Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] IR boundary tagging
But, basically, what it boils down to, effectively, for us, is that tribal nations, as far as the current supreme court is concerned, views such areas as being much more analogous to Puerto Rico and Guam than as states, cities or counties. PR and Guam are subservient territories of the US, but aren't states. What's the tagging for them relative to the rest of the US? On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 1:00 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > I don't see how that's the case, the reason being that the Supreme Court > has clearly ruled that tribes are above the state but semi-dependant on the > fed, as far as the law is concerned. Furthermore, the state may still > intervene, but has the option not to in situations where it would otherwise > be obligated, in tribal regions. This makes a state not dissimilar to a > county relative to the tribe, particularly in cases like the Navajo and > Iroquois, whose jurisdiction crosses state boundaries. > > > On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 12:56 AM, Paul Norman wrote: > >> >> On 2014-07-18 10:53 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: >> >>> I should add that I do not intend on changing state boundaries, just >>> mapping indian nations where I know the boundaries to lie on the ground, as >>> higher than state, lower than the country, inside the US only, if that >>> wasn't clear on the admin level argument. It would still be possible to >>> render a map without such excluded territory at a state level, since, in >>> practice, there's a LOT of overlap in responsibilities and jurisdiction. >>> >>> What you're proposing badly breaks admin hierarchies - hence the need >> to carve the bits out of the states if you wanted to go that route. >> > > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] IR boundary tagging
I don't see how that's the case, the reason being that the Supreme Court has clearly ruled that tribes are above the state but semi-dependant on the fed, as far as the law is concerned. Furthermore, the state may still intervene, but has the option not to in situations where it would otherwise be obligated, in tribal regions. This makes a state not dissimilar to a county relative to the tribe, particularly in cases like the Navajo and Iroquois, whose jurisdiction crosses state boundaries. On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 12:56 AM, Paul Norman wrote: > > On 2014-07-18 10:53 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > >> I should add that I do not intend on changing state boundaries, just >> mapping indian nations where I know the boundaries to lie on the ground, as >> higher than state, lower than the country, inside the US only, if that >> wasn't clear on the admin level argument. It would still be possible to >> render a map without such excluded territory at a state level, since, in >> practice, there's a LOT of overlap in responsibilities and jurisdiction. >> >> What you're proposing badly breaks admin hierarchies - hence the need to > carve the bits out of the states if you wanted to go that route. > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] IR boundary tagging
On 2014-07-18 10:53 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: I should add that I do not intend on changing state boundaries, just mapping indian nations where I know the boundaries to lie on the ground, as higher than state, lower than the country, inside the US only, if that wasn't clear on the admin level argument. It would still be possible to render a map without such excluded territory at a state level, since, in practice, there's a LOT of overlap in responsibilities and jurisdiction. What you're proposing badly breaks admin hierarchies - hence the need to carve the bits out of the states if you wanted to go that route. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] IR boundary tagging
I should add that I do not intend on changing state boundaries, just mapping indian nations where I know the boundaries to lie on the ground, as higher than state, lower than the country, inside the US only, if that wasn't clear on the admin level argument. It would still be possible to render a map without such excluded territory at a state level, since, in practice, there's a LOT of overlap in responsibilities and jurisdiction. On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > OK, given pnroman's git maps, and recent court cases, where's the problem > in my proposed tagging of indian nations, overlapping states but below the > US proper? > > > On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > >> Looks about right. So...what's the issue? >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 5:59 PM, Paul Norman wrote: >> >>> >>> On 2014-06-25 3:36 PM, Steve All wrote: >>> Paul Norman wrote: > I took TIGER data and produced data showing what some states would look > like: https://gist.github.com/pnorman/30244b2984216285735d > Those are truly excellent visualizations, Paul. Thank you for producing them. Whether "right" or "wrong" this shows the power of a little bit of OSM, a little bit of geojson magic, and a little bit of "what if?" Nice! SteveA California >>> >>> >>> In case anyone was wondering how I produced these, I loaded the TIGER >>> state >>> and reserve shapefiles into a postgis database, created a new table with >>> reserves subtracted from each state, used ogr2ogr to pull out data state >>> by >>> state into a geojson with simplification, and uploaded to github as a >>> gist. >>> >>> I opted not to use OSM data because it was both too large when I only >>> needed >>> states, and many reserves are not yet in OSM. Additionally, at the level >>> of >>> detail I was after, I knew that TIGER would have no issues. >>> >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> Talk-us mailing list >>> talk...@openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us >>> >> >> > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] IR boundary tagging
OK, given pnroman's git maps, and recent court cases, where's the problem in my proposed tagging of indian nations, overlapping states but below the US proper? On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > Looks about right. So...what's the issue? > > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 5:59 PM, Paul Norman wrote: > >> >> On 2014-06-25 3:36 PM, Steve All wrote: >> >>> Paul Norman wrote: >>> I took TIGER data and produced data showing what some states would look like: https://gist.github.com/pnorman/30244b2984216285735d >>> >>> Those are truly excellent visualizations, Paul. Thank you for producing >>> them. Whether "right" or "wrong" this shows the power of a little bit of >>> OSM, a little bit of geojson magic, and a little bit of "what if?" Nice! >>> >>> SteveA >>> California >>> >> >> >> In case anyone was wondering how I produced these, I loaded the TIGER >> state >> and reserve shapefiles into a postgis database, created a new table with >> reserves subtracted from each state, used ogr2ogr to pull out data state >> by >> state into a geojson with simplification, and uploaded to github as a >> gist. >> >> I opted not to use OSM data because it was both too large when I only >> needed >> states, and many reserves are not yet in OSM. Additionally, at the level >> of >> detail I was after, I knew that TIGER would have no issues. >> >> >> >> ___ >> Talk-us mailing list >> talk...@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us >> > > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] cycle.travel bike routing for Western Europe
It hasn't been done on osrm.at because each routing profile require a separate instance of OSRM. The bicycle profile is available in OSRM for quite some time now, but I've yet to find a public OSRM instance with bicycle or foot routing... On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 7:00 PM, wrote: > Am 18.07.2014 19:01, schrieb Richard Fairhurst - rich...@systemed.net: > > I'm pleased to report that http://cycle.travel/map now defaults to > > kilometres for European routes. :) > > Thanks! > > By the way, it's great work you've done. Thank you very much for the > map on cycle.travel! You can't imagine how long I've been waiting for > osrm.at to integrate bicycle routing. > > You made my day, Richard. > > Cheers. > John > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] cycle.travel bike routing for Western Europe
Am 18.07.2014 19:01, schrieb Richard Fairhurst - rich...@systemed.net: > I'm pleased to report that http://cycle.travel/map now defaults to > kilometres for European routes. :) Thanks! By the way, it's great work you've done. Thank you very much for the map on cycle.travel! You can't imagine how long I've been waiting for osrm.at to integrate bicycle routing. You made my day, Richard. Cheers. John ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] cycle.travel bike routing for Western Europe
I'm pleased to report that http://cycle.travel/map now defaults to kilometres for European routes. :) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/cycle-travel-bike-routing-for-Western-Europe-tp5811759p5811927.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
