Re: [Talk-us] mapping job - unconnected _link roads
Thanks for looking at this. Yes, the disused=yes would probably catch a few, if and when I do another run on more recent data I will take it into account. The other ones would likely have been fixed since, I actually looked at a few of them in WA earlier tonight. Martijn On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 12:15 AM, Clifford Snow wrote: > > > On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 9:06 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote: >> >> One thing I do not understand is why the script catches the false >> positive node 560176247 [1] (just an example, there are more like this >> one). >> Anyone with some SQL savvy care to look into that? >> > I looked at those in Western Washington but only one required fixing. Some > of the false positives were freeway links that are shown as disused=yes. > They were on freeways that abruptly ended. Adding in sql code to omit > disused=yes would catch some. Most of the other false positives were at > connections between motorway links and the main freeway. Not sure I > understand why. I couldn't see a pattern for those. Only one possibility > comes to mind - the nodes were connected after you grabbed the data. > > Clifford -- martijn van exel http://oegeo.wordpress.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] mapping job - unconnected _link roads
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 9:06 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote: > One thing I do not understand is why the script catches the false > positive node 560176247 [1] (just an example, there are more like this > one). > Anyone with some SQL savvy care to look into that? > > I looked at those in Western Washington but only one required fixing. Some of the false positives were freeway links that are shown as disused=yes. They were on freeways that abruptly ended. Adding in sql code to omit disused=yes would catch some. Most of the other false positives were at connections between motorway links and the main freeway. Not sure I understand why. I couldn't see a pattern for those. Only one possibility comes to mind - the nodes were connected after you grabbed the data. Clifford ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] mapping job - unconnected _link roads
One thing I do not understand is why the script catches the false positive node 560176247 [1] (just an example, there are more like this one). Anyone with some SQL savvy care to look into that? [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/560176247 On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 9:27 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote: > The example I gave isn't great - these _link roads are actually > connected, they just dangle. But there are lots that are actually not > connected. It looks OK on the map usually, and it's easy to miss when > you're editing, but this type of error messes up routing. > > Martijn > > On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I've been looking at unconnected _link roads (see here [1] for a >> typical example) for the US, and found 1200 likely candidates. A >> shapefile as well as an .osm file you can load in JOSM can be >> downloaded here: http://lima.schaaltreinen.nl/osm/ >> The script I ran (on osmosis snapshot + linestring schema) is here: >> https://github.com/mvexel/osm-gradesep/blob/unconnectedlinknodes/sql/09-missinglinknodes.sql >> There are some false positives in there, but it looks like more than >> 90% of these nodes warrant inspection. >> I ran this analysis on the last planet from before 1/4, so some of >> this may already have been fixed. >> >> [1] https://www.dropbox.com/s/85dqb7fm7whevxw/unconnectedlink.png >> -- >> martijn van exel >> http://oegeo.wordpress.com > > > > -- > martijn van exel > http://oegeo.wordpress.com -- martijn van exel http://oegeo.wordpress.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] mapping job - unconnected _link roads
The example I gave isn't great - these _link roads are actually connected, they just dangle. But there are lots that are actually not connected. It looks OK on the map usually, and it's easy to miss when you're editing, but this type of error messes up routing. Martijn On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote: > Hi, > > I've been looking at unconnected _link roads (see here [1] for a > typical example) for the US, and found 1200 likely candidates. A > shapefile as well as an .osm file you can load in JOSM can be > downloaded here: http://lima.schaaltreinen.nl/osm/ > The script I ran (on osmosis snapshot + linestring schema) is here: > https://github.com/mvexel/osm-gradesep/blob/unconnectedlinknodes/sql/09-missinglinknodes.sql > There are some false positives in there, but it looks like more than > 90% of these nodes warrant inspection. > I ran this analysis on the last planet from before 1/4, so some of > this may already have been fixed. > > [1] https://www.dropbox.com/s/85dqb7fm7whevxw/unconnectedlink.png > -- > martijn van exel > http://oegeo.wordpress.com -- martijn van exel http://oegeo.wordpress.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] mapping job - unconnected _link roads
Hi, I've been looking at unconnected _link roads (see here [1] for a typical example) for the US, and found 1200 likely candidates. A shapefile as well as an .osm file you can load in JOSM can be downloaded here: http://lima.schaaltreinen.nl/osm/ The script I ran (on osmosis snapshot + linestring schema) is here: https://github.com/mvexel/osm-gradesep/blob/unconnectedlinknodes/sql/09-missinglinknodes.sql There are some false positives in there, but it looks like more than 90% of these nodes warrant inspection. I ran this analysis on the last planet from before 1/4, so some of this may already have been fixed. [1] https://www.dropbox.com/s/85dqb7fm7whevxw/unconnectedlink.png -- martijn van exel http://oegeo.wordpress.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Possible (Subtle) Vandalism
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/jermboy27/edits Several other of his older change sets have been reverted already. Warmbag fixed http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8351104 so reverting that one would cause more harm. -- Bill @n1vux bill.n1...@gmail.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Possible (Subtle) Vandalism
> Can someone check in on these edits from a wiki-vandal who was recently > banned from Wikimedia sites? They also made some bad edits on our wiki that > have since been reverted, but we should check to make sure his edits in the > map were ok: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/jermboy27/edits One chrangeset is in my area, looks dubious. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/11454677 The change for Kimberly St, is giving a street name for an un-named new-development street. Could be correct, could be vanity. Lexington Drive cites source = Google Maps, which isn't kosher here; also he assigned name to new development, could be vanity; no source for speed limit added. Albermarle Road (9279766) is duplicated, with addition hgv = no added for two blocks http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hgv looks dubious, there are houses and cross streets. Wolcott Avenue (9242832) added access tags only Coney Street (131624307) added cycleway = opposite_lane , which per http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway?uselang=en-US would only be appropriate with oneway=yes, which this does not have. I haven't driven that block of Coney, but this seems inappropriate. I could do a drive by on Saturday to check if Kimberly and Lexington signs have been posted since BING imagery showed dirt, but looks bad in other ways . I will send a message to contributor OceanVortex whose changes were potentially vandalized in case he(or she) has input. bill -- Bill @n1vux bill.n1...@gmail.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Possible (Subtle) Vandalism
Hi all, Can someone check in on these edits from a wiki-vandal who was recently banned from Wikimedia sites? They also made some bad edits on our wiki that have since been reverted, but we should check to make sure his edits in the map were ok: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/jermboy27/edits Thanks to Grant for pointing this out! -Ian ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] UK assumptions that don't hold in the U.S.
On 5/29/2012 10:00 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 05/29/12 11:57, Nathan Edgars II wrote: *Most railways have passenger service. Thus OCM (and the transport map) show all rail lines. But isn't a railway an obstacle for cyclists no matter what services they support? Sure. But that would support their being shown at close zooms, not all the way out at 7. On 5/29/2012 10:16 AM, James Umbanhowar wrote: > Many tracks are quite usable by bikes with big tires, e.g. mountain bikes. Agreed. But so is every paved road. What OCM does is give more prominence to a track (even one marked access=private!) than a residential street, for example right in the middle of here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=28.3866&lon=-81.2697&zoom=13&layers=C ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Topo map source?
Following is a copy and paste from another list I monitor: Thanks to everyone who contacted us regarding their use of MSR Maps. We are going to keep the service going at this time - though the service will not be updated. However, we do need to move and upgrade the servers that are hosting the service today. This will likely cause some down time over the next few weeks. We will try to keep this down time as minimal as possible. Be assured, the service will come back up! Thank you in advance for your patience. Lori Ada Kilty Program Manager Microsoft Research Connections > -Original Message- > From: Russ Nelson [mailto:nel...@crynwr.com] > Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 01:58 > To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org > Subject: [Talk-us] Topo map source? > > Do we have a new source for WMS topo maps now that Terraserver > (msrmaps.com) has been shut down? Can I get a working URL > from somebody? > > -- > --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com > Crynwr supports open source software > 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 > Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] UK assumptions that don't hold in the U.S.
Hi, On 05/29/12 11:57, Nathan Edgars II wrote: *Most railways have passenger service. Thus OCM (and the transport map) show all rail lines. But isn't a railway an obstacle for cyclists no matter what services they support? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] proposed automated edit: forested wetlands
The landuse import for Georgia (which IMO is poor-quality and should be
deleted, but that's not going to happen) has a bunch of areas tagged as
note = Forested Wetland with no useful natural=* tags (since
natural=wood and natural=wetland both apply). Example:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/31457349
I propose to fix these.
But what would be the best tags to use? Would natural=wetland
wetland=swamp ("An area of waterlogged forest, with dense vegetation.")
be correct? Or is it better to choose natural=* tag and add a
multipolygon for the other?
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] UK assumptions that don't hold in the U.S.
I've noticed some odd things on OpenCycleMap and other renderings, and I think it's due to a difference in how things are in the UK vs. here. *Most railways have passenger service. Thus OCM (and the transport map) show all rail lines. *Tracks are useful for cycling. When you zoom in on OCM, tracks are highlighted the same as footways. But a track is just a narrow (usually) unpaved road, and is worse for cycling than a low-traffic paved road. This also shows up on renderings such as http://www.itoworld.com/map/26 where tracks are included in "path/cycle-path etc" rather than "road". ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
