Re: [Talk-us] relations on which thematic data can be connected? eg internet availabilty byt zipcode
Ray Kiddy wrote > ...published by the FCC and I think that at least some of the information is > per zipcode. and > Wow. Bizarre, but good to know. Yes, I _always_ have thought that zipcodes > partition land areas. This was not my original though, but I have found it useful (and mentioned in a sprinkling of places) to think of ZIP codes as a sort of routing algorithm meant to facilitate the efficient movement of mail through the USPS infrastructure. Their history is quite interesting and supports this interpretation, especially with automation and the extensions to 9- and 11-digit codes. > Now I have to wonder if ZCTAs are still around and if they are mapped. I > expect not. Considering how OSM wants to (and to some decent extent, does) denote census areas as quite distinct from the "OSM-usual" key:value pairs for conurbations, and ZCTAs blend ZIP codes and census boundaries, you'd muddy a lot of water by using ZCTAs, especially as you use OSM data. I, too, (like Clifford) wish you good luck and hope you have fruitful results you might share with us here at the completion of your project. SteveA ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries
A refinement, perhaps Bradley and others agree with me, perhaps not. A USFS NF is a "virtual" multipolygon (not one in OSM, we can get to that later) of three kinds of things: 1) An "outer" (but not the biggest one) which is "the enclosing land which USFS manages, except for inholdings, below," 2) Zero to many "inner" polygons, representing inholdings (and with the usual "hole" semantic of exclusion from 1), above and 3) An even LARGER and ENCLOSING of 1) "outer" which Congress declares is the geographic extent to which USFS may or might "have influence to someday manage." If we ignore 3) as "not real, but rather aspirational or in the future rather than the present, and certainly not on-the-ground" then an OSM multipolygon consists of simply 1) plus 2). Yes? SteveA ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries
On Jun 24, 2020, at 9:40 PM, Bradley White wrote: > NF congressionally designated boundary, minus private inholdings (more > specifically, non-USFS-owned land), gives you the boundary of land > that is actually managed and protected by the USFS. This boundary > should be tagged with 'protect_class=6'. USFS owned land is always a > subset of this congressional boundary (I suspect it is, in all cases > in the US, a proper subset). Subtracting these private inholdings is > generally going to change the shape of the 'outer' way such that it no > longer is the same as the "designated" boundary. That really helps; thank you! I think I still need to do some imagination exercises here, and maybe see some examples (in a JOSM buffer, in the real world...) and it will fully crystallize in my mind. And, if true, the phrase "proper subset" helps, as well. >> My slight disagreement with Bradley is as above: I don't think we should >> put a "naked" (missing admin_level) boundary=administrative tag on these, it >> simply feels wrong to do that. (I READ the point that these are >> "Congressionally designated" and that SEEMS administrative...but, hm...). > > I wasn't clear in what I meant by suggesting 'boundary=administrative' > tagging here - I don't think we should tag "declared" boundaries > 'boundary=administrative' with no 'admin_level'. This is simply the > closest widely-used tag that comes close to representing what this > "declared" boundary actually means. This is also why I suggest we > think about not including it at all in OSM; should we also start > adding boundaries for interstate USFS administrative regions (an > 'admin_level', for lack of a better term, more general than a NF > boundary), as well as ranger districts within each national forest? > > The real, on-the-ground objects of importance here are the plots of > land that are actually owned and operated by the USFS, not an > administrative boundary that declares where each national forest *may* > legally be authorized to own and manage land, and that is not > surveyable on the ground. 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 USFS." If you can agree with me there, I think we can get even closer. If not, that seems like a central core of the snarl in at least my understanding. There are three states we seem to be trying to capture here: 1) land Congress declares is "managed and protected" by USFS, which OSM represents with an enclosing "outer." 2) Excluded from 1) are inholdings, which have role "inner" in the multipolygon. 3) Land Bradley called "owned and operated by USFS" (but which I say is owned by the People and operated by the USFS). See, 1) and 3) seem like the same thing to me. Why would Congress say what Bradley mentions first (at the top of this post) is "managed and protected by USFS" (minus inholdings) and yet there is something "owned by USFS" (when the government owns land, the People own the land; the government agency is operator FOR the People) which I seem to confuse with 3). Am I doing that? Is Bradley? Is Congress? Is it about ownership and operator status being confused in my mind? I'm not stupid, I'm getting closer and I'm grateful for what I hope isn't confused blather. Thankful for talk-pages, thankful for the good talk that happens within them, SteveA ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries
> However, I'm not exactly sure how the outer polygons found in NFs differ from > either the "Congressional" boundary or the one Bradley says he would tag > "boundary=administrative" (and I don't think we should tag it that, > especially while excluding a specific value for admin_level), but I'm willing > to listen to more discussion about what this "different from Congressional" > boundary is and how the two differ. Apologies if that isn't clear, I'm doing > my best, but I remain unclear on some concepts here. NF congressionally designated boundary, minus private inholdings (more specifically, non-USFS-owned land), gives you the boundary of land that is actually managed and protected by the USFS. This boundary should be tagged with 'protect_class=6'. USFS owned land is always a subset of this congressional boundary (I suspect it is, in all cases in the US, a proper subset). Subtracting these private inholdings is generally going to change the shape of the 'outer' way such that it no longer is the same as the "designated" boundary. > My slight disagreement with Bradley is as above: I don't think we should put > a "naked" (missing admin_level) boundary=administrative tag on these, it > simply feels wrong to do that. (I READ the point that these are > "Congressionally designated" and that SEEMS administrative...but, hm...). I wasn't clear in what I meant by suggesting 'boundary=administrative' tagging here - I don't think we should tag "declared" boundaries 'boundary=administrative' with no 'admin_level'. This is simply the closest widely-used tag that comes close to representing what this "declared" boundary actually means. This is also why I suggest we think about not including it at all in OSM; should we also start adding boundaries for interstate USFS administrative regions (an 'admin_level', for lack of a better term, more general than a NF boundary), as well as ranger districts within each national forest? The real, on-the-ground objects of importance here are the plots of land that are actually owned and operated by the USFS, not an administrative boundary that declares where each national forest *may* legally be authorized to own and manage land, and that is not surveyable on the ground. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Is summit register something that is often found in USA mountains?
Summit registers are fairly common on the higher peaks in California. > On Jun 24, 2020, at 12:07 PM, Mike Thompson wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 1:03 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us > mailto: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 > > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] relations on which thematic data can be connected? eg internet availabilty byt zipcode
Ray, As you learned from Spencer Alves, postal codes are not areas. As far as I know there are no zip code areas in OSM. I would recommend using QGIS and Postgis to construct your queries using OSM and TIGER zip code boundaries. Are you looking for any broadband connectivity, just cellular, DSL, fiber, satellite, or a combination of all of them? My experience is that cellular maps often overstate their reach. Satellite internet service isn't really that great because of the lag time involved. (Upcoming low earth orbit communications satellites promise break thoughts ) Your project is interesting. I hope to read about your conclusions. BTW - I do have friends that only get internet service via their cell phones. Another even used to live off the grid on purpose. When we went looking for a place in rural Washington, we definitely had to exclude places that either didn't have internet service or the cell service was non-existent. Good luck, Clifford On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 2:33 PM Ray Kiddy wrote: > Hello - > > I am interested in where people in the US lack internet connectivity and > I keep thinking that I should be able to use OSM for some part of this. > > I am recalling (perhaps not accurately) that connectivity information is > published by the FCC and I think that at least some of the information > is per zipcode. > > This led me into a bit of a rat hole as I sought to find out if there > are relations for zipcodes in the US. Does anyone know? I know that > TIGER data defines lines that bound zipcodes. But can one craft a query > that maps just the edges of a zipcode area? Are there then relations > defined for those edges? > > I can keep thematic data on my own database but, so far, I do it by > linking directly to a relation or way. If it had to be a set of > relations, that would be unfortunate, but possible. But I am not seeing > how to make the queries. > > Any ideas? > > cheers - ray > > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > -- @osm_washington www.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] relations on which thematic data can be connected? eg internet availabilty byt zipcode
Zip Codes are Not Areas http://www.georeference.org/doc/zip_codes_are_not_areas.htm Specifically for Zip codes, the best you could do is query for addr:postcode. > On Jun 24, 2020, at 2:33 PM, Ray Kiddy wrote: > > Hello - > > I am interested in where people in the US lack internet connectivity and I > keep thinking that I should be able to use OSM for some part of this. > > I am recalling (perhaps not accurately) that connectivity information is > published by the FCC and I think that at least some of the information is per > zipcode. > > This led me into a bit of a rat hole as I sought to find out if there are > relations for zipcodes in the US. Does anyone know? I know that TIGER data > defines lines that bound zipcodes. But can one craft a query that maps just > the edges of a zipcode area? Are there then relations defined for those edges? > > I can keep thematic data on my own database but, so far, I do it by linking > directly to a relation or way. If it had to be a set of relations, that would > be unfortunate, but possible. But I am not seeing how to make the queries. > > Any ideas? > > cheers - ray > > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] relations on which thematic data can be connected? eg internet availabilty byt zipcode
Wow. Bizarre, but good to know. Yes, I _always_ have thought that zipcodes partition land areas. Now I have to wonder if ZCTAs are still around and if they are mapped. I expect not. much thanx - ray On 6/24/20 2:39 PM, Spencer Alves wrote: Zip Codes are Not Areas http://www.georeference.org/doc/zip_codes_are_not_areas.htm Specifically for Zip codes, the best you could do is query for addr:postcode. On Jun 24, 2020, at 2:33 PM, Ray Kiddy wrote: Hello - I am interested in where people in the US lack internet connectivity and I keep thinking that I should be able to use OSM for some part of this. I am recalling (perhaps not accurately) that connectivity information is published by the FCC and I think that at least some of the information is per zipcode. This led me into a bit of a rat hole as I sought to find out if there are relations for zipcodes in the US. Does anyone know? I know that TIGER data defines lines that bound zipcodes. But can one craft a query that maps just the edges of a zipcode area? Are there then relations defined for those edges? I can keep thematic data on my own database but, so far, I do it by linking directly to a relation or way. If it had to be a set of relations, that would be unfortunate, but possible. But I am not seeing how to make the queries. Any ideas? cheers - ray ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] relations on which thematic data can be connected? eg internet availabilty byt zipcode
Hello - I am interested in where people in the US lack internet connectivity and I keep thinking that I should be able to use OSM for some part of this. I am recalling (perhaps not accurately) that connectivity information is published by the FCC and I think that at least some of the information is per zipcode. This led me into a bit of a rat hole as I sought to find out if there are relations for zipcodes in the US. Does anyone know? I know that TIGER data defines lines that bound zipcodes. But can one craft a query that maps just the edges of a zipcode area? Are there then relations defined for those edges? I can keep thematic data on my own database but, so far, I do it by linking directly to a relation or way. If it had to be a set of relations, that would be unfortunate, but possible. But I am not seeing how to make the queries. Any ideas? cheers - ray ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries
I (momentarily?) recede from my "watching mode" in this thread to offer my
agreement with Mike and to reiterate a slight disagreement with Bradley (or
maybe to ask Bradley and especially the wider list here for clarification), as
while it seems we get closer to a "more definitive" way to tag NF boundaries,
this discussion doesn't seem close to having yielded a complete agreement
(yet). Nor even full understanding, at least on my part.
My agreement with Mike is noticing that (in California only), CPAD data for NFs
are excellent quality; I believe OSM users in California should feel
comfortable using them for NFs, as when I look at the "SuperUnit" version of
CPAD's release of these (there are also "Unit" and "Holdings," a sort of
"parcel-level") NFs invariably have a big, SINGLE outer polygon (and up to
hundreds of inners). I wrote wiki on how CPAD data might be best utilized in
OSM, see https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/California/Using_CPAD_data . However, I'm
not exactly sure how the outer polygons found in NFs differ from either the
"Congressional" boundary or the one Bradley says he would tag
"boundary=administrative" (and I don't think we should tag it that, especially
while excluding a specific value for admin_level), but I'm willing to listen to
more discussion about what this "different from Congressional" boundary is and
how the two differ. Apologies if that isn't clear, I'm doing my best, but I
remain unclear on some concepts here.
My slight disagreement with Bradley is as above: I don't think we should put a
"naked" (missing admin_level) boundary=administrative tag on these, it simply
feels wrong to do that. (I READ the point that these are "Congressionally
designated" and that SEEMS administrative...but, hm...). One major problem I
have is that we're multiplying polygons (by two) here for a SINGLE national
forest. Isn't there a way we can keep all these data in a single relation?
Yes, inner can remain as the right role for inholdings, maybe outer is better
placed on either "Congressional" or "the other one that is more on-the-ground",
maybe we coin a third role ("congressional"?) for that one, allowing us to keep
the "bigger, enclosing" polygons in a single multipolygon relation, which I
think is an "OSM-sane" thing to do.
Summarizing, CPAD data for California: very good. Maybe even excellent,
though I think some examination of the differences of NFs between the
SuperUnit, Unit and Holdings flavors of CPAD data is a very good idea that
somebody (a Californian OSM multipolygon and shapefile jockey who knows
something about national forest structure) should take some time to examine.
Differences between "the two" kinds of "more outer" multipolygon boundaries of
NFs? Murky, well, remaining somewhat murky in my mind, at least how these
should best logically be expressed by OSM relations. The discussion is good, I
simply reiterate my "I still don't quite understand all of this very well" here
and now. Brian seems to agree with me and I don't think I'm alone. Let's keep
the momentum rolling until more / most of this achieve that "a-ha" moment as to
how OSM should best express NFs with multipolygons.
SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Is summit register something that is often found in USA mountains?
Another feature that is often found at summits around here is a roughly constructed shelter, such as: https://images.app.goo.gl/KogTgXChrGx93Ab96 These have been made over the years by various hikers stacking rocks in a semicircle. One can sit down inside them and obtain some shelter from 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 found in USA mountains? > At least in Colorado they are. Nowadays they are often pieces of pvc pipe. > > Mike > > > ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
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 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Is summit register something that is often found in USA mountains?
Is summit register something that is often found in USA mountains?
("A summit book or summit register is a record of visitors to the summit
of a mountain. It is usually enclosed in a weatherproof, animalproof metal
canister.")
I am asking as I plan to implement summit register part of
https://github.com/westnordost/StreetComplete/issues/561 and I wonder
whatever it makes sense to ask this question in USA.
So far this kind of object is not mapped at all in USA (
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/summit%3Aregister#map )
but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summit_register claims
"The Sierra Club places official registers on many mountains
throughout California and the United States." (with quite weak source)
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries
seconded stevea -- very interesting and cogent, definitely reading these National Forest expositions best regards from Berkeley, California --Brian M Hamlin MAPLABS ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
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 it seem like the road is private from that point forward if you don't know otherwise. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
