Re: [OSM-talk] Okay, this is just cool (Lockport, NY)
Steve Coast wrote: Ok I think it's shameful how bad the mapping was there so I added a bunch of trees, car parks, the park, some buildings... Let's see how good we can make Lockport, NY ? Wait... user alexrudd is Steve Coast? -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Okay-this-is-just-cool-Lockport-NY-tp6225128p6226364.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-us] US Interstate exit junction exit_to tag
On 3/28/2011 12:28 PM, Alan Mintz wrote: In southern California, in my experience, people do not use exit numbers when giving directions - they use what we would call the name of the exit, which is usually the name of the street on which the offramp terminates*. One reason is that exit numbering was an afterthought - in process since the 80s I think - and is still not complete. Another is that, for people that have traveled the area extensively, the name of the exit gives one a far better mental picture of where an exit is than the postmile-related exit number. Yes, California is a special case because they were so late to adopt exit numbers. But the majority of exit_to signage is simply the cross street(s) the exit leads to, which is already on the map. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] US Interstate exit junction exit_to tag
On 3/28/2011 5:00 PM, Andrew Cleveland wrote: Just a nitpick: For exit numbers that consist of both a number and a letter, should we insert a space? For example 20A vs. 20 A. The MUTCD ( http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/part2e.htm#section2E31 ) says Suffix letters shall be used for exit numbering at a multi-exit interchange. The suffix letter shall also be included on the exit number plaque and shall be separated from the exit number by a space having a width of between 1/2 and 3/4 of the height of the suffix letter. Obviously this would depend on how each state agency actually does their signs. In the Likelike Hwy. example there appears to me to be a thin space between the 20 and the A. Maybe a thin space (U+2009) would work? Though that might be making things more complicated than they need to be. This seems to be a display choice rather than an actual space in the exit number. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Cool ITO World US and Canada coverage
On 3/26/2011 7:51 AM, Mike N wrote: The better the visualizers and consumers, the more maxspeeds will get entered. You could almost needed a stopwatch to measure the delay between Mapquest rendering tollways as green and the completion of toll road markings in the US. Well that was mainly me having fun going down the FHWA's list of toll roads :) The ITO map isn't loading now; I was going to check if it correctly treats a one-way with x lanes as equivalent to a two-way with 2x lanes. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Cool ITO World US and Canada coverage
On 3/26/2011 11:37 AM, Richard Welty wrote: a helpful visualizer for the US would be one that flags speeds w/o a units tag (kph default). the mph option was added to the wiki in recent memory, and i for one tagged a lot of US roads with kph values before i became aware of the update to the maxspeed entry in the wiki. i switch them to mph as i see them, but there are lots i may not stumble over for a very long time, if ever. Be extremely careful when changing someone else's maxspeed=40, which could have been intended as either 40 kph (25 mph) or 40 mph. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] border screwup by ToeBee needs reverting
User ToeBee has, in several changesets in February, aligned state borders to exact lat/long. The problem is that this is not how the borders are defined; instead they are based on work that the 19th century surveyors did with the tools they had. Two obvious examples follow: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/158796015/history is the famous Four Corners: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705298412/Four-Corners-marker-212-miles-off-Too-late.html http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/158790476/history is the northwest corner of Colorado, which is also marked by a large monument, visible on aerials. It's likely that any border node moved by ToeBee needs to be reverted. I tried to do this after informing him (he's currently denying there's a problem), but JOSM's reverter plugin is giving hundreds of conflicts. This damage needs to be undone. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] border screwup by ToeBee needs reverting
On 3/25/2011 3:56 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705298412/Four-Corners-marker-212-miles-off-Too-late.html Note the correction to this article: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705299160/Four-Corners-Monument-is-indeed-off-mark.html I was a little hasty about linking the original. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] border screwup by Techlady needs reverting
On 3/25/2011 4:17 AM, Toby Murray wrote: On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 2:56 AM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com wrote: User ToeBee has, in several changesets in February, aligned state borders to exact lat/long. The problem is that this is not how the borders are defined; instead they are based on work that the 19th century surveyors did with the tools they had. Two obvious examples follow: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/158796015/history is the famous Four Corners: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705298412/Four-Corners-marker-212-miles-off-Too-late.html http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/158790476/history is the northwest corner of Colorado, which is also marked by a large monument, visible on aerials. I am not saying my edit was perfect. But the position of the nodes before my edit was even further off than it is now. The northwest node is now 10 meters straight south of the monument where it was over 1km east. The southwest node was off by 1km as well and is now about 400 meters west. You know, you're actually correct. TechLady screwed it up in the first place; prior to her edits, it was right on the Four Corners monument. I apologize for assigning all the blame to you. So now the problem is worse: two people's edits need to be reverted. You tried to fix it, so again I'm sorry for coming down on you. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] border screwup by Techlady needs reverting
On 3/25/2011 4:44 AM, Paul Norman wrote:
The first of your examples ('015 node) appears to be more accurate than the
node it replaced in one of the ways,
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/263660932 which was farther away
from the monument (based on NAIP imagery)
In the second one ('476 node), the changeset improved the position of the
node. It wasn't aligned before. In any case, after the changeset it was only
about 8m off according to NAIP imagery.
Yes, see my response (it was actually Techlady that screwed it up).
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] border screwup by Techlady needs reverting
On 3/25/2011 5:43 AM, Toby Murray wrote: Thank you for the apology. I don't think that revert is going to happen though. Even if I agreed that this was the solution, it would be a nightmare. I did a lot of boundary work in that changeset involving splitting circular county border ways, creating relations, deleting superfluous nodes and un-grouping boundary nodes that were joined to roads to satisfy the evil that is the duplicate node checker. Perhaps simply moving the nodes back would be enough? This of course wouldn't work if a lot of nodes were removed. In fact, my changes make it substantially easier to edit the border in the first place without creating additional conflicts or having to move a thousand useless nodes along the way. So how about instead of spending hours trying to undo even more hours of my work, you instead spend 10 minutes to improve upon it yourself? I actually was going to move the two nodes, but then saw that there was a bigger problem. I think Paul may have beaten you to it though. The nodes in question now appear precisely over the monuments. Colorado is safe for another day. Well... as long as they can avoid those wildfires... That's nowhere near the extent of the damage. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?node=83787064 is supposed to be on the state line. On http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/topo/250k/txu-pclmaps-topo-us-moab-1962.jpg (a bit south of the center) you can see a major imperfection in the border just south of that crossing. Getting the exact lat/long of every defined point on the border would be best, but the pre-Techlady status was certainly better than it is now. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] border screwup by ToeBee needs reverting
On 3/25/2011 7:49 AM, Ian Dees wrote: I would say that a better use of our time would be in creating boundary relations to fix the duplicated county/state boundaries. I would say it's more important to have the border in the right place (at least such that all roads in one state are on the correct side). ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] border screwup by ToeBee needs reverting
On 3/25/2011 8:37 AM, Ian Dees wrote: On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 7:04 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com mailto:nerou...@gmail.com wrote: On 3/25/2011 7:49 AM, Ian Dees wrote: I would say that a better use of our time would be in creating boundary relations to fix the duplicated county/state boundaries. I would say it's more important to have the border in the right place (at least such that all roads in one state are on the correct side). I would disagree. No one is going to use OpenStreetMap to solve border disputes in the US. There are higher quality datasets that come from the people that make the rules. On the other hand, removing overlapping boundary ways will clean up the existing OSM data, make it easier to edit and easier to consume. I'm not sure what to make of this response. Why would you say we have borders in OSM? Would that reason be better suited by having the borders be in the correct place but duplicated or by having them in the wrong place but consolidated? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] border screwup by Techlady needs reverting
On 3/25/2011 12:28 PM, Toby Murray wrote: Yep, it is off by a couple hundred meters in some places. When I get home tonight I will download the latest Census shapefile and align the Colorado border to it by hand. A brief check shows that this data does have the border going through the monuments as well as that 3rd node you linked to (or at least where that node SHOULD be - it is 40 meters north of the nearest roadway) Thank you for taking the time to fix it. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] semi-apology Re: Screw-up of borders
I'd like to apologize for specifically naming ToeBee and Techlady in subject lines, and any connotation that may have been attached to screwup. The former was my error at reading the tea leaves of node histories, and the latter was Techlady's error but perhaps my overreaction. If this sounds forced and meaningless, I apologize for the way I am. I am disturbed by the way people don't seem to care that the data can be so easily damaged and so hard to fix. I've seen other inadvertent damage, such as where someone selects a road and hits T to force it to a straight line, last for years. Even worse was where someone had turned a boundary into a circle; luckily I was able to revert that one without conflict. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [OSM-talk] Licensing Working Group
Frederik Ramm wrote: Assuming that Nearmap-derived data is indeed not compatible with the future OSM license, I fail to understand how contributing data that will later be deleted is a quot;privilegequot;. (a) the license change is not a certainty (b) the OSM instance run by OSMF is not the only project using the data (including the last cc-by-sa dump if the license does change) Frederik Ramm wrote: I will not discuss this issue further on the talk list, as it is a topic for legal-talk and will only annoy those on talk who are not interested in legal matters. I fail to see how discussion of the future of the project doesn't belong on this list. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Licensing-Working-Group-tp6199509p6203454.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Licensing Working Group
Remember when Anthony's edits were reverted a few months ago? Well, Tampa is still screwy (examples: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=28.13332lon=-82.502659zoom=18layers=M http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=28.0467lon=-82.5069zoom=13layers=Mrelation=371155 - the latter shows how easy it is for relations to break). (I fixed some of the more blatant issues that others hadn't dealt with, but I'm not about to do some cleanup that I'll have to do again if/when the license change happens.) Anthony may have been a naughty boy, but the result was a good example of what will happen all over the place if/when we change the license. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Licensing-Working-Group-tp6199509p6202536.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-us] Proposed cleanup: NHD rivers
On 3/20/2011 8:13 PM, Richard Welty wrote: On 3/20/11 7:50 PM, Paul Norman wrote: 3 is about making the rivers into single ways, more like a mapper would do by hand. I'm not really set on this step and if done it would be after steps 1 and 2 have been done everywhere. Looking at nhd:com_id it might cause problems with updating, so I'm thinking I'll drop this step for now. i'd suggest using relations to group ways that are parts of named rivers rather than trying to combine the ways. If the only difference between the ways is that NHD assigns a different ID number to them, not combining them seems silly. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Proposed cleanup: NHD rivers
On 3/20/2011 9:12 PM, Richard Welty wrote: if combining them meaningfully improves the map, by all means do it. Or improves editing. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] US Interstate exit junction exit_to tag
On 3/8/2011 8:03 AM, Mike N wrote: The Motorway Junction tag at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Motorway_junction has recently had the exit_to tag added. Old interstate tagging advice at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway was to put exit sign destinations in the name tag. However this is not exactly correct, especially for the case of highways with named exits. The latest JOSM-Tested now includes the exit_to tag as part of the preset highway junction dialog, so people who use JOSM will be guided to the new standards. For standardization purposes, all existing highway junctions should be updated to the new convention. (Junctions which contain name= but not exit_to= should be changed). Question: Can this be a mass edit for the whole US? The results would all be correct except for the case of 'named exits' which properly used the name only, but have no exit_to tag. In any case, I wouldn't propose making a mass edit for 1-2 months as this settles in everyone's mind. I'd be careful on motorways with toll=* (for example, on Florida's Turnpike, I've correctly tagged name but not added exit_to). Otherwise I can't see a problem. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [OSM-talk] Named passages on hiking paths
Gilles Bassière wrote: When hiking, I often encounter short technical passages which have a name painted on the rock. In French, the name almost always begin with Pas de ... but I'm not sure if there is a good translation for pas in English [1]. Such portions of the path often consist in passing a small cliff or an exposed ridge, they may be equipped with chains or cables. Is http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/via_ferrata what you're thinking of? -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Named-passages-on-hiking-paths-tp6170108p6171183.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Cost of tolls
Diego Woitasen wrote: Hi, Mapping the tolls of a highway a found that there is no tag to assign the cost of the toll. I haven't found examples in taginfo or tagwatch. Are you using something for this? I know this is a little complex because the cost of the toll is different and depends in the size of the vehicle, the time of the day, etc. but may be we could do something. Before electronic toll collection, there were two major types of toll collection - barrier and ticket. On a barrier toll road, you would pay a set amount at each mainline or ramp toll plaza, meaning one could put the default 2-axle amount on the barrier=toll_booth node. On a ticket toll road you'd get a ticket when you enter that lists tolls to each exit; when you exit you would hand in the ticket and pay that amount. This can't really be mapped. (A slight variation would have a standard barrier, but if you enter midway between the beginning and the barrier you'd get a ticket that entitles you to pay less at the barrier.) These two systems are still in use on toll roads that accept cash, and the former can be mapped as such. Electronic-only toll roads may mimic a barrier system, but will more likely make it more fair by charging based on distance (and thus working like a ticket toll road). -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Cost-of-tolls-tp6161832p6165536.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[Talk-us] Mapquest rendering issue
http://open.mapquest.com/link/10-YfsRKQZk I figured someone higher-up would have noticed and fixed this by now. There's a roughly drawn boundary outside which the US rendering rules don't apply. This boundary sometimes crosses into the US. Is this boundary even necessary? What's wrong with rendering all of (North?) America using the US rules? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Trimet, Portland, Oregon updates
On 3/9/2011 5:27 PM, PJ Houser wrote: 1) We are editing incorrect trails and adding missing trails from RLIS (Metro, Oregon) and CCGIS (Clark County, Washington). We'd like to tag handicap accessibility of the trails we edit or add in. What tag would OSM mappers prefer? We were thinking accessibility with values of yes, no, and unknown. But should we be distinguishing between ADA's standard accessibility and a general idea of accessibility? What do you think? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:wheelchair ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [OSM-talk] Bike / Pedestrian directions on the MQ Open sites
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: Last time I read a discussion about bicycles on interstates the only known spot where they were allowed in the US was some few miles on one rural interstate highway (where there was if I recall right no other alternative route for many miles). For trunk roads the situation is different, but the nature of motorways is to restrict traffic for slow vehicles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highway_systems_with_full_control_of_access_and_no_cross_traffic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-motorized_access_on_freeways M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: the wiki states for the USA http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway motorway = Limited access freeway with interchanges. In my reading every highway which is not limited access should not be tagged as motorway, be it in north america or elsewhere. The access in limited acccess is driveway access to adjacent properties, not access by certain vehicles. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Bike-Pedestrian-directions-on-the-MQ-Open-sites-tp6088570p6097424.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bike / Pedestrian directions on the MQ Open sites
On 3/7/2011 9:51 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2011/3/7 Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com: M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: the wiki states for the USA http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway motorway = Limited access freeway with interchanges. In my reading every highway which is not limited access should not be tagged as motorway, be it in north america or elsewhere. The access in limited acccess is driveway access to adjacent properties, not access by certain vehicles. Do you have a source for this? Look here for instance: To respond to a comment from a State DOT, the FHWA adds paragraph 06 to recommend that the NO PEDESTRIANS OR BICYCLES (R5–10b) sign, when used on a freeway or expressway exit or entrance ramp, should be installed in a location where it is clearly visible to any pedestrian or bicyclist attempting to enter the limited access facility from a street intersecting the exit ramp. found here: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-28322.pdf cheers, Martin http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_StatuteSearch_String=URL=0300-0399/0316/Sections/0316.003.html (19) http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/REALESTATE/aashto2006/limacnoaclb.htm ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bike / Pedestrian directions on the MQ Open sites
ant-2 wrote: One more thing... it seems that turn restrictions are regarded--although they generally don't apply to cyclists (in most countries I guess). Please fix this. If a turn restriction does not apply to cyclists, there's a way to tag that. In the US, bikes are vehicles and are subject to the same laws and regulations, including turn restrictions and oneway streets. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Bike-Pedestrian-directions-on-the-MQ-Open-sites-tp6088570p6094408.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-us] Bike / Pedestrian directions on the MQ Open sites
On 3/6/2011 2:30 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: On 03/05/2011 08:01 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 3/5/2011 7:56 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: For the route selected at http://open.mapquest.com/link/10-TSgZnD38 based on data I know OSM knows about Tulsa, I would be more inclined to see a route more like http://open.mapquest.com/link/9-Fc1vHAi7 but with a more direct route taking the motorway_link Skelly Drive to get under I 44 at Darlington. Why is a frontage road tagged as motorway_link? It's a freeway in the local/express arrangement, which is common in the southern plains. It's a frontage road with driveways and local streets intersecting on both sides. Only the slip ramps between the freeway itself (I-44) and the frontage roads should be tagged highway=motorway_link in the areas with frontage roads. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Bike / Pedestrian directions on the MQ Open sites
On 3/5/2011 7:45 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: Something that would be nice but isn't as critical is to pick up on bicycle=preferred/avoid cues for ways that have been observed by mappers to be ideal/scary to use by bicycle. Please don't do this, as mappers may have completely opposite ideas of what is ideal or scary. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Bike / Pedestrian directions on the MQ Open sites
On 3/5/2011 7:56 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: For the route selected at http://open.mapquest.com/link/10-TSgZnD38 based on data I know OSM knows about Tulsa, I would be more inclined to see a route more like http://open.mapquest.com/link/9-Fc1vHAi7 but with a more direct route taking the motorway_link Skelly Drive to get under I 44 at Darlington. Why is a frontage road tagged as motorway_link? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] USPS Address Database
What we really need is a way to tag a grid (in those places that use one). That way we can give an approximate location (and hopefully the correct side of the street) if we lack an exact location. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [Tagging] Long-distance scenic roads
On 2/24/2011 8:18 AM, Greg Troxel wrote: On the other hand, some apparently non-local user has messed up tagging of Route 2 near Boston/Cambridge (from alewife to the science museum) and made them trunk when they obviously aren't (to anyone who has been on them - no limited access, constant at-grade intersections, frequent lights), so maybe you could look into and fix that too :-) http://osm.org/go/ZfI4nILQ- I have been on Route 2 there, and it goes nowhere near the Science Museum. Memorial Drive etc. is trunk as in more major than primary. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [Tagging] Long-distance scenic roads
On 2/24/2011 12:14 PM, Greg Troxel wrote: Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com writes: On 2/24/2011 8:18 AM, Greg Troxel wrote: On the other hand, some apparently non-local user has messed up tagging of Route 2 near Boston/Cambridge (from alewife to the science museum) and made them trunk when they obviously aren't (to anyone who has been on them - no limited access, constant at-grade intersections, frequent lights), so maybe you could look into and fix that too :-) Memorial Drive etc. is trunk as in more major than primary. That's not what trunk means - it's supposed to have significant motorway features, like some degree of limited access, very few lights, and very few at-grade intersections. There are bits of Memorial Drive that begin to approach that, but certainly the area around Alewife is no where close, and arguably none of it does. That's *one* thing trunk means. Trunk is also used as a higher classification than primary. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: Re: Long-distance scenic roads
On 2/24/2011 6:44 PM, Charlotte Wolter wrote: These two are probably the best known of such roads, but there are others. --In the 1920s, the Lincoln Highway was established across the United States to promote auto travel (it seems to have succeeded). Portions were financed by oil companies. The route was refined several times over the years, but it is still marked in many places. The route follows everything from interstates to dirt roads (at a few places out west). It even has a Web site. --Of course there's Route 66. These are different. They were pieced together from existing roads, and still serve as local roads, so classifications can be assigned in the same way as we do for other roads (possibly involving chicken entrails). On the other hand, the BRP and NTP are solely intended for scenic driving (with the possible exception of some parts of the BRP that provide access to isolated (?) secondary routes). --There's also the beautiful George Washington Parkway, which leads from Washington, D.C., to Mount Vernon. It also was constructed like the Blue Ridge and is lined with park land. Its route changes from interstate to parkway to residential road at the end. This is more like the BRP and NTP, but it was likely designed as a dual-purpose scenic road and commuter route. Even if its initial purpose was entirely scenic, today it is a major commuter route, so it can be classified normally. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: Long-distance scenic roads
On 2/24/2011 7:40 PM, Charlotte Wolter wrote: I wonder if we are making a distinction that's not important. I think it is much more important to identify historical or scenic routes clearly than to highlight the distinction of being constructed just for sightseeing. I agree (at least for special renderings). But the question is not how to identify that they're scenic, but how to classify them in a system that's based on utilitarian importance. Many U.S. highway maps do identify scenic routes, usually with a line of dots beside the route. That's very useful. Some identify historical routes, like Route 66, with shields, also useful. By the way, isn't the Natchez Trace now also a major route of travel? I'm not sure, but it certainly could be with a speed limit of 50 mph (I had thought it was lower). So I guess the problem only applies to the BRP, which is 45 mph but much curvier than the alternates. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] place=city name=Tri-Cities
On 2/24/2011 8:16 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: Until you're actually in the Tri-Cities area, it's rare to see official signage actually point out any of the three cities involved independently, Have signs changed recently? On the photos on http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-082.html I see Kennewick signed on the exit from I-84 westbound and on a mileage sign on I-82 westbound, but nothing for Tri-Cities. Similarly, signs in Yakima say Richland: http://images.wsdot.wa.gov/StateRoute/PictureLog/2009/SC/082/M/M/I/03/PM/03751PM.JPG ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Long-distance scenic roads
In the US there are two long federally-maintained roads, the Blue Ridge Parkway and Natchez Trace Parkway, that were built for the sole purpose of sightseeing. Since they are surrounded by a narrow strip of parkland, access is only allowed at certain points, so they are technically expressways (normally trunk in the US). On the other hand, they are not intended in any way for utilitarian travel, and functionally fit approximately as secondary or tertiary. Tagging is thus inconsistent. It looks like the BRP was recently all changed to secondary, but the NTP has portions of residential (obvious BS) and primary. I'm pretty sure I've also seen trunk and tertiary used in the past. Does anyone have an opinion on how these should be handled? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Long-distance scenic roads
On 2/23/2011 9:46 PM, Ian Dees wrote: They should be part of a route relation. Buh...? I'm asking what highway=* value they should have. On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com mailto:nerou...@gmail.com wrote: In the US there are two long federally-maintained roads, the Blue Ridge Parkway and Natchez Trace Parkway, that were built for the sole purpose of sightseeing. Since they are surrounded by a narrow strip of parkland, access is only allowed at certain points, so they are technically expressways (normally trunk in the US). On the other hand, they are not intended in any way for utilitarian travel, and functionally fit approximately as secondary or tertiary. Tagging is thus inconsistent. It looks like the BRP was recently all changed to secondary, but the NTP has portions of residential (obvious BS) and primary. I'm pretty sure I've also seen trunk and tertiary used in the past. Does anyone have an opinion on how these should be handled? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Long-distance scenic roads
On 2/23/2011 10:10 PM, Ian Dees wrote: On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 9:04 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com mailto:nerou...@gmail.com wrote: On 2/23/2011 9:46 PM, Ian Dees wrote: They should be part of a route relation. Buh...? I'm asking what highway=* value they should have. Do they really, truly fit into one highway=* category along their entire route? I'm not sure. How would you assign classifications? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] place=city name=Tri-Cities
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/876536239 There's no city named Tri-Cities; this is the name of the metropolitan area that comprises Pasco, Kennewick, and Richland. I assume there's no defensible reason to keep it tagged as such, but what should be done about it? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [OSM-talk] Zero tolerance on imports
Peter Budny wrote: I really don't mind whether it's route relations or ref tags. The problem is that NEITHER is finished. To get to my house, I have to get on State Route 1966, then 1267. Neither of these are marked as such on the map, and I'm certainly not going to do it by hand when I could write a tool that will fix those AND all the rest of the U.S. at the same time. The big problem with your proposal to auto-generate relations from the TIGER tags is that, while TIGER in many/most areas is pretty good for alignment and street names, it's pretty horrible for routings of numbered routes in built-up areas and with being up-to-date on route changes. I suggest going county-by-county through the official listings at http://transportation.ky.gov/planning/reports/SPRS_listings/SPRS_listings.asp and marking ref tags on each by hand (rather simple after downloading a xapi query into JOSM), with FIXME tags where the routing is unclear. Then you can auto-generate relations from the ref tags. (Just remember that some routes, I think those numbered 6000+, are not signed.) -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Zero-tolerance-on-imports-tp6044534p6050032.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] talk Digest, Vol 78, Issue 79
Hillsman, Edward wrote: But I'm starting to regret mentioning crime in my earlier post. The point I was trying to make focused on the physical environment, and the fact that a lot of suburbia in the US is not conducive to walking. In addition, its design and heavy levels of car traffic make some areas unsafe for walking. I think this makes suburbia harder to map than older, gridded areas. I've mapped in both. I live in a suburban setting (because it's close to where I work), but I much prefer to map in areas that are safer to walk around in. Unsafe driving is another type of crime, unfortunately one that is more acceptable in society. Hillsman, Edward wrote: I've also managed imports of bus stops into several cities where almost none had been mapped (after trying to contact everyone who had mapped any of them). Do you know if Florida law makes bus stop data public domain? I contacted Lynx (Orlando area) about importing their data but got no response. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Re-talk-Digest-Vol-78-Issue-79-tp6049733p6050046.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Zero tolerance on imports
Tordanik wrote: The best way to achieve this, IMO, is to only execute mass edits and imports in collaboration with a local community. This makes sure that there is a sufficiently developed community of mappers on the ground, allows them to evaluate the data's quality beforehand, and makes it likely that the data will be well integrated into the OSM database soon after the import. Would you say the same about mapping in an area you're in on vacation? Or is it OK to dump incomplete data on an area with no local community as long as it's not an import? -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Zero-tolerance-on-imports-tp6044534p6050056.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Zero tolerance on imports
Felix Hartmann-2 wrote: Most important things for OSM are good aerial photos coupled with large community. Worst are imports. The United States are so bad, I don't think OSM will ever become important there. The biggest thing to remember is that creating something is much more fun than correcting it. Imports make OSM a chore and no fun. I find tracing endless residential subdivisions from aerials to be a chore and no fun. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Zero-tolerance-on-imports-tp6044534p6046937.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Zero tolerance on imports
On 2/20/2011 6:58 PM, David Murn wrote: On Sun, 2011-02-20 at 15:35 -0800, Nathan Edgars II wrote: I find tracing endless residential subdivisions from aerials to be a chore and no fun. I know many who disagree, fortunately. Last year I was laid up in bed for around 3 months after surgery, just after hi-res aerial imagery became available for my area. I spent many many hours tracing unmapped areas, or even tracing paths and other data of value. Paths are fine. Mixed-use is fine. What I dislike, and am thankful to the TIGER import for including, is suburbs full of miles upon miles of curving residential streets. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Zero tolerance on imports
Richard Weait wrote: Mike N, you must have missed the first x-years of the project. Neither aerial imagery, nor imports were available. ;-) Of course, renderers were missing too. Not only subdivisions, but cities, lakes and oceans were missing. I took a look at the project some years ago when that was true. Since I didn't have a GPS device that could record tracks and transfer them to the computer, I didn't return until the end of 2009 (by which time we had the TIGER import and Yahoo aerials). -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Zero-tolerance-on-imports-tp6044534p6047164.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Zero tolerance on imports
Andrew Errington-2 wrote: Anyway, I like the idea of using imports as a 'scaffold' for building real objects. Imported data could sit on a separate layer, much like GPS traces, then a mapper can either trace over the imported shapes, or select an imported object and 'promote' it to become a real object (then join it up to existing objects), or select an imported object and delete it, either because it already exists, or it's wrong, or it has served its purpose for tracing. Over time the import layer will fade away once all of its objects have been scrutinised. We already have such a setup with respect to the reviewed tags on any imports that include those. If we really wanted to, we could not render anything with *reviewed=no, but that would be silly. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Zero-tolerance-on-imports-tp6044534p6044950.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Zero tolerance on imports
Daniel Sabo wrote: I would think (or at least hope) that this kind of bad import would be less of an issue if the revert tools were not so arcane. My previous attempts are reverting stuff have always ended up with manual XML fiddling to get the desired results. I don't know how recent it is, but JOSM's reverter plugin integrates nicely with the conflict manager. I'm sure someone will say now that making reverts too easy is a bad thing and that we should have zero tolerance on them (by reverting them, of course!). -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Zero-tolerance-on-imports-tp6044534p6044953.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Zero tolerance on imports
Richard Fairhurst wrote: This is getting crazy. Exhibit 1: http://twitter.com/#!/maproomblog/status/39053538692698112 Whoever imported CanVec in Aylmer, Quebec obliterated hours of work and introduced hundreds of errors. #osm #openstreetmap #whybother I wonder how many complaints like this there will be if and when the license is changed. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Zero-tolerance-on-imports-tp6044534p6045014.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-us] NHD Hydro Connectors
On 2/18/2011 7:45 PM, Richard Weait wrote: On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 7:37 PM, Dale Puchdale.p...@gmail.com wrote: That said, for now using oneway is better than not tagging flow direction. I disagree. Water flow direction is recorded by the direction of the way, same as steps up direction is recorded by the direction of the way. Oneway is not required for flow direction, though reverse way direction might be. I never knew that about steps, and have thus mapped roughly half the number of steps I've added incorrectly. In addition, for waterways, there's no way to say I don't know what direction the flow is, even if one does know current flow direction practice. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] NHD Hydro Connectors
On 2/18/2011 8:22 PM, Richard Weait wrote: On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com wrote: I never knew that about steps, and have thus mapped roughly half the number of steps I've added incorrectly. In addition, for waterways, there's no way to say I don't know what direction the flow is, even if one does know current flow direction practice. There are several options there. 1) Go and look And if flow is stagnant? Do I drop some rubber ducks in and see where they end up after a day? 2) Leave it for somebody who can go and look Same. 3) Map the outline but not the flow line Why would I do this for a narrow waterway? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Sevier Lake Anomaly
On 2/16/2011 10:13 PM, Val Kartchner wrote: What I'm asking about is this anomaly in the area of Sevier Lake: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=39.0035lon=-113.0895zoom=14layers=C;. What is up with this sudden change in terrain? Most likely the quality or method of creation of the data in this area changes at the 39th parallel. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [OSM-talk] Analyse a changeset
Rodolphe Quiedeville-2 wrote: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/6938764 Now I'm looking for a tool to analyse this changeset to see if there's only deletion on it. If the changeset is compose of 100% deletion I'll look to do a revert on it. You should be able to use JOSM's reverter plugin and some combination of selecting all objects, undoing the revert, and then looking for unselected objects using the find window. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Analyse-a-changeset-tp6027179p6029468.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Underground / hovering buildings
Jacek Konieczny wrote: layer=-1 tells only that the thing is under layer=0 and over layer=-2, nothing in relation to 'ground level' (some rivers or roads may have layer=-1 or layer=1 on most of its length). No, ground level is layer 0. A nonzero layer on a ground-level feature is an error. However, layer=-1 does not mean it's covered by surface, if the surface has been removed. For example, during construction of a building, the basement will be open to the air. For the original question, I'd probably use layer=-1, covered=yes, underground=yes, location=underground, and enough other semi-made-up tags that one is bound to stick. In addition, it's not always clear what ground level is in dense urban environments. In part of downtown Chicago, the pre-civilization ground level is now under two levels of elevated streets. But there are buildings that fill the formerly-open spaces, so in some sense ground level has moved up two layers. Here it's probably best to explicitly label layer=0 on whatever's chosen as the current ground level. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Underground-hovering-buildings-tp6025288p6029515.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Underground / hovering buildings
On 2/15/2011 5:38 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2011/2/15 Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com: Jacek Konieczny wrote: layer=-1 tells only that the thing is under layer=0 and over layer=-2, nothing in relation to 'ground level' (some rivers or roads may have layer=-1 or layer=1 on most of its length). No, ground level is layer 0. A nonzero layer on a ground-level feature is an error. -1, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Layer http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:layer ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Underground / hovering buildings
On 2/15/2011 7:52 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2011/2/16 Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com: -1, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Layer http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:layer our wiki is becoming something like the bible: you can find a page for every opinion ;-) I don't have a big problem with layer=0 being considered ground level, but before someone wrote it on the key page the consensus was that layers do only express relative order, not an absolute position. I suggest we agree on one version and correct the other one. Since giving long ground-level ways nonzero layers screws up every place they cross another way, it seems clear what should be done. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Underground / hovering buildings
David Murn wrote: Well, the page seems to contradict itself, suggesting that a tunnel under a building is layer=0. Depends if the tunnel goes underground or just through a building while remaining at ground level (though the latter case might be better described as covered). David Murn wrote: Also in a note near the bottom of the page, it is suggested that a flat bridge at the same level as the ground around it should be level=1, even if what it crosses is far below. Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Gorge_Bridge The ground level itself goes down into the gorge. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Underground-hovering-buildings-tp6025288p6030751.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-us] Parking lot not rendering
On 2/12/2011 12:47 PM, Val Kartchner wrote: I'm having a problem with the Mapnik rendering of this area: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=41.176495lon=-111.948208zoom=18;. In the retail area northwest of 48th Street and Harrison Blvd (UT-203) I have entered parking lots. However, they are not rendering. The commercial area just north of that is part of the same parking lot but it is being rendered. What is wrong with the retail area? It's because the parking lot crosses a landuse boundary. Mapnik, in my experience, tries to find which of two objects is inside the other and renders them with the smaller one on top. But if they cross results are suboptimal. Aerials indicate that the commercial parking lot is not connected to the retail parking, so it should be a separate polygon, even putting aside this complication. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Parking lot not rendering
On 2/12/2011 2:01 PM, Val Kartchner wrote: That was it. I split the parking lot at the boundary of the land use, and it now renders correctly. I'll have to keep this in mind when I'm drawing parking. I figured that since there was very little separation between parking lots that it should be done as one big one. Oh, I didn't even notice the big area to the north. I was talking about the small commercial lot off 48th. Since the two large areas do in fact share parking with absolutely no separation, it's probably best to treat them as one parcel and use the more prominent landuse value (or should it be commercial by default, since retail is a subset of commercial?). Then you can indicate the actual uses of each building (which may be mixed; an office building might have a cafe on the first floor). (By the way, the commercial parking to the north still goes slightly into the retail area. Maybe Mapnik calculates the area and draws from biggest to smallest?) An area (parking lot, pedestrian, whatever) should only be one piece if it's all connected. Since you can't enter the retail parking lot and get to the small south commercial parking, they should be two separate areas, close *but not touching*. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Parking lot not rendering
On 2/12/2011 3:19 PM, Lennard wrote: On 12-2-2011 20:10, Nathan Edgars II wrote: (By the way, the commercial parking to the north still goes slightly into the retail area. Maybe Mapnik calculates the area and draws from biggest to smallest?) Yes, it does, in this case, render from largest to smallest area fill. That would explain http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/3295 then. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [OSM-talk] Boundary rendering bug
Toby Murray-2 wrote: It strikes me as odd that a tag on a member way affects the rendering of a relation in this way. Am I missing something? The same thing happens when a highway=* railway=abandoned way is part of a railway=abandoned relation. Remove the railway=abandoned from the way and it renders properly. Keep the railway=abandoned on and it renders like a highway at layer infinity. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Boundary-rendering-bug-tp6006610p6007418.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-us] Relations, cycle routes, shapefiles
On 2/5/2011 10:44 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: On 02/04/2011 01:42 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 2/3/2011 11:15 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: underlying ways often have refs that belong to them (like bridge numbers) but not the route itself. You've said this a number of times without explanation. Why does the bridge number, or ODOT's internal referencing, belong to the way, while the route number doesn't? Oregon considers highway numbers and route numbers differently. I know. So what would you do on a bridge on a route, which has both a bridge number and a route number? Bike boulevards are on the same network as each other (well, the Portland ones, are, at any rate; note I'm not referring to official routes for state highways like 99 or federal highways like 205 or 84 since you're talking about city bike boulevards). Speaking of this, I don't think it's appropriate to mark the cycleways that parallel I-84 and I-205 as ncn just because they parallel highways on the national motor network. Never mind Oregon gets federal dollars to maintain those third roadways for those federal ways, eh? What does this have to do with anything? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Relations, cycle routes, shapefiles
On 2/6/2011 2:41 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: On 02/06/2011 05:14 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: What does this have to do with anything? USDOT is working hard to make all federal highways bicycle accessible. These routes are national in nature and often share with the motorway where bicycles are permitted, or have a third roadway specifically for the bike lanes where they're not permitted on the adjacent motorway. There's no such thing as a federal highway. With only a handful of exceptions, Interstates and U.S. Routes are maintained by the state or local government and numbered by AASHTO. Except for Interstate construction and maintenance, and possibly a few other cases, federal funding does not depend on what numbering system a road belongs to. This has been true since before the U.S. Routes were assigned in 1926. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Relations, cycle routes
On 2/5/2011 12:36 PM, stevea wrote: Take a look at Santa Cruz County, California with OSM Cycle Map layer (see the text in the last paragraph at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Santa_Cruz_County,_California#Work_to_be_done_in_the_County). We tag highways (AGAIN: additionally tag the WAY containing highway=*) that the County (Regional Transportation Commission) displays on its annually-published paper Bike Map thusly: Class I: highway=cycleway Class II: cycleway=lane Class III: bicycle=yes bicycle=yes simply means that cycling is allowed, and is the default state for everything but a motorway. It should not be used to mean that the county thinks it's a good road for cycling. For instance, cycling may be allowed on a portion of freeway, but the county instead recommends an alternate surface route. ADDITIONALLY, there is a local cycleway network route numbering system being simultaneously proposed. The local jurisdictions are in the process of literally seeing proposals in OSM, as we speak, using a two-digit (initially, to include a third digit on spur and belt routes) numbering space, but only on major (0, 5) routes first, 8 and 80 being the local examples of the first two spine routes created. Because there is a tag state=proposed which is exactly right for these, AND it causes dashing to imply proposed, we use it. Have these been proposed by the governments, or is OSM being used as a medium for citizens to recommend routes? The latter seems like a misuse of OSM. When a route is approved by the local jurisdiction (city, town, county) just remove the state=proposed tag and the dashing goes to solid. Call this Part Two B. No, it's when it's *signed* (example: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bike/3553881233) that it should be marked as not being proposed. I assume rcn 1 already has signs? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] A particularly bad case of dupe node elimination
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/357366507/history http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/158642035/history ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Relations, cycle routes, shapefiles
On 2/3/2011 3:25 PM, PJ Houser wrote: Hi all, I have some basic questions: 1) Why are relations preferred for bike routes? If there's a continuous route from point A to point B, it's easier to keep track of it as a relation. If there's just a signed network using bike route signs, there's no benefit of a relation. It there's just a standalone cycleway that's not part of a large system, it shouldn't even get lcn tags. http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/3462 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Relations, cycle routes, shapefiles
On 2/3/2011 6:37 PM, j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: I know that, using relations, a particular way can be part of several different routes. Is this also true if the ways are used directly, instead of through a relation? Yes, using semicolons: lcn_ref=1;8 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Relations, cycle routes, shapefiles
On 2/3/2011 11:15 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: underlying ways often have refs that belong to them (like bridge numbers) but not the route itself. You've said this a number of times without explanation. Why does the bridge number, or ODOT's internal referencing, belong to the way, while the route number doesn't? Bike boulevards are on the same network as each other (well, the Portland ones, are, at any rate; note I'm not referring to official routes for state highways like 99 or federal highways like 205 or 84 since you're talking about city bike boulevards). Speaking of this, I don't think it's appropriate to mark the cycleways that parallel I-84 and I-205 as ncn just because they parallel highways on the national motor network. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Relations, cycle routes, shapefiles
On 2/3/2011 11:20 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: If it's a bicycle boulevard, it should have it's own LCN relation (even if it does have one member), as it would also qualify as a route. And the way will probably be split up many times over it's existence as turn restrictions get added, ways get split to represent medians, other routes sharing ways get added, etc. Relations are a tad more resilient in the long run. Not really - when a way is split, the old tags are automatically applied to both new ways, but a relation is applied only if the editor knows about the relation. It's very easy to download a large route relation in JOSM and all its elements and split a way at a point where it overlaps another route without realizing that other route exists. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [OSM-talk] Why I don't use JOSM (was Re: Non-map-based OSM editor)
Anthony-6 wrote: On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 7:00 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Yes, if you try and use Potlatch to show several thousand objects you are certifiably insane. If you want to work in a JOSM-like manner, use JOSM! Good points. I think that's a big part of it. I tend to mostly do close up micromapping, where only having a screenful of data loaded into memory is quite advantageous. I see JOSM as the AutoWikiBrowser of OSM. One issue I have is this: I often import selected ways (such as railways) in an area from xapi and then edit them, adding new ones and deleting bad ones. (On upload if I deleted something that's referenced by a non-downloaded object I get a conflict.) But if I then download a tiny area using the normal api, I can no longer delete anything outside that small box. I couldn't find an option to turn this off; is there one? -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Why-I-don-t-use-JOSM-was-Re-Non-map-based-OSM-editor-tp5954371p5957258.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Why I don't use JOSM (was Re: Non-map-based OSM editor)
colliar-3 wrote: Am 25.01.2011 02:44, schrieb Nathan Edgars II: One issue I have is this: I often import selected ways (such as railways) in an area from xapi and then edit them, adding new ones and deleting bad ones. (On upload if I deleted something that's referenced by a non-downloaded object I get a conflict.) But if I then download a tiny area using the normal api, I can no longer delete anything outside that small box. I couldn't find an option to turn this off; is there one? Maybe you have checked the little box to remember your answer to do you really want to delete a node outside downloaded area. Have a look for message.delete in your preferences. Thanks. I must have set this when I was first starting out, not realizing there were other ways to download data. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Why-I-don-t-use-JOSM-was-Re-Non-map-based-OSM-editor-tp5954371p5957735.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-us] TIGER edited map updated with Toby's suggestion
On 1/24/2011 8:54 PM, Alan Mintz wrote: At 2011-01-24 16:55, andrzej zaborowski wrote: I'd suggest tiger:reviewed=no which is kind of what the tag was for. ...except that some (many?) people don't know (or don't care) to remove the tag after they edit/confirm the feature. There are many edited TIGER ways out there with this tag. There are also many edited TIGER ways that have not actually been reviewed. Perhaps a ref was added, or a grade crossing, or a grade separation. I'll generally leave this tag for the locals to remove. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[OSM-talk] Bad changeset comment
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/7057167 This should have been railways; apparently JOSM got confused with another changeset of mine. It's too late for me to change it, but is it possible for someone with higher permissions to fix it? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] xapi downage
It seems to be having the same problem again. Is there a better place to report it than spamming this list? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-us] Creating relations for abandoned railway lines
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Kristian M Zoerhoff kristian.zoerh...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, all. I've been working on adding some abandoned railway lines in my area, and I've been wondering how to group them together. The line I'm working on right now (the former Elgin Belvidere Electric Co. line) has been re-used in some areas as public streets, bike paths, service roads, and even a railway museum, so I've had to break the line into quite a few ways. I'd like to group them back together with a relation, but I'm not sure if anyone's done this for an abandoned railway line, or if this is even the right thing to do. My plan was to create a new relation like so: type = route route = train operator = Elgin Belvidere Electric Co. This should be unabbreviated: Elgin and Belvidere Electric Company. abandoned = yes It's that last tag I'm unsure of. Is abandoned = yes allowed/understood in relations? I think what you want to use is route=railway, not route=train. The latter would include trackage (if any) owned by other companies that the EBE used to reach downtown terminals, while the former would be the single line owned and operated by the EBE. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Creating relations for abandoned railway lines
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote: On 01/10/2011 10:23 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Kristian M Zoerhoff operator = Elgin Belvidere Electric Co. This should be unabbreviated: Elgin and Belvidere Electric Company. “” is not an abbreviation, so it should be “Elgin Belvidere Electric Company” Say what? http://books.google.com/books?id=FI0pYAAJpg=PA390 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[OSM-talk] xapi downage
Does anyone know when the xapi will be back online? It's been down for several days at least. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] To those who remove dupe nodes
Frederik Ramm wrote: Your original complaint was about people removing *duplicate* nodes though, not people removing fresh, unused nodes. That's another situation; if your upload creates duplicate nodes then your upload is buggy and should be stopped. Not always - an import of TIGER county lines will create dupes with TIGER roads, and these should not be joined. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/To-those-who-remove-dupe-nodes-tp5904360p5904644.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] xapi downage
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 12:14 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: Should be ok now. Seems like someone had been messing with the server ... it somehow had an identity crisis. Hmmm - I'm still getting the same failed to open a connection to the remote server message in JOSM. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] xapi downage
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: On 9 January 2011 16:19, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: Does anyone know when the xapi will be back online? It's been down for several days at least. 80n is the only person who coded / runs the current implemention of XAPI which is written in GT.M / MUMPS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUMPS Others have attempting at getting it running but failed. XAPI currently uses 2 servers: * xapi.org.org: Hardware provided and hosted by OSM sysadmin team. Sysadmin policy that the code needs to be open source. 80n remove the source code dump in December. So you're saying that the recent problems have been caused by political grandstanding? Bloody hell. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] xapi downage
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote: Although policy is that software should be open source, and 80n has recently removed the access to the code we have not as yet done anything to restrict his access to or use of the server. Ah, OK. Thanks for the clarification. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] xapi downage
The xapi is now back up. Thanks to everyone involved in creating and maintaining this great resource. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Postmortem analysys
David Murn wrote: On Fri, 2011-01-07 at 10:18 -0800, Nathan Edgars II wrote: Let those broken routers choke on real-world cases where nodes really are in the same place (double-decker bridge that crosses a state line, for example). I'll continue to map correctly. Just because you have ways crossing each other at a common point, that doesnt mean they all have to have a node at the same point. When youre putting a bridge over a creek, do you simply mark the start/end of the bridge, or do you also put a node in the middle of the bridge above the water? Just because a double-decker bridge crosses a border or river, doesnt mean that each layer needs to have a node at exactly the same point, unless youre either using low-accuracy GPS data, or delibrately trying to make the map data harder to interpret by routers. If the name or ref is different on either side of the state line, then it needs to be split in the middle. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Postmortem-analysys-tp5899422p5903544.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Postmortem analysys
On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 8:25 PM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: On Sat, 2011-01-08 at 17:17 -0800, Nathan Edgars II wrote: If the name or ref is different on either side of the state line, then it needs to be split in the middle. Thats fine, but does the state line need a node directly on-top of the road? Does the state line change as it crosses over the road? If not, then you dont need a node on the state line at the same point as the road, which means the duplicate node problem doesnt exist. That's why I specified a double-decker bridge: each deck gets split at the line. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Postmortem analysys
Oops - meant to send this to the list. On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 8:54 PM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: On Sat, 2011-01-08 at 20:27 -0500, Nathan Edgars II wrote: That's why I specified a double-decker bridge: each deck gets split at the line. I guess in theory, having a double decker bridge, directly over a state line is possible. It's not only possible, but exists: http://www.panynj.gov/bridges-tunnels/george-washington-bridge.html But why write routers for the one case thats theoretically possible, instead of the millions that are not only possible, but already in existance? I don't care how the routers are written. I care about people wrecking the data by merging dupes. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-us] If anyone wants to sort out some damage (Hudson valley, New York)
On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 2:35 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 11:58 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: Just noticed this: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/82696560/history Done. I think. Be good to have a local check it. There are still some problems such as http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/82567761/history . Perhaps it would be best to revert the entire changeset less any valid changes? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] If anyone wants to sort out some damage (Hudson valley, New York)
I've fixed it, thanks to JOSM's reverter plugin. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[OSM-talk] How do I get higher-resolution imagery in JOSM?
Both Yahoo and Bing have nice imagery in the Orlando area: http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=28.417946lon=-81.491858zoom=20 http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=potlatch2lat=28.417946lon=-81.491858zoom=20 But I cannot get JOSM to load this quality. Is there a trick I'm missing? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How do I get higher-resolution imagery in JOSM?
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com wrote: Have you tried bumping up the zoom setting in the imagery plugin preferences? The setting is in tile zoom level. I think by default it only goes up to z18 but I have been able to bump it up to z21 in some areas. Of course if you set it higher than the available imagery you will eventually start getting blank tiles. Ah, there's the trick I was missing. I wonder why it's not set higher by default? It doesn't seem to work for Yahoo in the linked area, but that's not a big deal because Bing is faster and just a month or so earlier here. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Postmortem analysys
Nic Roets wrote: Mike, please don't blame the bot. It's not the bot. It's the operator that did horrible stuff. And bot-operator-enablers who defended their actions. Nic Roets wrote: Ungluing a node an just leaving it there, is really looking for trouble. Some routing engine(s) glue nodes together that are less than a few centimeters from each other. Now you may want to complain that those routing engine(s) are buggy, but that bug has historically made things easier rather than more difficult. And going forward, I expect it to continue to be a feature rather than a bug. Let those broken routers choke on real-world cases where nodes really are in the same place (double-decker bridge that crosses a state line, for example). I'll continue to map correctly. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Postmortem-analysys-tp5899422p5900287.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[Talk-us] If anyone wants to sort out some damage (Hudson valley, New York)
Just noticed this: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/82696560/history ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] US highway tagging (was Re: highway shields: get your kicks, where?)
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote: I don't believe I've seen anything other than the die-cut style in CA. Any background would look wrong. You live in the one state that still uses cutout US Highway shields :) See the image near the top of http://www.usends.com/ for what other states use. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Minimum standards for motorways?
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 3:12 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: On 01/03/2011 08:33 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeGUSMssl7kt=0m15s There's not much merging room (no worse than on many Interstates), but it's nowhere near a right angle. I'm familiar with the ramp, the tightness of the corner and the space in which to merge is comparable to your standard corner-cuts on major boulevards. Unless we're actually going to suggest that 71st and Memorial are both motorways... http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=36.060853lon=-95.886224zoom=18layers=M I think you just admitted defeat. People, look at his example. He posted two surface streets with cross traffic (and presumably unlimited access from adjacent properties). ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Minimum standards for motorways?
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 10:43 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: On 01/01/2011 09:45 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: Yes - Seattle's Alaskan Way Viaduct. It seems like a clear motorway to me, but a local has tagged it as trunk. Alaska has intersections on at least one of it's three decks, though. The lower level is Alaskan Way, a surface street. Above it are two levels of Alaskan Way Viaduct, one in each direction. It's the second and third levels I'm talking about here. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] US highway tagging (was Re: highway shields: get your kicks, where?)
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote: At 2011-01-02 19:46, Paul Johnson wrote: On 01/01/2011 11:55 AM, Richard Weait wrote: I've been adding more highway shields to the shield renderer. Most recently I've added a shield for Historic Route 66. http://weait.com:8080/map/shield.html?lat=40.36679lon=-89.10653zoom=16layers=BTF Cool. Shouldn't the relation be tagged: network=US:US ref=66 modifier=HISTORIC according to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging ? Using the modifier tag for a banner seems wrong, as the route designation is e.g. 30 Business, not 30. It's a little more iffy for a historic route. Also, is it now correct to not tag (network, ref) the individual ways that are part of a route relation? What about name? Is it correct to remove those existing tags from the ways (and ensure they are on the relation)? I'm not talking about a large-scale bot update, but as long as I'm editing them for some other reason anyway. No, it's not correct to remove refs from ways. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Import for Murray County, OK
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Mike N. nice...@att.net wrote: On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: if by 2 lane freeway, you mean a super 2, by convention those are usually trunk in the US. I mean what some roadgeeks call a super 2, which isn't necessarily the same as what others use that term for. Two-lane freeway is a more precise term - it's a freeway with two lanes. So would the road be best classified as trunk or motorway? I would (and did) mark it highway=motorway lanes=2 oneway=no toll=yes (except of course for the northeast end, where it's a normal surface road). Others will likely disagree. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Import for Murray County, OK
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: if by 2 lane freeway, you mean a super 2, by convention those are usually trunk in the US. I mean what some roadgeeks call a super 2, which isn't necessarily the same as what others use that term for. Two-lane freeway is a more precise term - it's a freeway with two lanes. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Minimum standards for motorways?
Question: what do people think about minimum standards for tagging something highway=motorway? In other words, would it be reasonable to tag a highway as trunk rather than motorway because it has no shoulders or a low speed limit (40 mph)? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Minimum standards for motorways?
Oops - meant to send this to the list. On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: On 1/1/11 5:47 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: Question: what do people think about minimum standards for tagging something highway=motorway? In other words, would it be reasonable to tag a highway as trunk rather than motorway because it has no shoulders or a low speed limit (40 mph)? with the low limit, it might even be sub-trunk. What would you set as a cutoff? Significant portions of Interstates in New York City have a limit of 45 mph; would you make anything under that trunk or lower? Or would you have other criteria for deciding when a freeway is not a motorway? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Minimum standards for motorways?
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 5:47 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: Question: what do people think about minimum standards for tagging something highway=motorway? In other words, would it be reasonable to tag a highway as trunk rather than motorway because it has no shoulders or a low speed limit (40 mph)? Do you have a specific example in mind? Yes - Seattle's Alaskan Way Viaduct. It seems like a clear motorway to me, but a local has tagged it as trunk. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Minimum standards for motorways?
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote: In the US, we seem to have what I'd call Interstate standards. It generally seems like motorway is appropriate for Except half the Interstates don't meet current standards. I don't know of any maps that show Interstate-standard freeways separately. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
