[Talk-ca] Rendering of Canadian shields

[Paul Johnson]

Incidentally came across some shield guidance for handling BC routes 1
(Trans-Canada), 3 (Crow's Nest), 5 (Yellowhead) and 16 (TC, though also
Yellowhead in places).  Alberta uses a similar 3 sign (albeit on an Alberta
shield cutout) for the Alberta segment of the Crow's Nest.
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Rendering of Canadian shields

[Paul Johnson]

Crud, guess it helps if I include the link:
http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/publications/eng_publications/electrical/MoST_PM.pdf
Page 115.  Not 100% sure on reproducibility of Canadian shields; perhaps a
Canadian could help on this part.


On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 8:21 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:

> Incidentally came across some shield guidance for handling BC routes 1
> (Trans-Canada), 3 (Crow's Nest), 5 (Yellowhead) and 16 (TC, though also
> Yellowhead in places).  Alberta uses a similar 3 sign (albeit on an Alberta
> shield cutout) for the Alberta segment of the Crow's Nest.
>
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] [Talk-us] Tag for Tim Horton's

[Paul Johnson]

While it tries to be more like an upscale fast-food place, it's core
concept and the way people interact with it is definitely cafe.


On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Peter Dobratz  wrote:

> I've never been to a Tim Hortons, but it looks like it's very similar to
> the Dunkin' Donuts we have around here.  I tag this as amenity=cafe as they
> are primarily a place that sells coffee-like beverages.
>
> name=Dunkin' Donuts
> amenity=cafe
> cuisine=doughnut
> drive_through=yes
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 7:24 PM, william skora wrote:
>
>>
>> hi,
>>
>> I was just curious if there's a consensus on what tag to use for a tim
>> horton's.
>>
>> I've found http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cuisine%3Dcoffee_shop
>> and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canadian_tagging_guidelines
>> which both mentioned variations.
>>
>> For what it's worth, this location was a single building and had a
>> drive-thru as well.
>>
>> regards,
>> will.
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> talk...@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> talk...@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Google Streetview

[Paul Johnson]

On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 15:39:52 -0500, Colin McGregor wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 3:26 PM, James Ewen
>  wrote:
>> Okay, my last message just got me wondering about other issues...
>>
>> We all know that it is not appropriate to copy data from Google, or use
>> their aerial photos to trace out ways. What about looking at the
>> Streetview photos and reading a street sign? Is that still a prohibited
>> action?
>>
>> I can stand on the street corner and read the sign, which is kosher,
>> but I probably can't look at a streetview photo and read the sign...
> 
> I would make the assumption that any/all data from Google MAY be
> doctored. We have seen deliberate map errors added to commercial maps as
> a way to prove copyright infringement. We have to assume that Google
> would not be above altering some of their images as a way to again offer
> proof should anyone attempt to infringe their copyright.

I would tend to agree with this, as I have spotted street view imagery 
having been doctored.  I used to live on a one-way street, and the 
imagery in Street View clearly showed the SV car travelling in the wrong 
direction on the street.  I pointed this out to Google; they Photoshopped 
the car out of the imagery for two blocks.




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

Re: [Talk-ca] tagging & canada map features & Garmin Map Features

[Paul Johnson]

Sam Vekemans wrote:

> So on this GoogleDocs chart, i can list a yes/no & at what zoom levels
> these map features show up on mapnik & cyclemap & osmarender.. or any
> other map thats available.

Can this go in the wiki someplace instead?  I'd rather see this
information go in our "one-stop shop" for information, rather than
spread it into some proprietary mechanism if possible.



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

Re: [Talk-ca] Olympic Lane / Voie Olympique

[Paul Johnson]

Richard Weait wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 9:55 PM, Adam Dunn  wrote:
>> For those wondering what this is about, Vancouver is designating certain
>> traffic lanes for official Olympic vehicles (public transit buses, athlete
>> transportation, media transportation, etc). Other lanes on the same street
>> are to remain open for public use. See
>> [http://olympichostcity.vancouver.ca/gettingaround/driving/olympic-route-network.htm#1]
>> for more details.
>
> Thanks for the clarification, Adam.
>
> I see a number of things in play here,
>
> These lanes are of local interest for only a limited time.  They may
> not get rendering support unless/even if you submit patches to the
> renderers.  If you want to render this yourself, perhaps an openlayers
> "mashup" will be more to your liking?
>
> One lane out of a way, for special use suggests something like
> cycleway=lane.  Perhaps olympic=lane ?
>
> This is an item that will exist for a limited time period, so date_on=
> and date_off tags for this restriction seem reasonable.
>
> Overall this smells like a relation to me.  There are no physical
> changes to the roads (?)  Perhaps only temporary signs.  Relations for
> this allow you to add the restrictions and label in a single place,
> then remove it afterwards.
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route
>
> Perhaps like this
>
> type=route
> route=olympic
> name=Olympic Route
> access=official
> date_on=
> date_off=
>
> members would be the way sections that are part of the route.

I'm less concerned with the layout of the Olympic network than which
routes have Olympic lanes.  My understanding is most of the olympic
network isn't going to be exclusively Olympic lanes, but one of the
general purpose lanes will be converted through April for Olympic and
Paralympic traffic only.  This isn't a unique-to-Canada thing, either;
Beijing also had Olympic Lanes during the Olympic and Paralympic games.





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

[Talk-ca] Olympic Lane / Voie Olympique

[Paul Johnson]

Is there any established tagging standard for ways with Olympic Lanes
yet?  I imagine something similar to bicycle= tags would work in this
case, like "olympic=lane" or "olympic=designated" as the case would be
(with the implied default for all other access being access=destination,
as I imagine nobody in their right mind is going to want to be on the
Olympic network this winter unless you absolutely have to be).



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

Re: [Talk-ca] [Imports] [Talk-us] TIGER considered harmful

[Paul Johnson]

Dave Hansen wrote:

> On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 18:11 -0500, Kate Chapman wrote:
>> What's wrong with doing automated addressing imports in situations
>> where we have point level address data?
>
> The issue is that it may not line up with the roads at all.  We also
> need to ensure that we *find* the roads to which it refers to ensure
> that we get the relations done properly.  

That sometimes is the case.  Portland's west hills (as well as other
parts of the state prone to landslide) often leave addresses from one
street (or even a street that no longer exists) connecting to another
street entirely, in some cases quite some distance from the original
road connection.

One of my friends in Salem also lives in a neighborhood that
demonstrates this... the 100 block of Wander Way forms a single L-shaped
block, with the top of the L paralell to the 100 block of 24th Street
SE.  The 200 block of 24th Street is barely long enough to fit a compact
car in before it terminates in a permanent Type III barricade, yet the
200 block has addresses going almost to 300.  The odd side of the 200
Block 24th Street is actually the odd side of the base of the L where
the street leaves the City's path of address interpolation.




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

Re: [Talk-ca] [Talk-us] NY Bicycle Routes

[Paul Johnson]

Richard Welty wrote:

>> a specific example that's in front of me right now is the Mohawk-Hudson 
> Bike-Hike Trail (aka the Mohawk-Hudson Bikeway). it spans two counties 
> and is maintained by the towns it passes through for the most part, sort 
> of sitting between local and regional. i've dithered over lcn vs rcn, 
> the description of the distinction on the wiki pages doesn't make this 
> very clear. it uses a mixture of dedicated paths on old canal towpaths 
> and old RR roadbed, and a some sections of roadway shared with cars, but 
> without dedicated bike paths (parallel parking, car doors, and everything.)
>
> now the Mohawk-Hudson bikeway is also considered part of the longer Erie 
> Canalway Trail, which is clearly an rcn, running as it does from Albany 
> to Buffalo.

Two relations:  One local for the Mohawk-Hudson, one regional for the
Erie Canalway.  Multiple references are allowed if they both apply.



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

Re: [Talk-ca] [Talk-us] NY Bicycle Routes

[Paul Johnson]

Sam Vekemans wrote:

> Hi,
> how are you tagging state-wide cycle routes?
>
> I know we have
> lcn= for local cycle routes (named & not named)
> rcn=for regional cycle routes (ie metro area)
>
> then there's
> ncn=for nation wide
> but there's no
> scn (state cycle network) or pcn (province cycle network)

The wiki seems to indicate that LCN is for metro and city routes, RCN is
state, and NCN is US and Interstate routes, and US Bicycle routes.  NCN
for a state cycleway would be wrong.



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

Re: [Talk-ca] Hey, look! State / Prov borders!

[Paul Johnson]

On Wed, 2009-08-26 at 08:47 -0600, James Ewen wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 8:23 AM, Richard 
> Weait wrote:
> 
> > So we USA-ians have a few nodes to move for place=state;
> 
> Ooh, yuck... the state name labels end up in the wrong spots... missed
> that. Washington looks like it has two labels.
> 
> I had a look at Canadian labels and they look okay except for Nunavut.
> The NU label is good when zoomed out, but I don't see the name Nunavut
> when zoomed in like the rest of the provinces/territories.

I noticed the abbreviated labels but didn't bother to check the
underlying data... but I do have to wonder if whoever brought in
province/state names and boundaries has seen the many pages in the wiki
saying "DO NOT ABBREVIATE"



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Hey, look! State / Prov borders!

[Paul Johnson]

On Wed, 2009-08-26 at 10:56 -0400, Adam Schreiber wrote:

> To make things clear, should the place=state tag be placed on, near
> the node for the capital city of the state?

Why not closer to the geographic center like expected?


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Bicycle boulevards

[Paul Johnson]

Mario Salvini wrote:
> Martin Koppenhoefer schrieb:
>> 2009/6/10 Shaun McDonald :
>>   
>>> In my eyes, that road would be simply tagged with highway=cycleway.
>>> 
>> there are some main differences though: usually they are normal
>> streets changed in designation. That is cars are allowed but don't
>> have the priority and must drive very slowly, they have
>> pavements/sidewalks, they are wide like streets, the give priority to
>> bicycles on crossings, etc. all of which is not the case for
>> cycleways.
>>
>> Martin
>>   
> yes, it's all about designation. "normal roads" are designated for 
> motor_vehicles. But these roads are only designated for bicycles.
> That's why it's highway=cycleway + motor_vehicle=yes (instead of an 
> implied motor_vehicle=designated for "normal roads".

A designated route would be one where there's signs specifically
suggesting a way as a preferred route; no such implied designation
exists (access=designated is NOT the default).  It simply means the way
is the designated route for a particular class (such as
emergency=designated for Disaster Response Routes in Canada).

bicycle=designated would simply mean the jurisdiction in question has
installed "bike route" signs, regardless of accomodations made.  Salem
has quite a few designated bicycle routes, only one could be construed
to be a bicycle boulevard, but no special accomodation for cyclists has
been made (ie, on-street parking still exists, 4-way stops along the
designated route have not been changed to 2-way stops favoring the
designated route, etc.)  I can even think of a couple motorways in the
pacific northwest that would qualify for bicycle=designated (US-26
between downtown's Canyon Road and Beaverton's Canyon Road; the Trans
Canada Highway north of Saanich, BC; the Trans Canada Highway west of
North Vancouver, parts of Washington's I5...)



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards

[Paul Johnson]

Karl Newman wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Paul Johnson  <mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org>> wrote:
> 
> Karl Newman wrote:
> 
> > *Avoid duplicate copies of messages?*
> >
> > When you are listed explicitly in the To: or Cc: headers of a list
> > message, you can opt to not receive another copy from the mailing
> list.
> > Select /Yes/ to avoid receiving copies from the mailing list; select
> > /No/ to receive copies.
> >
> > If the list has member personalized messages enabled, and you elect to
> > receive copies, every copy will have a X-Mailman-Copy: yes header
> added
> > to it.
> 
> This does not work:  What about gmane users?
> 
> 
> I don't really know how gmane works from a posting perspective (e.g., do
> you have to be subscribed to the mailing list to be able to post from
> gmane, like you do on nabble?), but on http://gmane.org/post.php I found
> this:
> -
> 
> 
> What address is used?
> 
> The news-to-mail authorization script uses the From header to determine
> who's sent the message. If the Reply-To header exists, that header is
> used instead. If you wish From to take precedence over Reply-To, insert
> a non-empty Gmane-From header as well.
> 
> If you wish to redirect replies to your messages back to the mailing
> list, add a Mail-Copies-To: never header to your messages. That will
> result in a Mail-Followup-To header being generated by Gmane. These
> headers are heeded by quite a few mail readers.
> 
> If you add a Reply-To header to your messages that points to a mailing
> list, the message will be silently dropped.

Right, what gmane is describing assumes that everyone on the mailing
list is using a mailer that was written or has been actively been
maintained in the last 10 years, ie, provides a minimum amount of common
functionality.  The problem with that, as I see it, is that there's a
number of people who can't, or won't, switch away from an underfeatured
mail reader like gmail's web interface or Microsoft Outlook or Outlook
Express, which lack features that would pay attention to such headers.

"Followup to list" or "reply to list" is a feature most mailers have
these days; and by gmane's example you gave, it's reasonable for people
to know about and use said features these days.  Reply and Reply to All
ignore mail-followup-to headers; reply/followup to list would pick up
those headers.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards

[Paul Johnson]

Ted Percival wrote:

> If it's not a through road for vehicles but is for bicycles that could
> be a challenge to tag access restrictions on. Perhaps a node with
> barrier=* if there is one.

The barriers aren't usually barriers as such, but rather turn
restrictions in place with exceptions for cyclists to continue.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards

[Paul Johnson]

Michael Barabanov wrote:
> Can we use relations same way as for more complex cycle routes for this one?

Yes, though you're not limited to just a specific kind of way for relations.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Bicycle boulevards

[Paul Johnson]

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2009/6/10 Shaun McDonald :
>> In my eyes, that road would be simply tagged with highway=cycleway.
> 
> there are some main differences though: usually they are normal
> streets changed in designation. That is cars are allowed but don't
> have the priority and must drive very slowly, they have
> pavements/sidewalks, they are wide like streets, the give priority to
> bicycles on crossings, etc. all of which is not the case for
> cycleways.

Sidewalks are optional, some bicycle boulevards are actually pretty bad
for pedestrians in places where houses don't have driveways, in which
case sidewalks were eliminated to move on-street parking farther from
the center to avoid car-door conflicts with passing bicycle traffic
(these are pretty rare, most bicycle boulevards prohibit parking entirely).

And at least in the US and Canada, the speed limits are the same for
cyclists and cars alike (typically 25mph or metric approximation, though
there's been talks of bumping it up to 30 on bicycle boulevards to
accommodate faster commuters).

Cycleways typically have priority over residential streets, more major
cycleways typically have some kind of signalling system over more major
streets, with the most major cycleways being limited-access,
grade-separated operations similar to motorized expressways.  Only the
most minor, go-nowhere park greenways don't have priority at
intersections (rationale being the motorists can wait being merely
privileged users and requiring next to no effort to get moving again,
cyclists have a right to the streets (unlike licensed motorists) and
would have to expend real effort to get moving again).



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards

[Paul Johnson]

Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Mario Salvini wrote:
>> Even in germany on these roads there are no additional rights-of-way in 
>> comparison to "normal" cycleways (except that bicycles get the 
>> officially allowance to drive next to each other and not just inline. 
>> buts that's piece of cake ;) ). A normal cycleway with 
>> motorcar/agricultural/...=yes/destination/... would be exactly the same.
> 
> We're getting very much into national detail here but just to give an 
> example, look at this aerial image (which is 100 metres from my office BTW):
> 
> http://maps.google.de/maps?ll=49.007912,8.378746&spn=0.000729,0.001026&t=h&z=20
>
> The road going east-west is a former residential road with different 
> lanes for each direction of travel, plus diagonal parking spaces in the
> middle. It is over 20 metres wide. This road has now been designated a 
> "Fahrradstrasse" (cycle road). Motorized traffic is still allowed at 
> "adequate speeds" (whatever that means).

I'm not convinced this is a national detail, as it's one that I brought
up given that they're a common fixture in Portland, Oregon; and Victoria
and Vancouver, BC.  The fact you also have them in Germany strikes me as
 further evidence that cycleroads are not a national detail, but rather
an international development in highway design.

> While I am not a big fan of endless tagging discussions, tagging the 
> road above as "highway=cycleway, car=yes" strikes me as grossly misleading.
> 
> Maybe it should simply retain highway=residential. After all, the 
> "residentialness" of the road has not changed one bit since it was 
> designated a cycle road.

On the other hand, it's no longer as minor as a residential road, nor
has the same use as a residential road (as it's throughbound for cyclists).



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards

[Paul Johnson]

Shaun McDonald wrote:
> 
> On 10 Jun 2009, at 03:25, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 
>> 2009/6/9 Paul Johnson :
>>> I'm curious if bicycle boulevards would qualify as living streets, given
>>> that a living street would most closely describe a bicycle boulevard in
>>> OSM terms, though a bicycle boulevard might lack pedestrian facilities.
>>>  Frequently, these are not streets you would want to let the kids play
>>> in, as the volume of fast-moving, near-silent vehicles would present a
>>> very real collision hazard at peak traffic times.  This kind of way has
>>> sprung up only in the last 10 years or so, and almost all of them were
>>> formerly highway=residential prior to becoming bicycle boulevards.
>>
>> I would still like to see the cycleroad-proposal become reality,
>> because these kind of streets IMHO merit their own class.
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/cycleroad
>>
> 
> In my eyes, that road would be simply tagged with highway=cycleway.

Do cycleways normally allow motorized vehicles?  Bicycle boulevards do
(even if they do make using one an exceptional pain).




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards

[Paul Johnson]

Karl Newman wrote:

> *Avoid duplicate copies of messages?*
> 
> When you are listed explicitly in the To: or Cc: headers of a list
> message, you can opt to not receive another copy from the mailing list.
> Select /Yes/ to avoid receiving copies from the mailing list; select
> /No/ to receive copies.
> 
> If the list has member personalized messages enabled, and you elect to
> receive copies, every copy will have a X-Mailman-Copy: yes header added
> to it.

This does not work:  What about gmane users?



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Bicycle boulevards

[Paul Johnson]

>> I'm curious if bicycle boulevards would qualify as living streets, giv=
en
>> that a living street would most closely describe a bicycle boulevard i=
n
>> OSM terms, though a bicycle boulevard might lack pedestrian facilities=
=2E
>>  Frequently, these are not streets you would want to let the kids play=

>> in, as the volume of fast-moving, near-silent vehicles would present a=

>> very real collision hazard at peak traffic times.  This kind of way ha=
s
>> sprung up only in the last 10 years or so, and almost all of them were=

>> formerly highway=3Dresidential prior to becoming bicycle boulevards.
>=20
> I would still like to see the cycleroad-proposal become reality,
> because these kind of streets IMHO merit their own class.
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/cycleroad

Wow, that one is full of win!  I threw my argument in support up on the
discussion page.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

[Talk-ca] Bicycle boulevards

[Paul Johnson]

I'm curious if bicycle boulevards would qualify as living streets, given
that a living street would most closely describe a bicycle boulevard in
OSM terms, though a bicycle boulevard might lack pedestrian facilities.
 Frequently, these are not streets you would want to let the kids play
in, as the volume of fast-moving, near-silent vehicles would present a
very real collision hazard at peak traffic times.  This kind of way has
sprung up only in the last 10 years or so, and almost all of them were
formerly highway=residential prior to becoming bicycle boulevards.

Bicycle boulevards are more major than residential streets
(intersections with residential streets have the residential streets
facing stop signs, to minimize the need for bicycles to stop),
intersections with larger (tertiary or better) ways typically have
restrictions preventing motorists from doing anything but making a right
turn from the bicycle boulevard and/or motorists from the major way from
turning onto the bicycle boulevard, and as often as not have traffic
signals (with more heavily traveled bicycle boulevards changing in favor
of the cyclists in advance, particularly in Portland's Little Bohemia).
 At large roundabouts, the bicycle boulevard typically has a cutout
through the central island, with YIELD TO BICYCLES signs on the central
ring of the roundabout (through bicycles typically do not have to stop
or yield, and have the right-of-way over vehicles already in the
roundabout).  The restrictions on motorists make bicycle boulevards
unsuitable for rat runs.

Typically, cycle maps I've seen that are aware of these ways show them
at a much higher priority than they would on your average street map,
with the larger way de-prioritized, in some cases quite severely,
depending on traffic flow and bicycle facilities (such as US 30 Bypass
in Oregon, a primary, typically being shown as a minor through street
like most of the streets intersecting it on cycle maps, with the bicycle
boulevard a few blocks off shown as the primary way across Northeast
Portland).

I am aware of bicycle boulevards existing in at least three states and
one province, and I'm sure there's more out there, so I'm a little
surprised this hasn't been tackled.

(Please don't CC me when replying; I get the list, and I don't need two
copies (plus this defeats unsubscribing if someone later wants to leave
the conversation).  Please use your mailer's reply-to-list feature or
check your To: and CC: headers!)



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] importing geobase data for the Canadian boarder

[Paul Johnson]

James Ewen wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 9:54 PM, Corey Burger 
>  wrote:
>>> For BC and Alberta, there are 3 - 4 different border lines with the US.
>> This one is very very easy. It is the 49th parallel from lake of the
>> woods to the straight of georgia.
> 
> No so little Grasshopper!
> 
> It's close to the 49th parallel, but not quite. In a perfect world, it
> would be the 49th parallel as per the agreements of 1818 and 1846, but
> back when the line was physically laid out, the technology was not
> quite sub-centimeter accuracy.
> 
> My family wasn't exactly that accurate with their homesteading either,
> hence the split with half my family becoming American citizens, and
> the other staying on the good side of the line...

I think I corrected myself later when I realized that "Hey, better check
that with what's on the ground," since there is OAM data (if not
something better; it sucks that OAM seems to be more or less giving up)
of a reasonable enough resolution that one should be able to line up the
OSM data with reality.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] importing geobase data for the Canadian boarder

[Paul Johnson]

Ben Konrath wrote:
> Ok, I did some more poking around and it seems that the land border
> with the US is really borked. For BC and Alberta, there are 3 - 4
> different border lines with the US. I'm willing to do the work
> required to clean this up by deleting the lines that don't make sense.
> I just need to know if the Geobase information is the best one to use
> for the border?

Which one is closest to 49°N while still remaining sane with what's on
the ground?




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] importing geobase data for the Canadian boarder

[Paul Johnson]

Please consider using reply-to-list or
gmane.comp.gis.openstreetmap.region.ca; I don't need two copies.  :o)

Ben Konrath wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> 
> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 8:54 PM, Paul Johnson 
>  wrote:
>> Ben Konrath wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm interested in creating a map that contains all of Canada's territory
>>> up to the border with our neighbouring countries or the ocean border.
>>> The first problem that I found is that the Canadian border isn't defined
>>> well in the OSM data. As an example, the border running to the South of
>>> New Brunswick can't be correct:
>>>
>>> http://openstreetmap.org/?lat=45.277&lon=-65.323&zoom=9&layers=B000FTF
>>> <http://openstreetmap.org/?lat=45.277&lon=-65.323&zoom=9&layers=B000FTF>
>> Wow, and looking at the tags, it appears Geobase has ceded Halifax to
>> State of Maine.
> 
> So is it ok to manually fix this? I also noticed that there is a
> conflict between the Geobase data and the old border data in BC. Do
> you know which data is more accurate so that I can manually fix it?:

I'm not entirely qualified to work on the border, save for the short
segment I've researched out of fascination with the Hans Island dispute,
and the BC/WA border (which is a nice, round 49.0°N, terrain be damned!
 see
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=48.9943&lon=-123.0634&zoom=13&layers=B000FTF)
but I don't see a problem with moving back to where reality is.

I'm curious if anybody has a source for accurate information as to
Canada's ocean claim.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] importing geobase data for the Canadian boarder

[Paul Johnson]

Ben Konrath wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm interested in creating a map that contains all of Canada's territory
> up to the border with our neighbouring countries or the ocean border.
> The first problem that I found is that the Canadian border isn't defined
> well in the OSM data. As an example, the border running to the South of
> New Brunswick can't be correct:
> 
> http://openstreetmap.org/?lat=45.277&lon=-65.323&zoom=9&layers=B000FTF
> 

Wow, and looking at the tags, it appears Geobase has ceded Halifax to
State of Maine.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Interstate Highways Relations List

[Paul Johnson]

Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
> On 12 Apr 2009, at 9:01 , Adam Schreiber wrote:
>> Probably because the mapper can easily identify the type of road (i.e.
>> Interstate, US Hwy, etc.).  I'm not sure that the mapper should be
>> specifying the URL of the sign since it requires extra work to find it
>> and any renderer should be able to pick their own source of sign
>> shields (I know they can simply ignore the suggested one, but this
>> method can put more information into the DB).
> 
> ideally the renderer can figure out everything based on the ref tag  
> and some tag or intelligent location lookup to find the state, county  
> a road is in.
>   It contains all you need to pick the correct sign. But you need the  
> whole knowledge about signs for all states, county ...
> as an example California uses different signs for US routes but the  
> same for interstates.

Well, if the US ones are different, the Interstate ones are different
for the same reason based on what i've seen in Northern California on
I-5, US-199 and US-101:  California's egotistical enough to put it's
name on all route markers regardless of size.  "Interstate California 5,
US California 199", etc.



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