc...@gmail.com


Oh no! I haven't seen any announcements and couldn't find anything on the
forums or other ML's. You can play around with the Bing Aerial Imagery
Analyzer (data only gets updated when you zoom in far enough) and you'll
see that z=20 is mostly gone in Quebec, except for weird little pockets
like this
http://ant.dev.openstreetmap.org/bingimageanalyzer/?lat=45.47113154404lon=-73.58157634735107zoom=16l=bing

In Montreal, the pictures with the highest resolution were pretty old
anyway (2008 I think) and maybe that's the reason for Bing removing them?

 Harald.


On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Bruno Remy bremy.qc...@gmail.com wrote:

 Bonjour,

 Avez-vous remarqué la récente disparition du niveau de zoom le + fort de
 Bing depuis le 1er décembre?
 Y-a-t-il un communiqué officiel de Microfot (Bing) et/ou de la Fondation
 OpenStreetMap à ce sujet?
 
 Hello,

 Did you noticed that last level of Bing Imagery has recently disapeared
 (on sunday 1st dec.) ?
 Is there any official post from Microsoft (Bing) and/or OpenStreetMap
 Foundation about that?

 
 Bruno Remy

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




-- 
Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565



-- 
Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Problem with overpasses in NB??

[Harald Kliems]

Yeah, I've been looking into that. I'm no Overpass pro either, though, but
should be able to come up with something. Bug me again in a couple days if
I don't :-)

 Harald.




On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 9:07 PM, Connors, Bernie (SNB) bernie.conn...@snb.ca
 wrote:

 Richard,

   What I would like to do is run a query with the Overpass API that
 would identify the locations of this error so we can all judge how large an
 issue this is.  Unfortunately I have never written an Overpass API query
 and I would like some assistance.  Recently this query (
 http://goo.gl/AYJ0Nt) that identifies errors in Motorway links was shared
 on Talk-CA and I modified the bounding box to run it against New Brunswick.
  Can somebody help me out with a query that identifies unnecessary
 intersections in bridges?

 TIA,
 Bernie.
 --
 Bernie Connors, P.Eng
 New maryland, NB
 bernie.conn...@unb.ca
 
 From: Richard Weait [rich...@weait.com]
 Sent: December 2, 2013 4:50 PM
 To: Connors, Bernie (SNB)
 Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
 Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Problem with overpasses in NB??

 On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Connors, Bernie (SNB)
 bernie.conn...@snb.ca wrote:
  Here is an example - http://osm.org/go/cgZ854R_8--
 
  The problem is that there is an intersection node between
  McKinnon Road and Route 8 but there is an overpass bridge at this
 location.

 That does look like an error, I've fixed that one.  The history on the
 involved objects is short, and suggests that it is an import.  Do you
 want to contact the mapper and ask about the matter?
 ___
 Talk-ca mailing list
 Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca




-- 
Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Problem with overpasses in NB??

[Harald Kliems]

Okay, so I've done some digging. Unfortunately, the Overpass API does not
have a function to identify intersecting ways with a shared node. The only
way to find those would be do do an Overpass query for all the bridges and
then use javascript to identify the ways that share nodes. I lack the
skills to do the latter.

Identifying bridges which lack the layer tag, however, is easy:
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1FZ

Once all the missing layer tags will have been added, we can then use
keepright's (http://keepright.ipax.at/) layer conflicts function. Based on
the description of that function it actually seems like it should already
be able to find the problematic junctions:

Connected ways should be on the same layer. Crossings on intermediate
nodes of ways on different layers are obviously wrong. Junctions on
end-nodes of ways on different layers are also deprecated, but common
practice. So you may ignore this part of the check and switch them off
separately. Please note that bridges are set to layer +1, and tunnels to
-1, anything else to layer 0 implicitly if no layer tag is present.

 Harald.


On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 9:21 AM, berniejconnors berniejconn...@gmail.comwrote:

 Here is another sample of the problem since Richard corrected my other
 example ;-)

 http://osm.org/go/cgOZhazjT?m=

 As I see it there are 2 problems with these bridges:
 1) they intersect with the roads that pass beneath them
 2) the layer value is not set so the default value of layer=0 (ground) is
 assumed. Typically a bridge should have layer=1.

 I would like to have an overpass api query that selects bridges that meet
 either of these conditions.

 Thanks,
 Bernie.


 Sent from Samsung Mobile

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




-- 
Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] GPS and Motorway links ...

[Harald Kliems]

So before contacting Martijn I want to be sure that we can properly
identify the potentially problematic ways. What we are looking for are ways
that match the following query:

(highway=motorway_link) AND (NOT oneway=*) AND (lanes!=1)

Or in natural language: ways that are motorway links but don't have the
oneway tag nor are tagged as having one lane. If you want to test this
query, go to this link http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1CI and adjust the
bounding box coordinates for the desired area.

Comments?

 Harald.


On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Daniel Begin jfd...@hotmail.com wrote:

 The example I provided yesterday was not fixed.  Most the exits having a
 similar look along the trans-Canada Highway in Quebec are the same. I have
 also found examples in Alberta and In BC.



 Daniel



 *From:* Harald Kliems [mailto:kli...@gmail.com]
 *Sent:* November-26-13 10:04
 *To:* Daniel Begin
 *Cc:* Connors, Bernie (SNB); Talk-CA OpenStreetMap

 *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] GPS and Motorway links ...



 I can write an email to Martijn with a proposal. Does anyone have a link
 to an exit that has not been fixed yet to use as an example?



  Harald.



 On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Daniel Begin jfd...@hotmail.com wrote:

 It seems to me it is the only safe solution. I go for maproulette.org

 Daniel



 *From:* Connors, Bernie (SNB) [mailto:bernie.conn...@snb.ca]
 *Sent:* November-26-13 08:19
 *To:* 'Harald Kliems'; Daniel Begin
 *Cc:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
 *Subject:* RE: [Talk-ca] GPS and Motorway links ...



 +1 for the Maproulette.org solution.



 Bernie.

 --

 Bernie Connors, P.Eng

 Tel: 506-444-2077

 bernie.conn...@snb.ca

 *SNB – We make it happen…*

 [image: SAG_Logo_2013]



 *From:* Harald Kliems [mailto:kli...@gmail.com kli...@gmail.com]
 *Sent:* Monday, 2013-11-25 5:05 PM
 *To:* Daniel Begin
 *Cc:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
 *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] GPS and Motorway links ...







 On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Daniel Begin jfd...@hotmail.com wrote:

 Hooo, I see, and I also see there was not a large consensus on that point
 (Discussion) since all other ways are having a different behavior…



 About all motorway_link in Canada are having the same problem!

 I don't know, I rarely encounter this issue in practice. Adding oneway=no
 to all motorway_link seems rather dangerous and counterproductive. The best
 solution would probably be to create a query that will find all imported
 motorway_link that have not been touched since the import and then check
 them. Depending on how big the task is we could ask Martijn to set it up as
 a Maproulette (http://maproulette.org/). Or we set up a wiki page to
 coordinate people going through all the motorways/exits and make sure
 everything is okay by hand. There are only 33 Autoroutes in Quebec after
 all :-)



  Harald.







 --
 Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
 Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565




-- 
Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565
image001.jpg___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Keep Right Error

[Harald Kliems]

Adam,
has this been a persistent error? I've also spent a while finding the
source of the disconnect and couldn't track it down. There seems to be a
random boundary somewhere on Cape Breton Island, but all the highways seem
to be connected. So I'm wondering if maybe the problem was a temporary one
and the keepright data (last update Nov 14) is just outdated?

 Harald.


On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Adam Martin s.adam.mar...@gmail.comwrote:

 Hello all,

 This is my first to this list and I have a question regarding a particular
 keep right error I keep seeing for the island portion of Newfoundland and
 Labrador. All roads within the Province are flagged as being Floating
 Islands, indicating that there is some sort of gap or break in the
 connection to the mainland. I traced the roads backwards across the
 province and it did not seem to be sourced on the Island itself. So I
 travelled the length of the ferry line to Nova Scotia and checked the Cape
 Breton Island area. Apparently, the error begins there, which causes the
 entire island of Newfoundland to show as being unconnected.

 However, I am having trouble localizing the error on Cape Breton. There
 are several places that it seems to trace to, but none that I have
 investigated so far appear to actually have disconnections occurring. These
 roads are all imports of the CANVEC data which is known to have some
 inaccuracies, but that is different from this error. I think it might be
 that the import failed in some manner and caused an error
  in the connections that keep right has a problem with. Anyone else here
 have any knowledge of what might have happened?

 Thanks,

 Adam

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




-- 
Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] GPS and Motorway links ...

[Harald Kliems]

Daniel,
if you look at the motorway_link page in the wiki (
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Motorway_link) you'll see that by
default it implies oneway=yes. That would explain the behavior you
described.

Most motorway_link roads will be one way, and should be tagged
onewayhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:oneway
=yes http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:oneway%3Dyes. Any unusual
motorway link road which is two-way should be explicitly tagged
onewayhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:oneway
=no http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:oneway%3Dno. Note that this is
different to the way we treat other highway classifications, because
motorway link roads are so often one way. Explicit tagging (either way) can
be important, since *some* tools interpret motorway link roads as
implicitly oneway=yes unless tagged oneway=no.

I wonder if there would be a way to filter all those links that are
reversed with the Overpass API?

 Harald.


On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Daniel Begin jfd...@hotmail.com wrote:

 Bonjour,



 I’ve just found out that I have routing troubles with OSM data in a Garmin
 GPS when motorway_link are not tagged oneway=yes/no. Here is an example
 where some segments of motorway_link can be driven both ways (2 lanes, one
 each side)



 http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/46.0194/-72.3512



 Everything works fine when tags are…

 highway=motorway_link

 oneway=no, or

 oneway=yes



 But it doesn’t work if there is no oneway tag. Actually, the way must have
 been digitized in the direction I want ot go – as if it assumes that no
 oneway tag means oneway=yes.  In the provided example, my GPS will find a
 way out of the motorway but it will not find a way in! -  must be looked at
 in an editor.



 It could have been my usual OSM/Garmin provider (
 http://www.osmmaps.com/maps/canada ) but when I saw the same behavior in
 JOSM I wonder if there is a rule I’m not aware of? Should I change my
 OSM/Garmin provider or tell him there is a problem with his conversion
 program?



 Comments or answers?



 Daniel

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




-- 
Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Why does a search for Edmonton show the city out in the country?

[Harald Kliems]

If you click on View Details you will get to this way:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/28295454

I believe the problem is that the way is tagged as area=yes, despite not
being closed. And I guess in general it would make more sense to have the
city boundaries in a relation, not a way. I'm not totally sure about this,
though, so maybe someone more familiar with the boundaries can have a look
at it.

 Harald.


On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Mark Bennett mark.f.benn...@gmail.comwrote:

 If I search for Edmonton on http://openstreetmap.org than select City
 Edmonton, Alberta, Canada I am taken to this feature which is way out in
 the country.

 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/28295454

 Shouldn't this take me to a marker in the centre of the city? Or at least
 somewhere within the city boundry? I'm happy to fix this, but am not sure I
 understand what's wrong.

 Any advice? Thanks!

 -mark

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




-- 
Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] OSM Cycle map

[Harald Kliems]

Having biked across that border myself, I can attest that there are indeed
mean hills , but nothing quite as bad :-)

I suspect that OCM uses two different DEM sources for the US and Canada,
leading to wackiness neart the border.

 Harald.


On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Daniel Begin jfd...@hotmail.com wrote:

 I have found something odd with the rendering of OSM Cycle map; right on
 the boundary. Didn’t know there was such a cliff in the area!



 http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/45.0011/-72.1567layers=C



 Daniel

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




-- 
Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] CanVec 10 Data

[Harald Kliems]

I think Daniel's email got cut off at the end :-)

On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 6:26 AM, Daniel Begin jfd...@hotmail.com wrote:

 I'm not familiar with imports using Potlatch but importing it using JOSM is
 quite easy - open the file, select the features, copy then in a new layer
 and then upload the layer in OSM...

...after you've carefully checked if everything is plausible and you don't
mess up the work of other contributors who may already have added
housenumber data of better quality.

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Where the streets have no name...

[Harald Kliems]

Quick update (maybe to inspire other contributors):

I've finished adding street names in Drummondville. Unfortunately, there is
no high-res aerial imagery there and so I had to rely exclusively on
Canvec/Geobase. There were a few spots were the data looked sketchy and I
didn't add streets there. Let's hope we have some locals to finish the work
there.

Alright, on to Saint-Bruno-de-Montarville.

 Harald (who's currently in Toronto and marveling at OSM's data quality
downtown!)


On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Harald Kliems kli...@gmail.com wrote:

 +1
 I've never done real Canvec imports, but just add Canvec data (usually
 street names) from the JOSM Geobase layer. It's pretty straightforward if
 you already are a JOSM user.

 Slight thread drift: I think I may have asked this question in the past
 but I can't remember the answer or find the old thread. The Geobase street
 names in Quebec often contain extra blank spaces, often (but not always)
 separating the Rue/Ave/Boul from the name from the N/E/S/O (e.g. Rue
 Boisbriand or Boulevard  Saint-Denis  Ouest). This in not correct and
 should ideally be fixed, right?

  Harald (who's taken over Drummondville)


 2013/10/31 Bruno Remy bremy.qc...@gmail.com

 Bonjour,

 En fait, l'idée, c'est que c'est accessible à *tous* les contributeurs,
 même les débutants qui ne maîtrisent pas les imports Canvec:
 Dans la majorité des cas, les imports de lignes d'interpolations sont
 déjà là. Il reste juste à tracer le way de la route, et à lui rajouter le
 nom qui est déjà dans les points d'interpolation.
 Donc, même sans JOSM, c'est un travail d'édition *très* basique en mode
 web avec ID éditor ou Potlach. Je le fais même sur mon cellulaire avec
 Vespucci pour Androïd!

 Bruno



 2013/10/31 Tom Taylor tom.taylor.s...@gmail.com

 Geobase Roads était la couche dont j'avais besoin. Merci encore.


 On 31/10/2013 11:47 AM, Pierre Béland wrote:

 Hi Tom

 Il y a eu une discussion en juillet relativement a l'impossibilité de se
 connecter au serveur ftp

   http://ftp2.cits.rncan.gc.ca/osm/pub

 Il reste la possibilité d'accéder via JOSM aux couches CANVEC et
 Geobase. J'ai ajouté ces couches dans la liste des couches disponibles.
 Voir dans la section CA.


 There was discussion in july about ftp access problems to

   http://ftp2.cits.rncan.gc.ca/osm/pub

 This is still not possible to connect. An option is to use in JOSM the
 Canvec and Geobase layers. I have added these to the WMS/TMS list of
 available layers under the CA section.


 Pierre

 
 
 *De :* Tom Taylor tom.taylor.s...@gmail.com
 *À :* Bruno Remy bremy.qc...@gmail.com; Harald Kliems 
 kli...@gmail.com
 *Cc :* talk-ca@openstreetmap.org talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
 *Envoyé le :* Jeudi 31 octobre 2013 9h31
 *Objet :* Re: [Talk-ca] Where the streets have no name...


 I started to work on the smallest slice in Quebec West, i.e., St.
 Augustin. I have no experience doing Canvec imports, so I've just been
 poking around on the Geogratis web site looking for the right product. I
 always seem to end up with a display of the same map data, not updated
 since 2005 and showing less information than we already have in OSM. Can
 you point me to what I really need?

 Tom Taylor
 TomT5454

  ...


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




 --
 Bruno Remy

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




 --
 Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
 Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565




-- 
Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Where the streets have no name...

[Harald Kliems]

Thanks, Pierre!

While we're at the topic of useful tips: If you want to find the streets
without names in JOSM, start the search (CTRL-F) and search for highway=*
-name=*

 Harald.


2013/10/31 Pierre Béland pierz...@yahoo.fr

 C'est exact Harald,

 cela doit être corrigé.

 J'ai récemment corrigé les noms de rues importés de Canvec avec deux
 espaces. J'ai utilisé Overpass pour trouver ces noms, puis j'ai corrigé
 dans JOSM.

 Je vois qu'il y en a encore quelques-un a Drummondville, Tu peux utiliser
 le script Overpass suivant pour les repérer et importer dans JOSM pour
 correction.

 L'instruction suivante repère les noms avec deux espaces.

 has-kv k=name regv=  /

 Procédure overpass : http://overpass-turbo.eu/
 Tu zoomes dans la région de Drummondville, copie le script ci-dessous,
 puis clique sur Exécuter.

 query type=way
   has-kv k=name regv=  /
   bbox-query {{bbox}}/!--this is auto-completed with the
current map view coordinates.--
 /query
 print mode=meta /
 recurse type=down/
 print mode=meta /



 Pierre

   --
  *De :* Harald Kliems kli...@gmail.com
 *À :* Bruno Remy bremy.qc...@gmail.com
 *Cc :* talk-ca@openstreetmap.org talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
 *Envoyé le :* Jeudi 31 octobre 2013 13h36
 *Objet :* Re: [Talk-ca] Where the streets have no name...

 +1
 I've never done real Canvec imports, but just add Canvec data (usually
 street names) from the JOSM Geobase layer. It's pretty straightforward if
 you already are a JOSM user.

 Slight thread drift: I think I may have asked this question in the past
 but I can't remember the answer or find the old thread. The Geobase street
 names in Quebec often contain extra blank spaces, often (but not always)
 separating the Rue/Ave/Boul from the name from the N/E/S/O (e.g. Rue
 Boisbriand or Boulevard  Saint-Denis  Ouest). This in not correct and
 should ideally be fixed, right?

  Harald (who's taken over Drummondville)


 2013/10/31 Bruno Remy bremy.qc...@gmail.com

 Bonjour,

 En fait, l'idée, c'est que c'est accessible à *tous* les contributeurs,
 même les débutants qui ne maîtrisent pas les imports Canvec:
 Dans la majorité des cas, les imports de lignes d'interpolations sont déjà
 là. Il reste juste à tracer le way de la route, et à lui rajouter le nom
 qui est déjà dans les points d'interpolation.
 Donc, même sans JOSM, c'est un travail d'édition *très* basique en mode
 web avec ID éditor ou Potlach. Je le fais même sur mon cellulaire avec
 Vespucci pour Androïd!

 Bruno



 2013/10/31 Tom Taylor tom.taylor.s...@gmail.com

 Geobase Roads était la couche dont j'avais besoin. Merci encore.


 On 31/10/2013 11:47 AM, Pierre Béland wrote:

 Hi Tom

 Il y a eu une discussion en juillet relativement a l'impossibilité de se
 connecter au serveur ftp

   http://ftp2.cits.rncan.gc.ca/**osm/pubhttp://ftp2.cits.rncan.gc.ca/osm/pub

 Il reste la possibilité d'accéder via JOSM aux couches CANVEC et Geobase.
 J'ai ajouté ces couches dans la liste des couches disponibles. Voir dans la
 section CA.


 There was discussion in july about ftp access problems to

   http://ftp2.cits.rncan.gc.ca/**osm/pubhttp://ftp2.cits.rncan.gc.ca/osm/pub

 This is still not possible to connect. An option is to use in JOSM the
 Canvec and Geobase layers. I have added these to the WMS/TMS list of
 available layers under the CA section.


 Pierre

 --**--**
 
 *De :* Tom Taylor tom.taylor.s...@gmail.com
 *À :* Bruno Remy bremy.qc...@gmail.com; Harald Kliems kli...@gmail.com
 *Cc :* talk-ca@openstreetmap.org talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
 *Envoyé le :* Jeudi 31 octobre 2013 9h31
 *Objet :* Re: [Talk-ca] Where the streets have no name...


 I started to work on the smallest slice in Quebec West, i.e., St.
 Augustin. I have no experience doing Canvec imports, so I've just been
 poking around on the Geogratis web site looking for the right product. I
 always seem to end up with a display of the same map data, not updated
 since 2005 and showing less information than we already have in OSM. Can
 you point me to what I really need?

 Tom Taylor
 TomT5454

  ...


 __**_
 Talk-ca mailing list
 Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-cahttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca




 --
 Bruno Remy

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





 --
 Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
 Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565

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





-- 
Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org

Re: [Talk-ca] Where the streets have no name...

[Harald Kliems]

Bruno,
thanks for this list! Something to do for me on those cold and rainy fall
days... Would it maybe make sense to make a cake with MapCraft to
coordinate the effort and avoid conflicts?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/MapCraft I've never set up a cake, only
used ones baked by others, but maybe someone on the list could help.
Cheers,
 Harald.


2013/10/28 Bruno Remy bremy.qc...@gmail.com

 Bonjour à tous

 Dans un tout autre ordre d'idée, suite à des discutions qui ont eu
 lieu avant et pendant la Cartopartie de dimanche, li y a des villes du
 Québec qui demanderaient un soin tout particulier:
 Ces villes n'ont pas de noms de rues ou ont des quartiers entiers sans
 noms de rues. Parfois même des nouveaux développements résidentiels ne
 sont pas cartographiés, et pourtant ils apparaissent dans l'image
 satelite ou via les données Canvec ou Geobase...
 Comme chanterait U2 'Where the streets have no name'  ;-)

 Vous m'avez demandé cette liste dimanche, alors la voici :
 Ces villes sont classées par ordre décroissant sur 2 criteres : leur
 état actuel de données, et leur population:

 Drummondville
 Mascouche
 Saint-Georges
 Saint-Bruno-de-Montarville
 Thetford Mines
 Sept-Îles
 Granby
 Trois-Rivières
 Repentigny
 Saint-Hyacinthe
 Shawinigan
 Victoriaville
 Mirabel

 N'hésitez pas à faire circuler cette liste autour de vous!

 --
 Bruno Remy

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




-- 
Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Offset in Montreal

[Harald Kliems]

Bruno,
in my experience the difference in offset is not the same everywhere in
Montreal. In my neighborhood (Pointe-Saint-Charles) it is only minimal, but
in other parts of the city I have noticed larger offsets -- though maybe
not as much as 17m, more in the 5m range. Which one is more accurate: I'm
not sure. I usually decide case by base by looking at nearby GPS tracks.
Cheers,
 Harald.


2013/10/12 Bruno Remy bremy.qc...@gmail.com

 Bonjour aux contributeurs de Montréal!

 Je voudrais juste être sûr : Il y a un offset entre les orthophotos BING
 zoom 19 et zoom 18
 Si c'est comme chez nous à Québec, la couche 19 est proche des positions
 rééelles, tandis que la couche 18 a un offset d'environ 17m à l'Ouest et 5m
 au Sud.
 Quelqu'un pourrait-il me le confirmer? ;)

 Merci beaucoup!

 PS: Au niveau des dates... c'est pareil: il y a un bon décallage entre les
 deux et c'est la couche 18 qui est plus récente (on aurait aimé le
 contraire  mais bon...)

 --
 Bruno Remy

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




-- 
Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

[Talk-ca] Fwd: Larder Lake, Ontario completely missing

[Harald Kliems]

-- Forwarded message --
From: Harald Kliems kli...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 6:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Larder Lake, Ontario completely missing
To: James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com


I've quickly traced the basic street grid based on Bing and Geobase.
Improvements are welcome, especially further south where there is a big
cloud on the aerial imagery.
 Harald.


On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 6:15 PM, James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.comwrote:

 Anybody want to import this town?  It's completely missing in OSM data
 except for {66}.

 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/note/32942

 -James

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




-- 
Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565



-- 
Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca