News today from Mike Collinson, Chair of the OSMF License Working Group:
As promised, and long awaited, the next phase of the OSM License
Upgrade has arrived. Phase 2 - Existing Contributor Voluntary
Re-licensing [1] has begun, and you may indicate your acceptance of
the new Contributor Terms
On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 10:23 -0400, Nakor wrote:
My only issue is the first paragraph of the Contributor Terms. I do not
have **explicit** permission from the various US government entities and
do not feel comfortable accepting those terms.
One of the mission of the US OSM could be to get
On 8/12/2010 10:27 AM, Dave Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 10:23 -0400, Nakor wrote:
My only issue is the first paragraph of the Contributor Terms. I do not
have **explicit** permission from the various US government entities and
do not feel comfortable accepting those terms.
One of the
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Dave Hansen d...@sr71.net wrote:
On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 10:23 -0400, Nakor wrote:
My only issue is the first paragraph of the Contributor Terms. I do not
have **explicit** permission from the various US government entities and
do not feel comfortable accepting
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:23 AM, Nakor nakor@gmail.com wrote:
Most of my contributions even though based on my GPS tracks are derived
work of some US governement data (USGS and NAIP imageries) and in a lesser
extent Ohio through OSIP. I also imported some NHS, NPS and TIGER datasets.
I
Virtually all geospatial data obtained from government agencies in the US,
-local, state, or Federal is subject to either Federal or state public
records law, and therefore in the public domain. (Note however that some
states have stronger public records law than others). Of course, there are
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Apollinaris Schoell
ascho...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:23 AM, Nakor nakor@gmail.com wrote:
Most of my contributions even though based on my GPS tracks are derived
work of some US governement data (USGS and NAIP imageries) and in a lesser
I'm wondering if anyone has any experience with the National Wetlands
Inventory: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
At first glance it looks like better-quality data than the NHD for
both wetlands and water.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
* Nakor nakor@gmail.com [2010-08-12 10:23 -0400]:
My only issue is the first paragraph of the Contributor Terms. I do
not have **explicit** permission from the various US government
entities and do not feel comfortable accepting those terms.
I'm not on legal-talk, but I was pointed at this
I'm not an expert on either of these data sets, but I know enough to say
that USGS sponsored the development of the NHD, largely to replace the old
digital line graph (DLG) products. NHD serves as a multi-purpose inventory
of surface waters, grouped by watershed. OTOH, FWS sponsored development of
Hmm. It sounds like we want the routability of the NHD reach-code system
with the accuracy and completeness of the Wetland Inventory.
I wonder if there's some gotcha in the FWS dataset that would make it
inappropriate to use. For example, I see a lot of freshwater areas that are
really
It's been my experience way back when in a past life that the Wetlands
Inventory (while busier and therefore appears to have more data) really
wasn't all that great spatially. We would use it for a reference for
mapping - as in there should be a wetland here and then interpret the
correct
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 8:20 AM, Al Haraka alhar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Apollinaris Schoell
ascho...@gmail.com wrote:
US government data is public domain. you can do whatever you like to do
with it. All big ones from Garmin, Google ... you name it use
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Lord-Castillo, Brett wrote:
I just want to point out that the federal address standard has passed
through the public comment period and is now in committee review. It is
expected to become a federal regulation in early 2011.
The vast majority of street addresses are only going to have only four elements:
2.2.1.2 Address Number
2.2.2.2 Street Name Pre Directional or 2.2.2.6 Post Directional
2.2.2.4 Street Name
2.2.2.5 Street Name Post Type or 2.2.2.3 Street Name Pre Type
That's hardly a significant burden and easily
Well, hang on a tic... I don't know if you can really say, ...no one will
manually enter in all those parts, especially since the distinction would be
meaningless to most people. Just like breaking out the prefix, I think
breaking out the address into a finer granularity makes the address more
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Steven Johnson wrote:
Well, hang on a tic... I don't know if you can really say, ...no one will
manually enter in all those parts, especially since the distinction would be
meaningless to most people. Just like breaking out the prefix, I think
breaking out the address into
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Lord-Castillo, Brett wrote:
The vast majority of street addresses are only going to have only four elements:
2.2.1.2 Address Number
2.2.2.2 Street Name Pre Directional or 2.2.2.6 Post Directional
2.2.2.4 Street Name
2.2.2.5 Street Name Post Type or 2.2.2.3 Street Name Pre
I understand that idea. But TigerLine 2010 starts releasing in December, with
every state released by February. The main difference between your proposal and
adopting the address standard would be that directional and type prefixes and
suffixes would be broken out from each other and from
So I was happily tracing a lake last night when I noticed a bunch of
completely unconnected nodes with no tags in the area. I mentioned it
on IRC and came up with a couple of JOSM filters to weed them out and
ended up deleting over 2,000 of them around the lake.
Looking at them last night I
I think I remember Eric (ebwolf: owner of said changeset) mentioning
something about a bulk upload a few weeks ago. I bet he'll respond to your
OSM message if he doesn't see this thread.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com
Date: Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at
On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 13:57 -0600, Kevin Atkinson wrote:
My main goal was to separate out the directional prefix because, which
while important for mailing, did not really belong as part of the street
name. I thought I would take care of the suffix as well.
You may think it doesn't really
On 8/12/10 11:09 PM, Alan Millar wrote:
On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 13:57 -0600, Kevin Atkinson wrote:
My main goal was to separate out the directional prefix because, which
while important for mailing, did not really belong as part of the street
name. I thought I would take care of the suffix as
Yep. Guilty. That was a major mistake. Changeset 5393406 was never meant to
hit openstreetmap.org.
In the initial phases of the prototype project at USGS, we were using
Merkaartor to demonstrate editing our data, loading it as a .OSM file.
Somehow, I must have hit save changes and uploaded the
Bugger... I was just looking at the changeset metadata again. That did come
from bulk_upload.py but I'll be damned if I didn't have it pointing at our
server. I'm going to have to check out the code tomorrow to see why it hit
osm.org and not our box. That's just not right.
-Eric
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Alan Millar wrote:
On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 13:57 -0600, Kevin Atkinson wrote:
My main goal was to separate out the directional prefix because, which
while important for mailing, did not really belong as part of the street
name. I thought I would take care of the suffix as
Alrighty then. Glad that's sorted out. I hope my deleting a couple
thousand of the nodes won't make reverting more difficult.
As a side note, I was using the USGS NAIP imagery to trace the lake
when I noticed these nodes. So on balance I don't think I'll hold it
against you :)
Toby
On Thu, Aug
At 2010-08-12 20:30, Eric Wolf wrote:
Yep. Guilty. That was a major
mistake. Changeset 5393406 was never meant to hit
openstreetmap.org.
I've got a couple of local .osm files that will also never be meant to be
uploaded (personal layers, scratchpad, etc.). Every time I have one
loaded in JOSM, I
I know this seems like a silly question, coming from me and all, but where
are you getting your NAIP tiles from?
One of the things that I keep trying to convince the bosses of is that a
cached set of tiles for the entire NAIP imagery set would be very useful to
many people. Right now, I think the
Theoretically, the changeset allows you to revert an erroneous bulk upload.
But it would be nice if JOSM (or Merkaartor) gave a warning before blindly
sending large changesets.
However, it turned out that this did come from bulk_upload.py - which is
even more bothersome as I know I was pointing
I'm have a private tilecache for NAIP and am working on a public one right
now.
I'll publicize it when I get it working.
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:17 PM, Eric Wolf ebw...@gmail.com wrote:
I know this seems like a silly question, coming from me and all, but where
are you getting your NAIP
I'm using this WMS URL in JOSM:
http://isse.cr.usgs.gov/arcgis/services/Combined/SDDS_Imagery/MapServer/WMSServer?SERVICE=WMSVERSION=1.1.1STYLES=SRS=EPSG:4326FORMAT=image/pnglayers=0request=map;
Last night is was downright speedy. Tonight it is being a little
slower. At times it is barely usable.
Cool. This may end up being part of the USGS project once it gets opened up
to the public as well. The USGS standard for evaluating data is a visual
inspection against NAIP. So we're already planning to provide NAIP for at
least the areas we are experimenting in.
-Eric
Looks like it was actually Ian who posted this WMS URL a couple weeks ago:
http://isse.cr.usgs.gov/ArcGIS/services/Combined/USGS_EDC_Ortho_NAIP/MapServer/WMSServer?request=GetMapformat=image/jpegservice=WMSversion=1.1.0layers=0STYLES=default;
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:25 PM, Toby Murray
At 2010-08-12 21:17, Eric Wolf wrote:
I know this seems like a silly question, coming from me and all, but where
are you getting your NAIP tiles from?
Kinda glad you asked (someone else). There are some issues.
1. Microsoft-Terraserver-now-MSRMaps-hosted Urban imagery set is
0.25m/pel,
The NAIP imagery is the best I've seen for JOSM. The pictures are
very recent and the detail is amazing.
-Dion
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 22:35:04 -0500
From: Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] USGS National Map aerial imagery
Cc: Talk Openstreetmap
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Alan Mintz
alan_mintz+...@earthlink.netalan_mintz%2b...@earthlink.net
wrote:
It sure would be nice if these individual image sets were available through
a common interface, instead of having to find/add all the separate links.
1) Check out
Interesting. I'll have to do a little sleuthing tomorrow at the office and
tell you what the different URLs are (and if there is anything better yet).
Just a quick browse tells me what you are using draws from The National Map
whereas Ian's URL was purely NAIP. The National Map includes the
Getting a consistent directory of services has been one of my crusades at
the USGS. Fortunately, other people have picked up on it as well. The
services behind the new National Map Viewer 2.0 will all follow a more
predictable naming scheme. I'm hoping the USGS will do more caching of tiles
as
I've noticed lots of leaf-on imagery in my WMS URL in the Wisconsin and
Minnesota area (which were flown pretty recently), so I wonder if that
decision was already made.
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Eric Wolf ebw...@gmail.com wrote:
Interesting. I'll have to do a little sleuthing tomorrow
On Thursday, August 12, 2010 10:17:25 pm, Eric Wolf wrote:
I know this seems like a silly question, coming from me and all, but where
are you getting your NAIP tiles from?
The USDA Geospatial gateway lets you download county-sized mosiacs of NAIP
imagery:
http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/
On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 14:54 -0600, Kevin Atkinson wrote:
I think that these components should be automatically separated by parsing
the street name some how, and only require manual entry when there is
ambiguity. When there is ambiguity, I think just entering in the Street
Name (base type
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Alan Millar wrote:
You may think it doesn't really belong as part of the street name, and
that may possibly be true in your neighborhood. But in my neighborhood,
it definitely IS part of the street name and can't be left off, for
mailing or not. In my part of the Portland
43 matches
Mail list logo
