[Talk-ca] Secret routing demo.
Dear talk-ca, There is a new secret demo of routing on OSM data for Canada. The demo server could go away without notice, and it doesn't update data regularly, but it seems to be blindingly fast. Also, it only works for part of Europe. Except it secretly works for part of Canada too! So far, I'm using this to test routing connectivity for the Trans Canada, and for major roads in my area. So far, i see that there is a continuity problem in Eastern Nova Scotia and I hear that there is a problem near the Manitoba / Ontario border. In both cases if you try a route, it looks funny or fails to route. Looking funny is often either a route that goes the long way 'round, or goes backwards, then forward, or past the destination then back. The fix is to go find the overlapping nodes that aren't connected, or the missing bridge or backwards oneway tag, and fix them. Great fun! It should help find import issues where we haven't properly stitched imports to existing data. Again, this router isn't yet updating often, so maybe we can put things we find and fix in this thread, so we don't chase our tails? Then maybe ask for an update after the weekend? What do you think? Feel like doing some secret routing repair? ;-) And thanks to Frederik at Geofabrik, for adding Canada to this demo. This is pretty cool. Best regards, Richard ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Secret routing demo.
Hi Richard, Yeah, that's sounds quite useful. How do we do it? Sam L. Kamloops -Original Message- From: Richard Weait rich...@weait.com To: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Talk-ca] Secret routing demo. Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 18:54:06 -0500 Dear talk-ca, There is a new secret demo of routing on OSM data for Canada. The demo server could go away without notice, and it doesn't update data regularly, but it seems to be blindingly fast. Also, it only works for part of Europe. Except it secretly works for part of Canada too! So far, I'm using this to test routing connectivity for the Trans Canada, and for major roads in my area. So far, i see that there is a continuity problem in Eastern Nova Scotia and I hear that there is a problem near the Manitoba / Ontario border. In both cases if you try a route, it looks funny or fails to route. Looking funny is often either a route that goes the long way 'round, or goes backwards, then forward, or past the destination then back. The fix is to go find the overlapping nodes that aren't connected, or the missing bridge or backwards oneway tag, and fix them. Great fun! It should help find import issues where we haven't properly stitched imports to existing data. Again, this router isn't yet updating often, so maybe we can put things we find and fix in this thread, so we don't chase our tails? Then maybe ask for an update after the weekend? What do you think? Feel like doing some secret routing repair? ;-) And thanks to Frederik at Geofabrik, for adding Canada to this demo. This is pretty cool. Best regards, Richard ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
[Talk-ca] Mapping cut blocks in wooded areas
Hi Everybody, I've been importing CanVec mostly south of Kamloops for the past several weeks and am going to take some time now to go back and bring stuff up to date. One question I have though is in regards to how to treat cut blocks in the wooded areas. I see according to the map features wiki, that the CanVec imported tag of natural=wood is technically not correct, at least for here, as wood is to be reserved only for completely reserved/unmanaged areas. I guess most of what I have should really be mapped as landuse=forest but I have not made the change because what is under timber lease and what is not would be difficult to determine. In one sense it's all managed to some degree or other. But my point is rather what should be done with the cut blocks, which in some areas constitute up to 50% or more of the forested area. http://osm.org/go/WJ1cj_R is a typical area. It seems improper to keep them as wooded when they are clearly not, and yet most are replanted and will be wooded again someday... or at least that's what they keep telling us. I started mapping them as it truly gives a more accurate representation of the current state of affairs on the ground... but thought I'd better get some guidance before proceeding too far. Thanks, Sam L. Kamloops ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Secret routing demo.
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: Dear talk-ca, There is a new secret demo of routing on OSM data for Canada. The demo server could go away without notice, and it doesn't update data regularly, but it seems to be blindingly fast. Also, it only works for part of Europe. Except it secretly works for part of Canada too! Oops. guess I should have included the link! http://routingdemo.geofabrik.de/ I've found that routing even extends over the border a short way too, though I've only checked a few places so far. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Mapping cut blocks in wooded areas
Hi Samuel, About tagging forested areas, I would use landuse=forest only if it is obvious on the field that the area is managed/harvested, as for landuse=orchard or landuse=vineyard. We have a lot of Christmas tree plantations in the area and I map them as landuse=forest because it is obvious on the imagery and on the field. If it is difficult to determine if an area is under timber lease or not, because it looks the same, I would keep it natural=wood... About Cut blocks, I would map the hole they create that wooded area. If the area is replanted, then some OSM contributor will remove the hole you map in 10-20 years from now! Mapping the reality is the best we can do and because the reality changes over time, we can keep mapping !-) Daniel _ From: Samuel Longiaru [mailto:longi...@shaw.ca] Sent: March-04-11 21:45 To: talk-ca Subject: [Talk-ca] Mapping cut blocks in wooded areas Hi Everybody, I've been importing CanVec mostly south of Kamloops for the past several weeks and am going to take some time now to go back and bring stuff up to date. One question I have though is in regards to how to treat cut blocks in the wooded areas. I see according to the map features wiki, that the CanVec imported tag of natural=wood is technically not correct, at least for here, as wood is to be reserved only for completely reserved/unmanaged areas. I guess most of what I have should really be mapped as landuse=forest but I have not made the change because what is under timber lease and what is not would be difficult to determine. In one sense it's all managed to some degree or other. But my point is rather what should be done with the cut blocks, which in some areas constitute up to 50% or more of the forested area. http://osm.org/go/WJ1cj_R is a typical area. It seems improper to keep them as wooded when they are clearly not, and yet most are replanted and will be wooded again someday... or at least that's what they keep telling us. I started mapping them as it truly gives a more accurate representation of the current state of affairs on the ground... but thought I'd better get some guidance before proceeding too far. Thanks, Sam L. Kamloops ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Secret routing demo.
Thanks Richard. I tested it on the Trans Canada heading east of Kamloops towards Banff. It was routing through Edmonton. Wha??? Tracked it down to a divided section of the TC west of Field where both sides of the highway were marked as westbound. KeepRight didn't pick it up in this case. Fixed. Thanks for the link. Very quick indeed. Sam L -Original Message- From: Richard Weait rich...@weait.com To: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Secret routing demo. Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 22:19:01 -0500 On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: Dear talk-ca, There is a new secret demo of routing on OSM data for Canada. The demo server could go away without notice, and it doesn't update data regularly, but it seems to be blindingly fast. Also, it only works for part of Europe. Except it secretly works for part of Canada too! Oops. guess I should have included the link! http://routingdemo.geofabrik.de/ I've found that routing even extends over the border a short way too, though I've only checked a few places so far. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Mapping cut blocks in wooded areas
Well, that was my feeling as well. Maps are living things and designed to be changed. OK... if the blocks look like they have greened up after replanting or otherwise, I will leave the cut blocks as wooded, otherwise they will be mapped as a hole. Thanks... Sam L -Original Message- From: Daniel Begin jfd...@hotmail.com To: 'Samuel Longiaru' longi...@shaw.ca, 'talk-ca' talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Mapping cut blocks in wooded areas Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 23:18:58 -0500 Hi Samuel, About tagging forested areas, I would use landuse=forest only if it is obvious on the field that the area is managed/harvested, as for landuse=orchard or landuse=vineyard. We have a lot of Christmas tree plantations in the area and I map them as landuse=forest because it is obvious on the imagery and on the field. If it is difficult to determine if an area is under timber lease or not, because it looks the same, I would keep it natural=wood... About Cut blocks, I would map the hole they create that wooded area. If the area is replanted, then some OSM contributor will remove the hole you map in 10-20 years from now! Mapping the reality is the best we can do and because the reality changes over time, we can keep mapping !-) Daniel From:Samuel Longiaru [mailto:longi...@shaw.ca] Sent: March-04-11 21:45 To: talk-ca Subject: [Talk-ca] Mapping cut blocks in wooded areas Hi Everybody, I've been importing CanVec mostly south of Kamloops for the past several weeks and am going to take some time now to go back and bring stuff up to date. One question I have though is in regards to how to treat cut blocks in the wooded areas. I see according to the map features wiki, that the CanVec imported tag of natural=wood is technically not correct, at least for here, as wood is to be reserved only for completely reserved/unmanaged areas. I guess most of what I have should really be mapped as landuse=forest but I have not made the change because what is under timber lease and what is not would be difficult to determine. In one sense it's all managed to some degree or other. But my point is rather what should be done with the cut blocks, which in some areas constitute up to 50% or more of the forested area. http://osm.org/go/WJ1cj_R is a typical area. It seems improper to keep them as wooded when they are clearly not, and yet most are replanted and will be wooded again someday... or at least that's what they keep telling us. I started mapping them as it truly gives a more accurate representation of the current state of affairs on the ground... but thought I'd better get some guidance before proceeding too far. Thanks, Sam L. Kamloops ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Mapping cut blocks in wooded areas
RE: cut-blocks As someone who has spent done time as a forest technician, I strongly advise against mapping forestry activity. Cut block spatial data changes daily and any images used to trace are out of date. There are literally tens of thousands of clear cuts in British Columbia alone and there is absolutely no way OSM mappers would be able to keep up with changes. Keep in mind that most clearcuts on crown land (and in some cases, private land) are temporary openings in various stages forest development. A 2 year old stand is just as much a forest as a 25 year old free-to-grow stand or a 250 year old stand of timber. I believe that mapping a privately held 'Christmas' tree farm would be pertinent, but these are radically different from commercial forestry openings. I would also advise extreme caution in using images to map forest development roads unless are working on a high traffic mainline. Many spur roads are in various stages of deactivation. It may look like a road from the outdated image, but it may have been completely deactivated and replanted. A site inspection is the only way to be sure. Bryan British Columbia From: Daniel Begin [mailto:jfd...@hotmail.com] Sent: March-04-11 8:19 PM To: 'Samuel Longiaru'; 'talk-ca' Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Mapping cut blocks in wooded areas Hi Samuel, About tagging forested areas, I would use landuse=forest only if it is obvious on the field that the area is managed/harvested, as for landuse=orchard or landuse=vineyard. We have a lot of Christmas tree plantations in the area and I map them as landuse=forest because it is obvious on the imagery and on the field. If it is difficult to determine if an area is under timber lease or not, because it looks the same, I would keep it natural=wood... About Cut blocks, I would map the hole they create that wooded area. If the area is replanted, then some OSM contributor will remove the hole you map in 10-20 years from now! Mapping the reality is the best we can do and because the reality changes over time, we can keep mapping !-) Daniel _ From: Samuel Longiaru [mailto:longi...@shaw.ca] Sent: March-04-11 21:45 To: talk-ca Subject: [Talk-ca] Mapping cut blocks in wooded areas Hi Everybody, I've been importing CanVec mostly south of Kamloops for the past several weeks and am going to take some time now to go back and bring stuff up to date. One question I have though is in regards to how to treat cut blocks in the wooded areas. I see according to the map features wiki, that the CanVec imported tag of natural=wood is technically not correct, at least for here, as wood is to be reserved only for completely reserved/unmanaged areas. I guess most of what I have should really be mapped as landuse=forest but I have not made the change because what is under timber lease and what is not would be difficult to determine. In one sense it's all managed to some degree or other. But my point is rather what should be done with the cut blocks, which in some areas constitute up to 50% or more of the forested area. http://osm.org/go/WJ1cj_R is a typical area. It seems improper to keep them as wooded when they are clearly not, and yet most are replanted and will be wooded again someday... or at least that's what they keep telling us. I started mapping them as it truly gives a more accurate representation of the current state of affairs on the ground... but thought I'd better get some guidance before proceeding too far. Thanks, Sam L. Kamloops ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Mapping cut blocks in wooded areas
I very much see your point which is why I was asking for some direction. I guess it comes down to whether the map should reflect what we see at some given snapshot in time, or whether it is reflecting the overall landuse scheme. In short, while standing in the middle of a clear-cut, would it be more accurate that my map show that spot as wooded or not wooded? Sam L. -Original Message- From: Bryan Crosby azubr...@gmail.com To: 'talk-ca' talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Mapping cut blocks in wooded areas Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 21:11:20 -0800 RE: cut-blocks As someone who has spent done time as a forest technician, I strongly advise against mapping forestry activity. Cut block spatial data changes daily and any images used to trace are out of date. There are literally tens of thousands of clear cuts in British Columbia alone and there is absolutely no way OSM mappers would be able to keep up with changes. Keep in mind that most clearcuts on crown land (and in some cases, private land) are temporary openings in various stages forest development. A 2 year old stand is just as much a forest as a 25 year old free-to-grow stand or a 250 year old stand of timber. I believe that mapping a privately held ‘Christmas’ tree farm would be pertinent, but these are radically different from commercial forestry openings. I would also advise extreme caution in using images to map forest development roads unless are working on a high traffic mainline. Many spur roads are in various stages of deactivation. It may look like a road from the outdated image, but it may have been completely deactivated and replanted. A site inspection is the only way to be sure. Bryan British Columbia From: Daniel Begin [mailto:jfd...@hotmail.com] Sent: March-04-11 8:19 PM To: 'Samuel Longiaru'; 'talk-ca' Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Mapping cut blocks in wooded areas Hi Samuel, About tagging forested areas, I would use landuse=forest only if it is obvious on the field that the area is managed/harvested, as for landuse=orchard or landuse=vineyard. We have a lot of Christmas tree plantations in the area and I map them as landuse=forest because it is obvious on the imagery and on the field. If it is difficult to determine if an area is under timber lease or not, because it looks the same, I would keep it natural=wood... About Cut blocks, I would map the hole they create that wooded area. If the area is replanted, then some OSM contributor will remove the hole you map in 10-20 years from now! Mapping the reality is the best we can do and because the reality changes over time, we can keep mapping !-) Daniel From: Samuel Longiaru [mailto:longi...@shaw.ca] Sent: March-04-11 21:45 To: talk-ca Subject: [Talk-ca] Mapping cut blocks in wooded areas Hi Everybody, I've been importing CanVec mostly south of Kamloops for the past several weeks and am going to take some time now to go back and bring stuff up to date. One question I have though is in regards to how to treat cut blocks in the wooded areas. I see according to the map features wiki, that the CanVec imported tag of natural=wood is technically not correct, at least for here, as wood is to be reserved only for completely reserved/unmanaged areas. I guess most of what I have should really be mapped as landuse=forest but I have not made the change because what is under timber lease and what is not would be difficult to determine. In one sense it's all managed to some degree or other. But my point is rather what should be done with the cut blocks, which in some areas constitute up to 50% or more of the forested area. http://osm.org/go/WJ1cj_R is a typical area. It seems improper to keep them as wooded when they are clearly not, and yet most are replanted and will be wooded again someday... or at least that's what they keep telling us. I started mapping them as it truly gives a more accurate representation of the current state of affairs on the ground... but thought I'd better get some guidance before proceeding too far. Thanks, Sam L. Kamloops ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Mapping cut blocks in wooded areas
I would tag it as natural=wood as I don’t feel that there is any distinction between a 2-year old stand and a 250 year old stand in terms of being wood, or forest. They are merely different ages. Licensees maintain incredibly accurate and up-to-date maps that indicate the different openings and their respective stages of development. They have dedicated GIS guys that maintain these maps as fast as techies bring it in. I suppose, in theory, an OSM tag could be used to indicate the stage of opening development, but one would require the date of harvesting, the date of planting and the dates of the silviculture surveys to accurately assess the phase. Unless you are a forester you won’t have access to that information and would be guessing. I just feel that attempting to seriously map out such temporary features accurately goes way beyond the ability of OSM (at this point, at least). Bryan From: Samuel Longiaru [mailto:longi...@shaw.ca] Sent: March-04-11 9:43 PM To: talk-ca Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Mapping cut blocks in wooded areas I very much see your point which is why I was asking for some direction. I guess it comes down to whether the map should reflect what we see at some given snapshot in time, or whether it is reflecting the overall landuse scheme. In short, while standing in the middle of a clear-cut, would it be more accurate that my map show that spot as wooded or not wooded? Sam L. -Original Message- From: Bryan Crosby azubr...@gmail.com mailto:bryan%20crosby%20%3cazubr...@gmail.com%3e To: 'talk-ca' talk-ca@openstreetmap.org mailto:'talk-ca'%20%3ctalk...@openstreetmap.org%3e Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Mapping cut blocks in wooded areas Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 21:11:20 -0800 RE: cut-blocks As someone who has spent done time as a forest technician, I strongly advise against mapping forestry activity. Cut block spatial data changes daily and any images used to trace are out of date. There are literally tens of thousands of clear cuts in British Columbia alone and there is absolutely no way OSM mappers would be able to keep up with changes. Keep in mind that most clearcuts on crown land (and in some cases, private land) are temporary openings in various stages forest development. A 2 year old stand is just as much a forest as a 25 year old free-to-grow stand or a 250 year old stand of timber. I believe that mapping a privately held ‘Christmas’ tree farm would be pertinent, but these are radically different from commercial forestry openings. I would also advise extreme caution in using images to map forest development roads unless are working on a high traffic mainline. Many spur roads are in various stages of deactivation. It may look like a road from the outdated image, but it may have been completely deactivated and replanted. A site inspection is the only way to be sure. Bryan British Columbia From: Daniel Begin [mailto:jfd...@hotmail.com] Sent: March-04-11 8:19 PM To: 'Samuel Longiaru'; 'talk-ca' Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Mapping cut blocks in wooded areas Hi Samuel, About tagging forested areas, I would use landuse=forest only if it is obvious on the field that the area is managed/harvested, as for landuse=orchard or landuse=vineyard. We have a lot of Christmas tree plantations in the area and I map them as landuse=forest because it is obvious on the imagery and on the field. If it is difficult to determine if an area is under timber lease or not, because it looks the same, I would keep it natural=wood... About Cut blocks, I would map the hole they create that wooded area. If the area is replanted, then some OSM contributor will remove the hole you map in 10-20 years from now! Mapping the reality is the best we can do and because the reality changes over time, we can keep mapping !-) Daniel _ From: Samuel Longiaru [mailto:longi...@shaw.ca] Sent: March-04-11 21:45 To: talk-ca Subject: [Talk-ca] Mapping cut blocks in wooded areas Hi Everybody, I've been importing CanVec mostly south of Kamloops for the past several weeks and am going to take some time now to go back and bring stuff up to date. One question I have though is in regards to how to treat cut blocks in the wooded areas. I see according to the map features wiki, that the CanVec imported tag of natural=wood is technically not correct, at least for here, as wood is to be reserved only for completely reserved/unmanaged areas. I guess most of what I have should really be mapped as landuse=forest but I have not made the change because what is under timber lease and what is not would be difficult to determine. In one sense it's all managed to some degree or other. But my point is rather what should be done with the cut blocks, which in some areas constitute up to 50% or more of the forested area. http://osm.org/go/WJ1cj_R is a typical area. It seems improper to keep them as wooded
Re: [Talk-ca] Secret routing demo.
British Columbia: the highway 97/97C interchange (between kelowna and peachland) had a routing error, but was corrected two days after the data was pulled (by someone I don't know). When you said fast, you weren't kidding! This'll be great to get on the main page (when it works in conjunction with address search, etc). Adam On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 9:38 PM, James Ewen ve6...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Samuel Longiaru longi...@shaw.ca wrote: Thanks Richard. I tested it on the Trans Canada heading east of Kamloops towards Banff. It was routing through Edmonton. Wha??? Tracked it down to a divided section of the TC west of Field where both sides of the highway were marked as westbound. KeepRight didn't pick it up in this case. Fixed. Thanks for the link. Very quick indeed. There are more anomalies on the TC-1 east of Golden... anyone familiar with the area care to fix the problems? http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.27396lon=-116.76355zoom=16 James VE6SRV ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
