Re: [Talk-us] Question about incorrect data for an administrative area
* Jay Boyer bo...@snhdmail.org [2013-10-10 13:34 -0700]: Enterprise is an unincorporated town. But Enterprise is actually part of Las Vegas and all of the addresses within Enterprise are Las Vegas addresses. Enterprise is this area: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/170132 There are a couple of things going on here. First, if Enterprise does not have its own government, it probably shouldn't be boundary=administrative. I've seen people use things like boundary=census for unincorporated towns where the town boundary is a CDP from the US Census data import. Second, place=locality is for locations that are not associated with a population center. Based on my understanding of the tags, for a place that is considered to be within a place=city, you should use either place=suburb (for major or notable city divisions, which it sounds like Enterprise is) or place=neighbourhood. Nominatim will order either of those tags hierarchically with the city-tagged place, so address lookups will work for both Street Name, Enterprise, NV and Street Name, Las Vegas, NV. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Question about incorrect data for an administrative area
On 10/14/13 9:57 AM, Phil! Gold wrote: * Jay Boyer bo...@snhdmail.org [2013-10-10 13:34 -0700]: Enterprise is an unincorporated town. But Enterprise is actually part of Las Vegas and all of the addresses within Enterprise are Las Vegas addresses. Enterprise is this area: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/170132 There are a couple of things going on here. First, if Enterprise does not have its own government, it probably shouldn't be boundary=administrative. I've seen people use things like boundary=census for unincorporated towns where the town boundary is a CDP from the US Census data import. this seems like a good solution. i've been pondering what to do with CDP boundaries for a while. also, i would be remiss if i didn't point out that post office delivery addressing is only vaguely related to the actual administrative boundaries; the addressing situation for Enterprise is hardly unique, in fact situations like this are probably the norm. and i bet if you checked with the post office you might find out that they will deliver to both Las Vegas and to Enterprise. it's not uncommon for the USPS to recognize place names that have otherwise been consumed in urban sprawl. richard signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Question about incorrect data for an administrative area
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.netwrote: also, i would be remiss if i didn't point out that post office delivery addressing is only vaguely related to the actual administrative boundaries; the addressing situation for Enterprise is hardly unique, in fact situations like this are probably the norm. Nominatim actually has a major shortcoming in this area. Even if an address is explicitly mapped with addr:city, Nominatim still goes off of its own idea of admin boundaries. For example, try to find this address: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/2209426197 Nominatim's result for this address is: http://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/details.php?place_id=5984097120 Which is reported to be in Rocky Ford instead of Manhattan. This is kind of a big problem for geocoding in the US... Toby ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] OSM US Chapter election status
The election has closed. We are awaiting check off by our independent observers, Henk Hoff and Mike Collinson of OSMF, before announcing the results. Thanks to everyone who participated, Richard signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Question about incorrect data for an administrative area
I have been looking at the OSM data for Las Vegas and there are some serious problems for it. The OSM boundary for Las Vegas encompasses about half of the city. Certain areas of Las Vegas, including Paradise, Enterprise, Spring Valley and probably others are not within the city boundaries defined in OSM. To fix this I need to expand the Las Vegas boundaries to encompass of these sections. I have been looking and cannot find a way to do this efficiently. Does anybody know of a way (aside from doing this manually) of expanding and area to encompass another? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Complex intersection mapping
Hi all,
Here at Telenav we have been looking at complex intersections and we
have set about editing some of these intersections in a way we feel
represents the situation on the ground better than their original
state, and because of that, works better for us. We have received some
feedback on our edits so we wanted to take a step back and see what we
(as the OSM community) think is the preferred way to map these
intersections.
So what are we talking about? Intersections like this one, where one
or more dual carriageways come together at an at-grade intersection:
https://www.evernote.com/shard/s9/sh/6438c196-bb92-4f66-81dc-9b75186286ba/0e8f07ff527c6a85c0dec426b9b79f1e
One of my colleagues at Telenav has remapped this intersection as follows:
https://www.evernote.com/shard/s9/sh/3491f1fe-6afa-4571-bc43-7cb31c9c2625/9dd47d1445fdcf03d3f0bbd93b8e0f92
The main difference, and the source of some feedback we have received
over the past few days, is that the dual carriageway roads are
straightened out, creating multiple intersection nodes (4 in this
case) instead of the original single intersection node that connects
all the incoming and outgoing ways. That technique turns out to yield
more reliable and correct routing and guidance ('keep left, turn
right') through these intersections in our testing. But of course,
that cannot dictate how we map as a community, so let's discuss.
Some of the feedback we have received about these edits points to a
statement on this wiki page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/TIGER_fixup#Braided_streets: 'It
is a reasonable and well-used technique to bring the ways of dual
carriageways back to a single point at intersections to facilitate and
simplify the mapping of control devices and turn restrictions.' In my
mapping across the US, my personal experience has been that this
technique is in fact used, but the 'after' technique with straightened
out ways is actually much more common. I personally prefer that
technique as well - I think it is more pleasing to the eye, represents
what is on the ground better, and is and easier to read. So my feeling
was that this mapping practice would not be disputed. It turns out I
was wrong, so I want to see what the consensus is on mapping
intersections of this type - or perhaps there is none and we can work
together to get there?
Thanks,
Martijn
--
Martijn van Exel
OSM data specialist
Telenav
http://www.osm.org/user/mvexel
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Mvexel
http://hdyc.neis-one.org/?mvexel
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Complex intersection mapping
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Martijn van Exel marti...@telenav.comwrote: Hi all, Here at Telenav we have been looking at complex intersections and we have set about editing some of these intersections in a way we feel represents the situation on the ground better than their original state, and because of that, works better for us. We have received some feedback on our edits so we wanted to take a step back and see what we (as the OSM community) think is the preferred way to map these intersections. So what are we talking about? Intersections like this one, where one or more dual carriageways come together at an at-grade intersection: https://www.evernote.com/shard/s9/sh/6438c196-bb92-4f66-81dc-9b75186286ba/0e8f07ff527c6a85c0dec426b9b79f1e One of my colleagues at Telenav has remapped this intersection as follows: https://www.evernote.com/shard/s9/sh/3491f1fe-6afa-4571-bc43-7cb31c9c2625/9dd47d1445fdcf03d3f0bbd93b8e0f92 I've seen more examples of your after photo than the before in my mapping. I create them by default when dual carriageways intersect. +1 you're doing the right thing. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Question about incorrect data for an administrative area
Jay, I don't think the data is incorrect. If you look at the City of Las Vegas webmap ( http://clvplaces.appspot.com/apps/interactive/clvpi.htm#ctrLat=36.27433191227921ctrLng=-115.18729447119142zoom=11layers=|10435|10010userMarkers=0mapType=roadmap) and turn on the Cities and City Limits layers, you'll see that the City of Las Vegas itself is just part of the Las Vegas urban area. So, administratively, those boundaries seem to be correct. If you're concerned about what shows up in the openstreetmap.org Search (ie - Nominatim), as Toby said, there are some issues. However, I think they're more with how Nominatim uses the data than the data itself. One way around it, which I mentioned in an earlier response, may be to use the zip code instead of city name in a search. Cheers, Brad On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Jay Boyer bo...@snhdmail.org wrote: I have been looking at the OSM data for Las Vegas and there are some serious problems for it. The OSM boundary for Las Vegas encompasses about half of the city. Certain areas of Las Vegas, including Paradise, Enterprise, Spring Valley and probably others are not within the city boundaries defined in OSM. To fix this I need to expand the Las Vegas boundaries to encompass of these sections. I have been looking and cannot find a way to do this efficiently. Does anybody know of a way (aside from doing this manually) of expanding and area to encompass another? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Complex intersection mapping
On 10/14/13 1:52 PM, Ian Dees wrote: On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Martijn van Exel marti...@telenav.com mailto:marti...@telenav.com wrote: Hi all, Here at Telenav we have been looking at complex intersections and we have set about editing some of these intersections in a way we feel represents the situation on the ground better than their original state, and because of that, works better for us. We have received some feedback on our edits so we wanted to take a step back and see what we (as the OSM community) think is the preferred way to map these intersections. So what are we talking about? Intersections like this one, where one or more dual carriageways come together at an at-grade intersection: https://www.evernote.com/shard/s9/sh/6438c196-bb92-4f66-81dc-9b75186286ba/0e8f07ff527c6a85c0dec426b9b79f1e One of my colleagues at Telenav has remapped this intersection as follows: https://www.evernote.com/shard/s9/sh/3491f1fe-6afa-4571-bc43-7cb31c9c2625/9dd47d1445fdcf03d3f0bbd93b8e0f92 I've seen more examples of your after photo than the before in my mapping. I create them by default when dual carriageways intersect. +1 you're doing the right thing. i consider the after a better approach as well. richard signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Question about incorrect data for an administrative area
On 10/14/13 1:13 PM, Jay Boyer wrote: I have been looking at the OSM data for Las Vegas and there are some serious problems for it. The OSM boundary for Las Vegas encompasses about half of the city. Certain areas of Las Vegas, including Paradise, Enterprise, Spring Valley and probably others are not within the city boundaries defined in OSM. To fix this I need to expand the Las Vegas boundaries to encompass of these sections. I have been looking and cannot find a way to do this efficiently. Does anybody know of a way (aside from doing this manually) of expanding and area to encompass another? i suggest you look at the TIGER 2013 places file for Nevada and see what the border is there; you may want to drop the current border and use the latest TIGER border. you can grab the 2013 places files here: http://forever.codeforamerica.org/Census-API/shutdown-2013.html if you need help getting the boundary polygon out of the shapefile, let me know, i can give you a process for that. richard signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Complex intersection mapping
2013/10/14 Martijn van Exel marti...@telenav.com So what are we talking about? Intersections like this one, where one or more dual carriageways come together at an at-grade intersection: https://www.evernote.com/shard/s9/sh/6438c196-bb92-4f66-81dc-9b75186286ba/0e8f07ff527c6a85c0dec426b9b79f1e I think it is not only ugly and confusing but also pointless. If you insist on distinguishing between physically separated / not separated carriageways in the area of a crossing, it would be more straightforward (and a little bit less confusing) to map this as in the attached screenshot. One of my colleagues at Telenav has remapped this intersection as follows: https://www.evernote.com/shard/s9/sh/3491f1fe-6afa-4571-bc43-7cb31c9c2625/9dd47d1445fdcf03d3f0bbd93b8e0f92 this is how we usually do in around here (Europe). cheers, Martin attachment: josm-dualcarriageway.jpg___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Complex intersection mapping
So what are we talking about? Intersections like this one, where one
or more dual carriageways come together at an at-grade intersection:
https://www.evernote.com/shard/s9/sh/6438c196-bb92-4f66-81dc-9b75186286ba/0e8f07ff527c6a85c0dec426b9b79f1e
One of my colleagues at Telenav has remapped this intersection as follows:
https://www.evernote.com/shard/s9/sh/3491f1fe-6afa-4571-bc43-7cb31c9c2625/9dd47d1445fdcf03d3f0bbd93b8e0f92
Hi Martijn: one thing wrong I do see at this particular
intersection are extraneous nodes with highway=crossing tags: two
extra ones on the (northerly) east-west ped-path and one extra one
each of the (westerly and easterly) north-south ped-paths. A fairly
minor error in the context of your larger question.
The main difference, and the source of some feedback we have received
over the past few days, is that the dual carriageway roads are
straightened out, creating multiple intersection nodes (4 in this
case) instead of the original single intersection node that connects
all the incoming and outgoing ways. That technique turns out to yield
more reliable and correct routing and guidance ('keep left, turn
right') through these intersections in our testing. But of course,
that cannot dictate how we map as a community, so let's discuss.
I do this myself on intersections which have complex two-to-one
lane collapses in one direction, or two-to-three lane expansions in
another direction, or even both. I agree with you that making lanes
which capture dual carriageway and multiple lanes like this
accurately represents what is on the ground better, is pleasing to
the eye both in an OSM editor and on an OSM rendering, AND likely
results in better routing algorithm results (e.g. for offering turn
directions). The wiki entry on Braided Streets notwithstanding.
Some of the feedback we have received about these edits points to a
statement on this wiki page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/TIGER_fixup#Braided_streets: 'It
is a reasonable and well-used technique to bring the ways of dual
carriageways back to a single point at intersections to facilitate and
simplify the mapping of control devices and turn restrictions.' In my
mapping across the US, my personal experience has been that this
technique is in fact used, but the 'after' technique with straightened
out ways is actually much more common. I personally prefer that
technique as well - I think it is more pleasing to the eye, represents
what is on the ground better, and is and easier to read. So my feeling
was that this mapping practice would not be disputed. It turns out I
was wrong, so I want to see what the consensus is on mapping
intersections of this type - or perhaps there is none and we can work
together to get there?
I don't know what the solution is. It may be to coexist with BOTH
types and try to do the best that can be done by smartening up
routing algorithms to cope with EACH type of intersection as well as
can be technically achieved. That seems long-term wise given that
there will likely be both types of intersections entered into the
underlying data.
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Complex intersection mapping
2013/10/14 stevea stevea...@softworkers.com Hi Martijn: one thing wrong I do see at this particular intersection are extraneous nodes with highway=crossing tags: two extra ones on the (northerly) east-west ped-path and one extra one each of the (westerly and easterly) north-south ped-paths. A fairly minor error in the context of your larger question. +1, and another thing: the street coming from the right should not be expanded to a dual carriageway at the point where your colleague has done it, but rather at the latest possible point (i.e. at the first insection with the N-S-road) if doing it this way. cheers, Martin ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Complex intersection mapping
To expand on the point of having both methods used, starting with the multiple intersection points method, what if all four intersection points were under a relation of a group of intersections, and the number of lanes on each way was marked? That way, routing algorithms could convert from the visually-friendly method to the individual lane and single intersection point method. Saikrishna Arcot On Mon 14 Oct 2013 05:28:28 PM EDT, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2013/10/14 stevea stevea...@softworkers.com mailto:stevea...@softworkers.com Hi Martijn: one thing wrong I do see at this particular intersection are extraneous nodes with highway=crossing tags: two extra ones on the (northerly) east-west ped-path and one extra one each of the (westerly and easterly) north-south ped-paths. A fairly minor error in the context of your larger question. +1, and another thing: the street coming from the right should not be expanded to a dual carriageway at the point where your colleague has done it, but rather at the latest possible point (i.e. at the first insection with the N-S-road) if doing it this way. cheers, Martin ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Complex intersection mapping
The latter (after) version matches the traffic signal wiki
http://wiki.openstreetmaps.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtraffic_signals#Tag_all_incoming_ways
It makes sense to me and is the way I prefer.
Tod
--
Sent from my mobile device. Please excuse my brevity.
Martijn van Exel marti...@telenav.com wrote:
Hi all,
Here at Telenav we have been looking at complex intersections and we
have set about editing some of these intersections in a way we feel
represents the situation on the ground better than their original
state, and because of that, works better for us. We have received some
feedback on our edits so we wanted to take a step back and see what we
(as the OSM community) think is the preferred way to map these
intersections.
So what are we talking about? Intersections like this one, where one
or more dual carriageways come together at an at-grade intersection:
https://www.evernote.com/shard/s9/sh/6438c196-bb92-4f66-81dc-9b75186286ba/0e8f07ff527c6a85c0dec426b9b79f1e
One of my colleagues at Telenav has remapped this intersection as
follows:
https://www.evernote.com/shard/s9/sh/3491f1fe-6afa-4571-bc43-7cb31c9c2625/9dd47d1445fdcf03d3f0bbd93b8e0f92
The main difference, and the source of some feedback we have received
over the past few days, is that the dual carriageway roads are
straightened out, creating multiple intersection nodes (4 in this
case) instead of the original single intersection node that connects
all the incoming and outgoing ways. That technique turns out to yield
more reliable and correct routing and guidance ('keep left, turn
right') through these intersections in our testing. But of course,
that cannot dictate how we map as a community, so let's discuss.
Some of the feedback we have received about these edits points to a
statement on this wiki page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/TIGER_fixup#Braided_streets: 'It
is a reasonable and well-used technique to bring the ways of dual
carriageways back to a single point at intersections to facilitate and
simplify the mapping of control devices and turn restrictions.' In my
mapping across the US, my personal experience has been that this
technique is in fact used, but the 'after' technique with straightened
out ways is actually much more common. I personally prefer that
technique as well - I think it is more pleasing to the eye, represents
what is on the ground better, and is and easier to read. So my feeling
was that this mapping practice would not be disputed. It turns out I
was wrong, so I want to see what the consensus is on mapping
intersections of this type - or perhaps there is none and we can work
together to get there?
Thanks,
Martijn
--
Martijn van Exel
OSM data specialist
Telenav
http://www.osm.org/user/mvexel
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Mvexel
http://hdyc.neis-one.org/?mvexel
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Complex intersection mapping
I prefer, and always use, the after pattern. /Stellan On 2013-10-14 7:42 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote: Hi all, Here at Telenav we have been looking at complex intersections and we have set about editing some of these intersections in a way we feel represents the situation on the ground better than their original state, and because of that, works better for us. We have received some feedback on our edits so we wanted to take a step back and see what we (as the OSM community) think is the preferred way to map these intersections. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Complex intersection mapping
I too prefer the after pattern since it is easier to do, especially when
you are making a road be dual-carriageway by using the parallel way
feature in Potlatch 2. Also, it matches the way it is on the ground better.
Since there seems to be unanimous agreement to map intersections this way,
then I'll change other intersections to match.
-Compdude
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Martijn van Exel marti...@telenav.comwrote:
Hi all,
Here at Telenav we have been looking at complex intersections and we
have set about editing some of these intersections in a way we feel
represents the situation on the ground better than their original
state, and because of that, works better for us. We have received some
feedback on our edits so we wanted to take a step back and see what we
(as the OSM community) think is the preferred way to map these
intersections.
So what are we talking about? Intersections like this one, where one
or more dual carriageways come together at an at-grade intersection:
https://www.evernote.com/shard/s9/sh/6438c196-bb92-4f66-81dc-9b75186286ba/0e8f07ff527c6a85c0dec426b9b79f1e
One of my colleagues at Telenav has remapped this intersection as follows:
https://www.evernote.com/shard/s9/sh/3491f1fe-6afa-4571-bc43-7cb31c9c2625/9dd47d1445fdcf03d3f0bbd93b8e0f92
The main difference, and the source of some feedback we have received
over the past few days, is that the dual carriageway roads are
straightened out, creating multiple intersection nodes (4 in this
case) instead of the original single intersection node that connects
all the incoming and outgoing ways. That technique turns out to yield
more reliable and correct routing and guidance ('keep left, turn
right') through these intersections in our testing. But of course,
that cannot dictate how we map as a community, so let's discuss.
Some of the feedback we have received about these edits points to a
statement on this wiki page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/TIGER_fixup#Braided_streets: 'It
is a reasonable and well-used technique to bring the ways of dual
carriageways back to a single point at intersections to facilitate and
simplify the mapping of control devices and turn restrictions.' In my
mapping across the US, my personal experience has been that this
technique is in fact used, but the 'after' technique with straightened
out ways is actually much more common. I personally prefer that
technique as well - I think it is more pleasing to the eye, represents
what is on the ground better, and is and easier to read. So my feeling
was that this mapping practice would not be disputed. It turns out I
was wrong, so I want to see what the consensus is on mapping
intersections of this type - or perhaps there is none and we can work
together to get there?
Thanks,
Martijn
--
Martijn van Exel
OSM data specialist
Telenav
http://www.osm.org/user/mvexel
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Mvexel
http://hdyc.neis-one.org/?mvexel
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Complex intersection mapping
Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: On 10/14/13 1:52 PM, Ian Dees wrote: On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Martijn van Exel marti...@telenav.com mailto:marti...@telenav.com wrote: Hi all, Here at Telenav we have been looking at complex intersections and we have set about editing some of these intersections in a way we feel represents the situation on the ground better than their original state, and because of that, works better for us. We have received some feedback on our edits so we wanted to take a step back and see what we (as the OSM community) think is the preferred way to map these intersections. So what are we talking about? Intersections like this one, where one or more dual carriageways come together at an at-grade intersection: https://www.evernote.com/shard/s9/sh/6438c196-bb92-4f66-81dc-9b75186286ba/0e8f07ff527c6a85c0dec426b9b79f1e One of my colleagues at Telenav has remapped this intersection as follows: https://www.evernote.com/shard/s9/sh/3491f1fe-6afa-4571-bc43-7cb31c9c2625/9dd47d1445fdcf03d3f0bbd93b8e0f92 I've seen more examples of your after photo than the before in my mapping. I create them by default when dual carriageways intersect. +1 you're doing the right thing. i consider the after a better approach as well. richard ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us I agree that the second version is much better. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
