from:"Jack Armstrong"

Re: [Talk-us] Relation template for an honorary/memorial highway?

2020-05-26 Per discussione Jack Armstrong

I agree. Twice I've removed "Dwight D. Eisenhower Highway" from highways in the western United States. If you look in Maryland, it's been added by one of the users I dealt with. I think it should be removed in Maryland as well. I didn't remove it because I felt it was well outside my area of geographical expertise.https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=frederick%2C%20maryland#map=14/39.4750/-77.5387- Jack Armstrong(chachafish)-Original Message-
From: Joseph Eisenberg 
Sent: May 26, 2020 5:16 PM
To: Jack Armstrong 
Cc: Talk us 
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Relation template for an honorary/memorial highway?

All US Interstate Highways are part of the Dwight D. Eisenhower Highway system, just like they are all part of the Pan-American Highway System. Neither of these names should be tagged in OpenStreetMap, because they are not used on signs or by locals.This information is appropriate for Wikidata and Wikipedia, rather than OpenStreetMap.-JosephOn Tue, May 26, 2020 at 2:43 PM Jack Armstrong <jacknst...@sprynet.com> wrote:Sorry. I typed Theodore Roosevelt, but I meant to type, Dwight D. Eisenhower Highway. It's the Dwight D. Eisenhower Highway that gives me the biggest headaches and longest discussions every time it comes up.https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/ddehwy.cfmI thought official_name=* was for country names, but I'm also hesitant to use it as I think an interstate highway such as, I-70 would render the name, "Dwight D. Eisenhower Highway" on maps when it's not actually used by locals nor used on any signage.I certainly have no desire to spend the time creating relations, especially if it's not considered a best practice. I'm just looking for a way to avoid so many long discussions (and sometimes arguments) about these honorary/memorial names that aren't actually used but were created by some obscure congressional bill long ago.Cheers-Original Message-
From: Joseph Eisenberg 
Sent: May 26, 2020 2:54 PM
To: Jack Armstrong 
Cc: Talk us 
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Relation template for an honorary/memorial highway?

Only real, current features should be mapped, but it's possible to add "official names" even if they are not the commonly used name, as long as they are documented on signs.It looks like some of these are historic only: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt_International_Highway - historic, no longer existsAnd the Pan-American Highway system officially includes all the Interstates in the United States, but has no signage. So there is not an appropriate way to map this in OpenStreetMap: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-American_Highway#Contiguous_48_states_of_the_United_StatesBut these can probably be tagged as "official_name=Ronald Reagan Highway": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan_Highway– Joseph EisenbergOn Tue, May 26, 2020 at 12:15 PM Jack Armstrong <jacknst...@sprynet.com> wrote:>> More than once in the past, users have attempted to “name” highways in Colorado as the “CanAm Highway”, the “Pan-American Highway”, the “Ronald Reagan Memorial Highway” and the “Theodore Roosevelt International Highway”, to name a few. There are other honorary/memorial highway designations in the area.>>> In order to satisfy persons who want to map these and other memorial highways that aren’t actually named “on the ground” here, I’m thinking relations might be created. This way, when this situation undoubtedly comes up again, I can point the user to the relation and more easily resolve any conflicts.>>> Any suggestions as to the relation template I should use? I looked at the interstate highway relation wiki and it doesn’t seem to be quite right. For example, it requires a ref - number only. >>> I suppose, where appropriate, a different relation should be created for each state the memorial highway passes through? Which network relation or super relation should these memorial route relations be tied into?>>> Any feedback is welcome. Thanks :)>>>>> ___> Talk-us mailing list> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

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

www.theaveragenomad.comwww.theaveragenomad.com

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

2020-05-26 Per discussione Jack Armstrong

Thanks. I'll try that.From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>


Advise them to enter the historic railway into OHM ... or any
  historic object for that matter. This satisfies them that the
  object is mapped and frees OSM from it. 

  



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

Re: [Talk-us] Relation template for an honorary/memorial highway?

2020-05-26 Per discussione Jack Armstrong

Sorry. I typed Theodore Roosevelt, but I meant to type, Dwight D. Eisenhower Highway. It's the Dwight D. Eisenhower Highway that gives me the biggest headaches and longest discussions every time it comes up.https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/ddehwy.cfmI thought official_name=* was for country names, but I'm also hesitant to use it as I think an interstate highway such as, I-70 would render the name, "Dwight D. Eisenhower Highway" on maps when it's not actually used by locals nor used on any signage.I certainly have no desire to spend the time creating relations, especially if it's not considered a best practice. I'm just looking for a way to avoid so many long discussions (and sometimes arguments) about these honorary/memorial names that aren't actually used but were created by some obscure congressional bill long ago.Cheers-Original Message-
From: Joseph Eisenberg 
Sent: May 26, 2020 2:54 PM
To: Jack Armstrong 
Cc: Talk us 
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Relation template for an honorary/memorial highway?

Only real, current features should be mapped, but it's possible to add "official names" even if they are not the commonly used name, as long as they are documented on signs.It looks like some of these are historic only: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt_International_Highway - historic, no longer existsAnd the Pan-American Highway system officially includes all the Interstates in the United States, but has no signage. So there is not an appropriate way to map this in OpenStreetMap: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-American_Highway#Contiguous_48_states_of_the_United_StatesBut these can probably be tagged as "official_name=Ronald Reagan Highway": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan_Highway– Joseph EisenbergOn Tue, May 26, 2020 at 12:15 PM Jack Armstrong <jacknst...@sprynet.com> wrote:>> More than once in the past, users have attempted to “name” highways in Colorado as the “CanAm Highway”, the “Pan-American Highway”, the “Ronald Reagan Memorial Highway” and the “Theodore Roosevelt International Highway”, to name a few. There are other honorary/memorial highway designations in the area.>>> In order to satisfy persons who want to map these and other memorial highways that aren’t actually named “on the ground” here, I’m thinking relations might be created. This way, when this situation undoubtedly comes up again, I can point the user to the relation and more easily resolve any conflicts.>>> Any suggestions as to the relation template I should use? I looked at the interstate highway relation wiki and it doesn’t seem to be quite right. For example, it requires a ref - number only. >>> I suppose, where appropriate, a different relation should be created for each state the memorial highway passes through? Which network relation or super relation should these memorial route relations be tied into?>>> Any feedback is welcome. Thanks :)>>>>> ___> Talk-us mailing list> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

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

[Talk-us] Relation template for an honorary/memorial highway?

2020-05-26 Per discussione Jack Armstrong

More than once in the past, users have attempted to “name” highways in Colorado as the “CanAm Highway”, the “Pan-American Highway”, the “Ronald Reagan Memorial Highway” and the “Theodore Roosevelt International Highway”, to name a few. There are other honorary/memorial highway designations in the area.In order to satisfy persons who want to map these and other memorial highways that aren’t actually named “on the ground” here, I’m thinking relations might be created. This way, when this situation undoubtedly comes up again, I can point the user to the relation and more easily resolve any conflicts.Any suggestions as to the relation template I should use? I looked at the interstate highway relation wiki and it doesn’t seem to be quite right. For example, it requires a ref - number only. I suppose, where appropriate, a different relation should be created for each state the memorial highway passes through? Which network relation or super relation should these memorial route relations be tied into?Any feedback is welcome. Thanks :)

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

2020-05-25 Per discussione Jack Armstrong

25 years ago, the Denver Stapleton Airport was closed and a new airport was built further from the city. Over 5,000 new homes were built, including schools, a library, a recreation center, over 150 shops, service businesses, restaurants and open spaces.The opinion of some users is that if nothing had been built in place of the airport, if every trace of the airport had been removed and plowed under, then OSM users should not remove anything, but simply tag all buildings, runways, service roads, parking lots, etc., with the razed tag and leave it all on the map?Why are railways given a special status? Why not tag sidewalks, buildings, and trees with the razed tag and leave them on the map? Why only keep railways as part of a historical database alongside reality-based mapping? Perhaps everything from the past that used to exist should be kept on the current map.If something has been removed and there is still something on the ground remaining, then it makes sense to map what is actually there. But, mapping something in OSM that does not exist, except in someone's mind...why should it be on a map that is supposed to reflect the current situation? As the wiki states, "Do not map objects if they do not exist currently". In the given example in Denver the (well-meaning) mapper not only mapped non-existent rails, but non-existent switches as well. The switches do not exist. The rails do not exist. It's all imaginary.

46 matches

Mail list logo