Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

The reason you don't get it is because you are not listening. Nobody has said the motorway tagging should continue through the intersection. The debate is entirely about where the classification change takes place. There are several instances in Arkansas where a motorway ends similarly. In

Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: Trunk versus motorway

I think this is a good general rule. In the instant case, the tagging should change at the point where the grass median ends northbound, IMO. That marks a definite change in the physical character of the road. I believe it was tagged like that when the carriageways were first split after the

Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: Trunk versus motorway

Unless there have been significant changes since I moved away, it should be tagged motorway between the IDL and the light at Apache/Gilcrease Extension. Before the Gilcrease was extended west of US-75, the Tisdale should have been tagged entirely as motorway. Adding the intersection did not

Re: [Talk-us] Naming numbered roads as "State Route X", "Interstate X", etc.

The New Sapulpa Road situation is in practice a road with a secondary name. Just like Flagler Street in part of Miami (FL, not OK) is defined by the state legislature as being "Natan A Rok Boulevard" (or similar, working from memory here). My personal opinion is that if local practice and the

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

To the extent that the address points are not duplicates of existing address nodes, unconflated address nodes are a perfectly legitimate means of mapping and do not need to be "fixed." Even if the address exists on a poly, it's still fine as long as the node is marking something meaningful,

Re: [Talk-us] Comparing Tiger 2017 dataset with OSM in a automatedway.

The tree cover issue is precisely why many states that have seasons have a recurrent leaf-off (sometimes even in IR) imaging program. Arkansas has their imagery, along with a raft of other open data, available on Geostor as a WMS service that should be usable in JOSM and also as downloadable

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

In the US, we've always treated primary/secondary/tertiary as a way to tag importance to the road network, while physical construction was secondary. Motorway, of course, was and still is treated differently. Trunk has always been stuck in the middle between people who like me and Paul want to

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

Yes, on more than one occasion back in the mists of time before armchair mappers had spread the lanes and other condition tags widely I found some pretty shitty US highways labeled as trunk, not because they are better roads, but because they happen to be long distance through routes. US412

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

I guess my question is why primary isn't good enough for the primary route between places that don't have higher grade roads connecting them? These important mostly two lane roads are perfectly fine as primary. In many cases primary routes happen to be divided, but in many cases they aren't.

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

I think I've said this before, but I'm mostly in agreement with Paul's position. Trunk should apply to divided, limited but not controlled access highways. Other uses should be exceptions in the same vein as rural interstates with a few at-grade intersections keeping their motorway status.

Re: [Talk-us] Texas - redacted roads.

The problem as I understand it is less copyright violation (in the US, so long as what you see in Google isn't ever put into the OSM database), and more database licensing difficulty in the rest of the world where the law is less permissive and even using Google to identify possible errors in

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On October 8, 2017 3:46:07 PM EDT, Paul Johnson wrote: > >County and rural roads, particularly of the 3- and 4-digit National >Forest >routes and...really pick an unpaved section line almost anywhere in an >area >bounded by the Rocky Mountain frontier, the Appalachian

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

Riverside in Tulsa is fairly clearly a primary for most of its length. It isn't part of a larger trunk route nor is it an expressway. Personally, I think of trunk as more like motorway than like the other highway values. Motorway is clearly used only for controlled access freeways (excepting

Re: [Talk-us] wtsp.com using OSM for detour maps

I've seen several other uses in local media as well, but no links since I'm stuck on my phone for a good long while.. -Nathan On September 14, 2017 12:06:38 AM EDT, James Mast wrote:

Re: [Talk-us] [HOT] Surveys and studies

I'm sorry, but the closest thing to toxicity I've seen are the overly vehement objections to the mere gathering of data. It might be worth examining why someone gathering demographic data is causing such a strong reaction. I sincerely cannot comprehend why anyone would be against this. I can

Re: [Talk-us] MO Stare Road Classifications.

Typically state DOT functional classification freeway and expressway both imply limited, but not necessarily fully controlled, access, so trunk is a good first approximation. However, the DOT classification diverges enough from OSM tagging standards/consensus (such as it is in the US, anyway)

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

Had it been discussed beforehand so that other consumers would be aware of the meaning of the new tag, I wouldn't personally have a problem with it. access=no is also a decent suggestion (and would not require discussion with the community beforehand), but there is likely a quantitative

Re: [Talk-us] DOT construction updates

OKDOT provides updates on Twitter as well as posts weekly (and occasionally more often when warranted) "Traffax" PDF updates on their website that has a list of all scheduled roadwork and closures on state highways. Back in the olden days Traffax was blasted via fax to all the news outlets in

Re: [Talk-us] mapRe: (Second attempt) Potential data source: Adirondack Park Freshwater Wetlands

Personally, I think using TIGER as an example of an import gone wrong is not accurate. Knowing what we know now, things certainly could have been done better. If nothing else, waiting for TIGER 2010 would have been prudent, as the accuracy was much improved. But that wasn't something that was

Re: [Talk-us] San Diego Address Import Update

This is how I have always used addr:city. It reflects the postal address since it is a property of the address and not the parcel itself. People once used the is_in tag to capture the other meaning, but it seems unnecessary to me since one can simply check for an enclosing admin boundary. On

Re: [Talk-us] Current Texas State Highway ref is incorrect

At least with regard to the ref tag on a way, there has seemed to be be a lack of consensus as to whether the state DOT should be followed or whether to use the postal abbreviation to prefix state routes. Different states are tagged differently. I personally prefer the state code in the ref

Re: [Talk-us] Request revert on Changeset #33669446

I can't speak to this specific instance, but based on Paul's usual criteria, I'd take what he has to say on the topic with a grain of salt. I gave up trying to convince him OK11 between I-244 and US-75 in Tulsa should be tagged as a motorway a long time ago, even though it has zero at grade

Re: [Talk-us] zip-city mappings

Just keep in mind that some ZIPs cover multiple cities. The one I'm standing in now is found in parts of at least 3 different cities that I know of. Others cover both (parts of) cities and unincorporated areas outside of the city whose name they are associated with. -Nathan On November 9,

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US State highways.

I'm still confused as to why the consumers of a relation can't use the forward/backward roles of the ways referenced therein rather than requiring completely separate relations. Why do we need two or more relations plus a super relation per road route even for undivided highways? Even for a

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US State highways.

relations and a super relation. Maybe I missed some earlier discussions on the advantages of the multiple relation model? -Nathan Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/11/18 Nathan Mills nat...@nwacg.net I'm still confused as to why the consumers of a relation can't use

Re: [Talk-us] Locations for State of the Map US 2014

Sorry, the center of the universe is in Tulsa on the pedestrian bridge across the railroad tracks downtown. Also, Postgres tells me that the geographic center of the lower 48 is at 39.5359,-99.1558 (ish) Yours in precision, -Nathan Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us wrote: Just to remind

Re: [Talk-us] Freeway directions

On 10/17/2013 1:03 PM, Richard Welty wrote: hmmm. we're using exit_to (i think) for off ramps, maybe we need entrance_to for on ramps the value would be more or less exactly the text visible on the signage. This makes the most sense to me as the solution for the specific use case Martijn is

Re: [Talk-us] Route relation pages

Route relation tagging is explained on the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Road_routes On 6/22/2013 7:21 PM, Evin Fairchild wrote: I get that you say that keeping wiki pages up to date with the status of route relations is a pain, but I do hope that this new form of

Re: [Talk-us] Neighborhoods / Zillow

My city kindly places identification signs along the borders of many of the defined neighborhoods. Other neighborhoods are coterminous with a particular subdivision. Still others like midtown are mean whatever the person saying it wants it to mean. The former are reasonable to map. The latter

Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags

If we're going for accuracy, corridor proposals should be mapped as a polygon. They are area features which may someday become linear. That said, I don't think that such early proposals belong in the database at all. Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 5:35 PM,

Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags

On topic, it seems silly to map (in OSM; obviously maps of such corridors are useful in their own right) a proposed route that is nothing more than a 50 mile wide corridor in which a route may eventually be routed, prospective USBR number or no. Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote: Let's bring

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

On 2/13/2013 6:27 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: Considering that there's nearly 40 in the area within relation 161645 (Oklahoma), I'd honestly be surprised if there aren't at least 50-something just within states starting with O. AFAIK, all of the reservations in Oklahoma were allotted before

Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

On 2/10/2013 10:32 AM, Russ Nelson wrote: So I have resigned myself to allowing OSM to be a little bit worse because of him. How many other people have made the same decision? How much worse is OSM because of NE2? Does this outweigh his positive accomplishments? I don't think I'm the only

Re: [Talk-us] First bona fide mini-roundabout spotted

So this is not/should not be a mini_roundabout? It seems a little silly to call it anything else, since the city just dug a hole in the center of the existing intersection, built a circular curb, and planted a tree: http://g.co/maps/e2gsv What about this one? Also a full on roundabout?

Re: [Talk-us] First bona fide mini-roundabout spotted

On 5/7/2012 3:30 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Nathan Millsnat...@nwacg.net wrote: http://g.co/maps/hnbp9 All three are roundabouts, yes. How are you going to properly map the first one? There is no channelization or anything that makes the intersection circular.

Re: [Talk-us] Fresno castradal imports

On 5/4/2012 4:21 PM, Ian Dees wrote: To the contrary, this whole conversation started because we received multiple complaints about this area from mappers who wanted to create data in this area but couldn't because of too much data. In that sense, this data is already handicapping the

Re: [Talk-us] Addition of building footprints in selected U.S. and Canadian cities

On 4/2/2012 12:06 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: I offer TIGER as counterevidence. It's imperfect but a great starting point for local mappers, especially those without a GPS setup. This is definitely true for those of us in areas with few mappers. OSM would be largely useless here without the

Re: [Talk-us] suburban superblocks that nobody wants to survey

On 3/17/2012 10:20 AM, Reiser, John J. wrote: What about using county or state-wide parcel data for address points? Centroid of each real property lot. There's many problems with doing this for a whole state; NJ has many cases of one house sitting on multiple lots (old subdivisions of 25'x60',

Re: [Talk-us] suburban superblocks that nobody wants to survey

On 3/15/2012 4:59 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: lots of driving and all you get is street names, since everything else is single-family houses. And address points, amenities, water features, gates, and whatever else might be around, maybe a bridge or a stream or something. Oh, and don't forget

Re: [Talk-us] suburban superblocks that nobody wants to survey

On 3/15/2012 6:10 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: How does this work? Do you stop at every house and write down the address? I mount a camera on the windshield and use JOSM's image plugin to place them on the track, then it's just a matter of looking at the images and identifying addresses, then

Re: [Talk-us] Problem with an Armchair user

On 1/17/2012 1:50 PM, Josh Doe wrote: NE2 is a well known and prolific user. Please be more specific on what he's doing that you disagree with, and link to specific changesets and/or objects. I'm assuming you've already discussed this issue with him and can't come to an agreement. A well

Re: [Talk-us] Address improvement through imports?

On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 09:35:58 -0400, Steven Johnson wrote: Up to now, weve been talking largely about addresses as point features. However, one thing I think would be good to have is block ranges on streets. What I mean is a tag that indicates this is the 1000 block, the 1100 block, the 1200

Re: [Talk-us] Address improvement through imports?

On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 23:12:09 +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: Importing more and more data will not make OSM strong. It might make OSM look useful in the short term but that's cheap usefulness So you're saying that if I don't go out and spend thousands of dollars and countless hours driving every

Re: [Talk-us] Address improvement through imports?

On Tue, 1 Nov 2011 17:16:11 -0600, Martijn van Exel wrote: By the way, if that page looks empty, that's because I just did not find very many resources on the state level which is where I looked. But at least I put in a link to what appears to be the central clearinghouse / catalog for

Re: [Talk-us] Address improvement through imports?

On Tue, 1 Nov 2011 19:40:27 -0500, Toby Murray wrote: It is also data that is time consuming and, for a lot of people, boring to collect and enter. If you're mapping a shop or restaurant that you are visiting it's one thing to add in a couple of addr:* tags but to get truly good coverage

Re: [Talk-us] Address improvement through imports?

On Wed, 02 Nov 2011 00:02:13 -0400, Richard Welty wrote: i don't know about that, but i certainly think that the current default mapnik rendering for openstreetmap.org is showing us too much addressing detail. i'm not sure what showing the address interpolation ways here really adds to the

Re: [Talk-us] Interstate Crossovers

On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 08:44:04 -0400, Anthony wrote: By that rationale, all government owned land is access=private. No. In a park, for example, you have a right of access by default. Or the flood control structures around here, where it's perfectly legal to wander around all you like, so long

Re: [Talk-us] Interstate Crossovers

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 08:40:51 -0500, John F. Eldredge wrote: The access=emergency tag is documented in the wiki as meaning that access is permitted for emergency vehicles, and would seem to ideally fit this situation. Admittedly, it is documented only if you search for the word emergency,

Re: [Talk-us] FYI - user Justinb in western GA

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 09:28:32 -0500, John F. Eldredge wrote: That would also work, although causeway implies that the roadway is raised higher than the terrain to either side of the roadway, whereas embankment=yes might imply that only one side had an embankment (as in a road built along a

Re: [Talk-us] Announcement: Address Improvement project

On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 22:39:24 -0700, Paul Norman wrote: In this case the A was part of the house number and 112A had no connection to 112. What I see around here more often is suite numbers (e.g. 101, 102) that are placed in front of the number when written out, but sometimes are placed

Re: [Talk-us] What does the community want from a US local chapter?

On Sun, 02 Oct 2011 15:05:22 -0400, Lars Ahlzen wrote: I completely agree with you, though. The trace from my cellphone is horrifically bad compared to that of my GPSMap60, so I still use the latter a lot for mapping. What phones are you guys using? The TI chips Nokia uses seem to usually get

Re: [Talk-us] Use of ref-tag on state highways

On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 13:31:51 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote: And what state, despite the implications of some here. Other than the cases where a state maintains a road as part of their route network which is not actually in that state. Or the more common case where a state highway is

Re: [Talk-us] Use of ref-tag on state highways

On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 15:08:22 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote: In both those (literally) edge cases, the relation will tell all. So are you volunteering to make relations for every route that has this complication? ___ Talk-us mailing list

Re: [Talk-us] Use of ref-tag on state highways

On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 16:52:48 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote: But the same problem exists with county routes along county lines. Do you think the ref tag for a county route should contain a county abbreviation? FIPS codes would be better, as they are a completely unique identifier for US

Re: [Talk-us] Use of ref-tag on state highways

Before I was too swamped with other stuff to do much OSM work, I was using AR XX and OK XX. We've had this discussion before, though. My contention is and was that the state prefix is necessary because there are cases of ways belonging to two different networks in (not physically, but

Re: [Talk-us] Relation roles

My personal preference is to use directional roles so that they match what is written on signage. It also avoids the inevitable which way is forward and which is backward question. On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:44:45 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote: I've started using forward/backward roles rather

Re: [Talk-us] Huge erroneous military landuse

Sounds like someone's idea of a joke to me. I put the chance of accident at about 1 in 1 - Original message - On 6/3/2011 9:43 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=41.722lon=-75.094zoom=10layers=M I'm currently looking for the source; please report here

Re: [Talk-us] US highway classification

On Sun, 29 May 2011 02:18:09 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 5/29/2011 1:50 AM, Nathan Mills wrote: It's actually faster to take 441 to Yeehaw and get on the turnpike there when traveling from eastern and southeastern Orlando to points south of Port St. Lucie. Even with the four-laning

Re: [Talk-us] US highway classification

On Sun, 29 May 2011 03:00:03 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote: Perhaps the best way to handle it would be to render a wider line if oneway=yes and not lanes=1 or if oneway=no/unset and lanes=4 or more. Thus divided highways would not need a lane count to be wider, but undivided roads would need to

Re: [Talk-us] US highway classification

On Sun, 29 May 2011 12:09:30 -0700, Paul Johnson wrote: I'm thinking the differences between motorways and trunks are minor. Trunks may have intersections, motorways don't. That's the simple way to state my opinion. It also seemed to be the thrust of most of the discussion on the talk page

Re: [Talk-us] US highway classification

On Sun, 29 May 2011 20:00:33 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 5/29/2011 5:16 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: subtle mass vandalism This is why I ignore Paul. Though I really wonder about this edit: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/14751094/history Using your standard, there's nothing to

Re: [Talk-us] US highway classification

On Sat, 28 May 2011 01:36:00 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote: I mean best route, period. There's no diagonal Interstate there. US-71 to I-44 to I-40 is faster. Not really a route I'd enjoy, but still faster. ___ Talk-us mailing list

Re: [Talk-us] US highway classification

On Sat, 28 May 2011 15:19:03 -0400, Anthony wrote: In my experience the difference between primary and trunk is generally very minor, to the point where I'm not sure there'd be any advantage at all in a router using it as a hint. But maybe that's just because the places where I use OSM are

Re: [Talk-us] US highway classification

On Sat, 28 May 2011 20:54:07 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote: You described your criteria, but did not explain how trunk is more appropriate than primary for a two lane rural highway between two small-to-tiny cities. If you use trunk for that, there is no way to describe (in a way that shows up

Re: [Talk-us] US highway classification

On Sat, 28 May 2011 21:30:50 -0400, Anthony wrote: Say, Dothan, Alabama to Hattiesburg, Mississippi, avoid motorways. What should the router take? In that particular case, it should in fact take US-84. (US-231 to I-10 to US-98 would in fact be faster; I know this having taken both routes,

Re: [Talk-us] US highway classification

On Sat, 28 May 2011 21:51:31 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote: It's been rebuilt as a good-quality four-lane in Mississippi, eastern Alabama, and Georgia. Alabama has been a little slower at four-laning than its neighbors, but US 84 in western Alabama is still a direct route connecting the

Re: [Talk-us] US highway classification

On Sat, 28 May 2011 22:39:51 -0400, Anthony wrote: On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 9:47 PM, Nathan Mills nat...@nwacg.net wrote: Primary means (at least according to most of the wiki pages) the primary non-motorway route between two cities. Any wiki pages that say that are clearly wrong. Trunk

Re: [Talk-us] US highway classification

You agree that if a router has two possible roads to take between two cities, and one is a trunk, and one is a primary, and all other things are equal, that the router should choose the trunk, right? Doesn't that make trunk, by definition, the primary non-motorway route between two cities?

Re: [Talk-us] US highway classification

On Sat, 28 May 2011 23:00:11 -0400, Anthony wrote: Instead of giving me hypothetical if..then answers, can you give me a straightforward answer? You're trying to get an exact answer to something that isn't an exact science, so no. I'm allowing for the fact that there may be a situation in

Re: [Talk-us] US highway classification

On Sun, 29 May 2011 00:13:33 -0400, Anthony wrote: If you want to get people to tag more than two lanes and a barely-existent shoulder, I think you'd have much more success creating tags for those features than convincing people that their area of the country isn't allowed to have any trunks.

Re: [Talk-us] US highway classification

On Sun, 29 May 2011 00:13:33 -0400, Anthony wrote: convincing people that their area of the country isn't allowed to have any trunks. Also, why is this any worse than not having a motorway? I don't think the folks in Newton County Arkansas care a whit whether the main road through their

Re: [Talk-us] US highway classification

On Sun, 29 May 2011 00:57:30 -0400, Anthony wrote: That's quite the misrepresentation of what I'm saying. It was an exact quote. You may have heard of the concept of the pull quote. It describes using partial quotations to misrepresent someone else's position. Again, my point is that

Re: [Talk-us] US highway classification

On Sun, 29 May 2011 01:04:24 -0400, Anthony wrote: On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 12:59 AM, Nathan Mills nat...@nwacg.net wrote: On Sun, 29 May 2011 00:13:33 -0400, Anthony wrote: convincing people that their area of the country isn't allowed to have any trunks. Also, why is this any worse than

Re: [Talk-us] US highway classification

On Sun, 29 May 2011 01:00:25 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 5/29/2011 12:37 AM, Nathan Mills wrote: US-441 between St. Cloud and Yeehaw Junction could easily be trunk by NE2's definition Nope, since any through traffic will be on the Turnpike. US 441 serves mainly only local and toll

Re: [Talk-us] US highway classification

On Fri, 27 May 2011 12:17:53 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote: The 'major intercity' road ought to be tagged as primary unless there's a specific reason to upgrade, IMO. That leaves the data more useful to end users. Actually that leaves it less useful for users in cities, as then there are

Re: [Talk-us] US highway classification

On Fri, 27 May 2011 21:26:53 -0500, John F. Eldredge wrote: I have driven on quite a few highways here in the USA that vary, mile by mile, in the number of lanes, how well they are graded, whether or not driveways connect directly to the highway, etc. This usually reflects their having been

Re: [Talk-us] County road network relations

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:47:02 -0400, Phil! Gold wrote: In my opinion, there's too much variation in how each state organizes and numbers its state-and-lower roads to make a uniform, US-wide rule. I would say that state highways should be network=US:ST (where ST is the two-letter state

Re: [Talk-us] School bus routes?

On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 20:06:06 +, j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: How would deleting a way that wasn't part of a relation damage a relation linked to some other way? Using that logic, every time a way is deleted, every relation not linked to that way would be damaged, regardless of where in the

Re: [Talk-us] School bus routes?

On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 20:19:19 +, j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: You had stated that the two ways were identical, other than the relation, so deleting the way that wasn't linked to the relation would still leave the relation referring to the same way, in the same location, as before. So, the

Re: [Talk-us] School bus routes?

Assume that there is a state highway routed through a city. At an intersection within the city, the route turns in some direction or another. For that to be accurately reflected, the ways must end at the intersection. If the constituent ways extend through the intersection, as they might if

Re: [Talk-us] County road network relations

On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 20:14:18 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote: It's almost like they defined super-groups of counties identified by those letters. I'll have to crunch that table to see if that's the case so we could have network=US:CA:S + ref=CR S18. Maybe add an is_in:county tag to the

Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways

On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 14:11:49 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 4/8/2011 2:00 PM, James Mast wrote: I just thought I would throw this out there so this can be settled once and for all. Which ref tag setup do you think should be used for State Highways on ways (not relations)? PA-44 or 44.

Re: [Talk-us] Bike / Pedestrian directions on the MQ Open sites

Paul Johnson wrote: I'd be more inclined to believe this if you weren't the only one arguing this and you had some local knowledge, and similar local/express arrangements are tagged in the same manner in Texas when I was looking for how to tag that section. As you're aware, I disagree with the

Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] Arkansas address point import

On Wed, 2011-01-26 at 19:56 -0500, Mike N wrote: On 1/25/2011 12:14 PM, Nathan Mills wrote: I propose to import the situs address points available from Geostor In considering future synchronization cycles with point data, several cases can be seen: Yes, future synchronization could

[Talk-us] Arkansas address point import

I propose to import the situs address points available from Geostor (http://www.geostor.arkansas.gov/G6/Home.html?q=situs+address). I have confirmed with that this data is public domain, and spot checks of its accuracy in areas I'm personally familiar with show that the vast majority of the points

Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] Arkansas address point import

On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 13:46 -0500, Mike N wrote: I'd recommend creating a page on the Wiki for this import - link to it from the base Arkansas page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Arkansas ; new local mappers should arrive here to learn about past and future mapping projects. Done

Re: [Talk-us] Minimum standards for motorways?

So if a motorway became sub-standard through a small city with a low speed limit, but still limited access, you think tagging it as secondary or tertiary would be appropriate? Seems to me that it's functioning as a motorway regardless of the speed limit. I-93 is a pathological case, and since

[Talk-us] help mapping construction

I ran into a situation today that I can't figure out how to correctly map. The westbound carriageway of I-40 in the easternmost few miles of Oklahoma is closed for construction and the westbound lanes are now routed on the eastbound carriageway. What's the best way to map this? Leave both