Re: [Talk-ca] Wind farm access roads that really shouldn't be in OSM
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
Re: [Talk-ca] Wind farm access roads that really shouldn't be in OSM
> -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
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
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
> -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
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
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
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
Re: [Talk-ca] Wind farm access roads that really shouldn't be in OSM
On 12-03-19 21:52 , Harald Kliems wrote: > > 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? They're definitely not visible on orthophotos. Most of rural Norfolk is a blur. 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
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:00 AM, Gerald A wrote: > 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. What's the use of the import then? If you have to go and track every road, and walk around the shore of every lake, and wander down every creek, then you'll have GPS data. Most of Canada will be a blank slate as we do not have enough bodies to capture all of the data manually. The whole concept of importing data was to help fill in the areas where there are no OSM mappers. -- 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
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 9:21 AM, James Ewen wrote: > On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:00 AM, Gerald A wrote: > >> 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. > > What's the use of the import then? If you have to go and track every > road, and walk around the shore of every lake, and wander down every > creek, then you'll have GPS data. Most of Canada will be a blank slate > as we do not have enough bodies to capture all of the data manually. I can't speak for Gerald, but my point was more about verifiability than about "verifiedness". That is, about the question whether a way can _in principle_ be verified vs. whether it actually _has_ been verified. The latter we will have to live with in large parts of Canada; the former I have reservations about. And according to Stewart this is a problem for many of the ways in question here. Harald. ___ 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
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 8:12 AM, Harald Kliems wrote: > I can't speak for Gerald, but my point was more about verifiability > than about "verifiedness". That is, about the question whether a way > can _in principle_ be verified vs. whether it actually _has_ been > verified. The latter we will have to live with in large parts of > Canada; the former I have reservations about. And according to Stewart > this is a problem for many of the ways in question here. So if there's a locked gate, and not all OSM mappers can get access, do we remove the roads from the map? We should look at getting a nice big graphic to put on the map that says "Here be Dragons!" Obviously I'm being a little silly... There are areas that are privately owned, and not accessible to the general public. The Shell Scotford Refinery is a good example: http://osm.org/go/WPrCMJzv- The imagery available for the area is not detailed enough to be able to draw roads, nor even verify where they are. Imagery that is available via sources that can't be used for OSM does not show all of the new expansion area. I have however driven through the area with my GPS, and tracked the roads (and in some cases projected where the roads will be once construction has finished). How many other OSM mappers are going to gain access to the refinery and map out the roads to ensure the accuracy of my mapping? Do my edits stand on their own merit? Now on the other hand, to backup your side of the argument have a look at this way that I ran into today: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/32377502 If you compare OSM and Google Maps, you can see that both have this road shown, which looks like part of the national road grid. Google goes even further to draw more roads in a grid immediately north of this road. http://sautter.com/map/?zoom=14&lat=52.58831&lon=-111.2836&layers=B0TFFF In reality, there's a gate across the road, and it sure looks like a farmyard in reality. The grid of roads that Google Maps shows is actually the access roads between pens in an old cattle feedlot. Someone obviously was copying roads from an aerial photo and didn't realize what they were looking at. So, this goes to add additional weight behind the verifiability of roads in the OSM database. I wouldn't suggest removing roads that are privately owned from the database, nor removing roads that are not accessible to the general public either. What would be preferable would be to have the roads where access is not available to the public tagged as private, and if gates are in place, put the gates on the map. This is the type of ground-truthing that government boys would like to see come back out of the OSM project. If there were gates on the map, and the road marked as private, I wouldn't have tried to use it as a shortcut to save myself a 20 mile round about road trip. -- James VE6SRV ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
