Re: [Talk-us] New MapRoulette now in early public beta

Martijn, the new MapRoulette is FANTASTIC! I used the old one quite a bit, but I was amazed at how “drop dead easy” this new version is. In fact, sort of by stumbling around and trying to figure it out, I did figure it out and before you know it (just a couple of minutes, really) I had complet

Re: [Talk-us] WikiProject US Bicycle Route System call for volunteers

> As it is now spring (or fall), it’s that national biennial bicycle routes > time of year! Whoops, semi-annual, not biennial: AASHTO approves state DOT ballots for new USBRs every spring and autumn. SteveA California ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-

[Talk-us] WikiProject US Bicycle Route System call for volunteers

As it is now spring (or fall), it’s that national biennial bicycle routes time of year! Yes, AASHTO has ballots pending from state Departments of Transportation (DOTs) for new routes in the United States Bicycle Routing System (USBRS), like “proto-Interstates for bikes” (network=ncn in the USA)

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

Eternal vigilance is what liberty costs. I maintain that my forests are my forests. Maybe a sign or current campfire regulations prevent me from collecting downed wood, but if I’m camping in a National Forest (and I’m a citizen or a national) I’m going to assume that is true until it is proven

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

> On May 10, 2016, at 12:13 PM, Mike Thompson > wrote: > Ok, you are talking about gathering of fallen branches, not just cutting of > standing trees. I could be wrong about this, so I will say what I strongly believe to be true, but am not 100% certain: in a US Nat

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

On May 10, 2016, at 12:13 PM, Mike Thompson wrote: > Sorry if I misrepresented your viewpoint. Not a problem. Sorry if I sounded harsh while doing so. Just a minor disagreement that we seem to have ironed out. > "but I can't cut it down and start a campfire" - Are you excluding the > gather

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

> On May 10, 2016, at 11:24 AM, Charlotte Wolter wrote: > Steve, I see your argument. You're going for consistency, which is usually a > good thing. > But, what if the land "cover" is scattered trees that are the size of > large shrubs in a desert environment? I'm thinking of the chapar

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

> On May 10, 2016, at 10:55 AM, Mike Thompson wrote: > We need to be more specific as to what this means. I would suggest that this > tag is only appropriate where there is active commercial cultivation of trees > for timber, pulp or similar products. Steve things otherwise, and I respect > hi

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

Bradley White mailto:theangrytom...@gmail.com>> writes: > Just to add my two cents, I do not think that "landuse=forest" should be > tagged with national forest boundaries. I would like to be clear, here: I USED TO believe this, as it was the “best practice” at the time, and so I DID tag like

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

Mike Thompson writes: > 1) I don't know how anyone would able to tell this from simple on the ground > observation. Granted: from an on-the-ground observation, a landuse=forest might look very much like a natural=wood. However, if you saw that part of the area had some stumps, you could safe

Re: [Talk-us] Talk-us Digest, Vol 102, Issue 13

> On 8/19/2015 2:29 AM, Nathan Mixter wrote: >> I would like to see areas in OSM categorized as either land use, land cover >> (which we call natural for the most part in OSM) or administrative to clear >> the confusion. I am also in favor of eliminating the landuse=forest tag at >> least in its

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

Russ, Elliott, Kenny and all: This might sound glib, but I believe that setting landuse=forest on a (multi)polygon which is land use forest is correct. Yes, I have notice that mapnik rendering has changed over the years so that other 2-D objects which occupy the same space may yield unexpected

Re: [Talk-us] Per-State relations for the Appalachian Trail

Kevin Kenny mailto:kken...@nycap.rr.com>> writes: > Breaking apart the AT into separate relations - ideally with a superrelation > joining them - would be sensible, I think, but be careful about the > assumption about state lines. The AT literally spends a good many miles with > the hiker having

Re: [Talk-us] Per-State relations for the Appalachian Trail

In the USA, partly because we are such a geographically large part of the North American continent and partly because each of our fifty states is sovereign, I find that breaking apart very large relations so they are across a single state at a time (then perhaps these are collected into a super-

Re: [Talk-us] Colorado mappers: Check your notes carefully

I have been putting out the fire of a mild edit war in Colorado involving the Great Divide Mountain Bike Route, http://www.osm/org/relation/3161159 where MountainAddict keeps setting this to network=ncn when clearly it is network=icn (as it crosses the Canad

Re: [Talk-us] Is USBR 11 in Maryland complete/correct in OSM?

Ah, my spell-check is to blame! “non” should be ncn “lcm” should be lcm “a bicycle router showing” should be “a bicycle renderer showing” SteveA ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Is USBR 11 in Maryland complete/correct in OSM?

Whoops, a couple typos back there: “non” should be non “lcm” should be lcn SteveA ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Is USBR 11 in Maryland complete/correct in OSM?

Elliott Plack wrote: > Update on this. I was out along the AT in the Weverton area and had a chance > to observe this unique condition where cyclists are encouraged to use what is > effectively a motorway for travel. I always found my armchair mapping of this highly suspect and so I added cop

Re: [Talk-us] Strategy for Naming Parts of a Large Park

Kevin: We can put park data as a name= tag into a node and see it render. Sometimes that is a good placeholder, good enough. Where Elliott and I seem to agree is that we put units of parks into a similarly-named park super-relation. (I hyphenate that, Elliott seems not to, OK). The elements

Re: [Talk-us] Talk-us Digest, Vol 101, Issue 10

. > > Again I am sorry > Tom > From: OSM Volunteer stevea > Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 7:35:32 PM > To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Talk-us Digest, Vol 101, Issue 10 > > At least a couple of posters have responded to the thread: > >> I'

Re: [Talk-us] Talk-us Digest, Vol 101, Issue 10

At least a couple of posters have responded to the thread: > I'm equally inexperienced in the contact department, so take what I say with > that gain of salt. > > This appears to be a class at California University of Pennsylvania (calu.edu > ), and the last of the users you

<    1   2   3