Re: [Talk-us] Recent Trunk road edits

On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 11:07 AM Matthew Woehlke wrote: > On 28/09/2020 11.42, Jack Burke wrote: > > I'm willing to bet that most OSM editors who drive on either of those two > > will think "this is a great freeway, just with occasional traffic > signals." > > That's an oxymoron. Freeways are,

Re: [Talk-us] Recent Trunk road edits

On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 10:42 AM Jack Burke wrote: > > > On Monday, September 28, 2020, Paul Johnson wrote: > >> On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 8:35 PM Jack Burke wrote: >> >>> Recently, someone has taken it on himself to downgrade most (all?) >>> highw

Re: [Talk-us] Recent Trunk road edits

On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 8:35 PM Jack Burke wrote: > Recently, someone has taken it on himself to downgrade most (all?) > highway=trunk roads in the eastern U.S. to just primary. The odd > thing is that the very wiki page he cites as his reason fully supports > keeping them as trunk. Many of

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

On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 11:49 AM Volker Schmidt wrote: > (this comment is only regardinbg the "lanes" part of the thread) > > Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 09:30:15 -0500 >> From: Paul Johnson >> To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list >> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Wh

Re: [Talk-us] place=neighborhood on subdivisions?

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 8:32 AM Brian Stromberg wrote: > This contradicts the OSM wiki but seems like the only way to avoid > confusion. > Much like sport=american_football vs sport=soccer, this makes sense. Maybe it's time to retire place=suburb as a tag due to its ambiguity? > The only

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

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 3:55 AM Minh Nguyen wrote: > Vào lúc 10:45 2020-09-23, Paul Johnson đã viết: > > 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

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

On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 6:22 PM Andy Townsend wrote: > On 24/09/2020 00:00, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 5:56 PM Andy Townsend wrote: > >> >> On 23/09/2020 23:01, Paul Johnson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 23, 202

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

On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 5:56 PM Andy Townsend wrote: > > On 23/09/2020 23:01, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 4:37 PM stevea wrote: > >> Paul Johnson wrote: >> > > 2. Tagging route information on ways. It's about a decade too l

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

On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 4:37 PM stevea wrote: > 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

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

On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 11:34 AM stevea wrote: > > Exactly. My rule of thumb is if you're thinking about putting a name on > it, and it's not a shopping center, apartment complex or similar large but > contiguous landuse, then landuse=* probably isn't what your polygon should > be. > > At least

Re: [Talk-us] place=neighborhood on subdivisions?

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 9:27 PM stevea wrote: > On Sep 22, 2020, at 7:05 PM, Clifford Snow > wrote: > > For example, in Seattle I lived in the Wallingford Neighborhood. Seattle > has defined boundaries for each of the neighborhoods. In other areas, > neighborhoods are roughly defined by people

Re: [Talk-us] place=neighborhood on subdivisions?

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 8:56 PM stevea wrote: > If you MUST tag place=neighbourhood (note the u) see if you agree with me > that this tag makes most sense in a hierarchy where place=suburb (and > perhaps quarter, if applicable, is/are above) also exist(s). I'm not > strictly saying I believe

Re: [Talk-us] place=neighborhood on subdivisions?

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 8:36 PM Mike N wrote: > On 9/22/2020 9:26 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > The extra hamlet nodes are import remainders that haven't yet > been > > converted to landuse areas. The general landuse zones for that area > > have

Re: [Talk-us] place=neighborhood on subdivisions?

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 8:20 PM Mike N wrote: > On 9/22/2020 8:56 PM, Karson Sommer wrote: > > > > Looking around the area of the edit, there is a lot of stuff from my > > perspective that seems fishy. There are a bunch of place=hamlet nodes? I > > certainly don't see anything that should be

Re: [Talk-us] place=neighborhood on subdivisions?

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 7:14 PM Mike N wrote: > Thoughts on use of place=neighborhood for subdivisions? > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/91255294 > >Note that there are many thousands already tagged this way (5000 plus > in a section of the southeast alone). I'd consider a

Re: [Talk-us] Hands Off !, respect my (our) space

On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 9:50 AM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us < talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > In ID, on your profile page is, Other nearby users, and the home location, > map > > the point is other locals based on my (our) edits know where we (I) live, > but come on > > don’t edit the

Re: [Talk-us] VANDALISM !

On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 8:36 PM Clay Smalley wrote: > 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: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/3850 > > jdd 3, please take a break.

Re: [Talk-us] changeset: 89516909

On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 4:02 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us < talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > can somebody who knows how to use Tiger data fix this ? > Fix what?? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Talk-us] Cycleway Crossings

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 3:44 PM Volker Schmidt wrote: > > There are many different OSM tagging "dialects" to describe the details of > a foot-cycle-way crossing a road. > I looked up the situation of the example on Mapillary. From that it looks > as if the specific path is a combined foot cycle

Re: [Talk-us] Cycleway Crossings

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 12:49 PM Natfoot wrote: > here is my example and location specific response > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/663362208 > I'd probably call that highway=path, bicycle=designated, foot=yes based off what I'm seeing in the aerial photography. I seem to recall it was

Re: [Talk-us] Cycleway Crossings

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 6:11 AM Doug Peterson < dougpeter...@dpeters2.dyndns.org> wrote: > 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

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

t; > Around 48.7993305N 116.2837172W > > Mark. > > On 2020/07/30 8:12, Paul Johnson wrote: > > Could we get some examples of what you mean? > > > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 5:26 PM > <mailto:tj-osmw...@lowsnr.net>> wrote: > > > > That seems

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

Could we get some examples of what you mean? On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 5:26 PM wrote: > That seems sensible. What about the general case (i.e. no continuity > with a county road?) - to add "road" or not? > > On 2020/07/30 7:09, Paul Johnson wrote: > > I'd gene

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

B". Should the suffix "road" be added > or is it redundant and a waste of bytes? (Sometimes there may be > continuity from, say, a County Road with e.g. "Burton Creek Road", though.) > > Mark. > > On 2020/07/30 2:55, Paul Johnson wrote: > > Alright, I think

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

> > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2020, 6:47 AM Mike Thompson wrote: > >> >> >> 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 encoura

[Talk-us] National Forest refs/names

In https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/59418875, seems we've hit on some inconsistency in the documentation. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging#Tagging_Forest_Roads suggests that the ref should go in the name for national forest roads, when this is directly

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 9:31 AM Bradley White wrote: > > We were doing great there, then I think my (admonishment? might be too > strong) way of expressing "owned and operated by the USFS" is technically, > accurately stated as "owned by the People, managed / operated specifically > by the

Re: [Talk-us] USFS Roads - name and ref

On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 4:15 PM Bob Gambrel wrote: > Paul's in depth answer of my question was very helpful. Luckily I am not > concentrating on road/highway routes. I like the concept of: > > We should be moving forward towards > all routes being tagged in a route relation so we can phase out

Re: [Talk-us] USFS Roads - name and ref

On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 3:46 PM Bob Gambrel wrote: > Paul Johnson says > > Ultimately consider adding a route relation with network=US:NSFR:Forest > Name:FH/FR as well so we can finally kill off route tagging on things that > are not routes. > > > I am not doing any

Re: [Talk-us] USFS Roads - name and ref

On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 3:24 PM brad wrote: > On 6/6/20 9:24 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 8:24 AM Mike Thompson wrote: > >> ref: >> The wiki states that these should be ref=FR + . In >> practice: >> * ref:usfs=FS + >> * ref=

Re: [Talk-us] USFS Roads - name and ref

On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 8:24 AM Mike Thompson wrote: > ref: > The wiki states that these should be ref=FR + . In > practice: > * ref:usfs=FS + > * ref=FS + > Most of the changesets that added a "ref:usfs" tag include a very helpful > comment that this issue was discussed on the tagging list at

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

On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 12:57 PM Mike Thompson wrote: > 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. >

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

On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 3:59 PM Greg Troxel wrote: > Dave F via talk writes: > > > In my area, AL are adding legitimate data which helps improve the > > quality of the OSM database. I believe they make the same amount of > > errors as any other contributors, including experienced ones. > > > >

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

On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 9:36 AM Dave F wrote: > In my area, AL are adding legitimate data which helps improve the quality > of the OSM database. I believe they make the same amount of errors as any > other contributors, including experienced ones. > > Unsure why he thinks OSMF should be keeping

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

On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 6:07 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > 3) Amazon Logistics and a revolving door team of one-edit-and-done spam > accounts keeps throwing paid contributions into Oklahoma that are of poorly > aligned, largely fictional and low quality. I'm stuck cleaning up in a > ne

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

So, you all know at this point that I've been heavily invested in editing OSM and contributing to my maximum activity, less as a need to help a charity and more of an obligation to the public to do the most good with the short time I have on this planet. However, I've had a few events come up

Re: [Talk-us] Updating opening_hours for COVID-19.

On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 8:50 AM Shawn K. Quinn wrote: > On 3/13/20 15:36, Eric Christensen via Talk-us wrote: > > I've been updating the opening_hours for businesses and services as I > > hear about them closing or changing their hours of operation for > > COVID-19. I'm also adding a note in

[Talk-us] I 405 in southern California lanecheck complete

Just completed a roughly two month long process of checking the entire length of I 405 in both directions in lane-level detail. This was inspired from exceptionally bad lane guidance on what is the busiest freeway in America and competes for busiest in the world on my last trip to Los Angeles

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging historic US routes

Try network=US:US:Historic on your route relation. Might not render, but you can at least give renderers *something* for renderers to latch onto if they want that information. ref=US Historic xx seems to be the way tagging for that if you want to go that route. I recommend, until we can finally

Re: [Talk-us] Mapping for emergency services

On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 8:58 AM Mike Thompson wrote: > 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 >

Re: [Talk-us] When is your doctor a clinic?

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 3:30 PM Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > hunting down spam in OSM I often stumble over medical establishments in > the US that have maximum-length description tags exhorting just how > beatiful your smile will be after your visit to that dentist, etc.; I > also find many

Re: [Talk-us] USFS trail/road/route numbers

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 3:15 PM Tod Fitch wrote: > In my area there seems to be a mix of how the US Forest Service route > numbers are tagged on roads and trails. The main variations seem to be: > > name=“Forest Route 9N24” > name=“FR 9N24” > alt_name=“Forest Route 9N24” > alt_name=“FR 9N24” >

Re: [Talk-us] User in Florida changing several motorways to trunk

On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 8:22 AM James Mast wrote: > As for restoring the 'motorway' roads, I've honestly just been manually > fixing them. Sure, takes longer, but allows me to catch the 'Emergency > U-Turn' crossovers that are improperly tagged as a '_link', and fix them at > the same time.

Re: [Talk-us] Alt_names on counties

On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 12:55 PM Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 1:11 PM stevea wrote: > > The myriad variations of "name" (alt, loc, nat, old, reg, official, > sorting, int...) show how complex this is. The issues go back many years > and will likely continue well into the

Re: [Talk-us] Alt_names on counties

On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 12:09 PM stevea wrote: > The myriad variations of "name" (alt, loc, nat, old, reg, official, > sorting, int...) show how complex this is. The issues go back many years > and will likely continue well into the future, indeed many participants in > this/these thread(s) are

Re: [Talk-us] Alt_names on counties

On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 1:07 PM Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 1:01 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > > Did you mean to use "old_name" instead of "alt_name"? > > When the locals keep using an old name for decades, without regard for > official signa

Re: [Talk-us] Alt_names on counties

On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 12:56 AM Greg Morgan wrote: > Please don't remove the alt_name tags. They are useful and not that much > of a distraction or an error For example, a new freeway was just renamed > for a congress person that helped with many AZ transportation projects. I > added the

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

On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 3:48 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 21. Dec 2019, at 01:10, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > > > Unfortunately, the road classification system in parts of Continental > > Europe was different, so mappers in some major countries, including > >

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

On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 7:22 PM Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 20:16, Paul Johnson wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 6:57 PM Joseph Eisenberg < > joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > Being able to speak each country's highway lingua franc

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

On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 7:18 PM Clifford Snow wrote: > I've reached out to a couple of the nearby reservations, one with a small > parcel of off reservation land trust, the other with only a small > reservation but a very large off reservation land trust. I don't expect > answers until possibly

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

(Conversational quoting, please) On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 6:42 PM David Bartecchi wrote: > All of these concerns must be weighed against the fact that the current > absence of Native lands in OSM only contributes to the erasure Native > Americans and their lands from the American collective

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

On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 6:57 PM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > Being able to speak each country's highway lingua franca would make it a > lot easier for OSM to become the Rosetta Stone of maps simply from ease of > classification. > > That would mean using "jalan=provinsi" instead of

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

On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 1:07 AM Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > 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

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

Content warning: Aboriginal abuse mention On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 2:08 PM Clifford Snow wrote: > I do have Washington State tribal lands available [1] as a background > layer for JOSM. There is also a vector tile layer [2] of the same > background available for iD users. > > The data contains

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 1:19 PM Martijn van Exel wrote: > I actually like your suggestion that highway=trunk does not add much value > to the U.S. map, Eric. > We love to add detail / granularity to OSM so much, it can become hard to > envisage taking some away. > Not saying we should abolish

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 5:13 AM Mike N wrote: > On 12/17/2019 10:19 PM, Evin Fairchild wrote: > > some US routes are more important than others and lumping them all as > > primary doesn???t make any sense; > > The arguments here about relative importance of parallel routes makes > sense. > >

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

On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 3:03 PM Mike Thompson wrote: > > I've avoided BIA because their data doesn't seem accurate > We have gotten some additional feedback off list also suggesting that the > BIA data may not be as accurate as some other sources. Perhaps we should > create a wiki page listing

Re: [Talk-us] Alaska Highway AK-2 tagging

On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 3:05 PM Greg Troxel wrote: > Tod Fitch writes: > > > My reading of the wiki indicates that for the United States a trunk is > “a high speed Arterial Divided highway that is partially grade separated.” > [1] > > > > What is the problem with having the main road between >

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 7:24 AM Mike N wrote: > >I think many of the trunk VS motorway VS primary conflicts come from > 2 points of view: on the one hand, people like to zoom out and see a > coherent network of interconnected roads. In which case, rendering based on network on the route

Re: [Talk-us] Alaska Highway AK-2 tagging

On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 7:17 PM Eric H. Christensen wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Monday, December 16, 2019 7:35 PM, Tod Fitch > wrote: > > > My reading of the wiki indicates that for the United States a trunk is > “a high

Re: [Talk-us] Alaska Highway AK-2 tagging

On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 10:29 PM Michael Patrick wrote: > > secondary in most cases for the state >> highways and primary for the US ones. >> > > At least for the U.S., the Interstate vs. State Route distinction has > more to do with funding than carrying capacity and physical attributes. We

Re: [Talk-us] Alaska Highway AK-2 tagging

On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 6:47 PM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > Alaska is not attached to the rest of the USA, so consistency with the > Yukon Territory and British Columbia is equally important. > > In the western USA, highway=trunk is not limited to expressways like it is > in Germany and France > >

Re: [Talk-us] Alaska Highway AK-2 tagging

Please strongly consider splitting digests into constituent messages with procmail or your MUA, or switch to the non-digest version to preserve threading. On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 6:35 PM Anthony Costanzo wrote: > > All of AK 2 between Fairbanks and the Canadian border is paved. I can > vouch

Re: [Talk-us] Alaska Highway AK-2 tagging

On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 6:26 PM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > Trunks are rarely expressways in remote parts of the world. In Britain, > where this tag started, many highway=trunk roads are not expressways or > motorroads. > Are we not trying to remain internally consistent with the rest of the US?

Re: [Talk-us] Alaska Highway AK-2 tagging

On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 6:18 PM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > I would use highway=trunk the whole way for consistency. In Canada the > connecting highway is also highway=trunk. This makes sense because AK 2 is > linking Fairbanks, the largest city in this part of Alaska, with All the > cities in

Re: [Talk-us] Alaska Highway AK-2 tagging

On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 5:35 PM Eric H. Christensen via Talk-us < talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > I've noticed that there is some mixed tagging of the Alaska Highway AK-2 > from the Canadian border through Delta Junction to where it becomes a > divided highway just south and east of Fairbanks

Re: [Talk-us] Historic 66 as highway=trunk in OK

On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 6:40 AM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > That's probably not relevant for anywhere in the USA (even in Alaska > the main highways between cities are paved... right?) but it's a > reminder that we can certainly choose to do things in a way that makes > sense for mapping the USA;

Re: [Talk-us] Historic 66 as highway=trunk in OK

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 11:41 PM Bradley White wrote: > > For example, US Hwy 101 is the main route connecting the cities (e.g. > > Eureka) and towns along the coast of northern California. Right now > > only some segments are tagged as highway=trunk. I would like to > > upgrade all of it to

Re: [Talk-us] Historic 66 as highway=trunk in OK

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 9:15 PM stevea wrote: > > > Eeeeh, that's gonna be a hard sell for the most part, most Oklahoma > expressways are built like this as are parts of Interstate freeways, with > the only real difference between the two being at-grade intersections and > limited driveways (as

Re: [Talk-us] Historic 66 as highway=trunk in OK

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 9:05 PM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > I don't have any local knowledge about old route 66 in OK, but I'd > like to address the use of highway=trunk in general. > > I'm in favor of using a secondary tags like motorroad=yes and > expressway=yes, along with other details like

Re: [Talk-us] Historic 66 as highway=trunk in OK

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 9:10 AM Kevin Kenny wrote: > 'Historic US 66' is a bannered and numbered route because of its > history, not because of its current importance to the road system. The > constituent ways should be tagged as whatever they are currently in > the road network. In many places,

Re: [Talk-us] Historic 66 as highway=trunk in OK

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 7:04 AM stevea wrote: > Hi Paul, Hi Volker, Hi talk-us: > > The topic begs the question as to what such (usually very) old, > poor-condition (where they ARE poor) roads should be tagged (we limit > ourselves to US roads here because this is talk-us), and at what >

Re: [Talk-us] Historic 66 as highway=trunk in OK

On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 11:27 AM Volker Schmidt wrote: > going over my Mapillary photos of Route 66 I just noticed that long > stretches of the Historic 66 are mapped in OK as highway=trunk as soon as > they have separate carriageways for the two directions. Many of these > stretches are at best

[Talk-us] Oklahoma getting first mini-roundabout

Just saw this in my newsfeeds this morning, looks like the number of mini-roundabouts in Oklahoma is about to tick from 0 to 1. https://www.newson6.com/story/40932988/walkability-project-starts-in-okmulgee ___ Talk-us mailing list

Re: [Talk-us] What is the meaning of hgv:national_network=yes/terminal_access?

On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 8:07 AM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > hgv:national_network=terminal_access means > "a road which can carry > cargo trucks and has an adequate turn-around facility at the end" > > Great, that's helpful. So it sounds like this tag is a synonym for > hgv=destination or hgv=yes? >

Re: [Talk-us] Careful, "st" can mean "stone" in some places | Re: Typical maxweight signs in USA? (editor developmnent question)

On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 1:59 AM Rory McCann wrote: > On 25/06/2019 20:01, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > 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) > >>

Re: [Talk-us] Need someone in the south to review an edit

On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 11:07 AM Frederik Ramm wrote: > Not following the organised editing guidelines is not a rule violation > in itself, but if not following the guidelines leads to bona fide > mappers like yourself saying "most of my dedicated mapping time is now > spent dealing with SEO

Re: [Talk-us] Need someone in the south to review an edit

On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 7:45 AM Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > On 6/14/19 10:27 PM, Rihards wrote: > > I zoomed in on one location, and the node was, judging by the imagery, > > on a street (literally). I hope Brandify does not set locations from > > Google address searches. > > I did that a few

Re: [Talk-us] Need someone in the south to review an edit

Aaah, OK. Would have been nice if Brandify Tran replied to changeset comments. On Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 10:01 Micah Cochran wrote: > >> One of the following changeset comments suggests the deletions in this >> changeset are to remove duplicates added by mistake previously. >> >> > I checked the a

[Talk-us] Need someone in the south to review an edit

Brandify put up a rather suspicious mass deletion recently. I suspect that one of their customers stopped paying/had a term contract that expired and Brandify mass-deleted the entire chain. But it is possible that the chain went out of business

[Talk-us] What's protecting the map?

On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 1:23 PM Nuno Caldeira wrote: > But what happens if the Foundation is taken over by people with commercial > interests? > >- You still own the rights to any data you contribute, not the >Foundation. In the new Contributor Terms, you license the Foundation to >

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

On Wed, Apr 24, 2019, 18:35 Greg Troxel wrote: > I think the entire "national_park" tag is unfortunate, as it wraps up a > lot of concepts that vary by country, and makes people understand things > when they don't. In the US, it should mean "preserve the land while > allowing access and

[Talk-us] Fwd: trail tagging

Accidentally sent this as a private reply but did so unintentionally. -- Forwarded message - From: Paul Johnson Date: Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 7:54 PM Subject: Re: [Talk-us] trail tagging To: Tod Fitch On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 10:26 AM Tod Fitch wrote: > On Apr 19, 2019, a

Re: [Talk-us] Gated communities

I like this answer. Behind the gates I tend to tag as private, but giving one of the barriers access=destination should be enough for that to be the default answer for going in, if implemented. Not really something common in Oklahoma, usually gated communities have only one way in or out that

Re: [Talk-us] Forest Routes

On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 8:06 PM Kevin Broderick wrote: > I don't think that the way to is a reliable indicator of trail vs road. > Particularly in areas managed for forestry, I believe it's fairly common > for a disused skid road to be managed and used as a non motorized trail (I > can think of a

Re: [Talk-us] Forest Routes

On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 6:42 PM Eric H. Christensen wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Thursday, November 29, 2018 3:13 PM, Kevin Broderick < > k...@kevinbroderick.com> wrote: > > > Doesn't the Forest Service use FR for "Forest

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

Sure thing, go back to about the last year of his edits. On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 5:06 PM Evin Fairchild wrote: > Can you provide changesets showing where NE2 mass edited motorways in the > way you're describing? > > On Sun, Dec 2, 2018, 3:02 PM Paul Johnson >> >> >&g

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 5:04 PM Evin Fairchild wrote: > You are proving my point once again re misrepresentation of what we're > saying. It would only be accurate for you to say that we're going against > federal guidelines is if we were to say that the motorway should continue > thru the at

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 4:58 PM Thomas Silas wrote: > As for the situation in question: I agree with the vast majority of the > posters both in the changeset and in talk-us. There are countless examples > of the motorway tag extending to the first intersection (or to a visible > change in road

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 4:30 PM Evin Fairchild wrote: > Once again, I see you're misrepresenting the discussion and trying to make > us look like a bunch of idiots for not accepting your way of doing things. > There's no way you're so dense as to assume that because we pretty much all > want the

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 4:19 PM Adam Franco wrote: > I'm not saying that the surface junction itself would still be motorway > (or even the area of reduced speed approaching it), but once one is far > enough beyond those limiting features and the speeds and other aspects are > the same as the

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

c 2, 2018 at 1:36 AM Paul Johnson wrote: > >> >> On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 12:30 AM Bryan Housel wrote: >> >>> I do understand your point, but a dozen or so people on talk-us and the >>> six or so people on that changeset 64919426 >>> >> >> Wel

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 12:30 AM Bryan Housel wrote: > On Dec 2, 2018, at 12:42 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 8:37 PM Bryan Housel wrote: > >> Can’t a motorway* begin or end* at an at-grade intersection though? >> > > No, I don't think so

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 8:37 PM Bryan Housel wrote: > Can’t a motorway* begin or end* at an at-grade intersection though? > No, I don't think so. It's at least not a freeway traffic pattern on the side heading towards the intersection. > What you did by classifying it “trunk” back to the

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 11:01 PM wrote: > [forwarding this to talk-us, sent privately in error] > > -Original Message- > From: Richie Kennedy > Sent: Saturday, December 1, 2018 1:19 PM > To: Paul Johnson > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway > > >

Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: Trunk versus motorway

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 8:28 PM OSM Volunteer stevea < stevea...@softworkers.com> wrote: > In Santa Cruz, there is about 50 meters of highway=trunk between Highway > 17 (freeway, motorway) and where 17 ends at signalized Ocean Street > (highway=primary). At first I was nonplussed about this

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

I'm largely in agreement and this seems like how it's been done in practice. Would also apply to WA 500 (which also should be a trunk east of I 205, if not at least 112th/Gher; with argument supporting 205 being that 112th/Gher is largely only used by way of it's I 205 North exit and supporting

Re: [Talk-us] Forest Routes

And the vertical ones with FS on them for people with more advanced > vehicles: > > https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/3Il7nk3S4MuMX9jR_SIQnw > > > > And, as I said, their IVR map uses NF for all of them.... > > > > --jack > > > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 a

Re: [Talk-us] Forest Routes

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018, 14:14 Kevin Broderick Doesn't the Forest Service use FR for "Forest Road" at the reference? I'd > think that, or NFR to distinguish from state forest roads, would be the > more appropriate ref, as FS is ambiguous (it doesn't distinguish between a > forest road and a forest

Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: Trunk versus motorway

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018, 00:17 Albert Pundt or if the road becomes single-carriageway and isn't a super-2 (a > controlled-access freeway in which only one carriageway is constructed with > accommodation for the second later). > A controlled access single carriageway would also be a trunk, not a

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >