On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Paul Norman wrote:
> I've been doing some California landuse and have come across a lot of
> landuse=residential imported from FMMP which is clearly wrong. The
> landuse=residential covers entire cities, including commercial, industrial,
> retail, parks, schools,
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 2:22 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> 2013/6/14 Bryce Nesbitt
>
>> The OSM node could even link to a wiki page where the neighborhood can be
>> described in all its richness and complexity.
>
>
> you could do this with wikipedia links. My usecase would be to enter an
>
Another huge - Thank You - to all who have (and continue/will have) helped
map the Black Forest Fire!
The fire is not out, but the situation is improving. At this point efforts
should be coordinated through the wiki [1] and unless things make a major
change for the worse, I'll stop filling you
I tag landuse=forest on public and private "timber production"
polygons. This includes national forests, yes. It also includes at
least one state demonstration forest I am aware of near me.
I tag landuse=wood on virgin forest as well as second-growth
"forests" or visually woody land. I do s
This would be an acceptable compromise.
On Jun 14, 2013 6:00 PM, "Mike N" wrote:
> On 6/14/2013 5:43 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
>> We do map proposed routes, we don't map for the renderer.
>>
>
> earlier
>
> In which I would really prefer this be addressed as a rendering issue. I
>> believe tha
On 6/14/2013 5:43 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
We do map proposed routes, we don't map for the renderer.
earlier
In which I would really prefer this be addressed as a rendering issue. I believe that's
the reasonable compromise, to highlight a margin-of-error area defined by another tag
(perhap
I've been doing some California landuse and have come across a lot of
landuse=residential imported from FMMP which is clearly wrong. The
landuse=residential covers entire cities, including commercial, industrial,
retail, parks, schools, golf courses, airports, and pretty much anything
within city l
Well then, we can use them to hide the parking lot symbols in DC.
d.
On Jun 14, 2013, at 15:11, alyssa wright wrote:
> Don't knock the unicorn viewing sites. They are everywhere.
>
> On Jun 14, 2013, at 5:55 PM, Darrell Fuhriman wrote:
>
>> Please for the love of god, I see no one here i
Don't knock the unicorn viewing sites. They are everywhere.
On Jun 14, 2013, at 5:55 PM, Darrell Fuhriman wrote:
> Please for the love of god, I see no one here in favor of it but you. They
> are imaginary, let's delete them and move on.
>
> They have no more place in OSM than unicorn viewi
Please for the love of god, I see no one here in favor of it but you. They are
imaginary, let's delete them and move on.
They have no more place in OSM than unicorn viewing locations and alien landing
sites.
d.
On Jun 14, 2013, at 14:43, Paul Johnson wrote:
> Again, I'm still not hearing
Again, I'm still not hearing a suggestion that would keep this valuable
information in OSM, or a compelling reason not to keep it. We do map
proposed routes, we don't map for the renderer. It still sounds like the
core issue is some proposals are mapped more specifically than they are on
paper.
Sorry, again my take is to go ahead and trace - a little background, I would
like to be able to suggest to fire/all emergency services that OSM is/can be
the best 'situational awareness' tool/map. So although we will be creating
more work to 'fix' - when I started it was a blank white area with ho
To clarify, my question was not around what tags to use for the areas with
trees, it was on how to handle the fact that the forest in many cases is
presumably burnt out.
If it weren't for the fire I'd be tracing a lot of natural=wood in the
region.
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Taylor
Thank you Harry, no - sorry - the landuse was mainly me; afterward I can
explain why it's beneficial to mash landuse on the map for response
purposes. Yes, it will need cleaned up and Murry and others are making good
progress.
=Russ
From: Harry Wood [mailto:m...@harrywood.co.uk]
Sent: Friday
Here's a wiki page for coordination. Please feel free to edit
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Black_Forest_Fire_2013
Eugghh! The landuse data around here is a mess. Government data import I
presume On the plus side. There's plenty to get stuck in and work on. I
recommend JOSM for dealing
Just for the record, I don't disagree with Murry's suggestion and he and I
have talked about this face-to-face. And I think you'd be the most local
expert on this one, please feel free to change my tags.
Thanks!
From: Murry McEntire [mailto:murry.mcent...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 14,
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 2:26 AM, Paul Norman wrote:
> What do you think we should do with what I would normally tag
> natural=wood? There’s plenty of woods in the residential areas that aren’t
> mapped, but I’m not sure how to handle them.
>
>
I was hoping long time users and experts would ju
Hi all,
At our monthly geoNYC meetup, we have a section where we announce upcoming
events im the geo space. If there are any conferences, hangouts,
trainings, milestones, etc that you would like us to share with this
audience, please let me know in the next couple of days.
Thanks!
Alyssa.
__
Makes sense to me. Private parking and parking accessible to the public should
certainly be tagged and rendered differently. I would not be surprised if some
people, trying to use an OSM map to find a place to park, and instead being
directed again and again to parking that turned out to be of
For areas inside what you can assume is private property, landuse=forest is
what I typically use. 'Managed Forest'? Maybe needs to be a little more.
From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com]
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 2:27 AM
To: 'OSM US Talk'
Cc: 'hot'
Subject: Re: [HOT] [Talk-us] Black Fores
2013/6/14 Steven Johnson
> To amplify what Serge said about Washington, no distinction was made for
> the behind-the-house, 1-2 vehicle private space versus large public lots.
> So if you were to look at the WashDC map, you'd be misled into thinking
> there is parking everywhere! I rather like th
To amplify what Serge said about Washington, no distinction was made for
the behind-the-house, 1-2 vehicle private space versus large public lots.
So if you were to look at the WashDC map, you'd be misled into thinking
there is parking everywhere! I rather like the suggestion of addressing it
throu
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> I agree this should ideally be addressed at the data level. If all parking
> nodes had some capacity / access information, the renderer could prioritize
> for larger public parking when zooming out, for example. And entering every
> strip
I agree this should ideally be addressed at the data level. If all parking
nodes had some capacity / access information, the renderer could prioritize
for larger public parking when zooming out, for example. And entering every
strip of street parking spots as parking in OSM does not make sense to m
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:
> (I switched to talk-us for this reply because it doesn't touch on import
> issues)
>
> I don't think it's so much a bug in the stylesheet as much as a bug in the
> world we're trying to map. Many cities simply have excessive amounts of
> pa
Looks like the proposed way of marking campsites within a campground is
described at:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extend_camp_site#Tagging_of_lots
which involves setting nodes at the individual sites tagged with camp_site=lot
and lot:number=*
I see only 61 instances of
The Bing images for the area appear to be from 2007
. (I've found a house mid-construction in the Bing images that was finished
in 2007).
So use caution before changing what someone else has entered based solely
on what you see in Bing. It is unlikely many structures disappeared between
2007 and th
2013/6/14 Bryce Nesbitt
> The OSM node could even link to a wiki page where the neighborhood can be
> described in all its richness and complexity.
you could do this with wikipedia links. My usecase would be to enter an
address in a search field and get information about the neighbourhoods the
2013/6/14 Tod Fitch
> Since I sent out the query to this list I've been mulling over setting
> adds:street=CampgroundName and addr:housenumber=SiteNumber on each of
> those.
addr:street shouldn't be used if there is not a street with the name.
Better use addr:place or addr:full for addresses
What do you think we should do with what I would normally tag natural=wood?
There's plenty of woods in the residential areas that aren't mapped, but I'm
not sure how to handle them.
From: Russell Deffner [mailto:russdeff...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 8:21 PM
To: OSM US Talk
Cc: hot
30 matches
Mail list logo