Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names

[Tristan Anderson]

I'm going to make here to the unpopular argument that in OSM tagging "St." 
should always be written as "Saint".

I know that you will never see "Sault Sainte Marie" on a sign, map or official 
document and that seeing it written like that looks weird and even wrong to 
local residents.  In much the same way when I started editing OSM, "Pine 
Street" looked weird, even wrong, to me.  After all, street suffixes are 
abbreviated on every sign and map; even when they are referenced in articles.  
I have since come to accept and embrace the unabbreviated street suffix, even 
to the point writing them out in full in my day-to-day life, such as when I 
enter in my home address.  I think we can all agree that there is nothing 
incorrect about Maple Boulevard, and by extension that an abbreviation's 
ubiquity does not in and of itself make the full version incorrect.

There are a lot of streets that begin with Saint.  In one neighbourhood of 
Niagara Falls, for example, there is (using the names recognised by Canada 
Post) a Saint Marys Avenue, St. John St, St Paul Avenue, St Patrick Avenue, St. 
Peter Avenue, and Saint George Avenue.  I doubt that whoever named those 
streets intended for that specific combination of St/St./Saint and I can be 
certain that the abbreviations were merely ever there out of convenience, one 
that's made obsolete by digital maps not needing to cram a bunch of street 
names onto limited space.  I find it hard to see anybody having a problem with 
beginning all six of these names with "Saint".

The "St" abbreviation may particularly problematic for data consumers as it 
could mean Street, Saint, or if you check out the Wikipedia disambiguation 
page, dozens of other things.  Sure it's obvious to a human that there is no 
city called Street Thomas, but a computer might have a bit of trouble there.  
And don't get me started on the absurdity that St is a contraction, not an 
abbreviation.

I'm not going to rush out and change any existing tagging but I think this is 
one instance where rational thought needs to override tradition.

From: OSM Volunteer stevea 
Sent: February 16, 2018 4:03 PM
To: Jarek Piórkowski; talk-ca
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names
  

I stand corrected, thank you everybody.

BTW I do my best not to abbreviate thinks like "DC" for District of Columbia, 
but I now better understand that "St." in many cases has now truly become the 
official name, abbreviation included.

SteveA

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.openstreetmap.org%2Flistinfo%2Ftalk-ca=02%7C01%7C%7C0929b2c013ed48ddd99b08d57580cc04%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636544118392215285=RLRrzWsO83vlhjicXTPgQumstpl4u%2FyhY3ciiFEmAuU%3D=0

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Bus stops in Ottawa

[Tristan Anderson]

Let's not be too hasty in removing large amounts of data, imported years ago 
and subsequently edited by several users in various ways, simply because it may 
or may not be compatible with a future OSM license.  If you guys are 100% sure 
this import contravened ODbL, or if the City of Ottawa's lawyers contact OSM 
with concerns, then by all means redact it.  But to me, and I admittedly don't 
know much when it comes to licensing, we should leave this alone for the time 
being.
This isn't something that needs to be re-imported every year.  Minor changes to 
the bus network that occur from time to time can be updated by hand by local 
users.  I see some updates have already taken place since the import was made.  
As for duplicate bus stops resulting from a node predating the import: I've 
come across this at least once in the past in a neigbourhood I was editing 
after a recent visit to Ottawa.  I merged the tags and deleted the more recent 
stop.

To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
From: penor...@mac.com
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 08:40:45 +0100
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Bus stops in Ottawa


  

  
  
On 2016-02-29 2:46 AM, john whelan wrote:


  I think
with the clause in the uploading terms that OSM can change the
license its very difficult to import anything as it is difficult
to say to City of Ottawa etc we'd like your data but we don't
know what license it may have in OSM in the future.

  

Data needs to be compatible with our license, which is the ODbL.[1]


  Is anyone
going to take the responsibility on for removing the data?

Copyright incompatible data needs to be redacted, not just deleted.
I'd normally be the one doing this, but I'm traveling today.



http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License#Can_third-party_ODbL-licensed_data_be_imported.3F

  


___
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] Urgent care centre

[Tristan Anderson]

amenity=clinic sounds great.  I hope they're not officially called "urgent care 
centres" and they certainly shouldn't be tagged as such in OSM.  If I got shot 
and saw an urgent care centre, I'd probably make the same mistake.

> Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 09:15:19 -0500
> From: andrew...@gmail.com
> To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [Talk-ca] Urgent care centre
> 
> How do you tag an urgent care centre? (An urgent care centre is a
> non-24 hour health care facility for less severe health problems.
> Typically they are former emergency rooms).
> 
> I want to prevent an incident like this happening:
> 
> A shooting victim mistakenly went to what is now an urgent care centre
> (was a hospital) near Jane & Finch and died.
> 
> I changed the former location of Humber River Regional Hospital to
> amenity=clinic, emergency=no from amenity=hospital, emergency=no. I
> don't want hospitals without emergency rooms to show up in a search
> for "hospital".
> 
> ___
> 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] Highway recoding

[Tristan Anderson]

As I've always understood it, highway=trunk is used for core routes in document 
(a) that Daniel mentioned.  It ignores routes marked as feeder and 
northern/remote.  highway=primary is for each province's network of primary 
highways that aren't motorways or trunks.
I don't exactly agree with the above definitions but they were already in place 
when I got here so I've been using them.  For one thing, document (a) was 
published in 2005, and things change.  I'm also not entirely comfortable with 
the fact that the most a city-maintained road could ever hope for is secondary. 
 Toronto's Black Creek Drive should, in my mind at least, have a higher 
classification than Highway 108 north of Elliot Lake.  In general, OSM higways 
should be based on how important they are to the overall road network, 
independent of any official classification.
On the other hand...  I kinda like the way Canadian cities look with their 
simple networks of orange thoroughfares.  London, Paris and Washington are an 
incomprehensible mess of roads with varying classifications which don't seem to 
be of benefit to the end user.  The eight-level hierarchy of highway 
classifications OSM gives us to work with is overkill.  At least Canada is 
consistent, which is more than can be said for a lot of countries.  Plus 
there's so much that needs to be added to the map that I don't see tinkering 
with highway classifications as a priority.
So here's what I suggest: the definitions above are good guidelines but need 
not be followed religiously.  If anyone thinks a specific road should be 
promoted or demoted, let's discuss it here and make it happen.
As for the wiki pages.  In (b), Canada is listed twice.  I think the entire 
lower row can be deleted and the upper row still stands.  Maybe a note could be 
added saying there is some flexibility to the trunk/primary guidelines.
In (c), the section on trunk roads should be changed.  Trunk roads do not need 
to be limited access.  Most of them are not.  I also don't think people should 
be told to tag anything surface=paved/unpaved.  Instead surface should be 
whatever it is (asphalt, concrete, gravel, etc).  The Sub-national and below 
section needs to be rewritten or copied over from (b).

And now you have my two cents too.  Comments?
From: jfd...@hotmail.com
To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 09:39:28 -0400
Subject: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding

I would like to have community’s point of view on this topic… Recently I have 
seen most primary roads in my area being recoded as trunk by at least two 
users.  They both refer to a governmental document (a) to justify their edits 
but I disagree with their interpretation. I have asked them to discuss their 
interpretation with the OSM community but they did not; so let’s do it I 
thought there was an agreement on highway tagging scheme in which provincial 
primary highway that does not meet freeway standards should be identified as 
primary road, as described in Highway:International equivalence (b). For 
instance provincial highways 2-14 in Ontario, 100-series highways in Quebec, 
Highway 95 in BC were initially tagged as primary road. Since then, the 
document (a) is used by some contributors to recode primary roads to trunk 
because it is cited in the Canadian tagging guideline (c). IMHO, the problem is 
that this document (a) defines 3 Route Categories (Core, Feeder, Northern and 
Remote) that does not fit with OSM highway definitions.  I prefer looking at 
OSM highway as “infrastructure categories” –my understanding of OSM 
definitions– rather than as “strategic categories” as described in (a) and 
partially promoted in (c). However, both are of interest as long they are 
applied consistently (d). I would like to get a consensus from the Canadian 
community on trunk/primary roads tagging scheme and eventually clarify 
available documentation (b, c) accordingly.  I might also add Tristan Anderson 
definitions on forestry roads (talk-ca 15-07-15). Comments are obviously 
welcome J Daniel  a) http://www.comt.ca/english/NHS-report-english.pdfb) 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway:International_equivalencec) 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canadian_tagging_guidelinesd) The Canadian 
tagging guideline defines trunk as a roadway that has limited access; while OSM 
Features (wiki) defines trunk as “high performance roads that don't meet the 
requirement for motorway” which means there is no/little access limitations!
___
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] Highway 400A

[Tristan Anderson]

I changed this section of road to ref=11 and olf_ref=400A.  This is how it was 
tagged until October 2014.  I also added it to the relation for Highway 11, but 
did not change the relation for Highway 400A.
I also went to 
http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/about/feedback/general-inquiries-feedback.shtml
 and asked Does Highway 400A still exist, or has this been redesignated as 
Highway 11?  Depending on the response, I may change old_ref=400A to 
unsigned_ref=400A.

From: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com
To: berniejconn...@gmail.com; andersontris...@hotmail.com
CC: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Highway 400A
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 21:43:03 -0400




You could always add the '400A' part to the 'unsigned_ref' tag because of it 
being mentioned in the traffic volume documents.

-James

Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 07:14:52 -0700
From: berniejconn...@gmail.com
To: andersontris...@hotmail.com
CC: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Highway 400A


If the highway signs match the ORN data I would completely ignore any contrary 
information. I know the province is actively maintaining and updating the ORN 
data. 

Bernie. 



—
Bernie Connors
New Maryland, NB



On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Tristan Anderson 
andersontris...@hotmail.com wrote:

I agree.  I can change it tomorrow if nobody objects.


From: berniejconn...@gmail.com

The smartest thing to do is tag it based on the highway signs along the road. 

Bernie. 



—
Bernie Connors
New Maryland, NB



On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 11:42 PM, Kevin Farrugia kevinfarru...@gmail.com 
wrote:



There's some conflicting stuff about this when I look into it: the last traffic 
volume report (2010) from MTO refers to the section as 400A 
(http://www.ontario.ca/data/traffic-volume), but MNR road data labels it as 
Highway 11 (the MNR Ontario Road Network dataset is the source for GeoBase 
roads in Ontario).


Keeping it as is would keep it correct based on MTO docs, but changing it based 
on the signage would improve usability and navigation since there aren't any 
400A signs, only Hwy 11 direction signs (example: 
http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/xLVIFS_6hnuS_cQ-owysww).


Anyone else have any thoughts?



-Kevin



On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 9:15 PM, Andrew MacKinnon andrew...@gmail.com wrote:
The south end of Highway 11 at the Highway 11/400 junction between

Highway 400 and Penetanguishene Road, just north of Barrie is

currently tagged as Highway 400A in OSM. Is this still Highway 400A? I

thought that this became Highway 11 after the Mike Harris downloading

downloaded the section of Highway 11 south of there (most of which is

Yonge Street).


___

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Forestry Roads

[Tristan Anderson]

This is how I tag forestry roads:

tertiary: major logging roads in remote areas, sometimes also access mines or 
hydro dams.  Well graded, suitable for all vehicles although most traffic is 
often trucks, usually wide enough for vehicles to pass without slowing down.  
They're often hundreds of kilometers long with long straight sections, and can 
connect remote towns or first nation reserves.  Still owned by logging 
companies so should be access=permissive.

unclassified: narrower but still drivable with a mid-size front-wheel drive 
car, may lead to hunting lodges or lakes for boating/fishing/camps... not 
exclusively forestry traffic but primarily a forestry road.  Usually 
access=permissive.

service: mostly for logging activities, accessing current or former 
clear-cutting sites.  Usually access=private, especially if there are no 
trespassing or authorized vehicles only type signs.  Also service would be 
any road behind a gate that is closed to regular traffic.

track: two tire tracks with vegetation growing in the middle, regardless of 
where it goes or who uses it... can be packed gravel (grade2) right down to 
ATV/feller buncher tracks (grade5).  Grade1 generally refers to paved tracks, 
the likes of which I have never seen or heard of in Canada.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway
Should be track
Roads for mostly agricultural or forestry uses. To describe the quality of a 
track, see tracktype=*. Note: Although tracks are often rough with unpaved 
surfaces, this tag is not describing the quality of a road but its use. 
Consequently, if you want to tag a general use road, use one of the general 
highway values instead of track.
On Jul 15, 2015 7:15 PM, Steve Roy st...@ssni.ca wrote:
Whenever I have created forestry roads I have used highway=track -

particularly if I know the road is rough and unmaintained.

These are your typical BC forestry roads that are able to be used after

logging is completed in the area and the roads haven't been

de-activated.  I have had people change them to

highway=minor/unclassified after my edits are done and for the most part

I leave them unless I know the road is a rough/4x4 road, the kind you

wouldn't take a Honda Civic on.



However I have been emailing with a person adding forestry roads on

Vancouver Island and they insist on the tag highway=service for their

edits when mapping forestry roads.  These aren't the main A to B

forestry roads, rather smaller gravel roads.



What is the correct tag in Canada?



Thanks

Steve Roy



___

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