Re: [Talk-ca] Fort McMurray forest fires

[Darren Ewaniuk]

Global has some satellite images images after the fire attributed to Google / 
Terra Bella (ex-Skybox).  I believe they have in the past allowed imaging for 
open use before (Skybox For Good program) so may be able to do so here.


http://globalnews.ca/news/2685743/fort-mcmurray-wildfire-resident-in-convoy-through-community-calls-scene-very-apocalyptic/

The slides near the bottom have some aerial imaging of relevance:

14 - Wood Buffalo Estates / Martin Ridge Estates (Thickwood)
15 - Waterways

16 - Waterways (North)

17 - Beacon Hill (North)

18 - Abasands

19 - Aspen Gardens / Hilltop Estates / Downtown



From: Heather Leson 
Sent: May 5, 2016 10:39:31 PM
To: Simon Wood
Cc: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Fort McMurray forest fires


Hello

Let me know if you want me to connect you to the emergency managers in the 
area. I will give them a heads up that you are talking about it

Two of them are big fans of osm so they might help. But i leave this decision 
with you.

Heather

On 6 May 2016 04:59, "Simon Wood" 
> wrote:
On Thu, May 5, 2016 9:28 am, Andrew MacKinnon wrote:
> As you are probably aware by now, a large portion of Fort McMurray,
> Alberta has been destroyed by forest fires.
>
>
> Is any freely licensed aerial imagery of the affected area available
> yet? Will the Humanitarian OpenStreetMap team be creating a project for
> Fort McMurray?

You might get some help from UrtheCast, as a Canadian company they might
be willing to donate access to footage.
https://www.urthecast.com

Not sure that they can provide geo-referenced shots, but any info might be
of use. Their cameras are fixed on ISS, so any orbital software/website
will tell you if/when they have near passes.

They also have a live feed:
https://www.urthecast.com/live

Cheers,
Simon.


___
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] Tagging sharrows (On-road markings for bicycle-automobile shared lane)

[Darren Ewaniuk]

This summer, the city of Edmonton is marking some streets to designate bicycle 
use on them.

On portions of these streets that are wider, they have one driving lane in each 
direction and are painting the outside lanes off and designating them bicycle 
lanes (hence one automobile lane and one bicycle lane in each direction).
These appear to be straightforward, and I am marking these as:
  cycleway=lane
  bicycle=designated
  lanes=2

On other portions of these streets which are either narrower or require turning 
lanes onto a more arterial road, or on smaller streets, they are putting up 
Share the road signs and are painting a sharrow on one lane in each direction 
to indicate that the marked lanes are shared automobile/bicycle.

What's a Sharrow - http://bikehugger.com/post/view/whats-a-sharrow

I can't seem to find a consistent convention for tagging sharrows in OSM.

Some information indicates just to mark that this street is designated for 
bicycles:
  bicycle=designated
But this doesn't really indicate that the road is explicitly marked and 
intended as a route for bicycles, since by default bicycles are allowed on all 
streets.
Hence routing software will not likely prioritize these streets when planning a 
bicycle route.

Other messages indicate to be specific and tag the street with sharrow=yes to 
explicitly specify there is on road markings for a shared bicycle lane:
  bicycle=designated

  cycleway=no

  sharrow=yes



And yet other messages indicate that not all shared roads or all countries have 
painted sharrows and that the shared lane be marked as cycleway=shared_lane
  bicycle=designated
  cycleway=shared_lane

What have other Canadian OSMers been using?

For my changes so far, I have used the sharrow=yes tag.

An example is 97 Street NW around 63 Avenue NW:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.49945lon=-113.48005zoom=17layers=M

97th Street NW North of 63 Ave has sharrows
97th Street NW from 62 to 63 Ave is tagged as having 2 lanes each direction 
with Sharrows
 (In reality, northbound is 2 lanes with sharrows, southbound is 1 lane traffic 
+ separate bicycle lane, but short of splitting this in two ways there is no 
way to tag this)
97th Street NW South of 62 avenue has separate bike lanes (1 traffic lane + 1 
bicycle lane southbound, 1 traffic lane + 1 bicycle lane northbound)

What tagging convention should be used here?

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

Re: [Talk-ca] [gvcc-members] Vancouver moves ahead on major bike lane artery

[Darren Ewaniuk]

I think the wiki entry for Bicycle covers this case  If the cycleway was drawn 
as a separate way, the cycleway would be a way where highway=cycleway.
Alternately you can tag the main road way with cycleway=track if you don't want 
to create a separate way for it.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle#Cycle_tracks

From: nomoregra...@googlemail.com
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] [gvcc-members] Vancouver moves ahead on major bike   
lane artery

You guys know what a separated cycle lane is?!4 metres, minus the concrete 
barrier? I guess that is a bi-directional lane at that exciting width.
If it's alongside the road it would normally be tagged on the highway way as 
cycleway=track (rather than lane) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycleway
I'm not sure if there is a proposed tagging, although looking at the Europe 
tagwatch there are 82 uses of cycleway=proposed 
http://tagwatch.stoecker.eu/Europe/En/keystats_cycleway.html and 26 uses of 
cycleway=construction.

As there is already a cycle lane there, I would leave it as that. Maybe 
changing to cycleway=construction (which might not show on the cyclemap) when 
construction starts (assuming it makes the cycle lane non-existent) and then of 
course to track.

Do you have details of where we can complete the survey?

On 20 April 2010 12:30, Sam Vekemans acrosscanadatra...@gmail.com wrote:

Fyi Vancouver Mappers, it gotta be mapped :-)



On 4/20/10, Paul Rothe paulro...@shaw.ca wrote:

 Vancouver moves ahead on major bike lane artery

 Times Colonist, April 20, 2010



 Dunsmuir Street VANCOUVER — merchants are being asked how they feel about

 having separated bike lanes run the length of the street from the Dunsmuir

 Viaduct to Burrard Street.



 In February, Vancouver City council approved in principle the construction

 of a major east-west bike route running along Dunsmuir.



 The plan calls for replacing a parking lane on Dunsmuir with a

 four-metre-wide bike lane separated from vehicle traffic by a concrete

 barrier that would decrease the amount of on-street parking and loading

 zones, necessitate the moving of bus stops and introduce some turning

 restrictions at intersections.
[...]


  
_
Got a phone? Get Hotmail  Messenger for mobile!
http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9724464___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

[Talk-ca] Edmonton Edits

[Darren Ewaniuk]

Is user xelloss on this list?

Any Edmonton mappers familiar with this structure?

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/27106023
Hi everyone, I'm Darren Ewaniuk, tag-name xelloss on OSM.
Thanks Richard and James for pointing me at talk-ca.

I poked through the archives, and as guessed earlier in the thread, that way is
part of a bus-only service road.  It is a westbound road leading from the new
South Campus bus/LRT station, across Belgravia road, joining with Fox Drive,
with the intent of providing faster bus service to the west end.

With the bus station, they designated a couple of the local roads as bus 
traffic only.

That route is new, and starts at 116 Street westbound, goes West at 
ground-level,
then over a newly-constructed 1-lane bridge, and once off the bridge it 
continues
Westbound going down to ground level on the other side, finally merging with the
Westbound lanes of Fox Drive NW.  The first (Eastern) portion (before the 
bridge)
was originally an access road to the University farm before they changed it to a
busway.

The specific way mentioned above is the portion from the West side of the bridge
down to the Fox Drive merge, and is ground-level or at least on built-up-ground
(coming off of the bridge bridge).

It is marked access=no (no public access), psv=designated (it is signed
at the entrance for bus traffic only, so public service vehicles only tag
should be appropriate), and oneway=yes since it is Westbound only.
The odd pink dashed marking of the road in mapnik is due to the
access=no,psv=designated tags (you can see that at the service road to the
bus terminal and on the access road east to 113 Street NW as well)

The misleading part of it is that I marked this level-ground portion as
layer=-1.  This was only so that when it merged with Fox Drive NW that
Fox Drive would take precedance for display purposes.
I have removed that tag to avoid confusion.

The bridge portion has bridge=yes and layer=1, which should be okay.
  
_
IM on the go with Messenger on your phone
http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9712960___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca