Re: [OSM-talk] Q: Is OSM interested in neighborhood and regional boundaries for L.A.?
On 17 June 2010 14:38, Ben Welsh wrote: > Thomas, if I understand you right, you are asking about the mapping tiles, > correct? All of our mapping tiles are drawn from Google. Though we're using > OpenLayers, rather than the Google API, most of the time to pull them in. In > the future, I would love to make custom tiles with Mapnik and Cascadenik, > but I haven't found the time. Burning our hood boundaries into the map is > almost too much fun to pass up. His concern is with the ambiguity of Google T&Cs about deriving things from their map, however Ed Parsons clarified this a little bit when he stated you could publicly distribute your favourite hiking trail and so on, but not vectorise every street, it seems to me boundaries wouldn't really be the same as vectorising every street. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Q: Is OSM interested in neighborhood and regional boundaries for L.A.?
Apollinaris, our boundaries have a classification system we roughed out. How well they would mesh with OSM is something I'd love to hear a critique on. Simplifying things a bit, the taxonomy of our database is two tiers: Neighborhoods and Regions. Neighborhoods come in three types: 1, parts of a city; 2, complete cities; 3, unincorporated areas. And each neighborhood (i.e. Santa Monica) belongs to a larger region (i.e. The Westside). The regions are, by design, untied from any municipal boundaries, since the general sense in LA is that many of the commonly understood regions are broken up into several cities. A great example is the San Fernando Valley, which has a small island in the middle, namely the city of San Fernando. The strangeness of the municipal boundaries is actually one of the main reasons we wanted to do this. * * Thomas, if I understand you right, you are asking about the mapping tiles, correct? All of our mapping tiles are drawn from Google. Though we're using OpenLayers, rather than the Google API, most of the time to pull them in. In the future, I would love to make custom tiles with Mapnik and Cascadenik, but I haven't found the time. Burning our hood boundaries into the map is almost too much fun to pass up. On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Thomas Ineichen wrote: > Hi Ben, > > I'm just wondering: are the suggestions/improvements by your readers based > on anything else than Google Maps?[1] > > Regards, > Thomas > > [1] e.g. > http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/debates/westside/#comment-form > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > -- palewire.com work: 213-473-2624 cell: 213-254-5570 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Q: Is OSM interested in neighborhood and regional boundaries for L.A.?
Hi Ben, I'm just wondering: are the suggestions/improvements by your readers based on anything else than Google Maps?[1] Regards, Thomas [1] e.g. http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/debates/westside/#comment-form ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Q: Is OSM interested in neighborhood and regional boundaries for L.A.?
I think it's a good idea but needs a good idea for the tagging with these different combinations and dividing. neighborhood names are common in other cities too and well known to locals. So it is valuable info for osm and should be rendered too. currently some are added as place nodes and also rendered as such. having them as an area is even better. sure there will be debates about exact boundary but over time either osm converges to the locally used ones or osm will tell people where they are and they may get used to follow osm On 16 Jun 2010, at 6:13 , Ben Welsh wrote: > At the risk of over complicating things, let me give a little more info. > > LA County is a fragmented place with many different cities and unincorporated > areas puzzled together. Our "neighborhoods" are in fact three different types > of areas consolidated. > > 1. Cities divided into neighborhoods. i.e. > http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhoods/city/los-angeles/ > 2. Complete cities, drawn by their formal boundaries. i.e. > http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhoods/neighborhood/west-hollywood/ > 3. Unincorporated areas that are "Census Defined Places": > http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhoods/neighborhood/east-los-angeles/ > > On top of that, there are dozens of small unincorporated areas that are > basically islands floating between everything else. We've lumped them in with > a bordering neighborhood: > http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhoods/unincorporated/list/page/1/ > > Why did we throw all these together and call them neighborhoods? Because our > goal is to have a single common denominator we can spread across the entire > county and use for comparison. That's why we build them out of Census tracts, > so we could rack up demographics about them all. i.e.: > http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhoods/income/median/neighborhood/list/ > > As time goes on, we plan to divide up all of the cities into smaller > neighborhoods, not just Los Angeles, we did in a first round last year. In > cases where cities have official hood boundaries (LA does not) we'll likely > use those. > > More info about the project and process is here: > http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhoods/about/ > > On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 5:23 AM, John F. Eldredge wrote: > This sounds like a good compromise to me, as most people will have a general > agreement of where a given neighborhood is located, but differ about where > the boundaries are located. > > -- > John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com > "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to > think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria > > -Original Message- > From: Ed Avis > Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 08:46:09 > To: > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] >Q: Is OSM interested in neighborhood and r >egional boundaries for L.A.? > > A compromose would be to add the centre of each neighbourhood (as > locality=place > or similar) but not the exact boundaries. > > -- > Ed Avis > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > > > -- > palewire.com > work: 213-473-2624 > cell: 213-254-5570 > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Q: Is OSM interested in neighborhood and regional boundaries for L.A.?
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Ben Welsh wrote: > At the risk of over complicating things, let me give a little more info. > LA County is a fragmented place with many different cities and > unincorporated areas puzzled together. Our "neighborhoods" are in fact three > different types of areas consolidated. [ ... ] Dear Ben, It must have been great fun to participate in this project. I see that you and the Los Angeles Times understand the problems related to crowd sourcing neighborhood boundaries perfectly. See "You gotta stop is somewhere" http://www.latimes.com/includes/projects/img/thumb-westside-300x100.png Also this neighborhood map for Tarzana is wonderful. http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhoods/comments/11501/ Your consultation with the community in Los Angeles (650 user-generated maps, 100 revisions) sounds like you have substantial interest and perhaps even consensus locally. I think that's wonderful. Presuming that the participation in your project is likely to reduce border disagreements, I think it would be a nice addition to OSM. I notice that you publish your data as cc-nc-sa. To include it in OSM you would have to agree to allow OSM to publish it as cc-by-sa and then ODbL after the license upgrade. Of course you would lose the explicit Los Angeles Times credit as well since OSM expects a simplified "Maps and Data CCBYSA OpenStreetMap (and Contributors)" And again, I think it is important to get feedback from others in the Los Angeles OSM community. Have a look over at talk-us. They might have something similar in the works. I'm sure you find the conjecture by all of us "seagulls" interesting but we all know that one active local mapper on the ground is better than a self-important expert from Toronto. ;-) Best regards, Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Q: Is OSM interested in neighborhood and regional boundaries for L.A.?
At the risk of over complicating things, let me give a little more info. LA County is a fragmented place with many different cities and unincorporated areas puzzled together. Our "neighborhoods" are in fact three different types of areas consolidated. 1. Cities divided into neighborhoods. i.e. http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhoods/city/los-angeles/ 2. Complete cities, drawn by their formal boundaries. i.e. http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhoods/neighborhood/west-hollywood/ 3. Unincorporated areas that are "Census Defined Places": http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhoods/neighborhood/east-los-angeles/ On top of that, there are dozens of small unincorporated areas that are basically islands floating between everything else. We've lumped them in with a bordering neighborhood: http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhoods/unincorporated/list/page/1/ Why did we throw all these together and call them neighborhoods? Because our goal is to have a single common denominator we can spread across the entire county and use for comparison. That's why we build them out of Census tracts, so we could rack up demographics about them all. i.e.: http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhoods/income/median/neighborhood/list/ As time goes on, we plan to divide up all of the cities into smaller neighborhoods, not just Los Angeles, we did in a first round last year. In cases where cities have official hood boundaries (LA does not) we'll likely use those. More info about the project and process is here: http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhoods/about/ On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 5:23 AM, John F. Eldredge wrote: > This sounds like a good compromise to me, as most people will have a > general agreement of where a given neighborhood is located, but differ about > where the boundaries are located. > > -- > John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com > "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not > to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria > > -Original Message- > From: Ed Avis > Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 08:46:09 > To: > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] >Q: Is OSM interested in neighborhood and r >egional boundaries for L.A.? > > A compromose would be to add the centre of each neighbourhood (as > locality=place > or similar) but not the exact boundaries. > > -- > Ed Avis > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > -- palewire.com work: 213-473-2624 cell: 213-254-5570 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Q: Is OSM interested in neighborhood and regional boundaries for L.A.?
This sounds like a good compromise to me, as most people will have a general agreement of where a given neighborhood is located, but differ about where the boundaries are located. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria -Original Message- From: Ed Avis Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 08:46:09 To: Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Q: Is OSM interested in neighborhood and r egional boundaries for L.A.? A compromose would be to add the centre of each neighbourhood (as locality=place or similar) but not the exact boundaries. -- Ed Avis ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Q: Is OSM interested in neighborhood and regional boundaries for L.A.?
We already had a discussion about something smaller than suburbs last year: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2009-September/041903.html But I don't know if you consider "quarters" or "districts" differently as "neighborhoods". Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Q: Is OSM interested in neighborhood and regional boundaries for L.A.?
On 16 June 2010 19:17, Tom Hughes wrote: > Does that matter if the boundaries are essentially guesswork inventions > anyway? If we used that logic we would only ever map from very hi-res very high accurate aerial imagery then because anything less is mostly guess work... > It sounds like these aren't any sort of officially defined areas, but more > the kind of fluid local names for approximate areas. Actually it's worst than that, at least here, because when you are near a suburb border different databases can place you in different suburbs. I think most databases are generated from extrapolations, but the original boundaries would have been drawn up on paper, and some times they do shift but older suburbs tend to be pretty static. Also suburb boundaries here sometimes have signs up on major roads when you move between them. That said, suburbs are somewhat different in Australia to similarly named places in the US, there is more of them and they cover smaller areas. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Q: Is OSM interested in neighborhood and regional boundaries for L.A.?
On 16/06/10 10:04, John Smith wrote: > On 16 June 2010 18:46, Ed Avis wrote: >> A compromose would be to add the centre of each neighbourhood (as >> locality=place >> or similar) but not the exact boundaries. > > That doesn't tell you what objects exist inside those boundaries... Does that matter if the boundaries are essentially guesswork inventions anyway? It sounds like these aren't any sort of officially defined areas, but more the kind of fluid local names for approximate areas. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Q: Is OSM interested in neighborhood and regional boundaries for L.A.?
2010/6/16 Steve Bennett : > OSM does need to think more carefully about what exactly is in and out > of scope. The scope is IMHO the worldmap drawn with the knowledge of locals, that's why I'd consider these informal neighbourhoods precious to our data, even more as they are not "official" boundaries so OSM could maybe become the main source for them. I'm actually against too much discussion about relevancy of things to be put into the db. It might be problematic to insert ephemeral stuff, especially if it does not get maintained, but besides this I'd personally like to see as much information as possible inserted. Things (e.g. those areas, alternative names, ...) that only the locals know of (but to them is commonly known), and that is not written in other publications or even on the ground I'd consider the most precious data to collect. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Q: Is OSM interested in neighborhood and regional boundaries for L.A.?
On 16 June 2010 18:46, Ed Avis wrote: > A compromose would be to add the centre of each neighbourhood (as > locality=place > or similar) but not the exact boundaries. That doesn't tell you what objects exist inside those boundaries... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Q: Is OSM interested in neighborhood and regional boundaries for L.A.?
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Ben Welsh wrote: > Long story short: I'm curious whether our boundaries might have a home in > the OSM database. I don't know a ton about the project, but I've always IMHO they might be useful, on the basis that they're not just any old informal boundaries, they have the credibility of a major newspaper behind them. On the other hand, if they really do just change arbitrarily, that's less valuable. OSM does need to think more carefully about what exactly is in and out of scope. Some people want everything if it's verifiable. Others want to draw limits. The exact same debate goes on constantly at Wikipedia, but is much more sophisticated. At the very least, the names would be useful in nominatim or whatever, to help find stuff. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Q: Is OSM interested in neighborhood and regional boundaries for L.A.?
On 16 June 2010 13:44, Richard Weait wrote: > As a visitor to LA, or viewer of LA on OSM, I think it would be > interesting to see the neighbourhood names. It sounds useful to > visitors and locals. Not only that, but such boundaries are useful to save adding is_in=* tags to everything... > As an OSM contributor, I'd hate to see the contribution of informal > areas become contentious or a focus for an edit war. These shouldn't really become the focus of an edit war, but they can be painful to deal with when they follow similar paths to roads and other similar man mad features, but this is a bigger issue and as long as they are tagged properly at least they can be hidden in JOSM these days... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Q: Is OSM interested in neighborhood and regional boundaries for L.A.?
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Ben Welsh wrote: > Hello listers, > I'm a developer at the Los Angeles Times. We just put out a set of > boundaries for 272 neighborhoods and 16 regions that cover Los Angeles > County. http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhoods/ > The idea is to draw formal lines that try to capture informal areas commonly > used by locals. It's an art, not a science, but we're trying to have fun > with it. And have invited users into some OSM type debates along the way. > See: http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/debates/westside/ > Long story short: I'm curious whether our boundaries might have a home in > the OSM database. I don't know a ton about the project, but I've always > admired it from a distance, and I would love to get our small development > team, which does a fair amount of mapping, somehow involved with the > community. > I hope this isn't interpreted as spam. I don't mean any disrespect. I'm just > honestly curious what y'all think and this seemed like the place to drop a > line. Hi Ben, Welcome to OpenStreetMap. Thanks for the cool article about OSM today. Sure, it was under Mike Swift's name, but you showed up here so you get the thanks. Your question is interesting. I'm not going to answer it. ;-) As a visitor to LA, or viewer of LA on OSM, I think it would be interesting to see the neighbourhood names. It sounds useful to visitors and locals. As an OSM contributor, I'd hate to see the contribution of informal areas become contentious or a focus for an edit war. Perhaps some of our LA locals will join the discussion. Best regards, Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Q: Is OSM interested in neighborhood and regional boundaries for L.A.?
Hello listers, I'm a developer at the Los Angeles Times. We just put out a set of boundaries for 272 neighborhoods and 16 regions that cover Los Angeles County. http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhoods/ The idea is to draw formal lines that try to capture informal areas commonly used by locals. It's an art, not a science, but we're trying to have fun with it. And have invited users into some OSM type debates along the way. See: http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/debates/westside/ Long story short: I'm curious whether our boundaries might have a home in the OSM database. I don't know a ton about the project, but I've always admired it from a distance, and I would love to get our small development team, which does a fair amount of mapping, somehow involved with the community. I hope this isn't interpreted as spam. I don't mean any disrespect. I'm just honestly curious what y'all think and this seemed like the place to drop a line. Thank you, Sincerely, Ben Welsh. P.S. We already distribute all of the shapes in KML and GeoJSON. See: http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/api/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
