Re: [talk-au] Adding residential properties?

2013-12-10 Thread mick
On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 20:41:29 +1100
Steve Bennett  wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Daniel O'Connor 
> wrote:
> 
> > I started out with buildings, but got a bit excited in my local area;
> > getting down into trees, power lines, fences, driveways etc.
> >
> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-34.84928/138.52277
> >
> > Not super pretty looking.
> >
> 
> Hi guys,
>   Personally I'm not that into micromapping, but could I make the
> suggestion that you use (additional) tags to make it easy to filter this
> stuff out? It makes it hard to render a reasonable map if there's no
> distinction between, say:
> * relevant public buildings, vs private houses  (use building=house sounds
> good)
> * walking paths through parks, vs ordinary footpaths (use sidewalk=yes?)
> * public or semi-public tennis courts (eg at a sporting facility, vs
> private tennis courts in backyards (access=private?)
> * similarly for swimming pools
> 
My tuppence worth:

It would (possibly) be useful to map significant private homes otherwise just 
tag the blocks as residential area.

mick

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


Re: [talk-au] Adding residential properties?

2013-12-10 Thread Steve Bennett
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Daniel O'Connor wrote:

> I started out with buildings, but got a bit excited in my local area;
> getting down into trees, power lines, fences, driveways etc.
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-34.84928/138.52277
>
> Not super pretty looking.
>

Hi guys,
  Personally I'm not that into micromapping, but could I make the
suggestion that you use (additional) tags to make it easy to filter this
stuff out? It makes it hard to render a reasonable map if there's no
distinction between, say:
* relevant public buildings, vs private houses  (use building=house sounds
good)
* walking paths through parks, vs ordinary footpaths (use sidewalk=yes?)
* public or semi-public tennis courts (eg at a sporting facility, vs
private tennis courts in backyards (access=private?)
* similarly for swimming pools

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


Re: [talk-au] Adding residential properties?

2013-12-07 Thread Will Rouesnel
I suspected I was ignoring a really obvious tag. Guess I'll see how far 
my feet can take me for a while - thanks for the advice all.

On Sat 07 Dec 2013 20:15:55 EST, Ross Scanlon wrote:
> On 07/12/13 17:34, Will Rouesnel wrote:
>> Ok this is what I got from a brief walk around the neighborhood with
>> OSMPad on my phone:
>>
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2569340857#map=17/-33.82359/151.25009&layers=ND
>>
>
> Looks pretty good.
>
> I'd add
>
> addr:suburb=Balmoral or where ever
>
> I also always add:
>
> addr:state=NSW or where ever
>
>
> Cheers
> Ross
>
>>
>> The addresses line up to the post-box / domestic entrances where
>> possible - my motivation here is to get places I travel to give
>> accurate GPS coordinates from things like OSMAnd.
>>
>> The biggest problem at the moment seems to be the Bing imagery has a
>> couple meter shift in this area, so things line up but the roads are
>> offset a bit - I can't decide whether to recenter my points around the
>> roads or not, since presumably if it's ever correct a big shift would
>> then line everything up nicely.
>>
>> On Sat 07 Dec 2013 15:29:54 EST, Ross Scanlon wrote:
 But where should the node go? Referring to here
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_feature/associatedAddress
 it seems like the address node should be inside an area assocated
 with
 the object it assigns an address to, but in the case of parcels of
 land/buildings this wouldn't be the case
>>>
>>> At the entrance to the property where known.  This would be just
>>> inside the boundary so matches what is above and the above is only a
>>> proposed feature.
>>>
>>> Try adding some addresses then link to them to show what you've done.
>>> Mind you there'll still be six different responses.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Ross
>>>
>>>
>>> On 07/12/13 13:32, Will Rouesnel wrote:
 I'm still a little confused about the separate node model (which seems
 to make more sense to me, in so far as it resolves better for dealing
 with some large areas like farms).


 i.e. my house's address node should logically be at the entrance where
 you can enter it, but that's outside a building and if I don't map
 land
 parcels is outside an area).

 I'm thinking just don't worry about it I guess - i.e. presumably at
 some
 point someone will get all the zoning from the local council and
 somehow
 upload that, at which point the address assignments would make sense
 provided I stuck address points at all the entrances?

 On 05/12/13 21:07, Ross Scanlon wrote:
> I'd suggest you read these wiki pages:
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Addresses
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Address
>
> My personal opinion is that the address should be on a separate node
> at the entrance to the property. This is preferred for disability
> access programs.
>
> It also takes into consideration that the address is unlikely to
> change but the building or landuse may.
>
> Cheers
> Ross
>
>
> On 05/12/13 19:34, Will Rouesnel wrote:
>> A simple example starting with my own house - how should residential
>> buildings be tagged?
>>
>> The block they sit on is more of a land use concern, but the
>> specific
>> buildings don't occupy the entire block - and seem like they
>> should be
>> tagged "house".
>>
>> Is this a correct way to go about things? The goal here would be to
>> get
>> my local area updated with street numbers so generated addresses can
>> provide navigation to specific locations.
>>
>> Would it be correct to trace the outline of the blocks, and label
>> them
>> with the address and tag the land as "residential" use? Would
>> this be
>> likely to accomplish the overall goal (provide street numbers for my
>> area)?
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
>

>>>
>

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


Re: [talk-au] Adding residential properties?

2013-12-07 Thread Ross Scanlon

On 07/12/13 17:34, Will Rouesnel wrote:

Ok this is what I got from a brief walk around the neighborhood with
OSMPad on my phone:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2569340857#map=17/-33.82359/151.25009&layers=ND


Looks pretty good.

I'd add

addr:suburb=Balmoral or where ever

I also always add:

addr:state=NSW or where ever


Cheers
Ross



The addresses line up to the post-box / domestic entrances where
possible - my motivation here is to get places I travel to give
accurate GPS coordinates from things like OSMAnd.

The biggest problem at the moment seems to be the Bing imagery has a
couple meter shift in this area, so things line up but the roads are
offset a bit - I can't decide whether to recenter my points around the
roads or not, since presumably if it's ever correct a big shift would
then line everything up nicely.

On Sat 07 Dec 2013 15:29:54 EST, Ross Scanlon wrote:

But where should the node go? Referring to here
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_feature/associatedAddress
it seems like the address node should be inside an area assocated
with
the object it assigns an address to, but in the case of parcels of
land/buildings this wouldn't be the case


At the entrance to the property where known.  This would be just
inside the boundary so matches what is above and the above is only a
proposed feature.

Try adding some addresses then link to them to show what you've done.
Mind you there'll still be six different responses.

Cheers
Ross


On 07/12/13 13:32, Will Rouesnel wrote:

I'm still a little confused about the separate node model (which seems
to make more sense to me, in so far as it resolves better for dealing
with some large areas like farms).


i.e. my house's address node should logically be at the entrance where
you can enter it, but that's outside a building and if I don't map land
parcels is outside an area).

I'm thinking just don't worry about it I guess - i.e. presumably at some
point someone will get all the zoning from the local council and somehow
upload that, at which point the address assignments would make sense
provided I stuck address points at all the entrances?

On 05/12/13 21:07, Ross Scanlon wrote:

I'd suggest you read these wiki pages:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Addresses

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Address

My personal opinion is that the address should be on a separate node
at the entrance to the property. This is preferred for disability
access programs.

It also takes into consideration that the address is unlikely to
change but the building or landuse may.

Cheers
Ross


On 05/12/13 19:34, Will Rouesnel wrote:

A simple example starting with my own house - how should residential
buildings be tagged?

The block they sit on is more of a land use concern, but the specific
buildings don't occupy the entire block - and seem like they should be
tagged "house".

Is this a correct way to go about things? The goal here would be to
get
my local area updated with street numbers so generated addresses can
provide navigation to specific locations.

Would it be correct to trace the outline of the blocks, and label them
with the address and tag the land as "residential" use? Would this be
likely to accomplish the overall goal (provide street numbers for my
area)?

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










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


Re: [talk-au] Adding residential properties?

2013-12-07 Thread Ross Scanlon

On 07/12/13 17:34, Will Rouesnel wrote:

Ok this is what I got from a brief walk around the neighborhood with
OSMPad on my phone:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2569340857#map=17/-33.82359/151.25009&layers=ND

The addresses line up to the post-box / domestic entrances where
possible - my motivation here is to get places I travel to give
accurate GPS coordinates from things like OSMAnd.


I'm of the opinion that this is where the address node should be.


The biggest problem at the moment seems to be the Bing imagery has a
couple meter shift in this area, so things line up but the roads are
offset a bit - I can't decide whether to recenter my points around the
roads or not, since presumably if it's ever correct a big shift would
then line everything up nicely.


Read this in regards to bing imagery being offset

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bing#Precision

You need to reference the bing imagery to the gps traces or roads marked 
as source= survey or nearmap or agri.


Cheers
Ross




On Sat 07 Dec 2013 15:29:54 EST, Ross Scanlon wrote:

But where should the node go? Referring to here
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_feature/associatedAddress
it seems like the address node should be inside an area assocated
with
the object it assigns an address to, but in the case of parcels of
land/buildings this wouldn't be the case


At the entrance to the property where known.  This would be just
inside the boundary so matches what is above and the above is only a
proposed feature.

Try adding some addresses then link to them to show what you've done.
Mind you there'll still be six different responses.

Cheers
Ross


On 07/12/13 13:32, Will Rouesnel wrote:

I'm still a little confused about the separate node model (which seems
to make more sense to me, in so far as it resolves better for dealing
with some large areas like farms).


i.e. my house's address node should logically be at the entrance where
you can enter it, but that's outside a building and if I don't map land
parcels is outside an area).

I'm thinking just don't worry about it I guess - i.e. presumably at some
point someone will get all the zoning from the local council and somehow
upload that, at which point the address assignments would make sense
provided I stuck address points at all the entrances?

On 05/12/13 21:07, Ross Scanlon wrote:

I'd suggest you read these wiki pages:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Addresses

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Address

My personal opinion is that the address should be on a separate node
at the entrance to the property. This is preferred for disability
access programs.

It also takes into consideration that the address is unlikely to
change but the building or landuse may.

Cheers
Ross


On 05/12/13 19:34, Will Rouesnel wrote:

A simple example starting with my own house - how should residential
buildings be tagged?

The block they sit on is more of a land use concern, but the specific
buildings don't occupy the entire block - and seem like they should be
tagged "house".

Is this a correct way to go about things? The goal here would be to
get
my local area updated with street numbers so generated addresses can
provide navigation to specific locations.

Would it be correct to trace the outline of the blocks, and label them
with the address and tag the land as "residential" use? Would this be
likely to accomplish the overall goal (provide street numbers for my
area)?

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










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


Re: [talk-au] Adding residential properties?

2013-12-06 Thread Will Rouesnel
Ok this is what I got from a brief walk around the neighborhood with 
OSMPad on my phone:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2569340857#map=17/-33.82359/151.25009&layers=ND

The addresses line up to the post-box / domestic entrances where 
possible - my motivation here is to get places I travel to give 
accurate GPS coordinates from things like OSMAnd.

The biggest problem at the moment seems to be the Bing imagery has a 
couple meter shift in this area, so things line up but the roads are 
offset a bit - I can't decide whether to recenter my points around the 
roads or not, since presumably if it's ever correct a big shift would 
then line everything up nicely.

On Sat 07 Dec 2013 15:29:54 EST, Ross Scanlon wrote:
> > But where should the node go? Referring to here
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_feature/associatedAddress
> > it seems like the address node should be inside an area assocated
> > with
> > the object it assigns an address to, but in the case of parcels of
> > land/buildings this wouldn't be the case
>
> At the entrance to the property where known.  This would be just
> inside the boundary so matches what is above and the above is only a
> proposed feature.
>
> Try adding some addresses then link to them to show what you've done.
> Mind you there'll still be six different responses.
>
> Cheers
> Ross
>
>
> On 07/12/13 13:32, Will Rouesnel wrote:
>> I'm still a little confused about the separate node model (which seems
>> to make more sense to me, in so far as it resolves better for dealing
>> with some large areas like farms).
>>
>>
>> i.e. my house's address node should logically be at the entrance where
>> you can enter it, but that's outside a building and if I don't map land
>> parcels is outside an area).
>>
>> I'm thinking just don't worry about it I guess - i.e. presumably at some
>> point someone will get all the zoning from the local council and somehow
>> upload that, at which point the address assignments would make sense
>> provided I stuck address points at all the entrances?
>>
>> On 05/12/13 21:07, Ross Scanlon wrote:
>>> I'd suggest you read these wiki pages:
>>>
>>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Addresses
>>>
>>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Address
>>>
>>> My personal opinion is that the address should be on a separate node
>>> at the entrance to the property. This is preferred for disability
>>> access programs.
>>>
>>> It also takes into consideration that the address is unlikely to
>>> change but the building or landuse may.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Ross
>>>
>>>
>>> On 05/12/13 19:34, Will Rouesnel wrote:
 A simple example starting with my own house - how should residential
 buildings be tagged?

 The block they sit on is more of a land use concern, but the specific
 buildings don't occupy the entire block - and seem like they should be
 tagged "house".

 Is this a correct way to go about things? The goal here would be to
 get
 my local area updated with street numbers so generated addresses can
 provide navigation to specific locations.

 Would it be correct to trace the outline of the blocks, and label them
 with the address and tag the land as "residential" use? Would this be
 likely to accomplish the overall goal (provide street numbers for my
 area)?

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

>>>
>>
>

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


Re: [talk-au] Adding residential properties?

2013-12-06 Thread Ross Scanlon

> But where should the node go? Referring to here
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_feature/associatedAddress
> it seems like the address node should be inside an area assocated
> with
> the object it assigns an address to, but in the case of parcels of
> land/buildings this wouldn't be the case

At the entrance to the property where known.  This would be just inside 
the boundary so matches what is above and the above is only a proposed 
feature.


Try adding some addresses then link to them to show what you've done. 
Mind you there'll still be six different responses.


Cheers
Ross


On 07/12/13 13:32, Will Rouesnel wrote:

I'm still a little confused about the separate node model (which seems
to make more sense to me, in so far as it resolves better for dealing
with some large areas like farms).


i.e. my house's address node should logically be at the entrance where
you can enter it, but that's outside a building and if I don't map land
parcels is outside an area).

I'm thinking just don't worry about it I guess - i.e. presumably at some
point someone will get all the zoning from the local council and somehow
upload that, at which point the address assignments would make sense
provided I stuck address points at all the entrances?

On 05/12/13 21:07, Ross Scanlon wrote:

I'd suggest you read these wiki pages:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Addresses

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Address

My personal opinion is that the address should be on a separate node
at the entrance to the property. This is preferred for disability
access programs.

It also takes into consideration that the address is unlikely to
change but the building or landuse may.

Cheers
Ross


On 05/12/13 19:34, Will Rouesnel wrote:

A simple example starting with my own house - how should residential
buildings be tagged?

The block they sit on is more of a land use concern, but the specific
buildings don't occupy the entire block - and seem like they should be
tagged "house".

Is this a correct way to go about things? The goal here would be to get
my local area updated with street numbers so generated addresses can
provide navigation to specific locations.

Would it be correct to trace the outline of the blocks, and label them
with the address and tag the land as "residential" use? Would this be
likely to accomplish the overall goal (provide street numbers for my
area)?

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








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


Re: [talk-au] Adding residential properties?

2013-12-06 Thread Will Rouesnel

  
  
I'm still a little confused about the separate node model (which
seems to make more sense to me, in so far as it resolves better for
dealing with some large areas like farms).

But where should the node go? Referring to here

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/associatedAddress
it seems like the address node should be inside an area assocated
with the object it assigns an address to, but in the case of parcels
of land/buildings this wouldn't be the case

i.e. my house's address node should logically be at the entrance
where you can enter it, but that's outside a building and if I don't
map land parcels is outside an area).

I'm thinking just don't worry about it I guess - i.e. presumably at
some point someone will get all the zoning from the local council
and somehow upload that, at which point the address assignments
would make sense provided I stuck address points at all the
entrances?

On 05/12/13 21:07, Ross Scanlon wrote:

I'd
  suggest you read these wiki pages:
  
  
  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Addresses
  
  
  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Address
  
  
  My personal opinion is that the address should be on a separate
  node at the entrance to the property. This is preferred for
  disability access programs.
  
  
  It also takes into consideration that the address is unlikely to
  change but the building or landuse may.
  
  
  Cheers
  
  Ross
  
  
  
  On 05/12/13 19:34, Will Rouesnel wrote:
  
  A simple example starting with my own
house - how should residential

buildings be tagged?


The block they sit on is more of a land use concern, but the
specific

buildings don't occupy the entire block - and seem like they
should be

tagged "house".


Is this a correct way to go about things? The goal here would be
to get

my local area updated with street numbers so generated addresses
can

provide navigation to specific locations.


Would it be correct to trace the outline of the blocks, and
label them

with the address and tag the land as "residential" use? Would
this be

likely to accomplish the overall goal (provide street numbers
for my area)?


___

Talk-au mailing list

Talk-au@openstreetmap.org

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


  
  


  


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


Re: [talk-au] Adding residential properties?

2013-12-05 Thread Alex Sims
Hi Will,

I’ve been mapping the building outlines and tagging the feature appropriately, 
e.g. house and then adding address data to each building. I’ve also added in a 
smaller area the boundary fences or walls. There is I understand, two competing 
models for recording addresses, one where the building is labelled and another 
where a node is created at the building entrance.

Either way it maps “whats on the ground” and can be readily verified. 

Alex

On 5 Dec 2013, at 8:04 pm, Will Rouesnel  wrote:

> A simple example starting with my own house - how should residential
> buildings be tagged?
> 
> The block they sit on is more of a land use concern, but the specific
> buildings don't occupy the entire block - and seem like they should be
> tagged "house".
> 
> Is this a correct way to go about things? The goal here would be to get
> my local area updated with street numbers so generated addresses can
> provide navigation to specific locations.
> 
> Would it be correct to trace the outline of the blocks, and label them
> with the address and tag the land as "residential" use? Would this be
> likely to accomplish the overall goal (provide street numbers for my area)?


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


Re: [talk-au] Adding residential properties?

2013-12-05 Thread Ross Scanlon

I'd suggest you read these wiki pages:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Addresses

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Address

My personal opinion is that the address should be on a separate node at 
the entrance to the property. This is preferred for disability access 
programs.


It also takes into consideration that the address is unlikely to change 
but the building or landuse may.


Cheers
Ross


On 05/12/13 19:34, Will Rouesnel wrote:

A simple example starting with my own house - how should residential
buildings be tagged?

The block they sit on is more of a land use concern, but the specific
buildings don't occupy the entire block - and seem like they should be
tagged "house".

Is this a correct way to go about things? The goal here would be to get
my local area updated with street numbers so generated addresses can
provide navigation to specific locations.

Would it be correct to trace the outline of the blocks, and label them
with the address and tag the land as "residential" use? Would this be
likely to accomplish the overall goal (provide street numbers for my area)?

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




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


Re: [talk-au] Adding residential properties?

2013-12-05 Thread Daniel O'Connor
I started out with buildings, but got a bit excited in my local area;
getting down into trees, power lines, fences, driveways etc.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-34.84928/138.52277

Not super pretty looking.


Nowdays, I tend to map the primary houses only, and perhaps significant
features like a tennis court or pool if present.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/-34.8808/138.5473

I wouldn't worry about tracing the individual parcels of land - there are
better data sets which are maintained by various governments, either at
cost or as open data (vicmap cadastre, psma's cadlite, etc); but to my
knowledge no one is flying LIDAR equipped planes over AU cities and
publishing the data yet re buildings.

Anyway once you get past your street/block/etc; I'd recommend you start
tracing buildings along your way to work or a similar commute.
That lets you use a tool like Vespucci OSM Editor or Keypad Mapper 3 to
collect data, if you are a public transport user or tend to walk from A to
B.

Another piece of data that is quite interesting is building:levels.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:levels

If you work in the city as I do, it becomes fairly easy to tag the multiple
story buildings with the same tools.
http://osmbuildings.org/?lat=-34.92556&lon=138.60092&zoom=16




On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Paul Norman  wrote:

> > From: Will Rouesnel [mailto:w.roues...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 1:34 AM
> > To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> > Subject: [talk-au] Adding residential properties?
> >
> > A simple example starting with my own house - how should residential
> > buildings be tagged?
> >
> > The block they sit on is more of a land use concern, but the specific
> > buildings don't occupy the entire block - and seem like they should be
> > tagged "house".
> >
> > Is this a correct way to go about things? The goal here would be to get
> > my local area updated with street numbers so generated addresses can
> > provide navigation to specific locations.
> >
> > Would it be correct to trace the outline of the blocks, and label them
> > with the address and tag the land as "residential" use? Would this be
> > likely to accomplish the overall goal (provide street numbers for my
> > area)?
>
> My practice is
>
> - Add the buidings from imagery, generally with building=house and
>   building=shed
>
> - Add address info from a survey, either with field papers + pen or
>   geotagged photos
>
> - Add other interesting features from the survey (paths, mailboxes, etc)
>
> - Trace out the landuse, generally as larger than single blocks, but
>   using separate polygons for areas split on major roads
>
> This generally involves an initial imagery-based mapping for buildings,
> trees, paths, and other stuff visible from imagery, a survey, then a
> final mapping using survey notes + imagery.
>
> It helps having buildings mapped already when collecting addresses.
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


Re: [talk-au] Adding residential properties?

2013-12-05 Thread Paul Norman
> From: Will Rouesnel [mailto:w.roues...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 1:34 AM
> To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [talk-au] Adding residential properties?
> 
> A simple example starting with my own house - how should residential
> buildings be tagged?
> 
> The block they sit on is more of a land use concern, but the specific
> buildings don't occupy the entire block - and seem like they should be
> tagged "house".
> 
> Is this a correct way to go about things? The goal here would be to get
> my local area updated with street numbers so generated addresses can
> provide navigation to specific locations.
> 
> Would it be correct to trace the outline of the blocks, and label them
> with the address and tag the land as "residential" use? Would this be
> likely to accomplish the overall goal (provide street numbers for my
> area)?

My practice is

- Add the buidings from imagery, generally with building=house and 
  building=shed

- Add address info from a survey, either with field papers + pen or 
  geotagged photos

- Add other interesting features from the survey (paths, mailboxes, etc)

- Trace out the landuse, generally as larger than single blocks, but 
  using separate polygons for areas split on major roads

This generally involves an initial imagery-based mapping for buildings, 
trees, paths, and other stuff visible from imagery, a survey, then a 
final mapping using survey notes + imagery.

It helps having buildings mapped already when collecting addresses.


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


[talk-au] Adding residential properties?

2013-12-05 Thread Will Rouesnel
A simple example starting with my own house - how should residential
buildings be tagged?

The block they sit on is more of a land use concern, but the specific
buildings don't occupy the entire block - and seem like they should be
tagged "house".

Is this a correct way to go about things? The goal here would be to get
my local area updated with street numbers so generated addresses can
provide navigation to specific locations.

Would it be correct to trace the outline of the blocks, and label them
with the address and tag the land as "residential" use? Would this be
likely to accomplish the overall goal (provide street numbers for my area)?

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