Re: [Talk-us] TIGER fixup and mapping more

2012-07-12 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 7/12/2012 11:27 AM, Clay Smalley wrote:

I like this idea. That would encourage more people to TIGER-review
streets, as highway=road shows up pretty ugly on Mapnik, and people like
getting rid of ugly. What would be the drawbacks of doing this? It seems
like there would be some but I can't think of any.


The problem is that you can easily see that any old subdivision street 
is residential on an aerial, but you shouldn't remove tiger:reviewed 
unless you've verified the name.


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


Re: [Talk-us] railway=abandoned and mapping things that are not there any more?

2012-07-12 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 7/12/2012 11:43 PM, Peter Dobratz wrote:

NE2,

So after I bring up that I don't think railways should be drawn through
buildings, and most people agree with me on that, you decide to do this:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.762886lon=-71.430509zoom=18layers=M

Does 86 Central Street, Hudson, NH have remnants of a railroad running
through their living room?  No, because that's ridiculous.


Is it on the former route of a railway? Of course. And that's what 
railway=abandoned has meant since I joined OSM.


Maybe you could hold off dumping stuff on top of work that I've done
while we continue to discuss the matter.


Back at ya. Don't delete something that doesn't interest you.


Does anyone have any objection to reverting the following changesets?:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/12202043
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/12186087
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/12191431


For the record, I do object. And the fact that you would consider 
killing a fly with a sledgehammer is disturbing.


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


Re: [Talk-us] railway=abandoned and mapping things that are not there any more?

2012-07-12 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 7/12/2012 10:45 PM, Mike N wrote:

On 7/12/2012 4:21 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

This is a strawman, since there will rarely be more than one former line
across a small area. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone
wants to map all the former second tracks, sidings, and such, especially
where they've changed over the years.


   That's just what the local mapper was doing.  I ended up deleting a
bunch of old spurs that wound through the city and passed through
buildings.


I can buy former spurs, though I'll usually only map them if they're 
significant in length or history or there are still remnants. Was this 
mapper adding multiple tracks on the same right-of-way?


   A single abandoned track would be no more of a problem than a power
line.


Or an underground sewer line. Or an administrative boundary.

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


Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: [OSM-dev] Licence redaction ready to begin

2012-07-11 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 7/11/2012 8:38 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Hi,

On 07/11/12 13:59, Mike N wrote:

   The state capital region of Columbia, South Carolina will be a prime
test of the Do empty areas attract contributors? theory for some time
to come.


Why, is someone planning to remove the TIGER import in that area?


Yes, wherever those TIGER ways were either outright deleted or combined 
with other ways.


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


Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: [OSM-dev] Licence redaction ready to begin

2012-07-11 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 7/11/2012 9:31 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Hi,

On 07/11/12 15:20, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

   The state capital region of Columbia, South Carolina will be a prime
test of the Do empty areas attract contributors? theory for some time
to come.


Why, is someone planning to remove the TIGER import in that area?


Yes, wherever those TIGER ways were either outright deleted or combined
with other ways.


Obviously my comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek; I am personally
convinced that the unedited TIGER landscape - i.e. a map of which
virtually nothing is correct

Nope.


and once you start to work somewhere you
have to touch almost every single object if you want an acceptable
result - is the worst situation for attracting mappers. Therefore,
returning an area to how it was after TIGER (and deleting selected
objects for good measure) is certainly not creating an empty area in
the sense of the do empty areas attract contributors theory.


My comment was serious. Where an ungood user has done a lot of editing 
to TIGER ways, the OSMF will not return it to the TIGER state, but will 
leave a horrible mess of half-deleted TIGER.


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


Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: [OSM-dev] Licence redaction ready to begin

2012-07-10 Thread Nathan Edgars II
I've just ensured that the OSMF will do minimal damage to the U.S. 
railway network outside the Los Angeles area. Most of the damage will be 
moving nodes, meaning that geometry may be totally borked but topology 
will be fine.


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


Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: [OSM-dev] Licence redaction ready to begin

2012-07-10 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 7/10/2012 5:40 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

I've just ensured that the OSMF will do minimal damage to the U.S.
railway network outside the Los Angeles area.


Oh, and South Carolina. Not going to touch that.

 Most of the damage will be

moving nodes, meaning that geometry may be totally borked but topology
will be fine.




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


Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: [OSM-dev] Licence redaction ready to begin

2012-07-10 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 7/10/2012 6:15 PM, Charlotte Wolter wrote: Nathan,

 How did you ensure that the railroads will be damaged minimally

Using JOSM's license change plugin. If the OSMF uses a different 
algorithm, we're all screwed.


 (and why is poor old LA excluded)?
Because there's a lot of work and I can only take so much of digging 
holes and filling them back in.


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


Re: [Talk-us] US Road route relation conventions

2012-07-09 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 7/9/2012 6:23 PM, Mike N wrote:

Is there a Wiki page that describes the best current highway tagging
scheme to document use of route relations and refs to support Mapnik
with shields and other data consumers?


No, because there is no current tagging scheme :)

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


Re: [Talk-us] Scenic/Historic byways

2012-07-08 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 7/8/2012 3:20 PM, Toby Murray wrote:

Just came across this while processing pictures from my bike across Kansas:
http://i.imgur.com/bmiV2.jpg

This is a sign for the Western Vistas historic byway. It even has a website:
http://www.westernvistashistoricbyway.com/

Closer to home I have also seen a Scenic Byway sign. This seems to
be an official designation by the US DOT as discussed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Scenic_Byway

I'm not seeing nearly as much information on historic byways. Are
these designated by the DOT as well or are they just tourist
attractions?

They're at least approved by the DOT if they run along state highways.

I've used scenic=yes for some in Florida. For example: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1239925


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


Re: [Talk-us] Rails with trails

2012-07-03 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 7/3/2012 4:11 PM, Anthony wrote:

What if it's an abandoned railway which is adjacent to a not-abandoned
railway?


Then it's already tagged as a rail trail.

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


Re: [Talk-us] Shorelines of highly variable lakes

2012-06-29 Thread Nathan Edgars II
Note that if you have the desired surface level, you can use USGS topos 
to place the shoreline on the correct contour.


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


Re: [Talk-us] Rails with trails

2012-06-28 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 6/27/2012 10:46 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:

Ideally a map of rail trails
should include them (e.g. the one in Trains magazine's May 2011
issue), but there's no easy way to determine if a trail is one.


I would map the ways independently when the trail is adjacent to the rails.


Duh? The question is what *additional* tags to put on the trail.

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


[Talk-us] An amusing story of a GNIS entry

2012-06-28 Thread Nathan Edgars II

http://www.fuzzyworld3.com/3um/viewtopic.php?f=29t=3183

I suppose the question is whether OSM should have this place (assuming 
someone verifies that the sign is gone). Currently it does as part of 
the GNIS import: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/153418203/history


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


[Talk-us] Rails with trails

2012-06-27 Thread Nathan Edgars II
Currently it's simple enough to find most (correctly-tagged) rail trails 
in the database: find anything tagged railway=abandoned and highway=[one 
of the trail values]. These trails are usually flatter than roads, and 
are therefore well-suited for long-distance cycling.


But another popular kind of rail trail, a rail with trail, cannot be 
found in this manner. Generally the railway company will lease part of 
its right-of-way to the trail organization, with a fence separating the 
rail from the trail. (This is possible because a large number of main 
lines had at least two tracks in railroading's heyday.) This may be a 
self-contained trail, or a portion of a longer 'standard' rail trail 
that shifts to the side where a short piece of the rail is still in use. 
These trails have the same features as rail trails, with the possible 
bonus of being able to watch trains on an active railroad. Ideally a map 
of rail trails should include them (e.g. the one in Trains magazine's 
May 2011 issue), but there's no easy way to determine if a trail is one.


Does anyone have any ideas for tagging? The simplest would be something 
like rail_with_trail=yes or maybe railway=adjacent.


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


Re: [Talk-us] Work on Arizona rail lines deleted

2012-06-19 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 6/19/2012 1:27 PM, Charlotte Wolter wrote:

Dear US folks,

I did a lot of work on the railroad that parallels I-40 across Arizona,
from Gallup, N.M., to Flagstaff, Ariz. There are two parallel tracks
with different names,
Not sure what you mean by this. The Gallup Subdivision (Belen-East 
Winslow) and Seligman Subdivision (East Winslow-Needles) both operate 
(at least east of Seligman) using centralized traffic control on 2+ main 
tracks.


 but OSM had only one of those tracks. I added the

second rail way and numerous side tracks, following the Bing imagery. It
was hours and hours of work.
Now someone has deleted most of the second line without contacting me or
discussing the issue on the mail list. Anyone know anything about this?


I assume you're talking about east of Holbrook. It's hard to tell, but 
looking at http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/137620560/history in 
JOSM before and after changeset 10173363, I see that it's now on the 
south track but had been on the north track.


In that changeset, you deleted one of the ways (a two-node crossover) 
you had previously added: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/137364047/history
and you deleted a node where the siding had joined the north main track: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1506904532/history


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


Re: [Talk-us] Los Angeles area status

2012-06-14 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 6/14/2012 9:31 PM, Alan Mintz wrote:

I'm not sure I blame him, in theory, for not
agreeing to something unseen, being solely at the mercy of the masses -
the same ones that approved this change to begin with.


Actually there wasn't even that level of approval. The current license 
change never went to a vote (all the votes people will cite are to move 
forward with the process of planning for a possible license change).


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


Re: [Talk-us] Seeing things you don't care about in the database

2012-06-11 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 6/11/2012 7:17 PM, Mark Gray wrote:

On one hand, I share the frustration of having lots of new data in
an area making some of our tools slower and more difficult to use.
In my area a building footprint import slowed down most of the
mapping tools and land use polygons can get in the way of editing
roads.


I agree with this. But I'm not sure that there is a solution. You can 
use XAPI/Overpass API to download only roads in an area, but you get 
conflicts (or worse, you move a node and screw up something else without 
realizing it) when nodes are shared with other non-downloaded features. 
This can happen directly (road passing through a building or the IMO bad 
practice of using roads as landuse borders) or indirectly (e.g. road - 
parking lot - building - landuse).


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


Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines review

2012-06-07 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 6/6/2012 3:11 PM, Tirkon wrote:

Worst Fixerworstfi...@gmail.com  wrote:


It means that we must revert things like TIGER and CanVec. Am I right?


I think fundamentally you are right with this point. My impression is
that many people at OSM regret these imports - in fact the longer they
are involved in the project.


Most opinions I've seen are that TIGER is imperfect but better than 
nothing as a starting point.


I imagine Wikipedia would have
been imported so far and the user were damned to correct it and only
add bits and bobs. I am pretty sure it never ever would have had that
success it had.


Pull up five articles on small-to-midsized U.S. cities in English 
Wikipedia. You'll probably see many similarities. This is because they 
were created in the early days of Wikipedia by user Rambot, using US 
Census Bureau data (which TIGER also happens to be).


IMHO the community impact of imports should be described in extenso
before any technical stuff is mentioned. And yes - it should be
mentioned that TIGER and its friends were early mistakes of OSM.


This view that they were mistakes is far from widespread.

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


Re: [Talk-us] Menlo Park Admin Boundary

2012-06-07 Thread Nathan Edgars II
I forgot to mention that you can also use Potlatch 1. Hit U to view 
deleted ways, select the way, and unlock. This is probably the easiest 
for a simple undeletion like this.


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


Re: [Talk-us] Special issues in LA remap

2012-06-05 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 6/5/2012 3:42 PM, Mike N wrote:

On 6/5/2012 2:56 PM, stevea wrote:

But socially, or more properly stated, in the context of reaching OSM
consensus, what does our community think of (rather wholesale) reverts
of a contributor who has not agreed to the CT? Are we OK with that?


This nearly describes what the redaction bot will do, once it is
complete.


With one big difference: the bot will not undelete objects that an 
ungood mapper deleted. (So any joining of ways by such a mapper will be 
handled improperly.)


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


Re: [Talk-us] User cleared out a chunk of streets

2012-05-31 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 5/31/2012 11:33 AM, Brian May wrote:

Hi All,

I just noticed in Gainesville, FL user AMPINTERMEDIA
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/AMPINTERMEDIA recently deleted a
chunk of streets from one section of town. Doesn't look sinister - they
are a new user and probably didn't realize what they were doing. The
account name matches a local SEO company in Gainesville. I'm not sure
what to do about it, i.e. I'm not sure what the protocol is for this
type of situation and I've never attempted a revert before. Can someone
review this and revert it?

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/11624008


Reverted (the only creation rather than deletion was a misspelling of a 
school that was already there). If you haven't messaged him yet, you 
should probably let him know.


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


Re: [Talk-us] proposed automated edit: forested wetlands

2012-05-30 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 5/29/2012 6:04 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

The landuse import for Georgia (which IMO is poor-quality and should be
deleted, but that's not going to happen) has a bunch of areas tagged as
note = Forested Wetland with no useful natural=* tags (since
natural=wood and natural=wetland both apply). Example:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/31457349

I propose to fix these.

But what would be the best tags to use? Would natural=wetland
wetland=swamp (An area of waterlogged forest, with dense vegetation.)
be correct?


If there are no objections, I'm going to do this sometime today.

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


Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] proposed automated edit: forested wetlands

2012-05-30 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 5/30/2012 6:19 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:

There's absolutely no reason to rush. Data that's been sitting in OSM
for *years* without even being noticed as a problem


I noticed it as a problem about a year ago.

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


[Talk-us] UK assumptions that don't hold in the U.S.

2012-05-29 Thread Nathan Edgars II
I've noticed some odd things on OpenCycleMap and other renderings, and I 
think it's due to a difference in how things are in the UK vs. here.


*Most railways have passenger service. Thus OCM (and the transport map) 
show all rail lines.
*Tracks are useful for cycling. When you zoom in on OCM, tracks are 
highlighted the same as footways. But a track is just a narrow (usually) 
unpaved road, and is worse for cycling than a low-traffic paved road. 
This also shows up on renderings such as http://www.itoworld.com/map/26 
where tracks are included in path/cycle-path etc rather than road.


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


[Talk-us] proposed automated edit: forested wetlands

2012-05-29 Thread Nathan Edgars II
The landuse import for Georgia (which IMO is poor-quality and should be 
deleted, but that's not going to happen) has a bunch of areas tagged as 
note = Forested Wetland with no useful natural=* tags (since 
natural=wood and natural=wetland both apply). Example: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/31457349


I propose to fix these.

But what would be the best tags to use? Would natural=wetland 
wetland=swamp (An area of waterlogged forest, with dense vegetation.) 
be correct? Or is it better to choose natural=* tag and add a 
multipolygon for the other?


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


Re: [Talk-us] UK assumptions that don't hold in the U.S.

2012-05-29 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 5/29/2012 10:00 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Hi,

On 05/29/12 11:57, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

*Most railways have passenger service. Thus OCM (and the transport map)
show all rail lines.


But isn't a railway an obstacle for cyclists no matter what services
they support?


Sure. But that would support their being shown at close zooms, not all 
the way out at 7.


On 5/29/2012 10:16 AM, James Umbanhowar wrote:
 Many tracks are quite usable by bikes with big tires, e.g. mountain 
bikes.


Agreed. But so is every paved road. What OCM does is give more 
prominence to a track (even one marked access=private!) than a 
residential street, for example right in the middle of here: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=28.3866lon=-81.2697zoom=13layers=C


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


Re: [Talk-us] Topo map source?

2012-05-28 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 5/28/2012 1:58 AM, Russ Nelson wrote:

Do we have a new source for WMS topo maps now that Terraserver
(msrmaps.com) has been shut down? Can I get a working URL from
somebody?


wms:http://raster.nationalmap.gov/arcgis/services/DRG/TNM_Digital_Raster_Graphics/MapServer/WMSServer?FORMAT=image/jpegVERSION=1.1.1SERVICE=WMSREQUEST=GetMapLayers=1,24,10,16,7,21,23,4,9,20,11,18,13,3,0,17,22,19,2,5,14,8,15,12SRS={proj}WIDTH={width}HEIGHT={height}BBOX={bbox}styles=
It's not perfect (some topos are misaligned and some are missing).

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


Re: [Talk-us] How do I fix dupe nodes in waterways?

2012-05-20 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 5/20/2012 8:22 PM, James Umbanhowar wrote:

I'm guessing that if you remove all the (superfluous) NHD:xxx tags, they
will then become duplicate nodes in waterways, which I think can still
be fixed in JOSM.


Nope - removed all but waterway=* and I have the same problem. I've 
noticed boundary duplicated nodes showing up in errors and being 
fixable, but even removing all tags and adding boundary=administrative 
doesn't help in this case.


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


Re: [Talk-us] tagging cul-de-sacs

2012-05-15 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 5/15/2012 2:23 PM, Alan Mintz wrote:

At 2012-05-15 11:19, Clifford Snow wrote:

I tag culs-de-sac as turning_circles and only draw a circular way when
there is an island in the middle. But I have a question. Where should
the turning_circle node be placed? In the middle of the culs-de-sac or
where the street enters the culs-de-sac?


The center of the circle, like any other node meant to represent an area.


If the street is straight leading into a turning circle that's on one 
side of the road, I'll usually keep it straight and put the node on the 
edge of the circle.


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


[Talk-us] Vandalism by ZeGermanata needs sorting out

2012-05-15 Thread Nathan Edgars II

http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/ZeGermanata/edits

Vandalism includes the following:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/21523281/history changing ref=US 
41 to US 241
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/163035927/history fake motorway 
bypass

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/162757131/history fake subway


woodpeck_repair reverted some *but not all* of the vandalism (for 
example, US 241 is still tagged as such). Subsequent edits have also 
been made by Tom Layo e.g. here: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/17892247/history

So reverting is complicated.

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


[Talk-us] U.S. inland waterways

2012-05-15 Thread Nathan Edgars II
Is anyone familiar with the regulations governing the U.S. inland 
waterways (such as the Mississippi River and the Intracoastal Waterway)? 
From my brief look, it seems to be less these barge configurations are 
allowed and more you can go anywhere but don't crash. Is this 
correct, or are there defined maximum sizes? In either case, any idea 
what the suitable tags might look like (other than the generic boat=yes 
ship=yes)?


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


Re: [Talk-us] U.S. inland waterways

2012-05-15 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 5/16/2012 1:06 AM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:

In either case, any idea what the suitable tags might look
like (other than the generic boat=yes ship=yes)?


I guess that depends on what you're trying to do...  If you are trying
to tag the largest possible vessel that can navigate a waterway (under
normal conditions at least) you could probably come up with a
reasonable set of tags.  Inland waterways are highly dynamic though...


I'm trying to do something like the European tagging: 
http://www.itoworld.com/map/24
But there they have some sort of international treaty that defines 
configurations.


Do you know of any reasonable way to define large vs. small? I know 
there's deep-draft shipping, but most inland waterways don't support 
that (since barges are apparently shallow-draft).


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


Re: [Talk-us] TIGER road expansion code

2012-05-12 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 5/12/2012 12:41 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:

What error rate is acceptable?


As low as possible, but I've been generally able to handle the edge
cases I've seen, either by doing the right thing, or by punting and
doing nothing at all.


It's worth noting that any errors are already there as errors in the 
TIGER tags. So, had the TIGER import been done properly in the first 
place, these errors would be in the name tags as well.


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


Re: [Talk-us] Fixing TIGER street name abbreviations

2012-05-12 Thread Nathan Edgars II
The process seems obvious to me: check that the name is still what it 
originally was (from the tiger:name_base etc. tags), and if so, use 
those tags to expand abbreviations. (Ignore any with semicolons/colons 
from joining.) If not, set it aside for semi-manual checking. The only 
false positives that are not errors in the TIGER data will be caused by 
someone changing the tiger tags, and if both these and the name were 
changed consistently, the editor probably knew what they were doing.


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


Re: [Talk-us] First bona fide mini-roundabout spotted

2012-05-07 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 5/7/2012 10:03 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com  wrote:


Same here. I'm ignoring this wiki-fiddling:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:highway%3Dmini_roundaboutdiff=747981oldid=689543


Both edits you mention seem to agree that the island is traversable in
a mini roundabout.


It had said usually does not have a physical island. This was changed 
to an absolute. And actually this was the start of it: 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:highway%3Dmini_roundaboutdiff=605002oldid=515047


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


Re: [Talk-us] First bona fide mini-roundabout spotted

2012-05-07 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 5/7/2012 11:02 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:


On May 7, 2012 7:06 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com
mailto:nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  On 5/7/2012 9:59 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
 
  On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 6:51 AM, Ian Deesian.d...@gmail.com
mailto:ian.d...@gmail.com  wrote:
 
  I've mapped dozens of these as miniroundabouts in the midwest:
  http://g.co/maps/w7mnr
 
 
  That's not a mini, though, since you can't just drive over the island.
 
 
  And highway=motorways aren't restricted to motorized traffic only,
and not all highway=trunk are trunk roads (even in the UK).

That doesn't seem to address the fact that mini roundabouts are mini in
terms of height, not diameter.


It vaults right over any supposed definition of mini-roundabout.

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


Re: [Talk-us] First bona fide mini-roundabout spotted

2012-05-07 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 5/7/2012 12:41 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com  wrote:


It vaults right over any supposed definition of mini-roundabout.


I suppose if you ignored the whole traversability or vertical
clearance requirements the wiki's had since the tag was created in the
wiki, sure.


I ignore that in favor of how the tag actually gets used in the data. A 
couple watchdogs can keep the wiki saying one thing, but they can't keep 
usage from diverging.


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


Re: [Talk-us] First bona fide mini-roundabout spotted

2012-05-07 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 5/7/2012 1:02 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:

Still, the diverging use overlaps improperly with the actual
roundabout correctly as a ring using junction=roundabout. ;o)


You're assuming that each real-world situation has only one correct way 
of mapping.


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


Re: [Talk-us] First bona fide mini-roundabout spotted

2012-05-07 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 5/7/2012 1:16 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com  wrote:

On 5/7/2012 1:02 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:


Still, the diverging use overlaps improperly with the actual
roundabout correctly as a ring using junction=roundabout. ;o)



You're assuming that each real-world situation has only one correct way of
mapping.


So, you're suggesting we stop mapping nontraversable, hard medians?
Because that's what it sounds like.


Get your ears checked.

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


Re: [Talk-us] First bona fide mini-roundabout spotted

2012-05-07 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 5/7/2012 4:28 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:

So this is not/should not be a mini_roundabout? It seems a little silly
to call it anything else, since the city just dug a hole in the center
of the existing intersection, built a circular curb, and planted a tree:

http://g.co/maps/e2gsv


Even sillier: according to the wiki, 
http://jemappellewendyi.wordpress.com/2010/10/28/imagen/portable-roundabout/ 
must be mapped as a circular way.


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


Re: [Talk-us] First bona fide mini-roundabout spotted

2012-05-07 Thread Nathan Edgars II
The problem seems to be that mappers needed a tag for a small roundabout 
on a node. Since all that was available was mini_roundabout, that's what 
we used. Had there been another tag, e.g. highway=roundabout, we 
wouldn't have this discussion. But mini_roundabout is now in use for a 
large number of miniature roundabouts that may not be strictly 
mini-roundabouts.


There's been a similar case recently with surface=cobblestone apparently 
not being real cobblestone but something called 'sett'. Someone tried 
to change the tag definitions, but it was way too late.


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


Re: [Talk-us] Proposed Fresno fixes

2012-05-06 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 5/6/2012 1:39 PM, Nathan Mixter wrote:

2. Align the shapes to match what is on the ground. I plan to either get
rid of or modify them so they match what is on the ground.


I'm not sure how you plan on doing this. Many times a fence will be on 
one side of the property line, to avoid dealing with a neighbor.


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


Re: [Talk-us] Fresno castradal imports

2012-05-04 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 5/4/2012 2:42 PM, Apollinaris Schöll wrote:

any import should be treated like this. if it's not edited and the data
isn't used then it should be removed after some time.


That's a silly statement. If something isolated gets imported, e.g. a 
water political boundary, it probably won't be edited.


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


Re: [Talk-us] Fixing TIGER street name abbreviations

2012-05-01 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 5/1/2012 1:23 PM, Anthony wrote:

On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com  wrote:

On 5/1/2012 12:59 PM, Anthony wrote:


Automatically expanding abbreviations is a terrible idea.  If an
abbreviation is unambiguous, then it can be expanded during the
preprocessing step.  If, on the other hand, it is ambiguous, then you
are turning ambiguous data into incorrect data, which certainly
diminishes the data.



Not quite. We have various TIGER tags that break the name into pieces, and
allow automated expansion where the name field may be ambiguous. (Though
occasionally these tags are wrong.)


I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with.  Either it is unambiguous
(due to TIGER tags or whatever), and therefore can be done during the
preprocessing step.  Or it is ambiguous, and needs human
intervention/review.

The TIGER tags are not exactly standard OSM tags that belong in the 
database. Better that we get rid of them at the same time as we expand 
abbreviations.


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


[Talk-us] Waterway directionality in drainage canals

2012-04-28 Thread Nathan Edgars II
It's the standard to draw a waterway in the direction of flow. I've 
questioned this several times, but it's an ingrained default.


My question is more specific: what happens to a drainage canal that 
reverses direction? I offer the Everglades and surrounding agricultural 
land as an example. There are huge water conservation areas that store 
water. When it rains, gates are closed and opened to direct water into 
these. During a drought, gates send water back out into the canals for 
local use. When there's a big storm, water will instead go directly out 
to sea.


So there are a lot of major canals that have no fixed direction. How 
should these be mapped? Is there any existing scheme that can show how 
water flows under different conditions?


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


Re: [Talk-us] Fresno castradal imports

2012-04-26 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 4/26/2012 2:54 AM, Paul Norman wrote:

I happened across an import of Fresno castradal data from mid-2010 in the
Fresno area. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=36.77lon=-119.81zoom=15 is
the general area but I haven't fully explored the extents. For a view of the
data, see http://maps.paulnorman.ca/imports/review/fresno.png


The biggest problem with this import is that it's impossible to download 
any reasonably-sized area of Fresno for editing, because of how the 
landuse polygons end at every street and alley. It's even worse in the 
suburbs where the streets curve, adding many nodes to each way.


(By the way, the word is cadastral, not castadral. And I see nothing 
wrong with using such data as part of a semi-manual process of creating 
larger landuse polygons for neighborhoods, and commercial strips 
surrounding highways. See Orlando, FL for a (mostly fully-manual) 
example of how this works.)


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


Re: [Talk-us] Parks, etc. Points or outlines

2012-04-24 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 4/24/2012 2:38 PM, Josh Doe wrote:

Yes, there should be only one feature for each real world object, and
the way/multipolygon has more spatial information, however the nodes
might have other useful information like the GNIS feature ID.


For this matter, why are there county nodes all over the U.S.? They 
don't seem to have come from GNIS: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/316947053/history


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


Re: [Talk-us] Parks, etc. Points or outlines

2012-04-24 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 4/24/2012 10:21 PM, Toby Murray wrote:

I think the reason they exist is the same reason why cities always
have a node in addition to their administrative boundaries. And
states/countries too far that matter. Most renderers render the name
from the nodes, not the admin boundaries.


This makes sense for a city, where the center/downtown is not the 
centroid. But for a county or larger, you usually want the label at the 
centroid of the polygon, so the node is redundant.


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


Re: [Talk-us] tiff, dwg and nad83

2012-04-17 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 4/17/2012 3:29 AM, Werner Poppele wrote:

I totally agree with Frederik. Yes - imported data turns down new
mappers. Have you ever seen those monster
multipolygons ? I am sure a new mapper says: Forget that
I personally tend to stop my contribution to OSM because of the very bad
stuff I see when mapping:
Triple contours at the same position, double / triple nodes,
unconnected, tiny streams / rivers with a bunch tags.


You seem to be arguing against *bad* imports, not imports in general.

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


Re: [Talk-us] tiff, dwg and nad83

2012-04-17 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 4/17/2012 4:26 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:

And now assume there's a third city
of equal size where *nothing* has been mapped at all... maybe I
shouldn't speak for everyone but for me (and virtually every mapper I
know) surely the city with data-but-no-mappers would be least appealing,
far below that with no data.


You definitely shouldn't speak for other people. I would much prefer 
imported street data to nothing at all, and James indicated that he 
would too.


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


Re: [Talk-us] tiff, dwg and nad83

2012-04-17 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 4/17/2012 8:18 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:

If a user manually surveys data, there is an assumption of timeliness
and accuracy of that survey. That's not the case with imported data,
despite oftentimes being stamped official.


When I joined OSM I went through photos and notes I had taken since the 
late 1990s. There's no guarantee of timeliness here either. Certainly 
not as much as an import of city boundary data that has each annexation 
marked through the current year.


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


[Talk-us] Smooth shoulder intended for cycling

2012-04-17 Thread Nathan Edgars II
I'm wondering what the best way would be to tag a good-quality shoulder 
that acts essentially as an undesignated bike lane, in that you can use 
it but it is not required. Current Florida DOT policy is to use these on 
rural roads, with marked bike lanes only when there is a lane to the 
right. For example here: 
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=enll=30.605358,-86.950672spn=0.008255,0.016512gl=ust=mz=17layer=ccbll=30.605241,-86.950558panoid=X4-X3CdhvVO_ptMWbvB8SAcbp=12,330.83,,0,9.24
One can choose to ride either in the right lane or on the shoulder 
beyond the intersection.


One regional mapper uses cycleway=shoulder for this, but I see that as 
sub-optimal, since it's primarily a shoulder, not a cycleway. It would 
be like putting cycleway=sidewalk whenever there's a smooth paved sidewalk.


On the other hand, shoulder=yes or shoulder=paved says nothing about the 
quality of the shoulder. Should there be a minimum width for a shoulder 
(FDOT's standard is 4 feet)?


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


Re: [Talk-us] tiff, dwg and nad83

2012-04-17 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 4/17/2012 9:23 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:

On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 8:52 PM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com  wrote:


When I joined OSM I went through photos and notes I had taken since the late
1990s. There's no guarantee of timeliness here either. Certainly not as much
as an import of city boundary data that has each annexation marked through
the current year.


Don't worry, I wasn't counting you NE2- according to your own profile,
you use a made up name, and according to your editing patterns, you're
a bot, so you're more of an import than a user.


Ah, the old ad hominem. When you can't reply, be a dick.

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


Re: [Talk-us] Smooth shoulder intended for cycling

2012-04-17 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 4/17/2012 9:43 PM, Kristian M Zoerhoff wrote:

Alternatively, maybe cycleway needs an unmarked lane setting for these
situations, though that would imply the local authorities are intending for
cyclists to use the shoulder, rather than just tolerating their presence
(the usual situation).


I use cycleway=unmarked_lane for FDOT's undesignated bike lane, which 
has a white line on the right side but no bike markings.


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


Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.

2012-04-16 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 4/16/2012 8:56 PM, Alan Mintz wrote:

So, we're basically duplicating the existing way and then blessing it.
Is this really sufficient - to verify the tainted geometry instead of
re-drawing it?

Only if the nodes are clean.


Another point, at least in SoCal, is that many of our tainted ways are
created by blars, who has not accepted the CT. However, these are
TIGER-imported ways. They carry the TIGER tags. I'm sure they could be
verified as having come from the TIGER import. They were no-doubt the
result of having split an existing TIGER way. In this case, why is it
not sufficient to see the TIGER tags on the way to consider it blessed
along with all the other TIGER ways? Especially when tagged afterwards
by accepting mappers with sources as above?
Because the OSMF is lazy and wants us to do the work in identifying 
false positives :)


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


Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.

2012-04-16 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 4/16/2012 9:18 PM, Alan Mintz wrote:

At 2012-04-16 14:06, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

Or you can simply add odbl=clean if there's nothing ungood about the
object (e.g. it was split from a TIGER way and the splitting is
something you would have done anyway).


Is this really sufficient? Can someone from the redaction squad comment?
Can I protect/bless a way or node and prevent its redaction simply by
(in good faith) adding this tag?


We have no idea what rules the OSMF will use.

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


Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.

2012-04-16 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 4/16/2012 11:04 PM, James Mast wrote:

I just saw this post on the rebuild list, so you guys might want to be a
tad careful when you're doing cleaning work by creating a new way and
keeping the old tainted nodes in it.

http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/rebuild/2012-April/000206.html


Frederik is slightly exaggerating, in that it's OK to do so if all the 
contributors of any data you're keeping have agreed to the CT, even if 
you yourself have not surveyed or traced it. (Otherwise we'd have a 
major problem whenever a way is split.) In fact I believe Frederik has 
done this sort of copy-paste into a new object when the history of a 
relation has become too large.


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


Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering

2012-04-16 Thread Nathan Edgars II
One possible enhancement: add a border of the same color as the highway 
(e.g. red for primary). This would make it easier to identify which 
highway the shield refers to, which isn't always clear. This may of 
course be very complicated, in which case never mind.


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


Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering

2012-04-14 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 4/14/2012 2:38 PM, Phil! Gold wrote:

If you count out all the emails on the subject, there are probably more
emails opposing the network-classification-per-banner approach, but if you
count the people expressing opinions on the matter,
network-classification-per-banner has a strong majority.


If this is so, the wiki and data needs to reflect that the network tag 
is not a network tag. That's why I started the recent discussion about 
whether network should actually represent the shield design, and there 
was no consensus.


This is not necessarily a bad thing. Foot paths can be tagged in 
multiple ways. Renderers and tools need to be able to handle them all. 
It's not the renderer's place to tell us how to tag.


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


[Talk-us] Gated communities - access=private or destination?

2012-04-14 Thread Nathan Edgars II
In the U.S., a gated residential community usually allows anyone in who 
has a legitimate reason to be there (e.g. visiting a friend, delivering 
a package, repairing a TV). It seems that this fits access=destination 
as well as private. Would it be reasonable to tag it as such, and leave 
access=private for secondary entrances that lack a guard and can only be 
opened by residents?


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


Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering

2012-04-13 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 4/13/2012 8:42 AM, Phil! Gold wrote:

First off, I still feel that there was a consensus last year on using the
network tag for distinct network subsets as well as for mainline roads and
you, despite being the only dissenter, continue to argue against something
the rest of community more or less settled on.


Whether or not there was a consensus last year, it's clear that there is 
none at the present time. See the recent thread about the network tag.


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


Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering

2012-04-12 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 4/12/2012 2:59 PM, Phil! Gold wrote:

* Minh Nguyenm...@1ec5.org  [2012-04-12 10:06 -0700]:

There's an ALT I-75 that needs its own sequence file


I had no idea there were alternate Interstates.  I added it under
network=US:I:Alternate, ref=75.  (Right now, it's rendering as regular
I-75.)


Sounds like a bug in the rendering.


However, I wouldn't necessarily oppose a separate network tag in this 
case, since it's clearly not part of the Interstate Highway System. (The 
same would apply to business Interstates.)


Michigan has some 'emergency' Interstates that are essentially detours, 
but are permanently signed: 
http://www.stopandgo.org/gallery/trafficsigns/Emergency_plaque.html


There's also an I-278 Truck in New York City that avoids a piece of the 
Grand Central Parkway that's closed to large trucks: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2131889


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


Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering

2012-04-12 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 4/12/2012 3:52 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

There's also an I-278 Truck in New York City that avoids a piece of the
Grand Central Parkway that's closed to large trucks:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2131889


Also I-270 Spur in Maryland, which *is* part of the Interstate Highway 
System and thus belongs in network=US:I: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1685926


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


Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering

2012-04-11 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 4/11/2012 7:23 PM, Phil! Gold wrote:

We're putting the shield images in the public domain (well, we're putting
them under a CC0 waiver, which amounts to the same thing semantically), so
I don't think the Kentucky Unbridled image would be compatible with
that.


You might have a problem with some other toll roads, depending on 
whether the designs pass the threshold of originality (and whether any 
signs were posted sans copyright notice before 1989). (You also would 
have had a problem with the Trans-Canada Highway if you were doing this 
5 years ago, but Crown copyright on the logo expired in 2009 at the 
latest.) Normal state route shields should all be public domain per the 
MUTCD introduction.


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


Re: [Talk-us] tagging cul-de-sacs

2012-04-10 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 4/10/2012 10:39 AM, Peter Dobratz wrote:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dturning_circle:
There is no central island/reservation to a turning circle—it's
simply a wider bit of road.


There was a recent discussion on tagging@ in which the 'old guard' 
refused to accept that it may be common in some places to use 
turning_circle for a cul-de-sac with an island. Hence the wiki doesn't 
reflect reality.


Another case is with a mini_roundabout - supposedly the center must be 
flat. But many small circles that fit inside intersections are tagged as 
mini_roundabouts even if they have a raised island.


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


Re: [Talk-us] tagging cul-de-sacs

2012-04-10 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 4/10/2012 1:53 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:

On 4/10/2012 11:31 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

Another case is with a mini_roundabout - supposedly the center must be
flat. But many small circles that fit inside intersections are tagged as
mini_roundabouts even if they have a raised island.


The wiki actually says 'there might be also a low, fully traversable
dome'. Something like the examples in Mini-Roundabout Examples: Germany
(Slide 10) on
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/roundabouts/roundaboutsummit/rndabtatt5.htm


And until recently it said that it *usually* does not have a physical 
island in the middle: 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:highway%3Dmini_roundaboutdiff=747981oldid=689543


I definitely consider this to be a mini_roundabout and continue to tag 
it as such: 
http://www.cityoforlando.net/transportation/TransportationEngineeringDiv/images/100_5738.JPG


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


Re: [Talk-us] tagging cul-de-sacs

2012-04-10 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 4/10/2012 2:23 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:

If there's an island in the middle, create a circle around the island,
set one-way in the direction of rotation (almost always anticlockwise
in North America), intersect with outlet way, copy outlet's tags to
the ring (think one-exit roundabout minus the junction=roundabout).


That's only correct if there are signs saying it's one-way.

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


[Talk-us] Updating of non-Mapnik map options

2012-04-10 Thread Nathan Edgars II
I've noticed that the only one of the four maps on the OSM main page 
that has been updating since April Fools has been the 'standard' Mapnik. 
ITO has also not updated their renderings due to an apparent lack of 
planet files.


Does anyone have information about what's going on here?

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


Re: [Talk-us] importing bus stops

2012-04-10 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 4/10/2012 7:39 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:

I was planning to just use what I know which is highway=bus_stop for the
bus stops, and railway=tram_stop for the light rail stops. But now I see
that using highway=bus_stop is *very controversial*[1]! If it weren't so
blatantly untrue I'd think it was a joke. Or did I miss something?

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbus_stop


I've removed this statement, which was added by a single user with no 
evidence, and does not seem to be true.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:highway%3Dbus_stopdiff=592417oldid=592409

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


Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery parallax error in high altitude areas

2012-04-09 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 4/1/2012 10:53 AM, Arun Ganesh wrote:

It recently struck me while identifying mountain peaks in the himalayas
that something may not be right. All of us have noticed that the top of
skyscrapers is off from the base of the building owing to parallax error
of the satellite capturing the image at an angle. The average seems to
be around a 0.2m displacement for every 1m increase in height (based on
calculations made in a couple of cities in India). For an imagery tile
which has 1000m variation in elevation, various objects could be
displaced by as much as 200m from its real position.


It's not as bad as it seems. Imagery is adjusted using an elevation 
dataset. Since this data doesn't (and shouldn't) include buildings and 
bridges, these appear distorted. You'll also see problems where recent 
heavy construction has caused changes in topography.


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


[OSM-talk] Rendering of sidewalks

2012-04-09 Thread Nathan Edgars II
I'm wondering if anyone's created a rendering that takes sidewalk=* tags 
and places a line on the correct side(s) of the roadway.


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


Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering

2012-04-09 Thread Nathan Edgars II
Is there a reason there are no shields or fallback ovals here on Nocatee 
Parkway?

http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/?zoom=15lat=30.12344lon=-81.39063layers=B0
The way is tagged ref=CR 210 and the relation is network=US:FL:CR:St. 
Johns ref=210.


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



Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Imagery parallax error in high altitude areas

2012-04-09 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 4/9/2012 11:01 PM, Russ Nelson wrote:

Nathan Edgars II writes:
It's not as bad as it seems. Imagery is adjusted using an elevation
dataset. Since this data doesn't (and shouldn't) include buildings and
bridges, these appear distorted. You'll also see problems where recent
heavy construction has caused changes in topography.

Or where the elevation dataset doesn't include a deep canyon, which
causes a straight bridge to appear curved. If it's a railroad, you can
be pretty sure it isn't. If it's a road bridge, you have to rely on
what you saw when you were there.

I think this is because the elevation data *does* include the canyon. 
Since the image was taken at an angle, the bridge appears at a different 
place in the canyon, and must curve to reach the correct location at the 
top.


Here, for example: http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=38.06661,-81.08022z=16t=O
The camera was to the northwest, so the bridge was on a line with the 
canyon southeast of its actual location. The bridge down in the bottom 
of the canyon is also curved, but much less so because it's smaller. 
It's also in essentially the correct place (as seen by comparing to 
Google's photos and USGS topos).


(crossposted to talk-us because who knows when the talk@ mods will let 
this through)


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


Re: [Talk-us] Network tag Re: Highway Shield Rendering

2012-04-08 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 4/8/2012 10:27 AM, Craig Hinners wrote:

Chris Lawrencelordsu...@gmail.com:

modifier=* would represent MUTCD-type banners attached to the shield


This is the first I've heard of this tag. I don't recall it being
discussed when we were hashing ideas around on this last summer. (Not
that that is reason to discount it.)

But what came out of that discussion was the following guidance: ref
will store the unique identifier within a particular classification,
where particular classification is stored wholly in the network tag.

So, network=US:US:Business/ref=13 and network=US:US:Truck/ref=70
both conform to that definition.
network=US:US/modifier=Business/ref=13 does not.


On the other hand, network=US:US ref=13 Business does.

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


Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering

2012-04-06 Thread Nathan Edgars II
If you have any questions about real-world shields that aren't answered 
here, you can sign up for http://www.aaroads.com/forum/ and ask.


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


Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering

2012-04-05 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 4/5/2012 8:14 AM, Phil! Gold wrote:

New York's parkways have a similar problem with legibility.  One of my
plans for dealing with them is to use larger shield images at high zoom
levels.


The Long Island parkways are nice and legible: 
http://alpsroads.net/roads/ny/ocean/e3.jpg


Most other parkways use large initial caps in a green state route 
shield: http://alpsroads.net/roads/ny/sawmill/begin.jpg
It should be reasonable to simply use the abbreviation horizontally, 
like the occasional (erroneous) sign: 
http://alpsroads.net/roads/ny/taconic/tsp.jpg


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


Re: [Talk-us] Network tag Re: Highway Shield Rendering

2012-04-05 Thread Nathan Edgars II
I think it's clear from this discussion that we *don't* have any 
consensus on how best to tag relations for bannered routes.


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


Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering

2012-04-04 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 4/2/2012 11:35 AM, Phil! Gold wrote:

For things like Florida's toll roads, we currently treat that as a
separate network, so a route relation tagged as network=US:FL:Toll,
ref=528 would get the toll shield.


I've done this: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/11177509

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


Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering

2012-04-04 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 4/4/2012 11:49 AM, Phil! Gold wrote:

* Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com  [2012-04-04 10:41 -0400]:

On 4/2/2012 11:35 AM, Phil! Gold wrote:

For things like Florida's toll roads, we currently treat that as a
separate network, so a route relation tagged as network=US:FL:Toll,
ref=528 would get the toll shield.


I've done this: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/11177509


The server's a bit overloaded at the moment, so already-rendered tiles
might take a while to rerender and show the shields, but new renderings of
not-yet-present tiles are given priority, so I was able to get some fresh
tiles at zoom 15:
http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/?zoom=15lat=28.4117lon=-80.82026layers=B0



Just noticed it in the Orlando area. Cheers.

(By the way, if it wasn't clear, you've done some good work here.)

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


Re: [Talk-us] Network tag Re: Highway Shield Rendering

2012-04-04 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 4/4/2012 12:14 PM, Craig Hinners wrote:

Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com:

It seems that many people see the network tag as not representing a
network but a shield design. Does this sound accurate?


No, because, where shield designs differ by agency for the same logical
network classification, the network tag does not change, despite the
differing shields.

One of many examples: Maryland uses a unique green-on-white shield for
US Business routes, but those roads still get tagged as
network=US:US:Business, not network=US:US:Business:MD or somesuch.
The renderer would have to detect which agency the road is in, and
render the agency-specific shield accordingly.


So your belief is that there is such a thing as a U.S. Highway 
Business network, despite AASHTO considering business routes to be part 
of the main U.S. Highway network?


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


Re: [Talk-us] Network tag Re: Highway Shield Rendering

2012-04-04 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 4/4/2012 1:05 PM, Richard Weait wrote:

By analogy, you could map a business by placing a node: amenity=fuel.
Or by tracing a building=yes, amenity=fuel.  Same thing: you want a
generic lozenge shield? ref=123 You want a right, clustered shield?
network=US:US:Business:MD, ref=123


And you'd specify the type of fuel using a different tag, not 
amenity=fuel:diesel.


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


Re: [Talk-us] Network tag Re: Highway Shield Rendering

2012-04-04 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 4/4/2012 1:38 PM, Richard Weait wrote:

On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com  wrote:


And you'd specify the type of fuel using a different tag, not
amenity=fuel:diesel.


name= would be a separate tag, so would fuel.


Indeed. How this is a valid analogy for cramming non-network details 
into the network tag, I don't know.


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


Re: [Talk-us] Network tag Re: Highway Shield Rendering

2012-04-04 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 4/4/2012 2:43 PM, Chris Lawrence wrote:

Renderers can fallback to the longest
left-anchored substring they understand for weird things they don't
understand.


Bad idea. Google Maps does something like this and it results in 
'bannered' routes appearing without banners.


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


Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering

2012-04-04 Thread Nathan Edgars II

There seems to be a problem here with US 17-92:
http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/?zoom=12lat=28.96029lon=-81.31906layers=B0
Change over to sign style and a bunch of shields appear.

Example tiles (to avoid loading the whole thing):
http://elrond.aperiodic.net/mtiles/cutouts/12/1122/1704.png
http://elrond.aperiodic.net/mtiles/shields/12/1122/1704.png

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


Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering

2012-04-04 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 4/4/2012 10:23 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

There seems to be a problem here with US 17-92:
http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/?zoom=12lat=28.96029lon=-81.31906layers=B0

Change over to sign style and a bunch of shields appear.

Example tiles (to avoid loading the whole thing):
http://elrond.aperiodic.net/mtiles/cutouts/12/1122/1704.png
http://elrond.aperiodic.net/mtiles/shields/12/1122/1704.png


Er - upon rerendering, they don't appear in sign style anymore. That 
definitely says there's a problem now.


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


Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering

2012-04-03 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 4/3/2012 10:21 AM, Chris Lawrence wrote:

- Secondaries (network US:VA:secondary) don't seem to be rendering at
all, and the fallback shields aren't showing up even where there are
ref tags (just seems to be using Mapnik style).  Simple rule for VA:
if the ref= 600, or it has a letter in it, it's a secondary (except
785 and 895, which are signed primary).  1= 599 are primary.


785 isn't signed at all. The 895 near Richmond is primary, but there are 
also secondary 895s.


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


Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering

2012-04-03 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 4/3/2012 10:54 AM, James Umbanhowar wrote:

I don't know if they use Mapnik, but I like the way Stamen places their
shields along concurrencies.  e.g.
http://maps.stamen.com/terrain/#15/39.7542/-86.0373


The problem with this one is that only one shield shows up when the two 
shields would be drawn on top of each other. Putting all the shields 
right next to each other avoids this.


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


Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering

2012-04-03 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 4/3/2012 11:19 AM, Phil! Gold wrote:

A lot of those still don't render because they duplicate the
subnetwork in the ref tag, so Loop 5 (picking an arbitrary number) might
be represented as network=US:TX:LOOP, ref=5 Loop.  Once the ref is changed
to a plain 5, it would be rendered properly.


You mean *if* the ref is changed. Perhaps the locals want to keep the 
Loop in the ref tag.


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


Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering

2012-04-03 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 4/3/2012 11:57 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:

FM and RM should render identically (obviously since they're actually
the same network)


Er no. On roadside assemblies the text FARM ROAD and RANCH ROAD 
appears, and on green guide signs the shields have FM or RM up top.

http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/sfb/images/3-1_Types_Route_Sign_Mount.JPG

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


Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering

2012-04-03 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 4/3/2012 11:59 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:

That just reminded me... Chicago and Tulsa have city routes.


I'm not aware of any such routes in Chicago. Are you thinking of the 
address numbers that are prominently posted on signs?


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


Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering

2012-04-03 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 4/3/2012 12:06 PM, Phil! Gold wrote:

We're looking for US Business routes under a network of US:US:Business.
It probably isn't tagged that way.  Once it is, it'll show up.


Again, you mean if, not once. It's not the job of renderers to force 
a choice between equally-valid existing tagging choices.


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


Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering

2012-04-03 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 4/3/2012 12:52 PM, Phil! Gold wrote:

* Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com  [2012-04-03 11:44 -0400]:

On 4/3/2012 11:19 AM, Phil! Gold wrote:

A lot of those still don't render because they duplicate the
subnetwork in the ref tag, so Loop 5 (picking an arbitrary number) might
be represented as network=US:TX:LOOP, ref=5 Loop.  Once the ref is changed
to a plain 5, it would be rendered properly.


You mean *if* the ref is changed. Perhaps the locals want to keep
the Loop in the ref tag.


Point taken.  They will appear on our particular rendering if the locals
choose to change the tagging.


So you'll include network=US:US ref=17 Truck as acceptable tagging? 
Since I'm local to said route.


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


Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering

2012-04-03 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 4/3/2012 5:19 PM, Phil! Gold wrote:

If you want to tag your local routes that way, I won't stop you.  But I
don't want to have to deal with multiple tagging standards and it seems to
me that there's a consensus on this list that network=US:US:Truck, ref=17
is the better approach, so that's what I will focus on rendering.


That tagging is nonsense. There's no Truck U.S. Highway network, only 
a U.S. Highway network that includes truck-bannered routes.


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


Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering

2012-04-03 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 4/3/2012 8:49 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:


On Apr 3, 2012 3:15 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com
mailto:nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  That tagging is nonsense. There's no Truck U.S. Highway network,
only a U.S. Highway network that includes truck-bannered routes.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't bannered routes pretty much the
reason for the modifier tag?


Yes, they are, and I would not object to ref=17 modifier=Truck, except 
that you run into problems with an alternate route that's signed with a 
suffix - ref=70A with no modifier doesn't include the information that 
it's a modified version of another route, and ref=70 modifier=A would be 
unclear as to how the A modifies the 70 (it could be 70-A).


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


Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering

2012-04-02 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 4/2/2012 8:25 AM, Phil! Gold wrote:

Business and
similar variants are expected to be in the network tag, since that's the
closest thing I've seen to a consensus on the topic.  If there's no route
relation or the tagging was not understood, we fall back to rendering the
ref= tag on the way just like the main OSM rendering.


You know that MapQuest's rendering expects the ref tag to contain the 
modifier, right?


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


Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering

2012-04-02 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 4/2/2012 8:25 AM, Phil! Gold wrote:

I'm not an expert on every state, so I'm particularly interested in
whether things look good to the natives of each state and, if not, what
could make them look better.


Florida has special toll shields. These are not represented by relations 
since, for example, SR 528 is partly toll-shielded and partly normal 
shielded. If the ref tag on the way is 528 Toll rather than 528, it gets 
a toll shield. Example: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=28.4112lon=-80.8121zoom=13layers=Q

http://www.okroads.com/121603/i95flexit205.JPG

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


Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering

2012-04-02 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 4/2/2012 11:17 AM, Phil! Gold wrote:

* Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com  [2012-04-02 09:18 -0400]:

On 4/2/2012 8:25 AM, Phil! Gold wrote:

Business and similar variants are expected to be in the network tag,
since that's the closest thing I've seen to a consensus on the topic.


You know that MapQuest's rendering expects the ref tag to contain
the modifier, right?


As far as I can tell, MapQuest is basing their rendering entirely on the
ref= tag on ways.


Yes, as far as I know. But since the modifier appears after the number 
(US 1 Alternate) it's clearly part of the 'ref' part of the ref rather 
than the network. Doing something different on relations will only 
confuse people.


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


Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering

2012-04-02 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 4/2/2012 11:40 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

On 4/2/2012 11:17 AM, Phil! Gold wrote:

* Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com [2012-04-02 09:18 -0400]:

On 4/2/2012 8:25 AM, Phil! Gold wrote:

Business and similar variants are expected to be in the network tag,
since that's the closest thing I've seen to a consensus on the topic.


You know that MapQuest's rendering expects the ref tag to contain
the modifier, right?


As far as I can tell, MapQuest is basing their rendering entirely on the
ref= tag on ways.


Yes, as far as I know. But since the modifier appears after the number
(US 1 Alternate) it's clearly part of the 'ref' part of the ref rather
than the network. Doing something different on relations will only
confuse people.


Actually, is there a reason it can't support both? (This sort of 
flexibility could also be used, for example, when an Interstate relation 
has the I  in the ref, such as most of I-80, and to process any 
network=US:FL:CR:* as a county road.)


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


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

2012-04-02 Thread Nathan Edgars II

On 4/2/2012 12:18 PM, Richard Weait wrote:

I think imports (taking a large number of objects from an external
source and placing them in OSM all at once) is bad for the community.
Most of you have heard me say this before.  I still have no hard
evidence to prove it.  There is also no hard counter-evidence.  At
best, imported data will be unmaintained.  I glibly offer most TIGER
ways as evidence.


I offer TIGER as counterevidence. It's imperfect but a great starting 
point for local mappers, especially those without a GPS setup.


No comment on the proposed import.

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


  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >