Re: [Talk-us] TopOSM

[Lars Ahlzen]

Hi Kevin,

On 05/22/2016 11:26 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote:
Alas, I'm not going to SOTM, but put me down as someone who's 
interested in the project, with some 'skin in the game' already.


As I already posted privately to Clifford:

I picked up TopOSM's code for my own purposes and added quite a few 
twists of my own. I use the result as a basemap for several of my own 
projects. You can see what it looks like at 
https://kbk.is-a-geek.net/catskills/test3.html.


You've done some great work on the topo maps! I've been following it for 
quite some time. It would fantastic if you're interested in closer 
collaboration.



Clearly, I am NOT tooled up to serve it up on a large scale.

It depends on a good many publicly-available data layers with 
ODBL-incompatible terms. Life is full of tradeoffs. I think that a 
'sanitized' version with only ODBL and US Government data wouldn't be 
too difficult to put together.


I'm more than willing to share the code, but it would be a bit of a 
nightmare to set up. I think that the best approach would be to share 
it with a willing apprentice (if you will) in pieces, reworking as we 
go to make sure that each shared piece runs for more than just me and 
the setup is better documented than it is now. I'm willing to put in 
the effort to make such a project succeed, but would find it immensely 
difficult without a guinea pig to try stuff out and provide ongoing 
feedback.


Sounds like a good plan. I guess we should take further details off 
list, but I think this is well worth giving a try.


Significant public layers that I include that I believe TopOSM does 
not include:


(1) NLCD [...]

(2) A fair number of FCODES from NHD [...]

(3) The USFWS National Wetlands Inventory. [...]


I did (1) and (2) in TopOSM2 (and some related projects I've been 
working on since) but, of course, that was never finished so I guess 
that's moot. Either way, it's probably good that we've been heading in 
the same direction.


- Lars


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

Re: [Talk-us] 'Honorary' street name conflicts with posted name - how to decide

[Peter Dobratz]

I like to confirm street names by checking for POIs along the street.
There's a Great Clips hair salon near there with the following address (see
http://www.greatclips.com/ ):

906 E 900 S
Salt Lake City, UT 84105

I would put the following addr:* tags on that business:
addr:housenumber=906
addr:street=East 900 South
addr:city=Salt Lake City
addr:state=UT
addr:postcode=84105

I may not fully understand the nuances of Salt Lake City addresses, but
generally I like to make whatever is in addr:street match what goes in name
on the road itself.  In this case, I would use:
name=East 900 South
alt_name=Harvey Milk Boulevard

Looking a little to the west of there, there's a Pier 1 Imports (
http://www.pier1.com/ ):

30 West 900 South Salt Lake City, UT 84101-2930

addr:housenumber=30
addr:street=West 900 South
addr:city=Salt Lake City
addr:state=UT
addr:postcode=84101

By that point the road should change to:
name=West 900 South
alt_name=Harvey Milk Boulevard

I generally avoid using the "_1" suffix whenever possible.

Peter


On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Jack Burke  wrote:

> I concur. You could also put Harvey as an alt_name tag.
>
> --
> Typos courtesy of fancy auto spell technology
>
> On May 23, 2016 1:03:15 PM EDT, Martijn van Exel  wrote:
>
>> Salt Lake City just renamed a part of 900 South to ‘Harvey Milk
>> Boulevard’. This is a so-called ‘honorary designation’. But now I see a
>> conflict.
>>
>> 1) The common tagging practice is that posted names rule. The signs
>> changed to show the new honorary name:
>> https://goo.gl/photos/xqAxQCwCmPRUGWkm9 . So that would suggest I change
>> the name to ‘Harvey Milk Boulevard’ and demote ‘900 South’ to name_1 or
>> loc_name.
>> 2) Addressing and geocoding. People will continue to refer to this street
>> as 900 South. Official addresses will not change. That would suggest that I
>> leave the name=900 South in place and add name_1=Harvey Milk Boulevard.
>>
>> I went with option 2, here is a segment —>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/418190301
>>
>> Opinions?
>>
>> Martijn
>>
>> --
>>
>> 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
>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Talk-us Digest, Vol 102, Issue 38

[Will Skora]

These types of roads (portions of roads are somewhat common in the City of
Cleveland - for example, here's a selection of them -
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/goF ) I've done Martijn's #2 option but as Jack
Burke noted, I used alt_name instead since it's less ambiguous as name_1.

Regards,
Will



On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 1:12 PM, <talk-us-requ...@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Send Talk-us mailing list submissions to
> talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> talk-us-requ...@openstreetmap.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> talk-us-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Talk-us digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Odd road / odd structure (Martijn van Exel)
>2. 'Honorary' street name conflicts with posted name - how   to
>   decide (Martijn van Exel)
>3. Re: 'Honorary' street name conflicts with posted name -   how
>   to decide (Jack Burke)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 10:53:44 -0600
> From: Martijn van Exel <m...@rtijn.org>
> To: Steve Friedl <st...@unixwiz.net>
> Cc: OSM Talk US <talk-us@openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Odd road / odd structure
> Message-ID: <cb119d28-9590-47b3-941b-c063dc63b...@rtijn.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi Steve,
>
> It looks like there is garage access, so I would tag it highway=service,
> possibly with an appropriate access= tag if access is restricted.
> https://bit.ly/1WNyjdd <https://bit.ly/1WNyjdd>
>
> If you are referring to the foot access to the west of that, I’d do
> highway=footway (perhaps with bicycle=yes if appropriate) and name it
> Paisley Place as well, if that name refers to that side of the homes also.
>
> Martijn
>
> > On May 23, 2016, at 10:41 AM, Steve Friedl <st...@unixwiz.net> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I have two things that I just don’t quite know how to map.  Sorry that I
> have to provide Google Maps views to demonstrate.
> >
> > 1)  How does one represent a named street which is really a
> greenbelt: never been drivable, was assigned a name just to allow attaching
> a street name to the houses on either side.
> >
> > Example: In Irvine California there’s a residential area shown here:
> >
> > https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7298257,-117.7572128,19z <
> https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7298257,-117.7572128,19z>
> >
> > I’m referring to Paisley Place, which is shown as a named alley
> connecting Garden Gate Lane and Winslow Lane.
> >
> > After surveying the area and seeing that the City of Irvine GIS showed
> Paisley as that greenbelt, I reported it as an error (as I’ve done dozens
> of times for other things), but the very helpful GIS manager reported that
> this is correct (but certainly odd), and the two street-like things on
> either side of it are just unnamed alleys.
> >
> > How do I represent this in OSM?  It’s not a street that doesn’t allow
> access, it’s not really even a street!
> >
> > 2)  How do I represent a parking-lot-sized area that’s intended to
> collect rainwater that fills a cistern?
> >
> > In the Santa Ana Mountains in Southern California, the satellite views
> show something that looks exactly like a helipad:
> >
> > https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7875181,-117.5805174,419m/data=!3m1!1e3
> <https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7875181,-117.5805174,419m/data=!3m1!1e3>
> >
> > But it’s not. That whole huge surface – paved in asphalt – is tilted
> slightly so that rainwater water will collect and fill the two cisterns to
> the left (zooming in you can barely see the pipe from the big pad to the
> cisterns.
> >
> > I cannot find anything that’s even close to describing what this is, but
> it’s so prominent on the maps (and interesting to visit) that I seems like
> it should be there even if to make note that it’s not a helipad.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Steve – who hopes the links above work.
> > ---
> > Stephen J Friedl  | Security Consultant | UNIX Wizard | 714 345-4571
> > st...@unixwiz.net <mailto:st...@unixwiz.net> | Southern California |
> Windows Guy |  unixwiz.net <http://unixwiz.net/>
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-us mailing list
> > Talk-us@

Re: [Talk-us] 'Honorary' street name conflicts with posted name - how to decide

[Jack Burke]

I concur. You could also put Harvey as an alt_name tag. 
 
-- 
Typos courtesy of fancy auto spell technology

On May 23, 2016 1:03:15 PM EDT, Martijn van Exel  wrote:
>Salt Lake City just renamed a part of 900 South to ‘Harvey Milk
>Boulevard’. This is a so-called ‘honorary designation’. But now I see a
>conflict. 
>
>1) The common tagging practice is that posted names rule. The signs
>changed to show the new honorary name:
>https://goo.gl/photos/xqAxQCwCmPRUGWkm9
> . So that would suggest I
>change the name to ‘Harvey Milk Boulevard’ and demote ‘900 South’ to
>name_1 or loc_name.
>2) Addressing and geocoding. People will continue to refer to this
>street as 900 South. Official addresses will not change. That would
>suggest that I leave the name=900 South in place and add name_1=Harvey
>Milk Boulevard. 
>
>I went with option 2, here is a segment —>
>https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/418190301
>
>
>Opinions?
>
>Martijn
>
>
>
>___
>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

[Talk-us] 'Honorary' street name conflicts with posted name - how to decide

[Martijn van Exel]

Salt Lake City just renamed a part of 900 South to ‘Harvey Milk Boulevard’. 
This is a so-called ‘honorary designation’. But now I see a conflict. 

1) The common tagging practice is that posted names rule. The signs changed to 
show the new honorary name: https://goo.gl/photos/xqAxQCwCmPRUGWkm9 
 . So that would suggest I change the 
name to ‘Harvey Milk Boulevard’ and demote ‘900 South’ to name_1 or loc_name.
2) Addressing and geocoding. People will continue to refer to this street as 
900 South. Official addresses will not change. That would suggest that I leave 
the name=900 South in place and add name_1=Harvey Milk Boulevard. 

I went with option 2, here is a segment —> 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/418190301 


Opinions?

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

Re: [Talk-us] Odd road / odd structure

[Martijn van Exel]

Hi Steve, 

It looks like there is garage access, so I would tag it highway=service, 
possibly with an appropriate access= tag if access is restricted. 
https://bit.ly/1WNyjdd 

If you are referring to the foot access to the west of that, I’d do 
highway=footway (perhaps with bicycle=yes if appropriate) and name it Paisley 
Place as well, if that name refers to that side of the homes also.

Martijn

> On May 23, 2016, at 10:41 AM, Steve Friedl  wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
>  
> I have two things that I just don’t quite know how to map.  Sorry that I have 
> to provide Google Maps views to demonstrate.
>  
> 1)  How does one represent a named street which is really a greenbelt: 
> never been drivable, was assigned a name just to allow attaching a street 
> name to the houses on either side.
>  
> Example: In Irvine California there’s a residential area shown here:
>  
> https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7298257,-117.7572128,19z 
> 
>  
> I’m referring to Paisley Place, which is shown as a named alley connecting 
> Garden Gate Lane and Winslow Lane.
>  
> After surveying the area and seeing that the City of Irvine GIS showed 
> Paisley as that greenbelt, I reported it as an error (as I’ve done dozens of 
> times for other things), but the very helpful GIS manager reported that this 
> is correct (but certainly odd), and the two street-like things on either side 
> of it are just unnamed alleys.
>  
> How do I represent this in OSM?  It’s not a street that doesn’t allow access, 
> it’s not really even a street!
>  
> 2)  How do I represent a parking-lot-sized area that’s intended to 
> collect rainwater that fills a cistern?
>  
> In the Santa Ana Mountains in Southern California, the satellite views show 
> something that looks exactly like a helipad:
>  
> https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7875181,-117.5805174,419m/data=!3m1!1e3 
> 
>  
> But it’s not. That whole huge surface – paved in asphalt – is tilted slightly 
> so that rainwater water will collect and fill the two cisterns to the left 
> (zooming in you can barely see the pipe from the big pad to the cisterns.
>  
> I cannot find anything that’s even close to describing what this is, but it’s 
> so prominent on the maps (and interesting to visit) that I seems like it 
> should be there even if to make note that it’s not a helipad.
>  
> Thanks,
>  
> Steve – who hopes the links above work.
> --- 
> Stephen J Friedl  | Security Consultant | UNIX Wizard | 714 345-4571
> st...@unixwiz.net  | Southern California | Windows 
> Guy |  unixwiz.net 
>  
> ___
> 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] Odd road / odd structure

[Jack Burke]

For Paisley Place, maybe: 

abandoned:highway = residential 
access = no
name = Paisley Place
note = Your description of what the GIS people say. 

Since it needs to exist for addresses, it needs to be there. 


For the reservoir: 

landuse = reservoir 
intermittent = yes

-- 
Typos courtesy of fancy auto spell technology

On May 23, 2016 12:41:17 PM EDT, Steve Friedl  wrote:
>Hi all,
>
> 
>
>I have two things that I just don't quite know how to map.  Sorry that
>I
>have to provide Google Maps views to demonstrate.
>
> 
>
>1)  How does one represent a named street which is really a
>greenbelt:
>never been drivable, was assigned a name just to allow attaching a
>street
>name to the houses on either side.
>
> 
>
>Example: In Irvine California there's a residential area shown here:
>
> 
>
>https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7298257,-117.7572128,19z
>
> 
>
>I'm referring to Paisley Place, which is shown as a named alley
>connecting
>Garden Gate Lane and Winslow Lane.
>
> 
>
>After surveying the area and seeing that the City of Irvine GIS showed
>Paisley as that greenbelt, I reported it as an error (as I've done
>dozens of
>times for other things), but the very helpful GIS manager reported that
>this
>is correct (but certainly odd), and the two street-like things on
>either
>side of it are just unnamed alleys.
>
> 
>
>How do I represent this in OSM?  It's not a street that doesn't allow
>access, it's not really even a street!
>
> 
>
>2)  How do I represent a parking-lot-sized area that's intended to
>collect rainwater that fills a cistern?
>
> 
>
>In the Santa Ana Mountains in Southern California, the satellite views
>show
>something that looks exactly like a helipad:
>
> 
>
>https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7875181,-117.5805174,419m/data=!3m1!1e3
>
> 
>
>But it's not. That whole huge surface - paved in asphalt - is tilted
>slightly so that rainwater water will collect and fill the two cisterns
>to
>the left (zooming in you can barely see the pipe from the big pad to
>the
>cisterns.
>
> 
>
>I cannot find anything that's even close to describing what this is,
>but
>it's so prominent on the maps (and interesting to visit) that I seems
>like
>it should be there even if to make note that it's not a helipad.
>
> 
>
>Thanks,
>
> 
>
>Steve - who hopes the links above work.
>
>--- 
>
>Stephen J Friedl  | Security Consultant | UNIX Wizard | 714 345-4571
>
>  st...@unixwiz.net | Southern California |
>Windows Guy |  unixwiz.net
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>
>___
>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

[Talk-us] Odd road / odd structure

[Steve Friedl]

Hi all,

 

I have two things that I just don't quite know how to map.  Sorry that I
have to provide Google Maps views to demonstrate.

 

1)  How does one represent a named street which is really a greenbelt:
never been drivable, was assigned a name just to allow attaching a street
name to the houses on either side.

 

Example: In Irvine California there's a residential area shown here:

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7298257,-117.7572128,19z

 

I'm referring to Paisley Place, which is shown as a named alley connecting
Garden Gate Lane and Winslow Lane.

 

After surveying the area and seeing that the City of Irvine GIS showed
Paisley as that greenbelt, I reported it as an error (as I've done dozens of
times for other things), but the very helpful GIS manager reported that this
is correct (but certainly odd), and the two street-like things on either
side of it are just unnamed alleys.

 

How do I represent this in OSM?  It's not a street that doesn't allow
access, it's not really even a street!

 

2)  How do I represent a parking-lot-sized area that's intended to
collect rainwater that fills a cistern?

 

In the Santa Ana Mountains in Southern California, the satellite views show
something that looks exactly like a helipad:

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7875181,-117.5805174,419m/data=!3m1!1e3

 

But it's not. That whole huge surface - paved in asphalt - is tilted
slightly so that rainwater water will collect and fill the two cisterns to
the left (zooming in you can barely see the pipe from the big pad to the
cisterns.

 

I cannot find anything that's even close to describing what this is, but
it's so prominent on the maps (and interesting to visit) that I seems like
it should be there even if to make note that it's not a helipad.

 

Thanks,

 

Steve - who hopes the links above work.

--- 

Stephen J Friedl  | Security Consultant | UNIX Wizard | 714 345-4571

  st...@unixwiz.net | Southern California |
Windows Guy |  unixwiz.net

 

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

Re: [Talk-us] Restoring bus routes in Portland

[Arun Ganesh]

> I've fixed all of the relations that had their contents replaced wholesale
> by restoring to the last known good version and then adjusting as necessary
> to match the current data.  The one change to my method was to download all
> of the relation members after I load the prior version from a .osm XML
> file.  That way if any of the relation members have since been deleted they
> will be filtered out by JOSM when resolving the conflict with the existing
> relation.
> Thanks,
> Peter
>
>
Peter and everyone else, thank you for the help and restoring the
relations. The workflow to restore the relations has been captured in the
tracker [1]. As followup i'm going to write a diary post about the incident
for a broader discussion on what might have caused the issue and how it can
be avoided in future.

This is also a good experience for others to learn from on using complex
workflows while restoring relations. Will notify on list when the diary
post is up.

[1] https://github.com/mapbox/mapping/issues/185#issuecomment-220950169


-- 
Arun Ganesh
@planemad

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

Re: [Talk-us] Potential data source: New York City watershed recreation lands

[Kevin Kenny]

On 05/23/2016 03:20 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:

On 05/23/2016 05:35 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote:

One-line summary: I want to import the boundaries of New York City
watershed recreation areas.

I've read through your proposal and I would like to know if the
boundaries you speak of are observable on the ground. I know there won't
be a line or fence on the ground, but will there at least be signs
whenever a road or path leads into such an area?

If they are not observable then I am strictly against an import. OSM is
about mapping things you see (and things others can verify on the
ground), not importing data from third sources. We do make exceptions to
that rule, especially in cases were an import can provide a building
block for future mapper activity - administrative boundaries are such an
exception. But that does not mean that any and all boundaries that are
somehow "of interest" can or should be imported.


The areas are indeed posted. Where they adjoin a public highway or
where an established trail enters or leaves, they are marked with
signs.  https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/14018132286 is a typical
example.

In the back country, they are marked in the same haphazard way that
other survey lines in this part of the world are, but the lines can be
recovered. At least the corners are monumented - generally with cairns
of stones. The more recently surveyed areas also typically have metal
pins beneath the cairns, so that a surveyor with a metal detector
can recover the corner. The lines also usually have paint blazes (or
hatchet cuts, for the oldest parcels) on the trees every few hundred
feet. https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/17257829216 is a
newly-painted example of a turning point on a surveyor's
line. Recovering the line to survey accuracy would usually require
brush cutting, since there are poor sight lines for a transit. The
line blazes are generally not good enough to use the line as a
'handrail' when orienteering, but make good collecting features to
reassure a hiker that they're following the line and make corrections
to the compass course.

In many cases, the adjacent landowners also post their property lines.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/14037928881 is typical of what
you'll see where a woods road leaves a NYC parcel. Equally many
landowners do not trouble to post - there are too few trespassers to
bother.

There were many mostly-failed attempts to settle the region, so many
lines also can be traced by following 18th-century stone walls -
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/13524706704 is an unusually well
preserved example - or 19th-century barbed wire fencing, of which
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/17283699335 is again a particularly
well preserved example.

So: In theory, all the lines are observable in the field. In practice,
what you see varies from brand-new posters on the trees to nothing at
all. If you know what to look for, you can find it.

At least all the parcels HAVE been surveyed, which is better than what
you find in the Adirondacks, where even some of the county lines have
never been marked on the ground.

--
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin


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

Re: [Talk-us] Potential data source: New York City watershed recreation lands

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 05/23/2016 05:35 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> One-line summary: I want to import the boundaries of New York City
> watershed recreation areas.

I've read through your proposal and I would like to know if the
boundaries you speak of are observable on the ground. I know there won't
be a line or fence on the ground, but will there at least be signs
whenever a road or path leads into such an area?

If they are not observable then I am strictly against an import. OSM is
about mapping things you see (and things others can verify on the
ground), not importing data from third sources. We do make exceptions to
that rule, especially in cases were an import can provide a building
block for future mapper activity - administrative boundaries are such an
exception. But that does not mean that any and all boundaries that are
somehow "of interest" can or should be imported.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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