Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

The concept of expressway is not as well known as a freeway. Many people, especially in places like NYC, might consider expressways and freeways to be interchangeable terms. Heck, even in Tulsa, you have the Broken Arrow Expressway, and the Sand Springs Expressway, which, despite being called

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 11:00 PM, Evin Fairchild wrote: > Another thing worth adding is that if we do decide to tag two-lane roads > as trunk, you will still be able to tell the undivided two-lane roads apart > from the divided four-lane roads, even at zoom 5. I'm sure many

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 10:19 PM, Bradley White wrote: > > Message: 4 > > Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 21:24:20 -0500 > > From: Paul Johnson > > To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list > > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Trunk > > Message-ID: >

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

Another thing worth adding is that if we do decide to tag two-lane roads as trunk, you will still be able to tell the undivided two-lane roads apart from the divided four-lane roads, even at zoom 5. I'm sure many of you have noticed if you've looked at Canada at zoom 5, you can see that some of

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

>Can you explain what your goal/desire is for these non-divided highways >to be labeled trunk? Is it about a small-scale render showing them, >when if they are primary, Alaska looks empty when it shouldn't? Some >sense of hierarchical views of road networks? Something else? @Bradley - I didn't

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

> Message: 4 > Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 21:24:20 -0500 > From: Paul Johnson > To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Trunk > Message-ID: >

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 9:53 PM, Evin Fairchild wrote: > > Soon after I first joined OSM, NE2 changed a US highway near me from > primary to trunk which another user quickly reverted, but I actually agreed > with the change to trunk. The road I'm referring to, BTW, is US 2 in

Re: [Talk-us] Low-quality NHD imports

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Christoph Hormann wrote: > On Friday 13 October 2017, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > > > I remain unconvinced that importing or not importing has had any > > significant impact on whether people improve the map manually. > > > There are a number of

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Oct 13, 2017 7:11 PM, "Bradley White" wrote: Lots of words ahead, you have been warned... I disagree with trying to use the "highway=" tag to describe what "kind" of road a given way is in the US, except for freeways. The "highway" key is for importance, or, how

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 9:10 PM, Bradley White wrote: > > This situation is NOT the case for the majority of the US, and trying > to use this definition is what has been leading to unresolved > confusion about the purpose of the trunk tag. MUTCD gives a definition > of

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

Lots of words ahead, you have been warned... I disagree with trying to use the "highway=" tag to describe what "kind" of road a given way is in the US, except for freeways. The "highway" key is for importance, or, how prominently a road should show on the map. We have other tags to describe

Re: [Talk-us] Davis Senior High School, California

On 12/10/2017 18:45, David Kewley wrote: I've just now sent an email through the school's portal to Mr. Birdsall, asking whether he can help. I live in California, and have met folks from Davis, but don't have enough of a personal connection to go a more direct route. David Thanks for

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

> Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 11:59:11 -0600 > From: Martijn van Exel > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Trunk > > Hi all, > > I haven't abandoned this thread or thinking about it. It has just taken me > a while to read through all the diary comments + what is being said in this > thread. I

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Greg Troxel wrote: > Agreed mostly. But I don't see primary/secondary as having anything to > do with physical; we more or less defined that as US vs state long ago. If you read the description on the Wiki, we defined no such thing, we merely

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Dave Swarthout wrote: > > I don't really have a stake in the outcome of this discussion but wish to > again point out that Alaska is a state where "trunk" has been used to > designate highways that are ordinarily classified as primary but

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 6:49 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 7:30 PM, Greg Troxel wrote: > > I don't think "important connecting role in the long distance road > > network" should have anything to do with it. A regular US highway

Re: [Talk-us] Tracking Redaction Review

I’ve completed adding Tiger 2017 names to the roads in Arizona. And I’ve updated your spreadsheet to reflect the completion. That was a much bigger job than I wanted to do but I just couldn’t stand seeing all those roads named “chdr_USA_AZ_name_fixup_required”. I’ve probably made a few

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

>I don't think "important connecting role in the long distance road >network" should have anything to do with it. A regular US highway that >is not divided, grade-separated, mostly limited access is still a key >interconnecting road, and it's squarely "primary". Most of US 20 is >like this, as

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 7:30 PM, Greg Troxel wrote: > I don't think "important connecting role in the long distance road > network" should have anything to do with it. A regular US highway that > is not divided, grade-separated, mostly limited access is still a key >

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

Martijn van Exel writes: > In the mean time, I decided to test some of the ideas posted here on a real > case: The part of Michigan SR 10 northwest of the I-696 interchange: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/252973#map=13/42.5132/-83.3168 > > Since 1) this road does not

Re: [Talk-us] Low-quality NHD imports

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Christoph Hormann wrote: > There are a number of possible measures that could be considered for > improving old NHD imports: > > * removal of unnecessary tags to reduce the baggage mappers would have > to deal with when working on the data. > *

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On 10/13/17 1:59 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote: > Hi all, > > I haven't abandoned this thread or thinking about it. It has just > taken me a while to read through all the diary comments + what is > being said in this thread. I intend to follow up with another diary > post where I try to collect this

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

Hi all, I haven't abandoned this thread or thinking about it. It has just taken me a while to read through all the diary comments + what is being said in this thread. I intend to follow up with another diary post where I try to collect this smart crowd's thoughts and suggestions, but it will

Re: [Talk-us] Low-quality NHD imports

On Friday 13 October 2017, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > I remain unconvinced that importing or not importing has had any > significant impact on whether people improve the map manually. In case of NHD imports in the US there are certainly significant parts of the country where no NHD data has been

Re: [Talk-us] Low-quality NHD imports

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > I only posted that on the talk list and not here, so for those on > talk-us who don't read talk and who are familiar with the "imports are > always bad for the community" discussion, you might want to have a look > at a

Re: [Talk-us] Low-quality NHD imports

I live in the west coast of the US where manually surveying waterways is not only difficult, but almost impossible. I can't quantify how much as been cleaned up, but I do know of efforts to fix problems. For example, most of the waterways in the Olympic Peninsula were reversed. That's been fix. (I

Re: [Talk-us] Low-quality NHD imports

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:53 AM, Christoph Hormann wrote: > I think this is probably a good example for imports discouraging manual > mapping. If this data was not there mappers would probably meanwhile > have added at least the larger rivers but with the dense network of NHD >

Re: [Talk-us] Low-quality NHD imports

Hi, On 10/13/17 15:52, Kevin Kenny wrote: > (I ignore the arguments that > are based solely on contentions that "imports are always bad for the > community," or else I'd never import anything.) I only posted that on the talk list and not here, so for those on talk-us who don't read talk and who

Re: [Talk-us] Low-quality NHD imports

On 10/13/2017 02:06 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, there's a LOT of NHD:* (and nhd:*) tags on OSM objects, see https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=NHD%3A - 1.9 million NHD:FCode, but also 188k "NHD:Permanent_" (note the underscore), 10k "NHD:WBAreaComI", or 1.5m "NHD:Resolution" just

Re: [Talk-us] Texas - redacted roads.

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 7:49 AM, Kerry Irons wrote: > Yes, but what about when there are two different names on street signs > depending on where you are on the street? It clearly is a mistake on the > part of the sign department, but in this case it probably means you

Re: [Talk-us] Low-quality NHD imports

On Friday 13 October 2017, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > I haven't researched who added them and when, but they would > certainly not clear the quality standards we have for imports today. > Most of this information can be properly modelled in usual OSM tags, > and where it cannot, it probably

Re: [Talk-us] Texas - redacted roads.

Yes, but what about when there are two different names on street signs depending on where you are on the street? It clearly is a mistake on the part of the sign department, but in this case it probably means you have to go with the "un- authoritative" data from the local jurisdiction no matter

[Talk-us] Tracking Redaction Review

I setup a sheet to try to consolidate information about what has been looked at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MbF4BptFvkY_Cp0zh1OKBxt_E9tdXklxRDfMW0baBvU/edit?usp=sharing Open to anyway so just fill in a state once it is reviewed. I went through the earlier thread and added anything

Re: [Talk-us] Low-quality NHD imports

Sometimes I think it might have been better if OSM had never imported Tiger data. It is simply pitiful, almost worse than nothing, in many areas of Alaska. Same with the coastlines and NHD water bodies. I know they represent a first approximation and without any coastlines we couldn't have a map,

Re: [Talk-us] Low-quality NHD imports

Hi, * Frederik Ramm [171013 08:06]: >there's a LOT of NHD:* (and nhd:*) tags on OSM objects, see > https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=NHD%3A > - 1.9 million NHD:FCode, but also 188k "NHD:Permanent_" (note the > underscore), 10k "NHD:WBAreaComI", or 1.5m

Re: [Talk-us] Texas - redacted roads.

On 2017.10.13. 05:06, Nick Hocking wrote: > AAAH - all my questions are answered. > > The City of Austin's use of google base map has "fooled" me into > thinking that the map data was theirs rather than googles. If I click on > the "blue line" then I see the actual City of Austin data and indeed

[Talk-us] weeklyOSM #377 2017-10-03-2017-10-09

The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 377, is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of all things happening in the openstreetmap world: http://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/9535/ Enjoy! weeklyOSM? who?: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages

[Talk-us] Low-quality NHD imports

Hi, there's a LOT of NHD:* (and nhd:*) tags on OSM objects, see https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=NHD%3A - 1.9 million NHD:FCode, but also 188k "NHD:Permanent_" (note the underscore), 10k "NHD:WBAreaComI", or 1.5m "NHD:Resolution" just to grab a few. I haven't researched who added