Re: [Talk-us] State of the map in Iowa / Athletics data

Karson, Thanks for your assessment. Unfortunately, I suspect that there are large parts of the US where the quality and completeness of the OSM data is similar to what you observed in Iowa. Perhaps it is already happening and I am not aware of it, but in my opinion, I think it would be a good

Re: [Talk-us] Trouble with getting Superior National Forest

On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 7:34 PM brad wrote: > I'm with Kevin, SteveA, etc, here. In the part of the world that I > live, a map without national forest & BLM boundaries is very incomplete. > A useful OSM needs this. The useful boundary would be the actual > ownership boundary, not the outer

Re: [Talk-us] Potential Mechanical Edit to remove access=private from Amazon Logistics driveways in NH

On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 7:46 AM Matthew Woehlke wrote: > On 30/08/2020 10.00, Greg Troxel wrote: > > > What is the actual problem with other people's driveways being marked > > access=private on the map? yes, driving on is usually technically not > > illegal, but unless you are going there

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

On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 6:53 PM Brian Stromberg wrote: > I would argue that maps can only show the world as the mapmaker wants it > to be shown... > In OSM we should map facts, what is observable on the ground (with the exception of personal information, and perhaps culturally sensitive sites

Re: [Talk-us] Potential Mechanical Edit to remove access=private from Amazon Logistics driveways in NH

On Sun, Aug 30, 2020, 9:02 AM Greg Troxel wrote: > On 8/30/20 11:00, Mike Thompson wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 8:04 AM Greg Troxel > <mailto:g...@lexort.com>> wrote: > > > > > > > >

Re: [Talk-us] Potential Mechanical Edit to remove access=private from Amazon Logistics driveways in NH

On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 8:04 AM Greg Troxel wrote: > > > Being on someone's land without permission is trespassing, but this is > not a crime. > not a crime, until the land owner asks you leave and you fail to do so, at least in Colorado. > > >

Re: [Talk-us] changeset: 89516909

On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 6:42 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us < talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > i will fix anything that i missed but the lines are truth. > > and it is not a polygon, > As far as I know, boundary relations have to, in effect, be polygons, in other words, they have to close. >

Re: [Talk-us] changeset: 89516909

On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 5:24 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us < talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > tiger is up to date on the web map using the current data i just think he > picked the wrong year, > That relation was first created in 2009. According to the source tag, it used 2008 Tiger data, so

Re: [Talk-us] changeset: 89516909

1) Best not to delete and start over as the history will be lost. 2) Do you have an accurate source that has a license that is compatible with OSM? Could you share a link to it? 3) General observation is that there is a lot of territory that is not enclosed by any admin level 8 boundary, which

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

sk if there's any objection to removing the questionable > names? > > On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 3:15 PM Mike Thompson wrote: > >> 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

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

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 NHD 4) The names do not appear on the RMNP map that is handed out to visitors 5) I have hiked past here

Re: [Talk-us] Talk-us Digest, Vol 153, Issue 3

On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 6:42 AM Bob Gambrel wrote: > It seems to me that having a relationship is absolutely appropriate and > that it should have the name of entire trail/route, just as you have done. > > It also seems to me that having a name on individual segments (the local > name) is also

[Talk-us] Mtb Route Relations

Let's say you have a trail in the US National Forest that was specifically created for mountain biking. It has a name and a FS trail number. It is represented in OSM by three ways currently: before a bridge, the bridge, and after the bridge. Is this a good candidate for a route relation? Should

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest refs/names

On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 4:26 PM wrote: > That seems sensible. What about the general case (i.e. no continuity > with a county road?) - to add "road" or not? > Do you mean the same physical road has two names, or just that the county road and the forest road are connected? If you are just talking

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest refs/names

On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 1:33 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > > > Could we get the US Road Tagging page updated to reflect common name > practice instead of encouraging the duplication of the ref in the name? Or > is that going to spark drama? > I am in favor of the change. The name tag should be for

Re: [Talk-us] Labeling forestry service roads/tracks

On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 7:10 AM brad wrote: > Hmmm, interesting. I'm not sure they compact very many roads around > here (CO). I have lived, or spent time in, rural parts of four states (MN, IA, OH and CO) and I have never seen an unpaved road compacted. They get graded once a year perhaps

Re: [Talk-us] Labeling forestry service roads/tracks

On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 4:46 AM wrote: > Mike, > > Good idea on the route references. What should the network be set to? > > Others on this list are better able to answer that question, but my opinion is network=US:FS: ___ Talk-us mailing list

Re: [Talk-us] Labeling forestry service roads/tracks

On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 4:49 PM wrote: > For > roads that appear to be public access (e.g. to go to a lake) but are > obviously even more minor than tertiary roads I label highway=unclassified. > highway=unclassified are for roads that connect small towns, or for "local traffic", while access

Re: [Talk-us] access=private on driveways

On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 5:46 AM Greg Troxel wrote: > So a router that does not allow use of access=private for a final > segment, by default, is broken. +1 Even if we go with the idea that driveways are not access=private unless posted, there are some driveways that are posted, and people

Re: [Talk-us] Deleting tiger:reviewed=no/addr:street for routes (was: Streaming JOSM -- suggestions?)

On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 10:28 AM Jmapb wrote: > - The access -- somewhat common to find a pubic road imported with access=private, so if I suspect this I'll leave the tiger:reviewed=no tag until access can be confirmed, and add a note or fixme. (It's also quite common to find driveways imported

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

the wind. Some summits have multiple such shelters. Mike On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 1:07 PM Mike Thompson wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 1:03 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us < > talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > > > Is summit register something that is often foun

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

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 1:03 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us < talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > Is summit register something that is often found in USA mountains? At least in Colorado they are. Nowadays they are often pieces of pvc pipe. Mike ___

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 7:35 PM brad wrote: > > There are a few cases where property owners have put up illegal, or very misleading signs. I have come across this too. The signs are on private property, but face you as you are traveling on a legal FS road and looking straight ahead. It makes

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 8:08 AM Bradley White wrote: > > > Somewhat related, in the cases where an official FS road or trail crosses private property, does the FS have an easement, or is it kind of an informal arrangement? > > Best way to know for sure is ground survey, but generally USFS system

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 6:59 AM Bradley White wrote: > > > While it certainly may exist, I'm not aware of a disparity between the "congressionally declared boundary" and any other boundary of a NF, including "physical land that the NF actually owns and manages." How would anyone know where this

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 10:54 PM Bradley White wrote: > > > A relation for all would be ok too, as long as the private inholdings are > > not removed from the NF (which I think has been done in some cases). > > > IMO, a tagging scheme that better represents the meaning of these two > boundaries

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries (Mike Thompson)

Steve, Perhaps I am not understanding what you are saying, but: 1) Not all "inholdings" are completely surrounded by the National Forest, they are "bites" off the edge in some cases. I don't think one can have an inner ring and an outer ring which are at all coincident (they can't share an

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 5:45 PM stevea wrote: > > A large thank-you to Kevin for that deeply informative post. > > > brad wrote: > > I think its simpler and better to just create an inner boundary as was done with the Coconino NF > > The Coconio NF (relation/10956348) hasn't "an" inner boundary,

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 6:31 PM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > > I was thinking just create separate polygons for inholdings, tagged with access=private and possibly ownership=private > > While many Americans like to put "no trespassing" signs on their private property, a privately owned parcel is

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 5:45 PM stevea wrote: > > I think we need both as well. I've been doing this while watching the evolution of how we best do this as I participate in a "do our best, always better" efforts to accomplish this. Even now! > > The idea of the first kind is simply a relation

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 2:43 PM Paul White wrote: > > > > Which one would be better? Looking forward to feedback. I think we need both. I am open to suggestions as how to accomplish that. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] fake, edit, fake map.

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 3:08 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us < talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > How old is the satellite view, do we even know, or are we making a fake map here. In JOSM, if you right click on Bing Imagery, Show Tile Info, it will display "Metadata Capture Date", which is the

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] fake, edit, FAKE map.

JOSM validator does report a number of errors and warnings in the area, but I don't think they are related to this specific change set. Mike On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 11:16 AM Mike Thompson wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:53 AM <80hnhtv4a...@bk.ru> wrote: > > >

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] fake, edit, FAKE map.

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:53 AM <80hnhtv4a...@bk.ru> wrote: > > yes, and i will wait to see if anyone gets it. We can hardly evaluate the issue if you don't share with us your concerns. This edit was made by someone working for Amazon Logistics. They have been very receptive to specific

Re: [Talk-us] fake, edit, FAKE map.

What is the issue? It looks legit to me. Am I missing something? Mike On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:11 AM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us < talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > Added a service road. > > Edited about hours ago by > > Version #1 · Changeset #86698283 > >

Re: [Talk-us] USGS Topo layer for JOSM?

Dave, Can you provide the URL so those of us that no longer have access can manually add it back in? Thanks, Mike On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 9:40 PM Mike Thompson wrote: > I use it quite often. It is good for names of water bodies. However, I > just checked now, and it doesn'

Re: [Talk-us] USGS Topo layer for JOSM?

I use it quite often. It is good for names of water bodies. However, I just checked now, and it doesn't seem to be listed on the imagery menu any more. Mike On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 9:37 PM Dave Swarthout wrote: > I'm still seeing it and using it for my mapping chores in Alaska. > > On Sun,

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

On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 11:20 AM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us < talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > I am not copying any thing, just looking at a satellite view from google . > > it was a ruler. This isn't really about OSM, it is about the Google Maps Terms of Service, which by using Google Maps,

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

According to the Google Maps Terms of service, you cannot use it in any way to make another map. [0] I would think that would include using its ruler if the purpose of using the ruler is to edit OSM. [0] 2.d of https://www.google.com/help/terms_maps/ On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 9:47 AM

Re: [Talk-us] VANDALISM !

On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 7:09 AM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us < talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > IF someone, not local, relying on satellite views, goes after my good faith edit, based on my on the ground > > surveillance thinks my edit was wrong trying to fix broken polygon’s, that are

[Talk-us] USFS Roads - name and ref

Hello, This question concerns ways maintained/operated by the US Forest Service (USFS) and signed with vertical markers, e.g. [0]. These signs typically display a three digit number, with an optional decimal point (dot/period) followed by another number and/or a letter. Name: The wiki [1]

Re: [Talk-us] USGS Topos, "Draw", "Gulch", etc.

On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 12:30 PM Tod Fitch wrote: > > > > > With respect to names on USGS topographic maps: At least on most of the old “historic” quads I have they used a different typeface/typographic treatment for waterways versus valleys/canyons/draws/gulches. So you might take your clue from

[Talk-us] USGS Topos, "Draw", "Gulch", etc.

Do the names on the USGS Topo Maps that end in "Draw", "Gulch", and similar terms refer to a stream, or a valley? I have always assumed a stream, and applied the name to waterway=stream in OSM, but perhaps that is not correct. Mike ___ Talk-us mailing

Re: [Talk-us] Douglas County, Colorado Building Outline Import

I think there is already an effort underway to import all of the building outlines from DRCOG (Denver Regional Council of Governments). https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Denver_Planimetrics_Import Mike On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 2:32 PM Michael Patrick wrote: > > > See >

Re: [Talk-us] Taking a break and a call for help

Paul, Thanks for all of your contributions to OSM over the years! I am sorry to hear about your truck. I hope the police are able to recover it in good condition. I appreciate the support you, and others in your line of work, are providing to keep our medical system running during this crucial

Re: [Talk-us] Mapping for emergency services

Mike, That is a very compelling story. Thanks to you and the other OSM folks involved for making it happen and to you for writing the diary entry. I have often thought that OSM would be a great resource emergency responders because in some areas it contains data that no one else has, but

Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] Preliminary Import/Organized Mapping Effort Idea

mething you might also consider doing. > > Let me know how I can help, > Clifford > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 4:35 PM Mike Thompson wrote: > >> >> Village Earth's Native Land Advocacy Project[1], David Bartecchi[2], Paul >> Johnson[3], and I[4] are considering

[Talk-us] Preliminary Import/Organized Mapping Effort Idea

Village Earth's Native Land Advocacy Project[1], David Bartecchi[2], Paul Johnson[3], and I[4] are considering an organized effort to improve the boundaries of Native American Reservations in the US. We have studied the import guidelines on the wiki and will follow those, however, we first wanted

Re: [Talk-us] National Forests and Private Ownership

on private lands. The US Topo uses proclaimed at this time. - Greg Matthews Published Maps Products and Services Focus Area Lead Office of User Engagement US Geological Survey END On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 2:41 PM Mike Thompson wrote: > > > > This key works

Re: [Talk-us] National Forests and Private Ownership

This key works for anywhere on this > (https://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/rastergateway/states-regions/states.php) > slippy map - take a look at the national forests near you and you will > find plenty of private land that is still within the NF boundary. > I downloaded a quad (geotiff) for part of

Re: [Talk-us] National Forests and Private Ownership

On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 2:30 PM Bradley White wrote: > Sorry - not too familiar with imgur! Does this work? > https://i.imgur.com/4OC23x3.png Yes, that worked! > > ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Talk-us] National Forests and Private Ownership

On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 2:28 PM Bradley White wrote: > Yes I understand that, that is what the landuse tag is for. Private > land should tagged as private. Public land should be tagged as public. > The 'access' tag is probably preferable for this, and it's what I use. > My point is that none of

Re: [Talk-us] National Forests and Private Ownership

On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 2:21 PM Bradley White wrote: > A visual example since I don't feel like what I'm saying is being > understood: https://imgur.com/a/0ELKyxH The link takes me to a page that is asking me to sign in. > > ___ Talk-us mailing list

Re: [Talk-us] National Forests and Private Ownership

> Please do not add holes in the boundary unless they are officially > designated! Otherwise there is no point to keeping these > administrative boundaries in OSM. > Ok, but we still need to know where those private inholdings are, because Forest regulations will not apply. For example, unless

Re: [Talk-us] National Forests and Private Ownership

On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 1:12 PM Bradley White wrote: > No, this is incorrect. USFS administrative boundaries and USFS managed > land are not the same thing, though the latter is always inside the > former. The boundaries currently in OSM are administrative boundaries, > and are tagged correctly

Re: [Talk-us] National Forests and Private Ownership

The consensus of those who replied seem to be to exclude these privately held lands from the National Forest boundaries. Is that correct? Does anyone object to that approach? If not, I will proceed in that manner as well. Mike ___ Talk-us mailing list

[Talk-us] National Forests and Private Ownership

Not all of the land within US National Forests is owned by the US Government, there are private "inholdings" [1]. The boundaries between government land and private land are often marked by signs, e.g.[2] The above photo is geotagged, and if you drag it into JOSM you can see that it is quite far

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

On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 6:29 AM Kevin Broderick wrote: > > Would https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4992960980 be an example of (or > very similar to) what you're talking about? > Yes, slightly different, but same general concept. > I've been told that one is a local reference point ("25

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

It seems that there are a couple of mappers in Colorado US (at least, perhaps mapping in other areas as well) who are adding spot elevations (presumably from USGS Topo maps) to OSM tagging them as natural=peak name=Point (elevation in feet) For example:

Re: [Talk-us] JOSM Scripts Plugin

Clifford, Hope these help: https://github.com/MikeTho16/JOSM-Scripts If not, let me know specifically what you are try to do and I can try to work up a more pertinent example. Mike On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 6:28 PM Clifford Snow wrote: > I'm looking for some example scripts for the JSOM Scripts

Re: [Talk-us] Drop the tiger:reviewed tag from roads

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 10:56 AM, Martijn van Exel wrote: > As long as there is at least one tag left that would indicate TIGER as > the original source, so we can continue to detect 'unmodified TIGER' roads. > - > Just because a TIGER road has been modified doesn't mean it has

Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] Integrating our open source data into OSM

I downloaded data for one of the states (Colorado) to attempt checkout its quality. It appears to be in JSON (not GeoJSON). Is there an easy way to get the data into something like QGIS so it can be visualized on a map? On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 6:53 PM, Brian May wrote: >

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

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 8:56 PM, Clifford Snow wrote: > > >> > Unnamed streams are helpful to people hiking in the forest areas by giving > a landmark for navigation. From areas I'm familiar with, there are > thousands of unnamed streams. They are unnamed because

[Talk-us] GNIS Issues to be aware of (was: dubious church node)

Here are a few other GNIS issues to be aware of: 1) Duplicates - As someone else pointed out, the GNIS points were digitized off of the USGS topo maps. If a feature is actually in multiple map sheets (such as a mountain), it may appear multiple times. I believe it was done by state, so if a

Re: [Talk-us] SOTM2017 schedule & housing

13, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Mike Thompson <miketh...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Is there any information regarding parking for those of us who will be >> commuting? >> >> ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] SOTM2017 schedule & housing

Is there any information regarding parking for those of us who will be commuting? Mike On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Alan Bragg wrote: > ​Thanks Ian, > I've been looking at that web site once a month since I bought my ticket > and never noticed you have to click on

Re: [Talk-us] FBI using OSM on website... without attribution

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Mike Thompson <miketh...@gmail.com> wrote: > https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/denver > > See map in upper right part of page > Looks like they fixed it! Thanks for everyone's help. Mike _

[Talk-us] FBI using OSM on website... without attribution

https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/denver See map in upper right part of page Mike ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Use without Attribution

Done, Thanks! On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 3:50 PM, Hans De Kryger <hans.dekryge...@gmail.com> wrote: > Report it here https://www.mapbox.com/blog/report-attribution-problems/ > > *Regards,* > > *Hans* > > On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 2:44 PM, Mike Thompson <miketh...@gmail.co

[Talk-us] Use without Attribution

Looks like I am no longer a member of the "Talk" mailing list, so I will try here: https://mapnoco.org/results-intersection-quality The above site uses OSM as a basemap. Looks like the tiles come from Mapbox: https://a.tiles.mapbox.com/v3/uis.map-561ra9g7/15/6814/12356.png I was unable to find

Re: [Talk-us] [HOT] iD issues?

ll <rd...@catawbacountync.gov> > wrote: > >> I am not having any problem selecting on a click in chrome. >> >> I tried every type of feature and everything worked. >> >> >> >> *From:* Mike Thompson [mailto:miketh...@gmail.com] >> *Sent:

Re: [Talk-us] [HOT] iD issues?

> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit in firefox or anywhere else gives me > the issues you are having. > > > > > > *From:* Mike Thompson [mailto:miketh...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 19, 2017 11:11 AM > *To:* Charlotte Wolter <techl...@techlady.

Re: [Talk-us] [HOT] iD issues?

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 9:46 PM, Charlotte Wolter wrote: > > Some updates were made to iD some weeks ago. Apparently, somehow, > it made clicking on a feature to select it more difficult. I use Firefox, > and usually have to click 3 or 4 times to get an individual

Re: [Talk-us] Osmar and Ways

Erik, Approximately what percentage of the roads are missing? Do the missing road share any common characteristics, such as all being highway=track? What is the specific bounding box you are using, and what are the parameters of the query you are using? Are you saying that Geofabrik is missing

Re: [Talk-us] [talk-us] mapping of center pivot irrigation structures

I wouldn't map the actual device since most of it moves, but the circle (or arc) irrigated by the device could be tagged as: landuse = farmland irrigated=center_pivot Mike On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Volker Schmidt wrote: > Center pivot irrigation creates

Re: [Talk-us] Blue Ridge Parkway

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > I added the takeaway from this discussion to the wiki: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag% > 3Aboundary%3Dnational_park=revision=1424102=1373291 > > Feel free to amend as necessary. > > I made an

Re: [Talk-us] Blue Ridge Parkway

> > > > Is our definition of national park different than Wikipedia's, or should > one of the two be changed? > It is a "National Heritage Area"[1]which is under the jurisdiction of the US National Park Service. While it is not a "National Park" in the formal U.S. sense it is a "national park" in

Re: [Talk-us] [Imports-us] OSM-Colorado Mappy Hour Denver Buildings Import Discussion

The data here: http://gis.drcog.org/datacatalog/content/planimetrics-2014-building-roofprints Doesn't seem to match the description on the wiki. Perhaps it has already been converted partly to the OSM tagging (e.g. sheds and garages are separate)? On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 6:20 PM, Mike

Re: [Talk-us] [Imports-us] OSM-Colorado Mappy Hour Denver Buildings Import Discussion

Russ, This is very exciting to see this coming along. Let me know how I can help. Hopefully we can use its success to convince other government bodies in Colorado to allow us to import their data into OSM! Here are a few comments. re: "The Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG), in

Re: [Talk-us] North Dakota server issues

, this can lead to this kind of inconsistency. > The reason is still unknown. It will probably be a couple of hours > before it gets fixed. But uploads go straight to the master database > so your edits *have* been saved. > > Toby > > On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 11:09 PM, Mike Th

Re: [Talk-us] North Dakota server issues

and all, or most, of the edits are being rendered on the "standard layer"... a good sign that the data isn't completely lost. On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Mike Thompson <miketh...@gmail.com> wrote: > however, some of my edits do show up > > On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 a

Re: [Talk-us] North Dakota server issues

however, some of my edits do show up On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 10:07 PM, Mike Thompson <miketh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I am now seeing the same thing Joseph is. I deleted the data layer I was > editing in JOSM (that I had saved), and re-downloaded, and my edits don't > sh

Re: [Talk-us] North Dakota server issues

t I added but it doesn’t show up in the > editor and when I try to edit it again the editor won’t let me. > > > > *From:* Mike Thompson [mailto:miketh...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 1, 2016 11:05 PM > *To:* Joseph Barnes <the.spui.ni...@gmail.com> >

Re: [Talk-us] San Louis Obispo CA area - Chimney Wildfire - OSM US Tasking Manager Project

Blake, It is great to see OSM being used in disaster response within the US. 1) Will there be more such tasks, either associated with this fire, or with other events? 2) Are there other cases where OSM has been used like this in the US? I am scheduled to give a talk about OSM to the Wyoming GIS

Re: [Talk-us] SOTM US schedule

Martijn, Thanks! Mike On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Martijn van Exel <mart...@openstreetmap.us > wrote: > The last event should wrap up around 4pm. A final schedule should be up > today or tomorrow. Apologies for the delay! > Martijn > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 1

Re: [Talk-us] SOTM US schedule

Clifford, I am also looking at my flights, any idea when the last even on Monday will be scheduled? Thanks for all you and other folks in Seattle are doing to put the conference together. Mike On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Clifford Snow wrote: > Katie, > We should

Re: [Talk-us] Timezones in USA?

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 2:17 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > > I don't know how time zones are defined "at the source" but it is very > unlikely that someone puts up signs. Along major highways in the US the transitions between time zones are signed, e.g. [1] Of course there

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 1:32 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea < stevea...@softworkers.com> wrote: > On May 10, 2016, at 12:13 PM, Mike Thompson <miketh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Sorry if I misrepresented your viewpoint. > > > Not a problem. Sorry if I sounded harsh

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 12:15 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea < stevea...@softworkers.com> wrote: > > > On May 10, 2016, at 10:55 AM, Mike Thompson <miketh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > We need to be more specific as to what this means. I would suggest that > this

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Elliott Plack wrote: > Thanks for the continued discussion. It seems that one of you removed the > offending landuse that I mentioned in my email yesterday (from an import > that was not attributed). As a result, the tiles have begun to

Re: [Talk-us] Talk-us Digest, Vol 102, Issue 13

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 2:45 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea < stevea...@softworkers.com> wrote: > On 8/19/2015 2:29 AM, Nathan Mixter wrote: > > I would like to see areas in OSM categorized as either land use, land > cover (which we call natural for the most part in OSM) or administrative to > clear the

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Wolfgang Zenker wrote: > * OSM Volunteer stevea [160509 20:23]: > > This might sound glib, but I believe that setting landuse=forest on a > (multi)polygon which is land use forest is correct. [..] > > I guess

Re: [Talk-us] Colorado mappers: Check your notes carefully

On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 4:52 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > MountainAddict has decided he needs to be the notes police and has > apparently bulk closed all notes in Colorado without actually resolving > them, with "edit, don't open notes". > > Have you attempted to contact the

Re: [Talk-us] Editing US National Parks

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 9:45 AM, Clifford Snow wrote: > > > From past conversations with NPS employees I've learned that NPS is using > a modified version of the iD editor. Changesets from that editor are > uploaded to both OSM and NPS. The OSM data is added to our

Re: [Talk-us] Editing US National Parks

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 7:19 AM, Alan Bragg wrote: > >> This led me to the discover the NP Mapping page >> which explains how >> their database and OSM interface. >> > From the above page: "Park Tiles is currently

[Talk-us] Longmont CO Mapathon Reminder - Tonight!

Reminder of tonight's Mapathon in Longmont CO at Oskar Blues. Details here: http://www.meetup.com/OSM-Colorado/events/230153596/ We could use some experienced OSM'ers to help out the new folks. Mike ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Greg Troxel wrote: > > There seems to be some wiki-agitation going on about a "proposed tag" of > social path. Perhaps everyone who is opposed might want to look and > register opposition, unless they are more opposed to wikifiddling than > to

Re: [Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

Thanks for reaching out Alan. I hope that we - and in particular I - haven't been too harsh in this discussion. On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Alan McConchie wrote: > In fact the big picture is the opposite: rather than ignore OSM, we want > to expose OSM to a

Re: [Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Mikel Maron wrote: > > > My view on the way forward in this particular situation. > Agree with your general approach > > * Decide on reasonable tagging. Agree that some use of "access" seems most > appropriate (maybe access=social?) > In

Re: [Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Nathan Mills wrote: > Had it been discussed beforehand so that other consumers would be aware of > the meaning of the new tag, I wouldn't personally have a problem with it. It would be far better to create an additional tag rather than

  1   2   3   >