[Talk-us] New car dealer uses OSM in TV spot
I am watching a re-run tv show, and mere minutes ago saw an ad for a local new car dealership - they are touting their location in this one, and used imagery from OSM mapnik in their spot. They made a few minor graphical tweaks, but otherwise left the imagery exactly as rendered. They usually post their spots to youtube, but this one isn't up yet. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] PA State Parks
Hi all, I've been looking at state parks, state forests and state game lands in Pennsylvania. I think Adam Killian uploaded most of these a year or two ago—I don't know if he's on this mailing list. Most of these parks are tagged as physical areas. For example, state game lands are natural=wood and leisure=nature_reserve. Unfortunately, these tags don't always correspond to the actual land use. Moreover, they are really administrative entities, not physical ones. So I would like to change them to something similar to the scheme used for parks e.g. in the Bay Area: boundary=national_park admin_level=4 park:type=state_game_land The underlying physical land use can then be mapped orthogonally to this. Are there any objections to this? Am I forgetting anything? Please let me know! Thanks, —Sven ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] New car dealer uses OSM in TV spot
awesome let us know when it's up! On Mar 24, 2010, at 5:18 PM, Alex S. wrote: I am watching a re-run tv show, and mere minutes ago saw an ad for a local new car dealership - they are touting their location in this one, and used imagery from OSM mapnik in their spot. They made a few minor graphical tweaks, but otherwise left the imagery exactly as rendered. They usually post their spots to youtube, but this one isn't up yet. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us Yours c. Steve ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Bylaws for OpenStreetMap US Chapter
Hi All, We would like to incorporate the US Chapter soon and have bylaws up. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters/United_States/Draft_Rules Could everyone check them out and provide feedback to me or on the wiki in the next week (by midnight March 31st)? Thanks, Kate Chapman user: wonderchook ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Bylaws for OpenStreetMap US Chapter
On Mar 24, 2010, at 7:08 PM, Kate Chapman wrote: Hi All, We would like to incorporate the US Chapter soon and have bylaws up. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters/United_States/Draft_Rules Could everyone check them out and provide feedback to me or on the wiki in the next week (by midnight March 31st)? Looks good. Some questions: * Why incorporate in Washington rather than Delaware? Washington would seem to severely bias any conflict in favor of the people living there. * 4-9 board members seems loose. Why not define it? * The Board shall meet at least four (4) times per year, and attend special meetings called by the President. 4 a year seems very, very over the top *if* this means in-person meetings. Meetings should be roughly monthly with one in-person meeting if for no other reason than OSMF-US shouldn't just be paying for board members to fly around. It later says A Director may participate in a meeting of such board by means of a conference telephone or online, by means of which all persons participating in the meeting can communicate with each other at the same time. I suggest this is further defined as 1 meeting a month and 1 in-person a year (to coincide with a yearly report and election I suggest) * The term for each seat on the second Board (and each subsequent Board) shall be one (1) year. - it can be very useful to ensure overlap continuity by having some method to retain one or more board seats for more than a year. This helps if you get a totally new board and they have no idea what to do, and the old board aren't super communicative. There are different ways of doing it. Might be something to think about. * 1. The Board of Directors shall elect from among its members a President. The Board of Directors shall also elect a Secretary and Treasurer, who do not need to be Directors. The Board of Directors may also elect individuals to substitute in the absence of certain officers or to assist them (such as a Vice President position), or to create other officer positions with specific duties (such as a Press Officer position), subject to its discretion; these officers also do not need to be Directors. With the exception of the Secretary and the Treasurer, no one person can hold two officer positions listed here at the same time. The Board of Directors may also create officer positions to be directly elected by the Chapter membership or classes thereof, especially delegate-type officer positions for establishing representation of the Chapter in broader forums. - this feels super, super broad. You can basically do what you want. I'd far prefer if officers *were* board members. The above would seem to mean you can set up anyone you like to represent OSMF-US. * re-define President to Chairman would bring it in to line with the other foundations a-la OSMF itself * The Chapter shall hold meetings only in places that are open and accessible to members of the Chapter. Meetings shall be held as planned by the Board of Directors or any other committee duly designated or organized for such purpose. - would imply you need to publish the dial in details etc? make that explicit? eg the following clauses which say 4 a year etc... up that to 12. * In case of dissolution of the Chapter all assets will be transfered to the OpenStreetMap Foundation. - may as well define that properly, OSMF Ltd and the company number, registered in England and Wales etc. I can get you the text if needed, otherwise anyone could set one up and call it that. Thanks, Kate Chapman user: wonderchook ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us Yours c. Steve ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] PA State Parks
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Sven Lafebre s.lafe...@psu.edu wrote: Most of these parks are tagged as physical areas. For example, state game lands are natural=wood and leisure=nature_reserve. Unfortunately, these tags don't always correspond to the actual land use. Moreover, they are really administrative entities, not physical ones. So I would like to change them to something similar to the scheme used for parks e.g. in the Bay Area: boundary=national_park admin_level=4 park:type=state_game_land The underlying physical land use can then be mapped orthogonally to this. I'm not sure if the tagging is correct, but that's probably the right sort of approach moving forward as people might want to micro-map the land cover. Cheers, Adam ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] PA State Parks
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Sven Lafebre s.lafe...@psu.edu wrote: Hi all, I've been looking at state parks, state forests and state game lands in Pennsylvania. I think Adam Killian uploaded most of these a year or two ago—I don't know if he's on this mailing list. Most of these parks are tagged as physical areas. For example, state game lands are natural=wood and leisure=nature_reserve. Unfortunately, these tags don't always correspond to the actual land use. Moreover, they are really administrative entities, not physical ones. So I would like to change them to something similar to the scheme used for parks e.g. in the Bay Area: boundary=national_park admin_level=4 park:type=state_game_land The underlying physical land use can then be mapped orthogonally to this. Are there any objections to this? Am I forgetting anything? Please let me know! I'd probably toss in some ownership tag as well. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] PA State Parks
On Wed, 2010-03-24 at 20:46 -0400, Sven Lafebre wrote: Hi all, I've been looking at state parks, state forests and state game lands in Pennsylvania. I think Adam Killian uploaded most of these a year or two ago—I don't know if he's on this mailing list. Hello. I am still here. The tags I used were just my best guess at the time. It won't hurt my feelings if you think you have a better tagging scheme. Incidentally, I got most of the shapefiles from http://www.pasda.psu.edu/ I got unofficial confirmation from an employee at the Fish and Boat Commission that this data was public domain. I know some of the SGLs have fields in them which look like farms in the satellite images, but really aren't. They're just grown for the benefit of the deer from what I understand. I also read in the news recently that the Game Commission and DCNR swapped some lands, so some State Forest Lands became State Game Lands and vice-versa. I don't know if this change has been reflected in the state datasets yet. I don't really have the time at the moment keep up with these kinds of things. --Adam ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Going to Where 2.0 and Want to Work the Booth?
The thought was if we did have a mapping party it wouldn't be aimed at the WhereCamp/Where 2.0 attendees but rather at people in the area. This of course is if there is interest. -Kate On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 11:47 AM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: we've done it before at wherecamp over lunch, makes much more sense then than friday when everyone wants to just go home or drink beer On Mar 23, 2010, at 6:19 AM, Kate Chapman wrote: There has been some discussion about having a mapping party the Friday after Where 2.0. Also I'm not sure, but I think Steve might have proposed a BoF session. Steve? -Kate On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 1:51 AM, Apollinaris Schoell ascho...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Kate, Will be in the area but can't make time during the day. Any plans for evening events? Apollinaris On 19 Mar 2010, at 15:32 , Kate Chapman wrote: Hey All, Are you attending Where 2.0 and want to work the booth? I put up a wiki page for people to sign up for slots. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Where2.0/2010 Thanks, Kate ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us Yours c. Steve ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] PA State Parks
On 24 Mar 2010, at 18:47 , Tyler Ritchie wrote: On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Sven Lafebre s.lafe...@psu.edu wrote: Hi all, I've been looking at state parks, state forests and state game lands in Pennsylvania. I think Adam Killian uploaded most of these a year or two ago—I don't know if he's on this mailing list. Most of these parks are tagged as physical areas. For example, state game lands are natural=wood and leisure=nature_reserve. Unfortunately, these tags don't always correspond to the actual land use. Moreover, they are really administrative entities, not physical ones. So I would like to change them to something similar to the scheme used for parks e.g. in the Bay Area: boundary=national_park admin_level=4 park:type=state_game_land The underlying physical land use can then be mapped orthogonally to this. Are there any objections to this? Am I forgetting anything? Please let me know! I'd probably toss in some ownership tag as well. definitely if it makes sense, in this case state_game_land is a clear sign for the ownership in some areas parks or openspace is privately owned and such info is valuable ___ 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
