Re: [Talk-us] Marking structure as damaged or condemned

[Dave Swarthout]

Another thing that will help future mappers is to add a note tag that
informs them what you did and why so they don't add the building back again
because it will still be visible in the satellite imagery. Add the date as
well.

On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 8:13 AM Eric H. Christensen via Talk-us <
talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Tropical Storm Isaias left several homes in my neighborhood severely
> damaged and condemned.  Is there a proper way to map these structures?
>
> Thanks,
> Eric
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Labeling forestry service roads/tracks

[Dave Swarthout]

Brad, using Alaska as an example, these roads are in fact, compacted by
vehicles driving on them. I have occasionally seen a power-roller or
sheepsfoot roller used to compact rural roads but such specialized gear is
mostly used during the building of larger highways. Typically a road is
built up with different sized gravels on top of a geotextile base. The
last, top-most layer is a mixture of fine-grained gravel, clay and normal
soil which is bladed smooth by a power grader. If the top-layer is
correctly composed, which depends somewhat on its proximity to a supply of
the proper materials, such a road can be quite nice to drive on. However,
rain will degrade that surface eventually and it will need to be
resurfaced. This is done on a fairly regular basis, but not IMO often
enough. And of course, they are dusty in dry weather and messy in wet
weather. The best time by far for driving on them is in winter.

I have never seen any such road compacted with equipment after the first
construction. The geotextile layer is critical to prevent heavy damage from
frost heave. All unpaved roads are built with geotextile, even driveways,
because otherwise they would simply sink out of sight in the spring thaws.
I live in Thailand half the year and always think to myself how easy it is
here to create a road. Simply scrape the area free of vegetation and large
rocks, build a form, dump some concrete over wire mesh inside the form,
smooth it a bit and you're done. Later on, do you need water for a home
across the street? Just lay the pipe atop the concrete, put a ridge of
asphalt or cement to hold it in place and you're all set. Water pipes in
Alaska must be a minimum of 4-feet below grade.

Hope this helps.

On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 8:09 PM brad  wrote:

> Hmmm, interesting.   I'm not sure they compact very many roads around
> here (CO).  Maybe a regional difference.  It seems like they put a thick
> layer of gravel on and let the traffic compact it.   Not fun to ride on
> with a bike, or a motorcycle.
> Do rocks tend to come to the surface of a compacted road and create a
> ball bearing interface?   If they grade it after initial construction,
> do they subsequently compact it again too?
>
> On 7/19/20 9:27 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 9:29 PM brad  > <mailto:bradha...@fastmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for diving in.   If it's a very minor unimproved road and
> > not clearly service, I usually tag it track.   I would suggest
> > adding some indication of road quality.   If it's an improved
> > gravel road, I consider surface=gravel sufficient.   If it's
> > rougher than an improved gravel road, surface=unpaved (in my area
> > the surface is usually a mix of dirt, rocks, gravel, so unpaved
> > seems best),   and smoothness=very_bad (high clearance), or
> > horrible (4wd)
> > [https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness], or
> > 4wd_only=yes .
> >
> >
> > A nit: most 'improved' gravel roads are surface=compacted.  'gravel'
> > is like rail ballast; a compacted surface ordinarily has a mix of fine
> > gravel and even finer material such as sand, and is rolled. Americans
> > will often refer to a compacted road as a 'dirt' or 'gravel' road but
> > the difference is like night and day when you're driving on one!
> >
> > For the rougher stuff, 'smoothness' is essential. Consider also
> > 'tracktype', which addresses more the firmness of the surface rather
> > than its smoothness. A clay surface may be lovely in a dry season and
> > impassable in a wet one, despite having a fast enough slump that the
> > surface is deceptively smooth.
> >
> > Some National Forests separate Forest Highway (a regular access road)
> > and Forest Road (usually a logging track, might be inaccessible in any
> > given season, and often passable only to logging trucks and similar
> > high-clearance off-road vehicles). I don't know if any of them overlay
> > the numbering of the two systems.
> >
> > _Please_ create route relations!
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Labeling forestry service roads/tracks

[Dave Swarthout]

Kevin wrote::
A nit: most 'improved' gravel roads are surface=compacted.  'gravel' is
like rail ballast; a compacted surface ordinarily has a mix of fine gravel
and even finer material such as sand, and is rolled. Americans will often
refer to a compacted road as a 'dirt' or 'gravel' road but the difference
is like night and day when you're driving on one!

I must admit, this one really got me. For much of life when I lived in New
York state, where Kevin and I are from, locals called all unpaved roads
"dirt roads". When I started using OSM, I realized that the definition of
"dirt" here is closer to "ground" so I began to use either unpaved or
gravel for the surfaces of rural roads in Alaska and Thailand. Eventually,
I found out that gravel means the type of stones found on railroads, which
is big chunks of crushed rock and that the surface of the improved roads I
was tagging was actually surface=compacted with tracktype=grade2. The type
of mapping I do is 90% armchair mapping so it's difficult to ascertain
these characteristics so I default to surface=unpaved in most cases. Alaska
is an exception because most rural roads below the tertiary class are
well-prepared, unpaved compacted surface roads. These I feel confidant to
tag with surface=compacted and tracktype=grade2

My 2 cents.

On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 12:20 PM Clifford Snow 
wrote:

> If you are using JOSM there is a USFS road layer. The color of the way
> indicates surface and highway classification if I remember correctly. I
> posted the legend on Slack a couple of years ago.
>
> The TIGER import data quality varied from region to region. Even today in
> Washington State it's bad, so bad that I don't recommend using it. My guess
> is that it's low priority for counties to update Feds, especially when
> their budgets are already tight. There is even one county in Washington
> State that they don't even have a current road layer.
>
> Best,
> Clifford
>
> On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 3:48 PM  wrote:
>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> Editing in Boundary County, Idaho in the Panhandle, I've been extending
>> the forest landuse area around Bonners Ferry and have come across a
>> difficulty in classifying forest roads.
>>
>> It seems that many have been automatically imported and have
>> highway=residential, which is just plain wrong.
>>
>> For roads that appear metalled (paved) and/or access mines, quarries,
>> communication towers etc. I label highway=service, for roads that are
>> unpaved or sometimes seem to almost fade out I label highway=track. For
>> roads that appear to be public access (e.g. to go to a lake) but are
>> obviously even more minor than tertiary roads I label
>> highway=unclassified.
>>
>> Is there a more consistent recommended method?
>>
>> The US Topo map gives forest road references so I add ref FS .
>>
>> TIGER seems to be at best very coarse, at worst fictional.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Labeling forestry service roads/tracks

[Dave Swarthout]

Mike, welcome to the real world. Tiger street data is better than nothing
but not much. It's positionally inaccurate and many roads are wrongly
classified. a rough guide at best. I do use the Tiger Roads 2019 overlay to
add names to streets and roads though. The names are reasonably accurate in
my experience.

On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 5:57 AM Mike Thompson  wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 4:49 PM  wrote:
>
>>  For
>> roads that appear to be public access (e.g. to go to a lake) but are
>> obviously even more minor than tertiary roads I label
>> highway=unclassified.
>>
> highway=unclassified are for roads that connect small towns, or for "local
> traffic", while access to a lake could be considered "local traffic", I
> would think it would be better if these would be highway=service, or
> highway=track.
>
>
>> The US Topo map gives forest road references so I add ref FS .
>>
> That is what I have been doing as well. Some are recommending that they be
> made into route relations, which I am starting to do.
>
>>
>> TIGER seems to be at best very coarse, at worst fictional.
>>
> +1
>
> Mike
> _______
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Interested in importing address points in New York State

[Dave Swarthout]

There is a very experienced OSM mapper who has extensive knowledge of NYS
databases. He is Kevin Kenny and his OSM email is
kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com

I'm pretty sure he will know something about copyright issues. I supply his
email because I'm not sure if he monitors this list.

On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 4:28 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us <
talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
> Jul 16, 2020, 06:44 by o...@dead10ck.com:
>
> I found that NYS publishes GIS data in their "Clearing House", and one of
> the data sets available is address points:
> https://gis.ny.gov/gisdata/inventories/details.cfm?DSID=921
>
> I opened the data in JOSM, and they look spatially accurate, for the most
> part (I noticed some points are off for addresses that don't have recent
> satellite imagery available).
>
> Reading up on the import guidelines, I can see that the license is
> important. However, I am not able to see anything that explicitly states
> one way or another what kind of license the data sets are distributed under
>
> Hello and thanks for checking before the import!
> License is important, sadly it seems to not be specified anywhere.
>
> , and this whether or not it is compatible with the ODBL. I wanted to ask
> if perhaps anyone else had investigated these data sets in the past, and
> what their findings were. If not, is the next step to email someone and ask?
>
> I just looked at it and it seems that either it is not specified or I
> missed it.
>
> If nobody will be able to locate that info then emailing specified contact
> would be a good next step.
>
> Note
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_works_by_subnational_governments_of_the_United_States#New_York
>
> So unlike work of federal government it is not automatically public domain.
>
> On the other hand, it may be unoriginal database... Still, the preferred
> version is to have an explicit
> license.
>
> I don't have anything like an extensive plan for carrying out an import,
> which is why I did not include the "authoritative" imports mailing list
> yet. However, at a high level, as I am a software engineer by trade, my
> plan is to write a script that reads the shapefiles and an .osm file dump
> as input, does the attribute to tag transformations, and deduplicates with
> the existing data by excluding any address points that already exist in any
> OSM object with equivalent addr:* tags (it might also be necessary to
> inspect all associatedStreet and street relations). It would produce an
> .osm as output that contains nodes with just addr:* tags. This can then be
> opened in JOSM and merged into the standard data layer. I'd probably start
> with a single county and go from there.
>
> Similar things were done already so remember to check whatever existing
> tools for
> converting and conflation are good enough to use/modify rather than start
> from scratch.
>
> As a disclaimer, I do this in my free time, which is in short supply, so
> progress on this would likely be slow.
>
> Like OSM mapping in general.
>
> However, I would love if everyone could just search for any address and
> find it.
>
> +1
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] USGS Topo layer for JOSM?

[Dave Swarthout]

Once I restarted JOSM, the old USGS Topo layer disappeared and after a
longish search through the Imagery Preferences, finally located the new
layer. I'd have never figured out what went wrong had Todd not posted this
question. The folks who did this also did a great job of hiding the new
layer. I use those maps all day, every day. Sheesh!

On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 10:25 PM Kevin Kenny 
wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 8:49 AM Brandon Cobb 
> wrote:
> >
> > It still exists in JOSM, it just looks like the imagery was renamed to
> “USA/Mexico/Canada/Scandinavia Topo Maps”.
>
> AHA! There it is! Up at the top under 'Worldwide", rather than listed
> under "US", which is why I didn't spot the replacement.
> There seems to have been an issue where the old menu item stuck around
> but didn't work.  But that's all right, a little bit of poking at
> 'Edit->Preferences->WMS/TMS' and it's all hunky-dory.  Thanks!
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] USGS Topo layer for JOSM?

[Dave Swarthout]

That's weird. I still see it both as an active working layer and as a
choice in my Imagery Preferences but maybe that's because I've been using
the same session of JOSM for a few days running. I see nothing having the
name “USA/Mexico/Canada/Scandinavia Topo Maps”. I'm afraid to delete the
USGS Topo entry and restart JOSM now because I'm in the middle of a big
edit and don't want to lose it.

Here's the URL I'm using - tms[1,16]:
https://caltopo.s3.amazonaws.com/topo/{zoom}/{x}/{y}.png

On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 12:57 PM Brandon Cobb 
wrote:

> It still exists in JOSM, it just looks like the imagery was renamed to
> “USA/Mexico/Canada/Scandinavia Topo Maps”.
>
>
>
> This appears to be the change:
> https://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Maps/Worldwide?action=diff=101_version=100
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Brandon
>
>
>
> *From:* Mike Thompson 
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 13, 2020 10:43 PM
> *To:* David Swarthout 
> *Cc:* Tod Fitch ; Open Street Map Talk-US <
> talk-us@openstreetmap.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-us] USGS Topo layer for JOSM?
>
>
>
> Dave,
>
>
>
> Can you provide the URL so those of us that no longer have access can
> manually add it back in?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 9:40 PM Mike Thompson  wrote:
>
> I use it quite often.  It is good for names of water bodies.  However, I
> just checked now, and it doesn't seem to be listed on the imagery menu any
> more.
>
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 9:37 PM Dave Swarthout 
> wrote:
>
> I'm still seeing it and using it for my mapping chores in Alaska.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 9:27 AM Tod Fitch  wrote:
>
> Sometime pretty recently the USGS topographic map layer disappeared from
> JOSM and I don’t even see it in the available layers to add back in. I
> don’t use it a lot, but when I want to verify the direction of flow of a
> stream, etc. it comes in very useful.
>
> Is it just my configuration having a problem or has this layer been
> officially removed?
>
> —Tod
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> <https://eur06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.openstreetmap.org%2Flistinfo%2Ftalk-us=02%7C01%7C%7Cdee0ba34490b498687f308d810152d87%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637277030424929127=xiyCvEsxr4ZAvJ2ueibW3QcSKHgTwhgBKSU4M%2BR47pM%3D=0>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Dave Swarthout
> Homer, Alaska
> Chiang Mai, Thailand
> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
> <https://eur06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdswarthout.blogspot.com%2F=02%7C01%7C%7Cdee0ba34490b498687f308d810152d87%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637277030424939108=Q3EfaXDApGyv33eGtmhL9qOA56JtbVdsgQ0kWRe%2Bh58%3D=0>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> <https://eur06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.openstreetmap.org%2Flistinfo%2Ftalk-us=02%7C01%7C%7Cdee0ba34490b498687f308d810152d87%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637277030424939108=uHPDl1btSVTN9Rjo0hPjk0Kd9njmtKSv3Qf7BTfJFRo%3D=0>
>
>

-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] USGS Topo layer for JOSM?

[Dave Swarthout]

I'm still seeing it and using it for my mapping chores in Alaska.

On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 9:27 AM Tod Fitch  wrote:

> Sometime pretty recently the USGS topographic map layer disappeared from
> JOSM and I don’t even see it in the available layers to add back in. I
> don’t use it a lot, but when I want to verify the direction of flow of a
> stream, etc. it comes in very useful.
>
> Is it just my configuration having a problem or has this layer been
> officially removed?
>
> —Tod
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] USGS Topos, "Draw", "Gulch", etc.

[Dave Swarthout]

> Could be a canyon, or the stream at the bottom of it.  Context is king
when it comes to the names we gave things in the US.

+1

That would be my answer as well. In my experience working mostly in Alaska,
a "gulch" is usually a valley.

On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 1:38 AM Mike Thompson  wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 12:30 PM Tod Fitch  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > With respect to names on USGS topographic maps: At least on most of the
> old “historic” quads I have they used a different typeface/typographic
> treatment for waterways versus valleys/canyons/draws/gulches. So you might
> take your clue from that.
> >
> Good point! On the particular map I am looking at creeks are labelled with
> a serif font and the "draws" etc. use a sanserif font.
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] How to map snowmobile trails in US?

[Dave Swarthout]

> Please only use highway=track when there is an forestry or agricultural
road / track which is passable by 2-track vehicles such as farm tractors,
logging trucks, or 4wd cars
+1

You might better use something like highway=path which allows for use by
multiple vehicle types (snowmobile, ATC, ATV) as well as on foot via
snowshoe or ski. Unless of course, it overlaps an agricultural or logging
track.

On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 11:14 PM Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> Winter-only snowmobile routes are mapped if they are signed. Create a
> route relation with type=route + route=snowmobile (used 141 times) - see
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aroute%3Dsnowmobile
>
> Please only use highway=track when there is an forestry or agricultural
> road / track which is passable by 2-track vehicles such as farm tractors,
> logging trucks, or 4wd cars.
>
> -- Joseph Eisenberg
>
> (You might try the Tagging mailing list for questions about how to tag
> something: tagg...@openstreetmap.org)
>
> On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 8:43 AM Kevin Broderick 
> wrote:
>
>> Ideally, I'd say that most snowmobile routes should be relations, not
>> ways. At least in the places I'm familiar with (New England and Montana), a
>> significant portion of the snowmobile trail network overlaps with seasonal
>> roads that are open to wheeled traffic in some conditions. Having the
>> summer ground truth mapped accurately is hugely helpful if you're poking
>> around in the summer, whether it be hiking, biking, riding an on/off-road
>> motorcycle, etc; as you noted, some snowmachine trails are virtually
>> invisible in the summer and may even be impassable (I'm familiar with some
>> spots in Vermont where the snowmachine trails transit across swamp or
>> marshland once it's frozen—not something you want to try to cross on foot
>> or wheeled vehicle).
>>
>> Around here, there's also the side issue of someone having mapped one of
>> the ITS routes as a track for a long distance, when it actually should be a
>> series of ways with different data, as some parts are well-maintained
>> gravel roads in the summer, others are less-well-maintained, some are
>> public ways and others aren't.
>>
>> To answer the question about sections that specifically cross fields: I'd
>> still be tempted to tag that as highway=track, with appropriate access and
>> surface tags. I'm not sure it's the best way to do it, but I can't come up
>> with a better way, and the track in question would likely be passable with
>> permission and the right vehicle.
>>
>> As for sections that cross [frozen] marshes, or other areas that aren't
>> passable when the ground is thawed, I don't know. Maybe there is a use case
>> for "highway=frozen" or something similar, as ice_road is applied to
>> another way, and none of the highway= values with which  I'm familiar would
>> make sense.
>>
>> On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 10:41 AM Bob Gambrel  wrote:
>>
>>> Am newby to talk-us. This may have been discussed in the past but not
>>> handy with searching archives yet.
>>>
>>> In Minnesota I have seen snowmobile trails mapped in OSM as follows:
>>>
>>> highway=track
>>> snowmobile=designated
>>> surface=unpaved
>>>
>>> In both aerial photos and observation on the ground, there is almost
>>> always no track visible. In the winter, with snow cover, the location of
>>> the track is visible because it is compacted by snowmobiles. In the spring
>>> there might be some evidence in areas with grasses that would have been
>>> tamped down by the snowmobiles.
>>>
>>> Question: Is this the right way to map snowmobile trails? The thing that
>>> concerns me, of course, is the use of "track" because of it is not apparent
>>> most of the time.
>>>
>>> Another question: is there a forum or expert group or something that
>>> discusses this? I would like to join that conversation if there is  one
>>> going on.
>>>
>>> I think it is a good idea to map these trails. It seems there maybe
>>> should be another type of highway? Something like: "not visible on the
>>> ground most of the year". Note that ice_road=yes is not appropriate here
>>> (in most cases) as (in most cases) these trails are not on frozen water
>>> bodies.
>>>
>>> As further info, where I was able to observe there are a number of signs
>>> posted such as stop signs, caution signs, etc. So there clearly is
>>> government involvement.
>>>
>>> Any thoughts?
>>>
>>> _

Re: [Talk-us] Spot elevations collected as natural=peak and name=Point (height in feet)

[Dave Swarthout]

This is simply a way to get an otherwise unnamed peak to render and also, I
suspect, to sidestep the inconvenience of converting the elevation to
meters.  AFAIK, there are no peaks with the generic name "Point" on any
USGS Topos. In addition, placing the elevation into the name is another
trick that should be discouraged.

On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 2:38 PM Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

> If it is a peak then ele=XXX and noname=yes would be OK.
>
> If it is not a peak it should not be present at all - otherwise it opens
> way to importing
> LIDAR data into OSM (and there are datasets with resolution of 5 cm,
> dumping it
> into OSM would be case of unverifiable data making it impossible to edit).
>
> I opened https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1703462 to reduce chance that
> it will be discussed
> and forgotten.
>
> If this is really used name - then it would be OK but my bet is that this
> is not an actually used name.
>
> Mar 7, 2019, 7:04 PM by miketh...@gmail.com:
>
> It seems that there are a couple of mappers in Colorado US (at least,
> perhaps mapping in other areas as well) who are adding spot elevations
> (presumably from USGS Topo maps) to OSM tagging them as
> natural=peak
> name=Point (elevation in feet)
>
> For example:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4601119717
>
> What does the community think about this?
>
> natural=peak might be ok if said spot elevation is really a local high
> point (some are not).  The name I am less sure of. If this belongs on the
> map at all, it should probably have an ele tag, with value in meters.
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] US Bureau of Land Management Boundaries

[Dave Swarthout]

Absolutely agree with your assessment of the management style of the BLM,
Michael. In Alaska, BLM land is literally crisscrossed with ATV trails.
It's a travesty but there's nobody around to enforce the rules and the
amount of land under BLM's "care" is truly humongous. Unmanageable, even
without a government shutdown.

On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 10:05 AM Michael Patrick  wrote:

>
> > Joseph,   I'm not stuck on class 27, but as you say, that fits the
>> definition on the wiki.   I should probably look for other specific
>> protection in the attributes and translate that somehow.   Mostly it's just
>> grazing and recreation land.   Anything such as wilderness or monument
>> would definitely be tagged as such.
>>
>
> "Multiple uses under BLM management include renewable energy development
> (solar, wind, other); conventional energy development (oil and gas, coal);
> livestock grazing; hardrock mining (gold, silver, other), timber
> harvesting; and outdoor recreation (such as camping, hunting, rafting, and
> off-highway vehicle driving). ... 36 million-acre system of National
> Conservation Lands (including wilderness areas, wilderness study areas,
> national monuments, national conservation areas, historic trails, and wild
> and scenic rivers); protecting wild horse and burro rangeland; conserving
> wildlife, fish, and plant habitat"
>
> Also agriculture. Burning Man's Black Rock City is leased from BLM under
> an Special Recreation Permit (SRP). ... " crop harvesting, residential
> occupancy, recreation facilities, construction equipment storage, assembly
> yards, well pumps, and other uses." So, even though it might be BLM, it
> could also be under a 50 year lease to a commercial entity, so for all
> intents and purposes be regarded as private property - like massive solar (
> 19 million acres  ) and wind ( 20 million acres  ) energy farms. I seem to
> recall a Nevada brothel was at one time operating on BLM land with a lease
> and permit - pretty much, as long as you don't leave the land damaged and
> it doesn't interfere with other planned uses, you can get a lease.
>
> Just saying, one class isn't going to do it. Mostly, 'exploited', not
> 'protected'.
>
> Michael Patrick
> Data Ferret
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] US Bureau of Land Management Boundaries

[Dave Swarthout]

amp; elsewhere)
>>
>> Convert to OSM with ogr2osm and the following tags
>>  tags.update({'type':'boundary'})
>>  tags.update({'boundary':'protected_area'})
>>  tags.update({'operator':'BLM'})
>>  tags.update({'ownership':'national'})
>>  tags.update({'protect_class':'27'})
>>  tags.update({'source':'US BLM'})
>>  use the shapefile attribute 'Unit_Nm' as the name
>>
>> Import with JOSM
>>
>> The San Luis unit (CO) is here for your inspection.
>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/qxv5gny2396ewki/sanLuisBLM.osm?dl=0
>>
>> Comments?
>>
>
> ___
> 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
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Gravel roads and surface tags in the US

[Dave Swarthout]

"I'm totally open to suggestions for alternatives.  Gravel certainly
doesn't describe that kind of coarse crushed rock to most people, but what
do you call that concisely?"

The roadway in the OP's opening post has what I would definitely tag as a
gravel surface but it has obviously been groomed to carry heavier traffic
than many similar roads. Thus surface=gravel or surface=unpaved along with
tracktype=grade1 (wiki: grade1 = Usually a paved or heavily compacted
hardcore surface). Whether such roads have actually been mechanically
compacted isn't obvious from their appearance. Perhaps some sort of
final step was employed to prepare them for use.

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 2:48 PM, Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018, 16:41 Dave Swarthout <daveswarth...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> " I'm kind of thinking that the gravel surface in the wiki would be
>> better redone as surface=ballast. "
>>
>> -1
>>
>> I hope you won't push for this.
>>
>
> I'm totally open to suggestions for alternatives.  Gravel certainly
> doesn't describe that kind of coarse crushed rock to most people, but what
> do you call that concisely?
>
> In my experience, the only association the word "ballast" has with any
>> sort of roadway is with railroads.
>>
>
> It is definitely a thing for pretty much any kind of improved road, though
> there are some exceptions that usually turn out worse than unimproved.
> Many paths in metro Portland were paved in asphalt without ballast and have
> degraded rapidly as gophers have dug out the dirt under the asphalt
> allowing the asphalt to collapse into the gopher tunnels over the years.
> And generally, the more ballast under the surface, the heavier the loads
> and higher the speed the road is capable of handling reasonably.
>
> And, as I said before, the idea of actual railroad ballast being used as
>> the surface of a road is totally foreign to me.
>>
>
> It is relatively rare, largely limited to agricultural and temporary
> applications, at least in the US.
>
>
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Gravel roads and surface tags in the US

[Dave Swarthout]

" I'm kind of thinking that the gravel surface in the wiki would be better
redone as surface=ballast. "

-1

I hope you won't push for this. In my experience, the only association the
word "ballast" has with any sort of roadway is with railroads. And, as I
said before, the idea of actual railroad ballast being used as the surface
of a road is totally foreign to me. Although such roads may exist
somewhere, in my travels I have NEVER seen a rural unpaved road with
anything even resembling railroad ballast for a surface.

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 1:54 PM, Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018, 21:51 Harald Kliems <kli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think compacted is definitely the best way to tag, but I agree with
>> Toby's point that common terms conflicting with OSM terminology is going to
>> lead to lots of errors. Looking at my own edits, I have mistakenly used
>> surface=gravel quite frequently. Not really sure what to do -- a "did you
>> really mean to tag 'surface=gravel'?" error message/tooltip in the editor?
>> I think actual gravel in the sense of the wiki is quite rare.
>>
>
> I'm kind of thinking that the gravel surface in the wiki would be better
> redone as surface=ballast.
>
> The only things that grain of gravel gets used for that might be regularly
> observed by laymen (yeah, I know about building foundations, sand filters,
> French drains, etc) would be roadbeds surfaced by something else (gravel;
> compacted gravel that's basically a paved road minus the tar and binders;
> asphalt; concrete; etc, thus making this material visible only during
> construction, repair or severe decay; or rails), and to fill in
> particularly bad parts of trails or tracks that got washed out before.
>
>
> _______
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Gravel roads and surface tags in the US

[Dave Swarthout]

 + I grew up in an area with these kinds of roads and I don't think
+ they're technically compacted.

Same here - "dirt roads", as we used to call them, are not compacted except
by vehicles driving on them. I learned the term "compacted" in OSM. In my
area, NY State and Alaska, the gravel is what's known as pit run, or is dug
from gravel quarries, spread out with a road-grader and not normally
compacted. Once or twice a year, a road-grader goes out and scrapes the
surface to remove ruts and potholes.

I often use surface=unpaved now just to avoid controversy and use
surface=ground when the surface has not been constructed from fill— people
simply drive on a road that's been cut through an area.

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 6:22 AM, James Umbanhowar <jumba...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I grew up in an area with these kinds of roads and I don't think
> they're technically compacted.  The gravel, which is crushed
> limerstone, is laid down and due to its chemical properties creates a
> smooth surface after several months of traffic.
>
> I've used surface=gravel; gravel=crushed_limestone in my area.  I don't
> get the gravel being 4-8 cm, that seems a wikierror.
>
> James
>
> On Wed, 2018-04-18 at 17:19 -0500, Toby Murray wrote:
> > I recently bought a gravel bicycle to ride on the many gravel roads
> > in
> > Kansas. Like this one:
> > https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=nYO4JI46L0SWzNAQlLT4kA=phot
> > o
> >
> > First question: What would you call this road? Obviously I am calling
> > it a "gravel road" but a couple of people have said they would call
> > it
> > a "dirt road" so I'm curious if there are any other common terms to
> > describe this type of road in different regions of the US.
> >
> > Second question: How would you tag this road? There is a
> > surface=gravel tag that is in pretty common usage in Kansas and
> > neighboring states. However looking at the wiki page for the surface
> > tag[1], this is not wiki-correct. According to that page
> > surface=gravel is to be used for large rocks (4-8cm) that are laid
> > down loosely like those typically used as ballast on railroad beds. I
> > believe The Mapillary picture I linked to would be considered
> > surface=compacted according to the wiki because the rocks are much
> > smaller and the surface is stabilized with a binding agent. There is
> > a
> > big difference between the two when it comes to bicycle riding.
> > Railroad ballast is bone jarring and flat tire inducing whereas
> > gravel
> > roads are pretty manageable on the right kind of bike.
> >
> > But If you call something a "gravel road" and there is a "gravel"
> > option in the editor preset for the surface tag, people are going to
> > choose the gravel option and not look for "compacted" since that is
> > not a common term here. I assume it is a more common term in the UK
> > and that is why it is used in OSM.
> >
> > And lastly there are trails that are surfaced with a similar material
> > but crushed to a smaller size like here:
> > https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=iQNqP-dfQ-Rm6AD9REMsgQ=phot
> > o
> >
> > I'm trying to decide if that is better as surface=compacted or
> > surface=fine_gravel although fine_gravel seems to be a slightly
> > different process from what I see on the wiki.
> >
> > Maybe this should be directed at the tagging list but I thought I
> > would get thoughts from the US community since we seem to be the ones
> > using the tag incorrectly (according to the wiki)
> >
> > [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface
> >
> > Toby
> >
> > ___
> > 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
>



-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Gravel roads and surface tags in the US

[Dave Swarthout]

This topic gets revisited from time to time and as you'll see, opinions
differ about how to tag these surfaces. For your example, I would tag it as
surface=gravel and tracktype=grade1. You can also include a smoothness=*
tag to further characterize its drivability.

I have never seen a highway for automotive or truck use that used railroad
ballast for a surface. And if I did, I would avoid driving on it at all
costs.

On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 4:36 PM, Jack Burke <burke...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I've been tagging roads like that as compacted, once I learned more about
> the surfacing tech.
>
> -jack
>
> --
> Typos courtesy of fancy auto spell technology
>
> On April 18, 2018 6:19:07 PM EDT, Toby Murray <toby.mur...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I recently bought a gravel bicycle to ride on the many gravel roads in
>> Kansas. Like this one:
>> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=nYO4JI46L0SWzNAQlLT4kA=photo
>>
>> First question: What would you call this road? Obviously I am calling
>> it a "gravel road" but a couple of people have said they would call it
>> a "dirt road" so I'm curious if there are any other common terms to
>> describe this type of road in different regions of the US.
>>
>> Second question: How would you tag this road? There is a
>> surface=gravel tag that is in pretty common usage in Kansas and
>> neighboring states. However looking at the wiki page for the surface
>> tag[1], this is not wiki-correct. According to that page
>> surface=gravel is to be used for large rocks (4-8cm) that are laid
>> down loosely like those typically used as ballast on railroad beds. I
>> believe The Mapillary picture I linked to would be considered
>> surface=compacted according to the wiki because the rocks are much
>> smaller and the surface is stabilized with a binding agent. There is a
>> big difference between the two when it comes to bicycle riding.
>> Railroad ballast is bone jarring and flat tire inducing whereas gravel
>> roads are pretty manageable on the right kind of bike.
>>
>> But If you call something a "gravel road" and there is a "gravel"
>> option in the editor preset for the surface tag, people are going to
>> choose the gravel option and not look for "compacted" since that is
>> not a common term here. I assume it is a more common term in the UK
>> and that is why it is used in OSM.
>>
>> And lastly there are trails that are surfaced with a similar material
>> but crushed to a smaller size like here:
>> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=iQNqP-dfQ-Rm6AD9REMsgQ=photo
>>
>> I'm trying to decide if that is better as surface=compacted or
>> surface=fine_gravel although fine_gravel seems to be a slightly
>> different process from what I see on the wiki.
>>
>> Maybe this should be directed at the tagging list but I thought I
>> would get thoughts from the US community since we seem to be the ones
>> using the tag incorrectly (according to the wiki)
>>
>> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface
>>
>> Toby
>>
>> --
>>
>> 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
>
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Edit war after MapRoulette motorway downgrading task

[Dave Swarthout]

What are  "node hoarders" and "node police mappers"? Up to now, I've never
heard either term.

Cheers,

Dave

On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 12:50 PM, Greg Morgan <dr.kludge...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 5:20 PM, Clay Smalley <claysmal...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I'm... shocked. This is a really confrontational way of addressing
>> things, and it really doesn't make me feel good contributing here. I'm just
>> gonna take a break from editing for a bit. I don't want to add fuel to
>> the fire by reverting the edits.
>>
>> What's the best way to address this?
>>
>>
> You asked for an opinion.  Node hoarders and node police mappers hurt the
> project the most.  Regardless if you are right or wrong, you were changing
> data right in UAN51's area of interest.  Try not to take the reversions
> personally.  Develop a detached sense from your work and what other's do
> with it.  The best way to handle it is just let it go.  It was just a few
> tags.  The situation is escalating now that another mapper is jumping into
> the question.  Moreover, the best thing that you can do right now is make
> at least one small changeset a day in your normal area of interest.  That
> will get you over the sting that you might feel right now. I am sure there
> are plenty of items to add to the map in the metro Houston area.
>
> I hope this helps,
> Greg
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] SPAM-LOW: Re: Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

[Dave Swarthout]

hey're not drivable.
>>>
>>> The 'dirt roads' range from 'highway=path abandoned:highway=track
>>> smoothness=impassable' to 'highway=tertiary surface=compacted
>>> smoothness=intermediate', with no way for an armchair mapper to tell among
>>> them.
>>>
>>> The old road maps that they used to give out at gas stations had, on
>>> many of these roads, "inquire locally for conditions," which is still good
>>> advice. The signage may say, "LIMITED PURPOSE SEASONAL-USE ROAD: No
>>> maintenance November 1-April 15" - but in practice, they'll keep it open
>>> later in the Autumn unless the snow comes early, and when they open it in
>>> the spring depends on when the crews can get it clear - it could be weeks
>>> late if there's been a bad washout or rock slide. There's absolutely no way
>>> to tag and encode that sort of thing. Inquire locally for conditions.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-us mailing list
>>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Kevin Broderick
> k...@kevinbroderick.com
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing 
> listTalk-us@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] tiger name issue in New York

[Dave Swarthout]

I have noticed that as well. Aggravating, isn't it? I've not seen a sign
with "Adirondack Park" on any road I've driven there. I'm sure Kevin Kenny
will have some knowledge to contribute.

Cheers

Dave

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 8:14 PM, Max Erickson <maxerick...@gmail.com> wrote:

> About 1600 highways named "Adirondack Park" and another 300 named
> "Adirondack Park Preserve". Mostly service drives that are in
> Adirondack Park, but it seems unlikely that they are all actually
> named that way.
>
> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/vDk
>
>
> Max
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>



-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Integrating our open source data into OSM

[Dave Swarthout]

FWIW, I checked the positional accuracy for a few of the Cybo POIs in my
town of Homer, Alaska and some of them were close to reality and some not.
Any use of this data in my area will require extensive ground checking.

This concern may turn out to be academic because in looking through the
data the name Google pops up everywhere, as others have noted. I'll wait to
see how the licensing considerations go before doing anything else with it.

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Michael Patrick <geodes...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The Cybo "Terms of Use" page at https://yellowpages.cybo.com/terms/ 
> specifically
> mentions Google ...
>
> "This information is not to be reused for public display." and "We use
> various Google services or API's (e.g. Google Maps API). By using our
> services you are bound by Google's Terms of Service
> <https://www.google.com/policies/terms/>."
>
> Google itself is an aggregator, and licenses it's data from many, many
> providers. Which is why their ToCs are very restrictive. But even some of
> the 'Open Source' friends on https://yellowpages.cybo.com/friends/
> providing spatial data are problematical - I seem to recall a discussion of
> compatibility between OdbL and the Creative Commons flavors and Wikipedia.
>
> Probably easier to ask what portion of the Cybo data is contributed by
> individuals, and under what terms.
>
> Michael Patrick
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] hydrology Alaska

[Dave Swarthout]

The tracing for that pond ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/532622119) is
horrible IMO. This is the sort of geometry that drives me crazy when I look
at Alaskan coastlines. The long zig-zag at the top edge could be better
done with a few points and the adjoining ponds at the SE are very rough
approximations at best. I don't know what method you used to draw that pond
but please don't add any more that look like that one.

I have done extensive work in Alaska and I appreciate your intent to add
more Alaskan water bodies to OSM but please find another way to add them.
There are thousands of tiny ponds dotting the permafrost in northern
Alaska. Using your tracing technique will add hundreds of thousands of
points, many of them useless.

Dave
(AlaskaDave)

On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 8:01 AM, ANT Berezhnyi <velmyshanov...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> (sorry for my english)
>
> question:
>
> On 2017-10-16 02:33:13 UTC velmyshanovnyi
>
> http://www.hdyc.neis-one.org/?velmyshanovnyi
>
> wrote:
>
> ===
>
> so on the question ...
>
> Is it possible to vectorize the USGS on the OSM if there is no Landsat,
> and everything else in the clouds, or in the snow, or the quality is bad ...
>
> Hello velmyshanovnyi , There are a number of questions here. One is "is it
> possible to vectorize the USGS". Another is "is it a good idea to do so".
>
> I'd suggest that you discuss what is the best source of imagery in this
> region with other mappers, such as "imagico" who commented on
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/52947504 . It may be that you
> need to use several sources and combine them manually because none of them
> are perfect. Also I would suggest asking on the talk-us and talk-ca mailing
> lists for advice.
>
> With regard to "is this a good idea" other mappers think it is not. You
> need to persuade them that it is. You need to explain what your process is.
> Your comment on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/52947504 that
> says "Im fixed my soft" suggests that you might be performing some kind of
> mechanical edit. If so, you need to follow https://wiki.
> openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mechanical_Edit_Policy , which requires you to
> discuss what you are proposing to do with other mappers before actually
> doing it.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SomeoneElse
> 
> My sample island/hydrology (JOSM+digitalglobe-premium+bing) not import,
> not bot :
> https://mc.bbbike.org/mc/?lon=-164.973165=60.843461=13=2=
> digitalglobe-premium=mapnik=hike_bike=ol_
> osm-no-labels=35
>
> after simplifacation (v2) :
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/52809320#map=16/60.
> 8221/-164.9684=H
> (before see v1)
> 
>
> IF:
> if there is a need to correct some hydrology somewhere - welcome 
>
>
> --
> ++ =
> ++ ANT (Anton Berezhnyi)
> ++ =
> ++ E-mail   : velmyshanov...@gmail.com
> ++ Hangouts : velmyshanov...@gmail.com
> ++ Telegram : @velmyshanovnyi
> ++ Skype: velmyshanovnyi
> ++ Viber: +380939946993 <093%20994%206993>
> ++ Cell : +380939946993 <093%20994%206993>
> ++ https://plus.google.com/+ANTBerezhnyi
> ++ https://profiles.google.com/velmyshanovnyi
> <http://profiles.google.com/velmyshanovnyi>
> ++ https://linkedin.com/in/velmyshanovnyi
> ++ https://facebook.com/velmyshanovnyi
> <http://facebook.com/velmyshanovnyi>
> ++ https://twitter.com/velmyshanovnyi <http://twitter.com/velmyshanovnyi>
> ++ =====
> ++ жNtTя, яК і iTNernЕТ,
> ++ нAЖалb, ТЕж к0лИСь
> ++ KіH4аЄтьCя..
> ++ =
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Dave Swarthout]

>Can you explain what your goal/desire is for these non-divided highways
>to be labeled trunk?  Is it about a small-scale render showing them,
>when if they are primary, Alaska looks empty when it shouldn't?  Some
>sense of hierarchical views of road networks?  Something else?

@Bradley - I didn't tag them originally and don't particularly care how
they're tagged. Routing in rural Alaska is pretty simple because there's
only one way to get from Anchorage to Fairbanks and to Homer, where I live
LOL. That's why I prefaced my comment by saying I have no stake in the
outcome of this conversation. I only want to stay tuned in so I can
understand any changes to our rationale.

Dave

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Bradley White 
wrote:

> > Message: 4
> > Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 21:24:20 -0500
> > From: Paul Johnson 
> > To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list 
> > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Trunk
> > Message-ID:
> > 

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Dave Swarthout]

>I don't think "important connecting role in the long distance road
>network" should have anything to do with it.   A regular US highway that
>is not divided, grade-separated, mostly limited access is still a key
>interconnecting road, and it's squarely "primary".  Most of US 20 is
>like this, as I understand it, and all or almost all of the parts I've
>driven on (MA, WY) are like that.

I don't really have a stake in the outcome of this discussion but wish to
again point out that Alaska is a state where "trunk" has been used to
designate highways that are ordinarily classified as primary but because
they are in a state with so few roads and in which they are the "only"
connectors between towns, have been tagged trunk highways. They are
high-speed, 65 mph in most cases, or I should say, in most sections, but
have driveways, intersections, and when passing through towns, lower speed
limits, traffic signals, etc.

Just an observation on an edge case that is moderately important in our
immense and 99% rural state.

Best,
AlaskaDave

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 6:30 AM, Greg Troxel <g...@lexort.com> wrote:

>
> Martijn van Exel <m...@rtijn.org> writes:
>
> > In the mean time, I decided to test some of the ideas posted here on a
> real
> > case: The part of Michigan SR 10 northwest of the I-696 interchange:
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/252973#map=13/42.5132/-83.3168
> >
> > Since 1) this road does not seem to serve an important connecting role in
> > the long distance road network 2) the density of abutters and related
> > driveway / parking exits I judged a downgrade warranted. Please discuss
> > here or on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/52903464 .
>
> If there are enough abutters and driveways (and use of them) that people
> driving on the road cannot basically act as if there are none, then it
> fails as trunk, so from your description, that sounds good.
>
> I don't think "important connecting role in the long distance road
> network" should have anything to do with it.   A regular US highway that
> is not divided, grade-separated, mostly limited access is still a key
> interconnecting road, and it's squarely "primary".  Most of US 20 is
> like this, as I understand it, and all or almost all of the parts I've
> driven on (MA, WY) are like that.
>
> > On the topic of tagging for the renderer, two things: 1) A US-specific
> > rendering would be really neat 2) Trunk 'appendices' like the one I
> > just downgraded do make rendering at low zooms tricky -- you end up
> > with short segments that seem to end in nothing.
>
> On point 2: Because the evolved rough consensus is about trunk being
> something that would have qualified for primary that also has superior
> physical characteristics, there is no reason to expect that displaying
> trunk but not primary will result in a connected network or a coherent
> map.  Displaying motorway but not trunk will likewise not be connected;
> e.g. parts of MA 2 are trunk and part are motorway (and in Boston and
> Western MA, merely primary).  The signed route is continuous and part of
> the network, but if you start at Alewife you are on motorway (4 lanes
> and traffic moves at 80+ mph) and eventually you get to Erving where
> it's 1 lane each way, double yellow line, and posted 30, having dropped
> to trunk and then had another motorway section.  But it is certainly a long
> distance important route, and if you only render 2 EW routes in MA, it's
> the second one to show after I-90.
>
> My point then, is that choosing to render trunk but not primary is not
> really a thing to do what preserves a sense of networks.  We absolutely
> should not thing about how to use motorway/trunk/primary to make maps
> rendered that way look good.
>
> People may want to render based on ref tag, or some other "how important
> is this route" tag, which could be some combination of how long the road
> is and how far away the next road that goes roughly those places but is
> faster is.  Others have talked about dropping some Interstate sections
> (esp odd 3 digits) at small scales.
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

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

[Dave Swarthout]

Sometimes I think it might have been better if OSM had never imported Tiger
data. It is simply pitiful, almost worse than nothing, in many areas of
Alaska. Same with the coastlines and NHD water bodies. I know they
represent a first approximation and without any coastlines we couldn't have
a map, period, but the sheer amount of editing required to clean up the
horrendous data in Alaska is daunting indeed. Same for the riverbanks. I
usually delete them and start over fresh because it's easier to create new
ones than to try to adjust and align the bad stuff already in place.

Given the actual total length of coastline in Alaska, I would venture to
say it will never be cleaned up. Here is an example of a relation
(id:2057975) "glacier" imported from NHD that is actually many named
glaciers all rolled into one. I have been working hard for the past year to
add individual named glaciers in Alaska but I swear, looking at something
like this monster containing 542 members makes me think I'll never get it
done.

Also, if you want to see something else that is really horrendous, take a
look at the Canvec imports for Canada; rivers and streams composed of many
tiny sections, water and woods where there isn't any. Sheesh!

Sorry, couldn't resist.



On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 2:18 PM, Wolfgang Zenker <wolfg...@lyxys.ka.sub.org>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> * Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> [171013 08:06]:
> >there's a LOT of NHD:* (and nhd:*) tags on OSM objects, see
>
> > https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=NHD%3A
>
> > - 1.9 million NHD:FCode, but also 188k "NHD:Permanent_" (note the
> > underscore), 10k "NHD:WBAreaComI", or 1.5m "NHD:Resolution" just to grab
> > a few.
>
> > I haven't researched who added them and when, but they would certainly
> > not clear the quality standards we have for imports today. Most of this
> > information can be properly modelled in usual OSM tags, and where it
> > cannot, it probably shouldn't be in OSM in the first place.
>
> > Is there any systematic (or even sporadic) effort of cleaning up these
> > old imports? Is there reason to believe that the neglect extends to more
> > than just the tags - do geometry and topology usually work well on
> > these, or are the funny tags a huge "this whole area hasn't had any love
> > in a long time" sign?
>
> the NHD imports that I have encountered so far have numerous problems:
> The data is several decades old, the so-called "medium resolution" is
> pretty bad, and the data was basically just dumped into the OSM database
> without any conflation happening. And larger rivers where often imported
> as monstrous riverbank polygons without the river itself as a flowline.
>
> The worst junk like lakes covering motorways has been mostly cleaned up
> by now, but it is still easy to see where NHD data has been imported by
> looking a KeepRights display of broken highway/waterway crossings.
>
> I clean up the imports in areas where I'm doing TIGER reviews, but I
> have to admit that a few times I have decided to work on different areas
> instead because the huge riverbank polygons where almost impossible to
> edit.
>
> Wolfgang
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>



-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Dave Swarthout]

>I'd hazard to guess Alaska has considerably more "trunk" than "motorway"
miles, particularly outside of metro Anchorage.

Agreed.

Here's a query for the George Parks Highway that runs between Fairbanks and
Anchorage:

http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/scw

no relations, only ways are involved

No rush on any of this if you have more important work to do. Just sayin'

and, thanks for the feedback



On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 12:28 AM, Dave Swarthout <daveswarth...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I m following this conversation in hopes that if it ever gets resolved
>> someone will update the Wiki. I have my fears that, along with many other
>> contentious issues, it may never be resolved to the satisfaction of all
>> parties.
>>
>> Meanwhile, I'm doing major work in Alaska and although my current focus
>> is primarily on adding geographic features, this issue has practical
>> implications for me. The George Parks Highway and the Alaska Highway come
>> to mind immediately. They are a bit of a mish-mash with some sections
>> tagged motorway, some trunk, and the speed limit varies from 65 mph in
>> rural areas down to 40 mph in towns. That's the nature of the highway
>> system in Alaska where a single highway serves an immense largely
>> unpopulated geographical and area. Most sections of those highways are
>> "trunk" roads by most definitions yet they have normal at-grade
>> intersections, intersections with driveways, tracks, etc.
>>
>
> I don't consider intersections with driveways to be a dealbreaker.  On the
> primary/trunk edge cases, particularly on the "major highway/freeway
> cancelled after construction started" type situation, the relative lack of
> driveways and relative prevalence of ramps along with historical context
> might be the only claim to the very lowest end of trunk on a dual
> carriageway and potentially highest end of primary for a single carriageway
> (I'd only consider a single carriageway to be a trunk if it's completely
> controlled access with no at grade intersections or driveways).
>
>
>> I'm a novice with highway tagging of this sort but if any of you more
>> experienced mappers would care to take a look at those two highways, any
>> feedback would be appreciated.
>>
>
> I'm a bit rusty on my Alaska geography, so if you got a relation or way ID
> to work with, that might help.  Excluding the unpaved primaries that I'm
> aware of that compose most of Alaska DOT's mileage, I'd hazard to guess
> Alaska has considerably more "trunk" than "motorway" miles, particularly
> outside of metro Anchorage.
>



-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Dave Swarthout]

I m following this conversation in hopes that if it ever gets resolved
someone will update the Wiki. I have my fears that, along with many other
contentious issues, it may never be resolved to the satisfaction of all
parties.

Meanwhile, I'm doing major work in Alaska and although my current focus is
primarily on adding geographic features, this issue has practical
implications for me. The George Parks Highway and the Alaska Highway come
to mind immediately. They are a bit of a mish-mash with some sections
tagged motorway, some trunk, and the speed limit varies from 65 mph in
rural areas down to 40 mph in towns. That's the nature of the highway
system in Alaska where a single highway serves an immense largely
unpopulated geographical and area. Most sections of those highways are
"trunk" roads by most definitions yet they have normal at-grade
intersections, intersections with driveways, tracks, etc.

I'm a novice with highway tagging of this sort but if any of you more
experienced mappers would care to take a look at those two highways, any
feedback would be appreciated.

Keep up the good work.

AlaskaDave

On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 11:27 PM, Bill Ricker <bill.n1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Richie Kennedy
>> <richiekenned...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> That's entirely on you at this point, I edit in good faith.
>>
>> > OTOH, you did know that a local mapper (me) would dispute the
>> > classification. I would consider that to be bad faith.
>>
>> > Likewise, I should clarify that I do not intend to make unilateral
>> > changes to the map.
>>
>> Largely separate from the wiki/tag debate about how America should
>> implement Brit-centric tags (that defy common sense here), the above
>> portion of the exchange is also important.
>>
>
> Well, except I legitimately had no reason to expect Richie to be upset
> when I was catching up on my (then rather huge) backlog of notes; more on
> that below.
>
>
>> NE2 was "objectively wrong" *^ _and_ /unilaterally/ /bulk-editing/
>> from the /armchair/.
>>
>
> Annoyingly, a lot of the current trunk debacle is leftover from the mass
> edit he did on ref:US to highway=trunk, when it was already in active use
> to fill that "bigger than primary, but not a freeway" gap that didn't get
> reverted.  Most DOTs have, even on their own maps, in the US have a
> different classification for that "freeway like thing with a mix of
> intersections and ramps" and "super 2" style roads that is roughly
> analogous (in America's own idiosyncratic ways) to a trunk the OSM
> classification.  I don't think anybody's really clear what NE2's definition
> was on that one other than "anything with a US in the route number is a
> trunk if it's not a motorway".  With that in mind, I would encourage to
> check the history on trunks (particularly edge cases that could slide to
> motorway or primary) and take NE2's opinion with a grain of salt.
>
> Martijn van Exel's dealing with this problem in Utah right now.  I feel
> like we'd be closer to a consensus on this in general had the
> bulk-edit-to-trunk situation had at least reverted to what was in the TIGER
> import.  It wouldn't have been perfect but it would have been closer to
> reality than what we got left with, hindsight being 20/20 on this.
>
>
>> If one of us coastal armchair mappers unilaterally bulk-edits Richie's
>> local roads, we'd have three out of four NE2-likeness points on us.
>> There is plenty of wrong to fix without declaring edit-war on Richie's
>> roads.
>> Let's give the local mapper the benefit of the doubt in the DB at
>> least until the Wiki-war is finished.
>> (And even then, cut the local some slack.)
>
>
> We're both relatively local to the place in question.  Richie might be
> closer, but I'm not obliviously ignorant to the area in question.  We've
> crossed paths on the map before and, to my recollection, we've never had
> issues.  In my 8 years on the project so far, I can pretty safely say this
> is a very cooperative community.  I felt a little blindsided on that, hence
> my initial response.
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] dubious church node

[Dave Swarthout]

"Second, many entries have their coordinates specified using the old NAD
27 datum, but somewhere along the line, that fact was lost and the
coordinates were assumed to be in either NAD 83 or WGS 84.  This
results in an offset that increases the further you go from central
Indiana; the offset in Alaska is upwards of a hundred meters to the

west."

Wow, thanks for that. If I understand what you're saying, this means many
of the old GNIS nodes will be positioned about 100 meters east of where
they should be? Or do I have your statement turned around?

The mine whose position I last adjusted, the Case Mine in the Chugach
Mountains on the Kenai Peninsula, was quite a distance from an area of bare
ground (visible only in ESRI) where an old mine site might have been. The
original position was to the east of that bare area. I didn't measure the
distance but will do that next time I come across such a mine.  The bare
spot also happens to be where the USGS Topo places the mine, consequently,
I felt moving it was justified.

I'm also guessing that the other Case Mine node,  the"duplicate" I
mentioned earlier, represents perhaps a second mine_entrance on the same
mining claim. However, there is nothing west of that node to provide any
clue to guide a repositioning, nor does it appear on theUSGS Topo map, so I
left it where it was.

On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 2:19 PM, Mark Wagner <mark+...@carnildo.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Sep 2017 06:56:31 +0700
> Dave Swarthout <daveswarth...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Glad you mentioned that GNIS import, Ian.
> >
> > This isn't a pressing issue but I've been doing considerable mapping
> > in Alaska and encounter GNIS features constantly. Many of them are
> > nodes and refer to mines, usually abandoned mines, and contain
> > tagging that JOSM complains about, for example, using landuse=quarry
> > on a node. Sometimes I delete that tag and add man_made=mineshaft or
> > similar tagging but it's often not clear if the node is in the proper
> > location. The newer, high-resolution imagery will often suggest a
> > more likely spot for the node, and sometimes I'll move the node
> > there, but usually it isn't obvious. There are also duplicate nodes,
> > that is, mines having the same name but in a slightly different
> > position and carrying a different GNIS reference number.
> >
> > Can you provide some guidance about the accuracy of the positions, the
> > duplication, and perhaps weigh in on possible tagging scenarios?
>
> In my experience, there are two common sources of position error in
> GNIS:
>
> First, many GNIS entries are pulled off of old USGS topo maps.  These
> are of limited resolution, and you can't get a position more accurate
> than about a city block.  It's not much of an error, but when you're
> used to coordinates that will lead you to a specific door, it's
> something to keep in mind.
>
> Second, many entries have their coordinates specified using the old NAD
> 27 datum, but somewhere along the line, that fact was lost and the
> coordinates were assumed to be in either NAD 83 or WGS 84.  This
> results in an offset that increases the further you go from central
> Indiana; the offset in Alaska is upwards of a hundred meters to the
> west.
>
> For churches, hospitals, post offices, and other facilities in towns,
> it's not unusual for them to take the same coordinates as the center of
> the town.  This mis-positioning may be combined with one or both of the
> above.
>
> The other common error you'll encounter is that the tagging is only
> approximate as to type.  This is most obvious with medical facilities:
> everything from doctors' offices to retirement homes gets tagged as
> "amenity=hospital".  More common but less noticeable is that a wide
> range of vaguely recreation-related things get tagged as "leisure=park"
> -- in particular, watch out for historic markers tagged as such.
>
> Your quarries are subject to this same type-approximation: everything
> from a county road department's gravel pit to an extensive complex of
> mineshafts is tagged as "landuse=quarry", as are some mining-related
> industrial facilities.
>
> --
> Mark
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>



-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] dubious church node

[Dave Swarthout]

Glad you mentioned that GNIS import, Ian.

This isn't a pressing issue but I've been doing considerable mapping in
Alaska and encounter GNIS features constantly. Many of them are nodes and
refer to mines, usually abandoned mines, and contain tagging that JOSM
complains about, for example, using landuse=quarry on a node. Sometimes I
delete that tag and add man_made=mineshaft or similar tagging but it's
often not clear if the node is in the proper location. The newer,
high-resolution imagery will often suggest a more likely spot for the node,
and sometimes I'll move the node there, but usually it isn't obvious. There
are also duplicate nodes, that is, mines having the same name but in a
slightly different position and carrying a different GNIS reference number.

Can you provide some guidance about the accuracy of the positions, the
duplication, and perhaps weigh in on possible tagging scenarios?

Thanks,
Dave



On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 6:43 AM, Martijn van Exel <m...@rtijn.org> wrote:

> If you are interested in cleaning up some of the GNIS imported features in
> a more structured manner, we can create a MapRoulette challenge. In fact,
> there is one already that we can model more of them after. Give it a try:
> http://maproulette.org/map/2774
> Martijn
>
> On Sep 29, 2017, at 5:33 PM, Ian Dees <ian.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The history of the node shows that I created it 8 years ago:
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/356845407/history
>
> The gnis tags indicate that it probably came in from my (somewhat
> misguided) GNIS import back then. If there's no recent information to
> corroborate the node then feel free to delete it.
>
> On Sep 29, 2017 18:28, "John F. Eldredge" <j...@jfeldredge.com> wrote:
>
>> OSM Item 356845407 is a node supposedly marking the location of a church
>> named "Mill Creek Church", at coordinates 36.0972810, -86.7027754 <
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/36.0972810/-86.7027754>. The node
>> history shows two changesets making edits to the node, but no changeset for
>> the creation of the node. It has these tags:
>>
>> amenity
>> place_of_worship <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org
>> /wiki/Tag:amenity=place%20of%20worship?uselang=en-US>
>> ele <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ele?uselang=en-US>  145
>> gnis:county_id  037
>> gnis:created05/19/1980
>> gnis:feature_id <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org
>> /wiki/Key:gnis:feature%20id?uselang=en-US>1306749
>> gnis:state_id   47
>> name <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name?uselang=en-US>
>> Mill Creek Church
>> religion <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:religion?uselang=en-US>
>>   christian <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org
>> /wiki/Tag:religion=christian?uselang=en-US>
>>
>> I became curious about this, as aerial photos in Google Earth do not show
>> a church there. I drove to these coordinates, and determined that they are
>> for a loading dock on the back of an industrial warehouse. There are no
>> signs indicating that any congregation meets there; the warehouse appears
>> to be in active commercial use. Should I remove this node? -- John F.
>> Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com "Darkness cannot drive out darkness;
>> only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that."
>> -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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 mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Open survey on participation biases in OSM

[Dave Swarthout]

Zoe,

Reading these responses helps me understand why you are doing what you're
doing. It's almost laughable that some male mappers responded with, well,
sexist remarks concerning your work. People are not usually aware of the
biases they introduce and that's why researchers must use statistical
analyses and double blind tests to evaluate new drugs, consumer trends and
preferences, etc. I'm reasonably sure OSM is no different. I know that a
portion of my mapping effort tends to concentrate on areas and things that
are of interest to me and while I don't think my being a man has much to do
with it, I would be curious to see if your research shows something
different. Towards that end, I'd be happy to cooperate with your effort to
clarify the situation.

Best wishes,

Dave (aka AlaskaDave)

On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Marc Gemis <marc.ge...@gmail.com> wrote:

> One of the discussion points on her diary entry was female hygiene
> products found in women's toilets. How is a man going to map that,
> without access to women's toilets ?
>
> The real question for me is are men more likely going to map shop=car
> than shop=clothes;clothes=underwear/fashion/ ... (sorry for the
> stereotyping)
> will men map leisure=playground or amenity=pub ?
> will a roman catholic map a mosque ?
> will a non-dog owner map leisure=dog_park ?
>
> in short: will we map everything we  see or do we map only our
> interests ? Furthermore, do we really see everything or do we only see
> (and map) things we are conditioned to ?
>
> This is not about buildings, addresses, roads and paths. They are
> pretty gender neutral I think. It's about POIs.
>
>
> regards
>
> m.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 6:24 AM, Greg Morgan <dr.kludge...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 3:45 AM, Zoe Gardner <zoegardn...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear OSM talk subscriber
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I am a Research Fellow in the Nottingham Geospatial Institute at the
> >> University of Nottingham in the UK, interested in participation biases
> in
> >> geospatial crowdsourced projects such as OSM and other Volunteered
> >> Geographical Information (VGI) projects. My current research project is
> >> concerned with the way in which participation biases in OSM may
> potentially
> >> affect the usability of the data that is collected and subsequently
> what is
> >> available to location based service providers which use OSM as their
> primary
> >> geospatial database.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The project is motivated by recent research that has found a strong male
> >> bias in OSM participation. This has led to assertions that various
> >> geospatial knowledge could be under represented or poorly recorded on
> the
> >> map.
> >
> >
> > Zoe,
> >
> > I believe that you need to go back to the drawing board.  OSM is not
> about
> > gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation. OSM is about people with
> > leisure time that are willing to spend to add nodes to a map.  If I like
> to
> > add buidlings to the map, there is nothing about those nodes and one way
> > that compose the building that would discriminate or leave out
> information
> > based on gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation.
> >
> > This sounds like one of those surveys designed to damage OSM.
> > "data that is collected and subsequently what is available to location
> based
> > service providers"
> > That statement sound like you are performing research for a vendor that
> > cannot compete with OSM.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Greg
> >
> > ___
> > 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
>



-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] The Republic of Molossia (and other micro-nations)

[Dave Swarthout]

IMO it seems absurd to condone this sort of mapping. It isn't accepted as a
sovereign nation by the U.S. government and probably does not exist on any
other reputable maps. Place=locality or place=neighbourhood would be fine
although even then the name Molossia is a pure invention. Native-American
areas are, on the contrary, recognized and hence deserving of such a
boundary tag. (I haven't checked this but assume its' the case).

Another issue is, where will it end? Can I feel free to create my own
"republic", e.g., the Republic of Swarthout?

My 2 cents

AlaskaDave

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 5:51 AM, Bradley White <theangrytom...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Something a little bit different:
>
> The Republic of Molossia is a self-declared "micro-nation" located
> near Dayton, NV, landlocked by the United States. The nation claims
> full sovereignty from the United States; however, it is recognized by
> neither the United States, nor any other country on Earth, as an
> independent nation. You have probably heard about it before, since it
> is one of the best-known examples of such a micro-nation in the US.
>
> Within the past few months, this "nation" has popped into OSM,
> complete with sloppily implemented "admin_level=2" and
> "boundary=national" tags, view-able here:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/39.32281/-119.53908. My
> discussion point is whether this is a valid use of these tags. A
> handful of quick searches about this topic didn't turn up anything for
> me, so I'm assuming no precedent has been set yet. It is worth noting
> that this is not the only micro-nation in the US.
>
> I'm not inclined to think these tags are valid. Otherwise, there's
> nothing stopping me from calling my backyard its own nation, slapping
> together a wikipedia article, and entering it into OSM as a
> full-fledged nation. However, since they are still geographically
> based entities of interest to the public, I think they are worth
> mapping
>
> There is a proposal for disputed boundaries, but I don't think that's
> valid either since there isn't really a dispute. The nation has gone
> unacknowledged by the United States, and nothing has gone through the
> legal process between the two nations (that I'm aware of) that could
> constitute a "dispute". No other boundary tag is really applicable,
> maybe a new "boundary=micronation" would work? De facto, US law still
> applies in these "micronations", along with the law of whatever
> jurisdictions the micronation belongs to, so I don't think an
> admin_level tag is applicable.
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>



-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [OSM-talk] How useful is the JOSM wiki

[Dave Swarthout]

I saw this topic the other day and wanted to respond but because I am such
a newcomer to JOSM and the Talk list I did not. I used the JOSM Wiki to get
started and learned the basics a few months ago. That said, what is in
there is good information but there is much, much more detail needed to
make the Wiki useful. It's also out-of-date and does not cover new features
well, if at all.

For example, I downloaded the latest JOSM update the other day. I
especially wanted to begin using keyboard shortcuts to invoke some of my
custom presets. I've looked everywhere and can find nothing about this new
feature. I don't even know where in JOSM's menu system the new shortcuts
managing stuff can be found. The Wiki? No help.

So, how does one use the new keyboard shortcuts?

And, who does the maintenance of the Wiki? I know it's an open book and
anyone can modify pages but when a page doesn't yet exist, how then does
one learn to use the missing features?

Dave

-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk