[Talk-us] WikiProject US Bicycle Route System; Spring 2016 AASHTO approvals

Hello fellow bicycle map enthusiasts! I am pleased to relay that AASHTO has approved all pending USBRs from each state DOT which submitted ballots for Spring 2016. Please see our wiki at https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/WikiProject_U.S._Bicycle_Route_System for the latest status. What remains to be

Re: [Talk-us] New MapRoulette now in early public beta

Martijn, the new MapRoulette is FANTASTIC! I used the old one quite a bit, but I was amazed at how “drop dead easy” this new version is. In fact, sort of by stumbling around and trying to figure it out, I did figure it out and before you know it (just a couple of minutes, really) I had

Re: [Talk-us] Is USBR 11 in Maryland complete/correct in OSM?

On Jun 18, 2016, at 12:03 PM, Elliott Plack wrote: > I've been out there a few times taking Mapillary photos along the route so > you can see some of the bike signage. > http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/3Aq9dVh3Av7K_di9KKUudQ/photo Thanks for doing this! (Ah, rural

Re: [Talk-us] Is USBR 11 in Maryland complete/correct in OSM?

; To: Kerry Irons <irons54vor...@gmail.com> > Cc: Elliott Plack <elliott.pl...@gmail.com>; OSM Volunteer stevea > <stevea...@softworkers.com>; Wade <wade.cr...@comcast.net>; FTA/Ethan > <eman...@hotmail.com>; Phil! Gold <phi...@pobox.com>; > talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Talk-us Digest, Vol 101, Issue 10

ll also not proceed. > > Again I am sorry > Tom > From: OSM Volunteer stevea <stevea...@softworkers.com> > Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 7:35:32 PM > To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Talk-us Digest, Vol 101, Issue 10 > > At least a couple of pos

Re: [Talk-us] Strategy for Naming Parts of a Large Park

Kevin: We can put park data as a name= tag into a node and see it render. Sometimes that is a good placeholder, good enough. Where Elliott and I seem to agree is that we put units of parks into a similarly-named park super-relation. (I hyphenate that, Elliott seems not to, OK). The

Re: [Talk-us] Talk-us Digest, Vol 101, Issue 10

At least a couple of posters have responded to the thread: > I'm equally inexperienced in the contact department, so take what I say with > that gain of salt. > > This appears to be a class at California University of Pennsylvania (calu.edu > ), and the last of the users you

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

> On May 10, 2016, at 11:24 AM, Charlotte Wolter wrote: > Steve, I see your argument. You're going for consistency, which is usually a > good thing. > But, what if the land "cover" is scattered trees that are the size of > large shrubs in a desert environment?

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

On May 10, 2016, at 12:13 PM, Mike Thompson wrote: > Sorry if I misrepresented your viewpoint. Not a problem. Sorry if I sounded harsh while doing so. Just a minor disagreement that we seem to have ironed out. > "but I can't cut it down and start a campfire" - Are you

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

> On May 10, 2016, at 12:13 PM, Mike Thompson > wrote: > Ok, you are talking about gathering of fallen branches, not just cutting of > standing trees. I could be wrong about this, so I will say what I strongly believe to be true, but am not

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

Eternal vigilance is what liberty costs. I maintain that my forests are my forests. Maybe a sign or current campfire regulations prevent me from collecting downed wood, but if I’m camping in a National Forest (and I’m a citizen or a national) I’m going to assume that is true until it is

Re: [Talk-us] WikiProject US Bicycle Route System call for volunteers

> As it is now spring (or fall), it’s that national biennial bicycle routes > time of year! Whoops, semi-annual, not biennial: AASHTO approves state DOT ballots for new USBRs every spring and autumn. SteveA California ___ Talk-us mailing list

[Talk-us] WikiProject US Bicycle Route System call for volunteers

As it is now spring (or fall), it’s that national biennial bicycle routes time of year! Yes, AASHTO has ballots pending from state Departments of Transportation (DOTs) for new routes in the United States Bicycle Routing System (USBRS), like “proto-Interstates for bikes” (network=ncn in the

Re: [Talk-us] Per-State relations for the Appalachian Trail

In the USA, partly because we are such a geographically large part of the North American continent and partly because each of our fifty states is sovereign, I find that breaking apart very large relations so they are across a single state at a time (then perhaps these are collected into a

Re: [Talk-us] Is USBR 11 in Maryland complete/correct in OSM?

Ah, my spell-check is to blame! “non” should be ncn “lcm” should be lcm “a bicycle router showing” should be “a bicycle renderer showing” SteveA ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Is USBR 11 in Maryland complete/correct in OSM?

Whoops, a couple typos back there: “non” should be non “lcm” should be lcn SteveA ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Is USBR 11 in Maryland complete/correct in OSM?

Elliott Plack wrote: > Update on this. I was out along the AT in the Weverton area and had a chance > to observe this unique condition where cyclists are encouraged to use what is > effectively a motorway for travel. I always found my armchair mapping of this highly

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

I have been putting out the fire of a mild edit war in Colorado involving the Great Divide Mountain Bike Route, http://www.osm/org/relation/3161159 where MountainAddict keeps setting this to network=ncn when clearly it is network=icn (as it crosses the

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

Bradley White > writes: > Just to add my two cents, I do not think that "landuse=forest" should be > tagged with national forest boundaries. I would like to be clear, here: I USED TO believe this, as it was the “best practice” at the

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

> On May 10, 2016, at 10:55 AM, Mike Thompson wrote: > We need to be more specific as to what this means. I would suggest that this > tag is only appropriate where there is active commercial cultivation of trees > for timber, pulp or similar products. Steve things

Re: [Talk-us] Per-State relations for the Appalachian Trail

Kevin Kenny > writes: > Breaking apart the AT into separate relations - ideally with a superrelation > joining them - would be sensible, I think, but be careful about the > assumption about state lines. The AT literally spends a good many miles

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

Russ, Elliott, Kenny and all: This might sound glib, but I believe that setting landuse=forest on a (multi)polygon which is land use forest is correct. Yes, I have notice that mapnik rendering has changed over the years so that other 2-D objects which occupy the same space may yield

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

> 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 confusion. I am also in favor of eliminating the landuse=forest tag at >> least in

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

Mike Thompson writes: > 1) I don't know how anyone would able to tell this from simple on the ground > observation. Granted: from an on-the-ground observation, a landuse=forest might look very much like a natural=wood. However, if you saw that part of the area had some stumps, you could

[Talk-us] WikiProject United States Bicycle Route System

Hello fellow national bicycle map enthusiasts, and Happy Birthday, USA: Please see our wiki at https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/WikiProject_U.S._Bicycle_Route_System for latest status, where you'll see our project is now ~97% complete. There remains some mileage to enter, for which OSM has official

Re: [Talk-us] Common names of highways do not match road signs.

There are many parts here: road signs in the real world, names which might not match those, data in OSM, and presentation by "stacks" (hardware/software/network) of those data. The first two can be captured with proper tagging in the third. If the fourth does not meet your needs, it MAY be

Re: [Talk-us] Map spam

> Circa 07/10/2016 08:28 PM, Jack Burke and Frederik Ramm > wrote: >> Is anyone else starting to see map spam popping up in their areas? and > DWG here. We see lots, but not to a degree that would concern us. Thank you to Jack for bringing this up and

Re: [Talk-us] Mappers in Idaho!

I wanted to chime in my great enthusiasm for Greg Morgan helping or leading a good, chunky data effort in OSM like this. Greg took on the USBR 90 effort in Arizona, hundreds and hundreds of miles of bicycle route, now very well entered in OSM and AASHTO-approved. It took him weeks, but it

[Talk-us] Is USBR 11 in Maryland complete/correct in OSM?

To be clear about USBR 11 in Maryland: for source data, this OSM author looked at many things, including a combination of text-based instructions and the red-yellow-green lines published by Maryland DOT and OSM’s own data like Elliott’s tags to my FIXME tags. This author also finds it prudent

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

Thank you for setting this up, Blake. I've never done a HOT task before, and since this is my backyard, I dove right in. And it was FUN! (BTW, it is San Luis Obispo). A couple/three years ago I made contact with Joe Larson, a SLO-county based firefighter and OSM volunteer who used County

Re: [Talk-us] Talk-us Digest, Vol 110, Issue 37

On Jan 31 21:46:57 UTC 2017, Frederik Ramm wrote: > I added the takeaway from this discussion to the wiki. Feel free to amend as > necessary. OK, thank you Frederik: I did. I mentioned that in some states we may see a tag on state parks (or, for example, state forest

[Talk-us] iD news: v2.1.0 released

 1. iD news:  v2.1.0 released (Bryan Housel)Congratulations, Bryan and the entire iD team!  I have recently used the new(er) iD and agree it is "smoother, nicer, better."  Great job!SteveACalifornia ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Talk-us] Blue Ridge Parkway

Long post alert, apologies in advance. You might jump to the last paragraph, beginning "stated succinctly." I applaud efforts and discussion I see here regarding subtle distinctions between Blue Ridge Parkway being not a National Park per se, but rather a "park area" administered by the same

Re: [Talk-us] Blue Ridge Parkway

Hello again, Kevin: On Jan 30, 2017, at 5:00 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: > The use of UK English as the OSM standard gets in the way (of boundary=national_park) > here, since > the UK has nothing that's a direct parallel to a state park. States of > the US at least

Re: [Talk-us] Blue Ridge Parkway

Apologies, Ian. I did mention that my VERY brief digression into state sovereignty was recognizably "not on a political forum" and intentionally brought the topic back to "OSM and tagging standards." The intent was to clarify that states (New York, California...) do designate wilderness

[Talk-us] WikiProject US Bicycle Route System call for volunteers

AASHTO has completed its Autumn 2016 round from state Departments of Transportation (DOTs) for new routes in the United States Bicycle Routing System (USBRS), like “Interstates for bikes” (network=ncn in the USA). For details, please see OSM’s WIkiProject USBRS,

Re: [Talk-us] Whole-US Garmin Map update - 2016-09-11

> 1. Whole-US Garmin Map update - 2016-09-11 (DRTBYK) > > From: DRTBYK > Subject: [Talk-us] Whole-US Garmin Map update - 2016-09-11 > Date: September 15, 2016 at 7:40:21 AM PDT > To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org > > > Given the size of the largest file, it wouldn’t be that

Re: [Talk-us] Proposal: Drinking-water-specific photomapping website

Hi Joe: I have added a lot of these nodes in California (Northern, Central and Southern) and even recognize a few of my own at wide zoom. I agree there is much room for growth in this dataset. These are pretty sparsely entered into California, even with my moderate effort to add these data.

Re: [Talk-us] Proposal: Drinking-water-specific photomapping website

Dang: "on-the-ground truthing." I must turn off spell-check. SteveA ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Rail rendering support in our wiki?

As I contribute to our wiki pages, I find it useful in certain circumstances to use this syntax: to display (instead of mapnik/Standard) a bicycle-oriented map (Cycle Map layer, note "layer=cycle" above). See, for example, http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/South_Bay_(SF),_California for Silicon

Re: [Talk-us] Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest (landuse=forest and US National forests again)

As someone who has been around and around and around with this (landuse=forest on National forests) for the better part of over seven years, I agree with Steven, Paul, Elliott and Tod here. There has emerged a great deal of harmony and consensus on this topic, but I agree we could and should

Re: [Talk-us] USBR 66 in Oklahoma

Thanks, Paul, that's a big task. OSM (and I) appreciate it. SteveA California > On Dec 5, 2016, at 4:00 AM, talk-us-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: > > Send Talk-us mailing list submissions to > talk-us@openstreetmap.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >

Re: [Talk-us] Available Building Footprints Date: March 28, 2017 at 2:06:33 AM PDT

Hi Nathan: I've got pretty beefy hardware, but the "Bay Area" shapefile pointed to by your recent post chokes my JOSM to a gasping strangle: >3.7 million objects?! These need to be broken up further to smaller files, to either the county level or even smaller to a sub-county level, in a sane

Re: [Talk-us] Available Building Footprints

; [3] https://data.osmcanada.com/15/9478/21019/ottawa-buildings.osm > [4] https://osmlab.github.io/osm-qa-tiles/ > > ~~ > Denis Carriere > GIS Software & Systems Specialist > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:00 AM, OSM Volunteer stevea > <stevea...@softworkers.com> w

[Talk-us] United States Bicycle Route 41 awaits OSM entry!

A brief reminder to any Minnesota (or Upper Midwest) mappers who may be inspired to enter some rewarding OSM data: United States Bicycle Route (USBR) 41 is a new national-level bicycle route from Minneapolis to Grand Portage and the Canadian border, largely along Lake Superior. Your reward?

Re: [Talk-us] Building Footprints in CA

Brian M Hamlin maplabs at light42.com writes: I have been working with 2D building footprints from LA and other counties here in Berkeley on a research project, using a PostGIS/GDAL stack and a libosimum tool, among others.. The project is broadly named "California OpenData ECN" .. I am

Re: [Talk-us] Available Building Footprints

> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Kevin Kenny > wrote: > As long as the Wiki page is merely identifying this as a potential project > that someone might sign up for someday, thatś fine. As it > stands, it is incoherent as a project proposal. > > Kevin, > The wiki

Re: [Talk-us] West Point (Kevin Kenny)

On Mar 19, 2017, at 5:00 AM, Kevin Kenny via talk-us-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:Thanks to anyone that read this far!Oh, I'm reading, all right!  Kevin, please don't sweat too much more the seriously yeoman work you've done to clean up an "unholy mess."I do recall

Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] Dakota County, MN Building and Address Import

> What I need help with is: > • I can export the data out into the chunks in Shp format fairly > easily, I know how to script that. And I have decent polygons for doing so. > I need a good tool for converting that to OSM, in bulk. Hi Joe: I think you are on the right track here, but I

[Talk-us] Consolidated city-counties beyond a single county: admin_level=5?

As I have recently improved our https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/United_States_admin_level page, I launched a Discussion there about USA's non-New York City (NYC) consolidated city-county entities (CCCs). NYC is the USA's only "multiple county agglomeration" tagged admin_level=5, whereas other CCCs

Re: [Talk-us] "toll" related tags appropriate for park entrances?

On Tue Mar 21 21:17:04 UTC 2017 Shawn K. Quinn wrote: >On one hand, I can agree withe the principle behind re-purposing of this >tag. On the other hand, I can see it being quite possible this is going >to throw some routing programs for a loop when "avoid tolls" is selected. I never thought of

Re: [Talk-us] reporting Pokemon Go related vandalism (Jack Burke)

I just bumped into what appears to be a new Pokemon Go-inspired volunteer (https://www.osm.org/user/Sentinelprimek, joined OSM just yesterday) editing near me in Silicon Valley and San Diego at the UCSD campus, where I'm also familiar. In case you are wondering what to look for, it seems

Re: [Talk-us] No updates on zoom level 12?

Right: as I intimated, it might be quicker, you might experience your edits and rendering "right on the boundary of a major tile update," or, it might take months. It is variable: pay attention to wide variability and pleased don't be too surprised by this. Thank you for sharing your

Re: [Talk-us] Response from TIGER about "driveways

Chiming in my +1 to everything recently said here about OSM's TIGER data (and cats and such) in the USA. I'd like to remind everybody that most RAIL data in the USA are largely from that same TIGER import. Since about 2014, USA rail data have improved to a moderate degree, though spottily,

Re: [Talk-us] MO Stare Road Classifications.

> I was thinking of using MODOT Functional classification maps to set roads to. > Basically the following: > > MODOT : OSM > > Interstate : motorway > Freeway and Expressway : trunk > Other Principal Arterial : primary > Minor Arterial : secondary > Major Collector : tertiary > Minor

Re: [Talk-us] Townships

Shawn K. Quinn writes: Funny you mention this. Texas might be the first exception to the rule, as The Woodlands is now being referred to as a "township" and this is the first time that I've seen the term used within this state. I learned this when passing a bus for The Woodlands Express (which

Re: [Talk-us] Ferries - ferry

Hi again, Nathan: Clifford Snow is working on this, too, at least identifying Washington State ferries without a duration tag. I know you two know each other (he did introduce us last summer!), so a heads up that you might want to coordinate with him to not overlap effort. While it is

Re: [Talk-us] natural=* and landuse=* multipolygons at the urban interface

David, I would contact Nathan Mixter directly (in OSM, nmixter, import account Eureka gold) and ask him what he thinks, as he is (largely speaking) the original importer of these (and many other, very large) imports, many of which, unfortunately generated consternation or reversion. You might

Re: [Talk-us] Differences with USA admin_level tagging

Kevin Kenny writes: 'boundary=administrative' is a surprisingly messy thing at all levels of government. Let's do the best we can. And I am so glad that somebody (else) did! (Write this out loud). Clearly, admin_level generates passion among everybody who has something to say about it.

Re: [Talk-us] Differences with USA admin_level tagging

Kerry, thank you for that/those. I especially like your characterizations of "fun" and "purposefully!" Yet, paraphrasing both Kevin Kenny and Winston Churchill: Let us Carry On and Do the Best We Can! I seldom let the difficulty of a challenge, even at the cost of mistakes from which i can

Re: [Talk-us] Differences with USA admin_level tagging

I'm glad Adam brings up the topic of Gores, as I'm also unclear on how such "holes" get "punched into" larger (multi)polygons via tagging. For example, I am "sort-of-sure" (but not positive) that in Vermont, a "gore" (or grant, location, purchase, surplus, strip...usually the result of

Re: [Talk-us] Talk-us Digest, Vol 116, Issue 20

Frederik Ramm writes: > I think there might be a misunderstanding here and I would like to chip in... Thank you for chipping in, Frederik! > If you have an admin_level 4 entity - like a state - then the boundaries > with admin_level 4 are the outer demarcation of that,

Re: [Talk-us] Differences with USA admin_level tagging

Continuing my replies to this thread. Greg Troxel writes: The notion that Town and City are fundamentally different in Massachusetts is incorrect. I think that's the long and short of your basis for commenting, but if I'm off please tell me. Greg, Massachusetts' entry in US_admin_level's wiki

Re: [Talk-us] Differences with USA admin_level tagging

Greg Troxel says "just plain wrong" about an older version of the Big Table row for Massachusetts that pre-dates my harmonization of New England states thanks to Peter Dobratz' contributions. As I have subsequently harmonized Peter's table with the Big Table, Greg's point now appears to be

Re: [Talk-us] Differences with USA admin_level tagging

Adam Franco writes his general agreement that Greg's assessment of Massachusetts applies to Vermont. As I compare these two rows in the table, they are identical at admin_levels 6, 7 and 8, differing only in Precinct and Ward at 9 for the former and Village and District for the latter. I do

Re: [Talk-us] Differences with USA admin_level tagging

Kevin Kenny writes: (In New York City), each borough is divided into community districts. This begs the question as to whether the sub-row 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 New YorkNYC Borough N/A

Re: [Talk-us] Differences with USA admin_level tagging

I'll "pop the stack," answering the most recent first. Minh, genuinely, you are welcome for a wider dialog. I am cheered to see a good deal of reply to this. As you say my edits "may well be the right edits to make" (I agree) it only may be true that "mappers who focus on these regions

Re: [Talk-us] Differences with USA admin_level tagging

Jack Burke writes: So...what exactly are you asking? I am asking, after examining the list of nine states, whether you might volunteer to examine the current status of admin_level tagging in a state (as it is documented to actually exist in US/Boundaries wiki) and "improve it" (as it is

[Talk-us] Differences with USA admin_level tagging

Kind of long and complex ahead; apologies in advance for the length. I've been documenting our https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_admin_level wiki over much of the last year with careful research on how US states and territories carve themselves up into administrative

[Talk-us] Territorial municipalities, Guam's villages

Does anybody know if the map of Guam's villages at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villages_of_Guam#/media/File:Map_of_Guam_villages.svg is accurate and up-to-date? It's rough, but usable, and appears compatible with OSM's ODbL. Are there better data which OSM has permission to use? Guam's

Re: [Talk-us] Territorial municipalities, Guam's villages (Max Erickson)

> 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. Does OSM have a problem with

Re: [Talk-us] Territorial municipalities, Guam's villages (Max Erickson)

Thank you, Nelson.  Per the link (and a further link, which points to Simon Poole for the OSMF License Group):"But while neither CC nor the OSMF has undertaken a complete compatibility analysis, we have identified at least one  point of incompatibility and one possible challenge regarding

Re: [Talk-us] Territorial municipalities, Guam's villages (Max Erickson)

Josh Lee writes: "TIGER Line gives these village boundaries in the "County Subdivisions" file." Thank you, I'm taking a look now. Effectively closing this thread, SteveA California ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Talk-us] Territorial municipalities, Guam's villages (Max Erickson)

Guam now has its Municipalities entered as boundary=administrative + admin_level=6. I also changed several named and human-settled areas from place=locality (which means uninhabited) to place=hamlet. Hamlet seems appropriate as there appear to be no more than one or two hundred persons and

Re: [Talk-us] Pittsburgh neighborhood boundaries mapped with admin level 9?

> Albert Pundt writes > I noticed that the neighborhoods in Pittsburgh are mapped as administrative > boundaries with admin_level=9. Is this proper? The wiki page for U.S. admin > levels doesn't list any use for admin level 9 in Pennsylvania, though this > seems appropriate if Pittsburgh

Re: [Talk-us] Pittsburgh neighborhood boundaries mapped with admin level 9?

OK, three topics shake out from this, two Pennsylvania, one Boston. I'll try (and likely fail) to be brief: 1) Pittsburgh's neighborhoods, now entered and tagged admin_level=9, seem like they are better entered as admin_level=10, to harmonize with neighborhoods in many other states.

Re: [Talk-us] Differences with USA admin_level tagging

Richard Welty rwelty at averillpark.net wrote (I paraphrase): Kevin oversimplified New York state admin_level; I live here and have different post and school office boundaries. Thank you, Richard: I am in listening mode. Our US_admin_level wiki mentions school districts, but nothing is stated

Re: [Talk-us] Ferry durations

I like the idea of adding ferries without duration to MapRoulette — great idea!If you don't, I will!  (Well, it might take me a while).I'll check in a week or so and if nobody has, I'll give it a go.(Last ferry I rode in BC was to Bowen Island to attend a wedding of some friends who grew up

Re: [Talk-us] Erie Canalway Trail

Hi Kevin:It may be that more than one relation is warranted because of multiple trail uses.  I can see how there might be one tagged route=hiking and another tagged route=bicycle, although if the trail is largely unpaved, route=mtb is preferred instead of the latter.  Of course, these would likely

Re: [Talk-us] Talk-us Digest, Vol 116, Issue 44

Albert Pundt writes: > Why are townships, boroughs, towns, and cities in PA mapped with separate > admin levels, or at least "supposed to be" mapped that way according to that > page? As far as I know they're always only ever one level below county, and > never overlap.

[Talk-us] New Carto rendering of waterway=stream, intermittent=yes

In a word, "yuk." Considering how a waterway=stream is a light blue low-pixel-width line (and this seems correct, harmonious and even beautiful), can we please return to DASHED light blue low-pixel-width line when a waterway=stream also includes the tag intermittent=yes? Thank you! If there

Re: [Talk-us] New Carto rendering of waterway=stream, intermittent=yes

Andy Townsend <ajt1...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 22/05/2017 20:50, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote: >> In a word, "yuk." >> > It was a rendering faux pas rather than deliberate, and should (shortly) be > fixed: > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/

Re: [Talk-us] USA's TIGER data include rail, too

And then there were six! WikiProject_United_States_railways is delighted to announce that we have just grown from five states to six with the addition of South Carolina by an enthusiastic OSM volunteer. Brick by brick, everybody! SteveA California

[Talk-us] USA's TIGER data include rail, too

I know this might seem disconnected from threads regarding TIGER from a week ago, but I do wish to remind my fellow dear readers of talk-us that the 2008 TIGER import also include(d) rail data, including tens of thousands of railway=rail ways. While these have slowly-and-surely improved,

Re: [Talk-us] Uploading sidewalks in San Jose, California, US

Vivek Bansal <3viv...@gmail.com> writes: > We are using the San Jose data which has an ODbL compliant license (and any > government data in California has the same). I'm following the San José discussion and don't wish to get too technically legal: I am not an attorney, though I have paid

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

Echoing (+1-ing) what Charlotte (and Clifford) said: waterway=creek on a downward-flowing way (and an intermittent=yes tag, if true) are extensively used and helpful, certainly where I am. While hiking, they are relatively unambiguous wayfinding attributes, especially when/as they are

Re: [Talk-us] Pittsburgh neighborhood boundaries mapped with admin_level 9?

> Jerry Clough wrote: > Further to this thread, this fascinating article came up in my twitter > timeline: The Legacies of Redlining in Pittsburgh > > The Legacies of Redlining in Pittsburgh > Devin Rutan reveals how Pittsburgh's current geography is still defined by >

Re: [Talk-us] Bicycle infrastructure

Martijn and this thread's contributors: Yes to everything! Thanks for the OT snippet, that's helpful and benefits from additional suggestions like sharrows as cycleway=shared_lane, cycleway=buffered_lane, and importantly, shoulder and surface data. While infrastructure is important (critical,

Re: [Talk-us] Multipolygonizing

I very much agree with Douglas and Rihards that glebius' mapping is (around here) unusual, "terrible" and difficult to parse, even for experienced mappers who have been mapping for most of the history of OSM, like me. Glebius is right in my backyard and I've found his coastal "restructurings"

Re: [Talk-us] Multipolygonizing

Thank you, Kevin for your thoughtful and rather complete reply! Mark Wagner wrote: > Of course, this only works for ordinary relations. If the way you > clicked on is shared by two or more relations, you need to go > through the far more complicated method of playing with

Re: [Talk-us] Multipolygonizing

Kevin and others: please do not misunderstand me. There ARE times when shared ways between multipolygons is an elegant and THE correct solution, as you, I and many others have found to be true and edited into existence many times. By no means do I advocate that where such beauty has been

Re: [Talk-us] Multipolygonizing

On Nov 20, 2017, at 11:32 AM, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > Hi Steve, > that was a long rant, I enjoyed reading it. Thank you, but I'd call it "moderate length" for me, I can and do (infamously) rant MUCH longer, as many will attest. > Your retelling of my > words is way better

Re: [Talk-us] Talk-us Digest, Vol 120, Issue 17

This thread is tedious, but I will soldier on. Gleb Smirnoff writes: > Looks like the acception of multipolygons here is not as bad as I initially > read in this email thread. So, we agree that at some level they are easier > to maintain that shared nodes. Do we? I cannot

Re: [Talk-us] Multipolygonizing

Briefly (thanks for the reminder, again, Ian!): If the reltoolbox plug-in as as powerful as I am beginning to understand it may be (I appreciate the introduction, Gleb), and given my agreement that certain use cases (especially landuse) benefit greatly from multipolygonized boundaries (they

Re: [Talk-us] Multipolygonizing

On Nov 21, 2017, at 1:27 PM, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > Okay, I will withhold myself from touching polygons in the Santa Cruz County > for next couple of years, and let's see how your future experience with > SCCGIS goes on. We can get back to this question later in scope of

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

The legacy of TIGER-tagging will persist in OSM for a long, long time. That is the reality of the import we did, rough/sloppy data and all. This legacy serves as many lessons to be learned regarding the practice(s) of wide-scale imports. If it sounds like I'm saying "we made this bed, so now

Re: [Talk-us] Slack: Do we need an Alternative (was Planning an import in Price George...)

> Clifford Snow wrote: > I must admit I like Slack better than some other forms of communications. Truly, I think that's great. And again, the many forms of communication OSM uses, including new ones, are a natural part of a project as large and diverse as OSM is. There ARE a great many, some

Re: [Talk-us] Planning an Import in Prince George's County, Maryland

> Clifford Snow wrote: > If you haven't already joined our US Slack community, please sign up at > https://osmus-slack.herokuapp.com/. The community can help you with build > your import plan. Having met Clifford two summers ago, I admired, marveled at (and congratulated him upon!) his

[Talk-us] Central Oregon & Pacific Railroad: usage=branch -> usage=main?

I realize that distinctions between railway=rail + usage=* tags is subjective (even as OpenRailwayMap — ORM — renders main orange and branch yellow). Full disclosure: I have tried to sharpen focus in contributing to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenRailwayMap/Tagging and related wiki

Re: [Talk-us] Comparing Tiger 2017 dataset with OSM in a automatedway.

I don't know where all of this is going, and wanted to see for myself, so I downloaded the California file (the largest one of all) and zoomed in on where I live and am most familiar with, Santa Cruz County. Thank you for providing the ten states worth of translated data for us to take a look.

  1   2   3   >