Re: [Talk-ca] Exit with name on node *and* destination

[Martijn van Exel]

Like I said, I will leave it to the local mappers to figure out what is best.

I did refine the instructions for the U.S. challenge a little more, since there 
are definitely legitimate uses of the `name` tag on junction nodes. I included 
an example. Have a look if you’re interested: 
https://maproulette.org/mr3/challenge/3253/ 
 I hope this helps to show that a 
MapRoulette challenge is not about telling people how to map, but rather 
inviting them to have a look at a situation that may need correcting, but make 
the decision themselves.

Martijn

> On Nov 6, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Pierre Béland  wrote:
> 
> Je ne suis pas favorable à lancer une action MapRoulette. Cela ressemblerait 
> à une opération pour imposer un schema OSM particulier, voire pour mieux 
> contrôler le rendu sur la carte.
> 

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Exit with name on node *and* destination

[Pierre Béland]

Je ne suis pas favorable à lancer une action MapRoulette. Cela ressemblerait à 
une opération pour imposer un schema OSM particulier, voire pour mieux 
contrôler le rendu sur la carte.

J'ai modifié au cours des dernières années ces objets et les noms y sont 
revenus. Peut-être vaut-il mieux alerter les communautés locales et leur 
laisser le temps de décider quoi faire ?
Pierre

   Le mardi 6 novembre 2018 14 h 12 min 01 s HNE, Martijn van Exel 
 a écrit : 

 I did create a MapRoulette challenge to review these named junction nodes for 
the United States just now. See 
https://maproulette.org/mr3/challenge/3253/task/588146c. If you find it useful 
I’d be happy to create one for Canada as well. Or show you how you can do it 
yourself.

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Exit with name on node *and* destination

[Martijn van Exel]

I did create a MapRoulette challenge to review these named junction nodes for 
the United States just now. See 
https://maproulette.org/mr3/challenge/3253/task/5881462 
. If you find it 
useful I’d be happy to create one for Canada as well. Or show you how you can 
do it yourself.

Martijn

> On Nov 6, 2018, at 11:43 AM, Andrew Lester  wrote:
> 
> I just cleaned up a handful of junctions in the western provinces where refs 
> were in the name tag, destination was in the name on the junction in addition 
> to the link way, etc. Running an Overpass query for all of Canada 
> (http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/DrL) now shows that there are almost 2000 of 
> these in Ontario and Quebec, 2 in Nova Scotia, and 1 in Newfoundland. The 
> last 3 look legitimate, but a quick scan of the ones in Ontario and Quebec 
> shows that most are clear tagging-for-the-renderer. In a few test cases, the 
> destinations are already on the link ways, so there's no need for the 
> destination to be in the name on the junction nodes.
> 
> Does anyone have a good reason for keeping these as they are? My opinion is 
> that these should all have the names removed when it's clearly the 
> destination, and that this destination info should be added to the link way 
> if it isn't already.
> 
> Andrew Lester
> Victoria, BC
> 
> From: "Martijn van Exel" 
> To: "talk-ca" 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 7:56:23 AM
> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Exit with name on node *and* destination
> 
> So apparently this is pretty common practice in Quebec. There are 755 
> junction nodes that have name tags. See https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Dr9. 
> Other provinces don't have nearly that many.  
> 
> The user breakdown for latest edit on those nodes doesn't really surface one 
> mapper who consistently added these tags. See https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Drf
> 
> I'm inclined to leave it to the local Quebec community to say something more 
> definitive about what, if anything, needs to be done with these name tags... 
> I'm happy to set up a MapRoulette challenge to enable us to systematically 
> look at these nodes..
> 
> Best,
> -- 
>   Martijn van Exel
>   m...@rtijn.org
> 
> On Tue, Nov 6, 2018, at 08:33, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> > Is there an Overpass or other query that could detect all these 
> > situations? I could make a MapRoulette challenge out of them so we can 
> > look at them together and remove the name on nodes where it's not 
> > appropriate / redundant.
> > 
> > I'll ask on IRC as well.. I am not that much of an expert in Overpass.
> > -- 
> >   Martijn van Exel
> >   m...@rtijn.org
> > 
> > On Mon, Nov 5, 2018, at 18:23, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> > > Yep, so in this case removing the name and keeping the ref on the
> > > junction node sounds appropriate.
> > > 
> > > While we're at it, the service road
> > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/48154169 doesn't seem to show up on
> > > any of the current imagery in iD. Does it still exist?
> > > 
> > > --Jarek
> > > 
> > > On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 at 16:28, Pierre Béland  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Je disais précédemment
> > > > > Je ne sais pour les autres provinces, mais au Québec les no. de 
> > > > > sorties
> > > > > correspondent aux bornes kilométriques de la route (ici 15 pour km 
> > > > > 15).
> > > > > Il est plus informatif d'afficher le no de sortie (ref=15)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ici c'est sortie 11pour km 11, et non 15 comme j'ai dit précédemment. 
> > > > Sur la carte, la numérotation de la sortie était «noyée» sous le texte.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Pierre
> > > >
> > 
> > ___
> > 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] Exit with name on node *and* destination

[Andrew Lester]

I just cleaned up a handful of junctions in the western provinces where refs 
were in the name tag, destination was in the name on the junction in addition 
to the link way, etc. Running an Overpass query for all of Canada 
(http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/DrL) now shows that there are almost 2000 of these 
in Ontario and Quebec, 2 in Nova Scotia, and 1 in Newfoundland. The last 3 look 
legitimate, but a quick scan of the ones in Ontario and Quebec shows that most 
are clear tagging-for-the-renderer. In a few test cases, the destinations are 
already on the link ways, so there's no need for the destination to be in the 
name on the junction nodes. 

Does anyone have a good reason for keeping these as they are? My opinion is 
that these should all have the names removed when it's clearly the destination, 
and that this destination info should be added to the link way if it isn't 
already. 

Andrew Lester 
Victoria, BC 


From: "Martijn van Exel"  
To: "talk-ca"  
Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 7:56:23 AM 
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Exit with name on node *and* destination 

So apparently this is pretty common practice in Quebec. There are 755 junction 
nodes that have name tags. See https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Dr9. Other provinces 
don't have nearly that many. 

The user breakdown for latest edit on those nodes doesn't really surface one 
mapper who consistently added these tags. See https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Drf 

I'm inclined to leave it to the local Quebec community to say something more 
definitive about what, if anything, needs to be done with these name tags... 
I'm happy to set up a MapRoulette challenge to enable us to systematically look 
at these nodes.. 

Best, 
-- 
Martijn van Exel 
m...@rtijn.org 

On Tue, Nov 6, 2018, at 08:33, Martijn van Exel wrote: 
> Is there an Overpass or other query that could detect all these 
> situations? I could make a MapRoulette challenge out of them so we can 
> look at them together and remove the name on nodes where it's not 
> appropriate / redundant. 
> 
> I'll ask on IRC as well.. I am not that much of an expert in Overpass. 
> -- 
> Martijn van Exel 
> m...@rtijn.org 
> 
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2018, at 18:23, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: 
> > Yep, so in this case removing the name and keeping the ref on the 
> > junction node sounds appropriate. 
> > 
> > While we're at it, the service road 
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/48154169 doesn't seem to show up on 
> > any of the current imagery in iD. Does it still exist? 
> > 
> > --Jarek 
> > 
> > On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 at 16:28, Pierre Béland  wrote: 
> > > 
> > > Je disais précédemment 
> > > > Je ne sais pour les autres provinces, mais au Québec les no. de sorties 
> > > > correspondent aux bornes kilométriques de la route (ici 15 pour km 15). 
> > > > Il est plus informatif d'afficher le no de sortie (ref=15) 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Ici c'est sortie 11pour km 11, et non 15 comme j'ai dit précédemment. Sur 
> > > la carte, la numérotation de la sortie était «noyée» sous le texte. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Pierre 
> > > 
> 
> ___ 
> 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] Exit with name on node *and* destination

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

Between "out meta;" and "out meta qt;" there should be a >; but sometimes this 
gets mangled.
Entre "out meta;" et "out meta qt;" il devrait y avoir un >; mais parfois cela 
est mutilé.

So, I'm choosing to share an "OT share link:"
Donc, je choisis de partager un "lien de partage OT:"

http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/DrG

Good luck / bonne chance,
SteveA
California

> As Overpass Turbo allows named area geocoding, try this:
> Comme Overpass Turbo permet le géocodage de zone nommée, essayez ceci:
> 
> [out:xml]
> [timeout:25];
> {{geocodeArea:Quebec}}->.searchArea;
> (
>  way["service"="emergency_access"](area.searchArea);
> );
> out meta;
>> ;
> out meta qt;
> 
> You can modify what is inside the "way" part of the query any way you like.
> Vous pouvez modifier le contenu de la partie "way" de la requête à votre 
> guise.
> 
> SteveA
> California


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

Re: [Talk-ca] Exit with name on node *and* destination

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

On Nov 6, 2018, at 8:08 AM, Pierre Béland  wrote:
> Petit test rapide avec Overpass. J'observe que les clés suivantes sont 
> utilisées
> highway=service
> service=emergency_access
> access=no
> exemple https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/19692719
> 
> La Requête Overpass ci-dessous avec paramètre around, détecte les voies de 
> service à proximité d'autoroutes sans clé  service=emergency_access ou 
> access=no.  Sélection d'un grand bbox requiert long délais d'exécution.  Et 
> d'autres chemins de service se retrouvent dans les résultats, notamment les 
> voies de service pour haltes routières.
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/20057142#map=16/44.8089/-73.4450
>  
> Pierre 

As Overpass Turbo allows named area geocoding, try this:
Comme Overpass Turbo permet le géocodage de zone nommée, essayez ceci:

[out:xml]
[timeout:25];
{{geocodeArea:Quebec}}->.searchArea;
(
  way["service"="emergency_access"](area.searchArea);
);
out meta;
>;
out meta qt;

You can modify what is inside the "way" part of the query any way you like.
Vous pouvez modifier le contenu de la partie "way" de la requête à votre guise.

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Exit with name on node *and* destination

[Pierre Béland]

Petit test rapide avec Overpass. J'observe que les clés suivantes sont 
utiliséeshighway=serviceservice=emergency_accessaccess=noexemple 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/19692719
La Requête Overpass ci-dessous avec paramètre around, détecte les voies de 
service à proximité d'autoroutes sans clé  service=emergency_access ou 
access=no.  Sélection d'un grand bbox requiert long délais d'exécution.  Et 
d'autres chemins de service se retrouvent dans les résultats, notamment les 
voies de service pour haltes routières.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/20057142#map=16/44.8089/-73.4450 
Pierre 
 

Le mardi 6 novembre 2018 10 h 33 min 37 s HNE, Martijn van Exel 
 a écrit :  
 
 Is there an Overpass or other query that could detect all these situations? I 
could make a MapRoulette challenge out of them so we can look at them together 
and remove the name on nodes where it's not appropriate / redundant.

I'll ask on IRC as well.. I am not that much of an expert in Overpass.
-- 
  Martijn van Exel
  m...@rtijn.org

On Mon, Nov 5, 2018, at 18:23, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> Yep, so in this case removing the name and keeping the ref on the
> junction node sounds appropriate.
> 
> While we're at it, the service road
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/48154169 doesn't seem to show up on
> any of the current imagery in iD. Does it still exist?
> 
> --Jarek
> 
> On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 at 16:28, Pierre Béland  wrote:
> >
> > Je disais précédemment
> > > Je ne sais pour les autres provinces, mais au Québec les no. de sorties
> > > correspondent aux bornes kilométriques de la route (ici 15 pour km 15).
> > > Il est plus informatif d'afficher le no de sortie (ref=15)
> >
> >
> > Ici c'est sortie 11pour km 11, et non 15 comme j'ai dit précédemment. Sur 
> > la carte, la numérotation de la sortie était «noyée» sous le texte.
> >
> >
> > Pierre
> >  ___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Exit with name on node *and* destination

[Martijn van Exel]

So apparently this is pretty common practice in Quebec. There are 755 junction 
nodes that have name tags. See https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Dr9. Other provinces 
don't have nearly that many.  

The user breakdown for latest edit on those nodes doesn't really surface one 
mapper who consistently added these tags. See https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Drf

I'm inclined to leave it to the local Quebec community to say something more 
definitive about what, if anything, needs to be done with these name tags... 
I'm happy to set up a MapRoulette challenge to enable us to systematically look 
at these nodes..

Best,
-- 
  Martijn van Exel
  m...@rtijn.org

On Tue, Nov 6, 2018, at 08:33, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> Is there an Overpass or other query that could detect all these 
> situations? I could make a MapRoulette challenge out of them so we can 
> look at them together and remove the name on nodes where it's not 
> appropriate / redundant.
> 
> I'll ask on IRC as well.. I am not that much of an expert in Overpass.
> -- 
>   Martijn van Exel
>   m...@rtijn.org
> 
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2018, at 18:23, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> > Yep, so in this case removing the name and keeping the ref on the
> > junction node sounds appropriate.
> > 
> > While we're at it, the service road
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/48154169 doesn't seem to show up on
> > any of the current imagery in iD. Does it still exist?
> > 
> > --Jarek
> > 
> > On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 at 16:28, Pierre Béland  wrote:
> > >
> > > Je disais précédemment
> > > > Je ne sais pour les autres provinces, mais au Québec les no. de sorties
> > > > correspondent aux bornes kilométriques de la route (ici 15 pour km 15).
> > > > Il est plus informatif d'afficher le no de sortie (ref=15)
> > >
> > >
> > > Ici c'est sortie 11pour km 11, et non 15 comme j'ai dit précédemment. Sur 
> > > la carte, la numérotation de la sortie était «noyée» sous le texte.
> > >
> > >
> > > Pierre
> > >
> 
> ___
> 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] Exit with name on node *and* destination

[Martijn van Exel]

Is there an Overpass or other query that could detect all these situations? I 
could make a MapRoulette challenge out of them so we can look at them together 
and remove the name on nodes where it's not appropriate / redundant.

I'll ask on IRC as well.. I am not that much of an expert in Overpass.
-- 
  Martijn van Exel
  m...@rtijn.org

On Mon, Nov 5, 2018, at 18:23, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> Yep, so in this case removing the name and keeping the ref on the
> junction node sounds appropriate.
> 
> While we're at it, the service road
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/48154169 doesn't seem to show up on
> any of the current imagery in iD. Does it still exist?
> 
> --Jarek
> 
> On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 at 16:28, Pierre Béland  wrote:
> >
> > Je disais précédemment
> > > Je ne sais pour les autres provinces, mais au Québec les no. de sorties
> > > correspondent aux bornes kilométriques de la route (ici 15 pour km 15).
> > > Il est plus informatif d'afficher le no de sortie (ref=15)
> >
> >
> > Ici c'est sortie 11pour km 11, et non 15 comme j'ai dit précédemment. Sur 
> > la carte, la numérotation de la sortie était «noyée» sous le texte.
> >
> >
> > Pierre
> >

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

[Talk-ca] Stats Canada building outline import plan

[john whelan]

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Canada/Canada_Stats_Canada_Building_Outlines_Import/Plan


I've formally submitted it to the imports mailing list for comments and
comments are invited here for the next two weeks.

After that the plan is to start the import process.

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