Re: [Talk-us] Washington DC place node cleanup

I posted a changeset comment in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/76520412 Dec 6, 2020, 08:00 by m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us: > Vào lúc 03:01 2020-12-04, Frederik Ramm đã viết: > >> Hi, >> >> when reverting an edit this morning I noticed that the node for >> Washington

Re: [Talk-us] Washington DC place node cleanup

Dec 4, 2020, 12:43 by frede...@remote.org: > I have often argued for just dropping name:X if it is the name as name, > because I would assume that every language-specific map or other use > case would revert to the name tag if no language-specific name was present. > > The counter-argument was

Re: [Talk-us] Washington DC place node cleanup

name:pl tag is fortunately correct Dec 4, 2020, 12:33 by mikel.ma...@gmail.com: > Hi > > In DC, we just say DC usually. Across the states, it's Washington DC to > distinguish from Washington state. > > I'm not sure what the "name" tag should be, but I am wondering what the point > of the

Re: [Talk-us] Please unsubscribe me.

I triggered unsubscription for natf...@gmail.com You still need to confirm this action, as explained in email that should be send to you Nov 23, 2020, 22:06 by ian.d...@gmail.com: > Hi Nathan, > > You need to unsubscribe yourself. Please follow the instructions here: > >

Re: [Talk-us] [Tagging] Extremely long Amtrak route relations / coastline v. water

Nov 22, 2020, 17:08 by tagg...@openstreetmap.org: > Likewise we need to stop software developers from expectingcontributors > to add data purely because they can't be bothered/notcompetent enough to > write a few lines of code. (OSM-carto demandingboundaries on ways) > [citation

Re: [Talk-us] Import licensing waiver

Fri, 2020-10-09 at 15:44 +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > >> AFAIK "makes no claim as to the usefulness, accuracy or completeness" >> is not a problem, whoever is doing imports must do this part anyway. >> >> But what is the license of the data? >&

Re: [Talk-us] Import licensing waiver

AFAIK "makes no claim as to the usefulness, accuracy or completeness"is not a problem, whoever is doing imports must do this part anyway. But what is the license of the data? Maybe "Syracuse-Onondaga County Planning Agency has no objections" is sufficient (I am not a lawyer) - but only  if that

Re: [Talk-us] Recent Trunk road edits

Sep 29, 2020, 11:15 by burke...@gmail.com: > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 2:35 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us > wrote: > >> >> 29 wrz 2020, 02:02 od b...@mapwise.com: >> >> An example unhelpful comment: >> >> "YES GEORGIA IS BADLY-TAGGED TR

Re: [Talk-us] Recent Trunk road edits

29 wrz 2020, 02:02 od b...@mapwise.com: > An example unhelpful comment: > >     "> YES GEORGIA IS BADLY-TAGGED TRUNKFREE! Control is provided > by floridaeditor; i.e., if anybodytries to change one back I will > review the edit and keep/revertas needed." > > WTF >

Re: [Talk-us] Large fire perimeter tagging?

I am a bit dubious about value of updating fire=perimeter It is something that changes extremely quickly, we should not encourage people to survey perimeter of ACTIVE fire, OSM is doomed to be strictly worse source of fire perimeter than alternative sources > fire has absolutely enormous

Re: [Talk-us] [Tagging] Large fire perimeter tagging?

landuse=forest is used to tag tree covered area, not for how land is used It is also basically universally interpreted this way by various data consumers. Sep 25, 2020, 00:05 by cliff...@snowandsnow.us: > Steve, > Just a reminder, landuse is to tag what the land is used for. landuse=forest >

Re: [Talk-us] While we're fixing things in iterations

Sep 23, 2020, 23:37 by stevea...@softworkers.com: > Paul Johnson wrote: > >> Can we finally fix two other longstanding problems, then? >> >> 1. The wiki being incorrect about not counting bicycle lanes. That's not >> reflective of how validators deal with lanes, how data consumers like

Re: [Talk-us] While we're fixing things in iterations

Sep 24, 2020, 01:00 by ba...@ursamundi.org: > > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 5:56 PM Andy Townsend <> ajt1...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> >> On 23/09/2020 23:01, Paul Johnson wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 4:37PM stevea <>>> >>> stevea...@softworkers.com>>> >

Re: [Talk-us] Opinions on Devil's Slide Bunker (San Mateo, CA)

31 Aug 2020, 05:38 by stevea...@softworkers.com: > On Aug 30, 2020, at 5:50 PM, Brian Stromberg > wrote: > >> I would argue that maps can only show the world as the mapmaker wants it to >> be shown, and OSM should probably not be encouraging people (in any way) to >> be visiting sites that

Re: [Talk-us] Opinions on Devil's Slide Bunker (San Mateo, CA)

31 Aug 2020, 10:12 by frede...@remote.org: > And @Mateusz, I am not convinced that "there are great views from here" > is sufficient for tourism=viewpoint because it is too subjective. With > that reasoning, someone with a personal low bar for "great views" could > plaster the map with

Re: [Talk-us] Opinions on Devil's Slide Bunker (San Mateo, CA)

Aug 31, 2020, 00:17 by frede...@remote.org: > Hi, > > On 8/30/20 22:08, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us wrote: > >> Though I wonder what should be done with viewpoint itself. >> > > In my mind, a viewpoint is not just something from where you have a nice >

Re: [Talk-us] Opinions on Devil's Slide Bunker (San Mateo, CA)

Aug 30, 2020, 20:01 by frede...@remote.org: > > While it is undeniably a de-facto tourist attraction, and undeniably > offers great views, I think it should probably be changed to > historic=ruins, access=no, and the tracks leading up to it should also > be changed to access=no. > > Opinions?

Re: [Talk-us] Mapcarta with wrong info in Utah - whom to contact?

27 Aug 2020, 14:37 by ian.d...@gmail.com: > > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2020, 03:03 Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us <> > talk-us@openstreetmap.org> > wrote: > >> >> >> >> Aug 27, 2020, 09:52 by >> frede...@remote.org>> : >> >

Re: [Talk-us] Mapcarta with wrong info in Utah - whom to contact?

Aug 27, 2020, 09:52 by frede...@remote.org: > Hi, > > On 27.08.20 00:30, Alex Weech wrote: > >> They appear to be pulling straight from Google >> > > Interesting! I didn't know you could (show an OSM map and pull POIs from > Google). > AFAIK it is not against OSM license but it is break terms

Re: [Talk-us] Potential Import of Addresses for Thurston County, WA, USA

Is specifying source in changeset or on import page on Wiki qualifying as crediting them? Because doing this is actually required. 26 Aug 2020, 02:07 by thekingofrav...@disroot.org: > Alright I have an update: > > After an email chain with Thurston County GeoData Center, I finally got >

Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: Re: [Tagging] [Talk-transit] [OSM-talk] Call for verification (Was: Re: VANDALISM !)

The answer by Clay Smalley was public and visible on mailing lists. Personally I was not answering because someone started mailing list thread under badly chosen title and spammed it to [Talk-us] AND [Tagging] AND [Talk-transit] AND [OSM-talk] Why not also to [Imports] and [Talk-pl] and

Re: [Talk-us] [Tagging] VANDALISM !

Thanks to DWG for taking this action. Aug 22, 2020, 03:35 by claysmal...@gmail.com: > For those who aren't following, the DWG recently decided on a two-day ban for > the person who posted this, for the exact behavior they're exhibiting right > now: >

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Call for verification (Was: Re: VANDALISM !)

"It a playground with half-ass quality more than an authoritative and verified source of information (like e.g. Wikipedia)" I am not sure whatever you claim that Wikipedia is "playground with half-ass quality" or "authoritative and verified source of information". Though any of this claims

Re: [Talk-us] Anyone familiar with Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP)?

Though I am sadly unfamiliar with Rocky Mountains - but especially given (6) you are not obligated to make even more research. Aug 9, 2020, 10:44 by talk-us@openstreetmap.org: > In such case removing this names should be fine. > > > Aug 8, 2020, 21:12 by miketh...@gmail.com: > >> I thought the

Re: [Talk-us] Anyone familiar with Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP)?

In such case removing this names should be fine. Aug 8, 2020, 21:12 by miketh...@gmail.com: > I thought the names of these water bodies[0] in RMNP were suspect because: > 1) The names do not appear in the GNIS, > 2) The names do not appear on the USGS topo > 3) The names do not appear in the

Re: [Talk-us] Cycleway Crossings

Aug 7, 2020, 13:11 by dougpeter...@dpeters2.dyndns.org: > I have noticed in my area where some people have been adding crossings to a > designated cycleway (named and signed as a bike trail). The crossings are > fine. It is that the crossing is then been changed to a footway. > link? > > I

Re: [Talk-us] Marking structure as damaged or condemned

Is building completely destroyed (no longer existing)? Simply delete it or remove building tag and use demolished:building=yes / not:building=tag, possibly add also note. Deleting is fine, but others may remap it from aerial images. Still building, just damaged, abandoned or

Re: [Talk-us] Interested in importing address points in New York State

Jul 20, 2020, 15:32 by o...@dead10ck.com: > Thanks Mateusz, I actually tried to make a page, but I am encountering some > strange behavior from the wiki. When I try to edit or add a page, a text box > appears that says "confirmation code," with no other explanation. I don't get > an email

Re: [Talk-us] Interested in importing address points in New York State

Jul 20, 2020, 05:12 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com: > On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 12:46 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us <> > talk-us@openstreetmap.org> > wrote: > >> Once you write this diary entry (or OSM Wiki page) please post >> it to the mailing l

Re: [Talk-us] [Talk-us-newyork] Interested in importing address points in New York State

Not a lawyer, but is it possible that "use the points for any lawful purpose" is nonanswer as a use invaloving copyright infringement would not be lawful? Jul 18, 2020, 18:34 by o...@dead10ck.com: > Well, it turned it to be a lot easier than I was thinking it would be! I > reached out to the

Re: [Talk-us] Interested in importing address points in New York State

Once you write this diary entry (or OSM Wiki page) please post it to the mailing list! Jul 16, 2020, 18:15 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com: > (It got fixed.) Mateusz, do I recall that you took part > in the reversion? > No, but I was working on much simpler deimport:

Re: [Talk-us] sweat of the brow & sui generis database rights | Re: Interested in importing address points in New York State

16 Jul 2020, 16:33 by r...@technomancy.org: > On 16/07/2020 13:35, Russell Nelson wrote: > >> As you say, it's just a listing of facts about the world. At most the >> presentation of them is copyrightable, but as Skyler noted, he's changing >> the presentation. >> >> No license needed for

Re: [Talk-us] Interested in importing address points in New York State

Jul 16, 2020, 06:44 by o...@dead10ck.com: > I found that NYS publishes GIS data in their "Clearing House", and one of the > data sets available is address points: > https://gis.ny.gov/gisdata/inventories/details.cfm?DSID=921 > > I opened the data in JOSM, and they look spatially accurate, for

Re: [Talk-us] access=private on driveways (was: Deleting tiger:reviewed=no/addr:street for routes)

Jul 14, 2020, 13:17 by jm...@gmx.com: > On 7/14/2020 4:53 AM, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us wrote: > >> >> Jul 14, 2020, 02:20 by >> jm...@gmx.com>> : >> >>> If there was reason to believe you needed explicit permission to >

Re: [Talk-us] access=private on driveways (was: Deleting tiger:reviewed=no/addr:street for routes)

Jul 14, 2020, 02:20 by jm...@gmx.com: > On 7/13/2020 4:09 PM, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > >> On 13/07/2020 15.16, Kevin Kenny wrote: >> >>> >>> The immediate curtilage of a house is presumed to be private; at least >>> in the US, one does not drive or walk directly up to someone's house >>>

Re: [Talk-us] Importing data for Prince William County, VA

Jul 13, 2020, 20:29 by mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com: > On 13/07/2020 14.22, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > >> If you are staying from manually reviewing >> and editing based on this new data, >> aerials and current data it should be >> perfectly fine as long as you a

Re: [Talk-us] Importing data for Prince William County, VA

Ok, then it should be ok. If you are staying from manually reviewing and editing based on this new data, aerials and current data it should be perfectly fine as long as you actually review  what you add. 13 Jul 2020, 20:15 by mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com: > On 13/07/2020 13.44, Mateusz Koniec

Re: [Talk-us] Importing data for Prince William County, VA

Are you sure that it is in public domain? Is it work of federal government? Or a state government? 13 Jul 2020, 16:48 by mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com: > (Repost to talk-us also.) > > On 13/07/2020 10.44, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > >> I am working on a project that wishes to tentatively use OSM data

[Talk-us] Is summit register something that is often found in USA mountains?

Is summit register something that is often found in USA mountains? ("A summit book or summit register is a record of visitors to the summit of a mountain. It is usually enclosed in a weatherproof, animalproof metal canister.") I am asking as I plan to implement summit register part of

[Talk-us] nhd pages documentation review

I created https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:nhd:fcode https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:nhd:ftype https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:nhd:reach_code https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:nhd:com_id about tags added in imports. Review is welcomed, especially the first two

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Google earth, Google maps

AM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <>>> >>> talk-us@openstreetmap.org >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> this was a tool on the map that measured distance. >>>> >> Have you copied that map? I am unsure how the distance measuring tool >> r

Re: [Talk-us] Google earth, Google maps

> >> this was a tool on the map that measured distance. >> Have you copied that map? I am unsure how the distance measuring tool relates to "why are you telling me I can not use google as a map source"? >>   >> >>> Saturday, June 13, 2020 9:29 AM -05:00

Re: [Talk-us] Google earth, Google maps

You are not allowed to use Google Maps as source. Have you used Google Maps to edit OSM? "since all the maps on OSM are old news like in my local area 7 months old." FYI, world is larger than your local area. Jun 13, 2020, 16:08 by talk-us@openstreetmap.org: > If you people want me to prove

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Edit Attacks

gt;   > but the thing is the river was a 10 year old 81 mile download that maye > should not be as to the Wiki. > and this guy must be a river freak just like the bus stop guy who thought he > own the map. >   > >> Wednesday, June 10, 2020 2:26 PM -05:00 from Mateusz Konieczny

Re: [Talk-us] Edit Attacks

Can you link any specific changeset damaging data or object that was deleted and should not be? Linked ones http://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=86230442 http://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=85357849 appear to not be problematic (

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] fake mapping

Jun 9, 2020, 00:26 by t...@openstreetmap.org: > just to be safe i went to a pre-edit location, less than 5 miles 2 hours by > public transportation. >   > the satellite view was wrong, the river area were ponds because of the dam, > which was not there in 1969 >   > when we went down the

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] river - stream

Jun 5, 2020, 14:45 by t...@openstreetmap.org: > if water goes under a bridge, why in the ID  editor is it pictured on top of > the bridge, > Is layer tag set correctly? >   > when the river stream comes to the bridge can you split and add tunnel ?    >   > No, if it is under bridge then

Re: [Talk-us] Heavily-wooded residential polygons

Jun 3, 2020, 06:09 by stevea...@softworkers.com: > Mateusz Konieczny writes: > "OSM is not a place to map property rights. And landuse=residential is > certainly not a tool for mapping boundaries of owned areas or property right > boundaries." > > I don't wish

Re: [Talk-us] Heavily-wooded residential polygons

Jun 2, 2020, 20:16 by stevea...@softworkers.com: > "this IS residential landuse." (Not COULD BE, but IS). Yes, this land might > be "natural" now, including being "treed," but I could still build a patio > and bbq there after perhaps cutting down some trees, it is my residential > land

Re: [Talk-us] Heavily-wooded residential polygons

Jun 2, 2020, 22:32 by stevea...@softworkers.com: > On Jun 2, 2020, at 1:25 PM, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > >> > should the entirety of the underlying area be tagged landuse=farmland or >> > landuse=residential? >> >> Neither: just tag the areas that are used for residences as >>

Re: [Talk-us] Heavily-wooded residential polygons

Jun 2, 2020, 13:11 by g...@lexort.com: > First, I'm going to assume that polygons for landuse=residential do or > are intended to align with property boundaries. > I think that it is not a good assumption. One may have a property boundary that is partially landuse=residential and partially

Re: [Talk-us] Stay-Healthy Streets in Seattle do not appear to be Living Streets

May 31, 2020, 22:50 by joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com: > Some mappers have suggested using highway=living_street for streets in > Seattle (and perhaps elsewhere) which temporarily have through-traffic > restricted for motor vehicles. However, this appears to be incorrect usage of > the tag. >

Re: [Talk-us] Heavily-wooded residential polygons

May 28, 2020, 23:54 by stevea...@softworkers.com: > "treed farmland" or "heavily wooded residential" prove slightly problematic > to OSM tagging. > Map tree-covered area (landuse=forest) and map farmland (landuse=farmland) or residential (landuse=residential). Yes, the same area may be tree

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

Note that vandalism in OSM and similar project is considered as something that is not only damaging but also malicious and intended to be damaging. In cases where you consider other mapper as mistaken and wrong, but not malicious - consider using other terms. See

Re: [Talk-us] Relation disappearing from renderer

May 9, 2020, 00:34 by the.spui.ni...@gmail.com: > > So I noticed recently that the boundary for the Black Hills National Forest > (> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4069100 > > ) has started disappearing > from the standard view, while

Re: [Talk-us] Alt_names on counties

I would use rather short_name. But I see no valid reason for removing then. Have you alerted this active user that you started conversation about his/her mapping? 26 Dec 2019, 02:25 by t...@fitchfamily.org: > I’ve noticed that a number of counties in California and Arizona have what > seems

Re: [Talk-us] Marking a wiki page for deletion?

In this case redirect seems better. Replace entire page text by  #REDIRECT [[target page]] You can also add delete template  to request deletion: {{Delete|reason for deletion}} 24 Dec 2019, 01:18 by stevea...@softworkers.com: > I goofed in our wiki by not moving (renaming) an old page to a

Re: [Talk-us] [Tagging] Trunk VS primary

21 Dec 2019, 15:29 by wolfg...@lyxys.ka.sub.org: > * Mateusz Konieczny > >> 21 Dec 2019, 12:00 by wolfg...@lyxys.ka.sub.org: >> >>> I suggest to keep the road classification consistent at least within >>> a country and try to solve the problem of roads i

Re: [Talk-us] [Tagging] Trunk VS primary

21 Dec 2019, 12:00 by wolfg...@lyxys.ka.sub.org: > I suggest to keep the road classification consistent at least within > a country and try to solve the problem of roads in low-zoom maps at > the rendering level, by modifying the list of displayed road classes > until a target density of

Re: [Talk-us] [Tagging] Trunk VS primary,

21 Dec 2019, 01:09 by joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com: > Above it was said that the highway=trunk vs highway=primary > distinction is mostly for routing applications. But allowing a proper > rendering is also a main goal of the road tagging system. > Yes, during my work on road display in OSM Carto

Re: [Talk-us] [Tagging] Trunk VS primary,

21 Dec 2019, 01:44 by ba...@ursamundi.org: > > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 1:07 AM Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com> > > wrote: > >> >> 20 Dec 2019, 01:25 by >> ba...@ursamundi.org>> : >> >>> So, for example, in the

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

20 Dec 2019, 01:25 by ba...@ursamundi.org: > So, for example, in the US, instead of motorway, trunk, primary, secondary, > tertiary, perhaps something more like freeway, expressway, > major/minor_principal (just having this would fix a *lot* of problems with > Texas and Missouri and their

Re: [Talk-us] Opinions on micro parks

1 Oct 2019, 16:26 by frede...@remote.org: > > Case 1: > > http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/case1.png > > Two small coastal areas that look a bit like rock outcroppings. > It is hard to imagine to me situation where it would be leisure=park. > "zone=PR-PP" which was then interpreted as

Re: [Talk-us] Proper way to "close" a ferry route

I would also remove route=ferry tag. I assume here that "temporary" means "closed for at least week or two",  with closer closure I have doubts about mapping it in OSM. 9 Sep 2019, 17:22 by talk-us@openstreetmap.org: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > The Ocracoke-Hatteras

Re: [Talk-us] Oahu, Hawaii CDP boundaries

6 Sep 2019, 22:10 by stevea...@softworkers.com: > I slightly disagree with Mateusz that we "reflect local postal" boundaries, > as we don't do that in the USA with ZIP codes: they are routing algorithms, > not actual areas definable by a (multi)polygon. > Note that I was asking whatever it

Re: [Talk-us] Next Mappy Hour July 10!

I like this idea, I would be happy to talk about StreetComplete and Vespucci. 12 Jul 2019, 23:10 by m...@rtijn.org: > Hi all, > > Thanks for participating in the Virtual Mappy Hour this week! We had a record > number of 16 participants (from as far away as Poland and Japan) and lively >

Re: [Talk-us] Website showing the best time to survey with GPS.

Note that for a typical GPS, especially GPS in smartphone I would expect that this effects will be not really noticeable in affecting accuracy. Maybe except massive solar storms like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_storm_of_1859 I tried to check sources, but quick search found nothing really

Re: [Talk-us] Typical maxweight signs in USA? (editor developmnent question)

25 Jun 2019, 17:47 by pe...@dobratz.us: > Thanks for trying to standardize on this.  I've seen a few of these maximum > weight signs and was unsure of how to tag. > > From what I've seen in the United States, I've seen maximum weights listed as > both lbs (pounds) and tons (where 1 ton =

Re: [Talk-us] Typical maxweight signs in USA? (editor developmnent question)

25 Jun 2019, 17:47 by pe...@dobratz.us: > Reading this page, I see the potential ambiguity extends deeper than I > realized (short ton, metric ton, long ton) > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonne > AFAIK all cases of "t" in USA on max weight signs means

[Talk-us] Typical maxweight signs in USA? (editor developmnent question)

How often weight limit signs other than plain "Weight limit X tons" https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:MUTCD_R12-1.svg and R12-5 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:MUTCD_R12-5.svg

[Talk-us] maxweight sign R12-5 - how to tag it? Is this correct? (editor development question)

There is a bit tricky sign https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:MUTCD_R12-5.svg OSM Wiki at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxweight#Examples proposes to use:

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

29 Apr 2019, 17:36 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com: > On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 11:24 AM Mateusz Konieczny > <> matkoni...@tutanota.com <mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>> > wrote: > >> Why not simply call anything which is a 'large public area for recreation', >&

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

29 Apr 2019, 05:12 by stevea...@softworkers.com: > How much consensus IS there for tagging national_park on "large, (important?) > state parks" which roughly (or not) meet the national_park definition in our > wiki? > It seems that national_park is likely to be affected by problem similar to

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

Sorry for a previous empty message. I clicked send too early by an accident. 29 Apr 2019, 15:02 by g...@lexort.com: > So, I'd be in favor of having a way on the parcel boundary, and another > denoting the park-type sub-piece, calling those outer and inner and > tagging: > > outer: name="Foo

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

29 Apr 2019, 15:02 by g...@lexort.com: > The other case is a large area with subareas that are each clearly one > or the other. Consider: > > 1000 acre parcel, almost entirely forest in a natural state, with dirt > hiking paths > > a 40 acre sub-piece of this on the edge, that is different: >

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

29 Apr 2019, 15:28 by bradha...@fastmail.com: > It doesn't restrict, as the leisure:park wiki does, to smaller, urban > human-sculpted parks. > I am partially responsible for recent rewrite. The rewrite was supposed to explain how leisure=park is used in OpenStreetMap, and not redefine meaning

[Talk-us] Private playgrounds (was Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type)

29 Apr 2019, 13:56 by g...@lexort.com: > It does mean that leisure=playground access=private is going to happen, > in gated community-ish places. But that's fine, I think. > Or in schools/kindergartens. (leisure=playground access=private is even supported by a special rendering in OSM Carto ).

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

24 Apr 2019, 23:05 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com: > TL;DR - Tag the land use, not the land ownership. A city, town, > county, or state park may be virtually indistinguishable urban green > spots, recreation grounds, nature reserves, whatever. The level of > government that manages them may be of

[Talk-us] What is sold in Value Village? (shop=second_hand vs shop=clothes)

Is it a second hand shop, but what it is primarily selling? Clothes? Or something else? Or is there no dominating product and it is selling mix of everything? I am asking as name-suggestion-index has it as shop=second_hand without any indication of sold product and it seems to me that

Re: [Talk-us] trail tagging

Apr 19, 2019, 5:25 PM by t...@fitchdesign.com: > the best you could tag surface would be as “unpaved” as the natural material > and can vary over very short distances). > surface=unpaved is already helpful and useful ___ Talk-us mailing list

Re: [Talk-us] trail tagging

tl;dr: Please, add always surface tag and other similar tags as needed. I see that I answered at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Key:highway=1844151=1843977 It is a tricky topic. Lets

[Talk-us] Is there any value at all in tiger:MTFCC and tiger:FUNCSTAT tags?

I encountered this tags some time ago and seem to be popular, imported, useless and without clear meaning. Therefore I think it would be a good idea to add them to discardable tags (tags not displayed by editors and silently removed if mapper edited object with it). I created documentation

Re: [Talk-us] Proposed mechanical edit - remove objects that are not existing according to source of GNIS import that added them

gt;>> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 21:46:59 -0600 >>>> Martijn van Exel <>>>> m...@rtijn.org <mailto:m...@rtijn.org>>>>> >>>> >>> m...@rtijn.org <mailto:m...@rtijn.org>>>>> >> wrote: >>>> >>>&g

Re: [Talk-us] Proposed mechanical edit - remove objects that are not existing according to source of GNIS import that added them

Mar 22, 2019, 9:51 AM by rich...@systemed.net: > The other automated edits you're proposing would be better done by adding > the keys to editor blacklists because the tags aren't actually harming > anyone. > Main harm is that - it is one more tag that people, especially newbies need to

Re: [Talk-us] Proposed mechanical edit - remove objects that are not existing according to source of GNIS import that added them

Mar 21, 2019, 6:18 PM by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com: > I, too, would appreciate seeing some sample data, let's say, some > reasonable radius around 42.8257, -73.8790. That's more to make sure > that the technology is working right and not wetting on stuff that's > already fixed, but of course,

Re: [Talk-us] Proposed mechanical edit - remove objects that are not existing according to source of GNIS import that added them

Mar 21, 2019, 6:23 PM by cliff...@snowandsnow.us: > > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 9:52 AM Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com > <mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>> > wrote: > >> Good idea, independent check would be welcomed! >> >&g

Re: [Talk-us] Proposed mechanical edit - remove objects that are not existing according to source of GNIS import that added them

Good idea, independent check would be welcomed! Something from Seattle region would be OK, right? If my googling went right the you are probably interested in data around https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Glassman/history#map=8/47.780/-122.388 Mar 21, 2019, 5:43 PM by cliff...@snowandsnow.us:

Re: [Talk-us] Proposed mechanical edit - remove objects that are not existing according to source of GNIS import that added them

Mar 21, 2019, 3:56 PM by m...@rtijn.org: > Re-reading this I phrased this with more hyperbole than I intended, sorry. > I see no problem here, after all lack of control over automated edit is how we ended in this situation. ___ Talk-us mailing list

Re: [Talk-us] Gated communities

Mar 21, 2019, 4:11 PM by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com: > On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 3:01 AM Mateusz Konieczny > <> matkoni...@tutanota.com <mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>> > wrote: > >> For start, "residents only" gate is for me clearly access=private. &g

Re: [Talk-us] Proposed mechanical edit - remove objects that are not existing according to source of GNIS import that added them

Mar 21, 2019, 3:29 PM by m...@rtijn.org: > The benefit is that it gives mappers a reason to examine places - not just > the disappeared feature itself but also the area around it - that would > otherwise go unexamined. Since we have so much unexamined space in the U.S., > any opportunity to

Re: [Talk-us] Gated communities

access=destination for inner ways for community may be also a good idea to give data to routers that transit traffic is not allowed (or access=private if there is limited or no public access at all). Though routers will use that only if there is more than one gate. As usual - additional

Re: [Talk-us] Proposed mechanical edit - remove objects that are not existing according to source of GNIS import that added them

Mar 21, 2019, 4:46 AM by m...@rtijn.org: > > >> On Mar 20, 2019, at 9:01 AM, Mateusz Konieczny <>> matkoni...@tutanota.com >> <mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>>> > wrote: >> >> I plan to run an automated edit that will revert part of

Re: [Talk-us] Gated communities

Mar 20, 2019, 11:38 PM by frede...@remote.org: > Hi, > > DWG have been contacted by a resident of a gated community in Florida. > They were unhappy about our routing which apparently leads people > through an unmanned "residents only" gate where they won't get in, > instead of to the manned

[Talk-us] Proposed mechanical edit - remove objects that are not existing according to source of GNIS import that added them

There are thousands of objects mistakenly imported to OSM from GNIS. Objects proposed to be deleted were documented in GNIS database as not existing at time of the import, but were imported anyway. Edit would remove many nonexisting objects that are currently misleading users of OSM data and

Re: [Talk-us] Proposed mechanical edit - remove is_in:continent in USA

Mar 20, 2019, 2:59 PM by ric...@nakts.net: > On 20.03.19 12:14, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > >> >> Mar 20, 2019, 9:21 AM by >> frede...@remote.org >> <mailto:frede...@remote.org>>> : >> >> Mateusz, >> >> as far as I am conce

Re: [Talk-us] Proposed mechanical edit - remove is_in:continent in USA

Mar 20, 2019, 9:21 AM by frede...@remote.org: > Mateusz, > > as far as I am concerned, *all* is_in tags are unnecessary at best and > potentially misleading, and could be removed. I'd prefer adding these > tags to the auto remove list in editors though, rather than running > mechanical edits to

[Talk-us] Proposed mechanical edit - remove is_in:continent in USA

is_in:continent=* is subjective as both division Earth landmass into continents[1] and boundaries between continents[2] are mostly subjective. There are many competing ways to split world into continents and OSM is not proper place to record all of them or one selected system. In rare cases

Re: [Talk-us] Spot elevations collected as natural=peak and name=Point (height in feet)

If it is a peak then ele=XXX and noname=yes would be OK. If it is not a peak it should not be present at all - otherwise it opens way to importing LIDAR data into OSM (and there are datasets with resolution of 5 cm, dumping it into OSM would be case of unverifiable data making it impossible to

Re: [Talk-us] armchair mappers putting errors back into the map

Mar 3, 2019, 10:30 PM by nbol...@gmail.com: > > Also for me - in my opinion it is not a hack, it is a well working solution. > > I want to use this exact info to figure out which areas need more mapping of > sidewalks - and I plan to do so eventually. But it's not easy! > > Here's a friendly and

Re: [Talk-us] armchair mappers putting errors back into the map

Mar 3, 2019, 8:20 PM by ajt1...@gmail.com: > On 03/03/2019 18:43, Nick Bolten wrote: > >> As I mentioned, I'm aware of hacks regarding sidewalks >> > > I wouldn't describe sidewalk=none as a hack - speaking as someone who walks a > lot, any verifiable tag that says "you're allowed to, but you

  1   2   >