Re: [Talk-us] overwhelmed with responses on the imagery priorities
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 11:51 PM, Steve Coast wrote: > yes, add to the wiki page and help fix it I just added another US request, and moved all the US-centric items that were there into a dedicated "United States" section on the page. There were only 3, so get editing, people! -- Kristian Zoerhoff kristian.zoerh...@gmail.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Categorizing Stores/Restaurants
I would think Sears = department store; they called themselves that for many years. I think something like Super Wal-Mart or (here in the Midwest) Meijer is tougher; is it department store, clothing, grocery, or something else? I'd rather have a newbie ask a million times, if they learn from it, but if they make a reasonable guess, that's fine, as we can always refine the data. -- Kristian M Zoerhoff On Jun 14, 2011 6:32 PM, "Josh Kraayenbrink" wrote: > It is, but what is the convention in the states for tagging, say, Sears? > Department store? Hardware store? other store? The only way you know these > things is if you do A LOT of mapping and start to figure out what needs to > go where. What if a newbie comes across this and they don't know what to do. > Where do you turn them to? Or do you just help them with every request? > > Sorry for the response in questions, I am just trying to rationalize this > out loud. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Categorizing Stores/Restaurants
Isn't there already a page for the shop=* tag? -- Kristian M Zoerhoff On Jun 14, 2011 6:05 PM, "Josh Kraayenbrink" wrote: > Is there any page on the wiki that has a methodology or straight up > categories of stores and restaurants? I was thinking about creating a page > to help those that don't know what to enter for tags, mostly the amenity > tag. Either alphabetical by amenity or alphabetical by store. This would be > helpful to get a on consensus on some of the more questionable ones. I > was tagging local poi's and was confused as to what to tag a few of them. > Good/bad idea? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] What happened here?
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Richard Weait wrote: > On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Kristian Zoerhoff > wrote: >> OK, I've heard from both users. >> >> Juliana was a newbie, and messed up an edit badly. Martin tried to fix it, >> but just couldn't fix it all by hand. I hate to revert his changeset, as >> he's a good mapper, but I don't see how else to fix this. > > I don't see any harm or shame in reverting an edit when everybody is > on the same page. If this is a relatively small area, perhaps editing > by hand is the way to go? A revert might just return you to a > previous version with subtle problems that you'll then want to fix > manually anyway. The damage turned out to be a lot more limited than it looked (just 3 deleted ways, then some alignment cleanup). I'm about to check in a pair of edits to fix it it up. Thanks to all who weighed in here. -- Kristian Zoerhoff kristian.zoerh...@gmail.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] What happened here?
Well, I had just done cleanup in the area. I'll talk to Martin about reversion tonight, as it will trash some other work he did in that changeset. -- Kristian M Zoerhoff On Jun 13, 2011 4:39 PM, "Richard Weait" wrote: > On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Kristian Zoerhoff > wrote: >> OK, I've heard from both users. >> >> Juliana was a newbie, and messed up an edit badly. Martin tried to fix it, >> but just couldn't fix it all by hand. I hate to revert his changeset, as >> he's a good mapper, but I don't see how else to fix this. > > I don't see any harm or shame in reverting an edit when everybody is > on the same page. If this is a relatively small area, perhaps editing > by hand is the way to go? A revert might just return you to a > previous version with subtle problems that you'll then want to fix > manually anyway. > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] What happened here?
OK, I've heard from both users. Juliana was a newbie, and messed up an edit badly. Martin tried to fix it, but just couldn't fix it all by hand. I hate to revert his changeset, as he's a good mapper, but I don't see how else to fix this. -- Kristian M Zoerhoff On Jun 13, 2011 3:58 PM, "Mike N" wrote: > On 6/13/2011 4:47 PM, Ian Dees wrote: >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/21928761/history says that user >> mpinnau deleted the road. > > In addition, there is a suspicious edit by jumoriana > http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/jumoriana/edits > > In his second edit ever, there is an uncommented change that affects > some nodes in the area?? > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8315942 > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/21917603 contains node > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/236188133 <<< changed > > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] What happened here?
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Mike N wrote: > On 6/13/2011 4:47 PM, Ian Dees wrote: >> >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/21928761/history says that user >> mpinnau deleted the road. > > In addition, there is a suspicious edit by jumoriana > http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/jumoriana/edits > > In his second edit ever, there is an uncommented change that affects some > nodes in the area?? > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8315942 Lovely. Hunter Rd got whacked in that changeset. It looked like s/he was trying to straighten out an admin boundary with some of the node deletions. I'll contact them, too. I already contacted mpinnau. -- Kristian Zoerhoff kristian.zoerh...@gmail.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] What happened here?
Nice. I cancontact Martin, but we might need someone to revert the changeset, as I've certainly never done it before. -- Kristian M Zoerhoff On Jun 13, 2011 3:47 PM, "Ian Dees" wrote: > OWL is a much better tool for this sort of investigation: > > http://matt.dev.openstreetmap.org/owl_viewer/map?zoom=14&lat=42.18689&lon=-88.69091&layers=BT > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/21928761/history says that user > mpinnau deleted the road. > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Kristian Zoerhoff < > kristian.zoerh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> < http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.18649&lon=-88.65098&zoom=15&layers=M >> > >> >> Harmony Road has been deleted, and a bunch of connecting roads are >> messed up. I was working in this area doing TIGER cleanup in mid-May, >> but between NE2 and xybot, the history tool on the web site is swamped >> with changesets, and I can't figure out whose needs to be reverted. I >> can fix this manually, but I'd rather not if we can narrow it down to >> one guilty party. >> >> I really hope it isn't me somehow :-) ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] What happened here?
<http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.18649&lon=-88.65098&zoom=15&layers=M> Harmony Road has been deleted, and a bunch of connecting roads are messed up. I was working in this area doing TIGER cleanup in mid-May, but between NE2 and xybot, the history tool on the web site is swamped with changesets, and I can't figure out whose needs to be reverted. I can fix this manually, but I'd rather not if we can narrow it down to one guilty party. I really hope it isn't me somehow :-) -- Kristian Zoerhoff kristian.zoerh...@gmail.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] shields and overlaps
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Richard Weait wrote: > I'm doing a little work on shield rendering for Interstate and US > Route shields, etc. > > Who has a favourite highway overlap? I'd like a few examples of each > of the following. How about 1 interstate and 2 state routes? http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/4493789 -- Kristian Zoerhoff kristian.zoerh...@gmail.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] US highway classification
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > On 05/31/2011 06:26 AM, Kristian Zoerhoff wrote: >> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 10:41 PM, Toby Murray >> wrote: >>> On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Nathan Mills >>> wrote: >>>> On Sun, 29 May 2011 12:09:30 -0700, Paul Johnson wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'm thinking the differences between motorways and trunks are minor. >>>>> Trunks may have intersections, motorways don't. >>>> >>>> That's the simple way to state my opinion. It also seemed to be the thrust >>>> of most of the discussion on the talk page of the wiki page referenced >>>> previously as closest to consensus (the page itself just references the >>>> existence of the two camps and leaves it at that). >>>> >>>> In short, my position is simply that an end user expects a trunk road to be >>>> identifiably different than primary or secondary. That's how it's done on >>>> other maps, so I don't see why that's such a bad thing here. >>> >>> I agree with this as well. And I too thought this was a pretty widely >>> accepted convention. >> >> That's one accepted convention, to be sure, but it sometimes ignores >> the realities of where traffic goes. >> >> To give an example: <http://osm.org/go/ZUdwt69> > > 59 and 19...which networks? Those two routes have incomplete refs. IL state routes. I'll get to them someday, maybe. >> If we stuck purely to the above >> convention, 72 would be trunk, and 20 would be primary (at best). But >> traffic flow cares more about where the road goes, not what it looks >> like. > > I'd probably consider both 20 and 72 as trunks based on their design > looking at the NAIP footage. Maybe. I definitely think IL 72 should be primary further west than it is today, but I got sidetracked into fixing more bad TIGER alignments. -- Kristian Zoerhoff kristian.zoerh...@gmail.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] US highway classification
I hate it when I forget to hit Reply-All On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Greg Troxel wrote: > > Kristian Zoerhoff writes: > >> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 10:41 PM, Toby Murray wrote: >>> On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Nathan Mills wrote: >>>> On Sun, 29 May 2011 12:09:30 -0700, Paul Johnson wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'm thinking the differences between motorways and trunks are minor. >>>>> Trunks may have intersections, motorways don't. >>>> >>>> That's the simple way to state my opinion. It also seemed to be the thrust >>>> of most of the discussion on the talk page of the wiki page referenced >>>> previously as closest to consensus (the page itself just references the >>>> existence of the two camps and leaves it at that). >>>> >>>> In short, my position is simply that an end user expects a trunk road to be >>>> identifiably different than primary or secondary. That's how it's done on >>>> other maps, so I don't see why that's such a bad thing here. >>> >>> I agree with this as well. And I too thought this was a pretty widely >>> accepted convention. >> >> That's one accepted convention, to be sure, but it sometimes ignores >> the realities of where traffic goes. >> >> To give an example: <http://osm.org/go/ZUdwt69> >> >> IL 72 (the secondary at the top of the map) is a 4- to 6-lane at-grade >> expressway; wide median, lights only every mile or so, speed limit up >> to 55 mph. It carries a fair amount of traffic, but because it >> parallels I 90 (a toll road here), it really only peaks at rush hour, >> when the toll road is near capacity.. >> >> US 20 (the trunk at the map bottom), is a 4-lane, non-divided road, >> but it carries far more traffic than 72, as it connects the two >> motorways at the map ends (the Elgin-O'Hare Expressway, and the Elgin >> Bypass, which were never connected). It's not particularly >> distinguishable from a lesser 4-lane road, aside from the absurd >> amount of traffic it carries. If we stuck purely to the above >> convention, 72 would be trunk, and 20 would be primary (at best). But > > But what's wrong with that? It sounds like IL 72 is a higher-class road > in terms of the physical road, and US 20 doesn't seem to have > almost-motorway features. Just because a road that is properly > labeled primary is heavily used doesn't make it a higher class; you > certainly wouldn't label it a motorway based on traffic count. No, but motorways are such a special case of highway I really don't think we should use them as a basis of comparison. You're either a motorway, or you aren't. >> traffic flow cares more about where the road goes, not what it looks >> like. > > Sure, and routers can use that. > > > Probably we need to completely decouple > > nominal importance in the hierarchy of road types > physical characteristics > importance to the people who use it Haven't we already? Physical characteristics have tags (surface, lanes, maxspeed). It's the hierarchy that seems to be the sticking point, and that's exactly what I thought "classification" was. -- Kristian Zoerhoff kristian.zoerh...@gmail.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] US highway classification
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 10:41 PM, Toby Murray wrote: > On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Nathan Mills wrote: >> On Sun, 29 May 2011 12:09:30 -0700, Paul Johnson wrote: >> >>> I'm thinking the differences between motorways and trunks are minor. >>> Trunks may have intersections, motorways don't. >> >> That's the simple way to state my opinion. It also seemed to be the thrust >> of most of the discussion on the talk page of the wiki page referenced >> previously as closest to consensus (the page itself just references the >> existence of the two camps and leaves it at that). >> >> In short, my position is simply that an end user expects a trunk road to be >> identifiably different than primary or secondary. That's how it's done on >> other maps, so I don't see why that's such a bad thing here. > > I agree with this as well. And I too thought this was a pretty widely > accepted convention. That's one accepted convention, to be sure, but it sometimes ignores the realities of where traffic goes. To give an example: <http://osm.org/go/ZUdwt69> IL 72 (the secondary at the top of the map) is a 4- to 6-lane at-grade expressway; wide median, lights only every mile or so, speed limit up to 55 mph. It carries a fair amount of traffic, but because it parallels I 90 (a toll road here), it really only peaks at rush hour, when the toll road is near capacity.. US 20 (the trunk at the map bottom), is a 4-lane, non-divided road, but it carries far more traffic than 72, as it connects the two motorways at the map ends (the Elgin-O'Hare Expressway, and the Elgin Bypass, which were never connected). It's not particularly distinguishable from a lesser 4-lane road, aside from the absurd amount of traffic it carries. If we stuck purely to the above convention, 72 would be trunk, and 20 would be primary (at best). But traffic flow cares more about where the road goes, not what it looks like. -- Kristian Zoerhoff kristian.zoerh...@gmail.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] 2010 NAIP imagery finally available via WMS
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Ian Dees wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Kristian Zoerhoff
> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Ian Dees wrote:
>> > On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Nathan Edgars II
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I'm not sure if all 2010 imagery has been added, but some from Florida
>> >> (where the latest available had been 2007) was just added in the past
>> >> week,
>> >> and some in Kentucky was also added recently. This can be used in JOSM
>> >> and
>> >> perhaps other editors via the URLs on
>> >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/National_Agriculture_Imagery_Program
>> >> .
>> >
>> > The most recent NAIP imagery (most from 2010) has been available here
>> > via
>> > TMS for a few months:
>> >
>> > http://cube.telascience.org/tilecache/tilecache.py/1.0.0/NAIP_ALL/{zoom}/{x}/{y}.png
>>
>> So does this only work in JOSM, or can I use it in Potlatch 2 as well?
>> I wasn't having any luck last night.
>
> You'll need to use the P2-style URL, but yes it will work. I think Potlatch
> still uses exclamation points so it'd be something along the lines of:
> http://cube.telascience.org/tilecache/tilecache.py/1.0.0/NAIP_ALL/!/!/!.png
Thanks. I also got it working by changing {zoom}/{x}/{y} to $z/$x/$y
after examining some other Potlatch URLs. It would be nice to get this
into the standard Background list for P2 one of these days.
--
Kristian Zoerhoff
kristian.zoerh...@gmail.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] 2010 NAIP imagery finally available via WMS
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Ian Dees wrote:
> On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Nathan Edgars II
> wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure if all 2010 imagery has been added, but some from Florida
>> (where the latest available had been 2007) was just added in the past week,
>> and some in Kentucky was also added recently. This can be used in JOSM and
>> perhaps other editors via the URLs on
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/National_Agriculture_Imagery_Program .
>
> The most recent NAIP imagery (most from 2010) has been available here via
> TMS for a few months:
> http://cube.telascience.org/tilecache/tilecache.py/1.0.0/NAIP_ALL/{zoom}/{x}/{y}.png
So does this only work in JOSM, or can I use it in Potlatch 2 as well?
I wasn't having any luck last night.
--
Kristian Zoerhoff
kristian.zoerh...@gmail.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] 2010 NAIP imagery finally available via WMS
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On 5/15/2011 5:01 PM, Ian Dees wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Nathan Edgars II > <mailto:nerou...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure if all 2010 imagery has been added, but some from
>> Florida (where the latest available had been 2007) was just added in
>> the past week, and some in Kentucky was also added recently. This
>> can be used in JOSM and perhaps other editors via the URLs on
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/National_Agriculture_Imagery_Program
>> .
>>
>> The most recent NAIP imagery (most from 2010) has been available here
>> via TMS for a few months:
>>
>>
>> http://cube.telascience.org/tilecache/tilecache.py/1.0.0/NAIP_ALL/{zoom}/{x}/{y}.png
>
> Was this announced anywhere? I seem to remember it having the same imagery
> as that served by the USGS when this was posted:
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2010-November/004851.html
I have it bookmarked as
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2010-December/004859.html
but the URL shown is different than the one Ian posted.
--
Kristian Zoerhoff
kristian.zoerh...@gmail.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] County road network relations
Michigan has a similar system, but not very many counties have opted into the system. Illinois' system is unique per county, so US:IL:Kane is what I'll be going with. I even spotted a new route tonight while heading to a hardware store, so I might make that the guinea pig. -- Kristian M Zoerhoff On Apr 10, 2011 7:23 PM, "Andrew Cleveland" wrote: > On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 17:02 -0700, Alan Mintz wrote: >> At 2011-04-10 16:28, Nathan Edgars II wrote: >> >On 4/10/2011 7:25 PM, Alan Mintz wrote: >> >>At 2011-04-10 14:00, Kristian M Zoerhoff wrote: >> >>>What's the consensus for county roads in the US? >> >> >> >>I don't know what the consensus is. >> >> >> >>County roads in California are of the form [A-Z][0-9][0-9]. I tag Orange >> >>County route S18 as: >> >> >> >>network="US:CA:Orange" >> >>+ ref="CR S18" >> > >> >How does this work with routes that cross county lines? California has a >> >statewide numbering system, with the letter roughly representing the part >> >of the state. >> >> Yup - that is problematic. I think, when I marked Orange County S18 last >> year, I didn't see any other county road tagging to go by. >> http://www.cahighways.org/county.html shows that there are some occurrences >> of this. I apparently expected to break them at the county lines, I guess, >> so as to agree with signage. That is, Orange County S99 would be a >> different route than San Diego S99. network="US:CA:Orange;US:CA:San Diego" >> on the relation seems workable. >> >> It's almost like they defined super-groups of counties identified by >> those letters. I'll have to crunch that table to see if that's the case so >> we could have network=US:CA:S + ref="CR S18". Maybe add an is_in:county tag >> to the individual segments to avoid losing that important info. >> >> I realize this is kind of scattered. On my way out the door. >> >> >> -- >> Alan Mintz >> >> >> ___ >> Talk-us mailing list >> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > Hi, > > That's correct that the county routes are grouped into "zones" which > don't necessarily coincide with counties. There are nine zones (A, B, D, > E, G, J, N, R, S). > > There are some county route relations here: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/California/State_Highway_Relations#County_Highways > though it's not set in stone obviously. I guess either US:CA:[zone] or > US:CA:CR as suggested would work. > > > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] County road network relations
Ah, I didn't realize the rules varied by highway class. These are all
tertiary, so this should work out OK.
--
Kristian M Zoerhoff
On Apr 10, 2011 5:41 PM, "Nathan Edgars II" wrote:
> On 4/10/2011 6:34 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
>> that must be a lot of county roads, i haven't perceived a clutter problem
>> in Rensselaer County, and i have used ref tags ("CR 9" for county route
>> 9) everywhere. note that if you zoom out, mapnik is smart enough to
>> disappear the county route ref tags past a certain point.
>
> Disappear the tertiary ref tags, that is (at zoom 12). Secondaries
> disappear at zoom 11, primaries and trunks at 10, and all refs are gone
> at zoom 9. Of course, at any zoom level, it doesn't try to put shields
> in where they won't fit.
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] County road network relations
Point taken. I'm still not clear on the correct syntax for the relation, though. -- Kristian M Zoerhoff On Apr 10, 2011 4:07 PM, "Nathan Edgars II" wrote: > On 4/10/2011 5:00 PM, Kristian M Zoerhoff wrote: >> I don't want ref tags on these, as the shields will quickly get too >> cluttered in Mapnik. >> > Don't tag for your preference for what the renderer should do... > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Peculiar addressing in Burr Ridge, IL
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Kristian Zoerhoff wrote: > Ah, rural Chicago addresses. > > Kane and DuPage counties use an arcane system based on the number of miles > you are from State & Madison in Chicago. In this case, you in the 16th mile > west of State. Within a given mile, addresses increase from 000 to 999, > inclusive. > > What's truly maddening is that this is only for unincorporated areas, and a > few incorporated municipalities that never created their own grids, so wild > jumps like you describe usually involve a village/city limit. > > I happen to live in Kane County, so I'm used to this weirdness by now. One other maddening quirk I forgot to mention: address always count up from the baselines, so if a road is U-shaped, with two legs heading north, and an eqast-west connector, addresses will count upward along both N-S legs *simultaneously* - xNyy0 and xNyy5 might be on one leg, xNyy4 and xNyy4 might be on the other - so you get the absurdly hilarious situation of seemingly adjacent buildings actually being a "block" apart in parallel, where that block might 1/4 or 1/2 mile. Lake County, IL uses a similar system, but with the directional letter removed. Parts of Wisconsin use *two* directionals, of the form NxxWyyy, on similar grids. -- Kristian Zoerhoff kristian.zoerh...@gmail.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] School bus routes?
Probably, but at one time, I'd actually heard of school bus routes that were open to the public. I very seriously doubt these exist in this day and age. Plus, wouldn't this be exceptionally variable year-to-year? I guess send a polite note to the creator and see what the genesis was. -- Kristian M Zoerhoff On Apr 10, 2011 11:44 AM, "Nathan Edgars II" wrote: > I came across a relation for a school bus: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/239393 > Isn't this a little too much detail for OSM? > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Peculiar addressing in Burr Ridge, IL
Ah, rural Chicago addresses. Kane and DuPage counties use an arcane system based on the number of miles you are from State & Madison in Chicago. In this case, you in the 16th mile west of State. Within a given mile, addresses increase from 000 to 999, inclusive. What's truly maddening is that this is only for unincorporated areas, and a few incorporated municipalities that never created their own grids, so wild jumps like you describe usually involve a village/city limit. I happen to live in Kane County, so I'm used to this weirdness by now. -- Kristian M Zoerhoff On Apr 8, 2011 7:48 PM, "Alan Mintz" wrote: > In Burr Ridge, IL: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=41.7504&lon=-87.92916&zoom=16&layers=M > > I-55 runs approximately E/W and there are frontage roads on either side of > it, apparently named North Frontage Road and South Frontage Road. > > Along them, there are businesses with addresses like "16W561 South Frontage > Rd" and "601 South Frontage Road" (on the next block). If you feed the > 16W561 address to http://zip4.usps.com/zip4/welcome.jsp, it confirms it is > deliverable*. If you leave off the 16W prefix, it gives the same error that > it gives for addresses where it does not know of that particular address, > but it does fall within an acceptable range for that street. > > Perhaps conversely, it accepts "601 South Frontage Road" as deliverable, > but if you give it 16W601... instead, it converts it to 601 and confirms it > is deliverable. This conversion is normally seen where there are naming > discrepancies for a street (like St. vs. Ave., or during the transition > time of an old name to a new name). > > Any clue what these inconsistent 16W prefixes are? It's not a PLSS > designation because the area is around T38N/R11E. > > > *"deliverable" means it does not give an error, which, in my experience, > means it is a valid address point in their database. > > > > -- > Alan Mintz > > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Bike / Pedestrian directions on the MQOpen sites
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 10:07 PM, wrote: > You are trying to shift the goalposts, from the topic of allowing bicycles on > Interstates to the more general topic > of allowing bicycles on limited-access highways. I'm not aware of any state that treats non-interstate freeways differently from interstate freeways; a freeway is a freeway, at least in the Midwest and Great Lakes. -- Kristian Zoerhoff kristian.zoerh...@gmail.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Bike / Pedestrian directions on the MQ Open sites
Michigan does not allow this, unless the change was very recent. I certainly didn't see it when visiting the family last year. -- Kristian M Zoerhoff On Mar 6, 2011 9:54 PM, "Paul Johnson" wrote: > On 03/06/2011 09:38 PM, Kristian Zoerhoff wrote: >> More like west of the Mississippi. I can't even think of a single state >> east of Colorado or Oklahoma that allows bicycles on limited-access >> freeways. > > Ohio, Michigan, Indiana and Tennessee come to mind right off. > ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Bike / Pedestrian directions on the MQ Open sites
More like west of the Mississippi. I can't even think of a single state east of Colorado or Oklahoma that allows bicycles on limited-access freeways. -- Kristian M Zoerhoff On Mar 6, 2011 9:29 PM, "Paul Johnson" wrote: > On 03/06/2011 07:51 PM, j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: > >> As far as I know, the only US Interstates that allow bicycles are in the Western United States. > > Other way around, generally disallowing bicycles is purely an > eastern-seaboard US thing in North America. Get west of the > Appalachians, and it's generally open to bicycles. > ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Bike / Pedestrian directions on the MQ Open sites
What about the Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS) score, where it is available? -- Kristian M Zoerhoff On Mar 5, 2011 8:09 PM, wrote: ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
