Re: [Talk-ca] Wind farm access roads that really shouldn't be in OSM

2012-03-19 Thread Gerald A 
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 9:52 PM, Harald Kliems  wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 8:53 PM, Paul Norman  wrote:
>
> > highway=service with access=no or access=private then. Many service roads
> > aren't open to the public.
> >
> > If the road is there and is a service road, it's mappable.
> I'd like to add, though, that there is a problem with verifiability
> here. If you can't access a highway and it's not visible on aerial
> imagery then how can verify it's actually there? And how will we keep
> the data up to date? Therefore I'd be rather cautious with private
> ways for which our only source is an import.
>

Many/Most roads and paths won't have this issue, as they are either
verifiable from an aerial image or by casual observation.

We have the same verifiability problem in areas that are either remote or
lack OSM mappers -- they may be infrequently updated, if at all, and how do
we know if they are there now?

I'm not a big supporter of imports, but if you are going to use them, you
should use and verify all of them, not just some bits. I'm not sure if
there is a key/tag for "unverified", but it might be worth looking at.

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

[Talk-ca] Re : Administrative Boundary

2012-03-19 Thread infosbelas-...@yahoo.fr 
The wiki values seems consistent for Quebec and I think that we can avoid to 
restart this discussion again.

 
Pierre Béland



>
> De : "Bégin, Daniel" 
>Envoyé le : Lundi 19 mars 2012 14h34
>
>
>In Openstreetmap wiki, the admin_level were set to 5,6 and 8 respectively
>If it is a documented consensus, I'll keep the values of the wiki. If not, 
>I'll use the the values from GeoBase.
> 
>Comments? 
> 
>Daniel
>
>___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Wind farm access roads that really shouldn't be in OSM

2012-03-19 Thread Harald Kliems 
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 8:53 PM, Paul Norman  wrote:

> highway=service with access=no or access=private then. Many service roads
> aren't open to the public.
>
> If the road is there and is a service road, it's mappable.
I'd like to add, though, that there is a problem with verifiability
here. If you can't access a highway and it's not visible on aerial
imagery then how can verify it's actually there? And how will we keep
the data up to date? Therefore I'd be rather cautious with private
ways for which our only source is an import.

 Harald.
-- 
Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
Key-ID: 0x199DC50F

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Wind farm access roads that really shouldn't be in OSM

2012-03-19 Thread James Ewen 
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Stewart C. Russell  wrote:

> But it's not a highway, which implies access. There is no access.

The generic use of the word highway implies public access, but in OSM
parlance, the term highway is used as a key, and the value assigned
indicates the type of way. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway
Further to that, the access key can be used designate access
restrictions. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access

I can draw the outline of my house, and tag it as building:yes, but
that does not automatically make my house a publicly accessible
structure. It is however still a building.

Mapping the road with a gate on it (if there is a gate restricting
access), and marking the access restriction would allow others to know
that the road exists, and is not accessible to the public.

There are many roads in the foothills of Alberta that are privately
owned, that have access restrictions on them. By mapping these roads,
and the associated restrictions, a person looking to go camping out in
the bush can decide which roads to use to get to the desired area.
Some roads owned by Sustainable Resource Development (Forestry) have
gates that are padlocked to keep the public from driving up to the
Forestry Lookout Towers, which tend to be popular destinations for
people due to the great views afforded. Google Earth shows the roads
in the satellite photos, but it is impossible to see the gates in the
photos. Having OSM maps with gates and access restrictions can make it
less of an annoyance when you drive for hours just to find your
progress to your desired destination blocked.

Here's the Mayberne Tower Road:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/25162913

It's a rough track up to the top of a hill where the Mayberne Forestry
Lookout Tower is located, along with a number of communications
towers. It is very handy to have on the map because I can show my
co-workers the route to our communications tower, and where the locked
gate is located. The road is not necessarily accessible to the public,
but it still is navigable and used by those authorized.

-- 
James
VE6SRV

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Wind farm access roads that really shouldn't be in OSM

2012-03-19 Thread Paul Norman 
> -Original Message-
> From: Stewart C. Russell [mailto:scr...@gmail.com]
> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Wind farm access roads that really shouldn't be
> in OSM
> 
> On 12-03-19 19:45 , Paul Norman wrote:
> >
> > I'd just retag as highway=service, but it definitely belongs in the DB
> > if there's a road or path there, just not tagged like it is.
> 
> But it's not a highway, which implies access. There is no access.
> 
> The particular one I tagged, given the amount of illicit grow-ops in the
> area, would very likely get you escorted off by the OPP. If OSM has it
> shown, wouldn't it encourage attempted access?

highway=service with access=no or access=private then. Many service roads
aren't open to the public.

If the road is there and is a service road, it's mappable.


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

Re: [Talk-ca] Wind farm access roads that really shouldn't be in OSM

2012-03-19 Thread Corey Burger 
OSM makes no judgements about what we are mapping (beyond a few unavoidable
basics). Not mapping something because the police are going to "get you" is
on the face ridiculous. So map, add a note about it being private and add
that gate.
On Mar 19, 2012 5:07 PM, "Stewart C. Russell"  wrote:

> On 12-03-19 19:45 , Paul Norman wrote:
> >
> > I'd just retag as highway=service, but it
> > definitely belongs in the DB if there's a road or path there, just not
> > tagged like it is.
>
> But it's not a highway, which implies access. There is no access.
>
> The particular one I tagged, given the amount of illicit grow-ops in the
> area, would very likely get you escorted off by the OPP. If OSM has it
> shown, wouldn't it encourage attempted access?
>
> cheers,
>  Stewart
>
> ___
> 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] Wind farm access roads that really shouldn't be in OSM

2012-03-19 Thread Stewart C. Russell 
On 12-03-19 19:45 , Paul Norman wrote:
>
> I'd just retag as highway=service, but it
> definitely belongs in the DB if there's a road or path there, just not
> tagged like it is.

But it's not a highway, which implies access. There is no access.

The particular one I tagged, given the amount of illicit grow-ops in the
area, would very likely get you escorted off by the OPP. If OSM has it
shown, wouldn't it encourage attempted access?

cheers,
 Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Wind farm access roads that really shouldn't be in OSM

2012-03-19 Thread Paul Norman 
> -Original Message-
> From: Stewart C. Russell [mailto:scr...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 4:22 PM
> To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [Talk-ca] Wind farm access roads that really shouldn't be in
> OSM
> 
> I've notice a few ways in OSM like this one:
> 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/39334713
> 
> that really shouldn't be in the database. They're GeoBase imports via
> the NRN. They're not tagged in any way that would allow removal.
> 
> There is no public access on these roads. They're mostly gated closed. I
> don't know how they would have made it into the NRN.
> 
> cheers,
>  Stewart

highway=unclassified seems to mean owned by someone other than a province or
city to GeoBase, which is wrong. I'd just retag as highway=service, but it
definitely belongs in the DB if there's a road or path there, just not
tagged like it is.


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

Re: [Talk-ca] Wind farm access roads that really shouldn't be in OSM

2012-03-19 Thread Corey Burger 
If they physically exist, we should tag them. Just add a "gate=yes" tag to them.

On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Stewart C. Russell  wrote:
> I've notice a few ways in OSM like this one:
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/39334713
>
> that really shouldn't be in the database. They're GeoBase imports via
> the NRN. They're not tagged in any way that would allow removal.
>
> There is no public access on these roads. They're mostly gated closed. I
> don't know how they would have made it into the NRN.
>
> cheers,
>  Stewart
>
> ___
> 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] Wind farm access roads that really shouldn't be in OSM

2012-03-19 Thread Stewart C. Russell 
I've notice a few ways in OSM like this one:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/39334713

that really shouldn't be in the database. They're GeoBase imports via
the NRN. They're not tagged in any way that would allow removal.

There is no public access on these roads. They're mostly gated closed. I
don't know how they would have made it into the NRN.

cheers,
 Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Administrative Boundary

2012-03-19 Thread Bégin , Daniel 
Bonjour,

I'm working on the Canvec.osm - release 10 - conversion process and I'd like to 
double check an answer I got from Paul concerning administrative boundaries.

Release 10 will contain up to three administrative boundary types where 
available ...

- Regional
- Upper Municipality
- Municipality

The Osm admin_level tag usually correspond to the gdf_level ISO standard .

In GeoBase product, the value of these boundaries were identified as gdf_level 
6,7 and 8 respectively.
In Openstreetmap wiki, the admin_level were set to 5,6 and 8 respectively.

Is the difference between both are caused by a problem with the wiki or a 
consensus on the community?
If it is a documented consensus, I'll keep the values of the wiki. If not, I'll 
use the the values from GeoBase.

Comments?

Daniel



From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com]
Sent: February 14, 2012 15:09
To: Bégin, Daniel; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Administrative Boundary

The levels in your initial email

> Available administrative boundary will be included in the next release of 
> Canvec.osm.  From the wiki, here is the tagging values I'm going to use...
> Municipal Regional:  boundary=administrative; admin_level=5
> Upper municipality:  boundary=administrative; admin_level=6
> Municipality:boundary=administrative; admin_level=8


From: Bégin, Daniel [mailto:daniel.be...@rncan-nrcan.gc.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 12:07 PM
To: Paul Norman; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Administrative Boundary

Hi Paul,
are you saying that I should use ...

ISO value for admin_level (6 & 7 - actually what is used in the GeoBase 
product), or
what is identified in the wiki (5 & 6) 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Admin_level

Question mark!

Daniel




From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com]
Sent: February 14, 2012 14:57
To: Bégin, Daniel; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Administrative Boundary
>From the wiki, those look consistent with what I've seen locally, although 
>naturally I can't comment about Quebec.

From: Bégin, Daniel 
[mailto:daniel.be...@rncan-nrcan.gc.ca]
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 5:54 AM
To: Paul Norman; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Administrative Boundary

Bonjour Norman,

ISO Level 7 (Upper municipality) refers to an administrative area like the 
County of Peterborough (ON), while the ISO Level 6 (Municipal Regional) refers 
to an administrative area like Eastern Townships in Québec (a group of county - 
a level that exist only in Québec)

Regards,
Daniel

From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com]
Sent: February 9, 2012 17:15
To: Bégin, Daniel; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Administrative Boundary
Can you give an example of a municipal regional or upper municipality? Looking 
at the global usage, admin_level=5 is seldom used. I would think that Municipal 
Regional would be 6 and upper municipality would be 7, but I can't really say 
without examples.

I would also suggest that these features in the .osm file not be closed - just 
have the boundary, don't handle it like lakes where you have multiple areas you 
need to join where they cross tile bounds.

From: Bégin, Daniel 
[mailto:daniel.be...@rncan-nrcan.gc.ca]
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 1:39 PM
To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-ca] Administrative Boundary


Bonjour again!

Available administrative boundary will be included in the next release of 
Canvec.osm.  From the wiki, here is the tagging values I'm going to use...

Municipal Regional:  boundary=administrative; admin_level=5
Upper municipality:  boundary=administrative; admin_level=6
Municipality:boundary=administrative; admin_level=8

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Admin_level (Canada)


Municipality admin_level=8 corresponds to gdf order in ISO standard.

Municipal Regional Area and Upper Municipality (admin_level=5 and 6) are 
different from what the ISO standard says (gdf order=6 and 7). Is someone can 
confirm that admin_level=5 and 6 is really what is expected?

Thanks again

Daniel Bégin
Centre d'information topographique de Sherbrooke
Topographic Information Center of  Sherbrooke
Ressources Naturelles Canada / Natural Ressources Canada
2144, rue King Ouest, bureau 010
Sherbrooke (Québec) J1J 2E8
(819) 564-5600 ext.242, dbe...@nrcan.gc.ca

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