from:"James Mast"

Re: [Talk-us] User in Florida changing several motorways to trunk

2020-01-08 Thread James Mast

Well, I have noticed he has downgrade a ton of roads that were 'trunk' for 6+ 
years, which leads me to be believe they were tagged correctly if no other 
local mapper touched them in that time period.  There were also a few ways in 
that changeset you mentioned that he changed to secondary that at a previous 
time was trunk (till he changed it to primary late last year). See: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/216669397/

Honest mistakes on his end? Perhaps.  But I'm just seeing way too many 
downgrades to be conformable with his 'highway type' changes to be honest.  
There's probably quite a few roads that he retagged as primary that need to be 
re-upgraded to trunk and so on.  Routing algorithms have probably been 
seriously damaged by some of the changes unfortunately.

As for restoring the 'motorway' roads, I've honestly just been manually fixing 
them.  Sure, takes longer, but allows me to catch the 'Emergency U-Turn' 
crossovers that are improperly tagged as a '_link', and fix them at the same 
time.  I've cleared & restored the proper motorway/motorway_link tags on 
FL-414, FL-429, FL-451, & FL-453 manually so far.  Leaves FL-408, FL-417, 
FL-528, and a few non-state roads around Walt Disney World.  But those routes 
are some pretty long ones, and will take some time to fix since they have 
several exits along them.

From: Levente Juhász 
Sent: Wednesday, January 8, 2020 7:56 AM
To: talk-us 
Cc: James Mast 
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] User in Florida changing several motorways to trunk

FYI the user also joined the changeset discussion as of recently. Based on the 
message and previous changeset comments (e.g. "trunk-primary fixes (that i 
messed up)" in 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/79132672#map=12/28.4681/-81.4027) it 
seems to be an honest mistake.

I can help out with fixes over the weekend. Let me know if you come up with a 
plan to restore highway=motorway tags.

Levente

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 8:39 PM James Mast 
mailto:rickmastfa...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
I was just alerted to this by a friend, and thought I'd post about it here as 
well, since I don't really have the time to work on doing all the reverting 
that unfortunately needs to be done here (there's a lot).

But over the last 2 weeks, there's been a user changing several 100% motorways 
(& are toll highways to boot) that just happen to be state highways in Florida 
from motorway to trunk.  This is mostly as far as I can tell in the Orlando 
area, but might affect other areas in FL too.

I did leave the user a message on Changeset 79155661 ( 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/79155661 ).  Hoping he will see it, but 
with all the major highways that have been seriously demoted in priority that 
could seriously affect routing very badly, I honestly couldn't wait for a 
response before I posted a message to here as well.

Anybody willing to help out here in restoring the motorway tags to the proper 
highways?
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org<mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] User in Florida changing several motorways to trunk

2020-01-07 Thread James Mast

I was just alerted to this by a friend, and thought I'd post about it here as 
well, since I don't really have the time to work on doing all the reverting 
that unfortunately needs to be done here (there's a lot).

But over the last 2 weeks, there's been a user changing several 100% motorways 
(& are toll highways to boot) that just happen to be state highways in Florida 
from motorway to trunk.  This is mostly as far as I can tell in the Orlando 
area, but might affect other areas in FL too.

I did leave the user a message on Changeset 79155661 ( 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/79155661 ).  Hoping he will see it, but 
with all the major highways that have been seriously demoted in priority that 
could seriously affect routing very badly, I honestly couldn't wait for a 
response before I posted a message to here as well.

Anybody willing to help out here in restoring the motorway tags to the proper 
highways?
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[OSM-talk] Is this legal to what philly.com is doing?

2018-02-22 Thread James Mast

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/will-republicans-impeach-pennsylvania-supreme-court-justices-20180222.html


(ignore what the article is about)


Just happen to see a thumbnail and clicked on the article since I noticed the 
OSM base map.  Nowhere that I can find does it give credit to OSM for the use 
of it.


Now, the part to where I was curious if this was legal (sans the lack of 
credit), is that they are 'selling' the uploaded image.  Is that allowed 
currently under the license that OSM has?


Just thought I'd throw this out there for somebody more experienced in this 
sector.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-us] rayman 765

2018-02-10 Thread James Mast

Looks like he's also added a fictional city too, called Elktown. :/

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/56099959

[https://www.openstreetmap.org/assets/osm_logo_256-cde84d7490f0863c7a0b0d0a420834ebd467c1214318167d0f9a39f25a44d6bd.png]

Changeset: 56099959 | 
OpenStreetMap
www.openstreetmap.org
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use 
under an open license.



Looks like the DWG needs to be given a heads up ASAP, as I think all his edits 
are complete fantasy are are really hurting Central PA along the I-99 corridor. 
 Not to mention the more fantasy stuff he adds, the harder it will be to revert 
if somebody else does a legit edit that affects something that needs to be 
reverted.




From: Albert Pundt 
Sent: Friday, February 9, 2018 10:43:30 PM
To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org Openstreetmap
Subject: [Talk-us] rayman 765

A user by the name of rayman 765 has been making some... interesting edits. He 
seems to be mapping some fictitious road "80/erie highway", in bits and pieces 
with various classifications (everything from secondary to motorway). He's also 
been adding and naming streets with abbreviated names and no capitalization 
whatsoever.

Every single one of his edits has the comment "breezwood pa", even though 
hardly any of his edits are around Breezewood.

What's the proper thing to do here? Obviously I can't just mass-undo every 
single one of his edits, but obviously this "Route 80" is complete BS.

—Albert
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Highway exit renumbering

2017-11-28 Thread James Mast

old_ref=*


That's what we used to document old refs here in PA when I-279 & I-376 got 
recently renumbered due to an extension of I-376 taking over part of I-279.


Here's an example of this: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/683643865

[https://www.openstreetmap.org/assets/osm_logo_256-835a859acf0d378e1d14e88b15e7b4b95211ccd41a2c061b1629cfbbb8deb697.png]

Node: ‪65‬ (‪683643865‬) | 
OpenStreetMap
www.openstreetmap.org
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use 
under an open license.




From: d w 
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 3:56:45 PM
To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-us] Highway exit renumbering

Hi all,

I'm a bit new to mapping on OSM. A highway in Rhode Island (I-295) is getting 
renumbered, and I have no idea how to tag the old exit numbers. I looked for 
guidance on the wiki and some mailing list archives, but couldn't find it. My 
assumption that old exit numbers should be tagged with k=old_ref. Is this right?

Thanks!
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] wtsp.com using OSM for detour maps

2017-09-13 Thread James Mast

http://www.wtsp.com/news/flooding-could-close-i-75-as-floridians-try-to-get-home/474415152
[http://content.wtsp.com/photo/2017/09/13/map_1505321021730_10880901_ver1.0.PNG]

Flooding could close I-75 as Floridians try to get 
home
www.wtsp.com
"The Santa Fe River under I-75 has rapidly risen 15 feet within the past 36 
hours due to the heavy rainfall over North Florida from Hurricane Irma," 
Highway Patrol Spokesman Steve Gaskins said.



Thought this was kinda cool.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing 2

2017-06-20 Thread James Mast

Because back in the day, people complained about the spelling and that it had 
to be in the 'British' way.  So, it's under 'centre_turn_lane'.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:centre_turn_lane

Key:centre_turn_lane - OpenStreetMap 
Wiki
wiki.openstreetmap.org
A two-way center turn lane is a normal-width lane in the middle of a road that 
handles traffic from either direction turning across the other side (turning 
left in ...

From: m...@rtijn.org 
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 4:37:09 PM
To: Paul Johnson
Cc: Horea Meleg; talk-US@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing 2

For the ‘dashed line’ center turn lanes: what you do makes sense to me too. I 
have used center_turn_lane=yes in the past, but that is not documented and I 
wouldn’t encourage it. This way it fits nicely into the lanes schema.

The turn lanes plugin seems to support this nicely: 
https://www.dropbox.com/s/8wmp5h2cn931pic/Screenshot%202017-06-19%2014.33.40.jpg?dl=0
 — even though the center lane is rarely marked with left turn arrows, as 
suggested by the turn lane style.

Martijn

On Jun 19, 2017, at 5:20 AM, Paul Johnson 
> wrote:

In this case, with the dual-direction turn lane, I would label that with 
lanes:both_ways=1 and turn:lanes:both_ways=left.  If the center lane has two 
solid lines (making it a flush median), then lanes:both_ways=1 and 
access:lanes:both_ways=no

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 6:17 AM, Horea Meleg 
> wrote:
Hello all,
Me and my Telenav colleagues are editing lane numbers in Detroit area. We found 
some cases that looks like this (42.43651692568901, -83.51102781049859):

Our question is: what is the central lane used for and how do we map it?
Should we count it as a separate lane and have 3 lanes in this case (one for 
each direction and one for both directions)

or have only 2, one for each direction?

Thank you,
Horea Meleg

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

2017-04-03 Thread James Mast

Martijn, that intersection for as long as I can remember, has allowed the right 
turn @ the intersection and also via the slip lane.  The slip lane being closed 
when StreetView drove by was indeed temporary.  They were using it as a 
temporary staging area for construction vehicles for the bridge they were 
replacing on Pine Creek Road (well since completed) that was on the other side 
of the intersection.

-James

From: Martijn van Exel <m...@rtijn.org>
Sent: Monday, April 3, 2017 1:18:38 PM
To: James Mast
Cc: talk...@openstreetmap.org; OSM US
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

James -- I could not find any OSC / Mapillary imagery at the location of your 
example so I took a peek at <> google street view. What I see there is 
that the slip road / ramp was (as of Aug 2016 -- temporarily?) closed to 
traffic which may very well inform the allowed right turn at the intersection? 
Or do you know this to be permanent? In this particular case, based on the info 
I have, the _link way should have access=no and indeed no restriction would be 
necessary. (Obviously I can't make those edits because of <> above.)

I'm not saying that there cannot be exceptions to the general rule that 'when 
there is a turn ramp one must use it', (and as I said before our team is not 
adding these 'implicit' restrictions until we clear this up). What I am looking 
for is more clarity (specifically in Canada but in the US also) as to traffic 
regulations that would make adding these restrictions not only valid but also a 
boost to the quality of OSM data. I would only want us to add these if there is 
no confusion regarding correctness and there is added value to adding them.

I'm cc-ing the US list as there are very similar traffic situations there and 
I'm interested in clarifying the situation there as well.

Martijn

On Apr 3, 2017, at 6:47 AM, James Mast 
<rickmastfa...@hotmail.com<mailto:rickmastfa...@hotmail.com>> wrote:

Martijn, with your example you gave back 3/30 [1], are you 100% sure that it 
still might be legal to right turn at the main intersection?  It might be if 
you haven't been there, even with the slip lane being there.

Case in point, if you were to have one of your mappers modify this intersection 
[2] with a 'no right turn' relation, you would be adding false information to 
the OSM database.  While there is a 'slip' lane for right turns, there is 
overhead signage past that slip lane leaving US-19 saying that you are allowed 
to make a right hand turn at the intersection.  So, [3] would be completely 
legal and would be prevented if a false relation were to be added here.

This is just something you can't be 100% sure of without visiting it in person, 
or have imagery from something like Mapillary to see it.  So, I can see why 
Andrew was upset about this.

-James

[1] 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car=40.66610,-111.86760;40.66386,-111.86464#map=18/40.66520/-111.86552
[2] 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car=40.58570%2C-80.04423%3B40.58680%2C-80.04410#map=19/40.58625/-80.04431
[3] 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car=40.58614%2C-80.04461%3B40.58680%2C-80.04410#map=19/40.58648/-80.04457

From: Stewart C. Russell <scr...@gmail.com<mailto:scr...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 7:26:12 PM
To: talk...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk...@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

On 2017-03-31 04:29 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> … the engine
> may decide, lacking an explicit restriction, to take the non _link turn
> because it's faster even if that is an illegal turn. That is why we need
> these restrictions to be explicit in the data.

but … but — that's Tagging For The Map, or worse, Tagging To Fix
Software Stupidity. It's explicitly mapping something that's *not*
there, and so is contrary to what we're supposed to map.

I don't have a problem with it being in Telenav's data, but it doesn't
belong in OSM.

 Stewart

___
Talk-ca mailing list
talk...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk...@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
___
Talk-ca mailing list
talk...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk...@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

2017-04-03 Thread James Mast

Martijn, that intersection for as long as I can remember, has allowed the right 
turn @ the intersection and also via the slip lane.  The slip lane being closed 
when StreetView drove by was indeed temporary.  They were using it as a 
temporary staging area for construction vehicles for the bridge they were 
replacing on Pine Creek Road (well since completed) that was on the other side 
of the intersection.

-James

From: Martijn van Exel <m...@rtijn.org>
Sent: Monday, April 3, 2017 1:18:38 PM
To: James Mast
Cc: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org; OSM US
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

James -- I could not find any OSC / Mapillary imagery at the location of your 
example so I took a peek at <> google street view. What I see there is 
that the slip road / ramp was (as of Aug 2016 -- temporarily?) closed to 
traffic which may very well inform the allowed right turn at the intersection? 
Or do you know this to be permanent? In this particular case, based on the info 
I have, the _link way should have access=no and indeed no restriction would be 
necessary. (Obviously I can't make those edits because of <> above.)

I'm not saying that there cannot be exceptions to the general rule that 'when 
there is a turn ramp one must use it', (and as I said before our team is not 
adding these 'implicit' restrictions until we clear this up). What I am looking 
for is more clarity (specifically in Canada but in the US also) as to traffic 
regulations that would make adding these restrictions not only valid but also a 
boost to the quality of OSM data. I would only want us to add these if there is 
no confusion regarding correctness and there is added value to adding them.

I'm cc-ing the US list as there are very similar traffic situations there and 
I'm interested in clarifying the situation there as well.

Martijn

On Apr 3, 2017, at 6:47 AM, James Mast 
<rickmastfa...@hotmail.com<mailto:rickmastfa...@hotmail.com>> wrote:

Martijn, with your example you gave back 3/30 [1], are you 100% sure that it 
still might be legal to right turn at the main intersection?  It might be if 
you haven't been there, even with the slip lane being there.

Case in point, if you were to have one of your mappers modify this intersection 
[2] with a 'no right turn' relation, you would be adding false information to 
the OSM database.  While there is a 'slip' lane for right turns, there is 
overhead signage past that slip lane leaving US-19 saying that you are allowed 
to make a right hand turn at the intersection.  So, [3] would be completely 
legal and would be prevented if a false relation were to be added here.

This is just something you can't be 100% sure of without visiting it in person, 
or have imagery from something like Mapillary to see it.  So, I can see why 
Andrew was upset about this.

-James

[1] 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car=40.66610,-111.86760;40.66386,-111.86464#map=18/40.66520/-111.86552
[2] 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car=40.58570%2C-80.04423%3B40.58680%2C-80.04410#map=19/40.58625/-80.04431
[3] 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car=40.58614%2C-80.04461%3B40.58680%2C-80.04410#map=19/40.58648/-80.04457

From: Stewart C. Russell <scr...@gmail.com<mailto:scr...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 7:26:12 PM
To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

On 2017-03-31 04:29 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> … the engine
> may decide, lacking an explicit restriction, to take the non _link turn
> because it's faster even if that is an illegal turn. That is why we need
> these restrictions to be explicit in the data.

but … but — that's Tagging For The Map, or worse, Tagging To Fix
Software Stupidity. It's explicitly mapping something that's *not*
there, and so is contrary to what we're supposed to map.

I don't have a problem with it being in Telenav's data, but it doesn't
belong in OSM.

 Stewart

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org<mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org<mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

2017-04-03 Thread James Mast

Martijn, with your example you gave back 3/30 [1], are you 100% sure that it 
still might be legal to right turn at the main intersection?  It might be if 
you haven't been there, even with the slip lane being there.

Case in point, if you were to have one of your mappers modify this intersection 
[2] with a 'no right turn' relation, you would be adding false information to 
the OSM database.  While there is a 'slip' lane for right turns, there is 
overhead signage past that slip lane leaving US-19 saying that you are allowed 
to make a right hand turn at the intersection.  So, [3] would be completely 
legal and would be prevented if a false relation were to be added here.

This is just something you can't be 100% sure of without visiting it in person, 
or have imagery from something like Mapillary to see it.  So, I can see why 
Andrew was upset about this.

-James

[1] 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car=40.66610,-111.86760;40.66386,-111.86464#map=18/40.66520/-111.86552
[2] 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car=40.58570%2C-80.04423%3B40.58680%2C-80.04410#map=19/40.58625/-80.04431
[3] 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car=40.58614%2C-80.04461%3B40.58680%2C-80.04410#map=19/40.58648/-80.04457

From: Stewart C. Russell 
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 7:26:12 PM
To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

On 2017-03-31 04:29 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> … the engine
> may decide, lacking an explicit restriction, to take the non _link turn
> because it's faster even if that is an illegal turn. That is why we need
> these restrictions to be explicit in the data.

but … but — that's Tagging For The Map, or worse, Tagging To Fix
Software Stupidity. It's explicitly mapping something that's *not*
there, and so is contrary to what we're supposed to map.

I don't have a problem with it being in Telenav's data, but it doesn't
belong in OSM.

 Stewart

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-us] First new 2016 NAIP imagery is now online (Massachusetts & Tennessee)

2017-01-04 Thread James Mast

I tested out the new 2016 TN link in JOSM before I sent the original email and 
it worked perfectly fine for me.


From: Mike N <nice...@att.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2017 10:05:13 PM
To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] First new 2016 NAIP imagery is now online (Massachusetts 
& Tennessee)

On 1/4/2017 9:58 PM, James Mast wrote:
> So, hopefully some more new imagery that we can use to update highway
> projects will be showing up soon

   I haven't been able to use NAIP WMS links since the USGS scaled back
on their online services.   Do they work for you?

Mike

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] First new 2016 NAIP imagery is now online (Massachusetts & Tennessee)

2017-01-04 Thread James Mast

https://gis.apfo.usda.gov/arcgis/rest/services/NAIP

Folder: NAIP
gis.apfo.usda.gov
ArcGIS REST Services Directory Login: Home > services > NAIP: Help | API 
Reference: JSON | SOAP


Just happened to check out the link (which I do every once in awhile) and 
noticed that two states that now finally have 2016 imagery online, which are 
Massachusetts & Tennessee.  The rest of states that have 2014 are also 
supposedly due 2016 refreshes as well (I know NC was on the list for sure).  
So, hopefully some more new imagery that we can use to update highway projects 
will be showing up soon. []

Have fun guys!! []
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Changeset 35565180

2016-08-01 Thread James Mast

(Cross posted because of the contents of the changeset deals with both Canada
and the USA.)

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/35565180

[http://www.openstreetmap.org/assets/osm_logo_256-835a859acf0d378e1d14e88b15e7b4b95211ccd41a2c061b1629cfbbb8deb697.png]

OpenStreetMap | Changeset:
35565180
www.openstreetmap.org
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use
under an open license.

I just happened to discover this changeset that did some major damage to the
history for several relations for major highways. For example, Relation 165600
[1] use to be relation for I-271 (OH), however, this user deleted all that
data, and replaced it with an entirely completely different route in Ontario.
Sure, the user did create a 'new' relation for I-271 (Relation 5692605 [2]),
however it no longer has it's history of the previous 97 changes to the route,
the rouge 'Ontario' route now does. This was also done to 3 other Interstates,
some NY/FL/TX State routes, and several County Routes in various states.

So, I'm curious, what do you guys think we should do here? I'm kinda thinking
of maybe somehow swapping the relation IDs between the routes so that the
original ones can have their IDs & history back? I've already left a message
on the changeset of this user, so that base has been covered.

-James

[1] =
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/165600/

[http://www.openstreetmap.org/assets/osm_logo_256-835a859acf0d378e1d14e88b15e7b4b95211ccd41a2c061b1629cfbbb8deb697.png]

OpenStreetMap | Relation: ?13W?
(?165600?)
www.openstreetmap.org
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use
under an open license.

[2] = https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5692605/

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-ca] Changeset 35565180

2016-08-01 Thread James Mast

(Cross posted because of the contents of the changeset deals with both Canada
and the USA.)

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/35565180

[http://www.openstreetmap.org/assets/osm_logo_256-835a859acf0d378e1d14e88b15e7b4b95211ccd41a2c061b1629cfbbb8deb697.png]

OpenStreetMap | Changeset:
35565180
www.openstreetmap.org
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use
under an open license.

-James

[1] =
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/165600/

[http://www.openstreetmap.org/assets/osm_logo_256-835a859acf0d378e1d14e88b15e7b4b95211ccd41a2c061b1629cfbbb8deb697.png]

OpenStreetMap | Relation: ?13W?
(?165600?)
www.openstreetmap.org
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use
under an open license.

[2] = https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5692605/

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-us] US 221 (NC) Median U-Turns

2016-04-26 Thread James Mast

That is called a "Superstreet" [1]. NC seems to love these, as I've seen it pop 
up alone NC-73 recently near it's interchanges with both I-77 & I-85.

-James

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstreet


From: Mike N 
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 1:00:41 PM
To: OSM US Talk List
Subject: [Talk-us] US 221 (NC) Median U-Turns

This is just a new road configuration (to me).   NC Onemap aerials
updated to show the latest road configuration after they expanded 10
miles of dual carriageway on US221 in NC.   They used Median U-turn
configurations along the length rather than straight cross traffic for
the crossroads

OSRM shows the routing

http://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car=35.1950%2C-81.8381%3B35.1956%2C-81.8447#map=17/35.19743/-81.84066

and
http://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car=35.3009%2C-81.9085%3B35.2962%2C-81.9236#map=15/35.3001/-81.9176

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Talk-us Digest, Vol 101, Issue 10

2016-04-12 Thread James Mast

Hello Tom.


I was the first person to notice yesterday your students doing the changesets.  
I'm always happy to see new users adding stuff in the general Western PA area 
(as long as it isn't fictional items of course), and I'm glad you're doing this.


However, there was one common problem with their changesets that I kept seeing. 
 If you could explain to them first the difference of the 'area=yes' [1] and 
'building=*' [2] tags, that would be greatly appreciated so other users don't 
need to come in and fix the new items at a later date.  Most of your students 
were using 'area=yes' for buildings from the start.  Some corrected it on their 
own, others didn't, which required some other users to do it instead (one 
example that hasn't been fixed yet [3]).


So, as long as you can show them the wiki pages on those tags and explain the 
differences between the two, I think everything should be good to go here. 
[]


-James (rickmastfan67) https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/rickmastfan67


[1] -  
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:area

[2] - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building

[3] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/409620139



From: Mueller, Thomas 
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 8:01 PM
To: OSM Volunteer stevea; talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Talk-us Digest, Vol 101, Issue 10


I am very sorry for my lack of communication.  Yes I am Tom Mueller.  I have a 
class called Introduction to Geography.  It is a class of 100 students.  I 
offered my students an opportunity of extra credit if they completed 3 new 
buildings in their hometown (about 45 students took me up on this option.)  I 
had the students watch the MapGive video and they are submitting the screen 
shots to me.  I am asking students to make changes if there are problems.  I 
attempted this type of project about a year ago and did not have any problems.  
I am sorry I was unaware that I needed to contact anyone.


If this is a problem, I will ask my students to stop.  I apologize.  I was 
using this extra credit as a test case for a bigger project in the fall 
semester .  However if this is causing a problem I will also not proceed.


Again I am sorry

Tom


From: OSM Volunteer stevea 
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 7:35:32 PM
To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Talk-us Digest, Vol 101, Issue 10

At least a couple of posters have responded to the thread:

I'm equally inexperienced in the contact department, so take what I say with 
that gain of salt.

This appears to be a class at California University of Pennsylvania 
(calu.edu), and the last of the users you link appears to be 
Dr. [Tom] Mueller himself.

Perhaps someone with some degree of officialness can contact the professor 
directly (via institutional email, I'd guess) to start the conversation in a 
good-faith fashion.

I have had excellent results in working with my local University (of 
California, also my alma mater) with professors (of Computer Science, 
Environmental Studies), staff, interns, contractors, etc.  OSM is very 
higher-education friendly as there are many ways that using and improving its 
underlying data can be beneficial to both the students and back to the project. 
 My best experiences come from acting in the capacity of a local “ambassador” 
to the project, offering longer-term project perspective, consultation, 
direction, technical answers, in-person class attendance (once or twice during 
a quarter or semester is quite sufficient) and whatever else might be needed to 
support the professor and the aims of the class.  True, this is most helpful 
before-the-fact (students joining OSM and editing) rather than afterwards, but 
it can be successful either way.  I just think its easier to do a little 
discussion and planning up-front to reduce surprises and anything unexpected.

If you are in academia as a professor/instructor, new to OSM yourself and are 
contemplating using OSM in your class (especially if more than just a few 
students will be editing en masse) please endeavor to find some local OSM 
person(s) who can act as a guide.  While not necessary, this can reduce 
misunderstandings, more easily glide into the brief (yet necessary) additional 
“mapping curriculum" that must be developed so students are both good editors 
yet while still furthering the aims of the class.  Our map is a shared fabric, 
not only among us, (OSM volunteers who add and edit data) but also among the 
wider world who can and do use OSM to teach and do wonderful things that we 
might not even have imagined.

I don’t particularly think any “degree of officialness” (Ph.D. or otherwise!) 
is required to contact the professor:  simply introduce yourself as an 
interested and eager OSM volunteer who wants to help.  Then, listen.

Good luck to

Re: [Talk-us] Best way to contacting users who are taking a class, but are possibly damaging data at same time?

2016-04-11 Thread James Mast

I noticed it via my RSS feed of Pittsburgh area changes.  Wasn't too hard to 
put 2+2 together when the same changeset comment kept popping up today with 
different users.


-James


From: Martijn van Exel <m...@rtijn.org>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 6:49:22 PM
To: Ian McEwen
Cc: OSM Talk US
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Best way to contacting users who are taking a class, but 
are possibly damaging data at same time?

Hey,

I emailed Tom Mueller asking if it is indeed his class and if it is, to sign up 
for this list if he hasn't already and post a little bit of info on the class 
and the students' editing assignments. I am curious about this work and hope we 
can learn something about OSM in the classroom! I haven't looked at the edits 
myself but that's a keen eye, James! How did you discover this pattern?

Martijn

On Apr 11, 2016, at 4:41 PM, Ian McEwen 
<ianmcorvi...@ianmcorvidae.net<mailto:ianmcorvi...@ianmcorvidae.net>> wrote:

I'm equally inexperienced in the contact department, so take what I say with 
that gain of salt.

This appears to be a class at California University of Pennsylvania 
(calu.edu<http://calu.edu/>), and the last of the users you link appears to be 
Dr. [Tom] Mueller himself.

Perhaps someone with some degree of officialness can contact the professor 
directly (via institutional email, I'd guess) to start the conversation in a 
good-faith fashion.

On April 11, 2016 3:13:39 PM MST, James Mast 
<rickmastfa...@hotmail.com<mailto:rickmastfa...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
I've been noticing today in my local area that there are several users (6 of 
them [1]-[6]) using the same changeset comment of "GEO100 Dr. Mueller's class". 
 Several of these changesets are their first ever, so it seems to me that this 
class just started.  Only 1 of the accounts seems to be older than 1 month, and 
possibly might be the teacher [6], but can't be 100% sure.

Any recommendations on how to contact the users about this, or does somebody 
who has had previous experience with something similar want to take lead?  
Don't want to mess anything up that might give us some new mappers.

-James

[1] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/BradleyMann
[2] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/gdelre
[3] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/catiehamel
[4] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/glo6735
[5] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Cortazzo
[6] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TomM4





Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org<mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

--
Ian

Sent from my Android device with K-9 
Mail.___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org<mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Best way to contacting users who are taking a class, but are possibly damaging data at same time?

2016-04-11 Thread James Mast

I've been noticing today in my local area that there are several users (6 of 
them [1]-[6]) using the same changeset comment of "GEO100 Dr. Mueller's class". 
 Several of these changesets are their first ever, so it seems to me that this 
class just started.  Only 1 of the accounts seems to be older than 1 month, and 
possibly might be the teacher [6], but can't be 100% sure.


Any recommendations on how to contact the users about this, or does somebody 
who has had previous experience with something similar want to take lead?  
Don't want to mess anything up that might give us some new mappers.


-James


[1] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/BradleyMann

[2] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/gdelre

[3] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/catiehamel

[4] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/glo6735

[5] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Cortazzo

[6] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TomM4

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] CrossCountryRoads.com

2015-11-05 Thread James Mast

And I would be that "James Mast" that Alex mentioned. ;)

-James (rickmastfan67)

> Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 10:27:06 -0500
> From: ethnicfoodisgr...@gmail.com
> To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] CrossCountryRoads.com
> 
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 06:40:38 -0600
> > From: Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org>
> > To: Martijn van Exel <m...@rtijn.org>
> > Cc: OSM US Talk <talk-us@openstreetmap.org>
> > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] CrossCountryRoads.com
> 
> > On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Martijn van Exel <m...@rtijn.org> wrote:
> 
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I was in touch with Tom Valazak who created and maintains
> > crosscountryroads.com, a site somewhat similar to aaroads.com containing
> > images and video footage for interstates and highways in more than 40 US
> > states. He generously grants OSM permission to use the images on his site
> > for mapping more freeway related information such as signposts, lane
> > counts, speed limits. I created a wiki page for this:
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/CrossCountryRoads.com
> >
> > I hope you find it useful. If you do, please drop Tom a line through his
> > web site, I am sure he would appreciate it.
> >
> 
> > Wow, that's gonna be handy for my current interstates project.
> 
> 
> Check out this e-mail I got from Alex Nitzman (webmas...@aaroads.com)
> of aaroads.com.  The last paragraph is the important part.
> 
> Mark Bradley
> 
> * * * * * * * * * * * *
> 
> Hi Mark,
> 
> Thank you for writing and the compliments to our site. A lot of the
> Indiana information comes from our contributor Thomas Decker, who
> lives in Indianapolis. I appreciate the work you do as well, as I used
> to work with GIS for Universal Map Group and still do GIS work on the
> side.
> 
> The glossary section on state routes/highways/roads nomenclature comes
> from a map created by a road enthusiast that outlined all of the terms
> used by state on our highway forum. I followed that up with research
> on what contributors added to Wikipedia. Being that I live in Florida,
> I also am used to the term state road, as that it what FDOT uses as
> well. Shall I update the glossary to reflect that state road is not
> solely the term used in Indiana?
> 
> The shield gallery was originally created by Jake Bear. He used a
> different set of terms and no longer runs the gallery. As it works
> out, the term state highway tends to be trumped by state route by most
> states.
> At some point we will overhaul the Gallery and perhaps better specify
> the difference. But my knowledge of PHP scripting is not fluid enough
> to do it myself at this time.
> 
> Most of the glossary was compiled by Andy Field back in 2001 or 2002.
> I was not aware of the surface street definition, and I think the
> definition he gave is too vague. Perhaps the term should not be
> referenced?
> 
> Excellent point on the added benefit to mileage based interchange
> numbering. I shall amend the description to include that.
> 
> There are a number of forum members that also participate in updating
> OpenStreetMap. My forum administration James Mast is one of them, and
> I have supplied him with updates for Florida in the past. There is an
> Open Street Map thread on the board as well. You have my permission to
> use information/photos to help improve it.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> - Alex
> 
> -- 
> 
> Alex Nitzman
> Webmaster - AARoads.com | Interstate-Guide.com
> Blog: http://blog.aaroads.com
> Forum: http://www.aaroads.com/forum
> 
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Downgrading 'motorways' around toll plazas?

2015-10-11 Thread James Mast







Does anybody think it is a good idea to downgrade 'motorways' around toll 
plazas to 'trunk' highways?  I just noticed a user did this in mass in NY and 
MA along I-90/I-87. [1] [2]  He's even done this in PA a few times. [3]

I've also noticed several problematic changesets this user has done in the 
past.  I've left several comments on some of his changesets [4] [5] and he's 
never responded to them except once, and that was after sending him a few PM's 
(1 per month) till he finally responded only partially to my question in it. 
[6]  That leads me to believe that he's either completely ignoring the e-mails, 
or he's not even getting them.  Also, in that one comment that he did leave (in 
[6]), he pretty much completely ignored my question (if he had been there and 
saw shields for this 'new' route since I don't want to delete 'valid' data) and 
said that he works '12 hour days'.  Honestly, if he can still find time to do 
big OSM edits and work for 12 hours a day, can't he spare a minute or two to 
respond to a comment left for him instead of taking 2 months to reply?  I mean, 
even if I was busy and somebody left a comment on a changeset I did, I would 
try to make a few minutes to respond back within a day or two (week tops) of 
the comment.  This is a community project and everybody needs to work together 
and not ignore each other.

Another problem with this user is that he almost always keeps using the same 
changeset comment of "using bing imagery to update map" which is completely 
useless to tell what he's really doing in each changeset.  Drives me nuts, 
especially with a few other things he's been doing like adding the PA Quadrant 
routes into the ref tags (which btw, I invited him several times to participate 
in the conversation about them here on talk-us back in January '15 so he could 
state why he thought they should be in the 'ref' tag and he kept saying he 
would, but never did via PM, which I can provide screenshots to the DWG if they 
asked for them) even though they are 'unsigned' and aren't for navigational 
purposes since they aren't in the Keystone shields (comment on one such 
changesets I left for him on that subject [4]).  He's also been adding some 
routes that don't even exist anymore, or never existed in the first place (a 
few US 'bannered' highways in a few places). [7]

So, has anybody else had any 'luck' getting more concrete conversations out of 
this user?  I mean, I don't want to have to ask the DWG for a temporary block 
just to ask him to respond to the changeset comments left by me and a few other 
users, unless other users haven't had any luck getting him to respond as well, 
since that option is a last resort.

-James


[1] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/34537712 
[2] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/34532178 
[3] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/34144759 
[4] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/34237498 
[5] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33674410 
[6] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/28741710
[7] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/309527 (he only responded to this 
after I dug around to see who added the tags and I sent him a PM) 


  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] User HomocideBaltimore adding fake / fictional / old data all over Baltimore

2015-09-11 Thread James Mast

Not all 200 changesets are in Baltimore.  He's done the same thing in 
Charlotte, NC.  He's deleted interchanges (sometimes making them at-grade), 
completely deleted the northern segments of I-485, and other damaging stuff.

All his changesets need to be reverted ASAP!!

-James

From: elliott.pl...@gmail.com
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 22:34:48 +
To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org; imports...@openstreetmap.org
CC: ad...@mapsplease.net; openstreet...@mpetroff.net; rwcr...@comcast.net; 
bknight...@gmail.com
Subject: [Talk-us] User HomocideBaltimore adding fake / fictional / old data
all over Baltimore

This is very strange! The user HomicideBaltimore has been mapping all kinds of 
buildings around Baltimore that don't exist. They're old public housing 
projects or rowhomes that were razed, but seem to have been used on the set of 
the NBC show Homicide, Life on the Streets, shot in Baltimore.
What should I do?
This user is introducing all kinds of invalid data, and fair thoroughly mapped 
stuff too. All in iD, which is odd. The current Bing imagery shows none of 
this. I am shocked that someone would spend this much time on such a thing.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3726365602 - Police station in the show, not 
a real police station.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33940333 this block was razed years ago, 
and has been replaced by a new building.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33889607 This area has been cleared and 
replaced by some new buildings.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/HomicideBaltimore/history#map=15/39.3011/-76.5900

There are nearly 200 changsets around Baltimore like this! I have spent 
considerable time mapping in this area, adding the brownfields and such. Not to 
mention the Baltimore Import, much of which is being trashed by this user.
What can be done? I commented on one changeset, but I don't have any experience 
reverting things.
Elliott

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Request revert on Changeset #33669446

2015-09-05 Thread James Mast

Paul, did you ever take 5 seconds to see that the 'lanes' problem on that side 
of the highway could have been caused by an editor bug?  iD is well know for 
hiding tags from people, and normally not alerting people when the merge ways 
that they might be damaging tags.  That is not jakeroot's fault.  You can 
squarely place that blame on the editor.  So, how about go over to the iD 
Github [1] page and report a bug or two dealing with the merging of tags?  
Don't always assume a person is vandalizing because the editor they are using 
is hiding stuff from them.  on that subject, you should apologize to jakeroot 
since the editing program is to blame there. [2]

-James

[1] - https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD
[2] - https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/908  

Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2015 09:28:00 -0500
From: ba...@ursamundi.org
To: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com
CC: d...@osmfoundation.org; talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Request revert on Changeset #33669446

You're looking farther west where it's a work in progress for lanes (not having 
lanes=* tags were better than having incorrect lanes tags, since the number of 
lanes along those very long ways varies in places).  Look between Fourth Plain 
and 54th Avenue, that's where lane tags were hit with a sledgehammer.  JOSM 
obviates that this was clearly jakeroot's doing, no such apology is owed or 
will be granted.
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 9:47 PM, James Mast <rickmastfa...@hotmail.com> wrote:



Paul, 

I've tried to stay out of this here on talk-us, but being belligerent and 
claiming somebody else removed the 'lanes' tags that didn't do it is just wrong 
Paul.  You honestly owe jakeroot an apology here (and in the Changeset 33669446 
comments) since he didn't remove those tags!!!  You, yourself removed them 
Paul, back in Changeset 32790788 over 2 months ago.  The history here doesn't 
lie about it. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/45846830/history  The 'lanes' 
tag was there for version 19 of that way edited by Bickendan, but gone in 
version 20 edited by you Paul.  The way is now currently on version 23.

If I was part of the DWG, I would recommend making you apologize to jakeroot 
before you could continue editing anything because of that.  If you didn't 
realize Paul, you're kinda acting like NE2 right now when it comes to this.

-James (rickmastfan67)


From: burke...@gmail.com
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 20:07:31 -0400
To: ba...@ursamundi.org; d...@osmfoundation.org; talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Request revert on Changeset #33669446

Paul,



He's not saying that jakeroot isn't the most recent editor. He's saying that 
the specific changes you're referring to are in changesets earlier than 
jakeroot's, and that *those* changesets appear to be yours. 



Not at a computer, so can't look myself. 



-jack



On September 4, 2015 4:44:53 PM EDT, Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> wrote:
This is in conflict with what I'm seeing in the area around Vancouver Mall, 
where jakeroot appears to be the most recent editor of everything along WA500.
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Chris Lawrence <lordsu...@gmail.com> wrote:
It's in the OSM way history. I didn't make it up. Look at it yourself if you 
don't believe me.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/45846830/history- "lanes" disappears between 
revisions 19 and 20. You submitted revision 20.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/45846831/history
- "lanes" disappears between revisions 13 and 14. You submitted revision 14.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/201133287/history
- "lanes" disappears between revisions 3 and 4. You submitted revision 4.
I could go on...

Chris
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 12:58 PM Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Chris Lawrence <lordsu...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 3:54 AM Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> wrote:
I'm going to have to additionally request this revert due to a fairly 
substantial loss of data that was involved after I spent a good 12-15 hours on 
detail lane tagging this expressway.  It appears many ways got merged and data 
was lost as a result.
Paul - You deleted that data yourself in changeset 32790788 when you made the
road a trunk in the first place.
Patently false.  I still have the last edit I made in the area on my desktop.  
jakeroot vandalized the map in his quest to tag the map NE2 style, and merged 
dozens of ways with zero regard for any tags except the one he was trying to 
game.
-- 
Christopher N. Lawrence <lordsu...@gmail.com>



Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


-- 

Typos courtesy of fancy auto-spell technology. 
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Request revert on Changeset #33669446

2015-09-04 Thread James Mast

Paul, 

I've tried to stay out of this here on talk-us, but being belligerent and 
claiming somebody else removed the 'lanes' tags that didn't do it is just wrong 
Paul.  You honestly owe jakeroot an apology here (and in the Changeset 33669446 
comments) since he didn't remove those tags!!!  You, yourself removed them 
Paul, back in Changeset 32790788 over 2 months ago.  The history here doesn't 
lie about it. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/45846830/history  The 'lanes' 
tag was there for version 19 of that way edited by Bickendan, but gone in 
version 20 edited by you Paul.  The way is now currently on version 23.

If I was part of the DWG, I would recommend making you apologize to jakeroot 
before you could continue editing anything because of that.  If you didn't 
realize Paul, you're kinda acting like NE2 right now when it comes to this.

-James (rickmastfan67)


From: burke...@gmail.com
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 20:07:31 -0400
To: ba...@ursamundi.org; d...@osmfoundation.org; talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Request revert on Changeset #33669446

Paul,



He's not saying that jakeroot isn't the most recent editor. He's saying that 
the specific changes you're referring to are in changesets earlier than 
jakeroot's, and that *those* changesets appear to be yours. 



Not at a computer, so can't look myself. 



-jack



On September 4, 2015 4:44:53 PM EDT, Paul Johnson  wrote:
This is in conflict with what I'm seeing in the area around Vancouver Mall, 
where jakeroot appears to be the most recent editor of everything along WA500.
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Chris Lawrence  wrote:
It's in the OSM way history. I didn't make it up. Look at it yourself if you 
don't believe me.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/45846830/history- "lanes" disappears between 
revisions 19 and 20. You submitted revision 20.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/45846831/history
- "lanes" disappears between revisions 13 and 14. You submitted revision 14.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/201133287/history
- "lanes" disappears between revisions 3 and 4. You submitted revision 4.
I could go on...

Chris
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 12:58 PM Paul Johnson  wrote:
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Chris Lawrence  wrote:
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 3:54 AM Paul Johnson  wrote:
I'm going to have to additionally request this revert due to a fairly 
substantial loss of data that was involved after I spent a good 12-15 hours on 
detail lane tagging this expressway.  It appears many ways got merged and data 
was lost as a result.
Paul - You deleted that data yourself in changeset 32790788 when you made the
road a trunk in the first place.
Patently false.  I still have the last edit I made in the area on my desktop.  
jakeroot vandalized the map in his quest to tag the map NE2 style, and merged 
dozens of ways with zero regard for any tags except the one he was trying to 
game.
-- 
Christopher N. Lawrence 



Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


-- 

Typos courtesy of fancy auto-spell technology. 
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Anybody had any contact with this user?

2015-09-03 Thread James Mast

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Sarr_Cat

Has anybody had any contact with that user and have him respond back?  I don't 
think many of his edits are troublesome, but I've sent him two messages in the 
last 2 months without any response back from him, asking him if he could please 
add a 'comment' to his changesets after he was mass adding some data in my 
local area a few times (mostly just buildings from Bing as far as I could 
tell).  Also, he's only been part of the OSM community for 4 months, but has 
almost 6,000 changesets in that time (none, as far as I can tell, have a 
comment).  I'd just wish he'd respond back to me on the 'changeset comment' 
part. :(

-James
  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Regent Square, PA

2015-08-25 Thread James Mast

I'll pass along a note to a fellow Pittsburgh mapper that is from that area to 
see what he can do about this.

-James

 Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 09:13:47 +0200
 From: frede...@remote.org
 To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: [Talk-us] Regent Square, PA

 Hi,

(resent from correct address)

OSMF board has received the following message from a Regent Square
 citizen, maybe someone here is willing and able to verify/fix. I'll make
 the person aware of this post so they can follow potential replies.

 Bye
 Frederik

  Forwarded Message 
 Subject:  Map boundary error
 Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 01:15:52 -0400

 ...

 I apologize as I did not know who to contact regarding a mapping error.
 You have the incorrect boundaries for the neighborhood Regent Square PA
 USA.  Regent Square is one neighborhood comprised of four communities:
 Wilkinsburg, Edgewood, Swissvale, and the city of Pittsburgh.  Your
 boundaries include only the city of Pittsburgh portion of Regent Square
 and I noticed the source is from their site. This is a common mistake.

 The correct mapping boundaries for Regent Square PA can be found on the
 Regent Square Civic Association's website www.regentsquare-rsca.org. The
 RSCA represents the entire neighborhood of Regent Square - both
 residents and businesses alike.

 Regent Square is slightly different from the average American
 neighborhood as it is comprised of portions of four different cities.
 Some compare it to a village.  The RSCA has the correct mapping
 boundaries on their website as well as maps of each of these four
 communities.

 ---

 -- 
 Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09 E008°23'33

 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Arm chair mapping challenges

2015-08-18 Thread James Mast

Yeah, I've had some problem edits from the MapBox paid editors as well not 
paying attention and believing that the Tiger data and Bing is pretty much 
'always right'.  They most of the time don't even check the history of ways 
before they edit and add back in stuff that another 'on-the-ground' mapper 
removed when a road was rerouted (and clearly mentioned this in the changeset 
comment).  Or even take 2 seconds to see that the new 'residential' road they 
just added w/ a name is obviously in the wrong place when there's another road 
already in the OSM database with the same name less than 500 yards away and the 
one they're adding is smack dab right in the middle of a parking lot.

Best thing to do here IMO, is to call them out the edit(s) in the changeset 
comment(s) area and tell them why it shouldn't have been done and hopefully 
they'll learn from this.  Since I think they are all from out of the USA (kinda 
wish they'd hire a few of us USA mappers from here on talk-us as well for QC 
who know highway standards here in the US/Canada), odds are they haven't seen 
some of these setups in their home country, which can also lead to some of the 
errors.  You could also maybe contact Arun Ganesh [1] [2] since he's supposedly 
in charge of them per their profiles about all of this.

-James

[1] - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mapbox#Mapbox_Data_Team
[2] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/PlaneMad 

 From: t...@fitchdesign.com
 Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 07:27:15 -0700
 To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: [Talk-us] Arm chair mapping challenges
 
 I live a few miles from the new Apple campus that is currently under 
 construction, so I see change sets for that area in my Who Did It RSS feed.
 
 The site is fenced off and the satellite imagery available for OSM is out of 
 date so I can’t say exactly what the status is other than some of the new 
 “spaceship” building is starting to appear over the top of the fence.
 
 Some other mapper has updated the area to remove the old buildings and 
 streets and marked the area as under construction. All of that seems correct 
 from what I’ve read in the paper and what little I can see on the ground.
 
 But it means the area differs from the Tiger data for the area.
 
 And now I am seeing multiple change sets from mappers I don’t recognize as 
 local re-instating the now missing features. For example: 
 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/366208964#map=15/37.3338/-122.0097
 
 A number of the “fixes” have a mention of 
 http://osmlab.github.io/to-fix/?error=tigerdelta-named#/task/tigerdelta in 
 their change set comments.
 
 I don’t have a good solution to this. But it does indicate to me that 
 automated challenges can actually make the map worse in areas where local 
 mappers have correctly accounted for recent changes. At the very least, their 
 ought to be a big click through dialog box on any challenge stating that 
 satellite imagery may be out of date and if there are newer local changes, 
 especially ones marking the area as under construction that the individual 
 task/challenge should not be implemented.
 
 On the other hand, if you are adding a road back and it is going through a 
 building=construction maybe you are clueless enough that a big click-through 
 warning would not help.
 
 Cheers,
 Tod
 
 
 
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Does anybody know if these PA maps are legal to use to get info from for OSM?

2015-08-02 Thread James Mast




ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/pdf/BPR_pdf_files/Maps/GHS/Roadnames/

I've been noticing lately a user in PA has been doing copying from these and 
other online maps available on the State of PA website to add in a lot of the 
quadrant routes here in the state over the past several months.  I'm not 100% 
sure this is allowed, is it?  I mean, would he have to at least verify that the 
license for those maps is compatible with OSM first any then also mention this 
somewhere on the Wiki?  It's been pretty obvious in some places that he's never 
been there, because recently, when I was out in the field in central PA, I came 
across a highway that had a ref tag with '2' false highways on it, a quadrant 
route ref, and the only real ref that it posted on the highway. [1]  The only 
'posted' ref there is the US 22 Business one.  Both of those US 522 bannered 
refs do not exist in the real road, and I highly doubt that they ever did since 
that section of highway was bypassed and mainline US-522 was moved off of it, 
as well as mainline US-22 (but it's part became Business US-22).  I think I did 
see the 'quadrant route' mentioned in the ref on one of the little white signs, 
but those don't count for the 'ref' tag (see below).  Now sure, I myself have 
edited in areas I've never visited, but I don't go randomly adding 'ref' tags 
to highways unless I can back up the changes with a legit source (the extra 
'name' tags from Tiger don't count).

I know a few months ago, we had a discussion here on [talk-us] about the 
relatively hidden 'quadrant routes' that Pennsylvania has [2].  Pretty much 
everybody here agreed that they shouldn't be added to the 'ref' tag since they 
don't have any shields.  I invited this user to join in the conversation here 
on [talk-us] several times via PM, and each time, he claimed he was too busy to 
even write a quick message, but would do it 'soon', as to why he thinks that 
the quadrant routes should be in the ref tag, and not 'ref:penndot' since he's 
the main person adding them that way so his side of the story/reasoning could 
be heard by everybody.  Since the last messages I sent him in January/February 
on that subject, I think he's been intentionally ignoring any message he gets 
from me, since I do know he's still editing.  The reason I'm suggesting that is 
because about a month ago, I discovered a route he added in NY in an area I'm 
pretty familiar with, even though I haven't been there in about 4-5 years.  He 
added a 'NY 5 Alternate' in the Silver Creak, NY area [3] along US-20, and I 
found that highly illogical for NYDOT to have added since that route has a 
really bad hill on it for trucks (that's why there's a posted US-20 Truck 
posted there in the field along NY-5's main route).  So, I asked him about that 
route to see when it might have been posted (if it was a real route).  I kinda 
have a feeling he added it based off of the faulty Tiger data overlap there, as 
you can see NY-5 referenced in the Tiger tags on the way mentioned in my 
comments on that changeset.  Still, as you can see in the changeset comments, 
he's completely ignored me on this subject.  I've even send him a few polite 
messages via the internal PM system asking if he could take a moment and 
respond to that changeset.  Got nothing back from him, even though he's 
continued to edit via Potlatch 2 since most of my comments/messages on the NY-5 
Alternate subject, so I know he's had to have at least seen the new message 
icon for a new PM since he's responded to me in the past.  Anyways, this 
wouldn't be the first time he's added a possible 'false'/'no longer exist' ref 
tag to the OSM database and have somebody ask him questions about it. [4] (He 
wouldn't have even responded to this note if I hadn't have sent him a message 
about it.)

Anyways, enough back story on this user.  So, does anybody have any idea about 
those PA maps?  I mean, if they aren't legal to be used for our purposes in 
OSM, then there is a shit load of stuff that would need to be 'redacted', or 
just deleted from the database since this user used those maps a lot in the 
past to add quadrant routes.  So, if anybody else wants to try to contact him 
to see if he'll respond to you and maybe finally post here on [talk-us], be my 
guest since he's just ignoring me.

-James

[1] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/14238074 
[2] - https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2015-January/014157.html
[3] - 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/28741710#map=16/42.5471/-79.1594layers=Q
  
[4] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/309527  

  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Am I mapping this wrong, or should the router be fixed for this?

2015-07-28 Thread James Mast

I personally see no problem with adding 'nodes' where the stop lines are so 
that another mapper in the future can add, say, 
'highway:traffic_signals=stop_line' or something similar once we nail down how 
to 'link' all traffic lights in an intersection and come up with a proper 
tagging scheme that all routers accept.  I know I always add that 'redundant' 
node when I'm doing a full scale cleaning of a highway so that there is less 
'versions' in the history for said way.  That's why I also almost always add 
nodes to business driveways along major highways in case another mapper wants 
to come along later and add the buildings/service ways that connect to the main 
highway.  Saves them time too.

-James

From: t...@fitchdesign.com
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 22:13:53 -0700
To: yourvillagem...@yahoo.com
CC: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Am I mapping this wrong, or should the router be fixed 
for this?


On Jul 27, 2015, at 6:41 PM, David Wisbey yourvillagem...@yahoo.com wrote: 
This issue reminds me of something I saw a lot of recently on OSMin Fort 
Collins, Colorado.  I get the impression that the mapper whodid this editing 
did it as a way to avoid the problem(s) mentionedregarding routing.  When I 
first saw this peculiar way of mappingtraffic signals, I didn't speak up.  
I'm glad this finally got me to do so.
Instead of placing the traffic_signals key at the intersection nodes ofa dual 
carriageway (divided highway) intersection with signals, thismapper created 
redundant nodes on the ways (one-ways) prior tothe intersections (and prior 
to pedestrian crossings, of course) atthe point where vehicles (by law) must 
stop for a red signal.
Here is just one example of many in Fort Collins:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/40.55255/-105.07708
David
Not really odd at all, and I’ve mapped plenty that way. Why? Because I was 
following the wiki: 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtraffic_signals#Tag_all_incoming_ways
And from my software/engineering background it makes sense.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Am I mapping this wrong, or should the router be fixed for this?

2015-07-28 Thread James Mast

Well, the problem here is, that even though OSMAnd says 'make a U-Turn', 
vshcherb says the following about it:

 
Technically this is not U-Turn, cause it goes to another OSM way. 
U-Turn when you get back to the same road, because most of the roads are
 drawn as 2 ways, that's why U-Turn is just a turn on the different 
street. 


There is no penalty based on the sharpeness of the turn, cause there 
is no clear algorithm to say how much sharp turn is and what is the 
penalty. 




You can see the rest of his response to this at the GitHub ticket: 
https://github.com/osmandapp/Osmand/issues/1501


-James


 To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 From: nice...@att.net
 Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 13:20:50 -0400
 Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Am I mapping this wrong, or should the router be fixed 
 for this?
 
 
 
  2) There should be some cost in a routing engine for making a u-turn so
  as to discourage such routes even if there was an extra set of signals.
  Making a u-turn does take time (one can not go from the posted speed
  limit in one direction to the posted speed limit in the other direction
  instantly). The presence of other traffic in the opposing directly would
  add further to the time needed to make a u-turn as one would have to
  wait for an opening.
 
I agree that the cost of a U-turn is not high enough if it is less 
 than a shorter route via traffic signal.
 
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Am I mapping this wrong, or should the router be fixed for this?

2015-07-27 Thread James Mast

I've been normally mapping slip lanes as '_link' highways at intersections
since the beginning. However, as most fellow US mappers know, they almost
never have 'speed limits' posted for them, and that seems to help cause
problems in some routing programs when they give those slip lanes a speed limit
higher than the main highway.

Anyways, I've been using OSMAnd recently for occasional offline routing on my
tablet and have come across weird routing (I'd like to call them 'bugs') at
some intersections that have 3+ traffic lights nodes at them because of the
roads being divided. Here, OSMAnd routes me onto a slip lane, makes a U-Turn
on the side road, and then continues the across the main road to accomplish
what a simple 'left turn' could have done [1], all to avoid '1' traffic light
node. So, I go report the 'bug' on the OSMAnd Google group [2], and then
somebody forwards it to the GitHub site [3].

In the response I get back on GitHub, one of the maintainers of OSMAnd says
it's a 'map data' issue and closes it. Claims that in the 'maneuver', since it
avoids an extra traffic light node, it's the shortest route, even though it
does that funky U-Turn. Say what?! I mean, honestly, if both MapQuest Open
OSMR can do that left turn 'normally' without needing to make a funky U-Turn,
something has to be wrong in OSMAnd, right?? Sure, there isn't a 'NO U-Turn'
sign posted for this maneuver, but still, the routing engine shouldn't be
suggesting it since there isn't a 'NO Left Turn' relation there preventing the
left turn from McKnight SB to Siebert EB.

So, that leads me to my question. Does anybody think I've tagged the
intersection incorrectly? This is how I've been tagging intersections like
this from since the start, and I know most other US mappers have been doing the
same. Or should I start adding 'false' U-Turn restrictions to prevent the
routing bugs and then be called out as 'tagging for the router', or even maybe
start putting traffic light nodes at the stop lines for intersections that have
both roads divided (and just leave simple one-node intersections as-is)?

I'm very curious to see what others have to say about this to see how I'll move
forward when I map in the future. Also, don't hesitate to respond at the
Google Group post or the GitHub one too as I get the e-mail notifications from
them as well.

-James

[1] - (MapQuest routing, OSMAnd suggestion in [2] link) -
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=mapquest_carroute=40.53204%2C-80.01073%3B40.53002%2C-80.00614

[2] - https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/osmand/XJ-HVOHhKEM
[3] - https://github.com/osmandapp/Osmand/issues/1501
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[OSM-talk] Am I mapping this wrong, or should the router be fixed for this?

2015-07-27 Thread James Mast

-James

[1] - (MapQuest routing, OSMAnd suggestion in [2] link) -
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=mapquest_carroute=40.53204%2C-80.01073%3B40.53002%2C-80.00614

[2] - https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/osmand/XJ-HVOHhKEM
[3] - https://github.com/osmandapp/Osmand/issues/1501
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-ca] Highway 400A

2015-07-16 Thread James Mast

You could always add the '400A' part to the 'unsigned_ref' tag because of it 
being mentioned in the traffic volume documents.

-James

Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 07:14:52 -0700
From: berniejconn...@gmail.com
To: andersontris...@hotmail.com
CC: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Highway 400A

If the highway signs match the ORN data I would completely ignore any contrary 
information. I know the province is actively maintaining and updating the ORN 
data. 

Bernie. 

—
Bernie Connors
New Maryland, NB

On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Tristan Anderson 
andersontris...@hotmail.com wrote:

I agree.  I can change it tomorrow if nobody objects.

From: berniejconn...@gmail.com

The smartest thing to do is tag it based on the highway signs along the road. 

Bernie. 

—
Bernie Connors
New Maryland, NB

On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 11:42 PM, Kevin Farrugia kevinfarru...@gmail.com 
wrote:

There's some conflicting stuff about this when I look into it: the last traffic 
volume report (2010) from MTO refers to the section as 400A 
(http://www.ontario.ca/data/traffic-volume), but MNR road data labels it as 
Highway 11 (the MNR Ontario Road Network dataset is the source for GeoBase 
roads in Ontario).

Keeping it as is would keep it correct based on MTO docs, but changing it based 
on the signage would improve usability and navigation since there aren't any 
400A signs, only Hwy 11 direction signs (example: 
http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/xLVIFS_6hnuS_cQ-owysww).

Anyone else have any thoughts?

-Kevin

On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 9:15 PM, Andrew MacKinnon andrew...@gmail.com wrote:
The south end of Highway 11 at the Highway 11/400 junction between

Highway 400 and Penetanguishene Road, just north of Barrie is

currently tagged as Highway 400A in OSM. Is this still Highway 400A? I

thought that this became Highway 11 after the Mike Harris downloading

downloaded the section of Highway 11 south of there (most of which is

Yonge Street).

___

Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
  ___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] ON prefix

2015-07-01 Thread James Mast

Heads up, but user North American Highways did it again.  He changed all the 
ref tags for {2} to ON-2 this time.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/32325674

I do think it's time for contacting the DWG on him about this.  Obviously he 
ignored my PM to him on this subject to come here to the [talk-ca] list and 
talk about it.

Plus I do honestly think both North American Highways and 
osm_validation_and_improvements are the same person.  Use the same version of 
JOSM, and same 'source' tag on the changesets.

-James

From: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com
To: andrew...@gmail.com; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 09:04:10 -0400
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] ON prefix




If this is the 2nd time he's done it, I'd report him to the DWG.

-James

 Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 10:50:06 -0400
 From: andrew...@gmail.com
 To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: [Talk-ca] ON prefix
 
 User:osm_validation_and_improvements made mechanical edits to add the
 ON prefix to Ontario highways again. I am currently in the process of
 reverting these edits, but this will take a long time.
 
 ___
 Talk-ca mailing list
 Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
  

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
  ___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] ON prefix

2015-06-30 Thread James Mast

If this is the 2nd time he's done it, I'd report him to the DWG.

-James

 Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 10:50:06 -0400
 From: andrew...@gmail.com
 To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: [Talk-ca] ON prefix

 User:osm_validation_and_improvements made mechanical edits to add the
 ON prefix to Ontario highways again. I am currently in the process of
 reverting these edits, but this will take a long time.

 ___
 Talk-ca mailing list
 Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
  ___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Ref tags in Ontario

2015-06-26 Thread James Mast

Well Kevin,

Well, it seems that the edits from 'OntarioEditor' along the entire 405 were 
missed and still have the 'ON' in the ref tag on the ways.

As for the new user doing it, it's 'North American Highways'.  I sent him both 
a PM and a comment on a changeset [1] directing him here to the mailing list.  
Hopefully he'll respond back to me or post here.  For all I know, he could be 
the same user above with a new account as he added the 'ON' back to the ref tag 
on the 400 [2].  He's also had QEW edits reverted 'TWICE' where he added the 
'ON' to the ref tag. [3]

-James

[1] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/31782232 
[2] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4083201/history 
[3] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/67924382/history 

From: kevinfarru...@gmail.com
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 08:24:25 -0400
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Ref tags in Ontario
To: jfd...@hotmail.com
CC: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org

(Sorry I have to re-email this Daniel - I thought I pressed reply all :P)

It was discussed in February in this thread: 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2015-February/006404.html

Andrewpmk
 (almost entirely him) and I reversed all of the ON prefixes to the 
400-Series highways, but provincial highways and regional/county roads 
still retain their prefixes.  Personally I don't think there should be 
any prefix for rendering or navigation purposes, but I guess it depends 
on whether you think county or regional road prefixes should be there 
for navigation or rendering purposes.
-Kevin (Kevo)-Kevin Farrugia
kevinfarru...@gmail.com

On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 7:36 AM, Daniel Begin jfd...@hotmail.com wrote:
AFAIK, it has never been discussed at least on this forum. I consider it as an 
error or even vandalism since it does not conform to acceptable rules (1) A 
similar behavior has been seen a couple of months ago where user:OntarioEditor 
added a prefix to ref tag for most primary/secondary roads in Quebec. I 
contacted him but never had an answer. The question was asked on this list by 
another user about such behavior. Unfortunately, I did not see any specific 
answer and his/her edits are still all over the place. Someone has more 
information? Comments? Daniel(1) 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct From: James 
Mast [mailto:rickmastfa...@hotmail.com] 
Sent: June-25-15 23:56
To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-ca] Ref tags in Ontario I've been noticing that a user has been 
adding the prefix of 'ON' to the ref tags on ways recently in Ontario.  Are you 
starting to do that now, or is this user in error with the current tagging 
practices?

-James
___

Talk-ca mailing list

Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca



  ___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Ref tags in Ontario

2015-06-26 Thread James Mast

I personally don't consider adding prefixes as 'tagging for the map'.  They are 
VERY useful for routers as well.  Plus, to be honest, there should be a way to 
easily identify what type a route is, especially when it changes between 
classifications, like {3} does several times.  Especially if {3} changes at an 
intersection to \3/ and you're coming into the intersection from the other 
road.  The router would then be able to announce the highway type for you so 
you can even verify via the shield that you're making the correct turn.

Us mappers in the USA have embraced them.  It allows people to notice with a 
quick glance what route type it is without having to dig deep into the data and 
find the relation.  I mean, to be honest, how would you be able figure out what 
type of route is which when you have the two different routes with the same 
number on the same segment, if the ref was just ref=74;74 on the map? [1] 
(Blame the USA Congress for that one for getting it written into law.  I-74 
there really should have been another number, like a southern I-79.)  Even 
countries in Europe are embracing the 'prefixes', where you see 'M' for 
Motorway, 'E' for Euro-routes, etc, when needed in OSM.

Honestly, I think Ontario should come out of the 'dark ages' and use prefixes 
as well, but I'm not going to go around spam adding the 'ON' to the ref tags 
and get blocked, because of it being against the CA communities wishes (at this 
time).

Also, if all (or at least most) of the Ontario editors would agree on adding 
the 'ON' to the ref, maybe MapQuest in their 'Open' maps would start rendering 
the BGS Ontario shield (would look better on the map because the number would 
be bigger than if using the standard stand-alone shields) on the map for those 
routes, just like they have done for all of the US state highways. [2]  They 
base the rendering of shields off of the 'ref' tag, not relations, mainly 
because most states don't have all of their relations done yet either (all US 
highways and Interstates in all states are already done).

-James

[1] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/48876018 
[2] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/40.7927/-80.1367layers=Q 

 Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 22:00:59 -0400
 From: scr...@gmail.com
 To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Ref tags in Ontario
 
 Hi Kevin
 
  Andrewpmk (almost entirely him) and I reversed all of the ON prefixes
  to the 400-Series highways
 
 Many thanks to you both for doing that.
 
  Personally I don't think there should be any prefix for rendering or
  navigation purposes, but I guess it depends on whether you think
  county or regional road prefixes should be there for navigation or
  rendering purposes.
 
 Prefixes are definitely 'tagging for the map', so shouldn't happen,
 IMBO. Ontario's got a fairly robust boundary, so the relations should
 sort out what road is in what province.
 
 cheers
  Stewart
 
 ___
 Talk-ca mailing list
 Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
  ___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

[Talk-ca] Ref tags in Ontario

2015-06-25 Thread James Mast

I've been noticing that a user has been adding the prefix of 'ON' to the ref 
tags on ways recently in Ontario.  Are you starting to do that now, or is this 
user in error with the current tagging practices?

-James
  ___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-us] a plea to armchair mappers

2015-06-18 Thread James Mast

Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 07:01:35 -0500
From: ba...@ursamundi.org
To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] a plea to armchair mappers

On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 9:08 PM, James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com wrote:

Maybe we should invite the MapBox paid mappers to join in this conversation?

 This is something I would like to become (hint, hint).

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

You're not the only one Paul.  I'd love to as well.
  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] a plea to armchair mappers

2015-06-11 Thread James Mast

Maybe we should invite the MapBox paid mappers to join in this conversation?  
They are the major people doing this.

-James

 Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 21:10:58 -0400
 From: nice...@att.net
 To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [Talk-us] a plea to armchair mappers

 On 6/11/2015 12:46 PM, Mike N wrote:
 I've seen this problem also - an area marked for construction, all
  roads bulldozed out, - the roads re-appear due to a TIGEROSM
  comparison test because they're in Bing.

   Speaking of which, one of those came back to life yesterday.   I tried 
 the README trick on an empty object this time.

 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Deletion rampage by a certain user

2015-05-19 Thread James Mast

Yeah, I think Cam4rd98 was just deleting stuff for kicks possibly

I just was checking he deletions, and noticed he completely deleted a brand new 
expressway [1] that I traced out and added in Fayetteville, NC [2].  Sure, some 
of the ways originally used the same IDs of ways he created, but, I traced the 
new highway out completely using brand new imagery that was allowed (NAIP  
Bing).  Thus, there shouldn't have been any problems with it now.  I mean, if 
you had to, you could redact the first versions of the ways/nodes that Cam4rd98 
made, but my versions of them were completely in the clear.  I had put a lot of 
hard work into getting that new highway setup for routing.  I'll work on 
partially reverting his changeset dealing with the deletion of my work there.

I also found this changeset of his (Changeset 29738098 [3]) where he deleted 
another highway that I cleaned up and marked as opened (which it is, have had a 
few friends drive it).  I cleaned up that section of new highway in Changeset 
28973939 [4], and Cam4rd98 deleted it a month later.  Looking at most of the 
history of the ways he deleted in that changeset, he only touched them once, 
and that was when he deleted them  I'd call this changeset pure vandalism.  
Especially since it completely broke routing in that area.  I've already 
reverted it completely in Changeset 31293156 [4].

Anyways, I think Cam4rd98 does need a new block.  That way, he can at least 
explain to the DWG why he did all those mass deletions.

-James


[1] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/28817008 
[2] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/28817008 
[3] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/29738098 
[4] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/31293156 
  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [OSM-talk] Chain Store Cleanup

2015-05-01 Thread James Mast

When it comes to McDonald's, at least in the USA and Canada, they (when they 
are stand-alone stores) are extremely easy to verify via Bing Imagery since 
they almost always use the same design for the buildings.  It also helps when 
the sun was just right when the imagery was taken that the McDonald's logo 
casts a shadow on the ground from their tall sign (if they have one).

So, you might be able to get away with just checking the imagery for the 
misspelled ones in the USA/Canada without having to rely on doing anything 
mechanical.  And for the ones you can't verify, you could just add a note for 
them to be field checked if the building design doesn't match any of the normal 
designs, or is inside a gas station/WalMart and can't be verified for sure 
since those locations can/do change often sometimes to another brand.

-James
  ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] PennLive.com using OSM without attribution?

2015-04-15 Thread James Mast

It's been fixed.  Thanks for handling the e-mail part Hans.

-James

From: hans.dekryge...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 05:55:34 -0700
To: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com
CC: talk@openstreetmap.org; talk...@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] PennLive.com using OSM without attribution?

Just received an email from nick the writer of the article saying he would take 
care of it today.
Regards,
Hans
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheDutchMan13

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 10:26 PM, Hans De Kryger hans.dekryge...@gmail.com 
wrote:
I sent him a email, i'll let you know when i get a reply.
Regards,
Hans
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheDutchMan13

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 6:27 PM, James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com wrote:

http://www.pennlive.com/projects/2015/pa-turnpike-tunnels/

Just happened to see this article talking about the future of the Allegheny 
Tunnels along the PA Turnpike (I-76/I-70).  About 2/3rd down in the article, 
they have a screenshot of OSM there showing the possible new alignments for the 
PA Turnpike.

My question is, is this allowed with the current license, or do they still need 
to have the attribution on the image (or right below it)?

If somebody that is more knowledgeable in this would like to contact them about 
this if they are in the wrong, please, be my guest.

-James

___

Talk-us mailing list

talk...@openstreetmap.org

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

___
Talk-us mailing list
talk...@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
  ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-us] PennLive.com using OSM without attribution?

2015-04-15 Thread James Mast

It's been fixed.  Thanks for handling the e-mail part Hans.

-James

From: hans.dekryge...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 05:55:34 -0700
To: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com
CC: t...@openstreetmap.org; talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] PennLive.com using OSM without attribution?

Just received an email from nick the writer of the article saying he would take 
care of it today.
Regards,
Hans
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheDutchMan13

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 10:26 PM, Hans De Kryger hans.dekryge...@gmail.com 
wrote:
I sent him a email, i'll let you know when i get a reply.
Regards,
Hans
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheDutchMan13

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 6:27 PM, James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com wrote:

http://www.pennlive.com/projects/2015/pa-turnpike-tunnels/

Just happened to see this article talking about the future of the Allegheny 
Tunnels along the PA Turnpike (I-76/I-70).  About 2/3rd down in the article, 
they have a screenshot of OSM there showing the possible new alignments for the 
PA Turnpike.

My question is, is this allowed with the current license, or do they still need 
to have the attribution on the image (or right below it)?

If somebody that is more knowledgeable in this would like to contact them about 
this if they are in the wrong, please, be my guest.

-James

___

Talk-us mailing list

Talk-us@openstreetmap.org

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] PennLive.com using OSM without attribution?

2015-04-14 Thread James Mast

http://www.pennlive.com/projects/2015/pa-turnpike-tunnels/

Just happened to see this article talking about the future of the Allegheny 
Tunnels along the PA Turnpike (I-76/I-70).  About 2/3rd down in the article, 
they have a screenshot of OSM there showing the possible new alignments for the 
PA Turnpike.

My question is, is this allowed with the current license, or do they still need 
to have the attribution on the image (or right below it)?

If somebody that is more knowledgeable in this would like to contact them about 
this if they are in the wrong, please, be my guest.

-James
  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[OSM-talk] PennLive.com using OSM without attribution?

2015-04-14 Thread James Mast

http://www.pennlive.com/projects/2015/pa-turnpike-tunnels/

Just happened to see this article talking about the future of the Allegheny 
Tunnels along the PA Turnpike (I-76/I-70).  About 2/3rd down in the article, 
they have a screenshot of OSM there showing the possible new alignments for the 
PA Turnpike.

My question is, is this allowed with the current license, or do they still need 
to have the attribution on the image (or right below it)?

If somebody that is more knowledgeable in this would like to contact them about 
this if they are in the wrong, please, be my guest.

-James
  ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-us] Pennsylvania's quadrant routes

2015-01-19 Thread James Mast

 US:PA:Turnpike (possibly only one member?)
There are 3 routes in that (not counting the mainline PA Turnpike relation).

PA Turnpike 43
PA Turnpike 66
PA Turnpike 576 (Future I-576 maybe when it connects to I-79 in 2019, or maybe 
in the distant future when it connects to PA Turnpike 43)


There were two others, but they are now both signed as Interstates.

PA 9 (this never got the current 'PA Turnpike' signage, just a normal Keystone 
shield before it became an Interstate)  I-476 (in 1996)
PA Toll 60 (Toll was in the top of the normal Keystone shield)  PA Turnpike 60 
 I-376 (in 2009)

-James
  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Pennsylvania's quadrant routes

2015-01-19 Thread James Mast

They all already have those types of relations.

And the master relation for all of them is here: Pennsylvania Turnpike Network 
(3075726)  https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3075726 

-James

Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 04:49:59 -0600
From: ba...@ursamundi.org
To: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com
CC: m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us; talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Pennsylvania's quadrant routes

OK, so three, possibly four, routes that could have US:PA:Turnpike relations.
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 4:45 AM, James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com wrote:



 US:PA:Turnpike (possibly only one member?)
There are 3 routes in that (not counting the mainline PA Turnpike relation).

PA Turnpike 43
PA Turnpike 66
PA Turnpike 576 (Future I-576 maybe when it connects to I-79 in 2019, or maybe 
in the distant future when it connects to PA Turnpike 43)


There were two others, but they are now both signed as Interstates.

PA 9 (this never got the current 'PA Turnpike' signage, just a normal Keystone 
shield before it became an Interstate)  I-476 (in 1996)
PA Toll 60 (Toll was in the top of the normal Keystone shield)  PA Turnpike 60 
 I-376 (in 2009)

-James
  



___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Pennsylvania's quadrant routes

2015-01-19 Thread James Mast

Fully agree with you there Paul.  Just have to watch out for those few 'rare' 
exceptions to the rule I mentioned before for the future 'ref:penndot' tag 
where some mainline route have different 'SR' numbers in the white boxes.

-James

Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 05:15:38 -0600
From: ba...@ursamundi.org
To: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com
CC: m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us; talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Pennsylvania's quadrant routes

The ref should be what appears on the keystone shields.  I believe a quick 
at-a-glance sanity check would suggest that any ref outside the range of PA 3 
and PA 999 is probably incorrect or a ref:penndot.
  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Pennsylvania's quadrant routes

2015-01-18 Thread James Mast

Well, with keeping it as 'ref:penndot', it would allow some of the outside 
cases where the internal route numbers on the primary system have a different 
number on the little white signs.  As an example, take a look at PA-380 [1].  
It's internal number is SR-400 since 'SR-380' is applied to I-380.  This is one 
of a few cases like this.  Another example like this is PA-99 [2] which is 
officially SR-699 because I-99 has the 'SR-99' number (but wasn't always the 
case as both shared it for awhile till 2008).  Even PA-283 is 'SR-300' because 
I-283 is 'SR-283' [3].  I think there are a few other cases like this, but I 
can't recall them right now, but some of them might be split state routes where 
one half is the base number, and the other half another number if there is no 
chance of them being joined.

-James

[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Route_380
[2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Route_99
[3] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Route_283 

 To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 From: m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us
 Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 13:06:14 -0800
 Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Pennsylvania's quadrant routes
 
 On 2015-01-16 07:52, Paul Johnson wrote:
  I'm very much in favor of PA instead of SR for disambiguation purposes.
 
 With James' proposal to change `ref` to `ref:penndot` (or something even 
 more explicit like `ref:penndot:quadrant`), there's no need for 
 disambiguation. A prefix of PA isn't going to solve the problem of 
 mappers conflating PennDOT's two networks either.
 
 -- 
 m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us
 
 
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Pennsylvania's quadrant routes

2015-01-16 Thread James Mast

I have happened to notice (mostly in Eastern Pennsylvania) that some users have 
added these routes from the old 'name_*' tags and putting them in the 'ref=*' 
tags as ref=SR1234.  The problem here is that Pennsylvania doesn't post these 
routes (except in little white mileage signs [1][2] or/and [just in rural areas 
normally] an occasional street blade) like the 'normal' state highways numbered 
1-999 in the 'Keystone shields'.  Also the quadrant routes are duplicated all 
over the state in each county.  Thus, I don't think they would qualify for 
being added to the 'ref' tag on ways, but also don't truly count for the 
'unsigned_ref' tag as well because they are posted in a way, just not really 
for the traveling public to see unless they were really looking for them.

So, I've come up with a possible replacement tag of 'ref:penndot=SR ' [3] 
for these routes that are only signed with the white mileage signs.  With this 
tag, it still allows the quadrant routes to be added, but not to take up the 
normal 'ref' tag when it's needed for another route (there are a few normal 
state routes on quadrant routes, like PA-3 for a small area in Philadelphia, or 
US-19 Truck in Pittsburgh, or even the Allegheny County Belt System [3] in some 
areas).

What do you guys think about this?  If nobody has any problems with them, I 
think we should fix them as we see them (no bot running unless somebody with 
knowing how to run one would be willing to do it).  I just want to see a 
constant tagging scheme for them.

-James


[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_State_Routes_in_Pennsylvania
[2] - http://goo.gl/maps/NdVrn 
[3] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/311525727 
[4] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegheny_County_belt_system

  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Pennsylvania's quadrant routes

2015-01-16 Thread James Mast

Bryan, somebody else has already added this info as a suggestion on the 'State 
Route Relation' page [1].  He was one of the first people I talked to about 
this idea, and he's a fellow Pittsburgh mapper.

-James

[1] - 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pennsylvania/State_Route_Relations#Four_digit_routes
 

From: br...@7thposition.com
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 10:08:42 -0500
To: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com
CC: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Pennsylvania's quadrant routes

I’m from PA and I know exactly the little signs that you’re talking about.  I 
agree with everything you suggested about moving the SR  ref to a different 
key.  It’s not significant enough to be a “ref”.
I’m not sure who “owns” the Pennsylvania wiki page: 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/PennsylvaniaBut you might want to add this 
recommendation there, and maybe some more guidance about classifying highways 
(like the New Jersey and New York pages have).
I’ve considered coding up a cleanup bot - this might be a nice first task for 
it.


So, I've come up with a possible replacement tag of 'ref:penndot=SR ' [3] 
for these routes that are only signed with the white mileage signs.  With this 
tag, it still allows the quadrant routes to be added, but not to take up the 
normal 'ref' tag when it's needed for another route (there are a few normal 
state routes on quadrant routes, like PA-3 for a small area in Philadelphia, or 
US-19 Truck in Pittsburgh, or even the Allegheny County Belt System [3] in some 
areas).

What do you guys think about this?  If nobody has any problems with them, I 
think we should fix them as we see them (no bot running unless somebody with 
knowing how to run one would be willing to do it).  I just want to see a 
constant tagging scheme for them.


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] CDP tagging

2015-01-08 Thread James Mast

A user today just happened to change the 'Carnot-Moon' [1] ways [2] and 
relation boundary [3] from a 'boundary=administrative' 'admin_level=8' to 
'boundary=census'.  Is this the correct way we have been tagging stuff like 
this?  I've pretty much stayed away from these types of edits (unless it's 
something obvious that needs to be reverted), and was just curious to what the 
rest of the US was doing before I either reverted the changesets this was done 
in, or contact the user (or if somebody who has more 'knowledge' on these types 
of edits wants to contact him instead, be my guest).

-James

[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:Carnot-Moon,%20Pennsylvania?uselang=en-US
[2] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/38518599
[3] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/189136
  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [OSM-talk] Major licence violation by app myTrails?

2015-01-05 Thread James Mast

Here's the only mentions of 'OpenStreetMap' on their site: 
http://www.frogsparks.com/?s=openstreetmaplang=en


  ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-us] State highway refs (was Re: New I.D Feature)

2014-12-04 Thread James Mast

I've been handling the 'four-digit' SR's here in PA another way.  Technically, 
the routes are 'somewhat' signed, but in a way that people wouldn't normally 
see or pay attention to except in a few places.  These routes normally get a 
little white square box on the sides of the road. [1]  They also can 
'sometimes' appear on street blades depending on the area. [2]  So, what I've 
been doing is tagging the 4-digit routes with the following tag 'ref:penndot=SR 
'. (Example [3])  I think that tag works perfectly, especially if somebody 
wants to add the state route for a bannered highway (US-19 Truck in the North 
Hills of Pittsburgh is 'SR 4003').  It keeps the info together, plus IMO, works 
better here since they aren't 'true' unsigned highways unlike in several 
Western states where you can't find any reference to a US highway on an 
Interstate most of the time.

-James


[1] -  http://goo.gl/maps/RsXme
[2] - http://goo.gl/maps/w0Xoq (While it might be hard to read, that's 'SR 
3025' posted on that blade)
[3] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/19597194 

Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 14:16:01 -0600
From: ba...@ursamundi.org
To: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com
CC: talk-us@openstreetmap.org; burke...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] State highway refs (was Re: New I.D Feature)

Someone in the Valley Forge area also tagged refs on a LOT of four-digit State 
Routes that aren't signed...seems like this belongs in a relation with 
unsigned_ref and the ref should be unsigned_ref.  Yes, I know they're on the 
bridge placards and what not, but there's no route shields on these.
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 3:58 PM, James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com wrote:



Same thing goes with Florida.  Just the state outline.

Heck, in Pennsylvania, originally on BGS's before we started to use the 
Keystone shield, we used the 'PA' abbreviation (one such sign that still stands 
[1]).  However, now on the little white reference mileage signs [2] that 
PennDOT posts on roads they maintain, it says 'SR' (even on Interstates).  
However, PennDOT recently posted a nice little gem on PA-28 @ Exit #6 going 
both directions that goes back in time and mentions the 'PA' on the sign. [3]  
There are at least 3 of these signs (2 going SB, at least 1 going NB).

-James

[1] - http://goo.gl/maps/RsXme 
[2] - http://goo.gl/maps/ARr9s 
[3] - http://youtu.be/W3xI5Y8eRk4?t=2m1s (the video needs to be paused right 
here @ 2m1s to see the sign clearly)


From: burke...@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 00:55:13 -0500
To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] State highway refs (was Re: New I.D Feature)

In Georgia, (almost?) all state roads are signed with the state outline and the 
highway number, but no GA or Georgia text with it. Occasionally you might 
see State Road or State Route printed on the sign in addition to the state 
outline. In some very rural areas, I think there might still be a few un-logoed 
signs, but probably not many. 



-jack

On November 30, 2014 5:58:53 PM EST, Minh Nguyen m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us 
wrote:
On 2014-11-30 10:41, stevea wrote:
 My two cents:  I must say that here in California, I've made it a habit
 to remove the County Route designation (CR) which precedes a ref
 number in our County Route system.  For example, NE2 (a banned-from-OSM
 former contributor for those unfamiliar with that history) entered ref
 tags for many G2, N1... county routes as CR G2 and CR N1.  That, in
 my opinion, is so redundant (as G and N and A and S... are well-known
 multi-county/regional-within-California county highway networks) as to
 be true clutter.  People in California do know (and routing software,
 renderers... SHOULD know) that A1, G2, N4 and S16 are county routes in a
 lettered system where each letter represents a cluster of counties...at
 least in California.

Some northwest Ohio counties post shields along section line roads that 
say A, B, C, etc. So far I've been tagging them like CR A, even though 
you'd be hard-pressed to find that style anywhere outside of OSM. 
Instead of reducing ambiguity, I wonder if the CR may cause very mild 
confusion, for example when a router tells its user to turn onto CR R.

 Also, while SR (for State Route in California and other states) is
 still legally correct, I still might change for consistency's sake any
 SR prefix I see in a highway route relation ref tag to be CA
 instead.  So, while SR 17 is correct, I much prefer CA 17 and will
 change it to that if I see SR in a California highway route relation ref
 tag.

Yes, usage is different in California. I've only ever seen SR on 
signage a few times, in rather obscure places. But in Ohio, it's ubiquitous.

 I agree with what we (as OSM volunteers entering/editing data in our
 map) now do, as well as what map styles/renderers and routing engines
 do, as Minh notes above:  recognize the state abbreviation, SR or SH.
 Yes, Michigan still has its M- routes, and I think OSM (both its human
 editors and software components) should

Re: [Talk-us] State highway refs (was Re: New I.D Feature)

2014-12-01 Thread James Mast

Same thing goes with Florida.  Just the state outline.

Heck, in Pennsylvania, originally on BGS's before we started to use the 
Keystone shield, we used the 'PA' abbreviation (one such sign that still stands 
[1]).  However, now on the little white reference mileage signs [2] that 
PennDOT posts on roads they maintain, it says 'SR' (even on Interstates).  
However, PennDOT recently posted a nice little gem on PA-28 @ Exit #6 going 
both directions that goes back in time and mentions the 'PA' on the sign. [3]  
There are at least 3 of these signs (2 going SB, at least 1 going NB).

-James

[1] - http://goo.gl/maps/RsXme 
[2] - http://goo.gl/maps/ARr9s 
[3] - http://youtu.be/W3xI5Y8eRk4?t=2m1s (the video needs to be paused right 
here @ 2m1s to see the sign clearly)


From: burke...@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 00:55:13 -0500
To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] State highway refs (was Re: New I.D Feature)

In Georgia, (almost?) all state roads are signed with the state outline and the 
highway number, but no GA or Georgia text with it. Occasionally you might 
see State Road or State Route printed on the sign in addition to the state 
outline. In some very rural areas, I think there might still be a few un-logoed 
signs, but probably not many. 



-jack

On November 30, 2014 5:58:53 PM EST, Minh Nguyen m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us 
wrote:
On 2014-11-30 10:41, stevea wrote:
 My two cents:  I must say that here in California, I've made it a habit
 to remove the County Route designation (CR) which precedes a ref
 number in our County Route system.  For example, NE2 (a banned-from-OSM
 former contributor for those unfamiliar with that history) entered ref
 tags for many G2, N1... county routes as CR G2 and CR N1.  That, in
 my opinion, is so redundant (as G and N and A and S... are well-known
 multi-county/regional-within-California county highway networks) as to
 be true clutter.  People in California do know (and routing software,
 renderers... SHOULD know) that A1, G2, N4 and S16 are county routes in a
 lettered system where each letter represents a cluster of counties...at
 least in California.

Some northwest Ohio counties post shields along section line roads that 
say A, B, C, etc. So far I've been tagging them like CR A, even though 
you'd be hard-pressed to find that style anywhere outside of OSM. 
Instead of reducing ambiguity, I wonder if the CR may cause very mild 
confusion, for example when a router tells its user to turn onto CR R.

 Also, while SR (for State Route in California and other states) is
 still legally correct, I still might change for consistency's sake any
 SR prefix I see in a highway route relation ref tag to be CA
 instead.  So, while SR 17 is correct, I much prefer CA 17 and will
 change it to that if I see SR in a California highway route relation ref
 tag.

Yes, usage is different in California. I've only ever seen SR on 
signage a few times, in rather obscure places. But in Ohio, it's ubiquitous.

 I agree with what we (as OSM volunteers entering/editing data in our
 map) now do, as well as what map styles/renderers and routing engines
 do, as Minh notes above:  recognize the state abbreviation, SR or SH.
 Yes, Michigan still has its M- routes, and I think OSM (both its human
 editors and software components) should just learn to cope with that
 (plus perhaps a few other states) as exceptions to this largely (though
 not completely) applicable rule.  I believe we are pretty much there,
 but we still have edge cases, data in the map and newer contributors who
 are not completely familiar with these conventions in the USA.
 Discussing it here helps, though wiki documentation and taginfo data
 which are consistent across
the fifty states is better.

My response to anyone who wants more consistency is that route relations 
are the way forward. They may be painful now but they make the data a 
lot less subject to interpretation.


-- 

Typos courtesy of fancy auto-spell technology. 
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Directional suffixes on roads: yes or no?

2014-12-01 Thread James Mast

Brian, I think you're confused here on this subject.  We're talking about roads 
that have stuff like 'NW' [1] in the name on street signs.  Nothing about 
divided roads.

-James

[1] - http://goo.gl/maps/wB8IR 

From: briane...@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 11:32:54 +
To: elliott.pl...@gmail.com; burke...@gmail.com; talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Directional suffixes on roads: yes or no?

The FGDC doesn't make any reference to pre-directionals when used for a divided 
road (dual carriageway). The problem with these roads is addresses don't use 
the pre-directional, but road signs do. Here's one example:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/295032159#map=16/41.0291/-73.7359

The address of the highlighted building is 333 Westchester Avenue. Along this 
divided street, the odd building numbers are on the south side and the even 
numbers are on the north.
For divided highways, one may see a directional modifier on the signs, but on 
the map it's never included, or if it is included, is done through super 
relations. I.e., I-84 contains two relations, one is I-84 Eastbound and the 
other I-84 Westbound. The contains way's whose role is east/west, but are named 
I-84.
For divided roads, it seems it's best to put the directional modifier in the 
relation's role and omit it from the name. 

On Mon Dec 01 2014 at 12:56:30 AM Elliott Plack elliott.pl...@gmail.com wrote:
Jack,

Good question. I come from a local government geographer perspective. I feel 
that the data should be as authoritative and official as possible with regard 
to naming. It's simple for a computer algorithm to abbreviate, ignore or omit 
information, but quite difficult to synthesize missing information.

The directional suffix you refer to is officially called a post directional. 
The Federal Geographic Data Committee definition is, A word following the 
street name that indicates the directional taken by the thoroughfare from an 
arbitrary starting point, or the sector where it is located. See section 
1.7.2.6 
http://www.fgdc.gov/standards/projects/FGDC-standards-projects/street-address/05-11.2ndDraft.CompleteDoc.pdf

When you say that most people don't refer to it as such, that can definitely 
pose a challenge to cartographers. My opinion is to use the full name with the 
post directional and let map data users (or humans) choose what to ignore.

Kindly,

Elliott
On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 23:41 Jack Burke burke...@gmail.com wrote:
Howdy, 

I have a question about how much effort should be put into adding directional 
suffixes to road names. 

Many counties around Atlanta have adopted directional suffixes for roads, both 
in incorporated areas as well as outside city limits. Usually all areas in the 
county use the same system, with directions denoted NE, SE, NW and SW from some 
standard point, although some cities tend to ignore the suffixes. Also, signage 
is inconsistent--some street signs bear the suffix while others on the same 
street don't. 

In most cases, the suffix is immaterial, and most people don't use it anyway.  
Use of it or not won't affect directions most of the time,  although I know of 
a few specific cases where knowing the suffix can be important in finding the 
right location (is your house 100 Concord Road Southeast or  Southwest?).

The majority of the Tiger data doesn't include the suffix.

So, how much should I worry about the missing suffixes? Should they be included 
in the main name= tag? Or one of the other *name tags with the unsuffixed name 
in the name= tag. 

Because most people don't use the suffix, on some roads I've put the 
with-suffix name in the name= tag and the unsuffixed one in the short_name= 
tag, but I'm wondering if I should continue to bother. 

-jack

-- 

Typos courtesy of fancy auto-spell technology. 
___

Talk-us mailing list

Talk-us@openstreetmap.org

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

___

Talk-us mailing list

Talk-us@openstreetmap.org

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] User randomly adding speed limits across the US

2014-11-10 Thread James Mast

I'm just curious, but can anybody verify the speed limits that user msheerin17 
[1] has been randomly adding across the US?  He seems to fond of adding a lot 
of 'maxspeed=55 mph' tags to ways in completely different areas (he does add 
other speed limits, but well over 60% have been 55 mph).

I have tried to contact this user about all the speed limits he's been adding 
and did get a response back from him only once (back on October 15th).  In that 
response, he claimed he was getting the speed limits from our customers, but 
at no time did he mention what company he was working for or what app was 
generating the input from people of the 'correct speed limits'.  He even told 
me to let him know if I had any more questions, but he's never responded to any 
other messages that I sent him after that asking about that info.

I do know one changeset [2] was at least was partially correct (was for a small 
segment of PA-28 and I could verify that since I live near it), however, a 
small part he tagged @ 55 mph is still officially 45 mph (the NB bridge over 
PA-8 is posted @ 45 mph still, not 55 mph).  However, there are other 
changesets out there that he did where there is no way possible the speed limit 
he added could be correct. [3]

So, if anybody lives near any of his changesets were he's added the maxspeed 
tag and can verify if they are either correct or incorrect, I'd appreciate it.  
If he's been adding a lot of incorrect speed limits, we need to nip this in the 
behind fast before it gets too out of hand.  If most of them are incorrect 
(being 15+ over the actual posted limit or more in some places), it could 
seriously cause problems with the routers that use OSM data, especially in 
areas where we don't have any active mappers to verify said speed limits.  
Heck, it could even lead to bad press if somebody gets a speeding ticket and 
they try to blame OSM for it because of the incorrect speed limit in the 
database.

-James

[1] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/msheerin17/history
[2] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/24355862
[3] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/26366111

  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] New I.D Feature

2014-11-09 Thread James Mast

Just wanted to throw this out there in case you guys have forgoten, but we also 
use the two letter abbreviation in almost all relations for highways in the USA 
(however, there are a few that do spell out the state).   However, we use 
'is_in:state=PA instead of the addr scheme of course.  This also goes for the 
'network' tag (network=US:FL) for state highways relations.

-James
  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] State highway refs (was Re: New I.D Feature)

2014-11-09 Thread James Mast

I know of no place where the state name is spelled out in the ref=* tag on 
any way or relation.  Only in the 'is_in:state' tag on RELATIONS have I seen 
the state name sometimes spelled out.

As for states that have just '123' on the way ref tags. I know of only two that 
have that happening in masses.  And that is Florida and Georgia.  Most of this 
was done by NE2 to make the tags 'render' back when only a limited number of 
characters would render on the map (since changed).  In those states, people 
have been starting to fix those 'tags' to add in the proper state abbreviation. 
 So, if you see a tag like ref=US 17;25 in either of those states on a way, 
go for it and fix it for the better (ref=US 17;GA 25).  Just don't do anything 
automated without talking about it here on [talk-us] first of course.

-James

 From: skqu...@rushpost.com
 To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2014 03:10:19 -0600
 Subject: [Talk-us] State highway refs (was Re:  New I.D Feature)
 
 On Sun, 2014-11-09 at 03:56 -0500, James Mast wrote:
  Just wanted to throw this out there in case you guys have forgoten,
  but we also use the two letter abbreviation in almost all relations
  for highways in the USA (however, there are a few that do spell out
  the state).
 
 There are still a few places that use a convention like SH 123, SR 123,
 or even (horrors) just 123 by itself to denote a state highway.
 Currently, I refrain from making changes of this sort if it appears most
 of a state uses this convention.
 
 So, a couple of questions:
 
 1. What, exactly, is fair game to change to a state abbreviation
 reference?
 2. Which states spell out the name in the ref?
 
 I know Kansas uses K-123, and Michigan uses M-123. Are there any others
 to be careful of?
 
 
 -- 
 Shawn K. Quinn skqu...@rushpost.com
 
 
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [OSM-talk] Changeset comment function

2014-11-02 Thread James Mast

I like!  Do you know if people comment on a changeset you make, will you 
automatically get an e-mail mentioning said comment, or will you be in the dark 
and have to stumble across said comment?

-James
  ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-us] multiple-value problem in ref tags

2014-09-25 Thread James Mast

I would have to agree with Paul on this subject Jack.   It's been common 
practice to do it this way since I've been a part of the OSM editing community 
in 2010.  Since the 'ref' tags aren't normal sentences, the ';' isn't 
considered to be punctuation like Paul mentioned in his e-mail.  I honestly 
don't know why your copy of OSMAnd and the TTS engine it uses say ';' when 
giving you the refs off of highway. [1]

But your comment about 'tagging for the renderer' when breaking the MapQuest 
Open rendering could be turned back and say that we shouldn't be 'tagging for 
the router' at the same time.  MapQuest developed their rendering scheme on how 
we were using the ref tags already.  Thus, this isn't technically 'tagging for 
the renderer' because we were already not using a space after the ';' in the 
ref tags.

-James

[1] - https://groups.google.com/d/topic/osmand/k2Rf59wUiSE/discussion


 Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 20:31:43 -0700
 From: penor...@mac.com
 To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [Talk-us] multiple-value problem in ref tags
 
 On 9/15/2014 7:03 PM, Jack Burke wrote:
  As the wiki doesn't specifically say *don't* put a space after the 
  semicolon, I didn't see a problem with doing it. [1]
 The standard is to use ; without a space as a delimiter. This is what 
 both iD and JOSM use. https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/941 has 
 a bit more info from 2013.
 
 The semicolon should never make it to the TTS engine, the processing 
 before it gets that far should transform it into something that can be 
 spoken.
 
 Remember, the ; isn't being used as punctuation, it's being used as a 
 delimiter.
 
 The quote you pasted said with a semicolon and without a space 
 character, which agrees with this.
 
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] User going around adding '-' to ref tags in Michigan

2014-09-25 Thread James Mast




Just thought I'd give you guys a heads up, but there is a user going around and 
adding '-' to all the ref tags he modifies in Michigan.

A good example would be a good chunk of I-75 [1], I-96, M-3, M-10 in Metro 
Detroit.  But he's done it elsewhere in Michigan.

I sent him a PM earlier mentioning this as a 'FYI' that we don't add the '-' to 
the ref tags.  Hopefully he'll respond.  Otherwise, this might be a massive 
cleanup.  Anybody else want to try and get a hold of this user as well?  I have 
also noticed that in some places where he has 'tweaked' the ref tags, others 
have done some 'reverting' work already putting them back to the normal 
standard. [2]

-James

[1] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/8767860/history
[2] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/17729896/history


  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-ca] Bing updated imagery in Windsor, Ontario

2014-09-19 Thread James Mast

Just wanted to give you guys a heads up in anybody wanted to do a massive 
cleanup of the new 401 construction in that area.  According to JOSM, the 
imagery Bing now has is about 3 months old taken between 05/31/14 and 06/15/14.

So, if anybody feels like having some fun, have at it. ;)

-James
  ___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [OSM-talk] Detrimental to the OSM database

2014-08-23 Thread James Mast

Well, I have to admit, I've only seen one problem with the armchair mapping 
with the smoothing in my local area of Pittsburgh, PA so far.

What happened was a long time ago, I cleanup up US-19 and separated segments 
that were divided and segments that had a 'Center Turn Lane' and tagged as 
such.  Well, it seems that MapRoulette happened to flag one of the segments 
where it transitioned from divided highway to un-divided w/ a Center Turn Lane 
and then back to divided for another major intersection.  The imagery in Bing 
clearly showed that there was a Center Turn Lane there and I had he un-divided 
segment tagged as such.  Instead of it being marked as a 'false positive' on 
the MapRoulette site, the user twinned this segment, even when the Bing imagery 
didn't justified it (Changeset 22050738 [1]).  (And yes, the imagery right now 
in Bing is still the same as when the change was made.)  When I discovered 
this, I promptly reverted that changeset in Changeset 22262496 [2].

So, as you can see, there are still a few flaws in the MapRoulette smoothing 
challenge.  And unfortunately, not everybody seems to acknowledge that there 
might be a false positive here and there and mark it as such.  Maybe a stronger 
warning could be given, but I don't know.  All I do know is that any time there 
is a 'Center Turn Lane' on a highway here in the USA, it stays as a single way 
and only becomes divided is when there is a physical item dividing the highway 
like a concrete divider.

Maybe this particular flag could have been avoided where it wouldn't flag 
one-way roads merging into a single way if the angle wasn't like a ~90 degree 
turn or larger as everything is the same right now as when it was unfortunately 
falsely 'smoothed'.

Any thought how this might be avoided in the future Martijn?

-James

[1] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/22050738 
[2] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/22262496 
  ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-ca] [Talk-us] exit_to vs destination

2014-07-29 Thread James Mast

CC'ing in [Talk-ca] since they (at least in Ontario) 
don't even use the exit_to or destination tags and put everything in the
 'name' tag on 'motorway_junction's.  Thinking it would be a good time 
to see if we can get them on the same page as well as in the US for this.

Also check out the following pages: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/mvexel/diary/22419  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/mvexel/diary/23369 





-James

 From: marti...@telenav.com
 Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 16:58:37 -0600
 To: talk...@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: [Talk-us] exit_to vs destination
 
 Hi all,
 
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:exit_to
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:destination
 
 While motorway_junction= + exit_to= is much more common here in the US
 than destination= for freeway exit tagging, we seem to be the
 exception globally. Before we embark on adding exit information (as
 mentioned in my earlier note) I want to make sure that exit_to is
 still the preferred way of exit information tagging for the US.
 
 Personally I dislike exit_to for its limitations (how to tag
 lane-specific destination information?) and poor documentation, but it
 is much easier to tag and BY FAR the more popular way to tag this type
 of information. But given the previous lengthy discussion threads, I
 didn't want to just make the call.
 
 I don't want to rehash points already made in previous threads, most
 of which are summarized here:
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:exit_to but I am open to
 new insights!
 
 --
 Martijn van Exel
 OSM data specialist
 Telenav
 http://www.osm.org/user/mvexel
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Mvexel
 http://hdyc.neis-one.org/?mvexel
 
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 talk...@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
  ___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-us] exit_to vs destination

2014-07-29 Thread James Mast

CC'ing in [Talk-ca] since they (at least in Ontario) 
don't even use the exit_to or destination tags and put everything in the
 'name' tag on 'motorway_junction's.  Thinking it would be a good time 
to see if we can get them on the same page as well as in the US for this.

Also check out the following pages: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/mvexel/diary/22419  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/mvexel/diary/23369 





-James

 From: marti...@telenav.com
 Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 16:58:37 -0600
 To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: [Talk-us] exit_to vs destination
 
 Hi all,
 
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:exit_to
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:destination
 
 While motorway_junction= + exit_to= is much more common here in the US
 than destination= for freeway exit tagging, we seem to be the
 exception globally. Before we embark on adding exit information (as
 mentioned in my earlier note) I want to make sure that exit_to is
 still the preferred way of exit information tagging for the US.
 
 Personally I dislike exit_to for its limitations (how to tag
 lane-specific destination information?) and poor documentation, but it
 is much easier to tag and BY FAR the more popular way to tag this type
 of information. But given the previous lengthy discussion threads, I
 didn't want to just make the call.
 
 I don't want to rehash points already made in previous threads, most
 of which are summarized here:
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:exit_to but I am open to
 new insights!
 
 --
 Martijn van Exel
 OSM data specialist
 Telenav
 http://www.osm.org/user/mvexel
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Mvexel
 http://hdyc.neis-one.org/?mvexel
 
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] exit_to vs destination

2014-07-28 Thread James Mast




CC'ing in [Talk-ca] since they (at least in Ontario) don't even use the exit_to 
or destination tags and put everything in the 'name' tag on 
'motorway_junction's.  Thinking it would be a good time to see if we can get 
them on the same page as well.

-James

  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [OSM-talk] Upcoming openstreetmap-carto changes

2014-07-25 Thread James Mast

I just hope that the 'tertiary_link' casing problem can be fixed soon.  In some 
places, that looks horrible.

  ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Upcoming openstreetmap-carto changes

2014-07-25 Thread James Mast

I just hope that the 'tertiary_link' casing problem can be fixed soon.  In some 
places, that looks horrible.
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/753

-James


  ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-us] exit_to vs destination

2014-07-16 Thread James Mast

Anybody else think we should CC [talk-ca] in on this too?  Main reason I'm 
suggesting this is because of how they (at least in Ontario) have been doing 
the exit tags, which is to add everything to the 'name' tag so it gets rendered 
on the map (at least I think that was why it was done this way, but not 100% 
sure)..

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/76478134

-James
  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [OSM-talk] High res DigitalGlobe imagery open for tracing through Mapbox Satellite

2014-04-11 Thread James Mast

Thank you Mapbox and DigitalGlobe.

Just one little flaw with the feedback tool.  The additional notes part doesn't 
show up when I'm selecting areas that need a refresh.  I wanted to point out 
some major Interstate Highway projects that are being done that either are 
building brand new highways or massively reconfiguring other segments.

I still submitted the two areas that I know need imagery updates badly (the 
final segment of I-485 being built in Charlotte, NC; the massive I-40/I-77 
interchange reconfiguration + complete rebuild of I-40 in that area to 
Collector/Distributor lanes and other interchange reconfigurations in the 
Statesville, NC area), but wanted to add the extra note info but couldn't since 
that part didn't show up.

So, I hope you can get the notes part fixed and working.  I tried it in both 
IE-11 (patched all the way) and Firefox Beta 29.

-James
  ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] MapQuest Open tiles not updating?

2014-03-11 Thread James Mast

See this tweet I got back from them asking the same question:
https://twitter.com/MapQuestTech/status/436876342861512704

-James
  ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[Talk-us] State ref tags on ways

2014-03-10 Thread James Mast

I know that in some states that we don't add the state abbreviation (and use 
'SR' or 'SH'), and other states we don't add anything at all expect just the 
number.

I'm just curious if anybody thinks we should try to get them all standardized 
on the ways.  For instance, we should start adding the 'FL' part to ways in 
Florida when we edit them since right now, all we have is just the number.  I 
personally would love to see 'FL' in the ref tags properly as I think the main 
reason that one Florida user didn't add them (and maybe kept removing them if 
added by any other user) was to make the ref tags render in Mapnik if there was 
more than one route on the highway.  And as we do know, tagging for the 
renderer is frowned upon.

Now, I know we do want to move to using just relations to render the shields in 
the future, but as of right now, we still need to keep both ways working 
together.  So, I thought we should just hase this out again so we can attempt 
to get each state on the same page if possible.

-James
  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] maproulette.org

2014-03-09 Thread James Mast

Martijn, the bad versions of the relation pages are back from the beginning of 
February. :(

 From: m...@rtijn.org
 Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 21:55:37 -0800
 To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [Talk-us] maproulette.org

 Hi all,

 I fixed the relation pages problem. It turns out that the crontab
 entry on the database server, responsible for querying the live OSM
 database for the relation information and feeding that to the script
 that generates the pages, got erased. So the relation pages get
 updated once again. Yay!

 Full disclosure: I also added piwik web site analytics code in the
 process - I only use this to help me understand how people are using
 the pages, and nobody else has access to the piwik reports. If you
 want to get an idea of what these reports look like, check out
 http://piwik.org/docs/piwik-tour/#piwik-overview. osm.org uses piwik
 as well. I will also be installing piwik tracking on the Battle Grid
 and  - soon - on the new version of MapRoulette. (Here is why piwik is
 cool and Google Analytics (which provides similar functionality) is
 not: https://piwik.org/privacy/)

 On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote:
  Hi all,

  I am currently changing the DNS records for maproulette.org to point
  to a new server, which will contain a shiny new version of MapRoulette
  Very Soon Now.

  This means that the following services are currently only available
  through the old maproulette.org server's IP address:

  Relation Pages (maproulette.org/relationpages) --
  http://184.73.220.107/relationpages
  Battle Grid (maproulette.org/battlegrid) -- 
  http://184.73.220.107/battlegrid

  This will all be restored to normal over the next few days, hopefully.

  By the way, I am aware of an issue with the relation pages not being
  updated, I will work on that as soon as I get a chance.

  Best
  Martijn
  --
  Martijn van Exel
  http://openstreetmap.us/

 -- 
 Martijn van Exel
 http://oegeo.wordpress.com/
 http://openstreetmap.us/

 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Telenav giving away iPad Mini or Galaxy Note to Editor with the Most Edits Made By March 10

2014-02-12 Thread James Mast

Thanks for doing this Steve.

However, is there a way to report script kiddies who are running a script to 
just rack up points that aren't doing anything to help out OSM and just want to 
win the prize?  Should I just report them to the DWG, especially since he 
hasn't talked to talk-us about running the script?  The reason I'm asking is 
because I've already spotted one of these type of users who is just running a 
script that is just changing tags from one to another type to rack up the 
edits.  Heck, he's also somehow editing some nodes just to make them his 
without doing anything to them (no idea how he's doing that!).

-James

From: st...@asklater.com
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 11:15:16 -0700
To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-us] Telenav giving away iPad Mini or Galaxy Note to Editor   
with the Most Edits Made By March 10

From;

http://stevecoast.com/2014/02/11/telenav-giving-away-ipad-mini-or-galaxy-note-to-editor-with-the-most-edits-made-by-march-10/
As many of you probably know, I’m heading up OSM initiatives over at 
Telenav, the Bay Area-company that develops GPS navigation apps like Scout.
For three years, Telenav has been dedicated to helping the community through 
map updates. Today, we’ve kicked off a contest to see if we can help drive even 
more edits over the next 30 days. Anyone can win and it’s pretty easy to enter.
All you need to do is sign up here to register for the contest and make as many 
quality edits as you can by the end of March 10th!
We’re asking that editors focus on the U.S. and to make edits either through 
OpenStreetMap.org or Battle Grid.
 We have created a point system for edits and the person with the most 
points between now and March 10 will win either an iPad Mini or a 
Samsung Galaxy Note (your choice!).
Good luck and happy editing!
Steve
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] South Carolina State Highways - primary overload

2014-02-05 Thread James Mast

Thank you Frederik.  Really appreciate it.

-James

 Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 22:59:57 +0100
 From: frede...@remote.org
 To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [Talk-us] South Carolina State Highways - primary overload

 All,

 On 09.12.2013 06:42, James Mast wrote:
  Is it just me, or are there way too many primary state highways when
  some of them should really be secondary instead?  

 After this discussion has now more or less concluded that we should be
 reverting the edits in question, I have compiled a list of all highways
 where user mjbyars has changed the highway type at some point in the
 past, and reverted them to the previous highway type. Only the highway
 tag was changed in this process, everything else remained in the current
 state.

 The revert changeset is this:
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/20401446

 There may be some situations where a way was split by the user (which to
 the database looks like a modification of one way and a new creation of
 another); in these cases, the new highway will likely still be of the
 former (higher) highway type and not be reverted. So if you do spot the
 odd remnant of primary overload, please do fix it by hand.

 Bye
 Frederik

 -- 
 Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09 E008°23'33

 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Allegheny County (Pennsylvania) real estate assessment website for addresses

2014-02-04 Thread James Mast




I'm just wondering, do you guys think that Allegheny County's real estate 
assessment website is OdbL compatible to use to gain addresses to put into OSM?

http://www2.county.allegheny.pa.us/RealEstate/Search.aspx

I haven't taken any addresses from it, but if it's compatible with OSM, it 
could be a gold mine for getting a big area of addresses done for the OSM world.

-James

  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Allegheny County (Pennsylvania) real estate assessment website for addresses

2014-02-04 Thread James Mast

So, the data is compatible with OSM and the OdbL license?

I personally don't have the time right now to even attempt an import (swamped 
big time in RL), but I know of somebody else that would possibly be interested 
in doing this (or at least a little bit of it) if the license is compatible.

-James

From: ian.d...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 10:28:38 -0600
To: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com
CC: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Allegheny County (Pennsylvania) real estate assessment 
website for addresses

If you want to go through the import process, I'd recommend using the address 
point file from Alleghany 
county:ftp://www.pasda.psu.edu/pub/pasda/alleghenycounty/AlleghenyCounty_AddressPoints201311.zip

I found it while poking around for addresses to add to my address data 
index:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AsVnlPsfrhUIdEVZTzVFalFYYnlvTkc0R05wcUpsWVEusp=drive_web#gid=0

On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 10:23 AM, James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com wrote:

I'm just wondering, do you guys think that Allegheny County's real estate 
assessment website is OdbL compatible to use to gain addresses to put into OSM?

http://www2.county.allegheny.pa.us/RealEstate/Search.aspx

I haven't taken any addresses from it, but if it's compatible with OSM, it 
could be a gold mine for getting a big area of addresses done for the OSM world.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] South Carolina State Highways - primary overload

2014-02-01 Thread James Mast

All right, I'll be sending the e-mail to the DWG in a few minutes then.  Life 
has been a little crazy here preventing me from doing it sooner than this.

-James

 From: mart...@openstreetmap.us
 Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 07:07:48 -0800
 To: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com
 CC: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [Talk-us] South Carolina State Highways - primary overload

 I think you're making the right call, James.

 On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 11:33 PM, James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com 
 wrote:
  So, nobody else has a comment on how the repair work should be done?

  Last chance before I respond back to the DWG e-mail (and as of right now,
  will be recommending just the reverting of only the 'highway=xxx' upgrades).
  Just want to make sure the masses don't have a problem with this.

  -James

  From: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com
  To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
  Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 05:01:19 -0500

  Subject: Re: [Talk-us] South Carolina State Highways - primary overload

  Nobody else has a comment on what should be done here?

  If you don't remember the start of this discussion of this subject, here's
  the link to the original post I made on this subject to the list so you can
  see it:
  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2013-December/012349.html

  -James

  Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 07:24:50 -0500
  From: nice...@att.net
  To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
  Subject: Re: [Talk-us] South Carolina State Highways - primary overload

  On 1/16/2014 12:16 AM, James Mast wrote:
   Anyways guys, post what you think should be done here so I can get back
   to the DWG on this subject. (I'm personally all for the reverting of
   the highway=xxx upgrades this user has done only and not a full scale
   revert of all his changesets as he did do some highway cleanup in some
   changesets while doing the 'highway=xxx' upgrades.)

  I would be for the revert of the highway=xxx changes. While the Wiki
  has no hard and fast rule on the 'right way' to tag these, clearly some
  information has been lost by eliminating a highway type.

  ___
  Talk-us mailing list
  Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

  ___ Talk-us mailing list
  Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

  ___
  Talk-us mailing list
  Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

 -- 
 Martijn van Exel
 President, US Chapter
 OpenStreetMap
 http://openstreetmap.us/
 http://osm.org/

 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] South Carolina State Highways - primary overload

2014-01-28 Thread James Mast

So, nobody else has a comment on how the repair work should be done?

Last chance before I respond back to the DWG e-mail (and as of right now, will 
be recommending just the reverting of only the 'highway=xxx' upgrades).  Just 
want to make sure the masses don't have a problem with this.

-James

From: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com
To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 05:01:19 -0500
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] South Carolina State Highways - primary overload

Nobody else has a comment on what should be done here?

If you don't remember the start of this discussion of this subject, here's the 
link to the original post I made on this subject to the list so you can see it:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2013-December/012349.html

-James

 Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 07:24:50 -0500
 From: nice...@att.net
 To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [Talk-us] South Carolina State Highways - primary overload

 On 1/16/2014 12:16 AM, James Mast wrote:
  Anyways guys, post what you think should be done here so I can get back
  to the DWG on this subject.  (I'm personally all for the reverting of
  the highway=xxx upgrades this user has done only and not a full scale
  revert of all his changesets as he did do some highway cleanup in some
  changesets while doing the 'highway=xxx' upgrades.)

   I would be for the revert of the highway=xxx changes.  While the Wiki 
 has no hard and fast rule on the 'right way' to tag these, clearly some 
 information has been lost  by eliminating a highway type.

 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] South Carolina State Highways - primary overload

2014-01-20 Thread James Mast

Nobody else has a comment on what should be done here?

If you don't remember the start of this discussion of this subject, here's the 
link to the original post I made on this subject to the list so you can see it:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2013-December/012349.html

-James

 Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 07:24:50 -0500
 From: nice...@att.net
 To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [Talk-us] South Carolina State Highways - primary overload

 On 1/16/2014 12:16 AM, James Mast wrote:
  Anyways guys, post what you think should be done here so I can get back
  to the DWG on this subject.  (I'm personally all for the reverting of
  the highway=xxx upgrades this user has done only and not a full scale
  revert of all his changesets as he did do some highway cleanup in some
  changesets while doing the 'highway=xxx' upgrades.)

   I would be for the revert of the highway=xxx changes.  While the Wiki 
 has no hard and fast rule on the 'right way' to tag these, clearly some 
 information has been lost  by eliminating a highway type.

 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] South Carolina State Highways - primary overload

2014-01-15 Thread James Mast

I have finally heard back from the DWG group on this subject.

They said that they lack the manpower to actually investigate these edits and 
find out what they should be.  However, they said that they can identify 
*every* highway=xxx upgrade that the user did in a time frame and revert them.  
They would need to rely on us here in the talk-us community though to let them 
know if this seems like a sensible thing to do in this case before they do 
anything.

So, do you guys think we should ask them to do a revert on all of the 
highway=xxx upgrade changes the user made in South Carolina (and also where he 
did it in Georgia too)?  We would need to try to lock down the time period that 
he did this in changeset # wise so that there are no problems with the highway 
type revert.  It just sucks that with the new OSM layout, that got rid of the 
page #'s in the URLs for a user's changesets.  That would have made this job a 
tad easier to do allowing just url editing to get to older changesets he did.

Anyways guys, post what you think should be done here so I can get back to the 
DWG on this subject.  (I'm personally all for the reverting of the highway=xxx 
upgrades this user has done only and not a full scale revert of all his 
changesets as he did do some highway cleanup in some changesets while doing the 
'highway=xxx' upgrades.)

-James
  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[OSM-talk] Interesting use of OSM data in Battlefield 4

2014-01-08 Thread James Mast

I just recently got Battlefield 4 and noticed that in the leaderboards area, 
that they have a real map so you can add your location to see how others around 
you are ranked.  To my surprise, they are using OSM data for the map.  I 
confirmed this by going down to Corridor H (US-48) in West Virginia and it was 
exactly how I did it in the OSM data on the most recently opened segment of 
that highway.

I just thought that this was interesting and wanted you guys to know about this.

-James
  ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-us] Proposal to Remove Two Duplicate Route Relations in Texas

2014-01-08 Thread James Mast




And now that I've looked into this more, Cam4rd98 didn't cause any of the 
problems here this time.

So, this should have been just brought to the group as how to fix it as a whole 
and not call out any specific user.  The last editor isn't always the person 
who caused the problems.  You should always take a look at the entire history 
of a relation/way/node to figure out who might need to be contacted to help 
resolve something.

-James

  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Interesting use of OSM data in Battlefield 4

2014-01-08 Thread James Mast

I just recently got Battlefield 4 and noticed that in the leaderboards area, 
that they have a real map so you can add your location to see how others around 
you are ranked.  To my surprise, they are using OSM data for the map.  I 
confirmed this by going down to Corridor H (US-48) in West Virginia and it was 
exactly how I did it in the OSM data on the most recently opened segment of 
that highway.

I just thought that this was interesting and wanted you guys to know about this.

-James
  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Proposal to Remove Two Duplicate Route Relations in Texas

2014-01-07 Thread James Mast

 From: skqu...@rushpost.com
 To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 00:01:59 -0600
 Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Proposal to Remove Two Duplicate Route Relations in
 Texas

 I don't think Cam4rd98 is still an active mapper.

 If you are absolutely, positively sure they are duplicates, I say go
 ahead and prune.

 -- 
   Shawn K. Quinn
   skqu...@rushpost.com

 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

He is still an active mapper.  He's done over 20 edits in the last 17 days.

-James
  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Prioritizing multi-banded route designators (multiple overlaps) on ways: the Principal route designator concept

2013-12-21 Thread James Mast

I know awhile back I updated the ref tag on the short segment of I-77 that has 
I-74 cosigned with it from ref=I 74;I 77 to ref=I 77;I 74 because along 
that segment, they are using I-77's mile markers.  Plus it helps to know that 
I-77 was there long before the two I-74 signs (one NB and one SB) were added 
along it.

So, at least when it comes to Interstates with 2 or more Interstates posted on 
a segment, you should always put the one that the mile markers/exit numbers are 
based off of first in the way ref tag.

-James
  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US State highways.

2013-12-18 Thread James Mast

I have no problems going with either : or ; for the separator for unsigned 
segments of highways in the role area.

What does everybody else think?  As this shouldn't be decided by just two 
people.  We do still need the consensuses of [talk-us] before any mass changing 
of relations happen.

Later tonight if I have time I'll do up an example route for this (US-19 Truck 
here in Pittsburgh) so everybody can see this in action at least and then we 
can link an example to the wiki page.  The reason I selected the route above is 
because not only is it a short route, it does have it's middle segment hidden 
while on Interstates.  Plus I have tons of experience with it having traveled 
it a lot in my life.

-James
  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US State highways.

2013-12-14 Thread James Mast

Looks good to me Martin.  I'm game with the role = north:unsigned tagging for 
unsigned segments.

Now all we would need to do is get JOSM to show the cardinal directions the 
same way in the relation editor like forward/backward so that you can verify 
a route is all there and there are no gaps (unless there is one for real like 
I-49 currently has in LA since they are extending it).  And on this subject it 
brings up an interesting problem.  What to do when a highway has C/D lanes that 
are part of the main highway (like the 401 in Toronto, Ontario, Canada).  I 
know a few Interstates have these, like I-80  I-95 in NJ.  There should be a 
way to have something like role = east:express  role = east:local in a 
directional relation (I fully support Interstates to have separate relations 
for each direction on 2di's; but on 3di's they should stay one relation unless 
it's like a 30+ mile route like I-476/I-376 here in PA) and have JOSM's 
relation editor show a split in the highway so you can verify there are no gaps 
in those areas for the relation.

Also, I have noticed you've been doing some editing for the Highway Directions 
In The United States wiki page [1] and mention the role = north;south idea 
for single carriageways so that the routes could tell people which direction 
the way goes.  I think that might still need a little more discussion here on 
[talk-us] before we attempt to implement it and mention it on that page (maybe 
have a vote for that part on the talk page??).  I personally think it could 
work, but we would need all of the editors (JOSM, iD, Potlatch2) to have 
support to be able to reverse those roles correctly if somebody reverses the 
way.  Can't allow those to get messed up once added. (On a side note, iD 
doesn't alert you if you delete a way that's part of a relation yet, which 
isn't good at all.)

-James

 From: m...@rtijn.org
 Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 18:16:54 -0800
 To: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com
 CC: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US  State
 highways.
 
 Hmm yes, on second thought, a second key on role members may not be so
 straightforward ;) How silly of me to suggest such a thing.
 
 Let's keep things pragmatic then and let me suggest we go with
 role=north:unsigned for unsigned sections. I don't particularly like
 the ; because it suggests a list of things that are of similar nature
 (like apple;pear;mango) whereas a colon to me suggests a further
 scoping which is what this is.
 
 So
 
 role=north / role=west / role=south / role=east
 
 for relation members to indicate cardinal directions, and
 
 role=north:unsigned / role=west:unsigned / role=south:unsigned /
 role=east:unsigned
 
 for unsigned segments, unless the entire numbered route is unsigned,
 in which case unsigned_ref would do the job.
 
 Any more insights and comments?
 
 Thanks
 Martijn
 
 
 On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 5:31 PM, James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com wrote:
  Well, to add a second role to an item in a relation would require an entire
  overhaul of relations, the editors, and even the OSM database I would think
  to do it.  That's why I suggested doing the ; or | because data
  consumers already know how to deal with the ; at least in the ref tags on
  normal ways (look @ Mapquest Open and their rendering of highway shields
  based off the ref tags on ways).  Heck, maybe even a : might work (role =
  north:unsigned).
 
  -James
 
  From: m...@rtijn.org
  Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 23:01:09 -0700
 
  Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US  State
  highways.
  To: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com
 
 
  On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 6:17 PM, James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com
  wrote:
   Martijn,
  
   How would you suggest using the role:signed = yes/no (or is this just
   for
   completely unsigned highways like I-124 in TN where we can add this info
   into the main tags of the relation)? We would still need a way to keep
   the
   direction for the unsigned segment of the route in the role so that the
   relation editor in JOSM (and other analyzers) would be able to know that
   the
   route is still going North/East or South/West, especially on a
   dual-carriageway (like what happens with US-52 on I-94 in MN and US-19
   Trunk
   on I-279/I-376 here in Pittsburgh, PA) and would let you know it's still
   in
   one piece.
 
  My idea was to just use
 
  role=north/east/south/west
 
  for the regularly signposted sections and
 
  role=north/east/south/west
  role:signed=no
 
  for the hidden sections.
 
  It feels contrived but I also don't see a much better solution in
  terms of striking a balance between keeping relation complexity in
  check and information redundancy / ease of maintenance.
 
  
   If you don't like the | separating the role = north|unsigned, maybe
   use
   the ; or , instead? I could see the ; working just as good as the
   |.
 
  I just want to follow whatever practice is most common for more

Re: [Talk-us] South Carolina State Highways - primary overload

2013-12-10 Thread James Mast

Tim,

I sent the user a message inside of OSM that did all of this changing of the 
state highways in SC to primary/trunk and haven't gotten a response back yet in 
over 24h.  I'll be contacting the DWG later tonight (giving the guy another ~5 
hours to respond before I e-mail the DWG) about this subject.  So please don't 
try to do many more changes just in case they decide a mass revert of this 
users changesets is the best way to fix all of this.  That way, there will not 
be any major conflicts when they try to do this if possible.

-James

Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 11:13:10 -0500
From: tim.huem...@gmail.com
To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] South Carolina State Highways - primary overload

I found this to be very annoying.  I did a lot of work on the SC Highways some 
time back.  I noticed that in a few counties most of the state highways were 
marked as primary.  I reverted most of them back to secondary except for the 
ones that were truly trunk routes.  Its frustrating to see work that you spent 
a lot of time and effort on get vandalized as such


On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 7:49 AM, Mike N nice...@att.net wrote:

On 12/9/2013 12:42 AM, James Mast wrote:


So, does anybody else agree with me on this subject of primary

overload in South Carolina?  If so, how do we go about fixing this with

a reasonable approach?  Looking at some of the history of some of the

ways, it seems that only one user was doing the upgrade from secondary

to primary/trunk over the past 4+ months.




 Disclaimer: I'm not familiar with DOT classifications in general.



 At first, the user seemed to be knowledgeable about highway classifications 
for the segments in question.   But I agree - now that nearly everything was 
just changed to primary, it seems to be both less useful and inconsistent with 
most of the rest of the US.   It seems that the intent was to match some other 
map rendering or road classification which has fewer classification levels.






___

Talk-us mailing list

Talk-us@openstreetmap.org

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us



-- 
Tim Huemmer
Webmaster  Owner
RRPictureArchives.NET


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [OSM-talk] The new OpenStreetMap.org design

2013-12-09 Thread James Mast

 To: talk@openstreetmap.org
 From: o...@malenki.ch
 Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 18:31:44 +0100
 Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] The new OpenStreetMap.org design

 A regression is the inability to browse the changesets of users
 efficiently. 
 Example: From time to time I need to have a look at what I mapped e.g.
 about two years ago. Until now I could skip several pages of my edit
 history by clicking the according links [page 1 2 3 ...11] or editing
 the url like it is still used on nodes and ways of changeset.
 Now browsing the distant history of edits is a pita. [Load more]period

I fully agree with this.  There is now no way to link somebody to a specific 
page if a user has several questionable edits that aren't within his last ~20 
edits.  This is something IMO that needs to be brought back ASAP.

-James
  ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[Talk-us] South Carolina State Highways - primary overload

2013-12-08 Thread James Mast

Is it just me, or are there way too many primary state highways when some of 
them should really be secondary instead?  The US Highways should normally be 
the primary/trunk highways and only a few select State Highways should be 
primary or trunk.  To be honest, it seems that 98% of all the State highways 
segments in SC are marked as primary right now.

There is no way almost all of the State Highways in SC can be primary.  Just 
look at almost any other state.  None are overloaded with primaries.  One of 
the major routes that sticks out to me is SC-64 near the Savannah River Site 
where it's marked as trunk going to the security gate [1].  Now, if the 
Savannah River Site didn't exist and the highway was still open to the public 
past that point, I wouldn't agrue the point of it being trunk or primary.  But 
since that segment of state highway goes nowhere anymore after leaving US-278 
going West, this would be a classic case of it having to be secondary, or 
maybe even being tertiary.

So, does anybody else agree with me on this subject of primary overload in 
South Carolina?  If so, how do we go about fixing this with a reasonable 
approach?  Looking at some of the history of some of the ways, it seems that 
only one user was doing the upgrade from secondary to primary/trunk over the 
past 4+ months.  He also did some of this in Georgia, but not to the extent as 
in South Carolina.  Unfortunately, this user did it over 200+ changesets, so, 
if reverting was the option, it would take forever I would think.

-James

[1] - http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/33.2388/-81.4205layers=N
  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US State highways.

2013-12-06 Thread James Mast

Well, to add a second role to an item in a relation would require an entire 
overhaul of relations, the editors, and even the OSM database I would think to 
do it.  That's why I suggested doing the ; or | because data consumers 
already know how to deal with the ; at least in the ref tags on normal ways 
(look @ Mapquest Open and their rendering of highway shields based off the ref 
tags on ways).  Heck, maybe even a : might work (role = north:unsigned).

-James

 From: m...@rtijn.org
 Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 23:01:09 -0700
 Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US  State 
 highways.
 To: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com
 
 On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 6:17 PM, James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com wrote:
  Martijn,
 
  How would you suggest using the role:signed = yes/no (or is this just for
  completely unsigned highways like I-124 in TN where we can add this info
  into the main tags of the relation)?  We would still need a way to keep the
  direction for the unsigned segment of the route in the role so that the
  relation editor in JOSM (and other analyzers) would be able to know that the
  route is still going North/East or South/West, especially on a
  dual-carriageway (like what happens with US-52 on I-94 in MN and US-19 Trunk
  on I-279/I-376 here in Pittsburgh, PA) and would let you know it's still in
  one piece.
 
 My idea was to just use
 
 role=north/east/south/west
 
 for the regularly signposted sections and
 
 role=north/east/south/west
 role:signed=no
 
 for the hidden sections.
 
 It feels contrived but I also don't see a much better solution in
 terms of striking a balance between keeping relation complexity in
 check and information redundancy / ease of maintenance.
 
 
  If you don't like the | separating the role = north|unsigned, maybe use
  the ; or , instead?  I could see the ; working just as good as the
  |.
 
 I just want to follow whatever practice is most common for more
 specific information related to a tag, and thinking of the lanes and
 access tagging systems I thought the role:signed approach would make
 the most sense.
 
 
  I just want to find a solution to keep the route all in one piece instead
  of having to have two separate relations for it's signed segment and one
  covering the entire route with the unsigned_ref tag.  Annoying and easily
  broken by new users who don't know why there are two relations for the exact
  same route on some segments.
 
 I agree 100%.
 -- 
 Martijn van Exel
 http://openstreetmap.us/
  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US State highways.

2013-12-05 Thread James Mast

Martijn,

How would you suggest using the role:signed = yes/no (or is this just for 
completely unsigned highways like I-124 in TN where we can add this info into 
the main tags of the relation)?  We would still need a way to keep the 
direction for the unsigned segment of the route in the role so that the 
relation editor in JOSM (and other analyzers) would be able to know that the 
route is still going North/East or South/West, especially on a dual-carriageway 
(like what happens with US-52 on I-94 in MN and US-19 Trunk on I-279/I-376 here 
in Pittsburgh, PA) and would let you know it's still in one piece.

If you don't like the | separating the role = north|unsigned, maybe use the 
; or , instead?  I could see the ; working just as good as the |.

I just want to find a solution to keep the route all in one piece instead of 
having to have two separate relations for it's signed segment and one covering 
the entire route with the unsigned_ref tag.  Annoying and easily broken by 
new users who don't know why there are two relations for the exact same route 
on some segments.

-James


 From: m...@rtijn.org
 Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 09:25:11 -0700
 To: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com
 CC: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US  State
 highways.
 
 Hi James,
 
 I had not thought of the Case of the Hidden Segments. It makes sense
 to tag them, but would it not be more in line with general OSM tagging
 practice to use role:signed = yes/no?
 
 I think it's a valuable extension on the role discussion, perhaps you
 can add a paragraph to the wiki page
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_Directions_In_The_United_States
 with an example? I found this photo (not ideal and I'm not sure if we
 could use it on the wiki, but it's something ;)
 http://www.ajfroggie.com/roadpics/mn/us052/nb-i94e.jpg
 
 Best
 Martijn
 
 On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 3:43 PM, James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com wrote:
  We also have to come up with a way to designate hidden segments of a route
  so we don't have to have two separate relations for highways that have
  segments that are hidden.
 
  Some of the examples I'm thinking of are like US-52 in MN when it's on I-94
  and US-19 Trunk here in Pittsburgh, PA while it's on I-279/I-376.  Both
  states have signs for theses routes telling people to follow said
  Interstates for those routes and then no more reference to them till when
  they leave the Interstates.  I'm thinking that we could possibly tag the
  roles for them in the relations this way: role=north|unsigned.  This would
  also help for the renders that use the relations to add the shields.  They
  would be able to use the |unsigned part to know not to add the shields
  along that way.
 
  As for the highways that are completely hidden, the unsigned_ref tag in
  the relation will work perfectly for them still (US-85 in NM as an example).
 
  Anybody else agree with me that this might work better than the two
  relations for the highways that have segments that are hidden?
 
  -James
 
  ___
  Talk-us mailing list
  Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
 
 
 
 
 -- 
 Martijn van Exel
 http://oegeo.wordpress.com/
 http://openstreetmap.us/
 
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Bing imagery update

2013-12-04 Thread James Mast

I just wish Bing would update the imagery around Charlotte, NC.  Especially 
because of the building of the missing link of I-485.  And I can't forget to 
mention I-85 as well since it's being widened from 2 to 4 lanes going North 
from I-485.  I so want to clean that major turbine interchange of I-85/I-485 up 
since we still have the old pre-construction configuration in OSM.

-James
  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [OSM-talk] Welcome box on the new map page

2013-11-30 Thread James Mast

Well, I do know with the new map page change, all the changeset search feeds 
are now completely broken.

For instance, this url [1] used to create a feed for the for following area 
-80.54,40.358,-79.526,40.779 and let me know if there were any changesets that 
in that bounding box.  Now, all I get are the last 20 changeset in all of 
OSM!!!  That isn't good at all if you're trying to keep a watch on your home 
area for changes!!  There should have been a built in feed redirection from the 
old style here to the new style instead being broken the first time a user used 
the old style.

And when I try to access the new history menu [2] and pull the RSS FEED from 
the site, Firefox's build in Subscribe feature gives me this feed URL [3].  
The OSM site should be giving the user a valid feed url for the area you're 
viewing, not just the base feed.

Thankfully, I've figured out what the new feed link is for my watch area 
manually and updated it in my RSS feed reader [4].

Still, there needs to be some tweaks to the history part of the new design.

-James


[1] - 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changesets/feed?bbox=-80.54%2C40.358%2C-79.526%2C40.779
[2] - http://www.openstreetmap.org/history#map=10/40.4433/-79.6893layers=N
[3] - http://www.openstreetmap.org/history/feed
[4] - 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/history/feed?bbox=-80.54%2C40.358%2C-79.526%2C40.779
  ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US State highways.

2013-11-30 Thread James Mast

Peter, it would just be for the relations.  It would stay the current 
status-quo for the ways using at all times the ref  unsigned_ref tags (see 
I-394 example below).

In your example with I-394 and US-12, if you look at the way's tags [1], you 
can see that US 12 is still mentioned, but under the tag of unsigned_ref.  
That's how we have to so it as too many other data users wouldn't understand 
anything special in the normal ref tag on ways saying something is 
unsigned.  That's why the east|unsigned stuff would only work in the 
relations.

Here's an example of what I did for US-19 Truck here in Pittsburgh which has 
it's multiplex with I-279  I-376 hidden (except for the small segment South of 
the Fort Pitt Tunnels because of how the ramps are). First, here's the relation 
for the signed poartion of the route [2], and here's the relation for the 
entire route [3].  As you can see, on the entire route relation, I have the 
unsigned_ref tag for the route number, while in the signed relation, it has 
the normal ref tag with the route number.  I had to do it this way so that 
all the data users who use the relations for adding shields didn't erroneously 
add the Truck US-19 shields to I-279/I-376.  Sure, you could say this is 
tagging for the render, but it also is mapping the ground truth since there 
are no US-19 Truck shields along those two Interstates. This sign [4] on 
Southbound I-279 is the only mention of US-19 Truck along the Interstates till 
it leaves I-376 just after the Fort Pitt Tunnels. (NOTE: for those who don't 
know, US-19 Truck used to be mutliplexed with just I-279 till I-279 was 
shortened to the Point in Downtown Pittsburgh and I-376 was extended from that 
point over the Parkway West segment of I-279 in 2009.)  (Also another little 
history lesson here, but Pittsburgh's US-19 Truck is the only officially 
approved Truck route with the AASHTO and shows up in the logs.)

So, if we all agree on how to handle short segments of unsigned highways in 
relations, I could then re-combine the route into just one relation and tag the 
unsigned ways as role=north|unsigned and role=south|unsigned along the 
I-279/I-376 multiplexes.

HOWEVER, on routes that are completely unsigned (like hidden I-124 in TN [5]), 
we would just keep use the unsigned_ref tag in the relations as we are 
currently doing since it doesn't have a signed segment.  But I wouldn't be 
totally opposed to doing it like the hidden segment of US-19 Truck mentioned 
above inside of the relation.

I hope this fully explains what I'm suggesting to do Peter and everybody else. 
;)

-James



[1] - http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/43147401
[2] - http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/571349
[3] - http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3078417
[4] - http://goo.gl/maps/4fJYC
[5] - http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1861175

Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 01:01:29 -0800
From: peter.dav...@crc-corp.com
To: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com
CC: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US  State  
highways.

James,
I have a question about this, though it all sounds good to me in principle.  Is 
your proposal just about the relations?  What would we do on the refs of the 
ways?  For example, on I-394 in Minneapolis and western suburbs, a mapper has 
left off US 12 because it is at least partly unsigned. So we have way ref I 394 
instead of I 394;US 12.  For my applications I'd prefer it said I 394;US 12, 
because we need to track the overlaps (which we and our 10 state DOT customers 
call double banding).  But if you also want to suppress shields from maps in 
such areas, could we enter the way ref as I 394;US 12|unsigned  ?

Peter
  

On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 2:43 PM, James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com wrote:




We also have to come up with a way to designate hidden segments of a route so 
we don't have to have two separate relations for highways that have segments 
that are hidden.

Some of the examples I'm thinking of are like US-52 in MN when it's on I-94 and 
US-19 Trunk here in Pittsburgh, PA while it's on I-279/I-376.  Both states have 
signs for theses routes telling people to follow said Interstates for those 
routes and then no more reference to them till when they leave the Interstates. 
 I'm thinking that we could possibly tag the roles for them in the relations 
this way: role=north|unsigned.  This would also help for the renders that use 
the relations to add the shields.  They would be able to use the |unsigned 
part to know not to add the shields along that way.


As for the highways that are completely hidden, the unsigned_ref tag in the 
relation will work perfectly for them still (US-85 in NM as an example).

Anybody else agree with me that this might work better than the two relations 
for the highways that have segments that are hidden?


-James
  

___

Talk-us mailing list

Talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US State highways.

2013-11-28 Thread James Mast

We also have to come up with a way to designate hidden segments of a route so 
we don't have to have two separate relations for highways that have segments 
that are hidden.

Some of the examples I'm thinking of are like US-52 in MN when it's on I-94 and 
US-19 Trunk here in Pittsburgh, PA while it's on I-279/I-376.  Both states have 
signs for theses routes telling people to follow said Interstates for those 
routes and then no more reference to them till when they leave the Interstates. 
 I'm thinking that we could possibly tag the roles for them in the relations 
this way: role=north|unsigned.  This would also help for the renders that use 
the relations to add the shields.  They would be able to use the |unsigned 
part to know not to add the shields along that way.

As for the highways that are completely hidden, the unsigned_ref tag in the 
relation will work perfectly for them still (US-85 in NM as an example).

Anybody else agree with me that this might work better than the two relations 
for the highways that have segments that are hidden?

-James
  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [josm-dev] Relation editor support for north/south and east/west similar to forward/backward

2013-11-27 Thread James Mast




However, with the split Interstates (I-35W/I-35E in both TX and MN  
I-69E/I-69C/I-69W in TX)  US Highways (and a few state highways), the letters 
are part of the route number.  So, they wouldn't have any effect on the role 
part for relations.  When given routing info, they'd act just like their 
non-lettered siblings.

Turn left onto Northbound I-35E on-ramp or something similar.

Also, I don't know why some people put the letter as a modifier in some of 
the relations[1].  Maybe we could also remove that line (since the ref line has 
the proper number still) when we convert everything to the cardinal directions.

-James

[1] - http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/416519

 Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 22:22:47 -0500
 From: saiarcot...@gmail.com
 To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [Talk-us] [josm-dev] Relation editor support for north/south and 
 east/west similar to forward/backward
 
 The same applies for I-35 in the DFW area; I-35E runs through Dallas 
 while I-35W runs through Fort Worth.
 
 Saikrishna Arcot
 
 On Wed 27 Nov 2013 03:56:51 PM EST, Richard Welty wrote:
  On 11/27/13 2:46 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote:
  You also have compass-point letters used to distinguish between
  branches of the same route. For example, US 31 runs north/south. A
  portion of it branches off as US 31W, which runs roughly parallel,
  some miles westward of US 31, and eventually merges back into it.
  in the Hudson Valley of NY, we have US 9/US 9W, which behave
  similarly; 9 is on the east side of the river south of Albany,
  and 9W is on the west side.
 
  (on top of that, NYS has a thicket of state routes which are
  spurs and loops off of 9/9W, e.g. NY 9A, 9B, ... 9H, 9J...
 
  mapping in NY is fun. whee!)
 
  richard
 
 
 
  ___
  Talk-us mailing list
  Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
 
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[OSM-talk] Key:highway it's talk page moved?

2013-11-26 Thread James Mast

Does anybody know why they were moved the other day on the wiki?  I think it 
might have just been an honest mistake by the user, but is there any way to 
revert it so that the original history is back in place for Key:highway?

-James
  ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

1 2 3 >

1 - 100 of 223 matches

Mail list logo