Abbreviations are predominant in US highway refs, so I think that it is
fine to use one in USFS road refs.
At some point in time I had used ref=USFS xxx but changed stuff that I had
edited to ref=FS xxx. The usage of FS in Michigan is largely a product of
either my editing directly or my
I've recently been working on adding administrative boundaries for
townships in Michigan (old USGS paper maps show the boundaries, I'm tracing
those). Previously I've concluded that counties in Michigan don't really
extend into the Great Lakes. The sheriff has jurisdiction on the water
(extending
In the UP, USBR 10 isn't much more than the shoulder of US 2. It's
mostly paved, and every year there are fewer extremely narrow
sections! I guess there are probably a few signs, but not many.
Max
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
I live in Michigan and regularly drive US 2 in the Upper Peninsula.
The Lake Michigan route isn't signed in any sort of meaningful way.
Max
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
There's lots of discussion of these points as a mapping resource.
The thing is, they don't need to exist as current OSM objects for
mappers to use them as a resource, there's lots of other ways to use
them as a reference. The deleted points can be extracted from the
mechanical edit changesets or
wrote:
>
> (Is there a Michigan-specific forum that we could take this to? We're
> probably boring the daylights out of most of talk-us.)
>
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 9:16 PM Max Erickson wrote:
>
> > The management units in the data are subunits of the state forests
> &g
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 11:20 AM Kevin Kenny wrote:
>>
>> Complicating things, the state seems to have moved away from saying
>> much about the top level state forests. But I think they are probably
>> still the right thing for a general purpose map.
>
>
> Right. That's why I was talking about
The compartments likely aren't the right data for a general purpose
map; I'm not entirely sure, but they seem to be the basic management
unit for state forest land, so when they consider a cut or whatever
they consider it for that area. For OSM, the right things is probably
to have individual
As other have mentioned, there are many numbered roads managed by the
USFS. They range in development from closed, abandoned log roads to
well maintained pavement. I map them using the FS prefix.
For the general public one of the main uses is the publication of
motor vehicle access conditions:
Just comparing relations with place= tags to the corresponding nodes works:
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/CjI
Obviously not an OSM place=city there.
Max
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Many of the administrative boundaries imported from TIGER have a
place= tag that reflects the legal type of incorporation of the
municipality rather than a sensible value for the OSM place tag (which
would give some hint about the relative prominence of the place).
This confusion has gone under
>I grew up in an area with these kinds of roads and I don't think
>they're technically compacted. The gravel, which is crushed
>limerstone, is laid down and due to its chemical properties creates a
>smooth surface after several months of traffic.
Having read about this some since Tobey mentioned
Another proposed mechanical edit, splitting 'address' tags in New
York. The tags are mostly from an import of libraries.
Uses the same code as the MA splitting:
https://github.com/maxerickson/massadd
There's a lot less of them, only 290:
>There is a talk-us-massachusetts@ and I think review of your proposed
>mechanical edit should include that list.
Okay. This is pretty preliminary still, I just decided that feedback
was a good idea. Does that list overlap enough with this one that you
forwarding the message would be sufficient?
Many POIs in Massachusetts have reasonable address information stored
as a single value in the address tag (mostly from imports before the
'addr:*' scheme was established). Something like 1/2 of the uses of
'address' in OSM are in MA. I'd like to do a mechanical edit that
parses the individual
In National Forests, USFS road data usually has sensible information
about the suitability of roads for general traffic.
There's an imagery layer showing the Forest Service data:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Richard/diary/26099
I prefer opening transformed data as a layer in JOSM. Here's
I'm working on figuring out the licensing for a similar import in
Michigan (https://github.com/maxerickson/michigantownships ). I've put
together a translation for ogr2osm
(https://github.com/pnorman/ogr2osm) that takes a shapefile with
boundary polygons and outputs an osm file with merged
I took note of it just seeing the name in parking lots in towns and on
obvious driveways. It seems armchair cleanup would be able to address
those.
Maybe I will get over my reticence to edit the wiki and make a page
for listing these sorts of "structural" issues with Tiger data. Could
also list
About 1600 highways named "Adirondack Park" and another 300 named
"Adirondack Park Preserve". Mostly service drives that are in
Adirondack Park, but it seems unlikely that they are all actually
named that way.
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/vDk
Max
___
So just to follow up, what happens is that nominatim treats items
tagged with "addr:postcode" but not "addr:housenumber",
"addr:housename" or some type of POI tag as sources of postcode data.
There are quite few objects that will match that pattern that probably
aren't intended to define post
Nominatim calculates 02118:
http://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/details.php?place_id=498867
Most of the data seems to have the correct addr:postcode:
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/t5e
(The query includes postal_code but there aren't any in the data)
So what is Nominatim looking at to come up with
Hi-
It would be useful if you would describe how the data has been
collected and what other databases it may include information from.
OSM takes a fairly cautious approach to data rights, so it is a
necessary step to any import to clarify where the data has come from.
Max
> I think that we need to ask MapBox to revise the 2017 Tiger layer.
Ian Dees put together the 2017 layer. There is also some kind of
rendering problem with name labels on short, curvy ways, the
characters are bunched up and overlapping and then there are gaps.
Max
More at:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/2017-October/005181.html
At the moment they are blocked:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/1587
It can be hard to say if the node only changesets are broken. JOSM
will split changes up like that when they exceed the API limit
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
I reviewed about 40 ways in New York. Here's an Overpass script for
finding the ways that have not been changed since the redaction:
https://gist.github.com/maxerickson/e02651cce99af983949b91f8d471fb23
The ways are clustered quite a lot.
Max
___
Yeah, I'm about done with Michigan (40 ways to check).
I just used the OpenData plugin for JOSM to open a filtered csv, which
made it clear there were a few clusters. I downloaded the data for
each cluster and used a search "type:way user:woodpeck_repair" to add
the ways to the todolist plugin.
>One more thing to know about GNIS: entries are never deleted.
One minor exception to this is if they determine that a given feature
has 2 IDs, one of the IDs will often be removed.
Max
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
There's a fair chance that a GNIS location is off by a couple miles. A
little bit more information from GNIS is available by putting the ID
into https://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/
It lists "Mill Creek Baptist Church" as a variant name.
From time to time I come across a GNIS entry that is
Yeah, a Google search for "Mill Creek Church nashville" has
http://freepages.history.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~nashvillearchives/millcreek.html
as an early result. It says the church building has been dismantled
but mentions a cemetery, which still exists nearby the mislocated osm
node:
Given that the HFCS can simply be added as another tag, I don't see
any reason to force OSM tagging away from what is sensible just to
line up with what the state says.
Max
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Broadly speaking, yes, such continuity should apply. Maybe not using
exactly the same rule as the US DOT.
In practice there is an overfocus on observing how a given stretch of
road is built and an underfocus on the role it plays in the network.
My pet example is this stretch of US 2 & 41:
It's StreetComplete. Newer versions include the app name in the note:
https://github.com/westnordost/StreetComplete/issues/308
Max
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>> Max Erickson writes:
>>
>> The image the linked image was traced from provides no provenance
>> (beyond "Own work"). It's tough to go from there to being sure that
>> derived data is okay to contribute to OSM.
>
>It is explicitly CC BY-SA 4.0.
The image the linked image was traced from provides no provenance
(beyond "Own work"). It's tough to go from there to being sure that
derived data is okay to contribute to OSM.
Max
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Frederik wrote:
> I notice that at least two people who have negatively commented on your
> recent edits in changeset comments - Max Erickson and Steve A - are
> regulars on this mailing list, but they didn't get involved when you
> discussed the issue here four weeks ago.
As this
There's several scripts for outputting some information, generating
modified osm data and extracting buildings that aren't present at all
in OSM.
There's more description in the readme:
https://github.com/maxerickson/osm_ms_buildings
Only tested against the Michigan data which has 8140
37 matches
Mail list logo
