Richard, Here is a presentation I did to a class back in my CM days: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Education_SFSU
<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Education_SFSU>I have a couple renditions of that, as well as intros for mapping parties. Let me know if you want me to email them to you directly, or if you have a wiki page you would like them uploaded to. Best, Sarah On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 2:42 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Send Talk-us mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Talk-us digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: proposed first principles for United States road tagging > (Paul Johnson) > 2. Re: proposed first principles for United States road tagging > (Paul Johnson) > 3. Re: OSM presentations (Michal Migurski) > 4. Re: proposed first principles for United States road tagging > (Paul Johnson) > 5. Re: proposed first principles for United States road tagging > (Apollinaris Schoell) > 6. Re: proposed first principles for United States road tagging > (Andrew Sawyer) > 7. Re: proposed first principles for United States road tagging > (Serge Wroclawski) > 8. Time to retire ref= on ways? (Paul Johnson) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2010 13:01:56 -0800 > From: Paul Johnson <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States > road tagging > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > > Anthony wrote: > > > > I'm not sure what you mean by "work differently". The laws of different > > states are different, so the information which needs to be presented by > the > > map is different. The maps, therefore, are going to be different. I > > wouldn't "expect the same map to work differently" in different places, > > because I wouldn't "expect the same map" in different places. > > So you're suggesting a 300+ way fork of OSM? > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2010 13:06:44 -0800 > From: Paul Johnson <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States > road tagging > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > > Bill Ricker wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 5:45 AM, Paul Johnson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> I can think of several interstates that are unpaved and undivided, > >> though all of them are in Alaska. > >> > > > > wow that's news to me. Are they limited access ? > > No, not outside Anchorage, and even then, barely. > > > How do those get tagged? highway=trunk, surface=dirt, divided=no ? > > I would tag them as "secondary", with the AK## state ref numbers > since they're not even signed as interstates, but as Alaska state > highways. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highways_in_Alaska > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 13:27:45 -0800 > From: Michal Migurski <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] OSM presentations > To: Talk Openstreetmap <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > I gave this keynote at the North American Cartographic Information Society > late last year: > http://mike.teczno.com/notes/slides/nacis.html > > It's mostly about the motivations for OSM and the end products that can be > made from the data. Maybe applicable? > > -mike. > > On Mar 6, 2010, at 7:41 AM, Richard Welty wrote: > > > is there a collection anywhere of presentations on OSM that are available > > for reference or reuse? if there isn't, anyone have presentations that > > they're > > willing to let me take a look at? > > > > now that i am on the verge of being employed again, i find much to my > > surprise that there will be some mapping involved and that the folks at > > GE Research i'll be working with are intrigued by OSM. thus, i will > > likely need a presentation to give spun towards experienced software > > types who are mostly a little light on mapping and GIS (they're working > > on a logistics/supply management system for internal use by GE > > manufacturing units). > > > > probably there is no existing presentation that does exactly what i want, > > but being able to look at a number of them might be a big aid in > > developing one. > > > > richard > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Talk-us mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > michal migurski- [email protected] > 415.558.1610 > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2010 13:08:27 -0800 > From: Paul Johnson <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States > road tagging > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > > Richard Welty wrote: > > > probably a better example are the unpaved state highways that may be > found > > in some parts of New Hampshire. they do have signage, are they secondary > > because they're state highways? > > I would say so. There's the "surface" tag, too... surface=gravel, > surface=unpaved... > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 17:24:40 -0800 > From: Apollinaris Schoell <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States > road tagging > To: Frederik Ramm <[email protected]> > Cc: Anthony <[email protected]>, Paul Johnson <[email protected]>, > [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > > On 7 Mar 2010, at 11:59 , Frederik Ramm wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Apollinaris Schoell wrote: > >> Perhaps we should be working more towards worldwide consistency. > >> yes, please osm is an international project > > > > I agree that worldwide consistency is good, however it is a target that > comes at a price, and one has to carefully think about whether it makes > sense economically to pay this price - or if it may be more efficient to > reach the same goals on another route! > > > > Remember that the free-form tagging we have, where anyone can do what > they believe makes sense, is one of the pillars of OSM's success. Working > towards worldwide consistency does not necessarily mean creating stricter > rules, but in my experience many who talk about this topic have exactly that > in mind - the idea is, more or less, always the same: (1) convene some kind > of expert group to make decisions, (2) perhaps have the discussions ratified > by the current project membership somehow, and (3) find ways to enforce them > - voila, consistency by decree. > > not that I disagree with you here but > the start of the thread contains "should", the follow up "please" > where do you read anything about strict rules, experts, enforcement ... > > > > > The danger behind such an approach is that it could kill the "drive" that > many mappers have. The "let's roll up our sleeves and get something done" > spirit could suffer if mappers feel controlled/overruled by someone > somewhere (witness the many disgruntled Wikipedians coming to OSM and > expressing relief about the absence of self-made relevance criteria - just > because a decision is carried by a majority doesn't mean it is good for the > project). > > > > Thus, it *may* be better to accept that people in different countries or > even different regions tag their stuff differently, and work on a smart way > to handle all this. More work for those using the data but at the same time > less of a corset for those creating it. > > > > there must be a balance, entering data must be easy but also consuming data > must be easy too. most mappers are in one or the other form consumers of the > data. If cost of consumption is too hight the osm data is useless because > for the same cost it can be created in a better form. > > > SteveC wrote about this half a year ago, and already saying that he was > "reviving an old idea": > > > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2009-October/017287.html > > > > As discussion progressed he was reminded of the Osmosis TagTransform > plugin which can already do a lot of work "streamlining" an OSM data set. > Surely not the answer to everything, but worth investigating. > > I know this discussion. discussion didn't go far and for my impression > makes direct access to the osm data more difficult. But it could > definitely make sense as an API for osm data consuming applications. > In a certain way Josm, Potlatch are doing it already with the templates. > Adding a translation table to "hide" the raw tag names and values could be > easily done. > > > > > Bye > > Frederik > > > > -- > > Frederik Ramm ## eMail [email protected] ## N49?00'09" E008?23'33" > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 21:10:26 -0500 > From: Andrew Sawyer <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States > road tagging > To: [email protected] > Cc: Paul Johnson <[email protected]> > Message-ID: > <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 16:08, Paul Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Richard Welty wrote: > > > > > probably a better example are the unpaved state highways that may be > > found > > > in some parts of New Hampshire. they do have signage, are they > secondary > > > because they're state highways? > > > > I would say so. There's the "surface" tag, too... surface=gravel, > > surface=unpaved... > > > > Not to be super technical, but in New Hampshire all public roads are > state > highways. The distinction you are likely referencing is the numbered State > routes which are maintained by NH DOT (except some city/town centers) and > known as the New Hampshire Highway System. > > A question that I have is whether or not NH Routes should ever be listed as > Primary or Tertiary? I know in Mass its been done using a functional usage > criteria, whereas I have used the US Routes get to be Primary, NH Routes > Secondary and routes that connect town centers that aren't the other two > are > tertiary. I know this is the debate that we are having, but it would seem > that either we leave it to regions or states to decide or try a one size > fits all approach based off the British system which doesn't seem to match > up very well (at least terminology wise) with the US and its intricacies. > > There seem to be two major groups of roads: limited access and everything > else. Within those groups there are variations that at some level get > tedious in distinguishing between various classifications that depend on > routing/lanes/max speed. In some respects a standard is important, but it > has to describe and differentiate between the roads. I think that a > regional > approach, especially in NE, would be best while maintaining some uniformity > across the US and World. I would propose more, but I find it difficult > given > the current structure. It would seem that there be two major tagging > classifications could dominate the tagging: > 1. administrative (coming from the authorities over it - route numbers, > administrative designations of classification, etc.) > 2. functional (coming from actual usage criteria, like number of lanes, > width, etc) > > The first is going to be easier to tag and edit, whereas the latter is > going > to be more intensive with reviewing official GIS data and personal > observations. Just some thoughts. I don't propose to reinvent the wheel, > maybe this can be accomplished with Relations or current tagging and leave > people quibbling over colors to renders? > > Some thoughts and my two cents. > > Andrew Sawyer > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20100307/9f48bba4/attachment-0001.htm > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 09:22:01 +0100 > From: Serge Wroclawski <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States > road tagging > To: Paul Johnson <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Message-ID: > <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Paul Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Anthony wrote: > > > > > >> I'm not sure what you mean by "work differently". ?The laws of different > >> states are different, so the information which needs to be presented by > the > >> map is different. ?The maps, therefore, are going to be different. ?I > >> wouldn't "expect the same map to work differently" in different places, > >> because I wouldn't "expect the same map" in different places. > > > > So you're suggesting a 300+ way fork of OSM? > > It's entirely possible I'm wrong here (since I'm not paying as close > attention to this thread as others) but I believe the recommendations > here are to add tags which correspond to local standards. Once that's > done, other tags which may be more subjective can be added for > simplicity, and the renderer can use either the exact tagging scheme > that makes sense locally, or else it can use the more generalized (but > less precise) tags. > > - Serge > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 02:36:30 -0800 > From: Paul Johnson <[email protected]> > Subject: [Talk-us] Time to retire ref= on ways? > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > > It's time to retire ref=* on highway=* ways to describe attributes > of the overlying route instead of the physical attributes of the way > itself. Using the ref= tag on ways to describe routes simply > creates more problems than it solves for many reasons. > > * The ref=* tag on a way is describing properties of a route that > is using the way, not a property of the way itself. > > * Many bridges and tunnels have signed references that would > actually be physical attributes of a way, but with the ref= tag on > ways describing the overlying route instead of the way itself, > makes it impossible to properly describe these attributes if ref= on > a way is describing the route above the way, not the way itself. > > * The ref= tag as defined for ways now includes more than the ref, > but also the network. ncn_ref, int_ref, etc were created as an > attempt to describe network references uniquely, but there aren't > *_ref keys for every possible network already in play. > > * The US has two federal highway networks, each state has it's own > highway network, and counties and cities have the option for their > own local networks. That's at minimum 52+ *_ref keys that would be > needed to describe each network uniquely...for the US alone! And > we're not even into transit or other routes that might use the way! > > * Munging the modifier=, network= and ref= tags provided by > relations into a single do-all ref= tag creates more problems than > it solves, particularly for formatting. It also creates > hard-to-answer questions for renderers and parsers. > > * Multiple routes, particularly when they are involved in multiple > networks, creates unmanageable way ref= tags. It also makes it > more difficult to describe attributes that belong to the route, > not the way itself (such as which direction it's going, whether it's > a bypass, business, toll or other sort of route, etc). > > Given that we have route relations, and have had them for some time > now, perhaps now is the time to: > > * put ref= information pertaining to the route that travels on the > way to a relation for that route. Provide facilities to search by > network and ref on relations. > > * Actively remove ref= tags describing routes from ways that have > route relations already: Let's kill this dinosaur. > > Thoughts? > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > > End of Talk-us Digest, Vol 28, Issue 14 > *************************************** >
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
