Re: [Talk-us] [Tagging] Large fire perimeter tagging?

[James Umbanhowar]

Something else to consider is that even though there is a perimeter for
a fire, there can be highly variable impacts on the landcover within
the perimeter.  Some areas may have not burned, other areas only burned
the understory, some with limited burning of trees and other with full
tree killing canopy burns.  The effects of these will also depend on
the specific species that burn.  So to convert and entire area inside a
fire perimeter to one land cover without extensive surveying would
likely be in error.  

It seems as though the perimeter tag is the most verifiable at this
point.

James

On Thu, 2020-09-24 at 15:05 -0700, Clifford Snow wrote:
> Steve,
> Just a reminder, landuse is to tag what the land is used for.
> landuse=forest is for areas that have harvestable wood products, ie
> trees. Just because there was a fire doesn't mean the landuse
> changes. Landcover is a better tag for burnt areas as well as areas
> just clearcut. 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 2:31 PM stevea 
> wrote:
> > I didn't get a single reply on this (see below), which I find
> > surprising, especially as there are currently even larger fires
> > that are more widespread all across the Western United States.
> > 
> > I now ask if there are additional, appropriate polygons with tags
> > I'm not familiar with regarding landcover that might be added to
> > the map (as "landuse=forest" might be strictly true now only in a
> > 'zoning' sense, as many of the actual trees that MAKE these forests
> > have sadly burned down, or substantially so).
> > 
> > Considering that there are literally millions and millions of acres
> > of (newly) burned areas (forest, scrub, grassland, residential,
> > commercial, industrial, public, private...), I'm surprised that OSM
> > doesn't have some well-pondered and actual tags that reflect this
> > situation.  My initial tagging of this (simply tagged, but
> > enormous) polygon as "fire=perimeter" was coined on my part, but as
> > I search wiki, taginfo and Overpass Turbo queries for similar data
> > in the map, I come up empty.
> > 
> > First, do others think it is important that we map these?  I say
> > yes, as this fire has absolutely enormous impact to what we do and
> > might map here, both present and future.  The aftermath of this
> > fire (>85,000 acres this fire alone) will last for decades, and for
> > OSM to not reflect this in the map (somehow, better bolstered than
> > a simple, though huge, polygon tagged with fire=perimeter,
> > start_date and end_date) seems OSM "cartographically misses
> > something."  I know that HOT mappers map the "present- and
> > aftermath-" of humanitarian disasters, I've HOT-participated
> > myself.  So, considering the thousands of structures that burned
> > (most of them homes), tens of thousands of acres which are burn-
> > scarred and distinctly different than their landcover, millions of
> > trees (yes, really) and even landuse is now currently tagged, I
> > look for guidance — beyond the simple tag of fire=perimeter on a
> > large polygon.
> > 
> > Second, if we do choose to "better" map these incidents and results
> > (they are life- and planet-altering on a grand scale) how might we
> > choose to do that?  Do we have landcover tags which could replace
> > landuse=forest or natural=wood with something like
> > natural=fire_scarred?  (I'm making that up, but it or something
> > like it could work).  How and when might we replace these with
> > something less severe?  On the other hand, if it isn't appropriate
> > that we map any of this, please say so.
> > 
> > Thank you, especially any guidance offered from HOT contributors
> > who have worked on post-fire humanitarian disasters,
> > 
> > SteveA
> > California (who has returned home after evacuation, relatively safe
> > now that this fire is 100% contained)
> > 
> > 
> > On Aug 29, 2020, at 7:20 PM, stevea 
> > wrote:
> > > Not sure if crossposting to talk-us is correct, but it is a "home
> > list" for me.
> > > 
> > > I've created a large fire perimeter in OSM from public sources, 
> > http://www.osm.org/way/842280873 .  This is a huge fire (sadly,
> > there are larger ones right now, too), over 130 square miles, and
> > caused the evacuation of every third person in my county (yes). 
> > There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of structures, mostly
> > residential homes, which have burned down and the event has
> > "completely changed" giant redwoods in and the character of
> > California's oldest state park (Big Basin).
> > > 
> > > This perimeter significantly affects landuse, landcover and human
> > patterns of movement and activity in this part of the world for a
> > significant time to come.  It is a "major disaster."  I'm curious
> > how HOT teams might delineate such a thing (and I've participated
> > in a HOT fire team, mapping barns, water sources for helicopter
> > dips and other human structures during a large fire near me), I've
> > simply made a polygon tagged fire=perimeter, a name=* tag 

Re: [Talk-us] changeset: 89516909

[James Umbanhowar]

I'm going to bow out of this discussion.  The boundary relation is
broken again.  I'm not trying to be confrontational, but my attempts to
figure out what sources this user is using and to reconcile this with
what they are editing appear to be antagonizing them.  I have also lost
my patience so I will probably not be the most understanding anymore.

James
 
On Tue, 2020-08-18 at 20:23 -0400, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> You still aren't giving us very much to go on.  There's obviously
> some boundary that you consider to be inarguably correct. You need
> either to enter the data yourself or tell us where to find it and
> where the discrepancies are.
> 
> Sometimes that involves quite a lot of research. I have a ton of data
> conflicts about boundaries near me, and only rarely do I have the
> time to pursue the issues. If often involves reconciling half a dozen
> supposedly authoritative sources, as shown in 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/ke9tv/diary/391486.  It's very
> rarely as simple as 'agency X is wrong and agency Y is right'. It's
> often 'agency X has lines that reflect current annexation, but part
> of their boundary is in NAD27 and part WGS84. Agency Y misses a
> recent annexation but has got the datums right. Agency Z has the
> artificial lines right, but is totally off base with the shorelines.
> Agency W appears to have digitized from a small-scale map and has a
> ton of quantization error.'
> 
> It's not a political boundary, but 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/ke9tv/diary/42951 shows another
> example of the level of cadastral research that's often required to
> sort these things out.
> 
> By the way, I _do_ occasionally go out into the field and try to
> recover old survey marks to sort these things out.  For the
> inconsistent corner between Lost Clove Unit and Big Indian Wilderness
> at https://kbk.is-a-geek.net/attachments/20191205/osm-vs-nysgis.png I
> simply gave up. There are cairns at both corners. If the professional
> surveyors couldn't close the line, what hope do I have? (Nobody
> actually cares. It's wilderness anyway.)
> 
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 8:03 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <
> talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> > FYI;
> >  
> > for all of you who are not in country and do not understand about
> > usa city bounders.
> >  
> > https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/contact.html
> >  
> > and did you read what the other guy said, this is the census data
> > not true map data.
> >  
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89598349.
> >  
> > > Tuesday, August 18, 2020 10:52 AM -05:00 from James Umbanhowar <
> > > jumba...@gmail.com>:
> > >  
> > > What link are you using for this? I downloaded the places
> > > boundary
> > > information from here:
> > > https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/geo/shapefiles/index.php
> > > 
> > > As I said, I'm happy to change, but I can't change without actual
> > > information.
> > > 
> > > On Tue, 2020-08-18 at 18:43 +0300, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us
> > > wrote:
> > > > i am looking at the TIRGER web, show’s the real map online and
> > > > nothing you did matches.
> > > >
> > > > i live here and a block away from the edens spur just saying.
> > > >
> > > > > Tuesday, August 18, 2020 10:38 AM -05:00 from James
> > > Umbanhowar <
> > > > > jumba...@gmail.com>:
> > > > >
> > > > > It would probably be best if these suggestions were added in
> > > the
> > > > > changeset comments, as they don't need to be discussed on the
> > > > > mailing
> > > > > list.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, 2020-08-18 at 11:36 -0400, James Umbanhowar wrote:
> > > > > > I'm the person who made the changes and am happy to adjust
> > > the
> > > > > map to
> > > > > > better authoritative data or information. My motivation for
> > > this
> > > > > was
> > > > > > to fix a mangled boundary relation that didn't have
> > > consistent
> > > > > outer
> > > > > > and inner members. The changes came in two changesets,
> > > > > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89220282 and
> > > > > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89516909
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The first changeset just made the relation consistent with
> > > outer
> > > > > ways
> > > > > > and inner ways. I preserved all th

Re: [Talk-us] changeset: 89516909

[James Umbanhowar]

What link are you using for this?  I downloaded the places boundary
information from here: 
https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/geo/shapefiles/index.php

As I said, I'm happy to change, but I can't change without actual
information.

On Tue, 2020-08-18 at 18:43 +0300, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us wrote:
> i am looking at the TIRGER  web, show’s the real map online and
> nothing you did matches. 
>  
> i live here and a block away from the edens spur just saying.
>  
> > Tuesday, August 18, 2020 10:38 AM -05:00 from James Umbanhowar <
> > jumba...@gmail.com>:
> >  
> > It would probably be best if these suggestions were added in the
> > changeset comments, as they don't need to be discussed on the
> > mailing
> > list.
> > 
> > On Tue, 2020-08-18 at 11:36 -0400, James Umbanhowar wrote:
> > > I'm the person who made the changes and am happy to adjust the
> > map to
> > > better authoritative data or information. My motivation for this
> > was
> > > to fix a mangled boundary relation that didn't have consistent
> > outer
> > > and inner members. The changes came in two changesets,
> > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89220282 and
> > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89516909
> > >
> > > The first changeset just made the relation consistent with outer
> > ways
> > > and inner ways. I preserved all the ways that were in the
> > relation
> > > that
> > > lead to the inconsistency and they are still in the database with
> > a
> > > note attached to them. The second came after a changeset comment
> > that
> > > noted that the fixed relation didn't match and earlier unbroken
> > > relation, in particular around the Edens Spur. I then changed the
> > > border in this area to match the 2019 Tiger data in that area
> > only.
> > >
> > > James
> > >
> > > On Tue, 2020-08-18 at 02:37 +0300, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us
> > wrote:
> > > > Changeset #89220282
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Monday, August 17, 2020 6:34 PM -05:00 from Mike Thompson <
> > > > > miketh...@gmail.com>:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 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 the original mapper probably
> > > > > used
> > > > > the best available TIGER data at the time.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > also all he got was a white line in his first try.
> > > > > > Way: 813726663
> > > > >
> > > > > That way needs to be added to the relation, and the relation
> > must
> > > > > close.
> > > > > ___
> > > > > 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 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 mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] changeset: 89516909

[James Umbanhowar]

It would probably be best if these suggestions were added in the
changeset comments, as they don't need to be discussed on the mailing
list.

On Tue, 2020-08-18 at 11:36 -0400, James Umbanhowar wrote:
> I'm the person who made the changes and am happy to adjust the map to
> better authoritative data or information.  My motivation for this was
> to fix a mangled boundary relation that didn't have consistent outer
> and inner members.  The changes came in two changesets,
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89220282 and 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89516909
> 
> The first changeset just made the relation consistent with outer ways
> and inner ways. I preserved all the ways that were in the relation
> that
> lead to the inconsistency and they are still in the database with a
> note attached to them. The second came after a changeset comment that
> noted that the fixed relation didn't match and earlier unbroken
> relation, in particular around the Edens Spur.  I then changed the
> border in this area to match the 2019 Tiger data in that area only.
> 
> James
> 
> On Tue, 2020-08-18 at 02:37 +0300, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us wrote:
> > Changeset #89220282
> > 
> >  
> > > Monday, August 17, 2020 6:34 PM -05:00 from Mike Thompson <
> > > miketh...@gmail.com>:
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > > 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 the original mapper probably
> > > used
> > > the best available TIGER data at the time.
> > >  
> > > >  
> > > > also all he got was a white line in his first try.
> > > > Way: 813726663
> > > 
> > > That way needs to be added to the relation, and the relation must
> > > close.
> > > ___
> > > 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 mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] changeset: 89516909

[James Umbanhowar]

I'm the person who made the changes and am happy to adjust the map to
better authoritative data or information.  My motivation for this was
to fix a mangled boundary relation that didn't have consistent outer
and inner members.  The changes came in two changesets,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89220282 and 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89516909

The first changeset just made the relation consistent with outer ways
and inner ways. I preserved all the ways that were in the relation that
lead to the inconsistency and they are still in the database with a
note attached to them. The second came after a changeset comment that
noted that the fixed relation didn't match and earlier unbroken
relation, in particular around the Edens Spur.  I then changed the
border in this area to match the 2019 Tiger data in that area only.

James

On Tue, 2020-08-18 at 02:37 +0300, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us wrote:
> Changeset #89220282
> 
>  
> > Monday, August 17, 2020 6:34 PM -05:00 from Mike Thompson <
> > miketh...@gmail.com>:
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > 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 the original mapper probably used
> > the best available TIGER data at the time.
> >  
> > >  
> > > also all he got was a white line in his first try.
> > > Way: 813726663
> > 
> > That way needs to be added to the relation, and the relation must
> > close.
> > ___
> > 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 mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Cycleway Crossings

[James Umbanhowar]

I think that iD doesn't have a preset for cycleway=crossing so that
editors may think that is not a valid tag for a crossing.

On Fri, 2020-08-07 at 14:04 -0400, Doug Peterson wrote:
> That wiki page was helpful. In one set of cases the change was from
> highway=cycleway on the way to highway=footway and adding
> footway=crossing. In another set it added highway=crossing to the
> intersection node. It looks like from the crossing wiki that the
> tagging should really be on the node. Way can be tagged as a crossing
> but it seems discouraged. The footway wiki indicates footway=crossing
> should also be on the node.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Doug
> 
> Mateusz Konieczny  wrote ..
> > 
> > 
> > Aug 7, 2020, 13:11 by dougpeter...@dpeters2.dyndns.org:
> > 
> > > I have noticed in my area where some people have been adding
> > > crossings to a designated
> > cycleway (named and signed as a bike trail). The crossings are
> > fine. It is that
> > the crossing is then been changed to a footway. 
> > link?
> > 
> > > I have looked at the highway=cycleway wiki and not seen anything
> > > addressing crossings.
> > There was one screenshot that seemed to show intersections or
> > crossings with roads
> > remaining as cycleways. Before I made any effort on changing these
> > back I wanted
> > to ask if there was any other knowledge out there about this.
> > is https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing maybe helpful?
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

[James Umbanhowar]

Just to throw another curveball in here, there is also
leisure=nature_reserve which is frequently (occasionally?) used for the
city/county parks that are less structured and used for hiking and
nature appreciation.

On Sun, 2019-04-28 at 08:48 -0500, Aaron Forsythe wrote:
> On 4/26/2019 9:49 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:
> >> Other than that I can't think of any tags that would be applicable
> to
> >> these sorts of situations. We tend to tag the regulations
> themselves,
> >> not the extent to which they're adhered to. Certainly just calling
> it a
> >> park because kids play there doesn't seem consistent with OSM
> standards.
> >> We don't raise the speed limit in places where everyone speeds, or
> tag
> >> bicycle=yes on ways where they're prohibited but frequently used.
> > 
> > 
> > No, I think leisure=playground aligns a bit more closely with "kids
> play
> > here," though some people like snap-tight definitions, others
> consider
> > things as much more elastic.  It's difficult to please everybody;
> semantics
> > can be messy.
>  
> I disagree.  Going by that definition, my front yard would be
> leisure:playground.  I believe the tag should be used for "a place
> designated
> as an area for children to play".  Also, just because someone puts a
> swing set
> in their back yard, shouldn't mean their back yard should be tagged
> as a
> playground.
>  
> On another note, there are places defined as “city parks” here that
> are no
> more than land that can't really be used for anything.  For instance,
> a lot in
> a subdivision that’s used for storm drainage is labeled as a nature
> park. 
> It's due to the fact they planted native plants on the lot to attract
> wildlife.  You would not know it's a "park" if you didn't read the
> small sign
> stating so.  It just looks like an overgrown, unleveled lot.
>  
> Aaron Forsythe
> ___
> 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

Re: [Talk-us] Evacuation Routes

[James Umbanhowar]

Would this fit the route relation model better if we used the following
tagging scheme

route:road
network:MD:hurricane

or something similar?  


On Wed, 2018-09-05 at 23:06 +, Eric H. Christensen wrote:
> I recently finished an update to the evacuation routes feature[0],
> turning it into a relation (route).  I'll be working on adding
> hurricane evacuation routes to areas I'm familiar with (Maryland,
> Hampton Roads area of Virginia, and Northeast North Carolina) but I
> encourage others to add evacuation routes to their local areas as
> well.
> 
> Currently, JOSM doesn't recognize this route type and I don't think
> they're being rendered on any third-party software but I'm hoping
> once enough data is in the system we'll be able to show a reason for
> rendering such information.
> 
> Thanks,
> Sparks
> 
> [0] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Devacuation
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [Talk-us] Durham and Chatham County Address Imports (North Carolina, USA)

[James Umbanhowar]

Thank you for listening! 

I would probably only help with Durham, so two tasks would be great.  

I would think something like 500 addresses would be a reasonable task
size.  Obviously in areas without preexisting buildings, this would go
rather quickly, but matching addresses to buildings (whether by putting
on/in the whole polygon or near an entrance) would be a completable
task.

James

On Sat, 2018-07-21 at 15:39 -0400, Leif Rasmussen wrote:
> Thank you for stopping me!  I did not fully understand the last
> email, and I am sorry about just moving forward like that.  Should I
> create one new task for both Durham and Chatham Counties, or one for
> each?  Also, how many addresses should each section have?
> Thanks again,
> Leif
> 
> On Sat, Jul 21, 2018, 2:39 PM James Umbanhowar 
> wrote:
> > Sorry, I just saw this.  Please do not upload this, yet.  You have
> > not
> > responded to any of the feedback that I have given.  Instead you
> > have
> > chosen to just upload all the points into the database and then
> > correct
> > the database afterwards.
> > 
> > Please, instead, break this into smaller areas and then conflate
> > the
> > points with existing objects and then upload. From what I can tell,
> > this would be easiest done with the Tasking Manager.
> > 
> > Also, I have already signalled my willingness to help with this
> > task
> > and using the tasking manager would allow me and possibly others to
> > help.
> > 
> > Thank you,
> > 
> > James
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Thu, 2018-07-19 at 23:42 -0400, Leif Rasmussen wrote:
> > > Hi everyone!
> > I have finally verified the license on the Chatham
> > > County, NC address data which includes about 44,000 address
> > points. 
> > > It is public domain except for that it has a "no direct resale"
> > > policy that allows indirect resale (includes other data), which
> > is
> > > compatible with OSM.  Durham County, which uses the ODbL has also
> > > produced address data.  I will be completing both the imports
> > this
> > > weekend.  Some discussion has taken place about adding buildings
> > in
> > > Durham at the same time as the import, but to keep everything
> > more
> > > simple, I have decided on just adding nodes for now and then
> > merging
> > > with buildings later.  This would reduce complexity and help
> > > everything run more smoothly.  I will upload all of the data
> > alone. 
> > > This helps keep everything more simple, leading to fewer
> > mistakes.  I
> > > do not see very much benefit to having several account all
> > importing
> > > the data.
> > 
> > Details:
> > Size of both imports combined: 190,000 addresses
> > Date of upload: Saterday and Sunday, 21st and 22nd of July, 2018
> > Type of import:  One time with JOSM in 20 changesets.
> > Account:  LeifRasmussen_import
> > 
> > Wiki pages:
> > Durham County
> > Chatham County
> > 
> > Please let me know of any concerns of ideas!  I would love to
> > improve
> > the import as much as I can.
> > Thanks!
> > Leif Rasmussen

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

Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] Durham and Chatham County Address Imports (North Carolina, USA)

[James Umbanhowar]

Point taken.  In this case, they are the center of property polygons,
so not on buildings, conflated with buildings nor at entrances.  I
don't mind if they are reasonably placed as nodes, but these are not
quite there, yet.

James
On Sat, 2018-07-21 at 15:34 -0400, Nathan Mills wrote:
> To the extent that the address points are not duplicates of existing
> address nodes, unconflated address nodes are a perfectly legitimate
> means of mapping and do not need to be "fixed." Even if the address
> exists on a poly, it's still fine as long as the node is marking
> something meaningful, like the front door of the building. Some have
> in the past gone so far to say that nodes are preferable since it
> allows routers for the differently abled to provide door-to-door
> guidance.
> 
> -Nathan
> 
> 
> On July 21, 2018 2:39:36 PM EDT, James Umbanhowar  > wrote:
> > Sorry, I just saw this.  Please do not upload this, yet.  You have
> > not
> > responded to any of the feedback that I have given.  Instead you
> > have
> > chosen to just upload all the points into the database and then
> > correct
> > the database afterwards.
> > 
> > Please, instead, break this into smaller areas and then conflate
> > the
> > points with existing objects and then upload. From what I can tell,
> > this would be easiest done with the Tasking Manager.
> > 
> > Also, I have already signalled my willingness to help with this
> > task
> > and using the tasking manager would allow me and possibly others to
> > help.
> > 
> > Thank you,
> > 
> > James
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Thu, 2018-07-19 at 23:42 -0400, Leif Rasmussen wrote:
> > >  Hi everyone!
> > I have finally verified the license on the Chatham
> > >  County, NC address data which includes about 44,000 address
> > > points. 
> > >  It is public domain except for that it has a "no direct resale"
> > >  policy that allows indirect resale (includes other data), which
> > > is
> > >  compatible with OSM.  Durham County, which uses the ODbL has
> > > also
> > >  produced address data.  I will be completing both the imports
> > > this
> > >  weekend.  Some discussion has taken place about adding buildings
> > > in
> > >  Durham at the same time as the import, but to keep everything
> > > more
> > >  simple, I have decided on just adding nodes for now and then
> > > merging
> > >  with buildings later.  This would reduce complexity and help
> > >  everything run more smoothly.  I will upload all of the data
> > > alone. 
> > >  This helps keep everything more simple, leading to fewer
> > > mistakes.  I
> > >  do not see very much benefit to having several account all
> > > importing
> > >  the data.
> > 
> > Details:
> > Size of both imports combined: 190,000 addresses
> > Date of upload: Saterday and Sunday, 21st and 22nd of July, 2018
> > Type of import:  One time with JOSM in 20 changesets.
> > Account:  LeifRasmussen_import
> > 
> > Wiki pages:
> > Durham County
> > Chatham County
> > 
> > Please let me know of any concerns of ideas!  I would love to
> > improve
> > the import as much as I can.
> > Thanks!
> > Leif Rasmussen
> > 
> > 
> > Imports mailing list
> > impo...@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
> 
> 

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

Re: [Talk-us] Durham and Chatham County Address Imports (North Carolina, USA)

[James Umbanhowar]

Sorry, I just saw this.  Please do not upload this, yet.  You have not
responded to any of the feedback that I have given.  Instead you have
chosen to just upload all the points into the database and then correct
the database afterwards.

Please, instead, break this into smaller areas and then conflate the
points with existing objects and then upload. From what I can tell,
this would be easiest done with the Tasking Manager.

Also, I have already signalled my willingness to help with this task
and using the tasking manager would allow me and possibly others to
help.

Thank you,

James



On Thu, 2018-07-19 at 23:42 -0400, Leif Rasmussen wrote:
> Hi everyone!
I have finally verified the license on the Chatham
> County, NC address data which includes about 44,000 address points. 
> It is public domain except for that it has a "no direct resale"
> policy that allows indirect resale (includes other data), which is
> compatible with OSM.  Durham County, which uses the ODbL has also
> produced address data.  I will be completing both the imports this
> weekend.  Some discussion has taken place about adding buildings in
> Durham at the same time as the import, but to keep everything more
> simple, I have decided on just adding nodes for now and then merging
> with buildings later.  This would reduce complexity and help
> everything run more smoothly.  I will upload all of the data alone. 
> This helps keep everything more simple, leading to fewer mistakes.  I
> do not see very much benefit to having several account all importing
> the data.

Details:
Size of both imports combined: 190,000 addresses
Date of upload: Saterday and Sunday, 21st and 22nd of July, 2018
Type of import:  One time with JOSM in 20 changesets.
Account:  LeifRasmussen_import

Wiki pages:
Durham County
Chatham County

Please let me know of any concerns of ideas!  I would love to improve
the import as much as I can.
Thanks!
Leif Rasmussen

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

Re: [Talk-us] Gravel roads and surface tags in the US

[James Umbanhowar]

I grew up in an area with these kinds of roads and I don't think
they're technically compacted.  The gravel, which is crushed
limerstone, is laid down and due to its chemical properties creates a
smooth surface after several months of traffic.

I've used surface=gravel; gravel=crushed_limestone in my area.  I don't
get the gravel being 4-8 cm, that seems a wikierror.

James

On Wed, 2018-04-18 at 17:19 -0500, Toby Murray wrote:
> I recently bought a gravel bicycle to ride on the many gravel roads
> in
> Kansas. Like this one:
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=nYO4JI46L0SWzNAQlLT4kA=phot
> o
> 
> First question: What would you call this road? Obviously I am calling
> it a "gravel road" but a couple of people have said they would call
> it
> a "dirt road" so I'm curious if there are any other common terms to
> describe this type of road in different regions of the US.
> 
> Second question: How would you tag this road? There is a
> surface=gravel tag that is in pretty common usage in Kansas and
> neighboring states. However looking at the wiki page for the surface
> tag[1], this is not wiki-correct. According to that page
> surface=gravel is to be used for large rocks (4-8cm) that are laid
> down loosely like those typically used as ballast on railroad beds. I
> believe The Mapillary picture I linked to would be considered
> surface=compacted according to the wiki because the rocks are much
> smaller and the surface is stabilized with a binding agent. There is
> a
> big difference between the two when it comes to bicycle riding.
> Railroad ballast is bone jarring and flat tire inducing whereas
> gravel
> roads are pretty manageable on the right kind of bike.
> 
> But If you call something a "gravel road" and there is a "gravel"
> option in the editor preset for the surface tag, people are going to
> choose the gravel option and not look for "compacted" since that is
> not a common term here. I assume it is a more common term in the UK
> and that is why it is used in OSM.
> 
> And lastly there are trails that are surfaced with a similar material
> but crushed to a smaller size like here:
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=iQNqP-dfQ-Rm6AD9REMsgQ=phot
> o
> 
> I'm trying to decide if that is better as surface=compacted or
> surface=fine_gravel although fine_gravel seems to be a slightly
> different process from what I see on the wiki.
> 
> Maybe this should be directed at the tagging list but I thought I
> would get thoughts from the US community since we seem to be the ones
> using the tag incorrectly (according to the wiki)
> 
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface
> 
> Toby
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [Talk-us] Choptank River

[James Umbanhowar]

As a quick note, that is a PGS coastline converted to riverbank, so
don't blame the import happy Yanks for this one.

James

On Sun, 2017-01-15 at 23:55 +0100, Simon Poole wrote:
> While investigating a complaint to legal today in the vicinity of
> Denton
> Maryland, I couldn't help noticing that while Choptank River has a
> horribly broken, imported river bank, it seems to be missing the
> river.
> See for example  http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/38.9018/-75.833
> 9
> 
> Given that Washington is supposedly the global centre of mapping
> goodness, I hope we might be able to find somebody there that perhaps
> is
> interested in fixing the, I must say with 120km really far away, area
> a bit.
> 
> Simon
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Building footprint project Nighthawk team?

[James Umbanhowar]

I've noticed a bunch of editors (at least 5) adding single building
footprints in all over the country.  Most of the edits have been good
albeit with minimal changeset comments (something I'm guilty of too). 
One had the changeset titles "Added building footprint for Nighthawk
team".  

Does anyone know what this is?  I'm mostly curious and don't think it
is a problem, but if there is a concerted effort, it would probably be
good to have some documentation.  I've tried contacting folks via
personal messages and changeset messages but have not had any replies.

James

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

Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?

[James Umbanhowar]

Funny, I just looked at the MapRoulette beta and noticed that you were
already doing this.



On Fri, 2016-06-03 at 10:00 -0400, James Umbanhowar wrote:
> Minor suggestion for this MapRoulette challenge:  Could you structure
> it by state (or other geographic region, county?) and do each region
> sequentially.  I, personally, think it would be neat to see areas get
> "done" as far as Tiger clean up.  
> 
> Either way, thanks for these.
> 
> James
> 
> On Fri, 2016-06-03 at 10:21 +0200, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> > 
> > Well said. I have space in my basement also. 
> > 
> > I am eager to launch a MapRoulette challenge for untouched rural
> > ‘residential’ roads - a challenge which will probably take some
> > time
> > to complete. If someone can furnish a good Overpass query for this,
> > please go ahead and do it.
> > 
> > Martijn
> > 
> > > 
> > > On Jun 3, 2016, at 8:55 AM, Richard Fairhurst <richard@systemed.n
> > > et
> > > > 
> > > > wrote:
> > > There is a special corner of hell/Steve's basement for people who
> > > remove
> > > tiger:reviewed=no on rural unpaved roads without changing the
> > > highway tag or
> > > adding a surface tag.
> > ___
> > 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

Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?

[James Umbanhowar]

Minor suggestion for this MapRoulette challenge:  Could you structure
it by state (or other geographic region, county?) and do each region
sequentially.  I, personally, think it would be neat to see areas get
"done" as far as Tiger clean up.  

Either way, thanks for these.

James

On Fri, 2016-06-03 at 10:21 +0200, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> Well said. I have space in my basement also. 
> 
> I am eager to launch a MapRoulette challenge for untouched rural
> ‘residential’ roads - a challenge which will probably take some time
> to complete. If someone can furnish a good Overpass query for this,
> please go ahead and do it.
> 
> Martijn
> 
> > On Jun 3, 2016, at 8:55 AM, Richard Fairhurst  > > wrote:
> > 
> > There is a special corner of hell/Steve's basement for people who
> > remove
> > tiger:reviewed=no on rural unpaved roads without changing the
> > highway tag or
> > adding a surface tag.
> ___
> 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

Re: [Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

[James Umbanhowar]

Regardless of the community's eventual solution, I think the most
important part of this event was the lack of engagement of Caliparks
and Stamen with the community.  Is there a similar process for
institutional (business, government, non-profit) editing of data as
there is for imports?  There should be.  I think institutional
engagement with OSM can bring many benefits, but has similar dangers as
imports. 

James

On Thu, 2016-03-24 at 13:50 +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 03/24/2016 11:26 AM, Marc Gemis wrote:
> > 
> > They tagged them as "social_path", according to their blog entry
> > [1]
> Thank you for the link. This is what I feared.
> 
> highway=social_path is certainly unacceptable - a self-made tag that
> essentially deletes the data for all other consumers.
> 
> There would have been numerous other options that would have allowed
> them to single out the tracks they want - for example, tagging the
> official ones with an "operator" tag, or putting them into suitable
> relations or so. Had any of the players involved taken the time to
> ask
> on this list, I'm sure these options would have been pointed out to
> them.
> 
> As it stands, removing a proper, established highway tag and
> replacing
> it with something that nobody knows is just a little bit better than
> removing the way altogether.
> 
> To make matters worse, it seems that the issue has been pointed out
> almost half a year ago, and has not led to the issue being fixed:
> 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/34599982
> 
> It is obvious to me that all occurrences of highway=social_path need
> to
> be replaced with whatever they were before. I'd normally say let's
> give
> them some time to come up with a better idea but seeing that the
> problem
> has been highlighted to them pretty much at the time they made the
> edits
> 5 months ago, and they haven't come up with a better idea, I'd say
> the
> time is up now.
> 
> Bye
> Frederik
> 

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

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

[James Umbanhowar]

I've used natural=woods for areas formerly in agriculture that were not
naturally growing in with trees.  This seemed more appropriate than
forest as they are not really being managed for harvest.

I could go either way on the National Forest tagging issue.  While
technically they are managed as forests, they are certainly internally
quite heterogenuous in terms of the landuse to the point where many
areas are not actually being managed as tree growing areas.

James

On Mon, 2015-08-17 at 21:06 +0200, Wolfgang Zenker wrote:
 
 Assuming we keep landuse=forest for the National Forests, what would
 you suggest we use to tag the areas that are actually covered by 
 trees?
 And how should we render these so they can be seen as different from
 areas without trees that happen to be part of a National Forest?
 
 Wolfgang
 
 ___
 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

Re: [Talk-us] Bike route relation issues

[James Umbanhowar]

The GDMBR issue seems to be a conflict between tagging for the renderer
and tagging for the router ;).  To play a little bit of devil's
advocate, gravel roads are eminently bikeable to many non-mountain
bikes.  Bike manufacturers have come out with gravel grinder style
bikes which are really just old style road bikes with wide tires. There
is fast becoming a continuum from mountain bike to road racing bike in
terms of their ability to handle different types of road conditions

My opinion is that the road ways themselves should be tagged as unpaved
(or tracks as many already are). 

The I-5 thing seems strange.  That is not a separate bike route but
rather an interstate highway that allows bicycles.  bicycle=yes on all
the component ways should be sufficient.

James

On Sat, 2015-01-10 at 14:08 +, Richard Fairhurst wrote: 
 Hi all,
 
 I've encountered two problematic bike route relations in the US and 
 would appreciate thoughts as to the best way to deal with them.
 
 One is the Great Divide Mountain Bike Route:
   http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3161159
 
 The other is I-5 in Oregon:
   http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/69485
 
 Both are tagged with type=route, route=bicycle, network=rcn.
 
 In both cases they're not of the same character that one would usually 
 expect from a long-distance RCN route. One is mostly unsurfaced and 
 therefore requires a certain type of bike; the other is entirely 
 Interstate and therefore requires a confident rider.
 
 I changed the GDMBR to route=mtb (which is how it'd be tagged elsewhere 
 in the world), but the original editor has since changed it back with a 
 plaintive changeset comment in 
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27862412 .
 
 The I-5 relation seems wrong to me (it's not really a bike route per se, 
 it's an all-purpose route on which bikes are permitted) but I'm not too 
 worried as it's easy to find its character by parsing the constituent 
 ways, which are all (of course) highway=motorway.
 
 But the GDMBR is very problematic in that many of its constituent ways 
 are highway=residential, without a surface tag. Until these ways are 
 fixed, the relation is very misleading and likely to break bike routing 
 (which generally gives an uplift to bike route relations) for all apart 
 from MTB-ers.
 
 Ideally I believe it should be route=mtb, but the original creator seems 
 hostile, perhaps for prominence on OpenCycleMap issues. (I've messaged 
 him but no reply as yet.) There may, of course, perhaps be another 
 commonly used tagging that I'm not aware of.
 
 What does the community think?
 
 cheers
 Richard
 
 ___
 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

Re: [Talk-us] Sidewalks as footpaths

[James Umbanhowar]

On Thu, 2014-05-08 at 05:58 -0400, Serge Wroclawski wrote: 
 The problem (aside from the issue of data clutter) is that the
 sidewalk data can't be used for pedestrian routing because the
 information about the street is not captured. You can't tell someone
 to follow Main Street, because the path is not labeled as such.

Could this problem be alleviated with a tag on the separately mapped
footway, e.g. road_name?  Or even just addr:street?

James


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

Re: [Talk-us] NAIP Imagery Servers -- Need Assistance Setting Up in JOSM

[James Umbanhowar]

Hi Kristen,

I was able to get it to work.  I used North Carolina and use the WMS
link from the NC page:
http://gis.apfo.usda.gov/arcgis/services/NAIP/North_Carolina_2012_1m_NC/ImageServer/WMSServer?request=GetCapabilitiesservice=WMS
 
In the WMS/TMS part of JOSM preferences I added a new WMS site, entered
the above link in the service url section and clicked on the get layers
button.  I selected the image layer and then changed the image type to
BMP as I have found that the default tiff's don't tend to work.

Hope this helps,

James 

On Mon, 2014-03-24 at 17:26 +, Kam, Kristen -(p) wrote: 
 (cross-listed with JOSM-Dev  Talk-US)
 
 Morning,
 
 The other week, I came across the directory of USDA's  WMS NAIP Image 
 Services (by state). QGIS renders the images with no problem, but it appears 
 to fail in JOSM.  I mentioned my difficulty to a fellow OSMer and he suspects 
 JOSM cannot support these WMS services. That said I was wondering if anyone 
 could shed some light on why I cannot get images to render in JOSM (me not 
 configuring right or no support in JOSM?!).
  
 List of Image Servers -- http://gis.apfo.usda.gov/arcgis/rest/services/NAIP
 
 Thanks,
 
 Kristen
 
 ---
 Kristen Kam
 OSM Profile → http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/KristenK
 ___
 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

Re: [Talk-us] Bing imagery update

[James Umbanhowar]

According to http://www.ncgicc.com/Default.aspx?tabid=135 and links
therein,  they are doing 1/4 of the state per year on a rolling basis.
This year they photographed the eastern Piedmont and are currently
getting it ready for release, probably in early 2014.  In 2014 they are
photographing northern Piedmont and mountains, so I presume 2015 will be
southern piedmont and mountains, including Mecklenburg County.

I have the following wms link working to serve all the latest
orthoimagery.

wms:http://services.nconemap.com/arcgis/services/Imagery/Orthoimagery_Latest/ImageServer/WMSServer?FORMAT=image/tiffVERSION=1.1.1SERVICE=WMSREQUEST=GetMapLAYERS=Orthoimagery_LatestSTYLES=SRS={proj}WIDTH={width}HEIGHT={height}BBOX={bbox}

James

On Wed, 2013-12-04 at 21:59 -0500, Mike N wrote:
 On 12/4/2013 9:07 PM, Kam, Kristen -(p) wrote:
  James,
 
  I located NAIP imagery for the state of North Carolina.
 
 That prompted my recall of an open NC state-run offleaf imagery source. 
It worked in JOSM back in 2010.   I see that they have updated some 
 coastal imagery in 2012; I'm not sure how far this comes.   They're in 
 the process of updating the whole state for 2013, so it might include 
 Charlotte.
 
They restructured the server, and I can't even get JOSM to work with 
 the 2010 imagery; it goes into an endless downloading loop and displays 
 nothing.   Are there any WMS / JOSM gurus who can get this working?
 
 Try adding the
 WMS: 
 http://services.nconemap.com/arcgis/services/Imagery/Orthoimagery_2012/ImageServer/WMSServer
 
 
 More info on the web site
 
 http://www.nconemap.com/OrthoimageryforNorthCarolina.aspx
 
 
 
 ___
 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

Re: [Talk-us] Railroads and Railroads (Historic)

[James Umbanhowar]

On Sun, 2013-11-10 at 18:26 -0600, John F. Eldredge wrote: 

 We probably need a value such as railway=inactive for routes that are
 not in use, but still have the rails in place.  The only problem is
 that, if someone erroneously tags an active but little-used route as
 inactive, this could lead to an accident if someone went hiking or
 rail-biking on the route.

The wiki suggests, and I have seen frequently used, railway=disused 
 -- 
 John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
 Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that.
 Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
 ___
 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] Bike route network levels: East Coast Greenway

[James Umbanhowar]

A discussion has arisen regarding the proper tagging of this bicycle route.  I 
thought it would be interesting to get some input from the community.  The 
East Coast Greenway is a bike route that has been developed by the private 
nonprofit East Coast Greenway Alliance.  The Greenway is a developing network 
that runs the entire east coast of the US.

The question is what network level should it, if at all, be tagged.  
Currently, there are three network levels, local/regional/national that have 
been used.  In other countries, these apply to different levels of government 
that officially sanction the cycle route. In the US there are several bicycle 
routes that are sanctioned by AASHTO.  In contrast, an analagous tag for 
hiking networks applies these levels simply according to the spatial extent of 
the hiking trail and optionally adds a operator tag for the organization that 
plans and maintains the trail.

Any preference in the community for how one should tag privately sanctioned 
bicycle routes of large extent?

James 


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

Re: [Talk-us] A P2 deployment with a NHD layer

[James Umbanhowar]

This is really cool.  I have a few comments and questions about how this
will work, but I think this will be a great way to import the NHD.  

1.  Can you edit points and locations before you approve a feature?
This would be nice for both inaccurately located points, but also for
integrating with existing water features.

2.  I didn't quite understand marking feature as complete.  In your
email, you said that you marked ponds that didn't show up as complete.
Could there be different levels of approval/rejection of objects so that
complete= move into OSM database, remove= remove from import database,
survey= can't tell from bing imagery.  

3.  A few tagging nits:  

a. I still think that 46006 streams without names should be included.  I
don't know if it is from being in a wet place, but many streams in NC
that are a couple meters wide, have road bridges over them and flow
noticeably have no name (at least in the NHD).

b. I would rather have the dam as way features than node features.
Although it probably would be best to not have every little water pond's
dam imported.

James

On Sun, 2012-11-18 at 19:52 -0800, Paul Norman wrote: 
 For the last couple weeks I've been working on getting NHD into P2 and I've
 now got a working preview at
 http://took.paulnorman.ca/potlatch2/potlatch2.html
 
 This P2 instance will take you to the east side of Missouri in the 0714
 basin. This is the south end of the 07 region and covers part of Illinois.
 
 The NHD layer is being served by snapshot-server off of my home computer so
 it may be slow as it's not properly deployed and it's behind a home internet
 connection.
 
 With the styles that come up by default the gray lines with orange outlines
 are features from NHD which aren't marked as completed and the fainter gray
 with green have been marked as completed. I've marked some ponds as
 completed where there weren't any signs of them on the imagery.
 
 You can change the NHD style by going to Background - Load Vector File.
 
 The NHD tagging doesn't represent a finished product. 
 
 A few warnings:
 
 - NHD represents riverbanks as giant polygons. These slow down my server and
 it may take a while to respond. That's why I chose this starting point to
 view, there aren't any giant ways right beside it.
 
 - The tagging is not yet complete. The main impact in this basin is that
 some points may have unconverted data. I believe all ways will be
 appropriately tagged.
 
 - The geometries are not simplified.
 
 - Snapshot-server doesn't fit nicely into any of the traditional
 classifications of imports. In any case, at this point it's a proof of
 concept.
 
 - I may at times randomly shut off the server as I do work with it.
 
 - There may be some scaling issues with snapshot-server
 
 - The default cyclestreets style for the NHD layer is not great
 
 More information on the P2 merging tool can be be found at
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Potlatch_2_merging_tool
 
 
 
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us



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

Re: [Talk-us] What to do with unnamed NHD streams

[James Umbanhowar]

On Sun, 2012-10-28 at 20:51 -0700, Paul Norman wrote: 
 Background: I'm working on converting NHD to .osm format
 
 NHD is an extremely large data set. It's about 25G of zipfiles and all of
 this converted to .osm would total about 3 TB. This is about 10x-15x times
 the size of planet.osm.
 
 There are three factors that lead to this large size. The third is what this
 email is about
 
 1. The NHD covers a massive area. 
 
 2. Some ways are very over-noded. The NHD accuracy standard is 12m error
 90% of the time. Running a 1m simplify in JOSM reduces the number of nodes
 to 25%-50% of what it was before. Like everything with the NHD, this varies
 from region to region. I'm thinking a 2.5m simplification would be best -
 it's 1/5th of the accuracy standard. Of course, running a simplification on
 a dataset this large is a challenge in itself.
 

Yes to this.

 3. A lot of NHD is very minor streams only of use to hydrologists. There
 are streams that you would be hard pressed to locate if you were there in
 person and in some cases they do not exist anymore.
 
 A sensible solution in any NHD translation may be to drop any FCode 46003
 (intermittent) streams without a name. It may also be worth dropping FCode
 46006 (perennial) streams without a name.

I think that excluding 46003's is generally O.K. They can be useful, but
are not really necessary for the import.  I do think that not including
46006's without names would exclude many important and obvious
waterways.  Here in NC, some of these actually do have (local) names and
many are significant especially for hiking/biking trails as they
represent places where feet can get wet or there is a big dip/rocky
area.  My vote would be to keep them.  

James


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

Re: [Talk-us] MapRoulette new challenge: connectivity

[James Umbanhowar]

On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 15:25 -0600, Martijn van Exel wrote: 
 On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Ivan Komarov jkoma...@gmail.com wrote:
  On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
  If one road ends near another road, that might actually be for a reason, 
  and
  what looks like a shadow on the aerial image is in fact a fence - or the
  aerial image is outdated...
 
  That's true. But in the US disconnected roads are produced by buggy
  TIGER import in 99% cases, so they definitely need fixing. On the
  other hand I have to admit that attentiveness required, as once I
  screwed Chicago downtown not paying enough attention to road levels.
  But in countryside these remote fixes are rather safe, I guess.
 
 
 That is right. I forgot to mention that maybe 70% of the connectivity
 errors (wild guess) is the result of TIGER being county-based, leading
 to 1) lots of connectivity errors at county boundaries, and 2) wildly
 varying quality between counties, even within states some say (I
 haven't really looked into that in any detail.)

I just wanted to add a couple points here in regards the nature of
connectivity issues.  First, I think that Martin's wild guess is off.
I've done about 20 of these (which is getting close to a sufficient
sample) and I would say that about 70% of the errors are due to human
mappers.  I've had 2 that have been impossible to tell based on Bing
imagery, but were solvable using Tiger 2012 data.  

So in regards to whether this is a US specific game, I would say that
the problems are not, but the presence of high quality aerial imagery
and decent quality road layers are.  Also, Martin, would it be possible
to direct folks to instructions on how to load Tiger data into their
editors, i.e. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/TIGER_2012?

James


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

Re: [Talk-us] Remap-a-tron level 2 complete! Suggestions for level 3?

[James Umbanhowar]

I was just traveling and was reminded of a Tiger problem that still hasn't 
been solved throughout the US-- the county line connectivity issue.  It seems 
like a good problem for remapatron-- it is relatively discrete, but it also 
gives mappers the opportunity to do some additional improvement of Tiger data 
such as name correction and alignment to Bing data.

It might be a little boring to do one at a time, so maybe the selection 
program could find 10 duplicate nodes in highways along a county line as a 
separate problem.

My two cents,
James

On Thursday, September 27, 2012 07:29:12 PM Martijn van Exel wrote:
 Hi all,
 
 It looks like we're done with level 2 of the remap-a-tron!
 (lima.schaaltreinen.nl/remap)
 Thanks so much for helping out! You were so fast that I did not get a
 chance to prepare the next level so now you  get to have your say:
 what should be the next error to fix with the remap-a-tron?
 Considerations should be that 1) ideally they should be easy to spot
 on the mapnik map or by comparing mapnik and bing and 2) they should
 be easy fixes.
 
 Let me hear what you want to see (and ideally send a pull request ;)
 https://github.com/mvexel/remapatron)
 
 (stats for level 1:
 http://lima.schaaltreinen.nl/tmp/remapatron_level1.png and level 2:
 http://lima.schaaltreinen.nl/tmp/remapatron_level2.png)



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

Re: [Talk-us] Large area of deleted streets in Riverside, Calif.

[James Umbanhowar]

If you are using JOSM and have the Tiger 2011 or 2012 data, for a
neighborhood this small it is easier to do it manually.

I just did it in about 3-4 minutes.

james

On Fri, 2012-09-14 at 16:51 -0700, Alan Millar wrote:
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=32.29183lon=-95.4831zoom=17
 
 


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

Re: [Talk-us] US-Canadian border

[James Umbanhowar]

I apologize to Richard if he assumed that we all knew about this, but I assume 
the multiple borders refere to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machias_Seal_Island


On Wednesday, August 22, 2012 09:59:25 AM Metcalf, Calvin (DOT) wrote:
 I was thinking something more along the lines of a flipped way in a
 relation somewhere and thought it would be a simple fix but there seems to
 be the Us boarder, the Canadian boarder and some Canadian provincial
 boarders all as separate ways, I'm not actually sure if the US boarder
 needs to be there at all, this seems like it might be dealt with from the
 other side, is there an active talk-ca or equivalent.
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Richard Weait [mailto:rich...@weait.com]
 Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 9:54 AM
 To: Metcalf, Calvin
 Cc: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [Talk-us] US-Canadian border
 
 On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Metcalf, Calvin (DOT) 
calvin.metc...@state.ma.us wrote:
  I noticed this
  http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=44.524lon=-67.101zoom=10layers=M
  and really can't make heads or tails of it.
 
 Does that show both claims in a border dispute?
 
 Imports.  Is there anything they can't do?
 
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us



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

Re: [Talk-us] NHD import: what data quality is acceptable?

[James Umbanhowar]

On Sun, 2012-07-22 at 18:33 -0700, Paul Norman wrote:

 
 The main weakness with NHD data that I find is that there is no way to
 distinguish between an OSM waterway=stream and waterway=river
 

Why not use the name?



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

Re: [Talk-us] LA part of the map essentially is unusable

[James Umbanhowar]

On Thursday, July 19, 2012 12:02:29 PM Toby Murray wrote:
 On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Charlotte Wolter
 
 techl...@techlady.com wrote:
  Everyone,
  
  Having looked over the damage and deletions for the last hour, I
  
  feel the redaction has left the LA map essentially unusable. Huge blocks
  of streets are missing, including major roads and some sections of
  freeways.
  
  Do we think that the US map can have any validity if it doesn't
  
  include LA?
 
 This was pretty much expected according to the license tools that were
 available before the bot started running. Same with some parts of
 North Carolina and parts of the interstate system. It will get fixed.
 Not in a day or a week... but it will get fixed. Just be glad you
 don't live in Poland or Australia :)
 
 Toby
 

You mean South Carolina, right?  Or did I miss a big part of my state?

James

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

Re: [Talk-us] More things that are no longer there: schools.

[James Umbanhowar]

Check out the historic tag
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Historic).  You could add
historic=school and maybe historic:name=School Name.  

On Fri, 2012-07-13 at 14:40 -0400, Kevin Kenny wrote: 
 As I've mentioned in the past, I have some personal mapping projects
 that use OSM data.
 
 One at least one of them, I display icons for facilities such as
 schools, hospitals, police and fire stations, and houses of worship.
 I notice that a great many of the schools that appear in the generated
 map are, in fact, not usable as landmarks, because the map is reporting
 places where schoolhouses once stood; in many cases the sites have been
 redeveloped and no trace of the historic school remains, or the site
 has changed hands and the historic schoolhouse is now a private home.
 For many of the old schoolhouses, it certainly isn't obvious from the
 street that they were ever anything but private homes.
 
 I see that these tend to have (historical) ending their names. Is
 this generally a reliable indicator? Is there another tag I should be
 looking for to tell me there was once a school here, but there is
 no longer? I don't see anything obvious, for instance, in the feature
 with OSM ID = 375600685 to distinguish it from an active school.
 
 If there is no reliable information distinguishing historical schools,
 and if I were to attempt to correct the situation in areas where I have
 personal knowledge, is there any consensus on the correct way to tag
 these objects? I surely don't want to revert someone else's edits
 simply because they contain data that do not interest me, but is there
 any way that I can start being able to filter them?
 
 I have read http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/USGS_GNIS - but I find
 it uninformative for answering this question. I see the instruction,
 If you come across a feature that no longer exists in the real world,
 feel free to delete it, but what's the right thing to do with a
 former schoolhouse that still stands as a private house? It exists,
 but it is not in service nor any longer easily identifiable as a school.
 
 And please, don't flame me. This is simply a question about, if I
 wish to exclude historical schools from a rendered map, is there a
 way to identify them in order that I can do so? I advance no position
 about whether they ought or ought not be in OSM.  I recognize that
 they must have been of value to whoever put them there, and respect
 that.
 
 If my question has no good answer, I'd rather tolerate the clutter
 than mess up the map.
 



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

[Talk-us] Shorelines of highly variable lakes

[James Umbanhowar]

I have just had a correspondence with another mapper who was remapping
Lake Mead shorelines to match new imagery.  Due to a multi-year drought,
Lake Mead and other reservoirs in the west have had significantly
declining water levels.  However, the lake levels could increase
dramatically if there were a couple of years of normal/high water.
Alternately, Devil's Lake in North Dakota has had many years of
increasing water levels as the closed basin it drains has had relatively
high precipitation.

The question I have for y'all is do we have any recommendations for how
to map these?  For the reservoirs, I think that one could make an
argument for mapping the full level and tagging it with landuse
reservoir (which is rendered as water), but is there any value in
drawing lower lake levels if they persist for many years?  Would it be
useful to date the imagery/ survey date used for the shoreline? 



James


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

Re: [Talk-us] NHD data changes

[James Umbanhowar]

On Saturday, May 05, 2012 10:19:36 PM Paul Norman wrote:
 I've been looking at the NHD data from the USGS site and have noticed a few
 recent changes from how they were described on the wiki.
 
 1. The viewer has changed. http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/nhd.html
 will bring up a map you can use to download NHD data. This viewer does not
 work in Chrome but does work in IE. Subregions are pre-staged downloads,
 the others will take some time before you can download.
 

Firefox also works.

 Subregions can be directly downloaded from
 ftp://nhdftp.usgs.gov/DataSets/Staged/SubRegions/PersonalGDB/HighResolution
 /
 
 Most subregions are available as a new NHD 931v210 file but some are still
 being generated.
 
 2. NHD data is now available only as File Geodatabases (File GDBs, .gdb)
 and Personal Geodatabases (Personal GDBs, .mdb). My understanding is the
 default builds of QuantumGIS and GDAL on Windows can open Personal GDBs.
 
 On linux gdal can be compiled with drv_mdb or the pgeo driver can be used
 for Personal GDBs, or the filegdb driver can be used for File GDBs. This is
 moderately technical.
 

I was able to download a .shp file from the viewer.  It had changes in it date 
in 2012, so I assume that it is current.

James

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

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

[James Umbanhowar]

On Tuesday, April 10, 2012 09:46:00 AM Peter Dobratz wrote:
 I'm experimenting with the Java code from Traveling Salesman
 
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Traveling_salesman
 
 I'm making library calls to the routing code and it seems that the
 router does not understand cul-de-sacs mapped as a single
 self-intersecting way. This got me thinking about different ways to
 possibly map cul-de-sacs.  I generally use Way with
 highway=residential or highway=unclassified.  At the end of the road
 there is a loop that intersects the same Way.  Here is one that I
 recently mapped:
 
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/158307363
 
 Is this how people generally map these things?
 
 One other possibility that I could think of was splitting the circular
 part at the end and tagging it junction=roundabout.  However, this
 would imply that the road is one-way, and I'm not sure that that is
 the case.  Typically there is no one way sign on the ground and people
 feel free to travel in either direction on these (though being a
 cul-de-sac they don't have a lot of traffic).
 
 --Peter
 
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


If it really is just a cul-de-sac, I (and many others) tag them as 
highway=turning_circle.  

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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering

[James Umbanhowar]

On Tuesday, April 03, 2012 08:17:16 AM Phil! Gold wrote:
 * Minh Nguyen m...@1ec5.org [2012-04-03 02:19 -0700]:
 
  I'd prefer to see the shields strung out along the concurrency, with
  no spacing between each shield. That would be especially helpful
  where the concurrency's shields happen to appear near a junction.
  Google Maps does that, but they space the shields apart somewhat.
 
 This is something that would probably look nice, but is difficult
 (possibly impossible) to do in Mapnik.  I'll see what I can do and how it
 looks on the map.
 

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

Your current work is awesome!



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

Re: [Talk-us] East Coast Greenway

[James Umbanhowar]

On Friday, September 30, 2011 07:51:39 AM Metcalf, Calvin (DOT) wrote:
 I'm actually  in the process of doing this for MA and was trying to figure
 out the correct tagging, I take it in the US we don't use the local
 regional national bike route scheme?
 

As far as I can tell, there seems to be a rough consensus:
Local=multi (2-10ism) county and below
Regional= state
National= Federal/multistate


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

Re: [Talk-us] East Coast Greenway

[James Umbanhowar]

 Is there a place on the wiki where this is spelled out or at least an area
 of the country I can use as a reference ?
 

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycle_routes#United_States
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_US_Bike_Route_System

For Hiking trails:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_States_Long_Distance_Trails


 -Original Message-
 From: James Umbanhowar [mailto:jumba...@gmail.com]
 Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 8:44 AM
 To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [Talk-us] East Coast Greenway
 
 On Friday, September 30, 2011 07:51:39 AM Metcalf, Calvin (DOT) wrote:
  I'm actually  in the process of doing this for MA and was
 
 trying to figure
 
  out the correct tagging, I take it in the US we don't use the local
  regional national bike route scheme?
 
 As far as I can tell, there seems to be a rough consensus:
 Local=multi (2-10ism) county and below
 Regional= state
 National= Federal/multistate
 
 
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

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

Re: [Talk-us] NHD data conversion

[James Umbanhowar]

Hi Ben (and others),

Sorry I haven't commented on the conversion until now.  Life intervened. In 
general the conversion looks good.  One slightly important thing I noticed is 
that there are no names on any of the objects.

James

On Friday, August 26, 2011 12:14:44 AM Ben Supnik wrote:
 Hi Ben,
 
 On 8/21/11 10:40 AM, Ben Miller wrote:
  Great! Thanks Ben.
  
  I downloaded the data for the two areas that I'm interested in
  (04060104 and 04060105) and stuck them in JOSM. I'm not sure I feel
  comfortable just dumping the whole thing in (especially if it might
  cause problems) so I was planning on doing it more or less item by
  item. Is there a flaw in that plan?
 
 I don't think so...my hope was to get the data into a form editors could
 use, not to promote bulk importing; in some cases some but not all of
 the water data for a region may already be present from hand-mapping or
 other data sources, so merging is necessary.
 
  Also, is there an explanation somewhere of what the various files
  represent? XXX_nhdarhi0.xml, XXX_nhdflh0.xml, etc.
 
 The names come right off of the NHD shapefile export.
 
 http://nhd.usgs.gov/documentation.html
 
 (That stuff gets pretty terrifying pretty quickly.  Basically the data
 is partitioned by data quality and topology type, so nhdarhi is NHD
 area, highest res data, fl is flow lines, etc.  The files are broken
 into sequence within a HUC to avoid any one file being too huge.
 
  And one question about methodology: There are a few larger lakes that
  were added as part of the PGS process. They appear to have been left
  pretty much untouched (except by me) and the NHD data is
  significantly more accurate. Would it be acceptable to replace the
  PGS ways with NHD ways, assuming I make sure to connect up any
  rivers, add them to appropriate relations, etc?
 
 I can't comment on that - I'm not sure there is really a single right
 thing to do for OSM; others may at least have better informed opinions
 than I do. :-)
 
 cheers
 ben
 
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us



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

Re: [Talk-us] Relation roles

[James Umbanhowar]

On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 03:05:26 PM Nathan Edgars II wrote:
 On 6/29/2011 2:49 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:
  My personal preference is to use directional roles so that they match
  what is written on signage. It also avoids the inevitable which way is
  forward and which is backward question.
 
 How would you suggest ensuring that relations are and remain complete?
 
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

One kluge is that you could use search and replace to change all south/north 
east/west to forward/backward, do the relation check and then change back.  

My instinct would be having the signed direction on the relation role would be 
preferable.


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

Re: [Talk-us] New orthoimagery for NC

[James Umbanhowar]

This page covers all the web orthoimagery. 
http://data.nconemap.com/geoportal/catalog/content/privacy.page
To quote:  Geospatial data and map services provided directly from this NC 
OneMap geoportal is free to download and use by anyone without restriction.


On Saturday, June 11, 2011 12:04:55 AM Nathan Edgars II wrote:
 On 6/10/2011 10:46 PM, James Umbanhowar wrote:
  The website says all data is free for use
  (http://www.nconemap.com/Default.aspx?tabid=286) and any queries will not
  be answered.  A close reading leaves some slight ambiguity Geospatial
  content provided directly from this NC OneMap FTP service is free to
  download and use by anyone without restriction.  (the service is a WMS
  not FTP service, but it is provided directly).  Given that you can
  download, via FTP, all the photos and use how you would like, I would
  imagine that the WMS service wouldn't have different rules.
 
 It's probably best to email them to be sure.
 
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us



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

[Talk-us] New orthoimagery for NC

[James Umbanhowar]

The state of North Carolina has released 6 inch resolution orthoimagery for 
the entire state that was taken during leaf off time in 2010.  These are great 
quality for all types of mapping.  The information about the service is at:

http://data.nconemap.com/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.page?uuid={B7B32EE4-9B96-4FE5-88DF-255DA7FDA98C}

The following url works in JOSM:

http://imagery.nconemap.com/arcgis/services/2010_Orthoimagery/ImageServer/WMSServer?FORMAT=image/jpegVERSION=1.1.1SERVICE=WMSREQUEST=GetMapLayers=Orthos2010;

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

Re: [Talk-us] New orthoimagery for NC

[James Umbanhowar]

On Friday, June 10, 2011 10:16:22 PM Nathan Edgars II wrote:
 On 6/10/2011 5:31 PM, James Umbanhowar wrote:
  The state of North Carolina has released 6 inch resolution orthoimagery
  for the entire state that was taken during leaf off time in 2010.  These
  are great quality for all types of mapping.  The information about the
  service is at:
  
  http://data.nconemap.com/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.page?u
  uid={B7B32EE4-9B96-4FE5-88DF-255DA7FDA98C}
 
 Have you confirmed that this is usable for tracing?
 
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

The website says all data is free for use 
(http://www.nconemap.com/Default.aspx?tabid=286) and any queries will not be 
answered.  A close reading leaves some slight ambiguity Geospatial content 
provided directly from this NC OneMap FTP service is free to download and use 
by anyone without restriction.  (the service is a WMS not FTP service, but it 
is provided directly).  Given that you can download, via FTP, all the photos 
and use how you would like, I would imagine that the WMS service wouldn't have 
different rules.


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

Re: [Talk-us] NHD import and conversion - sample data

[James Umbanhowar]

 Hi James,
 
  I did some more corrections on the rules files and I think that it
  covers all the left over points I saw (including adding
  waterway:stream to one of FCODE for Connectors that wasn't working).
 
 Just to confirm, these changes are the ones I see on the wiki, right?
 
Yes
  In terms of untagged ways, if we don't import ComID's and the rest of
  the additional NHD tags.
 
 But ComIDs are still on the wiki.  I can add -t in case there are
 untagged nodes/ways, but I don't have a strong opinion re: keeping or
 nuking back-references like ComIDs.
My opinion is not strong, which is why I didn't nuke them there.  I had 
stopped using them, as the prospect of ever referencing back to the NHD seemed 
nearly infinitessimal.  Also, it would make conversion much easier ;).  
 
 cheers
 ben

James

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

Re: [Talk-us] NHD data import question

[James Umbanhowar]

On Thursday 28 April 2011 08:53:56 Ben Supnik wrote:
 Hi Ian,
 
 I should be able to convert the NHD data sometime in the next week or
 so.  Also, if/when you want the original data, let me know.
 
 For the conversion, do we want medium or high resolution?
 
 Re: the import status map, I don't know how to make an actual map from
 themshort of simply providing a KML file and saying go look on
 Google Earth, what formats are most useful for making an overlay status
 map?  (I could do that conversion and hand it off to someone.)
 
 cheers
 ben
 

I've been checking some of the imported data and my general feel is that it is 
overdigitized.  I don't know if medium versus high reflects just the quality or 
the amount of digitization.  That would be something to check.  One could also 
just run some sort of simplification algorithm on all the data.

Also, are the plans to make one file for each subbasin or one file per 
attribute 
(flowline, waterbody etc...).  With one file, one can remove all the duplicate 
nodes before uploading.

Maybe it would be useful to do a test subbasin with whatever toolchain you're 
going to use and then post it so that mappers can check to see how the 
conversion meshes with our general wants.


 On 4/28/11 8:48 AM, Ian Dees wrote:
  Yep: if you have the ability and time to cut the national dataset into
  subbasins I'll give you an SFTP to upload them to and I'll start
  converting them to OSM.
  
   From there we could add links to the pre-converted subbasin OSM bundles
  
  to the wiki pages.
  
  Bonus points for converting the subbasin boundary files to
  KML/GeoJSON/GML and overlaying them on a import status map that a user
  could click on to find their subbasin. I'd be happy to host all this.
  
  -Ian
  
  On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Ben Supnik bsup...@xsquawkbox.net
  
  mailto:bsup...@xsquawkbox.net wrote:
  Hi Y'all,
  
  So let me see if I can summarize where we are so far...
  
  - I could cut the NHD data down to sub-basins. It would not be a
  perfect cutting (e.g. each sub-basin might need a little bit of data
  hanging off since the raw data isn't cut on sub-basin boundaries)
  but it would be pretty close, and we expect users to manually check
  their imports.  I could also potentially convert the shapefiles to
  .osm format on a sub-basin basis.
  
  - It would be nice to make it easier for users to find their
  sub-basins.  I'm afraid I don't know how to use the mapnik tool
  chain to create a slippy map though.  (Left to my own, I would
  probably convert the sub-basin boundaries to KML...that makes me a
  heretic, right? :-)  We could also just post the boundary shapefile,
  but some users may not be comfortable with shapefiles.
  
  - Importing on a sub-basin basis should be possible in JOSM, if not
  a bit of a mouthful.  Importing via potlatch2 vector layers should
  be possible - others have seen this work although I have not.
  
  cheers
  Ben
  
  --
  Scenery Home Page: http://scenery.x-plane.com/
  Scenery blog: http://www.x-plane.com/blog/
  Plugin SDK: http://www.xsquawkbox.net/xpsdk/
  X-Plane Wiki: http://wiki.x-plane.com/
  Scenery mailing list: x-plane-scen...@yahoogroups.com
  mailto:x-plane-scen...@yahoogroups.com
  Developer mailing list: x-plane-...@yahoogroups.com
  mailto:x-plane-...@yahoogroups.com
  
  ___
  Talk-us mailing list
  Talk-us@openstreetmap.org mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
  http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
  
  ___
  Talk-us mailing list
  Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
  http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us



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

Re: [Talk-us] NHD data extract

[James Umbanhowar]

On Tuesday 26 April 2011 12:50:41 Ben Supnik wrote:
 Hi Y'all,
 
  From what I can tell:
 
 - Every water body does get a reach ID.  I've seen nulls in this file
 but haven't yet figured out what they are...in local sample areas, all
 water bodies have reach IDs.
 
 - If there is linkeage between areas and flow lines (which I _thought_
 there was when reading the docs this morning) I don't see it when
 browsing the real data.
 

I don't know if there is a database linkage, but the flowlines that are inside 
an area have a different FCode to indicate that they are connectors. 

 - I can confirm that areas cross sub-basin boundaries.  (I downloaded
 the sub-basin shapefiles to check.)
 
 I'm not sure where this leaves us...sub basins are small and manageable
 but don't partition the data particularly well (in that it looks like
 we'd need an expensive spatial check for rivers).  Users also don't
 necessarily know their sub-basin code unless they can find an online
 source to browse or view shapefiles.
 
I actually think that the spatial check for rivers is not that expensive.  If 
someone is going to do a subbasin import well, they need to do a fairly 
extensive check anyway to look for previously mapped features such as rivers 
and waterbodies.  Double checking to make sure that the riverbanks have not 
been imported is not difficult.  There will typically be only one large 
riverbank relation per subbasin, maximum.  I just think we would need to agree 
on some process to dole these out to the subbasin files sanely.  

Per the subbasin code, I think the NHD has a boundary file that could be used 
to make a layer that would allow mappers to figure out their local code if they 
couldn't do it via the National Map web interface.

 Richard's idea of building an NHD tile map for tracing seems very
 do-able, but it wouldn't save a ton of time - every water feature would
 have to be hand-traced, even though we do have them in vector form
 already.  But I'm not sure that anything other than tile maps provide
 the level of user simplicity I was hoping for, e.g. being able to find
 just the part of the data you want to import in a form that's ready for
 import.
 
 cheers
 Ben
 

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

Re: [Talk-us] Dirt Bike Area

[James Umbanhowar]

On Sunday, April 03, 2011 08:53:50 am Richard Weait wrote:
 On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 7:57 AM, James U jumba...@gmail.com wrote:
  On Sunday, April 03, 2011 07:45:50 am Mike N wrote:
  On 4/2/2011 11:37 PM, Val Kartchner wrote:
   Within the past few days I discovered an area built up for public use
   of pedal dirt bikes.  I have searched but have not found a way to
  
  designate
  
   such an area.  Has something been created yet?
  
 I couldn't find anything like this.   For a standard dirt paths, it
  could almost be classified as a park.But if it has sculpted dips,
  berms, and woop-dee-doos, it should be called a pump track --
  leisure=pump_track  or bmx_track?
  
  In a similar category are skateboarding parks.  I have labelled them as
  leisure=playground.  In addition to Mike's suggestions, they could also
  probably fall under leisure=pitch, sport=bmx, surface=ground.
 
 Why not highway=track, surface=dirt for the built-up track itself ?
 

Some of these areas don't have have a fixed track and may be best viewed 
as a homogeneous area.

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

Re: [Talk-us] place=city name=Tri-Cities

[James Umbanhowar]

Officially, there are the Census Metropolitan Statistical Areas, which are 
roughly equivalent to many of the colloquially used metro areas.  These are 
not administrative regions,  although some may coincide with some 
administrative regions.  I do think it would be valuable to somehow tag these 
areas.

James

On Thursday 24 February 2011 08:58:02 McGuire, Matthew wrote:
 Without knowing the area, I can only speculate that Tri-Cities is a
 locally common name for the entire metro, but assuming it is, I like the
 way it looks on Mapnik, so it seems like a case of tagging for the
 renderer. How about place=metro?
 
 More could be done with metro areas. For example, OSM Mapnik renders the
 Saint Paul label at a 'higher' level than Minneapolis. Is there some way
 to identify Minneapolis as the largest city of the metro area and Saint
 Paul as the Capitol of the State of Minnesota? I don't see anything in the
 Map Features tags that would allow this. Locally, the entire metro area is
 frequently known as The Twin Cities, and together Minneapolis and Saint
 Paul are a primate city.
 
 I don't know of a way to represent (data-wise) the metro areas as one
 single place. The result is, I'm now looking at a map with labels for
 Trenton, Wilmington, Newark, Huntington NY, and Stamford CT but not New
 York City and Philadelphia.  A place=metro tag and relations would allow
 that - if the renderer so chose.
 
 Matt
 
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Nathan Edgars II [mailto:nerou...@gmail.com]
 Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 10:07 PM
 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools; OpenStreetMap talk-us list
 Subject: [Talk-us] place=city name=Tri-Cities
 
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/876536239
 There's no city named Tri-Cities; this is the name of the metropolitan
 area that comprises Pasco, Kennewick, and Richland. I assume there's no
 defensible reason to keep it tagged as such, but what should be done
 about it?
 
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
 
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

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

Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] Imports, trails, POIs for National Parks

[James Umbanhowar]

You can find a lot of data at the nps web site: 
http://nrinfo.nps.gov/Home.mvc  

I did a quick check and saw trail map data sets for 3 out of 3 parks: 
Acadia, Great Smoky and Grand Canyon.  I didn't check what format or 
quality or anything else about them.

James

On Tuesday, February 15, 2011 07:39:11 pm Tyler Ritchie wrote:
 Olympic National Park's trails and roads are mostly there, the
 accuracy is somewhere between spot on and 20m off. Many of the
 trails are difficult to accurately align due to tree cover.
 
 I've been looking into getting more recent trail, road, and structure
 GIS data from the park, but I usually get stalled from some reason.
 
 -Tyler
 
 On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Coast, Hurricane
 
 hurricane.co...@mapquest.com wrote:
  Hi,
  I noticed that there is a bit of work going on with importing Park 
data.
  I know that's a broad subject, anything from Forest Service Roads to
  GPSed trails from vacations, hydrology imports and as always, fixing
  TIGER data… There's a bunch out there.
  I wanted to get a feel for what, if any, work has been done for 
National
  Parks in the US. Is there anyone here (or an OSM wiki page perhaps) 
where
  folks are organizing to get Yosemite, the Grand Canyon and Rocky 
Mountain
  National Park mapped (to name a few ;))?
  I am also looking to build out a Project of the Week (or Month) to do
  some concentrated effort in this
  
direction. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Project_of_the_week/Proposa
  ls#Date_Specific I think it would be super cool to have our National
  Parks so well mapped it is the go-to resource for this summers 
 family
  road trips and outdoor adventures or the closer in hikes in the
  afternoon!
  Any suggestions on where to look for other users interested in this, 
or
  free and open data import sites, all information will be helpful.
  Thanks and happy mapping,
  Hurricane Coast
  
  ___
  Imports mailing list
  impo...@openstreetmap.org
  http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
 
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

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

Re: [Talk-us] upcoming Triangle NC mapping party

[James Umbanhowar]

On Thursday 23 September 2010 15:07:51 Steven Johnson wrote:
 Hello list,
 
 Just want to make everyone aware of an upcoming two-day mapping party in
 Raleigh/Cary/Research Triangle (NC) next weekend (2 - 3 October). If you're
 in the area, please bring your GPS (or Walking Papers) and come out!
 
  *Where are we going to be mapping? *There will be 2 main areas:
 Saturday: Downtown Raleigh and close-in neighborhoods (NCSU, Meredith
 College, Cameron Village, etc.)
 Sunday: Research Triangle/Cary, including American Tobacco Trail
 *
 Meetup:*
 Saturday: 11 AM at DH Hill Library on the NCSU campus (
 http://osm.org/go/ZYRUudNUJ--) (Parking info:
 http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/directions/dhhill/)
 
 Sunday: 11 AM at Triangle J Council of Governments, 4307 Emperor Blvd,
 Durham, NC 27703 (http://osm.org/go/ZS_oux0l)
 
 We'll map in the field for a couple hours, return to the meetup locations
 for upload and import, then adjourn in the late afternoon to a nearby
 watering hole/restaurant.
 
 *Do I have to attend on both Saturday and Sunday? *No, only do as much as
 you would like.
 
 *Where do I sign up? *Here:* **http://trianglemapping.eventbrite.com**
 *After you sign up, EventBrite service will send you a ticket for the
 event that you can safely ignore. We just want to get a head count.
 
 Please contact me off list if you need more information. Thanks,
 SEJ
 
 Wretches, utter wretches, keep your hands from beans. -Empedocles

How did the party go?  I would have liked to have attended, but couldn't.  
Will there be a write up of the event?  

Thanks,
James

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

[Talk-us] Issues in New Mexico

[James Umbanhowar]

Does anyone know why the area around around Raton, NM looks like it is 
melting?  I don't think it even renders in Osmarender.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=36.93134lon=-104.46384zoom=16layers=B000FTF


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

Re: [Talk-us] Issues in New Mexico

[James Umbanhowar]

Thanks, I reverted them back to their last known address-- much closer to 
Santa Fe than Santa Claus.

James

(resending to list)
On Monday 14 December 2009 12:21:07 pm you wrote:
 On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 09:18 -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
  On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 12:07 -0500, James Umbanhowar wrote:
   Does anyone know why the area around around Raton, NM looks like it is
   melting?  I don't think it even renders in Osmarender.
  
   
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=36.93134lon=-104.46384zoom=16layer
  s=B000FTF
 
  You have a couple of nodes that aren't quite in NM any more in some of
  those ways:
 
node id='141799398' timestamp='2009-12-07T02:23:16Z' uid='131218'
  user='Chris CA' visible='true' version='5' lat='89.624567'
  lon='-104.4524709' /
 
  Looks closer to Santa than to New Mexico.
 
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/3312188
 
 -- Dave
 

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