Native en-US speaker here.
The city of Washington and the District of Columbia are coterminous.
Toponyms such as 'Georgetown', 'Anacostial', 'University Heights', refer to
neighbourhoods within the city.
It's quite common in the US to say, 'D.C.' when talking about the city -
perhaps even
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 5:48 PM Mark Brown wrote:
> I've noticed that the US Topo Maps are way out of date before - whole
> rivers have shifted since the version that displays on JSOM was last
> compiled. Still, like TIGER roads, it's better than nothing I guess.
>
No surprise. USGS was
On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 6:09 PM Mark Brown wrote:
> Just mapping some of the trails in the Cabinet Mountains in the Idaho
> panhandle, from the US Topo Maps. Noticed that the trails have numbers.
> What should I put in the "ref" for the route relation?
It's perfectly acceptable to put a trail
On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 3:15 PM Evin Fairchild wrote:
> Many of his downgrading from Trump to primary were completely unjustified.
Oh, $LC_DEITY, autocorrupt in 2020! (I'd have loved to have
downgraded Trump in the primary, but this year he was unopposed.)
Yeah, I know, you meant 'trunk'.
--
1. I agree with Paul that the US definitely does have trunk roads.
High-speed dual carriageways with some grade crossings, or 'super
twos,' both qualify. (See (3) for the counterargument about
'importance to the highway network.')
2. The network and route number do not reliably identify the
Another vote for Evin and Minh's interpretation.
I've been tagging named, signed, suburban (in the US sense)
subdivisions with landuse=residential and name=*.
I make no distinction among the subdivisions that consist of
apartments, terraces, or detached houses (except when mapping the
buildings
On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 6:04 AM Minh Nguyen
wrote:
> More recently, Kevin Kenny reimplemented the shield renderer using a
> more robust approach [3] and has discussed route relation support with
> the openstreetmap-carto developers. [4]
>
> OSMUS is interested in offering an Americ
On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 5:34 PM Doug Peterson <
dougpeter...@dpeters2.dyndns.org> wrote:
> That is made up of two properties. The southern, larger square is owned by
> Thomas & Jane Griffith. The northern, smaller square is owned by the John &
> Jane Griffith. The other square to the west of that,
On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 2:48 PM Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> But if we are talking about legal parcel boundaries or legal protected
> area boundaries, or administrative limits, then it's not at all possible
> for OpenStreetMap users to resolve these conflicts in our database alone.
>
> What needs to
On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 1:47 PM Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> My goodness, look at that monstrosity:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1976405#map=8/46.459/-87.627
>
> How can we claim that all of these patches of state-owned land constitute
> a single OpenStreetMap feature?
>
Because they
On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 3:14 PM stevea wrote:
> Here I weigh-in with what I believe to be a crucial distinction between
> "cadastral data which are privately owned" and "data which can be
> characterized as cadastral, but which are publicly owned and are often used
> for recreation, hiking and
On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 9:03 AM Frederik Ramm wrote:
> On 01.09.20 14:40, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> > We don't map cadastre at least partly out of respect for personal
> > privacy - something that is not at issue with government-owned land.
>
> I think I'm with Joseph here, we don
On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 12:52 AM Bradley White
wrote:
> If you drive into a checkerboard
>> area of private/public land, there are no Forest Service signs at the
>> limits of private land.
>>
>
> In my neck of the woods, USFS owned land is signed fairly frequently with
> small yellow property
On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 3:18 AM Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> The OpenStreetMap community has long agreed that mapping cadastral parcels
> (land ownership) is not in scope. Protect area and National Park boundaries
> were supposed to be less difficult to confirm and more valid.
>
> But if what we are
On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 7:11 PM Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> I believe there might be an issue with these complex multipolygons which
> is preventing osm2pgsql from handling them. Perhaps it is because nodes are
> shared between two outer rings?
>
> However, I also want to note that it is not clear
On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 9:06 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us <
talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> 31 Aug 2020, 10:12 by frede...@remote.org:
>
> And @Mateusz, I am not convinced that "there are great views from here"
> is sufficient for tourism=viewpoint because it is too subjective. With
>
On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 5:21 PM Eric H. Christensen via Talk-us <
talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> For the last few months, I've been seeing "Future I-87" signs along
> portions of US-64 and US-17 in North Carolina. I-87[0] exists on a section
> of highway near Raleigh, NC, and will
You still aren't giving us very much to go on. There's obviously some
boundary that you consider to be inarguably correct. You need either to
enter the data yourself or tell us where to find it and where the
discrepancies are.
Sometimes that involves quite a lot of research. I have a ton of data
The 'names' look like someone's field notes: 'Tarn A', 'Tarn B', 'Tarn C',
'Tarn Off the Map', 'Tarn Off the Trail', rather than something that the
locals would call them.
Of course, people's field notes leak into imported data sources all the
time.
For the sake of not firing the first shot in
On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 1:27 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us <
talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
> Jul 20, 2020, 15:32 by o...@dead10ck.com:
>
> I was going to make a subpage of New York with the title of "NYS GIS
> Clearinghouse", and include a link to it in the Potential Data sources
> page.
On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 9:29 PM brad wrote:
> Thanks for diving in. If it's a very minor unimproved road and not
> clearly service, I usually tag it track. I would suggest adding some
> indication of road quality. If it's an improved gravel road, I consider
> surface=gravel sufficient.
On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 12:46 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us <
talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> Once you write this diary entry (or OSM Wiki page) please post
> it to the mailing list!
>
Here you go: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/ke9tv/diary/393684
Feel free to repost, wikify, share
(By the way, hi, Skyler, and welcome! You've stepped into a difficult
area - most programmers don't realize just how difficult until they've
waded in.
The legal situation in New York is _very_ complicated, because the key
court case that governs GIS data settled out of court before the
On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 1:52 PM Jmapb wrote:
> I'm also in the "worry about it" camp.
>
> To me, it's sad to see a mapper go to all the trouble of fixing the routing
> to the house https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/263869602 by drawing in the
> driveway
On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 6:05 PM Mike Thompson wrote:
> > - The access -- somewhat common to find a pubic road imported with
> > access=private, so if I suspect this I'll leave the tiger:reviewed=no tag
> > until access can be confirmed, and add a note or fixme. (It's also quite
> > common to
On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 7:38 PM Bob Gambrel wrote:
>
> A very good answer stevea. I suspect the changes I have been making would be
> appropriate enough for removing tiger_reviewed=no.
>
> 1) almost always have driven the road as passenger taking notes in OSMAND+
> about pavement type
> 2) in ID
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 7:36 PM stevea wrote:
> Adam Franco writes:
> > Here's an example:
> > - Parent relation:
> > - name=Xxxx National Forest
> > - operator=United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
> > - ownership=national
>
> Ah, OK, If you really DO mean
On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 9:31 AM wrote:
> Started mapping an area of the Idaho panhandle around the Kootenai
> river. I notice that currently minor roads have a "County Road nn" name
> but TIGER2019 data also has names such as "Acacia Avenue". I think most
> map users would want to use the "Acacia
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 8:33 PM Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> > I was thinking just create separate polygons for inholdings, tagged with
> > access=private and possibly ownership=private
>
> While many Americans like to put "no trespassing" signs on their private
> property, a privately owned
On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 11:45 AM Dave Swarthout wrote:
> Once I restarted JOSM, the old USGS Topo layer disappeared and after a
> longish search through the Imagery Preferences, finally located the new
> layer. I'd have never figured out what went wrong had Todd not posted this
> question. The
On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 8:49 AM Brandon Cobb wrote:
>
> It still exists in JOSM, it just looks like the imagery was renamed to
> “USA/Mexico/Canada/Scandinavia Topo Maps”.
AHA! There it is! Up at the top under 'Worldwide", rather than listed
under "US", which is why I didn't spot the
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 8:15 PM Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> You can just overlap them. Don't worry too much about how OpenStreetMap carto
> renders it, as long as they way you map it makes sense and matches reality.
> Perhaps we can fix the rendering if the current results are causing
>
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 3:24 PM stevea wrote:
> I'm not in Massachusetts, but as I constantly strive to improve my listening
> skills, so I ask you to please point out any flaws in my understanding of
> this. I'm literally quoting from Footnote 18: "Geographically divided into
> 14 counties,
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 8:33 AM Brian Stromberg
wrote:
> When I hear “clinic” in reference to a healthcare facility, I think of
> “urgent care” clinics, and I think there are about six urgent care clinics
> within a 20 minute drive of my local hospital. These are usually staffed with
> nurses
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 7:56 AM Philip Barnes wrote:
> A clinic is where outpatients go, usually referred by their doctor to
> see a specialist.
>
> The on the ground reality is that most clinics take place within
> hospitals.
My primary care physician works out of a clinic. My family and I have
On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 3:41 PM Eric H. Christensen via Talk-us
wrote:
> Sorry for the late entry to the discussion but I did have a little
> information to add here.
>
> Wilderness, at least at the federal level, enjoys a different protection from
> that of a national forest. There is to be
On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 1:11 PM stevea wrote:
> The myriad variations of "name" (alt, loc, nat, old, reg, official, sorting,
> int...) show how complex this is. The issues go back many years and will
> likely continue well into the future, indeed many participants in this/these
> thread(s)
On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 8:40 PM Tod Fitch wrote:
> If I am looking at the map data correctly, it seem that at least some
> designated wilderness areas are excluded from the forest that they are in.
> For example the Chumash Wilderness [1] seems to have its border as an outer
> on the Los
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 1:30 AM Michael Patrick wrote:
> And size is no determination of importance, because the 'rules' are
> dramatically different for different agencies and departments. Some of these
> provide access, The Magruder Corridor easement is basically the width of the
> track,
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019, 16:39 Mike Thompson wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 2:28 PM Bradley White
> wrote:
>
>> Yes I understand that, that is what the landuse tag is for. Private
>> land should tagged as private. Public land should be tagged as public.
>> The 'access' tag is probably preferable
Once again, I think that New York state lands offer a parallel.
The administrative borders of the Adirondack and Catskill parks are mapped
(boundary=national_park protect_class=2). This has been discussed
elsewhere; for these two specific regions, national_park appears to be a
better fit than a
On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 3:10 PM Mike Thompson wrote:
>
> Not all of the land within US National Forests is owned by the US Government,
> there are private "inholdings" [1].
>
> The boundaries between government land and private land are often marked by
> signs, e.g.[2] The above photo is
On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 2:40 AM Michael Patrick wrote:
> > "It is a park in the sense of American English as of 2019. Whether it is
> > a park according to OSM may be debatable, as it is an "unimproved" park,
> > meaning it is under development as to improvements like restrooms and
> > other
On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 12:04 PM Bill Ricker wrote:
> In many other matters we say we map the signage.
> That is not a bad place to start here.
> So a rule of it needs at least a name and/or a physical sign would be
> internally consistent and predictably OSMish.
> An exception to allow for
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 8:11 AM Paul Johnson wrote:
> The larger cities in southern Alaska. Most are gravel, including a paper
> interstate. I think Alaska's the last state to still have gravel state
> highways.
Not just southern Alaska. It's kind of hard to pave over permafrost,
so there's
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 8:09 AM stevea wrote:
> The topic begs the question as to what such (usually very) old,
> poor-condition (where they ARE poor) roads should be tagged (we limit
> ourselves to US roads here because this is talk-us), and at what granularity.
> (Volker COULD do detailed
Summary: I propose that the unifying feature of the typical State Park
is its protection status, and propose that one tag combination that
ought to appear on its boundary is `boundary=protected_area
protect_class=21`. I solicit community feedback before trying to
stitch this idea into the Wiki or
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 9:36 AM Phil! Gold wrote:
> The "state at a time" pattern, as I have always understood it, exists to
> keep vastly distant objects from being linked with each other. It makes
> it much less likely for someone, say, updating I-95 in Florida to get an
> editing conflict
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 6:20 PM Eric H. Christensen via Talk-us
wrote:
> I was told there was a website that forecasted the best times to do survey
> work with GNSS based upon diversity of satellites in the sky, solar activity,
> etc. Does anyone know what site this is?
Nowadays, the
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 10:50 AM Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> OSM was founded in 2004 on the principle of "if they won't give us the
> data, we'll make it ourselves" and that still holds true. I've started
> on making sure all rail-trails of a reasonable length (say, 5 miles
> upwards) are actually
I surmise that Steve intended to include a link:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_States_Public_Lands
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 6:34 PM stevea wrote:
>
> I have burnished this wiki to attempt to be comprehensive with Public Lands
> at federal, state, and county levels (even
On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 10:14 AM OSM Volunteer stevea
wrote:
> I appreciate it! I'm now/soon scouring more aerial/satellite imagery before
> I MIGHT (with trepidation) enter this. I do think it would be better if
> locals who are more certain about this were to enter it. Though if MassDOT
>
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 5:12 PM OSM Volunteer stevea
wrote:
> I myself have also used landuse=conservation (long ago) and/or
> leisure=nature_reserve (neither of which render, not really the point).
My understanding is that landuse=conservation is deprecated in favor
of boundary=protected_area.
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 11:01 PM Kevin Kenny wrote:
> I'm not a Bostonian, but I've been to Copley Place.
> Copley Place is a named building: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/240501783
more information https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copley_Place - the
building complex, in ad
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 10:40 PM Wolfgang Zenker
wrote:
> I tried to add the German Consulate General in Boston, MA, but could not
> find the address "Three Copley Place, Boston, MA 02116" in
> our data. That place is apparently somewhere near Boston University.
> Anyone local who could check if
oops, sent to wrong list
-- Forwarded message -
From: Kevin Kenny
Date: Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 2:36 PM
Subject: Fwd: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type
To: OSM Tagging mailing list
Using a British dictionary (Living Oxford Dictionary), the first
definition
oops, meant to send this to the list...
-- Forwarded message -
From: Kevin Kenny
Date: Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 2:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type
To: Mateusz Konieczny
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 12:06 PM Mateusz Konieczny
wrote
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 11:24 AM Mateusz Konieczny
wrote:
> Why not simply call anything which is a 'large public area for recreation', a
> park, and specify it additionally with additional tags?
>
> That would require redefining leisure=park and while would match use of word
> "park" in USA
>
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 9:05 AM Greg Troxel wrote:
> The other case is a large area with subareas that are each clearly one
> or the other. Consider:
>
> 1000 acre parcel, almost entirely forest in a natural state, with dirt
> hiking paths
>
> a 40 acre sub-piece of this on the edge, that
ike lands. (I know
> Kevin Kenny has made a good case for why he uses this tag on certain New York
> state "lands" of a certain sort. And a lot of state parks in California and
> other states get this tag.
More or less repeating my earlier argument:
I've applied this tag in
On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 10:33 PM OSM Volunteer stevea
wrote:
>
> I'll try to be brief, but there's a decade of history. The leisure=park wiki
> recently improved to better state it means "an urban/municipal" park, while
> boundary=national_park (or perhaps leisure=nature_reserve, maybe
>
On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 4:31 PM Michael Sidoric via Talk-us
wrote:
> Another consideration is accessibility.
> Not taking sides but besides aesthetics and nomenclature seems there needs to
> be some way for routing and tags to reflect whether a route is ‘safe’ or
> accessible.
>
> I map for
On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 7:22 PM Rihards wrote:
> On 19.04.19 19:34, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> > (There's also a law that snowshoes or skis are required
> > once the snow is 20 cm deep, but I follow "don't tag the local
> > legislation". There's nothing in that law regar
> Everywhere I've been in the US or Canada a dirt 'way' too narrow for a 4
> wheel vehicle is called a trail, path, or single track. For the most part
> they are appropriately (IMO) tagged as path. Unfortunately the wiki says
> this for highway:path (the highlighting is mine):
>
> A
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 4:02 PM OSM Volunteer stevea
wrote:
> The usage of a tag (via taginfo) does give some indication of its usefulness
> (e.g. school can't be that important a boundary tag if there are only nine or
> ten of them in all of OSM), unless massive numbers of them were imported,
On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 11:58 AM Mateusz Konieczny
wrote:
> Any info about meaning or use of
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tiger:FUNCSTAT
> would be useful.
https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/funcstat.html
What those phrases mean is not immediately clear.
I did another round of extracts to cover state parks and state
wildlife areas. You can see the geometry of everything now in the
.osm files inside https://kbk.is-a-geek.net/tmp/mi_sf.zip.
The tagging is still pretty sketchy - you guys need to discuss what
tagging can be created automatically (as
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 12:27 PM Mateusz Konieczny
wrote:
> Is there way to mark challenge as for armchair users/requiring local survey?
>
> And show from the second group only when explicitly required?
>
> I remember that on my attempt to use MapRoulette many were not doable without
> local
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 10:31 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
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 3:01 AM Mateusz Konieczny
wrote:
> For start, "residents only" gate is for me clearly access=private.
>
> "manned main gate" - is access strongly restricted?
> If nearly everybody, including vehicles, is let in I would tag it access=yes.
> It would also mean that
(Is there a Michigan-specific forum that we could take this to? We're
probably boring the daylights out of most of talk-us.)
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 9:16 PM Max Erickson wrote:
> The management units in the data are subunits of the state forests
> still. For instance, "Gwinn Forest Management
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 10:17 Max Erickson wrote:
> The compartments likely aren't the right data for a general purpose
> map; I'm not entirely sure, but they seem to be the basic management
> unit for state forest land, so when they consider a cut or whatever
> they consider it for that area. For
dwinROD.pdf.
> While interesting to read, I don't think that would be relevant to end
> users of OSM.
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 10:28 PM Kevin Kenny wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 11:31 AM Marcus W. Davenport
>> wrote:
>> > I'm a decently e
On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 1:18 PM Kevin Kenny wrote:
> > The Michigan maps are lacking the information for state forest land. I
> > have noted that the Upper Peninsula does have some state and national
> > forest areas, but there is much missing here in the Lower Peninsula.
&g
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 11:58 AM David Martin wrote:
> I'm new to editing OSM, having been a heavy user of OSMAnd for Android for
> several years. I primarily use the maps for snowmobiling here in Northern
> Michigan, and building my own database of gpx tracks.
>
> The Michigan maps are lacking
OOPS - meant to send to the list, not the originator...
-- Forwarded message -
From: Kevin Kenny
Date: Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 9:49 AM
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Spot elevations collected as natural=peak and
name=Point (height in feet)
To: Joseph Eisenberg
On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 11:02
On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 5:46 PM Phil! Gold wrote:
> I started work last year on a better system that generates SVGs on the fly
> from OSM data, so it doesn't need the pregeneration step. I got bogged
> down with other things before I quite finished, but it's mostly there.
It's really great
On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 11:37 AM Martijn van Exel wrote:
>
> I agree that a local US OSM map with a *subtly* adapted rendering would be
> fantastic. Phil Gold did some interesting work years ago on rendering US
> style highway shields taking into account (sometimes crazy) route concurrency
>
On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 10:59 AM Martijn van Exel wrote:
> If it’s just a shortcut to have the main OSM map display elevation in feet,
> that’s not right, but it indicates a need that is currently unaddressed:
> displaying elevation in local units on the main map.
Even as a USAian, I'm fine
On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 2:38 AM Mateusz Konieczny
wrote:
> If it is a peak then ele=XXX and noname=yes would be OK.
>
> If it is not a peak it should not be present at all - otherwise it opens way
> to importing
> LIDAR data into OSM (and there are datasets with resolution of 5 cm, dumping
> it
On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 11:58 AM Richard Welty wrote:
> i have not reviewed NYS GIS data because there were, in the past
> at least, licensing issues. i do not know if those have been resolved
> so i'm not pitching a fit about that. it might be ok now. i just don't
> know. but from this edit, it
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 4:05 PM OSM Volunteer stevea
wrote:
> I'm OK with this as well. I especially wish to call to the attention to
> others who may do mechanical wiki edits like this (by Mateusz' good example)
> that he was careful to:
>
> 1) Explain the problem; it confuses mappers/map
I've done some of the MapRoulette items for this project, but frankly
I'm not that good at it. For the stuff nearest me, most of the missing
roads are either too new to show on the orthos (which are updated on a
rolling 4-year cycle) or else are old platted rights-of-way that are
now abandoned. I
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 4:30 PM Oisin Herriott (Insight Global Inc)
via Talk-us wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> In an effort to make the roads data in OSM more complete in names and
> coverage, the Open Maps team at Microsoft is going through some available
> open data sets published by some of the US
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 2:54 PM Yaro Shkvorets wrote:
> JOSM offers very convenient way to do it called "Replace geometry". Select
> both ways, old and new, press Ctrl-Shift-G, merge any conflicting tags and
> you preserve the history, tags and have new improved outline in a couple of
>
On Tue, Jan 8, 2019, 11:48 brad I'm going to start close to home, extend that to the state of CO, & see
> how it goes.
> I've done quite a bit of recreating and boondock camping on BLM land and
> I've never come across any that are leased exclusively, altho I'm sure
> there are some.It's more
On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 10:05 PM Michael Patrick wrote:
> "Multiple uses under BLM management include renewable energy development
> (solar, wind, other); conventional energy development (oil and gas, coal);
> livestock grazing; hardrock mining (gold, silver, other), timber harvesting;
> and
On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 10:38 AM Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> I've noticed that federal Wilderness areas in Northern California and
> Southern Oregon are mapped as if they are not part of the surrounding
> national forest(s).
>
> Is this correct mapping? On older USGS maps the Wilderness areas were
On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 12:27 PM Max Erickson wrote:
> As other have mentioned, there are many numbered roads managed by the
> USFS. They range in development from closed, abandoned log roads to
> well maintained pavement. I map them using the FS prefix.
>
> For the general public one of the
undeveloped forest lands is so minimal that the municipalities
don't bother as long as both landowners pay their taxes. In these areas,
you cannot assume that there's a definitive reference for the boundary
*anywhere*.
On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 11:26 AM Kevin Kenny
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2
On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 11:07 AM Martijn van Exel wrote:
> Hmm.
>
> I guess https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_admin_level is
> really not correct then where it says: "Census Designated Places (CDPs) are
> boundaries maintained by the Census Bureau for statistical purposes. CDPs
>
On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 10:46 AM Martijn van Exel wrote:
> I looked at a few place boundaries in Utah and compared with current TIGER
> files.. Definitely needs work..
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/e1113me8y9t1my5/Screenshot%202018-11-14%2008.42.30.png?dl=0
> (colored
> = current OSM, grey =
On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 6:34 PM Albert Pundt wrote:
> On an unrelated note, thanks for linking that renderer. I used it to find
> and fix some holes in PA's US 119 relation where it defaulted to using a
> plain text rectangle since only the ref tag was present.
>
It may be a while before your
For what it's worth, your proposed dividing line sounds as reasonable as
anything else. (Coming from someone who lived in SoCal briefly, over 25
years ago.)
On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 4:28 PM OSM Volunteer stevea <
stevea...@softworkers.com> wrote:
> Reminding everybody that whatever Frederik
I'm looking for people's experience on software that can take data
from OSM and get it into a PostGIS database for rendering and
analysis. For several years, I've been using 'osm2pgsql', but I've
recently 'bumped my head on the ceiling' in that I need the database
to be capable of querying
Are you tagging the routes consistently with role=forward or
role=reverse? An evacuation route is essentially a one-way item
(presumably, return after the crisis can be by any open road), and it
would be good to render them with arrows.
On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 7:20 PM Eric H. Christensen wrote:
>
On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 4:18 PM Nathan Mills wrote:
> My personal opinion is that if local practice and the USPS continue to use
> the old name, that name should stay in the name tag, while the Legislature's
> political name should be tagged as an alt_name. That said, there are
> situations in
On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 10:39 AM Ian Dees wrote:
>
> Yes, the original harmful edit was made by user "MedwedianPresident" in
> changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/61555047 20 days ago. It
> was then reverted by naoliv a day later:
>
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018, 3:46 PM Paul Johnson wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018, 14:33 Richard Welty wrote:
>
>> On 8/24/18 3:15 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> > This is a criticism I've had about the Standard renderer for a while
>> > now. Andy Allan's rendering refs from relations. Osmand is
; remember his response though).
>
> -Evin (compdude)
>
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018, 2:21 PM Kevin Kenny wrote:
>
>> (I apologize in advance to the tile-serving community if this message
>> is inappropriate. I see that traffic on that list is largely limited
>> to highly s
1 - 100 of 282 matches
Mail list logo
