Re: [Talk-us] Underground railways, indoor mapping, and overlapping features

[Minh Nguyen]

Vào lúc 10:28 2020-05-05, Michael Reichert đã viết:

Using the same nodes (like mapping to adjacent landuse polygons) breaks
routing because routing engines would allow trains to switch between the
levels. Using duplicated nodes at the same location is likely to trigger
quality assurance services and therefore mappers trying to "repair" it
by merging them. Using two identical geometries in straight sections
with nodes at different locations, will likely provoke the same as
duplicated nodes.


Just as a double-decker bridge requires layer tags on each deck, so 
would a double-decker subway tunnel, whether the ways are coincident or 
offset by some arbitrarily small amount. Adding layer tags, as suggested 
in [1], would likely suppress any validator warnings about coincident 
ways. But it's true that mappers could still be confused by coincident 
ways if editors don’t provide intuitive ways to navigate among them.



Regarding option 2: GraphHopper assembles its routing graph by relying
on the node IDs in OSM. It would not suffer from using this option but I
doubt that it is safe for the future. If OSM adopts to drop its 64 bit
node IDs in favour of the location (32 bit latitude + 32 bit longitude),
such cases will cause difficulties.


This is an intriguing notion I had not come across before. Has it ever 
been seriously considered? It seems to me that distinguishing nodes only 
by their coordinates would be tantamount to merging all coincident nodes 
everywhere, which we probably would never allow as part of a mechanical 
edit, much less a history-less database schema update. (For one thing, 
everyone who dislikes joining borders to roadways would be appalled to 
see just about every CDP boundary consistently joined that way.)


[1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2020-May/020015.html

--
m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us


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

Re: [Talk-us] admin_level and COGs, MPOs, SPDs, Home Rule

[stevea]

Due to some discussion between Minh, Martin and I on the Talk page of United 
States admin_level, we seemed to agree that restoring admin_level=6 to 
Connecticut counties is reasonable.  I did so, and made minor changes to the 
wiki to outline why.

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

Re: [Talk-us] admin_level and COGs, MPOs, SPDs, Home Rule

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 5/15/20 23:12, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> I also think that it makes sense to have counties as admin_level=6 in
> Connecticut and Rhode Island, if local people still know their counties
> and the governments still recognize them for geographic, statistical and
> some other legal purposes.

I didn't even want to weigh in on the discussion, mine was more a
comment on process. You shouldn't delete something that has been there
for 10 years and then say "btw let's discuss" ;)

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

Re: [Talk-us] admin_level and COGs, MPOs, SPDs, Home Rule

[Joseph Eisenberg]

I also think that it makes sense to have counties as admin_level=6 in
Connecticut and Rhode Island, if local people still know their counties and
the governments still recognize them for geographic, statistical and some
other legal purposes.

-- Joseph Eisenberg

On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 1:42 PM Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> (3d attempt, apologies if you should get this several times)
>
> Hi,
>
> I am tempted to revert stevea's removal of the admin_level=6 from
> counties (where this was in place for the last 10 years or so, eg
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1839542/history) until a
> consensus is found that they should actually be removed.
>
> It is clear that there is a need for discussion, and I feel that such a
> discussion should take place *before* a change is made and not *after*.
>
> 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
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] admin_level and COGs, MPOs, SPDs, Home Rule

[Frederik Ramm]

(3d attempt, apologies if you should get this several times)

Hi,

I am tempted to revert stevea's removal of the admin_level=6 from
counties (where this was in place for the last 10 years or so, eg
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1839542/history) until a
consensus is found that they should actually be removed.

It is clear that there is a need for discussion, and I feel that such a
discussion should take place *before* a change is made and not *after*.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Moderation?

[Ian Dees]

Yes, I enabled moderation to cool off the "home rule" thread a bit.

I also stopped getting notification emails from the mailing list system
that any messages had been moderated. I didn't notice until I checked the
web interface. I've disabled the moderation for now.

On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 10:04 AM Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> has someone switched on moderation for this list, and if so, why? I sent
> a message 6 hours ago and re-sent it one hour ago and neither seem to
> have gone through. Have I overlooked an announcement? Or is it just broken?
>
> 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
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Moderation?

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

has someone switched on moderation for this list, and if so, why? I sent
a message 6 hours ago and re-sent it one hour ago and neither seem to
have gone through. Have I overlooked an announcement? Or is it just broken?

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

Re: [Talk-us] admin_level and COGs, MPOs, SPDs, Home Rule

[Michael Patrick]

The divisions and subdivision definitions are an ISO Standard, like threads
on nuts and bolts. And the 'politics' are the very least important aspect
of making the distinctions, because vast amounts of networks ( computers,
logistics, air travel ) rely on common understanding of these. Also
correlation of statistics about pretty much everything. Even in failed
states where this no effective federal government, and warlords carve out
their own territories have this stand applied.
So just change the wiki to state that
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2 applies with the mappings to OSM
levels.

Michael Patrick
Data Ferret


Virus-free.
www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] admin_level and COGs, MPOs, SPDs, Home Rule

[Kerry Irons]

Having watched this discussion, I feel I can add a little bit.

There is a collection of "agencies" with different titles and different 
functions that GENERALLY fall into this category.  COG (council of 
governments), TPO (transportation planning organization), RPO (regional 
planning organization), RPA (regional planning authority), TPA (transportation 
planning authority), MPO (municipal planning organization), and more.  These 
are organized for various purposes and have varying functions, and Anthony is 
right: few citizens would even vaguely recognize their existence, let alone 
their function.  And of course their function varies widely.  There may well be 
specific rules (varying by state) for how each of these operate, though I am 
not familiar with any of that.

In at least some states, these agencies form once the population of a 
contiguous area reaches a threshold.  There is often some funding flowing to 
the agencies as a result.  Their boundaries can cross many jurisdictional 
boundaries.  They cross state lines, county lines, township lines, and city 
lines.  In denser population areas, they often butt up against one another.  In 
more rural regions, there are significant gaps between them.

Their ability to actually control things varies.  As an example, our local TPO 
(actually called a Coordinating Council) has an active transportation plan that 
shows a 4-foot paved shoulder on a county road that is popular with bicyclists. 
 The county transportation plan shows the same thing.  But the road commission, 
whose members are appointed by the county board but are otherwise essentially 
independent (somewhat analogous to judges appointed for life), would not have 
added the 4-foot shoulders to the road without extra money contributed by the 
county, affected townships, and citizen donations.  The TPO plan was of 
interest to the road commission and nothing more.

I'll leave it to others as to whether the boundaries of the agencies should be 
mapped, but I thought it would be useful to help in understanding them.


Kerry Irons
Adventure Cycling Association

-Original Message-
From: Anthony Costanzo  
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2020 1:15 AM
To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list 
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] admin_level and COGs, MPOs, SPDs, Home Rule

Going to chime in here as someone who has lived the majority of his life in CT.

I am quite familiar with CT's 8 counties and their geographic forms.
But I only have a vague idea what a COG is and couldn't have told you offhand 
anything about where the boundaries between them are.

I support the idea that counties in CT should be tagged the same as they are in 
other states. On the most basic level, this is simply consistent - why should 
CT be tagged differently than elsewhere?
But even on a more nuanced level... the average person isn't concerned about 
what government functions are or aren't associated with a county. CT's counties 
have no associated government (anymore) but they are still commonly used for 
statistical purposes and they still have cultural relevance as well - you will 
hear references in casual conversations to Fairfield and Litchfield counties. 
Meanwhile ask any Connecticutter what COG they live in and most of them will 
probably answer "what's a COG".

Great current example of this, look at the state's reporting on covid
cases: 
https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/Coronavirus/CTDPHCOVID19summary5132020.pdf?la=en
Page 2 shows current hospitalizations by county. No reference to COGs to be 
found.

Thus, counties should retain their admin level tags, and COGs should be tagged 
less prominently.

___
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