Hi Martin,
Could you provide some more detail on what specifically you are attempting
to achieve? Converting a geojson file of points to CSV is pretty easy, but
once you get to linestrings, multi-linestrings, polygons, etc. it gets
difficult because in those cases the geometry objects have a
On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 12:53 PM Harsha Somaya wrote:
> The data on these trees is only added if the user consents.
>
To what exactly have these users consented? Putting their data in the
public domain? To some other license? We need more specifics.
> I am creating an open source app with my
On Wed, May 3, 2023 at 2:08 PM Courtney
wrote:
> It's valid to ask for more specifics. You're right that "combative" just
> ends up being an alienating word.
>
> Here's an example that I think everyone can benefit from.
>
> When I see a comment that reflects a kind of tired, angry emotion about
On Wed, May 3, 2023, 1:00 PM Brian M. Sperlongano
wrote:
> I would caution against hyper-simplifying the combativeness of the mailing
> lists
>
I am not sure using a term such as "combative" is going to be effective in
bringing about the change you desire. First the term has strong negative
On Sun, Apr 30, 2023 at 10:42 PM Ewen Hill wrote:
> Hi all,
> I am really disappointed by the anger and outrage in this thread and
> that, to castigate a volunteer in public,
>
I understand you, and some others may feel this way, but what I am seeing
is simply an exchange of ideas between
On Sun, Apr 30, 2023 at 4:58 PM Courtney
wrote:
> Here, too, we gave quite a bit of careful thought to the decision. We felt
> that if we did not disclose that we were on the CWG, that it might be seen
> by some as a lapse of transparency.
>
It is good that you disclosed your affiliations.
On Sun, Apr 30, 2023 at 11:03 AM Courtney
wrote:
> Why is the main "Talk" channel the only one that is producing pushback?
> Why is it the only one that is producing such a negative tone?
>
I don't sense a "negative tone" in this conversation. Some people disagree
with some things you are
On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 5:52 PM Courtney
wrote:
> As well, this is not an OSMF survey, nor is it a CWG survey. Yes, two of
> us volunteer for the CWG, but it is not formally "from" or "of" the OSMF.
>
I guess I didn't read the original email closely enough. I got the
impression that this was
On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 5:23 PM Greg Troxel wrote:
>
> > The terms cover data distribution, ie downloading from
> > planet.openstreetmap.org so you need to go through those terms to obtain
> > OSM data regardless of the ODbL.
>
> Really? That's huge news compared to the data being under ODbL.
On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 11:22 AM Minh Nguyen via talk
wrote:
> Vào lúc 09:55 2022-12-05, Zeke Farwell đã viết:
> > That is a good summary, though "Once the OSM available satellite imagery
> > does not show the feature"
1) There are other sources that an armchair mapper can use other than
Concerning this changeset:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/128035436
Changeset comment:
added missing roads according to proprietary aerial imagery
Editing organization's follow on comment:
"Proprietary" for Lyft meaning "provided to us for use in OSM but not the
general public"
Is
On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 7:46 AM Marc_marc wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Le 25.10.22 à 09:42, Warin a écrit :
> > why have the tags that mean there is nothing left of it?
>
> I'm using from time to time as a QA-tag to avoid that a mapper
> add it back
I do this as well. We have had some major wildfires
On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 11:42 AM Simon Poole wrote:
> The alerts are generated when data is downloaded/merged and the device
> location is within the specified radius around the object causing the
> notification.
>
> With other words you need to have one of the auto download options enabled
>
I am trying to get Vespucci to give me an audible alert when I travel to
within a certain distance of a OSM map note, or a OSM object with a fixme
tag. I have not been able to get this feature to work, at least not in the
manner that I would like it to work. It does alert when I initially
On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 2:56 PM Michal Migurski wrote:
> In some specific cases there may be a conflict of interest where I’d
> recuse myself, but in general it’s much more likely that FB and other
> companies’ need for a high-quality, free, global map with a healthy org
> behind it is *strongly
Karson,
Thanks for your assessment. Unfortunately, I suspect that there are large
parts of the US where the quality and completeness of the OSM data is
similar to what you observed in Iowa.
Perhaps it is already happening and I am not aware of it, but in my
opinion, I think it would be a good
On Sun, Oct 25, 2020 at 12:09 PM Mario Frasca wrote:
> Hi. this is funny, I recently opened an issue with AllTrails, about
> them not attributing the map.
>
> I wonder if we're talking about the same thing: their Android App shows
> a bright colourful Google logo on top of whatever map you
I use:
disused:highway=path/footway/etc
or
abandoned:highway=path/footway/etc
If it is totally gone, I still tend to leave the way with "note=There is no
longer a path here, the land manager restored the area to its natural state
sometime before ", (or whatever is appropriate) this provides some
Thanks Kathleen and Mateusz!
I will thank Ron for the change and try to start a dialog with our DWG
about AllTrails asking their users to contact the DWG directly with map
errors.
Mike
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 5:21 AM Mateusz Konieczny via talk <
talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> AFAIK such text
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 2:02 PM Mike Thompson wrote:
> Has anyone tried contacting the AllTrails[0] people about their use of OSM
> without attribution? I am not talking about the "OSM Map Layer" that they
> offer, but rather the default "AllTrails Map Layer." A
On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 11:09 AM Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 5. Sep 2020, at 16:43, ben.ki...@mail.de wrote:
> >
> > Which are the world regions OSM data is better in? Which are world
> regions OSM data is equal good?
>
>
> generally urban areas and touristic
On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 7:34 PM brad wrote:
> I'm with Kevin, SteveA, etc, here. In the part of the world that I
> live, a map without national forest & BLM boundaries is very incomplete.
> A useful OSM needs this. The useful boundary would be the actual
> ownership boundary, not the outer
Ben,
What type of navigation, car, public transport, bicycle, walking...?
What part of the world will you be navigating in? Some parts of the world
have better OSM data than others.
Another consideration is how well the app makes use of all of the data in
OSM. e.g. turn restrictions, oneway,
On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 7:46 AM Matthew Woehlke
wrote:
> On 30/08/2020 10.00, Greg Troxel wrote:
>
> > What is the actual problem with other people's driveways being marked
> > access=private on the map? yes, driving on is usually technically not
> > illegal, but unless you are going there
On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 6:53 PM Brian Stromberg
wrote:
> I would argue that maps can only show the world as the mapmaker wants it
> to be shown...
>
In OSM we should map facts, what is observable on the ground (with the
exception of personal information, and perhaps culturally sensitive sites
On Sun, Aug 30, 2020, 9:02 AM Greg Troxel wrote:
> On 8/30/20 11:00, Mike Thompson wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 8:04 AM Greg Troxel > <mailto:g...@lexort.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 8:04 AM Greg Troxel wrote:
>
>
> Being on someone's land without permission is trespassing, but this is
> not a crime.
>
not a crime, until the land owner asks you leave and you fail to do so, at
least in Colorado.
>
>
>
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:11 PM Andy Townsend wrote:
>
> On 19/08/2020 22:44, Clifford Snow wrote:
>
> ... Instead of suggesting their users edit OSM, they instead instruct
> them to email d...@openstreetmap.org,
>
>
> Indeed, and by the time they get to us they are usually "rabbits of
>
website. There
should totally be an attribution block at the bottom and we'll get that
fixed up ASAP.
All the best,
Ron
=
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 4:37 PM Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 20. Aug 2020, at 00:18, Mike Thompson wr
; [1]
> https://support.alltrails.com/hc/en-us/articles/360018930672-How-do-I-update-or-change-information-about-a-trail-
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 1:03 PM Mike Thompson
> wrote:
> > Has anyone tried contacting the AllTrails[0] people about their use of
> OSM without att
in SF but I couldn't find any listing of a
> leadership team.
>
> Do you want to ask on Slack? Someone there might have a connection.
>
>
> [1]
> https://support.alltrails.com/hc/en-us/articles/360018930672-How-do-I-update-or-change-information-about-a-trail-
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020
Has anyone tried contacting the AllTrails[0] people about their use of OSM
without attribution? I am not talking about the "OSM Map Layer" that they
offer, but rather the default "AllTrails Map Layer." At the very least it
appears that the trails on that layer come from OSM. I know that because
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 6:42 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <
talk...@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> i will fix anything that i missed but the lines are truth.
>
> and it is not a polygon,
>
As far as I know, boundary relations have to, in effect, be polygons, in
other words, they have to close.
>
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 6:42 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <
talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> i will fix anything that i missed but the lines are truth.
>
> and it is not a polygon,
>
As far as I know, boundary relations have to, in effect, be polygons, in
other words, they have to close.
>
On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 5:24 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <
talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> tiger is up to date on the web map using the current data i just think he
> picked the wrong year,
>
That relation was first created in 2009. According to the source tag, it
used 2008 Tiger data, so
1) Best not to delete and start over as the history will be lost.
2) Do you have an accurate source that has a license that is compatible
with OSM? Could you share a link to it?
3) General observation is that there is a lot of territory that is not
enclosed by any admin level 8 boundary, which
sk if there's any objection to removing the questionable
> names?
>
> On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 3:15 PM Mike Thompson wrote:
>
>> I thought the names of these water bodies[0] in RMNP were suspect because:
>> 1) The names do not appear in the GNIS,
>> 2) The names do not appear
I thought the names of these water bodies[0] in RMNP were suspect because:
1) The names do not appear in the GNIS,
2) The names do not appear on the USGS topo
3) The names do not appear in the NHD
4) The names do not appear on the RMNP map that is handed out to visitors
5) I have hiked past here
On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 6:42 AM Bob Gambrel wrote:
> It seems to me that having a relationship is absolutely appropriate and
> that it should have the name of entire trail/route, just as you have done.
>
> It also seems to me that having a name on individual segments (the local
> name) is also
On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 10:38 AM Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> No
>
> Relations are not collections
>
Thanks! That is what I thought, but there are so many such relations in
this area that I thought I better check. I'll wait for a few more opinions
to roll in, and if they are along the lines of
I have come across a number of examples[0] of route relations where all the
trails in a given park have been put into a single relation. Is this a
recommended use for route relations?
Mike
[0]
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10962561
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8409089
Let's say you have a trail in the US National Forest that was specifically
created for mountain biking. It has a name and a FS trail number. It is
represented in OSM by three ways currently: before a bridge, the bridge,
and after the bridge.
Is this a good candidate for a route relation?
Should
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 4:26 PM wrote:
> That seems sensible. What about the general case (i.e. no continuity
> with a county road?) - to add "road" or not?
>
Do you mean the same physical road has two names, or just that the county
road and the forest road are connected? If you are just talking
On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 1:33 PM Paul Johnson wrote:
>
>
> Could we get the US Road Tagging page updated to reflect common name
> practice instead of encouraging the duplication of the ref in the name? Or
> is that going to spark drama?
>
I am in favor of the change. The name tag should be for
On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 7:10 AM brad wrote:
> Hmmm, interesting. I'm not sure they compact very many roads around
> here (CO).
I have lived, or spent time in, rural parts of four states (MN, IA, OH and
CO) and I have never seen an unpaved road compacted. They get graded once
a year perhaps
On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 4:46 AM wrote:
> Mike,
>
> Good idea on the route references. What should the network be set to?
>
> Others on this list are better able to answer that question, but my
opinion is network=US:FS:
___
Talk-us mailing list
On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 4:49 PM wrote:
> For
> roads that appear to be public access (e.g. to go to a lake) but are
> obviously even more minor than tertiary roads I label highway=unclassified.
>
highway=unclassified are for roads that connect small towns, or for "local
traffic", while access
On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 2:23 PM Mark Wagner wrote:
>
> * Two adjacent sections of track being tagged as "grade 2" and "grade
> 4" not because of any difference in road surface, but because one has
> a line of grass between the ruts and the other doesn't.
>
In rural areas where I have spent
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 5:46 AM Greg Troxel wrote:
> So a router that does not allow use of access=private for a final
> segment, by default, is broken.
+1
Even if we go with the idea that driveways are not access=private unless
posted, there are some driveways that are posted, and people
On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 10:28 AM Jmapb wrote:
> - The access -- somewhat common to find a pubic road imported with
access=private, so if I suspect this I'll leave the tiger:reviewed=no tag
until access can be confirmed, and add a note or fixme. (It's also quite
common to find driveways imported
On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 4:57 AM wrote:
>
> That is standard construction for the old above ground telephone lines in
> the US - many times those lines would run along a rail bed, perhaps even
> for railroad signaling purposes.
Thanks Steve!
___
talk
Thanks François!
On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 3:51 PM François Lacombe
wrote:
> Le sam. 27 juin 2020 à 20:08, Mike Thompson a
> écrit :
>
>> Any idea whether this is an old powerline or an old phone line? Photo is
>> geotagged, so if you download it and drop it into JOSM you
On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 12:21 PM Bryan Housel wrote:
>
> I’d tag as `abandoned:power=minor_line` since you said it is down in
places.
>
> It is impossible to tell from the picture what its original purpose was,
but this doesn’t matter much if you just want to get it mapped.
Thanks Brian, I will
Any idea whether this is an old powerline or an old phone line? Photo is
geotagged, so if you download it and drop it into JOSM you can see the
larger context.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/6cMueDbGJPdz8Es77
It is near the location of this node:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/51241693
It runs
the
wind. Some summits have multiple such shelters.
Mike
On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 1:07 PM Mike Thompson wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 1:03 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us <
> talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> >
> > Is summit register something that is often foun
On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 1:03 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us <
talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
> Is summit register something that is often found in USA mountains?
At least in Colorado they are. Nowadays they are often pieces of pvc pipe.
Mike
___
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 7:35 PM brad wrote:
>
> There are a few cases where property owners have put up illegal, or very
misleading signs.
I have come across this too. The signs are on private property, but face
you as you are traveling on a legal FS road and looking straight ahead. It
makes
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 8:08 AM Bradley White
wrote:
>
> > Somewhat related, in the cases where an official FS road or trail
crosses private property, does the FS have an easement, or is it kind of an
informal arrangement?
>
> Best way to know for sure is ground survey, but generally USFS system
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 6:59 AM Bradley White
wrote:
>
> > While it certainly may exist, I'm not aware of a disparity between the
"congressionally declared boundary" and any other boundary of a NF,
including "physical land that the NF actually owns and manages." How would
anyone know where this
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 4:12 PM Mateusz Konieczny via talk <
talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> Jun 23, 2020, 00:07 by miketh...@gmail.com:
>
> "except for the preceding, we follow OSM community norms."
>
> This should be enough to ban of all their mapping accounts until changing
> their plan
> (I
I know we are talking about Apple mappers here, but I wanted to point out
the Amazon Logistics mappers have been very responsive to changeset
comments. However:
1) One of their leaders explained their criteria for a track. There were
about four, and that was followed with "except for the
On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 10:54 PM Bradley White
wrote:
>
> > A relation for all would be ok too, as long as the private inholdings
are
> > not removed from the NF (which I think has been done in some cases).
>
>
> IMO, a tagging scheme that better represents the meaning of these two
> boundaries
Steve,
Perhaps I am not understanding what you are saying, but:
1) Not all "inholdings" are completely surrounded by the National Forest,
they are "bites" off the edge in some cases. I don't think one can have an
inner ring and an outer ring which are at all coincident (they can't share
an
On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 5:45 PM stevea wrote:
>
> A large thank-you to Kevin for that deeply informative post.
>
> > brad wrote:
> > I think its simpler and better to just create an inner boundary as was
done with the Coconino NF
>
> The Coconio NF (relation/10956348) hasn't "an" inner boundary,
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 6:31 PM Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
>
> > I was thinking just create separate polygons for inholdings, tagged
with access=private and possibly ownership=private
>
> While many Americans like to put "no trespassing" signs on their private
property, a privately owned parcel is
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 5:45 PM stevea wrote:
>
> I think we need both as well. I've been doing this while watching the
evolution of how we best do this as I participate in a "do our best, always
better" efforts to accomplish this. Even now!
>
> The idea of the first kind is simply a relation
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 2:43 PM Paul White wrote:
>
>
>
> Which one would be better? Looking forward to feedback.
I think we need both. I am open to suggestions as how to accomplish that.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 3:08 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <
talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
> How old is the satellite view, do we even know, or are we making a fake
map here.
In JOSM, if you right click on Bing Imagery, Show Tile Info, it will
display "Metadata Capture Date", which is the
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 3:08 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <
talk...@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
> How old is the satellite view, do we even know, or are we making a fake
map here.
In JOSM, if you right click on Bing Imagery, Show Tile Info, it will
display "Metadata Capture Date", which is the
JOSM validator does report a number of errors and warnings in the area, but
I don't think they are related to this specific change set.
Mike
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 11:16 AM Mike Thompson wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:53 AM <80hnhtv4a...@bk.ru> wrote:
> >
>
JOSM validator does report a number of errors and warnings in the area, but
I don't think they are related to this specific change set.
Mike
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 11:16 AM Mike Thompson wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:53 AM <80hnhtv4a...@bk.ru> wrote:
> >
>
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:53 AM <80hnhtv4a...@bk.ru> wrote:
>
> yes, and i will wait to see if anyone gets it.
We can hardly evaluate the issue if you don't share with us your concerns.
This edit was made by someone working for Amazon Logistics. They have been
very receptive to specific
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:53 AM <80hnhtv4a...@bk.ru> wrote:
>
> yes, and i will wait to see if anyone gets it.
We can hardly evaluate the issue if you don't share with us your concerns.
This edit was made by someone working for Amazon Logistics. They have been
very receptive to specific
What is the issue? It looks legit to me. Am I missing something?
Mike
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:11 AM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <
talk...@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> Added a service road.
>
> Edited about hours ago by
>
> Version #1 · Changeset #86698283
>
>
What is the issue? It looks legit to me. Am I missing something?
Mike
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:11 AM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <
talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> Added a service road.
>
> Edited about hours ago by
>
> Version #1 · Changeset #86698283
>
>
Dave,
Can you provide the URL so those of us that no longer have access can
manually add it back in?
Thanks,
Mike
On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 9:40 PM Mike Thompson wrote:
> I use it quite often. It is good for names of water bodies. However, I
> just checked now, and it doesn'
I use it quite often. It is good for names of water bodies. However, I
just checked now, and it doesn't seem to be listed on the imagery menu any
more.
Mike
On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 9:37 PM Dave Swarthout
wrote:
> I'm still seeing it and using it for my mapping chores in Alaska.
>
> On Sun,
On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 11:20 AM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <
talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
> I am not copying any thing, just looking at a satellite view from google
.
>
> it was a ruler.
This isn't really about OSM, it is about the Google Maps Terms of Service,
which by using Google Maps,
On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 11:20 AM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <
talk...@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
> I am not copying any thing, just looking at a satellite view from google
.
>
> it was a ruler.
This isn't really about OSM, it is about the Google Maps Terms of Service,
which by using Google Maps,
According to the Google Maps Terms of service, you cannot use it in any way
to make another map. [0] I would think that would include using its ruler
if the purpose of using the ruler is to edit OSM.
[0] 2.d of https://www.google.com/help/terms_maps/
On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 9:47 AM
On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 7:09 AM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <
talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
> IF someone, not local, relying on satellite views, goes after my good
faith edit, based on my on the ground
>
> surveillance thinks my edit was wrong trying to fix broken polygon’s,
that are
Hello,
This question concerns ways maintained/operated by the US Forest Service
(USFS) and signed with vertical markers, e.g. [0]. These signs typically
display a three digit number, with an optional decimal point (dot/period)
followed by another number and/or a letter.
Name:
The wiki [1]
On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 12:30 PM Tod Fitch wrote:
>
>
>
>
> With respect to names on USGS topographic maps: At least on most of the
old “historic” quads I have they used a different typeface/typographic
treatment for waterways versus valleys/canyons/draws/gulches. So you might
take your clue from
Do the names on the USGS Topo Maps that end in "Draw", "Gulch", and similar
terms refer to a stream, or a valley? I have always assumed a stream, and
applied the name to waterway=stream in OSM, but perhaps that is not correct.
Mike
___
Talk-us mailing
I think there is already an effort underway to import all of the
building outlines from DRCOG (Denver Regional Council of Governments).
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Denver_Planimetrics_Import
Mike
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 2:32 PM Michael Patrick wrote:
>
>
> See
>
Paul,
Thanks for all of your contributions to OSM over the years!
I am sorry to hear about your truck. I hope the police are able to
recover it in good condition.
I appreciate the support you, and others in your line of work, are
providing to keep our medical system running during this crucial
Mike,
That is a very compelling story. Thanks to you and the other OSM folks
involved for making it happen and to you for writing the diary entry. I
have often thought that OSM would be a great resource emergency responders
because in some areas it contains data that no one else has, but
mething you might also consider doing.
>
> Let me know how I can help,
> Clifford
>
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 4:35 PM Mike Thompson wrote:
>
>>
>> Village Earth's Native Land Advocacy Project[1], David Bartecchi[2], Paul
>> Johnson[3], and I[4] are considering
Village Earth's Native Land Advocacy Project[1], David Bartecchi[2], Paul
Johnson[3], and I[4] are considering an organized effort to improve the
boundaries of Native American Reservations in the US. We have studied the
import guidelines on the wiki and will follow those, however, we first
wanted
on
private lands. The US Topo uses proclaimed at this time.
-
Greg Matthews
Published Maps Products and Services Focus Area Lead
Office of User Engagement
US Geological Survey
END
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 2:41 PM Mike Thompson wrote:
>
>
>
> This key works
This key works for anywhere on this
> (https://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/rastergateway/states-regions/states.php)
> slippy map - take a look at the national forests near you and you will
> find plenty of private land that is still within the NF boundary.
>
I downloaded a quad (geotiff) for part of
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 2:30 PM Bradley White
wrote:
> Sorry - not too familiar with imgur! Does this work?
> https://i.imgur.com/4OC23x3.png
Yes, that worked!
>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 2:28 PM Bradley White
wrote:
> Yes I understand that, that is what the landuse tag is for. Private
> land should tagged as private. Public land should be tagged as public.
> The 'access' tag is probably preferable for this, and it's what I use.
> My point is that none of
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 2:21 PM Bradley White
wrote:
> A visual example since I don't feel like what I'm saying is being
> understood: https://imgur.com/a/0ELKyxH
The link takes me to a page that is asking me to sign in.
>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
> Please do not add holes in the boundary unless they are officially
> designated! Otherwise there is no point to keeping these
> administrative boundaries in OSM.
>
Ok, but we still need to know where those private inholdings are, because
Forest regulations will not apply. For example, unless
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 1:12 PM Bradley White
wrote:
> No, this is incorrect. USFS administrative boundaries and USFS managed
> land are not the same thing, though the latter is always inside the
> former. The boundaries currently in OSM are administrative boundaries,
> and are tagged correctly
The consensus of those who replied seem to be to exclude these privately
held lands from the National Forest boundaries. Is that correct? Does
anyone object to that approach? If not, I will proceed in that manner as
well.
Mike
___
Talk-us mailing list
Not all of the land within US National Forests is owned by the US
Government, there are private "inholdings" [1].
The boundaries between government land and private land are often marked by
signs, e.g.[2] The above photo is geotagged, and if you drag it into JOSM
you can see that it is quite far
On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 6:29 AM Kevin Broderick
wrote:
>
> Would https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4992960980 be an example of (or
> very similar to) what you're talking about?
>
Yes, slightly different, but same general concept.
> I've been told that one is a local reference point ("25
It seems that there are a couple of mappers in Colorado US (at least,
perhaps mapping in other areas as well) who are adding spot elevations
(presumably from USGS Topo maps) to OSM tagging them as
natural=peak
name=Point (elevation in feet)
For example:
1 - 100 of 360 matches
Mail list logo
