[Talk-us] NY GIS/SIG conference

[Richard Welty]

The NY GIS/SIG conference is being held on April 12th, 2016 in
Rochester, NY.
The conference organizers are interested in building a strong
OSM/OpenData/OpenSource
track and broadening the audience to include the OSM community.

the call for papers will go out after Thanksgiving and i'll forward the
notice
to the list when it appears. in the meantime, folks interested in presenting
might want to think about topics.

richard

-- 
rwe...@averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Maxweight in the USA

[Andy Townsend]

Just a heads up...

There's a bit of a discussion going on at the moment as to whether it 
makes sense to store SI units (or actually a derivative - metric tons) 
in maxweight tags.  I noticed a few changes (initially to other values 
in the UK), and commented on 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/35009662 , and the person making 
a changes (who's the author of one of the popular routers using OSM 
data) wrote a diary entry here: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/karussell/diary/36220 .


The argument in favour of the change is that storing an SI derivative 
makes the data easier to consume; my counter-arguments are that (a) it 
makes it harder for mappers to verify values and (b) anything consuming 
data shouldn't assume the data is valid anyway (for "Bobby Tables" 
reasons if for no other).


Whilst doing this I noticed that a bunch of other "x tons" weight limits 
had had values changed a while back (see for example 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/32719427/history ).  That's now been 
changed to "maxweight=4.5359237" which is at least not heavier than the 
actual posted restriction.  However there are still some other integer 
values without units which implies metric tons (see for example 
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/cqw ).  It may be that Pittsburgh has woken 
up one morning and decided to adopt SI units ahead of the rest of the 
country, but I doubt it.  Logically I'd expect a router encountering 
"maxweight=10" in the USA might want to interpret it as "10 US tons" 
rather than 10,000 kg, but based on the above I suspect that at least 
one router isn't going to do that.


The relevant wiki page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxweight 
does say "as of September 2014 only metric units of weight (metric 
tonnes or kilograms) are supported for this tag".  I'm unaware of any 
discussion prior to the 17 September 2014 change (not that that means 
that it didn't happen, just that I'm unaware of it).


I'm not from the US, and I'm not sure what the right answer is (if as a 
community you're happy entering maxweight=4.5359237 it'd certainly make 
everyone's lives easier), so I'm posting this here and then retiring 
back across the Atlantic :)


Cheers,

Andy (SomeoneElse)


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Fix missing and wrong oneway ways

[Martijn van Exel]

Hi all,
We have created a new tool in the footsteps of the missing roads tool, this
time focusing on wrong and missing oneway ways. There is more info in my
diary entry: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/mvexel/diary/36209

Please let me know if you find it useful! Send me examples of interesting
cases (either good or bad) if you have time. We are already working on
improvements based on early feedback (see comments section in the diary).

Best,
Martijn
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Maxweight in the USA

[Steve Friedl]

This issue has come up as well with the height of mountain peaks; those of us 
who hike in the mountains in the US know peak heights *only* in feet, but OSM 
seems to reflect this in meters; this is entirely unhelpful to local hikers.  
Us locals think of Sierra Peak as 4050 feet, not 928 meters.

The discussion was strictly informal, but I think a number of us liked the idea 
to support a unit of measure, such as ele=4050ft or maxweight=10t

Steve

-Original Message-
From: Andy Townsend [mailto:ajt1...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 1:59 PM
To: Talk Openstreetmap 
Subject: [Talk-us] Maxweight in the USA

Just a heads up...

There's a bit of a discussion going on at the moment as to whether it makes 
sense to store SI units (or actually a derivative - metric tons) in maxweight 
tags.  I noticed a few changes (initially to other values in the UK), and 
commented on
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/35009662 , and the person making a 
changes (who's the author of one of the popular routers using OSM
data) wrote a diary entry here: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/karussell/diary/36220 .

The argument in favour of the change is that storing an SI derivative makes the 
data easier to consume; my counter-arguments are that (a) it makes it harder 
for mappers to verify values and (b) anything consuming data shouldn't assume 
the data is valid anyway (for "Bobby Tables" 
reasons if for no other).

Whilst doing this I noticed that a bunch of other "x tons" weight limits had 
had values changed a while back (see for example 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/32719427/history ).  That's now been changed 
to "maxweight=4.5359237" which is at least not heavier than the actual posted 
restriction.  However there are still some other integer values without units 
which implies metric tons (see for example http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/cqw ).  
It may be that Pittsburgh has woken up one morning and decided to adopt SI 
units ahead of the rest of the country, but I doubt it.  Logically I'd expect a 
router encountering "maxweight=10" in the USA might want to interpret it as "10 
US tons" 
rather than 10,000 kg, but based on the above I suspect that at least one 
router isn't going to do that.

The relevant wiki page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxweight
does say "as of September 2014 only metric units of weight (metric tonnes or 
kilograms) are supported for this tag".  I'm unaware of any discussion prior to 
the 17 September 2014 change (not that that means that it didn't happen, just 
that I'm unaware of it).

I'm not from the US, and I'm not sure what the right answer is (if as a 
community you're happy entering maxweight=4.5359237 it'd certainly make 
everyone's lives easier), so I'm posting this here and then retiring back 
across the Atlantic :)

Cheers,

Andy (SomeoneElse)


___
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] Maxweight in the USA

[Richard Welty]

On 11/2/15 4:59 PM, Andy Townsend wrote:
>
> I'm not from the US, and I'm not sure what the right answer is (if as
> a community you're happy entering maxweight=4.5359237 it'd certainly
> make everyone's lives easier), so I'm posting this here and then
> retiring back across the Atlantic :)
>
i'm an advocate of tagging using local units. i have recently observed
that a bunch
of maxweight values i set to "10 tons" were changed to "10" with the
default of
tonne, which is of course not an equivalent unit.

so i don't like the "si units only" clause, i don't like undiscussed
tagging changes of
this type, and i especially don't like bulk edits that introduce errors
into the database.

richard

-- 
rwe...@averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Maxweight in the USA

[Toby Murray]

My view is that this isn't much different than speed limits. We don't
tag maxspeed=96.5606, we tag maxspeed=60 mph. Tag what's on the sign.
The complicating factor on this is of course that "ton" has at least 3
different meanings but I would generally assume that weight
restrictions in the U.S. are tagged in short tons because that's what
is on the sign.

Toby

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Andy Townsend  wrote:
> Just a heads up...
>
> There's a bit of a discussion going on at the moment as to whether it makes
> sense to store SI units (or actually a derivative - metric tons) in
> maxweight tags.  I noticed a few changes (initially to other values in the
> UK), and commented on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/35009662 , and
> the person making a changes (who's the author of one of the popular routers
> using OSM data) wrote a diary entry here:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/karussell/diary/36220 .
>
> The argument in favour of the change is that storing an SI derivative makes
> the data easier to consume; my counter-arguments are that (a) it makes it
> harder for mappers to verify values and (b) anything consuming data
> shouldn't assume the data is valid anyway (for "Bobby Tables" reasons if for
> no other).
>
> Whilst doing this I noticed that a bunch of other "x tons" weight limits had
> had values changed a while back (see for example
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/32719427/history ).  That's now been
> changed to "maxweight=4.5359237" which is at least not heavier than the
> actual posted restriction.  However there are still some other integer
> values without units which implies metric tons (see for example
> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/cqw ).  It may be that Pittsburgh has woken up
> one morning and decided to adopt SI units ahead of the rest of the country,
> but I doubt it.  Logically I'd expect a router encountering "maxweight=10"
> in the USA might want to interpret it as "10 US tons" rather than 10,000 kg,
> but based on the above I suspect that at least one router isn't going to do
> that.
>
> The relevant wiki page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxweight does
> say "as of September 2014 only metric units of weight (metric tonnes or
> kilograms) are supported for this tag".  I'm unaware of any discussion prior
> to the 17 September 2014 change (not that that means that it didn't happen,
> just that I'm unaware of it).
>
> I'm not from the US, and I'm not sure what the right answer is (if as a
> community you're happy entering maxweight=4.5359237 it'd certainly make
> everyone's lives easier), so I'm posting this here and then retiring back
> across the Atlantic :)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andy (SomeoneElse)
>
>
> ___
> 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] Maxweight in the USA

[Paul Norman]

On 11/2/2015 2:28 PM, Toby Murray wrote:

My view is that this isn't much different than speed limits. We don't
tag maxspeed=96.5606, we tag maxspeed=60 mph. Tag what's on the sign.
The complicating factor on this is of course that "ton" has at least 3
different meanings but I would generally assume that weight
restrictions in the U.S. are tagged in short tons because that's what
is on the sign.


I would also agree with this, and I'm from a country that uses metric units.

This is distinct from peaks, which have a height which does not depend 
on signage and is a measurement of the physical world. It's possible for 
two people to measure the same peak and get different measurements, but 
assuming decent signage* two people will get the same maxweight or 
maxspeed for the same road.


The pendant with an engineering physics in me also desires to point out 
that neither metric tonnes or short tones are SI base units, and both 
are derived units. The SI base is kg, or you could measure in Mg.


* Yes, signage is sometimes not decent.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us