date:20200719

Re: [Talk-us] Labeling forestry service roads/tracks

2020-07-19 Per discussione Clifford Snow

If you are using JOSM there is a USFS road layer. The color of the way
indicates surface and highway classification if I remember correctly. I
posted the legend on Slack a couple of years ago.

The TIGER import data quality varied from region to region. Even today in
Washington State it's bad, so bad that I don't recommend using it. My guess
is that it's low priority for counties to update Feds, especially when
their budgets are already tight. There is even one county in Washington
State that they don't even have a current road layer.

Best,
Clifford

On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 3:48 PM  wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> Editing in Boundary County, Idaho in the Panhandle, I've been extending
> the forest landuse area around Bonners Ferry and have come across a
> difficulty in classifying forest roads.
>
> It seems that many have been automatically imported and have
> highway=residential, which is just plain wrong.
>
> For roads that appear metalled (paved) and/or access mines, quarries,
> communication towers etc. I label highway=service, for roads that are
> unpaved or sometimes seem to almost fade out I label highway=track. For
> roads that appear to be public access (e.g. to go to a lake) but are
> obviously even more minor than tertiary roads I label highway=unclassified.
>
> Is there a more consistent recommended method?
>
> The US Topo map gives forest road references so I add ref FS .
>
> TIGER seems to be at best very coarse, at worst fictional.
>
> Thanks.
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>

-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [Talk-us-newyork] Interested in importing address points in New York State

2020-07-19 Per discussione Skyler Hawthorne


Fascinating read, thanks so much for the research and the write-up!
--
Skyler
On July 19, 2020 23:12:52 Kevin Kenny  wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 12:46 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us 
 wrote:


Once you write this diary entry (or OSM Wiki page) please post

it to the mailing list!

Here you go:  https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/ke9tv/diary/393684

Feel free to repost, wikify, share as appropriate!

Skyler, thanks for trying again to reach out!  I'd written, both email and 
paper, to several people listed as contacts on gis.ny.gov and never 
received a response. You'll notice that I made a copy of the mail on my 
personal site and referenced it as an exhibit in the diary entry.


(PS: I was shouting at the screen as I read that self-congratulatory 
article at https://gis.ny.gov/outreach/gist/fall01.htm)


--

73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
___
Talk-us-newyork mailing list
talk-us-newy...@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us-newyork


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

Re: [talk-au] Working with local government

2020-07-19 Per discussione Greg Dutkowski

Hi,
I was thinking of using the ref tag to store the council ID for the object,
and then the council could use the OSMID in their database.
What I was looking for was tools or approaches for keeping the two in sync.
The foreign keys in each system are part of that.
The conflation tools Andew Harvey pointed to may be a way to go.
OSM is so big and diverse it is hard to get your head around all of the
possibilities, so contacts with people who are making conflation work would
be ideal.

Greg Dutkowski
+61 0362238495/0408238495
1 Cascade Road, SOUTH HOBART.


On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 12:33, David Wales  wrote:

> Is there any reason against using a custom tag as a linking key?
>
> e.g. some_import_object_id=123456
>
> Then when you need to update the data, you can match the key in OSM with
> the key in the source data.
>
> On 19 July 2020 11:21:04 pm AEST, Andrew Harvey 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 at 22:28, Greg Dutkowski 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>> Thanks for everyone's input.
>>> Sebastien best understood what I am trying to do.
>>> It seems inefficient for local government to make their data open and
>>> then hope the OSM community translates it to OSM tagging.
>>>
>> Better for local government to put their data directly into OSM and
>>> maintain a two way link to their data.
>>>
>>
>> While that is certainly welcome, I would never have an expectation of it.
>> I expectat that all public funded works are made open without restrictions
>> on use (of course subject to privacy concerns or other special
>> considerations) so at least the OSM community can use it if we like,
>> anything above and beyond this is a welcome contribution.
>>
>> If a local government is thinking about this, I'd just say engage with us
>> so we can all work together.
>>
>>
>>> Examples and tools from anyone who is trying to keep external data in
>>> sync with OSM will be most useful.
>>>
>>
>> There are some conflation tools at
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Conflation but they appear
>> to all need a lot of coding to get up and running.
>>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [Talk-us] Labeling forestry service roads/tracks

2020-07-19 Per discussione Kevin Kenny

On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 9:29 PM brad  wrote:

> Thanks for diving in.   If it's a very minor unimproved road and not
> clearly service, I usually tag it track.   I would suggest adding some
> indication of road quality.   If it's an improved gravel road, I consider
> surface=gravel sufficient.   If it's rougher than an improved gravel road,
> surface=unpaved (in my area the surface is usually a mix of dirt, rocks,
> gravel, so unpaved seems best),   and smoothness=very_bad (high clearance),
> or horrible (4wd)  [https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness],
> or  4wd_only=yes .
>

A nit: most 'improved' gravel roads are surface=compacted.  'gravel' is
like rail ballast; a compacted surface ordinarily has a mix of fine gravel
and even finer material such as sand, and is rolled. Americans will often
refer to a compacted road as a 'dirt' or 'gravel' road but the difference
is like night and day when you're driving on one!

For the rougher stuff, 'smoothness' is essential.  Consider also
'tracktype', which addresses more the firmness of the surface rather than
its smoothness. A clay surface may be lovely in a dry season and impassable
in a wet one, despite having a fast enough slump that the surface is
deceptively smooth.

Some National Forests separate Forest Highway (a regular access road) and
Forest Road (usually a logging track, might be inaccessible in any given
season, and often passable only to logging trucks and similar
high-clearance off-road vehicles). I don't know if any of them overlay the
numbering of the two systems.

_Please_ create route relations!
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Interested in importing address points in New York State

2020-07-19 Per discussione Kevin Kenny

On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 12:46 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us <
talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Once you write this diary entry (or OSM Wiki page) please post
> it to the mailing list!
>

Here you go:  https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/ke9tv/diary/393684

 Feel free to repost, wikify, share as appropriate!

Skyler, thanks for trying again to reach out!  I'd written, both email and
paper, to several people listed as contacts on gis.ny.gov and never
received a response. You'll notice that I made a copy of the mail on my
personal site and referenced it as an exhibit in the diary entry.

(PS: I was shouting at the screen as I read that self-congratulatory
article at https://gis.ny.gov/outreach/gist/fall01.htm)

-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [talk-au] Working with local government

2020-07-19 Per discussione David Wales

Is there any reason against using a custom tag as a linking key?

e.g. some_import_object_id=123456

Then when you need to update the data, you can match the key in OSM with the 
key in the source data.

On 19 July 2020 11:21:04 pm AEST, Andrew Harvey  
wrote:
>On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 at 22:28, Greg Dutkowski 
>wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> Thanks for everyone's input.
>> Sebastien best understood what I am trying to do.
>> It seems inefficient for local government to make their data open and
>then
>> hope the OSM community translates it to OSM tagging.
>>
>Better for local government to put their data directly into OSM and
>> maintain a two way link to their data.
>>
>
>While that is certainly welcome, I would never have an expectation of
>it. I
>expectat that all public funded works are made open without
>restrictions on
>use (of course subject to privacy concerns or other special
>considerations)
>so at least the OSM community can use it if we like, anything above and
>beyond this is a welcome contribution.
>
>If a local government is thinking about this, I'd just say engage with
>us
>so we can all work together.
>
>
>> Examples and tools from anyone who is trying to keep external data in
>> sync with OSM will be most useful.
>>
>
>There are some conflation tools at
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Conflation but they appear
>to
>all need a lot of coding to get up and running.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] unsubscribe [SEC=OFFICIAL]

2020-07-19 Per discussione Costello Simon

Please remove Simon Costello from this mailing list.
Nik

Nicole Manning 
Executive Assistant to Simon Costello | National Location Information Branch
Place, Space and Community Division
 
t +61 2 6249 9277    www.ga.gov.au

Part-time hours
Mon, Tue, Thur & Friday 9.30 to 2.00
 

 




-Original Message-
From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org  
Sent: Sunday, 19 July 2020 4:49 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 157, Issue 18

Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
talk-au@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: 
Contents of Talk-au digest..."

Geoscience Australia Disclaimer: This e-mail (and files transmitted with it) is 
intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not 
the intended recipient, then you have received this e-mail by mistake and any 
use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail and its file 
attachments is prohibited. The security of emails transmitted cannot be 
guaranteed; by forwarding or replying to this email, you acknowledge and accept 
these risks.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [Talk-us] Labeling forestry service roads/tracks

2020-07-19 Per discussione brad

Thanks for diving in. If it's a very minor unimproved road and not
clearly service, I usually tag it track. I would suggest adding some
indication of road quality. If it's an improved gravel road, I
consider surface=gravel sufficient. If it's rougher than an improved
gravel road, surface=unpaved (in my area the surface is usually a mix of
dirt, rocks, gravel, so unpaved seems best), and smoothness=very_bad
(high clearance), or horrible (4wd)
[https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness], or 4wd_only=yes .

The USFS motor vehicle use maps (MVUM) are very useful.

I think most of the road signs say FS, and most of the tags in my area
use FS, but the wiki
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging#National_Forest_Road_System)
says to use FR . I don't know the history, or if it really matters.
If someone is reading a map & it says FR or FS, they probably won't even
notice.

Keep this in mind when getting frustrated with the tiger data, I think
we would have next to nothing if it didn't get imported.

Brad

On 7/19/20 5:50 PM, Dave Swarthout wrote:
Mike, welcome to the real world. Tiger street data is better than
nothing but not much. It's positionally inaccurate and many roads are
wrongly classified. a rough guide at best. I do use the Tiger Roads
2019 overlay to add names to streets and roads though. The names are
reasonably accurate in my experience.

On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 5:57 AM Mike Thompson > wrote:

On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 4:49 PM mailto:tj-osmw...@lowsnr.net>> wrote:

For
roads that appear to be public access (e.g. to go to a lake)
but are
obviously even more minor than tertiary roads I label
highway=unclassified.

highway=unclassified are for roads that connect small towns, or
for "local traffic", while access to a lake could be considered
"local traffic", I would think it would be better if these would
be highway=service, or highway=track.

68 matches

Mail list logo