Re: [Talk-us] Unintentional improvements in OSM data influencing / improving other databases

> > I echo this sentiment exactly as having taken place in California and in > my experiences with OSM. This is most certainly a longer-term endeavor > (over several, even many years), but improvements in alignments between > data components which have been entered into OSM from my County GIS, >

Re: [Talk-us] Trouble with getting Superior National Forest

>Protect area and National Park boundaries were supposed to be less difficult >to confirm and more valid. The NF administrative boundaries are basically impossible to verify on-the-ground if that's the standard we are setting to demonstrate verifiability. Typically, the only indication are the

Re: [Talk-us] Trouble with getting Superior National Forest

> > If you drive into a checkerboard > area of private/public land, there are no Forest Service signs at the > limits of private land. > In my neck of the woods, USFS owned land is signed fairly frequently with small yellow property markers at the boundaries. Privately owned land within a NF

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

> We were doing great there, then I think my (admonishment? might be too > strong) way of expressing "owned and operated by the USFS" is technically, > accurately stated as "owned by the People, managed / operated specifically by > the USFS." If you can agree with me there, I think we can get

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

> However, I'm not exactly sure how the outer polygons found in NFs differ from > either the "Congressional" boundary or the one Bradley says he would tag > "boundary=administrative" (and I don't think we should tag it that, > especially while excluding a specific value for admin_level), but

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

> 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 roads & trails (also available for viewing using the

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

> 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 latter boundary is? The declared boundaries are

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

> 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). I've argued for this in the past on this mailing list, but have since come around to disagreeing with this position over tagging semantics. Most NF

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

Completed Placerville to Folsom - couple questions. Is the suggested segment along Tong Road accessible to the public? It's a recommended "neighborhood connector" according to the Western El Dorado County Bike Map and appears to see decent traffic according to Strava heatmap, but the parcel map

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

>If you are in California (or even if not!) and want to enter USBR 50, helping >to build Earth's largest official cycling route network, check out our wiki, >follow the links to the turn-by-turn and map data and have fun! Just finished adding the route from SLT to Placerville, plan to continue

Re: [Talk-us] Alaska Highway AK-2 tagging

> Long term, it would be nice to separate these notions and have some > highway:importance key for that, and leave the road type notion that > separates primary/trunk/motorway alone (or move it to some other tag, > and get rid of highway=trunk and highway=motorway). Ideally, this is what

Re: [Talk-us] Alaska Highway AK-2 tagging

On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 4:53 PM wrote: > On the West Coast, several important State highways are tagged as trunks > even though they are not full expressways, because they are the main road > for a large region. For example, see US 199, US 101, CA 99 and CA 299 on > this map of far Northern

Re: [Talk-us] National Forests and Private Ownership

> I downloaded a quad (geotiff) for part of the area in question and pulled it > into QGIS. It generally agrees with the county land ownership information, > with the exception that some state lands are shown on the quad as owned by > the Federal Government. Perhaps this is an error in one of

Re: [Talk-us] National Forests and Private Ownership

> One point is that the NFS may have made arrangements with the landowner such > that some access by the public is permitted. I say this because an official > USFS trail (Crosier Mountain Trail)[1] crosses private land and there are no > signs saying "No Trespassing" The way may be, but

Re: [Talk-us] National Forests and Private Ownership

Sorry - not too familiar with imgur! Does this work? https://i.imgur.com/4OC23x3.png On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 1:24 PM Mike Thompson wrote: > > > > 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

Re: [Talk-us] National Forests and Private Ownership

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 this involves the NF boundary, and to please leave it alone

Re: [Talk-us] National Forests and Private Ownership

A visual example since I don't feel like what I'm saying is being understood: https://imgur.com/a/0ELKyxH 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

Re: [Talk-us] National Forests and Private Ownership

) if you are so inclined. > > Kevin > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 3:12 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 >> forme

Re: [Talk-us] National Forests and Private Ownership

> Ok, so how to tag the parts that are within the administrative boundaries but > which are not owned by the US Government? Or, how to tag the parts that are > both within the boundary and owned by the US Government? It depends on what is actually on the ground. It appears you and others are

Re: [Talk-us] National Forests and Private Ownership

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 as such. It is perfectly fine to have private land within a

Re: [Talk-us] National Forests and Private Ownership

> 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

Re: [Talk-us] Historic 66 as highway=trunk in OK

> Also language introduced by NE2 when he changed the wiki to justify his own > national mass edit on the US highways. If all this language was added unilaterally by NE2, can we find the specific wiki edits that they made and roll them back? I'm on the same page with Steve that describing how

Re: [Talk-us] Historic 66 as highway=trunk in OK

> For example, US Hwy 101 is the main route connecting the cities (e.g. > Eureka) and towns along the coast of northern California. Right now > only some segments are tagged as highway=trunk. I would like to > upgrade all of it to highway=trunk, up to Hwy 199, where most traffic > leaves 101 and

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

> Can I get some voice of reason in > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/64919426? There seems to be quite > a few people (and one AARoads forum troll egging it on) that are trying to > propel the idea that motorways have at-grade intersections, which is > obviously incorrect. I know I'm

Re: [Talk-us] California is too big ;)

> 3. what would be a sensible way to split California - in 58 counties, or > maybe just go with SoCal and NorCal for now? I would suggest splitting into North & South along the northern edge of the SLO/Kern/San Bernardino county lines as the first step; this will at least split the LA and SF Bay

Re: [Talk-us] Parks, again

> As you say "feel like Type 2" I think is where it fuzzies in my mind. Parks > go to 3, 4, even 11 and beyond. Parks have a wide range of "experiences" > besides 1 and 2. So do roads. There are countless kinds of roads, with varying levels of importance and physical features. Instead of

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

If we can determine importance (which is what the 'highway=' tag fundamentally represents per the wiki) solely by what's on the ground, why not just tag what's physically there, ditch the 'highway' tag altogether, and let the renders handle it with their own algorithms? >On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

highway is an expressway, and not every multi-lane highway is a trunk road. On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 1:37 PM, Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 3:19 PM, Bradley White <theangrytom...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> On Sat, Oct 14,

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Nathan Mills wrote: > Road maps in the US have long differentiated between freeway/expressway and > has had both of those clearly different than US and state highways we'd be > tagging as primary. Map users expect to see expressways shown

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

, Paul; from now on, I will have > a VERY difficult time trusting anything you say. I know what I brought up > was kind of a side point, but I think it's important to call out BS when I > see it. > > -Evin (compdude) > > > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Bradley White &

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

> The concept of expressway and freeway are reasonably well known concepts; > it makes a lot of sense to map trunk and motorway to those concepts. I agree with freeways but not with expressways. I have no data to back this claim up, but I'm fairly convinced that, while the average citizen could

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

> Message: 4 > Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 21:24:20 -0500 > From: Paul Johnson > To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Trunk > Message-ID: >

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

Lots of words ahead, you have been warned... I disagree with trying to use the "highway=" tag to describe what "kind" of road a given way is in the US, except for freeways. The "highway" key is for importance, or, how prominently a road should show on the map. We have other tags to describe

Re: [Talk-us] "System Continuity" in the Functional Classification network

> In this document is a concept called "System Continuity". In few words, a > roadway of a higher classification should not connect to a single roadway of > a lower classification, so the network remains interconnected. > Do you know if this concept applies to OSM roads network also? Motorway

[Talk-us] The Republic of Molossia (and other micro-nations)

Something a little bit different: The Republic of Molossia is a self-declared "micro-nation" located near Dayton, NV, landlocked by the United States. The nation claims full sovereignty from the United States; however, it is recognized by neither the United States, nor any other country on Earth,

Re: [Talk-us] Combined parking/bike lanes

> Hi all. Has anyone worked out a good tagging scheme for combined > bike/parking lanes? I'm not sure how common they are elsewhere but there > are a number of such facilities in my city. > > For reference, you can see an example here: >

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

Just to add my two cents, I do not think that "landuse=forest" should be tagged with national forest boundaries. That something is within a national forest boundary does not guarantee that it is a managed forest, or even that it has tree cover. A 'national forest' is more an administrative