Re: [Talk-us] tiger:review=yes
We (cloudmade) are using the last-edit time stamp to identify un edited tiger data. Having the reviewed tag set would be good. It could be set to current via a batch process as any element with a date after feb 08 cannot be un edited tiger. One thing that would help a lot is if massive batch imports (tiger, mass gis etc) can each use a userid specific to the load. Then identifying un edited data it is simple as any edit changes the userid. On a related topic... We are asuming that some portion of tiger data may never be edited as it is correct.., any feelings on how much this is, or how to detect it? One approach we sre consisering is to see it a road has pois along it... If so it is probably ok, I'd love other ideas. Jim Brown -CTO CloudMade (Sent from my iPhone) On 27 Nov 2008, at 23:35, Russ Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dave Hansen writes: >> Personally, I've been too lazy to go and ever change the tag. >> Maybe we >> should add a JOSM plugin or feature to flip it for us when we edit. > > I agree. Presumably, hopefully, nobody is making changes that they > think make the feature worse. > > -- > --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com | Delegislation is a > slippery > Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | slope to prosperity. > 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 | Fewer laws, more > freedom. > Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog | (Not a GOP > supporter). > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] tiger:review=yes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > One thing that would help a lot is if massive batch imports (tiger, > mass gis etc) can each use a userid specific to the load. Then > identifying un edited data it is simple as any edit changes the userid. Absolutely. > On a related topic... We are asuming that some portion of tiger data > may never be edited as it is correct.., any feelings on how much this > is, or how to detect it? One approach we sre consisering is to see it > a road has pois along it... If so it is probably ok, I'd love other > ideas. Well, I think that was the point of the "tiger:reviewed=yes" tag. Perhaps the procedure should be to delete the tiger:reviewed tag when you review a way? Absence == yes. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com | Delegislation is a slippery Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | slope to prosperity. 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 | Fewer laws, more freedom. Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog | (Not a GOP supporter). ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] tiger:review=yes
> > On a related topic... We are assuming that some portion of tiger data > > may never be edited as it is correct.., any feelings on how much this > >is, or how to detect it? One approach we are considering is to see it > >a road has pois along it... If so it is probably ok, I'd love other > > ideas. > Well, I think that was the point of the "tiger:reviewed=yes" tag. > Perhaps the procedure should be to delete the tiger:reviewed tag when you review a way? Absence == yes. Absence of tiger:reviewed means "==yes" makes perfect sense to be sure... Interestingly, I think that the act of setting the reviewed=yes will update the last edit date (and the userid), and so filtering on that first will catch edited roads where the tag was left... I guess what I'm trying to get a handle on is, how much of the tiger data do we think will never be edited at all, because it is good and correct already (is it a vanishingly small percentage? Or significant... Probably depends on the county or state and how good their source data was prior to being combined)... One thing that could be interesting to put up is to do a map style with un-edited tiger data shown in highlight (like our no-names map) and then add the ability to let the viewer validate it, or specific portions of it, as being correct. To do the style we could filter on tiger:reviewed, userid and date and possibly show Base Case of cannot be tiger is (Not Dave H and/or last_edit not between Nov 2007 and Feb 2008) -> good reviewed=yes -> good... Reviewed=not present -> good... Reviewed=No -> suspect bad, needs to be reviewed Probably needs the open auth features of api 0.6 to do it right, (or running it on OSM itself). Should be pretty easy to develop the style and tiles however. j -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Russ Nelson Sent: Friday, November 28, 2008 6:42 PM To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] tiger:review=yes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > One thing that would help a lot is if massive batch imports (tiger, > mass gis etc) can each use a userid specific to the load. Then > identifying un edited data it is simple as any edit changes the userid. Absolutely. > On a related topic... We are asuming that some portion of tiger data > may never be edited as it is correct.., any feelings on how much this > is, or how to detect it? One approach we sre consisering is to see it > a road has pois along it... If so it is probably ok, I'd love other > ideas. Well, I think that was the point of the "tiger:reviewed=yes" tag. Perhaps the procedure should be to delete the tiger:reviewed tag when you review a way? Absence == yes. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com | Delegislation is a slippery Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | slope to prosperity. 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 | Fewer laws, more freedom. Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog | (Not a GOP supporter). ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3649 (20081128) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] tiger:review=yes
Jim Brown writes: > I guess what I'm trying to get a handle on is, how much of the tiger data > do we think will never be edited at all, because it is good and correct > already (is it a vanishingly small percentage? Or significant... Probably > depends on the county or state and how good their source data was prior to > being combined)... Several attacks on that problem: 1) We could look at the new Tiger data and see how it differs from the old Tiger data (which is what we have imported). 2) We (and I don't mean the exclusive "we" here, I mean myself AND others) could explicitly target an area, and see how much needs to be changed AND how significant it is. For example, I'm an expert on railroads in New York State, and I can tell you that they're inadequate for any reasonable standard of accuracy. But how many people care that the railroad have the right name? Or be marked as abandoned when it's really out-of-service, or vice-versa? Railfans care, obviously, but I'm staying that you need to factor "reliability" against "percentage of users who care". Same thing for power lines, only worse; I know of no powerlinefans. 3) We could ask the Census folks how accurate they think their data is. > One thing that could be interesting to put up is to do a map style with > un-edited tiger data shown in highlight (like our no-names map) and then > add the ability to let the viewer validate it, or specific portions of it, > as being correct. Maybe it's sufficient to tell JOSM "render tiger:reviewed=no stuff with dotted lines"? I don't see a way to do that in ~/.josm/preferences but there must be a way to tell JOSM how to render various things. (Obviously I haven't looked at the JOSM source). -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com | Delegislation is a slippery Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | slope to prosperity. 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 | Fewer laws, more freedom. Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog | (Not a GOP supporter). ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] tiger:review=yes
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008, Russ Nelson wrote: > Presumably, hopefully, nobody is making changes that they > think make the feature worse. Uh, err, um, I do. *blush* Sometimes I have a good track on an Interstate and I can see interchanges, bridges, etc on the Yahoo images. Combined with the TIGER data this should give us an accurate motorway and I delete the "tiger:review" tag. So far, so good. What do I do with the minor ways that cross? Sometimes I delete a portion and sometimes I move the way off the Interstate, hoping I left enough for the next mapper to work with. I can't claim I reviewed the minor way, not traveling down the Interstate at 75 mph. So, yes, I will risk making a feature worse if I can improve the map overall. -- - Joseph Scanlan http://www.qsl.net/n7xsd +1-702-455-3679 http://n7xsd.dyndns.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) (not work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - So he went inside there to take on what he found. But he never escaped them, for who can escape what he desires? --Tony Banks of Genesis in "The Lady Lies" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] tiger:review=yes
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Joseph Scanlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 27 Nov 2008, Russ Nelson wrote: > > > Presumably, hopefully, nobody is making changes that they > > think make the feature worse. > > Uh, err, um, I do. *blush* > > Sometimes I have a good track on an Interstate and I can see > interchanges, bridges, etc on the Yahoo images. Combined with the TIGER > data this should give us an accurate motorway and I delete the > "tiger:review" tag. So far, so good. > > What do I do with the minor ways that cross? Sometimes I delete a > portion and sometimes I move the way off the Interstate, hoping I left > enough for the next mapper to work with. I can't claim I reviewed the > minor way, not traveling down the Interstate at 75 mph. > > So, yes, I will risk making a feature worse if I can improve the map > overall. > And sometimes, when I'm cleaning up a dense urban grid of TIGER data, I have to stop somewhere, and very often that means I may have moved only one or two nodes belonging to a way, leaving a major unnatural kink in the road, and some ways only partly cleaned up, but still in need of further review. -Scott -- Scott Atwood Cycle tracks will abound in Utopia. ~H.G. Wells ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Bay Area trailer parks: "hamlet" ? Also neighborhoods & cities
Hi, There are a large number of mobile home / trailer parks mapped in San Jose, Santa Clara, and other parts of the South Bay. They're tagged place=hamlet, and I'm wondering if there's a better way to identify them? Beej71, if you're on this list I think a lot of these came from you. Examples here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.3995&lon=-122.01521&zoom=15&layers=B000FTFT http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.37096&lon=-121.89402&zoom=16&layers=B000FTF "Hamlet" is supposed to be "defined by national/state/provincial government" yet these aren't really defined by anyone except their owners. I personally view them as generally equivalent to named apartment complexes, and therefore not a place. May I suggest that they be redrawn as landuse=residential areas, with names defined? On a related topic, I'm also wondering how to handle parts of cities that are "places" or neighborhoods yet not administratively distinct, e.g. "West Oakland" (Oakland), "The Mission" (SF), etc. Would place=neighborhood make sense here? This part of West Oakland with two named apartment complexes (all place=hamlet) illustrates what I mean: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.8096&lon=-122.29504&zoom=16&layers=B000FTF -mike. michal migurski- [EMAIL PROTECTED] 415.558.1610 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Bay Area trailer parks: "hamlet" ? Also neighborhoods & cities
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Michal Migurski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > There are a large number of mobile home / trailer parks mapped in San > Jose, Santa Clara, and other parts of the South Bay. They're tagged > place=hamlet, and I'm wondering if there's a better way to identify > them? Beej71, if you're on this list I think a lot of these came from > you. > > Examples here: > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.3995&lon=-122.01521&zoom=15&layers=B000FTFT > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.37096&lon=-121.89402&zoom=16&layers=B000FTF > > "Hamlet" is supposed to be "defined by national/state/provincial > government" yet these aren't really defined by anyone except their > owners. I personally view them as generally equivalent to named > apartment complexes, and therefore not a place. May I suggest that > they be redrawn as landuse=residential areas, with names defined? > > On a related topic, I'm also wondering how to handle parts of cities > that are "places" or neighborhoods yet not administratively distinct, > e.g. "West Oakland" (Oakland), "The Mission" (SF), etc. Would > place=neighborhood make sense here? > > This part of West Oakland with two named apartment complexes (all > place=hamlet) illustrates what I mean: > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.8096&lon=-122.29504&zoom=16&layers=B000FTF I think people (including me) have been using/misusing place=hamlet for places like neighborboods which have variable official status because there isn't really a good alternative. I think there is a need for place=neighborhood, or something like it. Whatever we come up with ought to be a solution that handles both the traditional, informal notion of a neighborhood, which tends to be relatively small and often has nebulous borders, as well as more formal notions like the districts of Berlin, or the arrondissements of Paris with official status and well defined borders. -Scott -- Scott Atwood Cycle tracks will abound in Utopia. ~H.G. Wells ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Just a reminder - Toronto, ON, Open Street Map party
Toronto, ON's next mapping event: Nov 29 Sat 10:00 AM Aroma Espresso Bar 500 Bloor St W Toronto, ON M5S 1Y3 416-303-454 RSVPs can be done via: http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Toronto/ Getting a basic account on meetup.com is free and will make sure you get a reminder e-mail before the event. Colin McGregor ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Specifications (was: Bay Area trailer parks: "hamlet" ? Also neighborhoods & cities)
In commercial data, a category called hamlet is use dfor either neighborhoods, or small unincorporated settlements. I've used them for neighborhoods in OSM mostly because I want to see them rendered - while it would be better to model them with descriptive names. (Formal point-of-interest - "city centers" - all fall into the same category, but have different "population classes". It's nearly identical to the module used for "place" point features, although population ranges are formally set for each place type. There's also ways to flag is something is a national capitol, state capitol, or county seat.) A lot of the discussion held here came up years ago when they designed the GDF specification - (Geographic Data Files). This is an exchange format. A lot of that specification has to with the format of the ascii file - which is irrelevant to our discussion - but it also deals with features types and categories. This is the format that various navigation systems and online map companies receive before converting it into their own proprietary access format. Here's a short wikipedia summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographic_Data_Files Here's a link to an old version of the specification: http://www.ertico.com/en/links/links/gdf_-_geographic_data_files.htm This version (3.0) came out 13 years ago. It's since been significantly enhanced - both by ISO, and by Tele Atlas and NAVTEQ. The enhancements add a lot of subtlety, particularly to POI categories. The unfortunate thing is that Tele Atlas and NAVTEQ versions are not 100% compatible with each other, and no one fully complies with the ISO standard. The attributes of the 3.0 spec are largely followed. The Annexes are probably the best place to start, and it contains an appendix of feature categories - while chapters 5, 6, and 7 describe features in detail. While this spec doesn't resolve the "hamlet vs. neighborhood" issue - and it doesn't flesh out details for bicycle routes and paths - it has a lot of sophistication for things like different types of highway ramps, turn restrictions, dealing with road connectivity, etc., etc. I know they want to give people the ability to tag things in new ways, but if OSM has aspirations of becoming a routable database, things have to fall into predictable categories for software to interpret them. -Alan From: Scott Atwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Michal Migurski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: talk-us@openstreetmap.org Sent: Friday, November 28, 2008 12:25:38 PM Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Bay Area trailer parks: "hamlet" ? Also neighborhoods & cities On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Michal Migurski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, There are a large number of mobile home / trailer parks mapped in San Jose, Santa Clara, and other parts of the South Bay. They're tagged place=hamlet, and I'm wondering if there's a better way to identify them? Beej71, if you're on this list I think a lot of these came from you. Examples here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.3995&lon=-122.01521&zoom=15&layers=B000FTFT http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.37096&lon=-121.89402&zoom=16&layers=B000FTF "Hamlet" is supposed to be "defined by national/state/provincial government" yet these aren't really defined by anyone except their owners. I personally view them as generally equivalent to named apartment complexes, and therefore not a place. May I suggest that they be redrawn as landuse=residential areas, with names defined? On a related topic, I'm also wondering how to handle parts of cities that are "places" or neighborhoods yet not administratively distinct, e.g. "West Oakland" (Oakland), "The Mission" (SF), etc. Would place=neighborhood make sense here? This part of West Oakland with two named apartment complexes (all place=hamlet) illustrates what I mean: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.8096&lon=-122.29504&zoom=16&layers=B000FTF I think people (including me) have been using/misusing place=hamlet for places like neighborboods which have variable official status because there isn't really a good alternative. I think there is a need for place=neighborhood, or something like it. Whatever we come up with ought to be a solution that handles both the traditional, informal notion of a neighborhood, which tends to be relatively small and often has nebulous borders, as well as more formal notions like the districts of Berlin, or the arrondissements of Paris with official status and well defined borders. -Scott -- Scott Atwood Cycle tracks will abound in Utopia. ~H.G. Wells___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] tiger:review=yes
> On a related topic... We are asuming that some portion of tiger data > may never be edited as it is correct.., any feelings on how much this > is, or how to detect it? One approach we sre consisering is to see it > a road has pois along it... If so it is probably ok, I'd love other > ideas. I've noticed that almost all roads need to be repositioned in this area (San Jose), to properly line up ... when I was looking in the midwest (Indiana), however, it seems like most roads were lined up properly, but there was little other editting done. Do you know if TIGER data varies in its precision? Or if someone has just been very meticulous about repositioning roads in the mid-west? Some people stuck in their home might be very motivated to do that sort of work. In any case, I bet there's very few roads in my area that have not been repositioned, at minimum - or still need to be. -Alan ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] tiger:review=yes
Alan Brown wrote: > > On a related topic... We are asuming that some portion of tiger data > > may never be edited as it is correct.., any feelings on how much this > > is, or how to detect it? One approach we sre consisering is to see it > > a road has pois along it... If so it is probably ok, I'd love other > > ideas. > I've noticed that almost all roads need to be repositioned in this > area (San Jose), to properly line up ... when I was looking in the > midwest (Indiana), however, it seems like most roads were lined up > properly, but there was little other editting done. Do you know if > TIGER data varies in its precision? Or if someone has just been very > meticulous about repositioning roads in the mid-west? > > Some people stuck in their home might be very motivated to do that > sort of work. > > In any case, I bet there's very few roads in my area that have not > been repositioned, at minimum - or still need to be. > > -Alan I think it varies by state, maybe by the original method of surveying, which can determine how the streets are eventually laid out. Some states are probably better than others, especially if the roadways are already straighter and more like a grid. In southwest and southern Ohio, a variety of surveying methods were used [1], including metes and bounds. I've had to redraw entire townships (like tenths of counties) because every single node was off: some by about 600 yards, others by more, making streets go in weird directions. I've redrawn some areas in the South Bay, and it's nothing compared to what I've seen in Ohio. I suspect some other states are like this too. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Meridians-baselines.png (areas on the map shown without a baseline were surveyed in metes and bounds) [2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=39.36163&lon=-84.37657&zoom=15 (see the Wetherington golf course for a small example; jspeckman and I have redone most of the surrounding area) -- Minh Nguyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> AIM: trycom2000; Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Blog: http://notes.1ec5.org/ ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] tiger:review=yes
Alan Brown writes: > I've noticed that almost all roads need to be repositioned in this > area (San Jose), to properly line up ... when I was looking in the > midwest (Indiana), however, it seems like most roads were lined up > properly, but there was little other editting done. Do you know if > TIGER data varies in its precision? Or if someone has just been > very meticulous about repositioning roads in the mid-west? A picture is worth a thousand words: http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=44.93680,-74.1&z=17&t=T (I'm just speculating that that's the cause. There are many other reasons for coordinates to be systematically incorrect, e.g. misprojection. The TIGER data to the west of the cited region is correct.) -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com | Delegislation is a slippery Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | slope to prosperity. 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 | Fewer laws, more freedom. Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog | (Not a GOP supporter). ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Tagging and Rendering Cycle Ways
On a semi-related note, once again today I found myself down a trail which was open and unsigned at one end, but a dead-end at the other, requiring me to scale a fence to get back onto the street. I'm not sure how to tag these, as they may have some value for an out-and-back spur ride, but the access permissions are unclear to me. In California, if there isn't a gate or a sign leading from public property, is the default to assume that access is permitted until the owner asks you to leave? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Tagging and Rendering Cycle Ways
David Carmean writes: > On a semi-related note, once again today I found myself down a > trail which was open and unsigned at one end, but a dead-end at the > other, requiring me to scale a fence to get back onto the street. > I'm not sure how to tag these, as they may have some value for an > out-and-back spur ride, but the access permissions are unclear to > me. We've got a similar situation in New York. There's a towpath bike trail (not on the map below ... must fix) which goes out to Dunham Basin and dead-ends because there's no bridge. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=43.2908&lon=-73.5568&zoom=14&layers=B000FTF I'll just tag it as a way that follows the path and then stops. Maybe that's right for you, too? > In California, if there isn't a gate or a sign leading from public > property, is the default to assume that access is permitted until > the owner asks you to leave? Oy vey! You're asking a question about the law, of people who may or may not be lawyers, but probably aren't lawyers. Even if you got an answer from a lawyer, it wouldn't constitute legal advice and would be useless in court. On the other hand, if you did go to a lawyer and got a legal opinion about the exact situation, maybe specifying details like "A way or path or road or track or other route which the general public expects to be able to use", THEN if you got sued, you could whip out the legal opinion and present it to the judge. The judge would then have a hard time charging you with any penalty because you were obviously trying to do the right thing. On the other hand (can you tell that I'm an economist?) it may simply be cheaper to pay the fine for trespassing, if that's what it turns out to be. Legal opinions aren't cheap. My secret plan for avoiding a trespassing charge is to offer to the landowner to pick up any trash along his property line. Never had to use it yes (crosses fingers). -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com | Delegislation is a slippery Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | slope to prosperity. 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 | Fewer laws, more freedom. Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog | (Not a GOP supporter). ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Specifications (was: Bay Area trailer parks: "hamlet" ? Also neighborhoods & cities)
Thanks Alan, There's a bunch to chew on there, it's going to take me a few days to move through the docs. It sounds like what you're suggesting, though, is that the place=hamlet tag really is appropriate for neighborhoods, which is fine. Are you commenting at all on its appropriateness for trailer parks and apartment developments? I may convert some of the Oakland hamlets to named landuse=residential to see what happens. I don't actually know what the main OSM tile rendering will do with these. =) -mike. On Nov 28, 2008, at 1:10 PM, Alan Brown wrote: In commercial data, a category called hamlet is use dfor either neighborhoods, or small unincorporated settlements. I've used them for neighborhoods in OSM mostly because I want to see them rendered - while it would be better to model them with descriptive names. (Formal point-of-interest - "city centers" - all fall into the same category, but have different "population classes". It's nearly identical to the module used for "place" point features, although population ranges are formally set for each place type. There's also ways to flag is something is a national capitol, state capitol, or county seat.) A lot of the discussion held here came up years ago when they designed the GDF specification - (Geographic Data Files). This is an exchange format. A lot of that specification has to with the format of the ascii file - which is irrelevant to our discussion - but it also deals with features types and categories. This is the format that various navigation systems and online map companies receive before converting it into their own proprietary access format. Here's a short wikipedia summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographic_Data_Files Here's a link to an old version of the specification: http://www.ertico.com/en/links/links/gdf_-_geographic_data_files.htm This version (3.0) came out 13 years ago. It's since been significantly enhanced - both by ISO, and by Tele Atlas and NAVTEQ. The enhancements add a lot of subtlety, particularly to POI categories. The unfortunate thing is that Tele Atlas and NAVTEQ versions are not 100% compatible with each other, and no one fully complies with the ISO standard. The attributes of the 3.0 spec are largely followed. The Annexes are probably the best place to start, and it contains an appendix of feature categories - while chapters 5, 6, and 7 describe features in detail. While this spec doesn't resolve the "hamlet vs. neighborhood" issue - and it doesn't flesh out details for bicycle routes and paths - it has a lot of sophistication for things like different types of highway ramps, turn restrictions, dealing with road connectivity, etc., etc. I know they want to give people the ability to tag things in new ways, but if OSM has aspirations of becoming a routable database, things have to fall into predictable categories for software to interpret them. -Alan From: Scott Atwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Michal Migurski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: talk-us@openstreetmap.org Sent: Friday, November 28, 2008 12:25:38 PM Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Bay Area trailer parks: "hamlet" ? Also neighborhoods & cities On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Michal Migurski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, There are a large number of mobile home / trailer parks mapped in San Jose, Santa Clara, and other parts of the South Bay. They're tagged place=hamlet, and I'm wondering if there's a better way to identify them? Beej71, if you're on this list I think a lot of these came from you. Examples here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.3995&lon=-122.01521&zoom=15&layers=B000FTFT http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.37096&lon=-121.89402&zoom=16&layers=B000FTF "Hamlet" is supposed to be "defined by national/state/provincial government" yet these aren't really defined by anyone except their owners. I personally view them as generally equivalent to named apartment complexes, and therefore not a place. May I suggest that they be redrawn as landuse=residential areas, with names defined? On a related topic, I'm also wondering how to handle parts of cities that are "places" or neighborhoods yet not administratively distinct, e.g. "West Oakland" (Oakland), "The Mission" (SF), etc. Would place=neighborhood make sense here? This part of West Oakland with two named apartment complexes (all place=hamlet) illustrates what I mean: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.8096&lon=-122.29504&zoom=16&layers=B000FTF I think people (including me) have been using/misusing place=hamlet for places like neighborboods which have variable official status because there isn't really a good alternative. I think there is a need for place=neighborhood, or something like it. Whatever we come up with ought to be a solution that handles both the traditional, informal notion of a neighborhood, which tends to be relatively small and often
Re: [Talk-us] Specifications (was: Bay Area trailer parks: "hamlet" ? Also neighborhoods & cities)
Using the hamlet value seems like a forced fit. Why not just use place=neighborhood then? So what if it's not "approved"? Use it widely, then request for it to be rendered. Problem solved. Karl On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 9:39 PM, Michal Migurski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks Alan, > > There's a bunch to chew on there, it's going to take me a few days to move > through the docs. It sounds like what you're suggesting, though, is that the > place=hamlet tag really is appropriate for neighborhoods, which is fine. Are > you commenting at all on its appropriateness for trailer parks and apartment > developments? I may convert some of the Oakland hamlets to named > landuse=residential to see what happens. > > I don't actually know what the main OSM tile rendering will do with these. > =) > > -mike. > > > On Nov 28, 2008, at 1:10 PM, Alan Brown wrote: > > In commercial data, a category called hamlet is use dfor either > neighborhoods, or small unincorporated settlements. I've used them for > neighborhoods in OSM mostly because I want to see them rendered - while it > would be better to model them with descriptive names. (Formal > point-of-interest - "city centers" - all fall into the same category, but > have different "population classes". It's nearly identical to the module > used for "place" point features, although population ranges are formally set > for each place type. There's also ways to flag is something is a national > capitol, state capitol, or county seat.) > > A lot of the discussion held here came up years ago when they designed the > GDF specification - (Geographic Data Files). This is an exchange format. A > lot of that specification has to with the format of the ascii file - which > is irrelevant to our discussion - but it also deals with features types and > categories. This is the format that various navigation systems and online > map companies receive before converting it into their own proprietary access > format. > > Here's a short wikipedia summary: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographic_Data_Files > > Here's a link to an old version of the specification: > > http://www.ertico.com/en/links/links/gdf_-_geographic_data_files.htm > > This version (3.0) came out 13 years ago. It's since been significantly > enhanced - both by ISO, and by Tele Atlas and NAVTEQ. The enhancements add > a lot of subtlety, particularly to POI categories. The unfortunate thing is > that Tele Atlas and NAVTEQ versions are not 100% compatible with each other, > and no one fully complies with the ISO standard. The attributes of the 3.0 > spec are largely followed. > > The Annexes are probably the best place to start, and it contains an > appendix of feature categories - while chapters 5, 6, and 7 describe > features in detail. > > While this spec doesn't resolve the "hamlet vs. neighborhood" issue - and > it doesn't flesh out details for bicycle routes and paths - it has a lot of > sophistication for things like different types of highway ramps, turn > restrictions, dealing with road connectivity, etc., etc. I know they want > to give people the ability to tag things in new ways, but if OSM has > aspirations of becoming a routable database, things have to fall into > predictable categories for software to interpret them. > > -Alan > > > > > > > -- > *From:* Scott Atwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > *To:* Michal Migurski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > *Cc:* talk-us@openstreetmap.org > *Sent:* Friday, November 28, 2008 12:25:38 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Talk-us] Bay Area trailer parks: "hamlet" ? Also > neighborhoods & cities > > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Michal Migurski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> There are a large number of mobile home / trailer parks mapped in San >> Jose, Santa Clara, and other parts of the South Bay. They're tagged >> place=hamlet, and I'm wondering if there's a better way to identify >> them? Beej71, if you're on this list I think a lot of these came from >> you. >> >> Examples here: >> >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.3995&lon=-122.01521&zoom=15&layers=B000FTFT >> >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.37096&lon=-121.89402&zoom=16&layers=B000FTF >> >> "Hamlet" is supposed to be "defined by national/state/provincial >> government" yet these aren't really defined by anyone except their >> owners. I personally view them as generally equivalent to named >> apartment complexes, and therefore not a place. May I suggest that >> they be redrawn as landuse=residential areas, with names defined? >> >> On a related topic, I'm also wondering how to handle parts of cities >> that are "places" or neighborhoods yet not administratively distinct, >> e.g. "West Oakland" (Oakland), "The Mission" (SF), etc. Would >> place=neighborhood make sense here? >> >> This part of West Oakland with two named apartment complexes (all >> place=hamlet) illustrates what I mean: >> >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.8096&lon=-122.29504&zoom=16&layers=B000FTF > > > I
Re: [Talk-us] Specifications
Michal Migurski wrote: > Thanks Alan, > > There's a bunch to chew on there, it's going to take me a few days to > move through the docs. It sounds like what you're suggesting, though, > is that the place=hamlet tag really is appropriate for neighborhoods, > which is fine. Are you commenting at all on its appropriateness for > trailer parks and apartment developments? I may convert some of the > Oakland hamlets to named landuse=residential to see what happens. > > I don't actually know what the main OSM tile rendering will do with > these. =) > > -mike. Mapnik displays names on landuse=industrial at zoom level 14 [1], but Osmarender doesn't display them until level 17 [2]. I'm guessing they handle landuse=residential the same way. [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=39.2806&lon=-84.3011&zoom=14&layers=B000FTF [2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=39.2806&lon=-84.3011&zoom=17&layers=0B00FTF -- Minh Nguyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> AIM: trycom2000; Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Blog: http://notes.1ec5.org/ ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Specifications (was: Bay Area trailer parks: "hamlet" ? Also neighborhoods & cities)
>Using the hamlet value seems like a forced fit. Why not just use >place=neighborhood then? So >what if it's not "approved"? Use it widely, then >request for it to be rendered. Problem solved. If I were to create a new model for something, I'd create a new category for "apartment complexes and trailer parks" sooner than a new category distinguishing neighborhoods from hamlets. (I would also tend to represent apartment complexes and trailer parks as polygons, rather than points -> landuse=residential + name="whatever"). What OSM is calling hamlets was probably something like "named place" in TIGER - very generic. If you increase the number of ways you categorize named places, you should expect the categories to be clear enough that people will apply them properly, and regularly. I think the biggest distinction between hamlet and neighborhoods is that a hamlet would be rural and unincorporated and often lacking strict boundaries, and a neighborhood would be a named section within a city - and unincorporated and often lacking strict boundaries. The consequences of lumping them together are not terrible, because you would tend to use the data similarly (use the same font, appear at the same zoom levels). I'm not against a neighborhood category, just saying hamlet could serve the purpose. The basic problem is making trailer park names less prominent. -Alan___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
