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

intersection, as is the case > with the Tisdale Parkway. > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 8:11 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 10:02 PM Evin Fairchild >> wrote: >> >>> Nobody is saying that we should tag as motorways a road with a surface >>> i

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

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 10:02 PM Evin Fairchild wrote: > Nobody is saying that we should tag as motorways a road with a surface > intersection. I don't understand what it is that we're saying that's > causing you to come to that conclusion. We are simply saying that the > first surface

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

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 9:36 PM Nathan Mills wrote: > 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

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

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 9:00 PM Evin Fairchild wrote: > I think you're misrepresenting the discussion. People are simply saying > that the motorway destination should extend all the way to the first at > grade intersection, rather than the interchange prior to the at grade > intersection.

[Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

Can I get some voice of reason in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/64919426? There seems to be quite a few people (and one AARoads forum troll egging it on) that are trying to propel the idea that motorways have at-grade intersections, which is obviously incorrect.

Re: [Talk-us] Forest Routes

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 2:51 PM Eric H. Christensen wrote: > On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 9:49 AM, Martijn van Exel > wrote: > > > I think you are right. It would be good if we can arrive at a common > > prefix and document it on the wiki. 'FS' makes sense. Perhaps even a new > > page

Re: [Talk-us] Forest Routes

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 3:58 AM Minh Nguyen wrote: > On 2018-11-20 08:57, Martijn van Exel wrote: > > When I map these roads I include the FS number (just the number) as a > > ref, since that is how they are signposted in the field. > > I think the ref tag on the ways should have a prefix and

Re: [Talk-us] Short 'connector' roads -- _link or not?

On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 4:06 PM Martijn van Exel wrote: > Hi, > As I was creating more ‘unnamed roads’ challenges in MapRoulette, and spot > checking them, I came across a number of cases like this one: > > https://maproulette.org/mr3/challenge/3313/task/6414594 > > To my mind these need to be

Re: [Talk-us] Strange city boundary: Lee, Illinois

Looks about right. There's examples of this sort of thing all over... heck, there's some cities that straddle state lines. On Wed, Nov 14, 2018, 07:47 Hi, > > are there cities (admin level 8) in the USA which part of two counties? > > see:

Re: [Talk-us] USPS Post Boxes

On Tue, Sep 25, 2018, 09:37 Martijn van Exel wrote: > Leif -- > > I like the idea of making this more consistent. I am not convinced that > 'United States Postal Service' is an improvement over 'USPS'. (Should we > also rename 'UPS' to 'United Parcel Service'? 'FedEx' to 'Federal Express'?) >

Re: [Talk-us] USPS Post Boxes

On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 7:12 PM Jmapb wrote: > On 9/6/2018 6:44 PM, Leif Rasmussen wrote: > > > First, for keeping the tagging style as consistent as possible, each > > post box will be given the tag "operator:wikidata"="Q668687". This > > way, even if the operator=* tags are changed later on,

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

On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 6:29 PM Kevin Kenny wrote: > Heh. Sometimes you have to wait a long time. The signage on 'Avenue of > the Americas' in New York City has said that since the 1950's. The > Postal Service prefers that name on street addresses. New Yorkers > call it Sixth Avenue, which

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

Yes, this is correct. name=* is only the name. Ideally, the ref=* tag should be *supplemental* to a proper route relation at this point (especially in Indiana, where I am aware of a *nine-way* concurrency, something ref=* just doesn't handle very elegantly at all in even the slightest stretch of

Re: [Talk-us] USPS Post Boxes

I fully support the expanded version, not the abbreviated version. On Tue, Aug 28, 2018, 14:32 Leif Rasmussen <354...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi everyone, > A couple of days ago, I noticed that different post boxes in the United > States had different ways of tagging that they were part of the USPS

Re: [Talk-us] ref=* tags on links

On Fri, Aug 24, 2018, 14:33 Richard Welty wrote: > On 8/24/18 3:15 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > This is a criticism I've had about the Standard renderer for a while > > now. Andy Allan's rendering refs from relations. Osmand is rendering > > refs from relations. Magic Ea

Re: [Talk-us] Talk-us Digest, Vol 129, Issue 27

Use procmail to split digests into their original individual messages before replying, please. On Fri, Aug 24, 2018, 12:57 OSM Volunteer stevea wrote: > > it's impractical for people to do what you're suggesting. > > By "you" Evin means Paul Johnson and by &quo

Re: [Talk-us] ref=* tags on links

On Fri, Aug 24, 2018, 13:41 Evin Fairchild wrote: > Anyway, to get back on topic, I don't agree with tagging the ref tags on > link roads, as long as it's part of the route relation. I have seen > instances, though, where people tag what should be a motorway link as a > motorway when a route

Re: [Talk-us] ref=* tags on links

e ref tags for the whole relation. > > -Evin (compdude) > > On Fri, Aug 24, 2018, 9:56 AM Paul Johnson wrote: > >> The ref=* tag on ways is already 100% redundant if the way is already a >> part of the appropriate route relations and should be phased out so ref can &

Re: [Talk-us] ref=* tags on links

The ref=* tag on ways is already 100% redundant if the way is already a part of the appropriate route relations and should be phased out so ref can be used to actually describe the way's ref, where applicable. Also, can we kill this dinosaur entirely already? Route relations have been a widely

Re: [Talk-us] Clarke County, Mississippi, county road signs and OSM name tags

On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 5:46 PM, Mike N wrote: > On 8/14/2018 6:33 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > >> Yeah, even then I'd be more inclined to go with ref=CR 1400W, noname=yes >> on the way itself. >> > > How should we handle addressing for noname roads? What should addr:

Re: [Talk-us] Clarke County, Mississippi, county road signs and OSM name tags

=Clarke County 123. Or even ref=CR 123, > name=Clarke County 123, alt_name=County Road 123. Or swap the name= and > alt_name= values. > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 2:35 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > > Just ref=CR 123. The name should not be redundant to the ref, so if > it's

Re: [Talk-us] Clarke County, Mississippi, county road signs and OSM name tags

Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 2:35 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > > > > Just ref=CR 123. The name should not be redundant to the ref, so if > it's signed as Clark Co. 123 and that's it, then add noname=yes as well. > The name is only the name, name is not ref. > &g

Re: [Talk-us] Clarke County, Mississippi, county road signs and OSM name tags

Just ref=CR 123. The name should not be redundant to the ref, so if it's signed as Clark Co. 123 and that's it, then add noname=yes as well. The name is only the name, name is not ref. On Tue, Aug 14, 2018, 11:24 Jack Burke wrote: > Asking for thoughts & opinions... > > While some counties

Re: [Talk-us] State Open Data

On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 9:00 PM, Clifford Snow wrote: > Ian, > > > On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 9:30 AM Ian Dees wrote: > >> Thanks for putting this together, Clifford! >> >> I was collecting street centerline data as part of OpenAddresses a while >> ago here:

Re: [Talk-us] named links

This summarizes the approach I take towards this in regards to named or reffed links. At least until we start consistently expecting tags on entities to apply to those entities instead of a completely different entity. Adding ref to ways instead of the relation that describes the route is

Re: [Talk-us] New MapRoulette challenges

21, 2018, at 20:43, Paul Johnson wrote: > > Is it normal to not be able to update your user profile in MapRoulette? > > On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 6:29 AM, Horea Meleg > wrote: > >> Hi everyone! >> >> First, a big thank you for all contributors who finished ou

Re: [Talk-us] New MapRoulette challenges

Is it normal to not be able to update your user profile in MapRoulette? On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 6:29 AM, Horea Meleg wrote: > Hi everyone! > > First, a big thank you for all contributors who finished our first > MapRoulette Challenges. > > Second, as we promised, we prepared 4 more challenges

Re: [Talk-us] OSM US Camera lending program update

For those of us who have our own Waylens, what's the best way to collect imagery for OSC? I haven't been able to get an answer out of Telenav or Waylens support (even an autoresponse acknowledging that they got the message). On Thu, Jun 14, 2018, 12:13 Martijn van Exel wrote: > Hi all, > > You

Re: [Talk-us] Maximum number of tasks on US tasker

oes it have to be? > I see quite a few roads where you can tell that striping once existed > because of some barely-visible remnants in spots > > On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 10:00 PM, Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> wrote: > >> Right, we're only counting striped lanes.

Re: [Talk-us] Maximum number of tasks on US tasker

Right, we're only counting striped lanes. On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 7:43 PM, Jack Burke <burke...@gmail.com> wrote: > But they *are* lanes. They just aren't striped. > > -jack > -- > Typos courtesy of fancy auto spell technology > > > On May 8, 2018 3:24:08 PM EDT, Pau

Re: [Talk-us] Maximum number of tasks on US tasker

oundary for oncoming > traffic. I certainly will not be removing lanes=2 from those roads. > > > > On May 8, 2018, at 11:20 AM, Mike N <nice...@att.net> wrote: > > > > On 5/8/2018 11:55 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > >> Then with residential streets where the

Re: [Talk-us] Maximum number of tasks on US tasker

It's basically the opposite problem of overlooking bike, bus and HOV lanes. Instead of your lane guidance being off by however lanes were omitted, you're getting lane advice where it's not applicable. On Tue, May 8, 2018, 13:21 Mike N <nice...@att.net> wrote: > On 5/8/2018 11:55 AM, Pau

Re: [Talk-us] Maximum number of tasks on US tasker

think MapRoulette can help, also > because not everybody prefers the same style of working on large projects. > -- > Martijn van Exel > m...@rtijn.org > > > > On Mon, May 7, 2018, at 21:12, Paul Johnson wrote: > > MapRoulette really made a massive mess of the

Re: [Talk-us] Maximum number of tasks on US tasker

l that TM can be good for a general ask like ‘check all TIGER > residential roads in rural areas in this cell, demote to track / > unclassified or delete as needed’ whereas MapRoulette may be useful for > more specific TIGER cleanup related tasks? > > Thoughts? > > Martijn >

Re: [Talk-us] Maximum number of tasks on US tasker

to replace selection and searching for highway=* type:way). On Sat, May 5, 2018 at 12:57 PM, Ian Dees <ian.d...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't know. Do you see a limit somewhere? I'm happy to increase it. > > On Sat, May 5, 2018, 12:35 Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> wrote: > >&

[Talk-us] Maximum number of tasks on US tasker

What is the maximum number of tasks possible on the US tasker, and is it possible to change that? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Refreshing tasks.openstreetmap.us

Paul Johnson is my OSM username. On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 9:36 PM, Ian Dees <ian.d...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yep, I was hoping to understand what the issue with the email is but > haven't yet. That might be a Tasking Manager bug? > > Looks like folks are able to create tasks though.

Re: [Talk-us] Refreshing tasks.openstreetmap.us

ttp://tasks2.openstreetmap.us/ points to the > old version. Please don't make new projects/tasks on the old version. > > I'll have to look into the contact details not updating. That indicates > something is wrong with the database... > > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 9:49 PM, Paul Johns

Re: [Talk-us] Refreshing tasks.openstreetmap.us

p.us/ points to the > old version. Please don't make new projects/tasks on the old version. > > I'll have to look into the contact details not updating. That indicates > something is wrong with the database... > > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 9:49 PM, Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> w

Re: [Talk-us] Refreshing tasks.openstreetmap.us

Looks like the switchover has happened. Looks like contact info can't be updated yet and I don't have the ability to create tasks yet. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] STOP - All vehicles must register

On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 1:10 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: > The case of non-hard-surface roads brought this to mind. There are a few > roads across the Adirondack Park that are open to the public (in summer) > and have endpoints that look like > >

Re: [Talk-us] Refreshing tasks.openstreetmap.us

Just brainstorming here. > > > > I understand the need to move forward. This might also remove some > inactive projects or rejuvenate them. > > > > Joe Sapletal > > > > *From: *Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> > *Sent: *Friday, April 20, 2018 6:37 PM

Re: [Talk-us] Refreshing tasks.openstreetmap.us

with that I'd be very happy! > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 5:49 PM, Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> wrote: > >> Is there any way to move any tasks as they are right now? I'm presently >> using the tasker to handle TIGER cleanup in Oklahoma County. >> >> On

Re: [Talk-us] Refreshing tasks.openstreetmap.us

Is there any way to move any tasks as they are right now? I'm presently using the tasker to handle TIGER cleanup in Oklahoma County. On Fri, Apr 20, 2018, 17:35 Ian Dees wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm looking to shut down the current Tasking Manager 2-based service at >

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

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 5:12 PM, Dave Swarthout wrote: > "I'm totally open to suggestions for alternatives. Gravel certainly > doesn't describe that kind of coarse crushed rock to most people, but what > do you call that concisely?" > > The roadway in the OP's opening

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

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018, 16:41 Dave Swarthout wrote: > " I'm kind of thinking that the gravel surface in the wiki would be > better redone as surface=ballast. " > > -1 > > I hope you won't push for this. > I'm totally open to suggestions for alternatives. Gravel certainly

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

On Wed, Apr 18, 2018, 21:51 Harald Kliems wrote: > I think compacted is definitely the best way to tag, but I agree with > Toby's point that common terms conflicting with OSM terminology is going to > lead to lots of errors. Looking at my own edits, I have mistakenly used >

Re: [Talk-us] Edit war after MapRoulette motorway downgrading task

On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 3:49 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Frederik Ramm wrote: > > * you have developed a certain way to map certain objects, that might > > be a little out of touch with what is considered the "right" approach > > elsewhere in the project, but you don't

Re: [Talk-us] DigitalGlobe Premium Imagery: Invalid Token?

Ive run into the same program since yesterday, and it's basically ground me to a halt, since Bing is badly out of date stateside in Oklahoma. On Mar 10, 2018 14:54, "Albert Pundt" wrote: > For the past several days, the DigitalGlobe Premium and Standard Imagery > have both

Re: [Talk-us] Help fight advertising

On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 11:40 AM, Clifford Snow wrote: > > To me that leaves us with a couple of choices. One, we continue to develop > more sophisticated tools to identify and revert the spam or two, we develop > tools to help SEO firms add data to OSM in a manner

Re: [Talk-us] Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 8:14 PM, Nick Hocking wrote: > Paul wrote "Or maybe the unedited original TIGER that's still around > dropped to > highway=road. " > > > Given that the *vast* majority of these (with no name) are completely > fictional, and even those that

Re: [Talk-us] Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

On Feb 21, 2018 23:29, "Nick Hocking" wrote: I've always been of the opinion that any of the original TIGER data import that has not yet been edited and does not have a name tag, should just be deleted. Then, and only then can the rural areas begin to be mapped

Re: [Talk-us] Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 4:07 PM, Clifford Snow wrote: > > There is another way to tackle the problem, one that I've used as well. > Work on one county at a time. With 83 counties in Michigan the size of each > county should be reasonable for one or two people to tackle.

Re: [Talk-us] SPAM-LOW: Re: Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

On Feb 12, 2018 19:24, "Brian May" wrote: Kevin, I hear where you are coming from, but I think your case is somewhat unique. Most people aren't going to look at a GPS with OSM data in it, see a bunch of residential roads in a rural un-populated area and think, OK, that must be

Re: [Talk-us] Changing

On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 8:49 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea < stevea...@softworkers.com> wrote: > Thanks, Paul. That is exactly the kind of response (mind blowing in its > comprehensive completeness, although I, for one, on this channel remain in > listening mode) I > was hoping for. > Thanks!

Re: [Talk-us] Changing

e ref tags on the ways at all, just unsigned_ref=* tags on the relations. On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 7:37 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea < stevea...@softworkers.com> wrote: > On Dec 31, 2017, at 5:27 PM, Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> wrote: > > I'd go with ref_unsigned on that, j

Re: [Talk-us] Changing

I'd go with ref_unsigned on that, just to be orthagonal with other unsigned refs (like Oregon's state highways as opposed to state, US and Interstate routes; or Oklahoma's unsigned 0, 00 and 000). On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 10:40 PM, Albert Pundt wrote: > It also allows for

Re: [Talk-us] pokemon go related vandalism in asheville, north carolina

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 6:25 PM, Clifford Snow wrote: > No problem. We need to rid OSM of vandalism. Hopefully more people will > start watching edits in their areas. I watch new users in Washington State > and catch a few that way. > Good way to catch SEO spam very

Re: [Talk-us] Willoughby, Ohio

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:32 AM, Simon Poole wrote: > I've likely done what we can do at this point, as said some on the ground > information could improve the situation a bit, but I would not suggest a > non-local mapper driving there just because of that. > > But, wouldn't

Re: [Talk-us] Willoughby, Ohio

On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 1:09 PM, Simon Poole wrote: > The street in question is Stevens Boulevard http://www.openstreetmap.org/# > map=17/41.64710/-81.42325 it seems that there is an issue mainly with > trucks and speeding, seems like a classical rat run. > > There seems to be a

Re: [Talk-us] 2484 oneway roads in Philadelphia

Does it also detect the opposite problem? I'm probably close to about 50% done getting through it myself now, but Oklahoma City and surrounding areas have a lot of two way, undivided roads mapped as one-way left over from the original TIGER import. On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Badita Florin

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

ch the 'highway' tag > altogether, and let the renders handle it with their own algorithms? > > >On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 12:19 AM, Paul Johnson > wrote: > >> > >> The US is pretty well known for overbuilding highways. Are we trying to > >> documen

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 12:19 AM, Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> wrote: > > The US is pretty well known for overbuilding highways. Are we trying to > document how things are on the ground or how things are actually > connected? If we're going for the former, then yeah,

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 11:42 PM, Ian Dees wrote: > Hi everyone, > > It sounds like this thread isn't really going anywhere. Since email > threads like this tend to be a terrible way to have intense conversation, I > would encourage you all to talk in real time on IRC, Slack,

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 11:23 PM, Nathan Mills wrote: > 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. >

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:52 PM, Evin Fairchild wrote: > That can be easily rectified by tagging trunk roads in accordance with the > wiki. > Exactly backwards, since the wiki is supposed to document how things are already consumed, not the other way around. Which wasn't

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 9:43 PM, Evin Fairchild <evindf...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Oct 14, 2017 5:41 PM, "Paul Johnson" <ba...@ursamundi.org> wrote: > > Or, map it cleanly to limited access expressways and super2s. I really > think people are trying

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 9:43 PM, Evin Fairchild <evindf...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Oct 14, 2017 5:41 PM, "Paul Johnson" <ba...@ursamundi.org> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 7:28 PM, Evin Fairchild <evindf...@gmail.com> > wrote: &g

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 7:28 PM, Evin Fairchild <evindf...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Oct 14, 2017 4:25 PM, "Paul Johnson" <ba...@ursamundi.org> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Evin Fairchild <evindf...@gmail.com> > wrote: &g

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 6:25 PM, Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> wrote: > > There's still a fundamental difference between a controlled or limited > access route that isn't a freeway, and a two lane road without hard > shoulders that has a 70 mph speed limit. > To expand

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Evin Fairchild wrote: > On Oct 14, 2017 2:04 PM, "Wolfgang Zenker" > wrote: > > Hi, > > it looks to me that this discussion is going in circles, not forward > at the moment. IMHO it does not make a lot of sense to

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 3:19 PM, Bradley White wrote: > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Nathan Mills wrote: > > Road maps in the US have long differentiated between freeway/expressway > and > > has had both of those clearly different than US and

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 11:00 PM, Evin Fairchild wrote: > Another thing worth adding is that if we do decide to tag two-lane roads > as trunk, you will still be able to tell the undivided two-lane roads apart > from the divided four-lane roads, even at zoom 5. I'm sure many

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 10:19 PM, Bradley White <theangrytom...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Message: 4 > > Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 21:24:20 -0500 > > From: Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> > > To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list <talk-us@openstreetmap.org> > > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Trunk > > Message-ID: > >

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 9:53 PM, Evin Fairchild wrote: > > Soon after I first joined OSM, NE2 changed a US highway near me from > primary to trunk which another user quickly reverted, but I actually agreed > with the change to trunk. The road I'm referring to, BTW, is US 2 in

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 9:10 PM, Bradley White wrote: > > This situation is NOT the case for the majority of the US, and trying > to use this definition is what has been leading to unresolved > confusion about the purpose of the trunk tag. MUTCD gives a definition > of

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Dave Swarthout wrote: > > I don't really have a stake in the outcome of this discussion but wish to > again point out that Alaska is a state where "trunk" has been used to > designate highways that are ordinarily classified as primary but

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 6:49 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 7:30 PM, Greg Troxel wrote: > > I don't think "important connecting role in the long distance road > > network" should have anything to do with it. A regular US highway

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 5:33 PM, Greg Troxel wrote: > > Kevin Kenny writes: > > > Perhaps we could reach consensus more easily if we were > > to first try to agree that the goal is to tag both physical character > > and regional importance, and

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 2:18 PM, Nathan Mills wrote: > 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. > Fair enough. It does retain a lot of it's features from when it was the Riverside

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 1:25 AM, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: > On 10/05/2017 05:30 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote: > > Question for you all: > > > > What make Michigan state routes 5 and 10[1] trunks rather than > primaries? > > > > To my mind these are highway=primary mainly because

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

A little context, since I don't know how routine it is for folks to be aware of the difference between an expressway (which is what I would call a trunk in OSM terms) and a freeway (OSM's motorway). I use the same criteria as AASHTO, where a freeway is always dual carriageway, fully controlled

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 12:28 AM, Dave Swarthout wrote: > I m following this conversation in hopes that if it ever gets resolved > someone will update the Wiki. I have my fears that, along with many other > contentious issues, it may never be resolved to the satisfaction

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 11:27 PM, Bill Ricker <bill.n1...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Richie Kennedy > <richiekenned...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> > wrote: > > >>

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Richie Kennedy > wrote: > > Perhaps I should make it clear that I am willing to pull a **full NE2 > > defense** of the position that a controlled-access

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Richie Kennedy wrote: > On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Greg Troxel wrote: > > > > I'm with Paul here. To be motorway, there are three critical > > characteristics: > > > > divided > > >=2 lanes each direction (so

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 10:20 PM, Tod Fitch wrote: > > > On Oct 5, 2017, at 8:05 PM, Richie Kennedy > wrote: > > I *strongly* dispute Paul's assertion that a highway that has fully > > controlled access but is single carriageway should be "trunk"

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote: > > To my mind these are highway=primary mainly because of at-grade > intersections.. I am still confused about what makes a trunk road in the > US. To my mind it's roads with no at-grade intersections but not built to >

Re: [Talk-us] Functional Classification question in the Kansas City area

On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Max Erickson wrote: > Given that the HFCS can simply be added as another tag, I don't see > any reason to force OSM tagging away from what is sensible just to > line up with what the state says. > This. If the HFCS is known, add that in a

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

that off. On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 1:37 PM, Martijn van Exel <mart...@openstreetmap.us> wrote: > Hi, > > On Sep 14, 2017, at 11:27 AM, Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Martijn van Exel < > mart...@openstreetmap.us> wr

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

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote: > > On Sep 14, 2017, at 11:08 AM, Bill Ricker wrote: > > ​Hour by hour? Do we expect it to? > > No, but closures that last more than, say, a few days would be useful to > have, as long as

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

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Bill Ricker wrote: > > > Is the current road closure situation adequately reflected in the OSM data >> as well? >> > > ​Hour by hour? Do we expect it to? > I *wish* we had the manpower to do something like that! That would be very cool,

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Decline in accuracy of capture date metadata in Bing imagery

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 9:48 AM, Bryan Housel wrote: > Hey this is a topic that I care about - It turns out, you are already > chipping in some money for high resolution orthoimagery! > > OK state Geographic Information Council > http://okmaps.onenet.net/index.html > > OK

Re: [Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing 3

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Horea Meleg wrote: > Hello all, > > Me and my Telenav colleagues are editing lane numbers in Detroit area. We > have two cases, where any opinion would be appreciated. > > *Case 1 * > > We are editing lanes and turn lanes and we came

Re: [Talk-us] Directions as route relation roles

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Albert Pundt wrote: > The wiki page Highway Directions In The United States lists a method of > tagging directions in route relation roles that sets the role as the posted > direction of the way in OSM's forward direction. For

Re: [Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing 2

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 3:37 PM, wrote: > The turn lanes plugin seems to support this nicely: https://www.dropbox. > com/s/8wmp5h2cn931pic/Screenshot%202017-06-19%2014.33.40.jpg?dl=0 — even > though the center lane is rarely marked with left turn arrows, as suggested > by the

Re: [Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing 2

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 10:44 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote: > Judging from the markings, that is a turn lane shared by both directions. > You cannot legally use it to pass a car in the main driving lane, you can > only use it to make a left turn. Lanes of this type are

Re: [Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing 2

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 9:24 AM, Tod Fitch wrote: > I haven’t settled on a tagging for when the center area is blocked by > solid lines (legally meaning don’t cross), but an access tag would be > reasonable. An alternative or addition to an access control could be using >

Re: [Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing 2

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 7:16 AM, Kerry Irons wrote: > Center lane is a left turn only lane. If the space to the side of the > solid white lines is a bike lane, then this street may have be subject to a > “road diet” in which a 4 lane street is reduced to two travel

Re: [Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing 2

In this case, with the dual-direction turn lane, I would label that with lanes:both_ways=1 and turn:lanes:both_ways=left. If the center lane has two solid lines (making it a flush median), then lanes:both_ways=1 and access:lanes:both_ways=no On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 6:17 AM, Horea Meleg

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >