Re: [OSM-talk] recommendation for JSON to CSV converter

[Mike Thompson]

Hi Martin,

Could you provide some more detail on what specifically you are attempting
to achieve? Converting a geojson file of points to CSV is pretty easy, but
once you get to linestrings, multi-linestrings, polygons, etc. it gets
difficult because in those cases the geometry objects have a variable
number of components.

Mike

On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 8:26 AM Martin Trautmann via talk <
talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Is there any JSON converter that you would recommend?
>
> There are plenty of web services, but none of those worked for me, on
> <
> https://opendata.essen.de/sites/default/files/Hauskoordinaten_0822.geojson
> >
> (70 MB)
>
> There are plenty of starter tutorials, in order to use python,
> javascript etc.
>
> But those did not work either.
>
> I tried dasel, without success (dasel version v2.5.0)
>
> So I wonder what the best solution might be, apart of writing my own
> converter (probably in perl).
>
> What I would expect is hopefully a 100 % conversion - or an error log
> which data could not be processed.
>
> The problem here seems to be the nesting of several levels.
>
> Thanks,
> Martin
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Adding automated trees to OSM

[Mike Thompson]

On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 12:53 PM Harsha Somaya  wrote:

> The data on these trees is only added if the user consents.
>
To what exactly have these users consented?  Putting their data in the
public domain?  To some other license? We need more specifics.


> I am creating an open source app with my team. Licenses are built-in the
> app.
>
We are not talking software licenses, but the license that applies to the
data.


> The GPS accuracy is about 16ft and is calculated from the phone's GPS
> (phone location has to be turned on for app functionality;
>
That would be typical for a cell phone under ideal circumstances according
to this US Government site:
https://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/performance/accuracy/, but the same site
notes "However, their accuracy worsens near buildings, bridges, and *trees*.").
But let's assume that your data is accurate to +/-16 feet and let's assume
that existing OSM tree data is accurate to +/- 33 feet (10 meters) (just an
example, might be better in US). You should download existing OSM tree
data, buffer by 49 feet (the math is a little more involved, but this
should be a safe number to use), and delete any of your data that falls
within the resulting polygon before uploading.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Intercultural differences / cultural diversity / OSM communication behaviors

[Mike Thompson]

On Wed, May 3, 2023 at 2:08 PM Courtney 
wrote:

> It's valid to ask for more specifics. You're right that "combative" just
> ends up being an alienating word.
>
> Here's an example that I think everyone can benefit from.
>
> When I see a comment that reflects a kind of tired, angry emotion about
> having to point out a mistake or breach of protocol yet again, I always
> flinch. This is because it is almost certainly the first time for the
> person who made the mistake. And, it seems unfair to burden them with the
> anger that comes from the mistakes of others who came before them. You can
> see that in some of the earlier comments in this thread.
>
> I see why people get worn out having to say things over and over,
> especially when they are documented in wikis, but there are other factors,
> most importantly that new people are joining the community every day.
>
> Compare a statement like this:
>
>  "I know you may be relatively new here, so to help you be successful,
> here are some ideas for how to structure for your project"
>
> Thanks Courtney, this is helpful, and actionable.  If there are other
things that you, or others can point out, it would further the journey to
better communication.

Mike

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Intercultural differences / cultural diversity / OSM communication behaviors

[Mike Thompson]

On Wed, May 3, 2023, 1:00 PM Brian M. Sperlongano 
wrote:

> I would caution against hyper-simplifying the combativeness of the mailing
> lists
>
I am not sure using a term such as "combative" is going to be effective in
bringing about the change you desire.   First the term has strong negative
connotation,  and second it is non specific. The people you view as
combative probably don't see themselves as combative and don't what
specifically is causing you to perceive them as such, and thus don't know
what to do differently.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Survey about OSM communication behaviors

[Mike Thompson]

On Sun, Apr 30, 2023 at 10:42 PM Ewen Hill  wrote:

> Hi all,
>   I am really disappointed by the anger and outrage in this thread and
> that, to castigate a volunteer in public,
>
I understand you, and some others may feel this way, but what I am seeing
is simply an exchange of ideas between people that have different points of
view - some of those views are very strongly held.  If that is your idea of
"anger, outrange, and castigation", then we have a problem, because for the
vitality of the community - and our individual development and learning -
we need to be able to express our views and hear views from others. The
only "anger" I heard was towards companies that some on this mailing list
believe compromise our privacy.  Whether you agree with those people or
not, I don't think there is a problem with anger directed at such companies
and their alleged  behavior - but perhaps others feel differently.  If
there was a particular statement or statements that you felt were
problematic, perhaps you could point to the general type of case (probably
shouldn't call folks out by name) so that the rest of us could learn and
improve.



>
>   I hope in future, that if someone objects strongly to a scenario
> presented, then they contact the original poster directly first and if they
> have no luck, then reply to the group.
>
It is important that these debates happen in the open so we all can hear
all different points of view.  For example, you responded to the entire
list, and now we know you feel there has been "anger, outrage, and
catigation" on this list.  If you provide more details to the list, I am
sure most of us will make an effort to do better (as long as it doesn't
involve refraining from expressing our views and debating the issues).

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Survey about OSM communication behaviors

[Mike Thompson]

On Sun, Apr 30, 2023 at 4:58 PM Courtney 
wrote:

> Here, too, we gave quite a bit of careful thought to the decision. We felt
> that if we did not disclose that we were on the CWG, that it might be seen
> by some as a lapse of transparency.
>
It is good that you disclosed your affiliations.  However, you also need to
make it abundantly clear that this project is not part of your work for the
CWG (and for those of you employed by TomTom, not part of your employment).
Otherwise, you are potentially misleading people to believe, as I did, that
this was an official CWG survey.  I am assuming that you had the best of
intentions and that you were not trying to mislead anyone.

As Frederick pointed out, members of some other working groups seem to do a
very good job of making it clear as to whether they are speaking as part of
a WG or as an individual.

Mike

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Survey about OSM communication behaviors

[Mike Thompson]

On Sun, Apr 30, 2023 at 11:03 AM Courtney 
wrote:

> Why is the main "Talk" channel the only one that is producing pushback?
> Why is it the only one that is producing such a negative tone?
>
I don't sense a "negative tone" in this conversation.  Some people disagree
with some things you are doing, some agree with things you are doing, we
are having a discussion.  We learn and get better by being open to ideas
from those that do not agree with us.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Survey about OSM communication behaviors

[Mike Thompson]

On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 5:52 PM Courtney 
wrote:

>  As well, this is not an OSMF survey, nor is it a CWG survey.  Yes, two of
> us volunteer for the CWG, but it is not formally "from" or "of" the OSMF.
>
I guess I didn't read the original email closely enough.  I got the
impression that this was a CWG survey.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Adoption of OSM geometry as state mapping base

[Mike Thompson]

On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 5:23 PM Greg Troxel  wrote:

>
> > The terms cover data distribution, ie downloading from
> > planet.openstreetmap.org so you need to go through those terms to obtain
> > OSM data regardless of the ODbL.
>
> Really?  That's huge news compared to the data being under ODbL.  And,
> once once gets the data under ODbL, it can be redistributed, and there's
> no requirement that I see to impose the Website Terms on others.
>
 "The ODbL allows you to use the OSM data for any purpose you like. This
includes personal, community, educational, commercial or governmental." [0]

If this isn't the case, then the above referenced OSMF page should be
edited to reflect this.

Mike


[0]
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_and_Legal_FAQ#1.3._What_can_I_do_with_the_OSM_Data
?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] razed railways and other things that don't exist today

[Mike Thompson]

On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 11:22 AM Minh Nguyen via talk 
wrote:

> Vào lúc 09:55 2022-12-05, Zeke Farwell đã viết:
> > That is a good summary, though "Once the OSM available satellite imagery
> > does not show the feature"

1) There are other sources that an armchair mapper can use other than
imagery, such as the Strava Global Heatmap, the USGS 3 DEP data (in the
US), and GPX data that has been uploaded to the OSM server.
2) The term "satellite imagery" also excludes street level imagery, such as
Mapillary
3) Technically some of the imagery we refer to as "satellite" is really
"aerial."

"Once the feature truly no longer exists and is no longer evident in any of
the available remote sources commonly used to edit OSM, including overhead
imagery (satellite/aerial/drone), street level imagery (e.g. Mapillary),
GPS traces/heatmaps (e.g. Strava), and elevation data (e.g. USGS 3DEP) the
feature can be deleted"

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

[OSM-talk] Use of "Proprietary" imagery to edit OSM

[Mike Thompson]

Concerning this changeset:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/128035436

Changeset comment:

added missing roads according to proprietary aerial imagery

Editing organization's follow on comment:
"Proprietary" for Lyft meaning "provided to us for use in OSM but not the
general public"

Is this acceptable?  In my mind it is not as the whole community should
have access in order to verify and build on these edits.

Thoughts?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] razed railways and other things that don't exist today

[Mike Thompson]

On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 7:46 AM Marc_marc  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Le 25.10.22 à 09:42, Warin a écrit :
> > why have the tags that mean there is nothing left of it?
>
> I'm using from time to time as a QA-tag to avoid that a mapper
> add it back

I do this as well.  We have had some major wildfires around where I live,
and a lot of structures were destroyed, yet they still show up in some
imagery sources.  I mark these as destroyed so another mapper doesn't add
them back.

Also trails are constantly being rerouted, and yet the old location will be
shown on imagery and Strava for some time.  Tagging the ols trail with a
life cycle prefix lets other mappers know that what they are seeing on
imagery doesn't match reality.

Mike

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Vespucci - Proximity Alerts - Not working

[Mike Thompson]

On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 11:42 AM Simon Poole  wrote:

> The alerts are generated when data is downloaded/merged and the device
> location is within the specified radius around the object causing the
> notification.
>
> With other words you need to have one of the auto download options enabled
> for the mechanism to work (or you need to replace all the data).
>
Thanks.  Unfortunately most of the time I will be surveying without a data
connection, so this isn't going to work for me.

>
> Simon
>
> PS: osm-talk is not a suitable forum for support questions.
>
Sorry, what do you recommend?

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

[OSM-talk] Vespucci - Proximity Alerts - Not working

[Mike Thompson]

I am trying to get Vespucci to give me an audible alert when I travel to
within a certain distance of a OSM map note, or a OSM object with a fixme
tag.  I have not been able to get this feature to work, at least not in the
manner that I would like it to work.  It does alert when I initially
download OSM data for any notes etc. that are near my location at that
time.  This is expected.  However, when I then travel to another location
within the download area with a note, etc., Vespucci does not produce an
alert.

* "Generate notifications" is turned on
* "Max distance for notifications" is 30 meters - under most conditions my
phone's location should be more accurate than that.

What am I doing wrong?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] I’m running for OSMF board and I’ve set up office hours for questions

[Mike Thompson]

On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 2:56 PM Michal Migurski  wrote:

> In some specific cases there may be a conflict of interest where I’d
> recuse myself, but in general it’s much more likely that FB and other
> companies’ need for a high-quality, free, global map with a healthy org
> behind it is *strongly aligned* with OSMF’s interests.
>
Thanks for running for the board, and for inviting discussion of your
candidacy here. Your willingness to address criticisms headon shows good
character.

I realize that the exact meaning of "conflict of interest" (COI) is going
to vary from organization to organization, and from culture to culture.  I
have worked for a number of corporations in the US where we had mandatory
annual COI training.  A COI was anything where you (and any family member
or other organization you are part of) and the corporation had an interest
in the same issue.  Whether you felt that your interests and the interests
of the corporation were aligned didn't matter.   The reason being that if
you had an interest in something you, whether you realize it or not,  are
going to tend to think that what is in your interest is also in the
interest of everyone else.  For example, since both your employer FB and
the OSMF have an interest in "attribution guidelines", I would think you
should recuse yourself from any work or decision making by the board in
this matter, should you be elected.  Just my 2 cents...

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

Re: [Talk-us] State of the map in Iowa / Athletics data

[Mike Thompson]

Karson,

Thanks for your assessment.  Unfortunately, I suspect that there are large
parts of the US where the quality and completeness of the OSM data is
similar to what you observed in Iowa.

Perhaps it is already happening and I am not aware of it, but in my
opinion, I think it would be a good idea for the OSMF and US chapter to
coordinate outreach to get more mappers involved. Post secondary education
institutions would be a logical place to start, but I am sure we can come
up with a number of other groups and institutions. As I recall, back in the
day, CloudMade had "ambassadors", and while funding may not be available
for paid ambassadors, volunteer positions with the work coordinated
centrally might be feasible.

I also think a systematic assessment of data quality, (perhaps a slightly
more formalized version of what you have already done in Iowa) if it isn't
already happening, would be a good thing as it would let us know how well
we are doing in producing a usable and useful map for various types of
users, and would focus our outreach efforts.

Regarding your sport specific observations, you might consider editing the
wiki (including the addition of any photos you might have of these
facilities) so that other mappers can benefit from your knowledge.

Just my two cents,

Mike

On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 3:37 PM Karson Sommer 
wrote:

> Over the past month, I have mapped across the state of Iowa, attempting to
> add athletic facilities which were absent from the map. I went county by
> county, using Overpass to identify where likely locations were, ie parks,
> schools, etc. I checked each of these locations and added any pitches that
> were not already present. Additionally, if I came across any major or easy
> to correct issues, I went ahead and fixed the problems.
>
> My objective was to improve the quality of athletic facilities across the
> state so that I can use the data for a school project.
>
> Since I visited pretty much every incorporated city in the state, I had
> the opportunity to gauge the state of the map across Iowa.
>
> Some of my general observations:
> 1. The vast majority of cities have had 0 edits other than imports and
> mechanical QA edits.
> 2. TIGER did not include alleys. Many cities did not have their alleys
> drawn in. Waterloo/Cedar Falls has a population of ~120,000 and still did
> not have their alleys drawn in.
> 3. There are still tons of nodes that should be converted to areas. Some
> schools, cemeteries, parks. The majority of protected areas are still nodes
> despite the DNR owning significant quantities of land. Compare OSM to
> https://iowadnr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=f9161b90cddb4fcfb35a96901882a4b7/
>
> Some sport specific observations:
> 1. There are still tons of unpaved running tracks in Iowa, mainly at small
> schools. In my years of running, I have only ran on a single cinder track.
> 2. Most rubberized tracks are black, then red, then blue. There were a few
> purple tracks. A very unusual colored green track,
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/783085755
> 3. There are very few irregular shaped tracks. Here is a rubberized,
> rectangular track, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/773898697
> 4. Baseball fields come in all sizes and shapes. Some small towns of 100
> people have high quality fields.
>
> Just thought I would share my notes in case anyone was interested.
>
> Thanks,
> Karson
> karsonkevin2
> ___
> 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: [OSM-talk] Use of OSM data without attribution

[Mike Thompson]

On Sun, Oct 25, 2020 at 12:09 PM Mario Frasca  wrote:

> Hi.  this is funny, I recently opened an issue with AllTrails, about
> them not attributing the map.
>
> I wonder if we're talking about the same thing: their Android App shows
> a bright colourful Google logo on top of whatever map you configure as
> your base map.

I was talking specifically about their website.  I should have also checked
their app, but I didn't.  My understanding is that regardless of whose
basemap is displayed, the trail in AllTrails come from OSM.  I can reach
out to Ron again about this separate issue if you would like.  Let me know.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging an abandoned path?

[Mike Thompson]

I use:
disused:highway=path/footway/etc
or
abandoned:highway=path/footway/etc

If it is totally gone, I still tend to leave the way with "note=There is no
longer a path here, the land manager restored the area to its natural state
sometime before ", (or whatever is appropriate) this provides some
assurance that someone doesn't add it back to OSM using and old source
(imagery, GPX tracks, etc).

Mike

On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 9:36 AM Andy Townsend  wrote:

> On 25/09/2020 16:04, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Wondering if there was a consensus on tagging an abandoned, no longer very
> usable path (e.g. a path which has become overgrown or is unclear and prone
> to flooding in wetter periods). Something like "path=abandoned"?
>
> My 2p:
>
>
> Perhaps use "trail_visibility" through the lifecycle of the path as it
> changes from "being obvious on the ground" to "not being there at all"?
>
>
> Once it's definitely disappeared, I'd have no qualms about deleting it
> altogether.  Sometimes I update the tags on a path before deleting it to
> something like "note=nothing on this alignment any more".
>
>
> If it's still visible on imagery, I'd be tempted to leave that note there
> (without a highway tag) to stop someone retracing it.
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
> Andy
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Use of OSM data without attribution

[Mike Thompson]

Thanks Kathleen and Mateusz!

I will thank Ron for the change and try to start a dialog with our DWG
about AllTrails asking their users to contact the DWG directly with map
errors.

Mike

On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 5:21 AM Mateusz Konieczny via talk <
talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> AFAIK such text should be perfectly fine
> as long as it is clear displayed
> (not deeply hidden in weird menu,
> not hidden behind basically never clicked
> buttons and so on).
>
> ODBL requires to make users aware of
> source and license, it does not mandate
> a specific text.
>
> For example on my laser cut map I used
> "Dane z OpenStreetMap na licencji ODBL"
> as it will be used in way where Polish
> would be clearly expected to be
> understood.
>
> 10 Sep 2020, 18:07 by talk@openstreetmap.org:
>
> [0] https://www.alltrails.com/ (in the search box enter the name of a
> trail, park, or city to see their map.)
>
> It looks like AllTrails now correctly attributes OpenStreetMap.  Those of
> you more familiar with the licensing might want to chime in and let me know
> if simply stating "(c) OpenStreetMap" instead of "(c) OpenStreetMap
> Contributors" is adequate (also, keep in mind that only some of their map
> data comes from OSM).  If it is adequate, I will send Ron a note thanking
> him, and starting the conversation between him and the DWG about AllTrails
> directing data issues directly to the DWG.
>
> Yes, it's fine
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Use of OSM data without attribution

[Mike Thompson]

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 2:02 PM Mike Thompson  wrote:

> Has anyone tried contacting the AllTrails[0] people about their use of OSM
> without attribution?  I am not talking about the "OSM Map Layer" that they
> offer, but rather the default "AllTrails Map Layer."  At the very least it
> appears that the trails on that layer come from OSM.  I know that because I
> have entered some rather obscure informal trails in OSMe, and they show up
> in AllTrails just as I entered them in OSM.
> Mike
>
> [0] https://www.alltrails.com/ (in the search box enter the name of a
> trail, park, or city to see their map.)
>
It looks like AllTrails now correctly attributes OpenStreetMap.  Those of
you more familiar with the licensing might want to chime in and let me know
if simply stating "(c) OpenStreetMap" instead of "(c) OpenStreetMap
Contributors" is adequate (also, keep in mind that only some of their map
data comes from OSM).  If it is adequate, I will send Ron a note thanking
him, and starting the conversation between him and the DWG about AllTrails
directing data issues directly to the DWG.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] maps/navigation data source

[Mike Thompson]

On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 11:09 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 5. Sep 2020, at 16:43, ben.ki...@mail.de wrote:
> >
> > Which are the world regions OSM data is better in? Which are world
> regions OSM data is equal good?
>
>
> generally urban areas and touristic monuments are covered, few countries
> have good coverage in the country side, but there’s a lot to do everywhere,
> it may also depend on the kind of data ;-)
>
> For example housenumbers are incomplete even in the most active countries,
> there are a total of 105 Million of them currently, and growing by 10 M a
> year in the last 5 years. There are 4 times the number of buildings and
> apparently growing faster (many will not even have housenumbers though)
>
I agree with what Martin has stated.  In addition I believe that  in
general Europe, and in particular Germany and the UK, the coverage is
better than the US (I live in the US and have not traveled to either of
those countries in recent years, so cannot speak from first hand
experience).

Navigating to a location you indicate on the map will probably be pretty
good.  Navigating to a particular address may not be as good because, as
Martin stated, coverage of house numbers / addresses in OSM is not yet
complete.

If you are interested in bicycling, mountain biking, hiking and similar
activities, OSM may be your best worldwide source (in a particular locality
there may be local sources that are better).  In the days leading up to a
planned hike or mountain bike ride I will make sure the OSM data in the
area is as up to date as I can make it using the available resources.
However, be aware that some apps only update their OSM data infrequently.

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

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

[Mike Thompson]

On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 7:34 PM brad  wrote:

> I'm with Kevin, SteveA, etc,  here.   In the part of the world that I
> live, a map without national forest & BLM boundaries is very incomplete.
> A useful OSM needs this.   The useful boundary would be the actual
> ownership boundary, not the outer potential ownership boundary.   Messy, I
> know.
>
+1
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [OSM-talk] maps/navigation data source

[Mike Thompson]

Ben,

What type of navigation, car, public transport, bicycle, walking...?

What part of the world will you be navigating in?  Some parts of the world
have better OSM data than others.

Another consideration is how well the app makes use of all of the data in
OSM. e.g. turn restrictions, oneway, types of travel allowed...

I use the free, open source, OSMAND app. https://osmand.net/

Mike


On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 3:49 PM  wrote:

> Hi,
> Navigation app for my iOS device (Navigator by MapFactor) offers two
> choices regarding maps/navigation data source. These are (i) OpenStreetMaps
> and (ii) TomTom. One can load maps from both sources to app. One seems to
> can use both however not at the same time.
> For decision if it is worth to order TomTom maps for that app I wonder
> which differences between those two data sources should I be aware of
> before deciding if OpenStreetMaps maps will suffice or if I like
> additionally to have a backup by TomTom maps.
>
> Any suggestions?
> Which source of knowledge might help on finding answer to asked question?
>
> -
> FreeMail powered by mail.de - MEHR SICHERHEIT, SERIOSITÄT UND KOMFORT
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-us] Potential Mechanical Edit to remove access=private from Amazon Logistics driveways in NH

[Mike Thompson]

On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 7:46 AM Matthew Woehlke 
wrote:

> On 30/08/2020 10.00, Greg Troxel wrote:
>
> > What is the actual problem with other people's driveways being marked
> > access=private on the map?  yes, driving on is usually technically not
> > illegal, but unless you are going there because you were invited for
> > have a reason they'd approve of, it's basically not ok.
>
> The objection is that access=private currently *has* an understood
> meaning, and that meaning is *no* access without permission, not what
> you described above.

Sounds like my driveway.  If you are using my driveway without my
permission, either implicit (e.g. delivering a package) or explicit, I am
going to ask you to leave.  I think you are conflating whether something is
"not allowed" with "can be prosecuted as a crime."
Mike
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Opinions on Devil's Slide Bunker (San Mateo, CA)

[Mike Thompson]

On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 6:53 PM Brian Stromberg 
wrote:

> I would argue that maps can only show the world as the mapmaker wants it
> to be shown...
>

In OSM we should map facts, what is observable on the ground (with the
exception of personal information, and perhaps culturally sensitive sites
whose location has not otherwise been published ). Like Stevea alluded to,
what the data user does with the information is up to them.  Otherwise, we
descend into only relying on opinion as to what facts are "dangerous" or
what facts could "encourage dangerous or bad behavior."  Also, some facts
are embarrassing to individuals or organizations because those facts might
show they are not doing their job.  Of course, they will not come out and
say, please don't publish these facts because it is an embarrassment to us,
they will find some way to say "the facts are dangerous" or "while the
facts portray a bad situation, publishing those facts will only make the
situation worse."

In this case, our obligation is to clearly indicate that access=no or
access=private (in other words, not open to the general public).

We can debate whether this should be tagged tourism=viewpoint, but the
debate should be around whether the object fits our definition, not whether
it may or may not encourage "bad" behavior.  For all we know,
historic=ruins might actually encourage more bad behavior than
tourism=viewpoint.  I am not saying it will, I am saying we don't have any
evidence one way or the other.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Potential Mechanical Edit to remove access=private from Amazon Logistics driveways in NH

[Mike Thompson]

On Sun, Aug 30, 2020, 9:02 AM Greg Troxel  wrote:

> On 8/30/20 11:00, Mike Thompson wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 8:04 AM Greg Troxel  > <mailto:g...@lexort.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >Being on someone's land without permission is trespassing, but
> > this is
> >not a crime.
> >
> > not a crime, until the land owner asks you leave and you fail to do so,
> > at least in Colorado.
>
> Exactly same as here and I believe NH.
>
>"Trespassing" is not a crime.
>
>"Trespass after notice" is a crime.
>
> I was merely making the distinction between "public right of access" and
> "trespassing (without notice)", as being very different.
>
Agree with your position,  was just providing additional information.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Potential Mechanical Edit to remove access=private from Amazon Logistics driveways in NH

[Mike Thompson]

On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 8:04 AM Greg Troxel  wrote:

>
>
>   Being on someone's land without permission is trespassing, but this is
>   not a crime.
>
not a crime, until the land owner asks you leave and you fail to do so, at
least in Colorado.

>
>
> ___
> 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: [OSM-talk] Use of OSM data without attribution

[Mike Thompson]

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:11 PM Andy Townsend  wrote:

>
> On 19/08/2020 22:44, Clifford Snow wrote:
>
> ...  Instead of suggesting their users edit OSM, they instead instruct
> them to email d...@openstreetmap.org,
>
>
> Indeed, and by the time they get to us they are usually "rabbits of
> negative euphoria"* because of the less than stellar support experience
> they've had at AllTrails.
>
> Looking at e.g.
> https://www.alltrails.com/explore/list/yorkshire-wolds-way?b_tl_lat=54.06089919948305_tl_lng=-0.7765960693359375_br_lat=53.9918264806059_br_lng=-0.6293106079101562
> I'm not surprised - to my eyes that really is a crime against cartography.
> Zoom in, and you'll see that that useful-looking north-south path just
> southeast of Thixendale is actually marked "(PRIVATE)", but at any scale
> you might want to plan a route on it isn't.
>
> The explanation we have to give every time goes something along the lines
> of:
>
>- No, we're not Alltrails support, and can't directly affect the way
>that their map represents things.
>- Yes, it's perfectly normal for the OpenStreetMap database to include
>ways along which there is limited access (such as only the householder, or
>perhaps other people in an emergency).
>- Individual maps can choose what data to show and what not, and if a
>map does a poor job of it that's really not an OpenStreetMap problem.
>- While we'd love you to update OpenStreetMap yourself** (since you
>know your local area better than we do) we're more than happy to try and
>fix the OSM data if it's wrong - but we can't guarantee when (or even if)
>any particular OSM-based map will show the changes.
>
> From Ron's quick and positive response to the attribution issue I am
guessing he might be open to having a discussion about these other issues.
Once the attribution issue is actually fixed, should I send him a note
along those lines? Would you (Andy) be the appropriate contact for that
discussion?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Use of OSM data without attribution

[Mike Thompson]

I have already heard back from the CEO of AllTrails.  See his response
below.  They are going to fix the issue. I am impressed!

=
Thanks for the note, Mike. I know that this is going to sound lame but I
swear it's the truth, and that's that you found a bug on our website. There
should totally be an attribution block at the bottom and we'll get that
fixed up ASAP.

All the best,
Ron
=



On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 4:37 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 20. Aug 2020, at 00:18, Mike Thompson  wrote:
>
> Thanks for the link where they mention OSM.  I did find their CEO on
> Linkedin, and just sent him this message:
>
>
>
> thank you! You may also consider adding them here:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lacking_proper_attribution
> to keep track of the case.
>
> Cheers Martin
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Use of OSM data without attribution

[Mike Thompson]

Steve,

Thanks for the confirmation that the attribution is missing.  I will let
you, and the rest of the list, know if and when I hear from them.

Mike

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 3:51 PM stevea  wrote:

> Thanks very much you two:  I've often meant to do something about
> alltrails' seeming / actual lack of attribution to OSM (if it exists, I
> haven't found it either) and something always seems to creep up and prevent
> me from taking action.  These are most assuredly "our" (OSM's / mine,
> others in OSM) data.  Yea:  let's get this ball rolling and a proper OSM
> attribution!
>
> SteveA
> California
>
> > On Aug 19, 2020, at 2:44 PM, Clifford Snow 
> wrote:
> > Hey Mike,
> > They definitely mention OSM, even call us a partner [1] but like you
> found their basemap is definitely OSM. Instead of suggesting their users
> edit OSM, they instead instruct them to email d...@openstreetmap.org,
> >
> > All Trails is located in SF but I couldn't find any listing of a
> leadership team.
> >
> > Do you want to ask on Slack? Someone there might have a connection.
> >
> >
> > [1]
> https://support.alltrails.com/hc/en-us/articles/360018930672-How-do-I-update-or-change-information-about-a-trail-
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 1:03 PM Mike Thompson 
> wrote:
> > Has anyone tried contacting the AllTrails[0] people about their use of
> OSM without attribution?  I am not talking about the "OSM Map Layer" that
> they offer, but rather the default "AllTrails Map Layer."  At the very
> least it appears that the trails on that layer come from OSM.  I know that
> because I have entered some rather obscure informal trails in OSMe, and
> they show up in AllTrails just as I entered them in OSM.
> > Mike
> >
> > [0] https://www.alltrails.com/ (in the search box enter the name of a
> trail, park, or city to see their map.)
> 
>
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Use of OSM data without attribution

[Mike Thompson]

Clifford,

Thanks for the link where they mention OSM.  I did find their CEO on
Linkedin, and just sent him this message:

==

Hi Ron, I noticed that AllTrails uses OSM data for its trails on the
default "AllTrails Map Layer", while you mention this fact on your site[0],
I didn't see any attribution on the map itself crediting OSM.  The map
should have some text on it such as "Trail data © OpenStreetMap
contributors"[1]

Thanks

Mike

OSM Contributor Specializing in Trails

==


There are several other members of the AllTrails leadership team on
LinkedIn, you might want to reach out to them too.


Mike





[0]
https://support.alltrails.com/hc/en-us/articles/360018930672-How-do-I-update-or-change-information-about-a-trail-

[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 3:44 PM Clifford Snow 
wrote:

> Hey Mike,
> They definitely mention OSM, even call us a partner [1] but like you found
> their basemap is definitely OSM. Instead of suggesting their users edit
> OSM, they instead instruct them to email d...@openstreetmap.org,
>
> All Trails is located in SF but I couldn't find any listing of a
> leadership team.
>
> Do you want to ask on Slack? Someone there might have a connection.
>
>
> [1]
> https://support.alltrails.com/hc/en-us/articles/360018930672-How-do-I-update-or-change-information-about-a-trail-
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 1:03 PM Mike Thompson  wrote:
>
>> Has anyone tried contacting the AllTrails[0] people about their use of
>> OSM without attribution?  I am not talking about the "OSM Map Layer" that
>> they offer, but rather the default "AllTrails Map Layer."  At the very
>> least it appears that the trails on that layer come from OSM.  I know that
>> because I have entered some rather obscure informal trails in OSMe, and
>> they show up in AllTrails just as I entered them in OSM.
>> Mike
>>
>> [0] https://www.alltrails.com/ (in the search box enter the name of a
>> trail, park, or city to see their map.)
>> ___
>> talk mailing list
>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>
>
>
> --
> @osm_washington
> www.snowandsnow.us
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Use of OSM data without attribution

[Mike Thompson]

Has anyone tried contacting the AllTrails[0] people about their use of OSM
without attribution?  I am not talking about the "OSM Map Layer" that they
offer, but rather the default "AllTrails Map Layer."  At the very least it
appears that the trails on that layer come from OSM.  I know that because I
have entered some rather obscure informal trails in OSMe, and they show up
in AllTrails just as I entered them in OSM.
Mike

[0] https://www.alltrails.com/ (in the search box enter the name of a
trail, park, or city to see their map.)
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] changeset: 89516909

[Mike Thompson]

On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 6:42 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <
talk...@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> i will fix anything that i missed but the lines are truth.
>
> and it is not a polygon,
>
As far as I know, boundary relations have to, in effect, be polygons, in
other words, they have to close.


> and i broke nothing i fixed what the other guy broke and did it all by
> hand.
>
The boundary relation (126598)  is currently broken. for one thing, it
doesn't close at the location of Williamsberg Square residential area.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-us] changeset: 89516909

[Mike Thompson]

On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 6:42 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <
talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> i will fix anything that i missed but the lines are truth.
>
> and it is not a polygon,
>
As far as I know, boundary relations have to, in effect, be polygons, in
other words, they have to close.


> and i broke nothing i fixed what the other guy broke and did it all by
> hand.
>
The boundary relation (126598)  is currently broken. for one thing, it
doesn't close at the location of Williamsberg Square residential area.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] changeset: 89516909

[Mike Thompson]

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

Re: [Talk-us] changeset: 89516909

[Mike Thompson]

1) Best not to delete and start over as the history will be lost.
2) Do you have an accurate source that has a license that is compatible
with OSM?   Could you share a link to it?
3) General observation is that there is a lot of territory that is not
enclosed by any admin level 8 boundary, which in a built up area like this,
seems unusual to me.

Mike

On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 5:04 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <
talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> this is not the current boundary, could be more than 10 years + old,
>
> can’t the whole relation, #126598, northbrook, be deleted and then put
> back in.
>
> i tried by hand but this is to much to trace.
>
>
> Monday, August 17, 2020 4:43 PM -05:00 from Paul Johnson <
> ba...@ursamundi.org>:
>
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 4:02 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <
> talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> > wrote:
>
> can somebody who knows how to use Tiger data fix this ?
>
>
> Fix what??
> ___
> 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] Anyone familiar with Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP)?

[Mike Thompson]

Mateusz, Kevin, Thanks for the advice.  I will probably reach out to the
original mapper again, and if no source is provided, delete the names.

Mike

On Sun, Aug 9, 2020 at 11:27 AM Kevin Kenny  wrote:

> The 'names' look like someone's field notes: 'Tarn A', 'Tarn B', 'Tarn C',
> 'Tarn Off the Map', 'Tarn Off the Trail', rather than something that the
> locals would call them.
>
> Of course, people's field notes leak into imported data sources all the
> time.
>
> For the sake of not firing the first shot in an edit war, since the mapper
> is responsive, ask if there's any objection to removing the questionable
> names?
>
> On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 3:15 PM Mike Thompson  wrote:
>
>> I thought the names of these water bodies[0] in RMNP were suspect because:
>> 1) The names do not appear in the GNIS,
>> 2) The names do not appear on the USGS topo
>> 3) The names do not appear in the NHD
>> 4) The names do not appear on the RMNP map that is handed out to visitors
>> 5) I have hiked past here several times but have never seen signs naming
>> these bodies of water.
>> 6) I asked the mapper that added the names what their source was, and
>> they said they didn't remember.
>> 7) I have several hiking books covering RMNP and none mention these water
>> bodies using these names.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> [0]
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/429681825
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/429451427
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/429681824
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/429681823
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/429451428
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
>
>
> --
> 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Anyone familiar with Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP)?

[Mike Thompson]

I thought the names of these water bodies[0] in RMNP were suspect because:
1) The names do not appear in the GNIS,
2) The names do not appear on the USGS topo
3) The names do not appear in the NHD
4) The names do not appear on the RMNP map that is handed out to visitors
5) I have hiked past here several times but have never seen signs naming
these bodies of water.
6) I asked the mapper that added the names what their source was, and they
said they didn't remember.
7) I have several hiking books covering RMNP and none mention these water
bodies using these names.

Mike

[0]
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/429681825
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/429451427
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/429681824
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/429681823
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/429451428
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Talk-us Digest, Vol 153, Issue 3

[Mike Thompson]

On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 6:42 AM Bob Gambrel  wrote:

> It seems to me that having a relationship is absolutely appropriate and
> that it should have the name of entire trail/route, just as you have done.
>
> It also seems to me that having a name on individual segments (the local
> name) is also appropriate. I don't think this is inconsistent and in fact,
> seems very desirable. Highway 65 (a state route that has an OSM relation,
> and is named as such in the relation) also has segments in some places that
> are named "Central Avenue" by the city and locals, and in other places are
> named "Highway 65", again by the locals.
>
> I don't think labeling the individual segments maps for the renderer
> primarily. It attaches a local name to the individual way, which is what
> OSM expects, I believe. It also has rendering advantages, which makes the
> map more useful to real people, not just cartographers.
>
> Thanks.  That seems to be the safest approach as perhaps some data
consumers don't yet process route relations.
Mike
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [OSM-talk] Proper use of route relations?

[Mike Thompson]

On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 10:38 AM Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> No
>
> Relations are not collections
>
Thanks!  That is what I thought, but there are so many such relations in
this area that I thought I better check.  I'll wait for a few more opinions
to roll in, and if they are along the lines of what you are saying, I will
make some edits.

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

[OSM-talk] Proper use of route relations?

[Mike Thompson]

I have come across a number of examples[0] of route relations where all the
trails in a given park have been put into a single relation.  Is this a
recommended use for route relations?

Mike

[0]
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10962561
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8409089
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[Talk-us] Mtb Route Relations

[Mike Thompson]

Let's say you have a trail in the US National Forest that was specifically
created for mountain biking. It has a name and a FS trail number. It is
represented in OSM by three ways currently: before a bridge, the bridge,
and after the bridge.

Is this a good candidate for a route relation?
Should name=* tag appear just on the relation, or on all of the member ways
as well?
Should ref=* tag appear just on the relation, or on all of the members as
well?

I am assuming that physical and legal access tags should only appear on the
member ways, even if every member has the same value, right?

Just don't want to break anything...

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

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest refs/names

[Mike Thompson]

On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 4:26 PM  wrote:

> That seems sensible. What about the general case (i.e. no continuity
> with a county road?) - to add "road" or not?
>
Do you mean the same physical road has two names, or just that the county
road and the forest road are connected? If you are just talking about being
connected, I don't think it matters.  I would still add "Road" to the name.

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

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest refs/names

[Mike Thompson]

On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 1:33 PM Paul Johnson  wrote:

>
>
> Could we get the US Road Tagging page updated to reflect common name
> practice instead of encouraging the duplication of the ref in the name?  Or
> is that going to spark drama?
>
I am in favor of the change.  The name tag should be for the name only.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Labeling forestry service roads/tracks

[Mike Thompson]

On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 7:10 AM brad  wrote:

> Hmmm, interesting.   I'm not sure they compact very many roads around
> here (CO).

I have lived, or spent time in, rural parts of four states (MN, IA, OH and
CO) and I have never seen an unpaved road compacted.  They get graded once
a year perhaps to remove the wash boards, and some have a coating of
something applied to keep the dust down.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Labeling forestry service roads/tracks

[Mike Thompson]

On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 4:46 AM  wrote:

> Mike,
>
> Good idea on the route references. What should the network be set to?
>
> Others on this list are better able to answer that question, but my
opinion is network=US:FS:
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Labeling forestry service roads/tracks

[Mike Thompson]

On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 4:49 PM  wrote:

>  For
> roads that appear to be public access (e.g. to go to a lake) but are
> obviously even more minor than tertiary roads I label highway=unclassified.
>
highway=unclassified are for roads that connect small towns, or for "local
traffic", while access to a lake could be considered "local traffic", I
would think it would be better if these would be highway=service, or
highway=track.


> The US Topo map gives forest road references so I add ref FS .
>
That is what I have been doing as well. Some are recommending that they be
made into route relations, which I am starting to do.

>
> TIGER seems to be at best very coarse, at worst fictional.
>
+1

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Planned revert of added surface and tracktype tags without local knowledge in various countries

[Mike Thompson]

On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 2:23 PM Mark Wagner  wrote:

>
> * Two adjacent sections of track being tagged as "grade 2" and "grade
>   4" not because of any difference in road surface, but because one has
>   a line of grass between the ruts and the other doesn't.
>
In rural areas where I have spent time people often only put gravel where
the wheels contract the ground, and leave the middle part of the road/track
as is (which is often grass/short native vegetation).  This is done to save
money. The result is that from overhead imagery, it may appear not to be
gravel, and thus may be incorrectly tagged at a lower tracktype.

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

Re: [Talk-us] access=private on driveways

[Mike Thompson]

On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 5:46 AM Greg Troxel  wrote:


> So a router that does not allow use of access=private for a final
> segment, by default, is broken.
+1
Even if we go with the idea that driveways are not access=private unless
posted, there are some driveways that are posted, and people (delivery
people, service people, invited guests. etc.) will need to be routed to the
residences at the end of those driveways. The router should just give a
warning to the user, such as "the final nn miles/km of your route are on
private roads".

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

Re: [Talk-us] Deleting tiger:reviewed=no/addr:street for routes (was: Streaming JOSM -- suggestions?)

[Mike Thompson]

On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 10:28 AM Jmapb  wrote:

>  - The access -- somewhat common to find a pubic road imported with
access=private, so if I suspect this I'll leave the tiger:reviewed=no tag
until access can be confirmed, and add a note or fixme. (It's also quite
common to find driveways imported as access=private. When surveying, I tend
to remove the private tag if the driveway isn't gated or signed private,
since access=private will prevent routing to the house at the end of the
driveway, sometimes even ending the route on a different residential road
that's physically closer to the house than the road the driveway's
connected to.)
I always thought that driveways to private residences and private roads
(whether gated or not) should be tagged as access=private.  Often these
private roads are posted with a sign that says something like "Private
road, no trespassing", or "Private Road, Residents and Guests Only."

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Old phone line or old power line?

[Mike Thompson]

On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 4:57 AM  wrote:
>
>  That is standard construction for the old above ground telephone lines in
> the US - many times those lines would run along a rail bed, perhaps even
> for railroad signaling purposes.
Thanks Steve!
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Old phone line or old power line?

[Mike Thompson]

Thanks François!

On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 3:51 PM François Lacombe 
wrote:

> Le sam. 27 juin 2020 à 20:08, Mike Thompson  a
> écrit :
>
>> Any idea whether this is an old powerline or an old phone line?  Photo is
>> geotagged, so if you download it and drop it into JOSM you can see the
>> larger context.
>>
>
> IMHO it's an old low voltage power line
> I'd recommend:
> abandoned:power=minor_line
> cables=2
> operator=?
> voltage=?
>
> Pole can be described with this:
> power=pole
> material=wood
> operator=?
> line_attachment=pin
>
> All the best
>
> François
>
>
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Old phone line or old power line?

[Mike Thompson]

On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 12:21 PM Bryan Housel  wrote:
>
> I’d tag as `abandoned:power=minor_line` since you said it is down in
places.
>
> It is impossible to tell from the picture what its original purpose was,
but this doesn’t matter much if you just want to get it mapped.
Thanks Brian, I will proceed along those lines. I would still be interested
to hear from experts in the utility field as to what the original purpose
of the lines were.  Since this is in the US, one case assume standard
household voltage (given the size of the insulators and the fact that it
terminiantes at an old house in ruins), which back in the day was 110.  In
which case, there would be a considerably percentage voltage drop over the
many km distnace this line spans.

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

[OSM-talk] Old phone line or old power line?

[Mike Thompson]

Any idea whether this is an old powerline or an old phone line?  Photo is
geotagged, so if you download it and drop it into JOSM you can see the
larger context.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/6cMueDbGJPdz8Es77

It is near the location of this node:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/51241693

It runs for many km more or less along the track that above node is part of.

Wire is bare uninsulated. Most, or perhaps all, poles are still standing.
Wire is down in places.

How would you recommend mapping/tagging?


Thanks in advance for your help,

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

Re: [Talk-us] Is summit register something that is often found in USA mountains?

[Mike Thompson]

Another feature that is often found at summits around here is a roughly
constructed shelter, such as:
https://images.app.goo.gl/KogTgXChrGx93Ab96

These have been made over the years by various hikers stacking rocks in a
semicircle.  One can sit down inside them and obtain some shelter from the
wind.  Some summits have multiple such shelters.

Mike

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 1:07 PM Mike Thompson  wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 1:03 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us <
> talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> >
> > Is summit register something that is often found in USA mountains?
> At least in Colorado they are.  Nowadays they are often pieces of pvc pipe.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Is summit register something that is often found in USA mountains?

[Mike Thompson]

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 1:03 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us <
talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
> Is summit register something that is often found in USA mountains?
At least in Colorado they are.  Nowadays they are often pieces of pvc pipe.

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

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

[Mike Thompson]

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 7:35 PM brad  wrote:
>
>  There are a few cases where property owners have put up illegal, or very
misleading signs.
I have come across this too.  The signs are on private property, but face
you as you are traveling on a legal FS road and looking straight ahead.  It
makes it seem like the road is private from that point forward if you don't
know otherwise.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

[Mike Thompson]

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 8:08 AM Bradley White 
wrote:
>
> > Somewhat related, in the cases where an official FS road or trail
crosses private property, does the FS have an easement, or is it kind of an
informal arrangement?
>
> Best way to know for sure is ground survey, but generally USFS system
> roads & trails (also available for viewing using the USFS data extract
> tool) over private land are public easements. If a section of the
> system road/trail 'disappears' over a piece of land, it might not be
> open to the public. An on-the-ground survey is usually required in
> those cases.
Thanks again.  On the ground survey shows nothing more than an official
looking USFS TH sign/board.  There are no signs indicating one is crossing
private property, nor are there signs indicating one must stay on the
trail.  After about a half mile of hiking one does come to several of those
yellow property boundary signs. County level data does show the initial
part of the trail to be on private property.  Just curious as in other
cases landowners have posted "no trespassing" signs blocking trails.

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

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

[Mike Thompson]

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 6:59 AM Bradley White 
wrote:
>
> > While it certainly may exist, I'm not aware of a disparity between the
"congressionally declared boundary" and any other boundary of a NF,
including "physical land that the NF actually owns and manages."  How would
anyone know where this latter boundary is?
>
> The declared boundaries are administrative boundaries that limit the
> extent in which each NF *may* manage land, but only land owned by the
> USFS within these boundaries is actually protected at
> 'protect_class=6' criteria. Both of these boundaries are available for
> download using the USFS Data Extract tool, and specifically in
> California, the surface ownership boundary of each national forest is
> included in the CPAD database. They can also usually be verified on
> the ground by yellow NF property markers, as stated previously. In
> fact, it is the congressionally declared boundary that is impossible
> to verify on the ground.
>
> Having lived in multiple places within a "declared" NF boundary, the
> NF affords no protection on the land I have lived on. There might be
> some extra hoops to jump through when pulling permits, but that
> certainly isn't enough to include it within a 'protect_class=6'
> boundary.
Thanks for the clear explanation.  That conforms to my understanding.

If anything, owning property in a NF puts on obligation on the FS, not the
land owner.  Specifically the FS has to allow the landowner access to the
property if it can't be obtained in any other manner.

Somewhat related, in the cases where an official FS road or trail crosses
private property, does the FS have an easement, or is it kind of an
informal arrangement?

If we can't have both in OSM, including only US Gov owned lands in the
National Forests is preferable in my opinion.

Mike





>
> ___
> 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: [OSM-talk] Paid mapping

[Mike Thompson]

On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 4:12 PM Mateusz Konieczny via talk <
talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Jun 23, 2020, 00:07 by miketh...@gmail.com:
>
> "except for the preceding, we follow OSM community norms."
>
> This should be enough to ban of all their mapping accounts until changing
> their plan
> (I assume that they either backtracked that or stopped editing)
>
They said that they were going to do some additional training for their
staff.  They did give some indication they would make some changes, but I
didn't follow up. Part of the problem is that another, non local, mapper
got really enthusiastic a couple of years ago about changing all unpaved
roads to highway=track.  Amazon Logistics people see this, and if they are
adding a road, they perhaps compare it to the existing content nearby, and
try to mimic that tagging.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Paid mapping

[Mike Thompson]

I know we are talking about Apple mappers here, but I wanted to point out
the Amazon Logistics mappers have been very responsive to changeset
comments. However:
1) One of their leaders explained their criteria for a track.  There were
about four, and that was followed with "except for the preceding, we follow
OSM community norms."  I responded that they should always follow community
norms.
2) Changeset comments, as is true for a lot of mappers, are not super
helpful, e.g. "Added a track road" (not new information, I could tell that
from the data), and then they cite a generic collection of sources (which
one did you use?). Sometimes the sources don't make sense, such as "Street
Side" when there is no Street Side content in the given area.

Mike

On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 3:56 PM Andreas Vilén 
wrote:

> Maybe the mappers think unclassified equals what we call highway=road, as
> in no classification yet determined?
>
> It’s a fairly common misconception among new mappers.
>
> /Andreas
>
> Skickat från min iPhone
>
> > 22 juni 2020 kl. 23:50 skrev Martin Koppenhoefer  >:
> >
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

[Mike Thompson]

On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 10:54 PM Bradley White 
wrote:
>
> > A relation for all would be ok too, as long as the private inholdings
are
> > not removed from the NF (which I think has been done in some cases).
>
>
> IMO, a tagging scheme that better represents the meaning of these two
> boundaries would be:
> 1. 'boundary=protected_area' around fee simple NF land ownership,
> since this describes the actual protected areas of land
> 2. 'boundary=administrative' (with a not-yet-existing 'admin_level')
> around declared NF boundaries, since this is an administrative
> boundary for the NF and doesn't necessarily show what land is actually
> managed by the NF.
The above is a good and workable solution in my opinion.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries (Mike Thompson)

[Mike Thompson]

Steve,

Perhaps I am not understanding what you are saying, but:

1) Not all "inholdings" are completely surrounded by the National Forest,
they are "bites" off the edge in some cases.  I don't think one can have an
inner ring and an outer ring which are at all coincident (they can't share
an edge) and still have a valid multipolygon.
2) Holes (inner rings) are not part of the polygon.  Thus if one did an
analysis of (for example) a series of points, any points that fall in one
of the holes would not register as being inside the multipolygon, even
though they are inside the outer ring.

Mike

On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 6:39 PM stevea  wrote:

> Continuing from my previous post, we even have an especially data-compact
> (efficient) way of representing that:  the member of the forest relation
> which is an inholding (tagged with role inner) IS the polygon of, say, a
> private residence "inside of" the forest.
>
> For example (I'm making this up), say we have a national forest with a
> small shopping area (for food, supplies...) near its center for
> convenience.  I could see one polygon (tagged landuse=retail, name=ABC
> Forest Shopping Center) both BEING exactly that, AND being included in the
> (enclosing) forest multipolygon as a member tagged "inner."  Voilà,
> double-duty and done.
>
> SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

[Mike Thompson]

On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 5:45 PM stevea  wrote:
>
> A large thank-you to Kevin for that deeply informative post.
>
> > brad  wrote:
> > I think its simpler and better to just create an inner boundary as was
done with the Coconino NF
>
> The Coconio NF (relation/10956348) hasn't "an" inner boundary, it has
hundreds of them.  I'm not sure I understand what Brad is saying is
"simpler and better" here, as a well-constructed multipolygon in OSM is "a
well-constructed multipolygon in OSM."  We already know how to do that so I
don't think we want to develop something else to represent the same thing.
>
> Is Brad or Mike proposing something else, like two multipolygons to
describe one national forest?
One polygon for the administrative boundary of the NF which was established
by Congress.
Zero or more polygons describing limitations on access (no need for
polygons to for access=yes, we can assume that in a NF generally), whether
they be due to private ownership, or other reasons.
The above are two separate concepts, so it is ok to have two separate OSM
elements, in my opinion.
A relation for all would be ok too, as long as the private inholdings are
not removed from the NF (which I think has been done in some cases).

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

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

[Mike Thompson]

On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 6:31 PM Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:
>
> > I was thinking just create separate polygons for inholdings, tagged
with access=private and possibly ownership=private
>
> While many Americans like to put "no trespassing" signs on their private
property, a privately owned parcel is not access=private unless there are
signs on the roads and paths leading into it which say so.
I don't know enough to know whether you can be prosecuted for trespassing
if it isn't posted, but if the owner shows up and asks you to leave, you
are compelled to leave.  Not too big of a deal if you are just passing
through, but if you have set up camp, it could be a hassle (particularly if
late). In any event, I don't want an encounter with a landowner due to my
trespassing, posted or not.


> Many privately-owned parcels in the national forests are used for forestry
> only, and there is no issue with crossing through on a road or trail in
> many cases.
>
Not true here in northern Colorado.  There are lots of small inholdings,
some with year round residences, some with seasonal cabins, and some that
people use for their RVs.  There is probably not an issue with passing
through on an established trail or road, but if one is travelling cross
country, aka bushwacking, it could be an issue. I also did recently
encounter private property while on an established trail  (the owner had
posted no trespassing signs). I wish I had known that ahead of time.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

[Mike Thompson]

On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 5:45 PM stevea  wrote:
>
> I think we need both as well.  I've been doing this while watching the
evolution of how we best do this as I participate in a "do our best, always
better" efforts to accomplish this.  Even now!
>
> The idea of the first kind is simply a relation with a focus on the / a
polygon with the outer (-most) membership.  The idea of the second kind is
one of these plus a carefully crafted inner membership, often made up of a
complex inholding distribution containing many sometimes complex themselves
inner polygons.
Thanks Steve for your insightful comments.

I was thinking just create separate polygons for inholdings, tagged with
access=private and possibly ownership=private

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

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

[Mike Thompson]

On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 2:43 PM Paul White  wrote:
>
>
>
> Which one would be better? Looking forward to feedback.
I think we need both. I am open to suggestions as how to accomplish that.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] fake, edit, fake map.

[Mike Thompson]

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 3:08 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <
talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
> How old is the satellite view, do we even know, or are we making a fake
map here.
In JOSM, if you right click on Bing Imagery, Show Tile Info, it will
display "Metadata Capture Date", which is the date, or range of dates, when
the image was captured.  I don't think other sources have this feature.

>
> what about fact checking ?
The details you have added (fence, way not running all the way through,
etc.) are wonderful, but probably no overhead imagery source, no matter how
recent, is going to show that detail, especially with the tree cover in
that area.  Remote mappers can do a lot of good, sometimes they get things
wrong.  It is great that you are local and can correct these things.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] fake, edit, fake map.

[Mike Thompson]

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 3:08 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <
talk...@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
> How old is the satellite view, do we even know, or are we making a fake
map here.
In JOSM, if you right click on Bing Imagery, Show Tile Info, it will
display "Metadata Capture Date", which is the date, or range of dates, when
the image was captured.  I don't think other sources have this feature.

>
> what about fact checking ?
The details you have added (fence, way not running all the way through,
etc.) are wonderful, but probably no overhead imagery source, no matter how
recent, is going to show that detail, especially with the tree cover in
that area.  Remote mappers can do a lot of good, sometimes they get things
wrong.  It is great that you are local and can correct these things.

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

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] fake, edit, FAKE map.

[Mike Thompson]

JOSM validator does report a number of errors and warnings in the area, but
I don't think they are related to this specific change set.

Mike

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 11:16 AM Mike Thompson  wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:53 AM <80hnhtv4a...@bk.ru> wrote:
> >
> > yes, and i will wait to see if anyone gets it.
> We can hardly evaluate the issue if you don't share with us your concerns.
>
> This edit was made by someone working for Amazon Logistics.  They have
> been very receptive to specific constructive feedback.
>
> The only  very minor issue I see is:
> * https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/816385173 and
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/703399318 could probably be combined.
>
> Mike
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] fake, edit, FAKE map.

[Mike Thompson]

JOSM validator does report a number of errors and warnings in the area, but
I don't think they are related to this specific change set.

Mike

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 11:16 AM Mike Thompson  wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:53 AM <80hnhtv4a...@bk.ru> wrote:
> >
> > yes, and i will wait to see if anyone gets it.
> We can hardly evaluate the issue if you don't share with us your concerns.
>
> This edit was made by someone working for Amazon Logistics.  They have
> been very receptive to specific constructive feedback.
>
> The only  very minor issue I see is:
> * https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/816385173 and
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/703399318 could probably be combined.
>
> Mike
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] fake, edit, FAKE map.

[Mike Thompson]

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:53 AM <80hnhtv4a...@bk.ru> wrote:
>
> yes, and i will wait to see if anyone gets it.
We can hardly evaluate the issue if you don't share with us your concerns.

This edit was made by someone working for Amazon Logistics.  They have been
very receptive to specific constructive feedback.

The only  very minor issue I see is:
* https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/816385173 and
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/703399318 could probably be combined.

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

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] fake, edit, FAKE map.

[Mike Thompson]

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:53 AM <80hnhtv4a...@bk.ru> wrote:
>
> yes, and i will wait to see if anyone gets it.
We can hardly evaluate the issue if you don't share with us your concerns.

This edit was made by someone working for Amazon Logistics.  They have been
very receptive to specific constructive feedback.

The only  very minor issue I see is:
* https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/816385173 and
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/703399318 could probably be combined.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] fake, edit, FAKE map.

[Mike Thompson]

What is the issue?  It looks legit to me. Am I missing something?

Mike

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:11 AM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <
talk...@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Added a service road.
>
> Edited about  hours ago by
>
> Version #1 · Changeset #86698283
>
> https://imgur.com/gallery/k6Zjnqm
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> talk...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-us] fake, edit, FAKE map.

[Mike Thompson]

What is the issue?  It looks legit to me. Am I missing something?

Mike

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:11 AM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <
talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Added a service road.
>
> Edited about  hours ago by
>
> Version #1 · Changeset #86698283
>
> https://imgur.com/gallery/k6Zjnqm
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] USGS Topo layer for JOSM?

[Mike Thompson]

Dave,

Can you provide the URL so those of us that no longer have access can
manually add it back in?

Thanks,
Mike

On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 9:40 PM Mike Thompson  wrote:

> I use it quite often.  It is good for names of water bodies.  However, I
> just checked now, and it doesn't seem to be listed on the imagery menu any
> more.
>
> Mike
>
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 9:37 PM Dave Swarthout 
> wrote:
>
>> I'm still seeing it and using it for my mapping chores in Alaska.
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 9:27 AM Tod Fitch  wrote:
>>
>>> Sometime pretty recently the USGS topographic map layer disappeared from
>>> JOSM and I don’t even see it in the available layers to add back in. I
>>> don’t use it a lot, but when I want to verify the direction of flow of a
>>> stream, etc. it comes in very useful.
>>>
>>> Is it just my configuration having a problem or has this layer been
>>> officially removed?
>>>
>>> —Tod
>>> ___
>>> Talk-us mailing list
>>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dave Swarthout
>> Homer, Alaska
>> Chiang Mai, Thailand
>> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
>> ___
>> 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] USGS Topo layer for JOSM?

[Mike Thompson]

I use it quite often.  It is good for names of water bodies.  However, I
just checked now, and it doesn't seem to be listed on the imagery menu any
more.

Mike

On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 9:37 PM Dave Swarthout 
wrote:

> I'm still seeing it and using it for my mapping chores in Alaska.
>
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 9:27 AM Tod Fitch  wrote:
>
>> Sometime pretty recently the USGS topographic map layer disappeared from
>> JOSM and I don’t even see it in the available layers to add back in. I
>> don’t use it a lot, but when I want to verify the direction of flow of a
>> stream, etc. it comes in very useful.
>>
>> Is it just my configuration having a problem or has this layer been
>> officially removed?
>>
>> —Tod
>> ___
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
>
>
> --
> Dave Swarthout
> Homer, Alaska
> Chiang Mai, Thailand
> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
> ___
> 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] [OSM-talk] Google earth, Google maps

[Mike Thompson]

On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 11:20 AM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <
talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
> I am not copying any thing, just looking at a satellite view from google
.
>
> it was a ruler.
This isn't really about OSM, it is about the Google Maps Terms of Service,
which by using Google Maps, you agree to abide by.  This states in part:
"you may not ...use Google Maps/Google Earth to create or augment any other
mapping-related dataset..." This would include the ruler I would think as
well as "looking at a satellite view."
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] Google earth, Google maps

[Mike Thompson]

On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 11:20 AM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <
talk...@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
> I am not copying any thing, just looking at a satellite view from google
.
>
> it was a ruler.
This isn't really about OSM, it is about the Google Maps Terms of Service,
which by using Google Maps, you agree to abide by.  This states in part:
"you may not ...use Google Maps/Google Earth to create or augment any other
mapping-related dataset..." This would include the ruler I would think as
well as "looking at a satellite view."
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Google earth, Google maps

[Mike Thompson]

According to the Google Maps Terms of service, you cannot use it in any way
to make another map. [0]  I would think that would include using its ruler
if the purpose of using the ruler is to edit OSM.

[0] 2.d of https://www.google.com/help/terms_maps/

On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 9:47 AM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <
talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> because i was asked to change my edit based on my own ruler measurement,
>
> but it was just a ruler on google maps.
>
>
> Saturday, June 13, 2020 10:42 AM -05:00 from Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us
> :
>
> If you were not copying Google Maps then why you were using the ruler?
>
> Why using ruler on Google Maps would be even necessary?
>
> Jun 13, 2020, 17:31 by t...@openstreetmap.org:
>
> i put them as a source i used a ruler on there map.
>
>
>
> Saturday, June 13, 2020 10:20 AM -05:00 from Mateusz Konieczny via talk <
> t...@openstreetmap.org >:
>
>
>
>
> Jun 13, 2020, 16:59 by eric.lad...@gmail.com:
>
> Yeah, be careful with Google Maps.  It's owned and created by a company
> and if you copy from it and they can prove it, they could sue the OSM
> Foundation into oblivion.  They used to even have their OWN satellites to
> obtain imagery.  That's serious money.
>
> That is not the main problem. Main problem is that it goes our own
> fundamental rules.
> Mappers must not use other maps* even if whoever hold copyright is unable
> to sue for some reason.
>
> And "they can prove it" part may be misleading - you are not allowed to
> copy even if you think that
> you can hide the copying so that noone will notice it.
>
> *that is more complicated, we are must not copyrighted data on
> incompatible licenes -
> but if you are unsure what it means do not use other maps and ask for help
> before doing this
>
>
> Typically, with local edits, I put "Local knowledge" as the source.
> Sounds more highbrow than "my eyeballs".
>
> I usually put survey/memory depending on how recent my data is.
>
> IMO, if somebody is challenging one of your local edits, if they are not
> local also, they should be told as much and sent on their way - UNLESS it's
> something that relates to a mapping standard or best practice.  Then, learn
> from your mistakes and move on.
>
> +1
>
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 9:32 AM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <
> talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
> this was a tool on the map that measured distance.
>
> Have you copied that map? I am unsure how the distance measuring tool
> relates to "why are you telling me I can not use google as a map source"?
>
>
>
> Saturday, June 13, 2020 9:29 AM -05:00 from Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us <
> talk-us@openstreetmap.org>:
>
> You are not allowed to use Google Maps as source.
>
> Have you used Google Maps to edit OSM?
>
> "since all the maps on OSM are old news like in my local area 7 months
> old."
>
> FYI, world is larger than your local area.
>
>
> Jun 13, 2020, 16:08 by talk-us@openstreetmap.org:
>
> If you people want me to prove my edit by adding a source, and a person
> from the data group as an editor,
>
> asks me to prove it, and i redo my edit and he does not get back to me,
> why are you telling me I can not use
>
> google as a map source, since all the maps on OSM are old news. like in my
> local area 7 months old.
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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
>
>
>
> --
> Eric Ladner
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> t...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] VANDALISM !

[Mike Thompson]

On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 7:09 AM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <
talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>   IF someone, not local, relying on satellite views, goes after my good
faith edit, based on my on the ground
>
> surveillance thinks my edit was wrong trying to fix broken polygon’s,
 that are making ghosts lines on the
>
> ID edit page. sends me a change-set discussion notice, telling me not to
edit what i edited, and i answer him
>
> with the Wiki rule that was the bases of my edit. then goes after my
current days edit and all related edits
>
> a years worth, (like a revenge thing) some technical but most based on
what he see’s on the satellite view
>
> that are, were WRONG.
I understand your frustration. It is maddening when an outsider edits the
map in your local area when they don't have an appreciation for the local
way of life.
Could you provide some example change sets? Perhaps some of the rest of us
can take a look and provide some comments that might help.
Are they really systematically only undoing your edits, or are they
systematically going after a certain data characteristic?

>
> Not to re-edit fix, who, how do you put it all back ?
You could revert their edits, but given the circumstances as you have
described them, that is likely to only fuel the edit war. If efforts to
resolve the issue through discussion are unsuccessful perhaps this is an
issue for the Data Working Group (DWG)?

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

[Talk-us] USFS Roads - name and ref

[Mike Thompson]

Hello,

This question concerns ways maintained/operated by the US Forest Service
(USFS) and signed with vertical  markers, e.g. [0]. These signs typically
display a three digit number, with an optional decimal point (dot/period)
followed by another number and/or a letter.

Name:
The wiki [1] states that these should name=Forest Road + .
In practice, either from other mappers, or from the original TIGER import,
I have seen:
* just what is on the sign
* Fire Road + 
* FR + 
* Forest Development Road + 
* FDR + 
* Forest Service Road + 
* FS + 
* United States Forest Service Road + 
* ...(many more variations)
Does the wiki reflect the consensus of the US mapper community (which I am
part of) on how these should be named, or should they be named in some
other manner? To complicated matters, it seems that the Forest Service
itself is not consistent and the exact wording of a name will depend on
what brochure, map board, or dataset from the Forest Service you are
looking at. I don't really have a preference, except to say 1) Many of the
above examples include abbreviations, which OSM generally refrains from,
and 2) I think we should be consistent.

ref:
The wiki states that these should be ref=FR + . In
practice:
* ref:usfs=FS + 
* ref=FS + 
Most of the changesets that added a "ref:usfs" tag include a very helpful
comment that this issue was discussed on the tagging list at sometime in
the past and that this was the consensus, e.g. [2].  If this continues to
be the consensus, can we change the wiki?


Mike




[0] Left sign in this image:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:US_Forest_Service_Vertical_Marker.png
[1]
wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging#Tagging_Forest_Roads
[2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/73470389
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] USGS Topos, "Draw", "Gulch", etc.

[Mike Thompson]

On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 12:30 PM Tod Fitch  wrote:
>
>
>
>
> With respect to names on USGS topographic maps: At least on most of the
old “historic” quads I have they used a different typeface/typographic
treatment for waterways versus valleys/canyons/draws/gulches. So you might
take your clue from that.
>
Good point! On the particular map I am looking at creeks are labelled with
a serif font and the "draws" etc. use a sanserif font.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] USGS Topos, "Draw", "Gulch", etc.

[Mike Thompson]

Do the names on the USGS Topo Maps that end in "Draw", "Gulch", and similar
terms refer to a stream, or a valley?  I have always assumed a stream, and
applied the name to waterway=stream in OSM, but perhaps that is not correct.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Douglas County, Colorado Building Outline Import

[Mike Thompson]

I think there is already an effort underway to import all of the
building outlines from DRCOG (Denver Regional Council of Governments).

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Denver_Planimetrics_Import

Mike

On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 2:32 PM Michael Patrick  wrote:
>
>
> See 
> https://www.arcgis.com/sharing/rest/content/items/8ec5c4567d33436ea78614b150f73c07/info/metadata/metadata.xml?format=default=html
> Under Use Constraints:
> "This data is licensed by Creative Commons 4.0: 
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/You are free to:Share — copy 
> and redistribute the material in any medium or formatAdapt — remix, 
> transform, and build upon the materialfor any purpose, even commercially.The 
> licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license 
> terms."
> Point of Contact: Contact Information: Contact Organization Primary: Contact 
> Organization: Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) Contact Person: 
> Josh Pendleton Contact Position: GIS Specialist Contact Address: Address 
> Type: mailing and physical Address: 1290 Broadway, Suite 700 City: Denver 
> State or Province: CO Postal Code: 80203-5606 Country: U.S. Contact Facsimile 
> Telephone: 303 480-6790 Contact Electronic Mail Address: geospat...@drcog.org 
> Hours: 8am to 5pm US Mountain Time
> Michael Patrick
> Data Ferret
>
> ___
> 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] Taking a break and a call for help

[Mike Thompson]

Paul,

Thanks for all of your contributions to OSM over the years!

I am sorry to hear about your truck.  I hope the police are able to
recover it in good condition.

I appreciate the support you, and others in your line of work, are
providing to keep our medical system running during this crucial time.

Mike

On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 5:09 PM Paul Johnson  wrote:
>
> So, you all know at this point that I've been heavily invested in editing OSM 
> and contributing to my maximum activity, less as a need to help a charity and 
> more of an obligation to the public to do the most good with the short time I 
> have on this planet.  However, I've had a few events come up that are more or 
> less killing my ability to keep up.
>
> I'm taking a step back from being the primary editor in the Oklahoma region 
> until this passes.
>
> 3) Amazon Logistics and a revolving door team of one-edit-and-done spam 
> accounts keeps throwing paid contributions into Oklahoma that are of poorly 
> aligned, largely fictional and low quality.  I'm stuck cleaning up in a 
> neglected part of North America some particularly low quality edits with 
> limited resources and little ability to find more.  I hope other contributors 
> can help keep abreast and I hope OSM Foundation can help keep paid 
> contributors to account.  I don't think it's unreasonable to think that paid 
> mapper should be contributing far higher quality data than your average 
> volunteer first time mapper, and I think OSM needs to have a serious 
> conversation about minimum qualifications for paid mapping that I simply 
> don't have the time or energy for at this point.  Dealing with this (and 
> staying abreast extensive OkTrans highway modernization efforts lately) have 
> been a major part of my editing (and while OkTrans is unavoidable, Amazon is 
> inexcusable).
>
> 2) My truck was stolen last night, along with the dashcams I use for 
> Mapillary, essentially making long range surveying impossible and imperiling 
> my survival since, if for nothing else, I need to hit Costco for restocking 
> my pantry and storeroom.  As such, I had to call off work and spent most of 
> the day today dealing with the police today.
>
> 1) I work in the IT department of a major regional hospital on the front 
> lines of the COVID-19 response in the US.  My vacation at the end of next 
> month, and my weekends for the next two months, have been cancelled, and I'm 
> expected to work 8+ hours a day, 7 days a week to help keep things up and 
> running so the medical staff don't have to think about the computers.
>
> I really hope OSMF and the DWG takes a good, hard and critical look at 
> dealing with the low quality edits from Amazon and spammers while I deal with 
> acquiring another (or, best case, my stolen) pickup and dealing with my 
> professional life.
>
>
> ___
> 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] Mapping for emergency services

[Mike Thompson]

Mike,

That is a very compelling story.  Thanks to you and the other OSM folks
involved for making it happen and to you for writing the diary entry.  I
have often thought that OSM would be a great resource emergency responders
because in some areas it contains data that no one else has, but generally
the reaction that I have gotten when I have suggested this to such
officials was "we have our own data", "we have already invested in xyz
system" (sunk cost fallacy), or "how can we trust OSM?".  The exception was
a search and rescue group that used OSM to help locate missing people in
the back country because OSM contains trails that no other source has.

Is this being publicised outside of the OSM community?  There are probably
associations for fire fighters and other emergency response professionals
and perhaps someone from the FD involved could speak about this project at
one of their conferences to get agencies in other parts of the country (or
world) interested.

Mike


On Sun, Feb 2, 2020 at 12:47 PM Mike N  wrote:

> Not an emergency, but still interesting when someone can use OSM data:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/MikeN/diary/392080
>
> ___
> 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] [Imports] Preliminary Import/Organized Mapping Effort Idea

[Mike Thompson]

Clifford,

Thanks for your feedback.

> I've avoided BIA because their data doesn't seem accurate
We have gotten some additional feedback off list also suggesting that the
BIA data may not be as accurate as some other sources.  Perhaps we should
create a wiki page listing every reservation, its boundary status in OSM,
and the known sources of data.  Mappers can then "sign up" to work on
individual reservation boundaries (by adding their name to the wiki page),
manually comparing the various sources, researching the most correct
representation, and of course editing OSM to reflect their findings
just thinking out loud here.

Mike

On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 10:10 AM Clifford Snow 
wrote:

> Mike,
> Thanks to you, David and Paul for taking the initiative to mapping Natiive
> American Reservations. On and off for the last few years I've been
> attempting to reservations mapped in Washington State. My first choice for
> boundary information has always been from the reservation then the state.
> I've avoided BIA because their data doesn't seem accurate, at least at the
> time when I first started adding reservations. I look forward to seeing how
> it compares to the boundaries I added.
>
> I especially applaud your desire to involve Native American youth in the
> project. I have struggled to make any headway getting the tribes involved.
> Related to that I've been asking people I know that work for the tribes
> about adding features in their native language. A number of the tribes
> around me are working hard to ensure their languages not only survives but
> flourishes. I'm hoping with my connections I can partner with the tribe get
> them to actively contribute to OSM using their native language. It is
> something you might also consider doing.
>
> Let me know how I can help,
> Clifford
>
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 4:35 PM Mike Thompson  wrote:
>
>>
>> Village Earth's Native Land Advocacy Project[1], David Bartecchi[2], Paul
>> Johnson[3], and I[4] are considering an organized effort to improve the
>> boundaries of Native American Reservations in the US.  We have studied the
>> import guidelines on the wiki and will follow those, however, we first
>> wanted to see:
>>
>> 1) If there was any fundamental objection to this idea before even the
>> details are spelled out
>>
>> 2) If anyone is already working on this issue.
>>
>> 3) If anyone would like to join us.
>>
>>
>> We are thinking that our general approach will be:
>>
>> 1) Use data from this source:
>> https://biamaps.doi.gov/dataDownload/index.htmlIt has a compatible
>> license, but will verify and document as part of this process.
>>
>> 2) Somehow allow mappers to "check out" a particular reservation's
>> boundary.  Exact mechanism is TBD.
>>
>> 3) A human mapper will examine each boundary individually
>>
>> 4) Where OSM does not have a corresponding reservation boundary, the
>> mapper will import the boundary into OSM (not sure of the exact mechanics
>> at this time).  If the boundary needs to participate in a boundary
>> relation, that will be handled here. Tag mapping is TBD at this point.
>> Any conflicts with existing OSM features will be addressed in this step.
>>
>> 5) Where OSM has a boundary and it does not match the above source, and
>> it has not been edited by a human mapper, proceed as in 4 above, except
>> only replace geometry and preserve the history of the existing OSM
>> features.
>>
>> 6) Where OSM has a boundary and it does not match our source, but it has
>> been edited by a human mapper, use additional sources, including tribal
>> sources, and county sources, to determine the true boundary and make
>> necessary edits in OSM.  Deference will be given to the edits made by local
>> mappers.
>>
>> To be determined:
>> We are aware of some cases where different government bodies (e.g.
>> Federal Government vs. a state government) dispute the extent of a
>> reservation.
>>
>> Long term we would like to involve Native Americans, particularly youth
>> living on reservations, in adding additional details to OSM about
>> reservations, such as street names, amenities, etc., but we don't envision
>> this as part of this import/organized effort process.
>>
>> We look forward to your initial feedback on this preliminary concept.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>> [1] Village Earth is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that has worked
>> in Indian Country for over 20 years and works closely with the Indian Land
>> Tenure Foundation
>> [2] David works for Village Earth
>> [3] Most people on thi

[Talk-us] Preliminary Import/Organized Mapping Effort Idea

[Mike Thompson]

Village Earth's Native Land Advocacy Project[1], David Bartecchi[2], Paul
Johnson[3], and I[4] are considering an organized effort to improve the
boundaries of Native American Reservations in the US.  We have studied the
import guidelines on the wiki and will follow those, however, we first
wanted to see:

1) If there was any fundamental objection to this idea before even the
details are spelled out

2) If anyone is already working on this issue.

3) If anyone would like to join us.


We are thinking that our general approach will be:

1) Use data from this source:
https://biamaps.doi.gov/dataDownload/index.htmlIt has a compatible
license, but will verify and document as part of this process.

2) Somehow allow mappers to "check out" a particular reservation's
boundary.  Exact mechanism is TBD.

3) A human mapper will examine each boundary individually

4) Where OSM does not have a corresponding reservation boundary, the mapper
will import the boundary into OSM (not sure of the exact mechanics at this
time).  If the boundary needs to participate in a boundary relation, that
will be handled here. Tag mapping is TBD at this point.   Any conflicts
with existing OSM features will be addressed in this step.

5) Where OSM has a boundary and it does not match the above source, and it
has not been edited by a human mapper, proceed as in 4 above, except only
replace geometry and preserve the history of the existing OSM features.

6) Where OSM has a boundary and it does not match our source, but it has
been edited by a human mapper, use additional sources, including tribal
sources, and county sources, to determine the true boundary and make
necessary edits in OSM.  Deference will be given to the edits made by local
mappers.

To be determined:
We are aware of some cases where different government bodies (e.g. Federal
Government vs. a state government) dispute the extent of a reservation.

Long term we would like to involve Native Americans, particularly youth
living on reservations, in adding additional details to OSM about
reservations, such as street names, amenities, etc., but we don't envision
this as part of this import/organized effort process.

We look forward to your initial feedback on this preliminary concept.

Mike


[1] Village Earth is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that has worked in
Indian Country for over 20 years and works closely with the Indian Land
Tenure Foundation
[2] David works for Village Earth
[3] Most people on this list are probably familiar with Paul, a long time
contributor to OSM
[4] My OSM user name is tekim, I have been mapping in OSM since 2009.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

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

[Mike Thompson]

All,

I got this message off list from Greg Mathews who works for the USGS, for
some reason he was unable to post himself (something wrong with his
subscription perhaps):

BEGIN
Hi folks, This is a dataset I'm somewhat familiar with. Likely the best
available data for land management agency boundaries is from PAD-US here:
https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/5b030c7ae4b0da30c1c1d6de

Federal land management agency boundaries generally come in two types: 1.
Proclaimed boundaries - these are Congressionally mandated boundaries, and
2. Fee Owned - these are boundaries actually owned by the agencies and show
in-holdings, slightly different boundaries, etc. The Fee Owned is a a
subset of the Congressionally Mandated boundaries as someone else
explained. My unofficial suggestion is if you want to model recreation, it
would be better to show the Fee Owned boundaries so people don't end up on
private lands. The US Topo uses proclaimed at this time.

-
Greg Matthews
Published Maps Products and Services Focus Area Lead
Office of User Engagement
US Geological Survey

END


On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 2:41 PM Mike Thompson  wrote:

>
>
>
> This key works for anywhere on this
>> (https://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/rastergateway/states-regions/states.php
>> )
>> slippy map - take a look at the national forests near you and you will
>> find plenty of private land that is still within the NF boundary.
>>
> I downloaded a quad (geotiff) for part of the area in question and pulled
> it into QGIS.  It generally agrees with the county land ownership
> information, with the exception that some state lands are shown on the quad
> as owned by the Federal Government.  Perhaps this is an error in one of the
> datasets.
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

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

[Mike Thompson]

This key works for anywhere on this
> (https://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/rastergateway/states-regions/states.php)
> slippy map - take a look at the national forests near you and you will
> find plenty of private land that is still within the NF boundary.
>
I downloaded a quad (geotiff) for part of the area in question and pulled
it into QGIS.  It generally agrees with the county land ownership
information, with the exception that some state lands are shown on the quad
as owned by the Federal Government.  Perhaps this is an error in one of the
datasets.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

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

[Mike Thompson]

On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 2:30 PM Bradley White 
wrote:

> Sorry - not too familiar with imgur! Does this work?
> https://i.imgur.com/4OC23x3.png

Yes, that worked!

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

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

[Mike Thompson]

On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 2:28 PM Bradley White 
wrote:

> Yes I understand that, that is what the landuse tag is for. Private
> land should tagged as private. Public land should be tagged as public.
> The 'access' tag is probably preferable for this, and it's what I use.
> My point is that none of this involves the NF boundary, and to please
> leave it alone because it's a pain to fix problems with it.
>
I understand and generally agree.  One point is that the NFS may have made
arrangements with the landowner such that some access by the public is
permitted.  I say this because an official USFS trail (Crosier Mountain
Trail)[1] crosses private land and there are no signs saying "No
Trespassing"

[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/49458204
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

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

[Mike Thompson]

On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 2:21 PM Bradley White 
wrote:

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

The link takes me to a page that is asking me to sign in.

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

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

[Mike Thompson]

> Please do not add holes in the boundary unless they are officially
> designated! Otherwise there is no point to keeping these
> administrative boundaries in OSM.
>
Ok, but we still need to know where those private inholdings are, because
Forest regulations will not apply.  For example, unless posted otherwise, I
can go anywhere on National Forest government owned lands, and I can camp
anywhere as long as I am not within a certain distance of a road or
stream.  I can't do those things on private land. So access=private,
ownership=private?
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

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

[Mike Thompson]

On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 1:12 PM Bradley White 
wrote:

> No, this is incorrect. USFS administrative boundaries and USFS managed
> land are not the same thing, though the latter is always inside the
> former. The boundaries currently in OSM are administrative boundaries,
> and are tagged correctly as such. It is perfectly fine to have private
> land within a USFS administrative boundary, in the same way it would
> be okay to have private land within any other government-defined
> jurisdictional boundary.
>
Ok, so how to tag the parts that are within the administrative boundaries
but which are not owned by the US Government? Or, how to tag the parts that
are both within the boundary and owned by the US Government?

This is important information to prevent trespassing.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

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

[Mike Thompson]

The consensus of those who replied seem to be to exclude these privately
held lands from the National Forest boundaries.  Is that correct? Does
anyone object to that approach?  If not, I will proceed in that manner as
well.

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

[Talk-us] National Forests and Private Ownership

[Mike Thompson]

Not all of the land within US National Forests is owned by the US
Government, there are private "inholdings" [1].

The boundaries between government land and private land are often marked by
signs, e.g.[2]  The above photo is geotagged, and if you drag it into JOSM
you can see that it is quite far from the overall National Forest boundary
as currently depicted in OSM[3].

The wiki mentions "inholdings", but it is not clear how these should be
mapped[4].

How should these be mapped?
access=private/permissive?
ownership=private?

Mike
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inholding
[2]https://photos.app.goo.gl/fQustnLzNzSSjiSK8
[3] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/395767
[4] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/US_Forest_Service_Data
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Spot elevations collected as natural=peak and name=Point (height in feet)

[Mike Thompson]

On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 6:29 AM Kevin Broderick 
wrote:

>
> Would https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4992960980 be an example of (or
> very similar to) what you're talking about?
>
Yes, slightly different, but same general concept.


> I've been told that one is a local reference point ("25 Short", ie. 25
> feet short of 10k), and at least one article (
> https://rootsrated.com/stories/a-quick-and-dirty-guide-to-the-best-backcountry-skiing-in-jackson-hole)
> backs that up.
>
I have seen back country trip reports mention such points (at least those
that are high points), and they have *some* value therefore, but as I
suggested earlier, "point n,nnn" is to me more of a description rather than
a name in most cases.

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

[Talk-us] Spot elevations collected as natural=peak and name=Point (height in feet)

[Mike Thompson]

It seems that there are a couple of mappers in Colorado US (at least,
perhaps mapping in other areas as well) who are adding spot elevations
(presumably from USGS Topo maps) to OSM tagging them as
natural=peak
name=Point (elevation in feet)

For example:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4601119717

What does the community think about this?

natural=peak might be ok if said spot elevation is really a local high
point (some are not).  The name I am less sure of. If this belongs on the
map at all, it should probably have an ele tag, with value in meters.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us