Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 9:30 PM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: One drawback to this new-coordinate technique is that, in some cases, the tainted nodes will have been in the proper locations to match the real world. Probably not. Every source we rely upon is wrong in one way or another. And differing sources never agree completely. So you might move a node in a way that agrees-less with aerial imagery. Try another zoom level; the imagery probably won't agree with itself at z-1. Or check a GPX track; it'll be different again. So, in order to make the cleanup bot not consider the nodes to be tainted, we have to knowingly make the map data less accurate than it had formerly been. Again, probably not. If you really don't want to move a node, you can delete it and create a new one. Or contact the mapper and see if they'll agree to CT/ODbL :-) ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering
* Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org [2012-04-13 06:30 -0700]: Wait, what? I was under the impression that the banners as a network thing was proposed initially in this discussion, given that the modifier tag has been documented in the wiki for well over a year now. And it makes a lot more sense, since bannered routes aren't a different network. * Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com [2012-04-13 15:56 -0400]: Whether or not there was a consensus last year, it's clear that there is none at the present time. See the recent thread about the network tag. First, I have to apologize for not realizing that the network tag was mentioned in the wiki. I know http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route fairly well, but it makes no mention of the modifier tag. The only mention I can find on the wiki is at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging#Tagging_with_relations , which I didn't realize existed. I've mostly been going based on discussion on this list, a summary of which follows. (Hang on, though. Even as a summary, it's pretty long. I hope that I have adequately represent each person's oninion on the matter.) Jan 01, 2011: highway shields: get your kicks, where? http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/highway-shields-quot-get-your-kicks-where-quot-td5286976.html Thread mostly about Richard Weait's rendering of the Historic Route 66 shield, but Alan Mintz says: Cool. Shouldn't the relation be tagged: network=US:US ref=66 modifier=HISTORIC and NE2 replies: Using the modifier tag for a banner seems wrong, as the route designation is e.g. 30 Business, not 30. It's a little more iffy for a historic route. Presumably, Alan Mintz at the time would have supported, for US 1 Alternate, network=US:US, ref=1, modifier=ALTERNATE, while NE2 would have supported network=US:US, ref=1 Alternate. (More recent evidence indicates that NE2 would now prefer network=US:US, ref=1 Alternate, modifier=Alternate.) Aug 20, 2011: Use of ref-tag on state highways http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Use-of-ref-tag-on-state-highways-td5285587.html The thread was mostly about tagging ways, but it dipped into route relations a little. Craig Hinners said: Similarly, instead of this style of tagging of US business routes (example found in Salisbury, MD): network=US:US ref=50 Business I'd prefer: network=US:US:BUSINESS ref=50 and Jason Straub separately said: As the person that just got done labelling each TX state highway, I'll chime in here with some comments. For the network tag, I think that the labelling should be (country : state network : network within the state : subnetwork in state), while the ref is JUST the number for that highway. So: US:I - Interstate US:I:BUS - Business Interstate US:US - US Route US:US:BUS - Business US Route US:US:ALT:BUS - Business Alt US Route NE2 disagreed: I disagree with putting alternate and business in the network. These modifiers are part of the designation, and some states (Arkansas in particular) treat them as lettered suffixes rather than separate plates. Mar 11, 2012: Route Relations and Special (Bannered) Routes gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Route-Relations-and-Special-Bannered-Routes-tp103p103.html In was would be the first dedicated thread on the subject, I asked how things should be tagged. Richard Welty didn't like putting the modifier in the ref tag, but implied that data consumers were using route relations' ref tags, which I don't believe is true: i like the idea of separating banners out too, but many current data consumers assume that they can just use the ref tag to label a route and be done with it. Craig Hinners again supported what he called network-classification-per-banner: This was discussed in the August 2011 thread, Use of ref-tag on state highways. At the time, a number of people seemed to be on board with the network-classification-per-banner scheme, as in: network=US:US:Alternate ref=1 NE2 disagreed: It's obvious to me that the banner is not part of the network. US 1 Alternate is part of the U.S. Highway system (US:US), not some mythical U.S. Highway Alternate system. It also makes the most sense to put it in the ref tag. Otherwise there's inconsistency between an alternate signed as US 1 Alternate and one signed as US 1A (with the suffix in the shield). In each case I'll also use the modifier tag (modifier=Alternate/A). Richard Weait also liked network-classification-per-banner: increasing specificity on the network tag like network=US:US:Alt follows the original intent of the network tag. It also offers the least surprise to naive consumers of the data. AJ Ashton also liked network-classification-per-banner: On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: increasing specificity on the network tag like network=US:US:Alt follows the original intent of the network tag. It also offers the least surprise to naive consumers of the data. I would
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering
On 4/14/2012 2:38 PM, Phil! Gold wrote: If you count out all the emails on the subject, there are probably more emails opposing the network-classification-per-banner approach, but if you count the people expressing opinions on the matter, network-classification-per-banner has a strong majority. If this is so, the wiki and data needs to reflect that the network tag is not a network tag. That's why I started the recent discussion about whether network should actually represent the shield design, and there was no consensus. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Foot paths can be tagged in multiple ways. Renderers and tools need to be able to handle them all. It's not the renderer's place to tell us how to tag. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.
On Apr 13, 2012 6:31 PM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: One drawback to this new-coordinate technique is that, in some cases, the tainted nodes will have been in the proper locations to match the real world. So, in order to make the cleanup bot not consider the nodes to be tainted, we have to knowingly make the map data less accurate than it had formerly been. Not necessarily. There are an infinite number of correct locations for centerline nodes for ways. Moving them slightly along the centerline will resolve this. Polygon corners are trickier, but not insurmountable, moving the polygon a centimeter should do it... ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.
On 14 April 2012 03:30, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: One drawback to this new-coordinate technique is that, in some cases, the tainted nodes will have been in the proper locations to match the real world. So, in order to make the cleanup bot not consider the nodes to be tainted, we have to knowingly make the map data less accurate than it had formerly been. It also will remain tainted, only the bot will not know about it and consider it untainted. So it's a way to trick the bot and potentially put the OSM Foundation under legal risk. This is why the remapping effort before the bot run is finished, is a Really Bad Idea. It is both more time costly and it is provoking users to cause incompatible IP to be preserved over the license change, often unconsciously. See all the ideas of using the incompatible IP to create the new compatible IP, such as using the tainted coastlines data to remap small islands. (RichardF said he does not agree it's a bad idea, but he wouldn't explain which point he disagrees with or why) Cheers ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.
andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: On 14 April 2012 03:30, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: One drawback to this new-coordinate technique is that, in some cases, the tainted nodes will have been in the proper locations to match the real world. So, in order to make the cleanup bot not consider the nodes to be tainted, we have to knowingly make the map data less accurate than it had formerly been. It also will remain tainted, only the bot will not know about it and consider it untainted. So it's a way to trick the bot and potentially put the OSM Foundation under legal risk. This is why the remapping effort before the bot run is finished, is a Really Bad Idea. It is both more time costly and it is provoking users to cause incompatible IP to be preserved over the license change, often unconsciously. See all the ideas of using the incompatible IP to create the new compatible IP, such as using the tainted coastlines data to remap small islands. (RichardF said he does not agree it's a bad idea, but he wouldn't explain which point he disagrees with or why) Cheers I was assuming that there was an additional data source, such as aerial photos and/or GPS traces, which could be used to judge the accuracy of the tainted node. As I understand the way the bot judges taintedness, if you delete a tainted node, then insert a replacement node in the same location, the new node is also considered tainted even though it was added by someone who agreed to the new license terms, and even though that might be the correct location to mark the corner of a polygon. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Gated communities - access=private or destination?
In the U.S., a gated residential community usually allows anyone in who has a legitimate reason to be there (e.g. visiting a friend, delivering a package, repairing a TV). It seems that this fits access=destination as well as private. Would it be reasonable to tag it as such, and leave access=private for secondary entrances that lack a guard and can only be opened by residents? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
