Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] MA towns

[Peter Dobratz]

Thanks for uploading these borders.

Building on my recently added relations for Tyngsborough and
Dunstable, I decided to create a relation for Chelmsford.  On the
Chelmsford/Westford border you created 7 overlapping Ways, so I
deleted 6 of them and then added the remaining one to the relation.
Also the Chelmsford/Billerica border there are 9 overlapping ways, so
I deleted 8 of them.

Browsing through the state, it appears that this problem is fairly
widespread.  These can be easily seen on the Mapnik rendering since
they are shown as thicker lines.  Once you realize what is going on,
it's not too hard to just delete all but one of the duplicate Ways in
JOSM as you are creating the relation.

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Metcalf, Calvin (DOT)
 wrote:
> Ok uploading.
>
> The linework that didn't make it in (i.e. border's contagious with counties 
> or towns that were already done) can be found at the link bellow for those 
> who would like to help clean this up.
>  http://dl.dropbox.com/u/37626989/other.xml
>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: Greg Troxel [mailto:g...@ir.bbn.com]
>>Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 3:03 PM
>>To: Richard Weait
>>Cc: Metcalf, Calvin; impo...@openstreetmap.org;
>>talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>>Subject: Re: [Imports] [Talk-us] MA towns
>>
>>
>>Richard Weait  writes:
>>
>>> Starting with Stow, (is this the right Stow?)
>>>
>>http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.4237&lon=-71.5119&zoom=13&layers=M
>>> you might decide that the existing town border is
>>correct-enough, then
>>> merge the Worcester / Middlesex border to the town line
>>where they are
>>> expected to overlap.  Refer to other sources, perhaps aerial imagery,
>>> at the same time and you'll have the opportunity to fix
>>other problems
>>> in / around Stow as well.  Then do a couple of the adjacent towns as
>>> well.  Adjacent towns should be easier because you'll have already
>>> sorted out one of the shared borders.
>>
>>For the record, the Stow data was hand-imported by me from the
>>very same
>>database Calvin is using, and it's 100% ok with me to nuke what I did
>>and replace it with a new load of the same data.
>>
>>(I intentionally did only my town because I knew we'd be
>>getting to this
>>later stage at some point, and wanted to create minimal additional work
>>for the later people.)
>>
> ___
> 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] NE2 doing mass retaggings

[Paul Norman]

> From: Nathan Edgars II [mailto:nerou...@gmail.com]
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] NE2 doing mass retaggings
> 
> On 10/20/2011 10:56 AM, Paul Norman wrote:
> >> From: Nathan Edgars II [mailto:nerou...@gmail.com]
> >> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] NE2 doing mass retaggings
> >>
> >> On 10/19/2011 9:31 PM, Paul Norman wrote:
> >>> He has a history in Canada of deleting data in the same manner
> >>
> >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/50623496/history
> >> Are you sure you're not talking about yourself?
> >
> > The consensus on talk-ca@ was that NHS=* did not belong in OSM for a
> > variety of reasons.
> > Basically, it doesn't even correspond to a funding category.
> 
> So are you saying that a few mappers can decide that a valid tag cannot
> be used in their area? What if I decided to remove all local maxspeeds
> because nobody follows them?

No one outside of Canada would tag a road as belonging to the Canadian
National Highway System. You are raising a strawman argument by comparing it
to maxspeed, which is used in more than one country. In any case, this is
not the appropriate list to engage in an extended discussion as to if a
Canadian government classification has any value for OSM and should not
distract from the other points raised in this thread.


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

Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] MA towns

[Metcalf, Calvin (DOT)]

Ok uploading.

The linework that didn't make it in (i.e. border's contagious with counties or 
towns that were already done) can be found at the link bellow for those who 
would like to help clean this up. 
 http://dl.dropbox.com/u/37626989/other.xml

>-Original Message-
>From: Greg Troxel [mailto:g...@ir.bbn.com] 
>Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 3:03 PM
>To: Richard Weait
>Cc: Metcalf, Calvin; impo...@openstreetmap.org; 
>talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [Imports] [Talk-us] MA towns
>
>
>Richard Weait  writes:
>
>> Starting with Stow, (is this the right Stow?)
>> 
>http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.4237&lon=-71.5119&zoom=13&layers=M
>> you might decide that the existing town border is 
>correct-enough, then
>> merge the Worcester / Middlesex border to the town line 
>where they are
>> expected to overlap.  Refer to other sources, perhaps aerial imagery,
>> at the same time and you'll have the opportunity to fix 
>other problems
>> in / around Stow as well.  Then do a couple of the adjacent towns as
>> well.  Adjacent towns should be easier because you'll have already
>> sorted out one of the shared borders.
>
>For the record, the Stow data was hand-imported by me from the 
>very same
>database Calvin is using, and it's 100% ok with me to nuke what I did
>and replace it with a new load of the same data.
>
>(I intentionally did only my town because I knew we'd be 
>getting to this
>later stage at some point, and wanted to create minimal additional work
>for the later people.)
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] MA towns

[Greg Troxel]

Richard Weait  writes:

> Starting with Stow, (is this the right Stow?)
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.4237&lon=-71.5119&zoom=13&layers=M
> you might decide that the existing town border is correct-enough, then
> merge the Worcester / Middlesex border to the town line where they are
> expected to overlap.  Refer to other sources, perhaps aerial imagery,
> at the same time and you'll have the opportunity to fix other problems
> in / around Stow as well.  Then do a couple of the adjacent towns as
> well.  Adjacent towns should be easier because you'll have already
> sorted out one of the shared borders.

For the record, the Stow data was hand-imported by me from the very same
database Calvin is using, and it's 100% ok with me to nuke what I did
and replace it with a new load of the same data.

(I intentionally did only my town because I knew we'd be getting to this
later stage at some point, and wanted to create minimal additional work
for the later people.)


pgpHf8KqJq7OZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Slippymap for USGS topos?

[Bryce Nesbitt]

I've been using

http://mapper.acme.com/
which seems to source from:
http://mytopo.com/

This least lets me flip between mapnik and usgs.  It is not as good as 
having a true background layer during JOSM or Potlatch editing.


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

Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] MA towns

[Metcalf, Calvin (DOT)]

Upon doing some research this makes sense, going to wipe the lower values 

>-Original Message-
>From: Phil! Gold [mailto:phi...@pobox.com] 
>Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 1:32 PM
>To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] MA towns
>
>* Metcalf, Calvin (DOT)  
>[2011-10-20 12:26 -0400]:
>> It retags all ways that make up counties to be admin_level=6;8
>
>As I understand the conventions, a way should be tagged with the lowest
>admin_level applicable, so if it's a member of an 
>admin_level=8 relation and
>an admin_level=6 relation, the way should be tagged 
>admin_level=6.  I don't
>think you should ever need a semicolon in an admin_level tag on a way.
>
>Whether this is considered tagging for the renderer has bee 
>the subject of
>some debate in the past, but that's a separate issue.
>
>___
>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] [Imports] MA towns

[Metcalf, Calvin (DOT)]

Ah I take it certain renderers can't parse semicolons? If so are there some 
details somewhere? Because I want to be consistent in MA and if I end up 
sorting through the disputes to be able to do villages as admin_level=10 (or 
something like that) we're going to want them tagged with semicolons as there 
is a village that is not contiguous with counties or municipalities (but is 
contiguous with a zip code). 

>-Original Message-
>From: Phil! Gold [mailto:phi...@pobox.com] 
>Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 1:32 PM
>To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] MA towns
>
>* Metcalf, Calvin (DOT)  
>[2011-10-20 12:26 -0400]:
>> It retags all ways that make up counties to be admin_level=6;8
>
>As I understand the conventions, a way should be tagged with the lowest
>admin_level applicable, so if it's a member of an 
>admin_level=8 relation and
>an admin_level=6 relation, the way should be tagged 
>admin_level=6.  I don't
>think you should ever need a semicolon in an admin_level tag on a way.
>
>Whether this is considered tagging for the renderer has bee 
>the subject of
>some debate in the past, but that's a separate issue.
>
>___
>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] [Imports] MA towns

[Phil! Gold]

* Metcalf, Calvin (DOT)  [2011-10-20 12:26 -0400]:
> It retags all ways that make up counties to be admin_level=6;8

As I understand the conventions, a way should be tagged with the lowest
admin_level applicable, so if it's a member of an admin_level=8 relation and
an admin_level=6 relation, the way should be tagged admin_level=6.  I don't
think you should ever need a semicolon in an admin_level tag on a way.

Whether this is considered tagging for the renderer has bee the subject of
some debate in the past, but that's a separate issue.

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

Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] MA towns

[Andrew S. J. Sawyer]

Great work Calvin, regarding the coastline you may want to check to see if
it is the average high water mark which is used for the
[natural=coastline],
just a heads up. When I can, I'll lend my help to the NH/Mass border, etc.

Andrew

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:26, Metcalf, Calvin (DOT) <
calvin.metc...@state.ma.us> wrote:

>
> All right so http://dl.dropbox.com/u/37626989/admin.zip
> It retags all ways that make up counties to be admin_level=6;8
> It adds a way with admin_level=8 and boundary=administrative to any town
> boarder that currently doesn't have one
> All ways are non overlapping and are split based on where they need to be
> so that the same way can be used for both towns on the boarder
>
> To do once this is done
> -Redo the ways that make up both the ma outside boarder and the ma counties
> boarders. So that they are they are shared and not overlapping.
> -check out the coastline and see if it makes sense to replace it with the
> massgis one (it is probably going to be more accurate, the new boarders are
> significantly better then the old ones)
> -Start create relations for all the towns.
> >-Original Message-
> >From: Metcalf, Calvin (DOT) [mailto:calvin.metc...@state.ma.us]
> >Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 10:09 AM
> >To: 'Richard Weait'
> >Cc: impo...@openstreetmap.org; talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> >Subject: Re: [Imports] [Talk-us] MA towns
> >
> >So I did do that with stow as a test, I deleted the current
> >boarder added the new one, turned it into a relation, and
> >merged each of the overlapping county boarders into it.
> >What I intended to do was to import admin data only where
> >there was not already existing data, but didn't notice that a
> >few of the counties were only tagged as admin=6 in the
> >relation but not in the underlying ways.
> >
> >So what I can do is go through and take those out and then
> >edit the ways that make up those relations to add the correct
> >tags to the way.
> >
> >A thing to point out is that with the exception of the
> >counties (which are a bit of a mess as it looks like whoever
> >uploaded them used polygons, so there are double ways at each
> >border.) There is not much of the internal boundaries in ma
> >already, and I'm hoping these new one will make it
> >significantly easier for people to edit and add boundary
> >relations for their own towns.
> >
> >Does that make sense ?
> >
> >>-Original Message-
> >>From: Richard Weait [mailto:rich...@weait.com]
> >>Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 9:50 AM
> >>To: Metcalf, Calvin
> >>Cc: talk-us@openstreetmap.org; impo...@openstreetmap.org
> >>Subject: Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] MA towns
> >>
> >>On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Metcalf, Calvin (DOT)
> >> wrote:
> >>>  If nobody objects I'll start uploading the towns from the
> >>admin8 file and stow file
> >>
> >>Dear Calvin,
> >>
> >>I have an objection and a suggestion.  See below.
> >>
> >>> I noticed that a couple of the counties are only relations
> >>(i.e. the ways aren't tagged admin_level=6) so no lines are
> >>going to go in there.
> >>
> >>I'm not sure I understand what you say here.  Are you saying that some
> >>admin areas are only tagged on the relations?  Are you also saying you
> >>object to such tagging only on the relations?  Or are you saying that
> >>you won't upload into areas that are tagged only on the relations?
> >>
> >>> With this done all borders in Mass will be represented by a
> >>tagged way, if that looks good I can put in the new counties
> >>and state boarder files that don't include any overlaps.
> >>
> >>I believe that this thread (perhaps the other threads on the same
> >>topic) has established that MA borders are sub-optimal.  Those borders
> >>are from various imported sources.  Those imported sources disagree
> >>with each other as shown by crossings and parallel borders where they
> >>should be a shared line.
> >>
> >>My objection is this.  Importing state wide data from yet another
> >>source without addressing the existing border weaknesses will make the
> >>MA border condition worse, not better.
> >>
> >>My suggestion is this.  Please consider _editing_, not _importing_,
> >>these town boundaries in a way that greatly improves MA borders.  Work
> >>in very small areas at one time and touch each way individually, by
> >>hand.  Reconcile the new town borders with the existing county / state
> >>borders and improve those as you go.  Use a single way where
> >>inappropriate duplicates now exist, and add the way to each of the
> >>appropriate border relations.
> >>
> >>Starting with Stow, (is this the right Stow?)
> >>http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.4237&lon=-71.5119&zoom=13
> >&layers=M
> >>you might decide that the existing town border is correct-enough, then
> >>merge the Worcester / Middlesex border to the town line where they are
> >>expected to overlap.  Refer to other sources, perhaps aerial imagery,
> >>at the same time and you'll

Re: [Talk-us] NE2 doing mass retaggings

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 10/20/2011 12:25 PM, Toby Murray wrote:

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:

On 10/20/2011 10:40 AM, Toby Murray wrote:


On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 2:07 AM, Nathan Edgars II
  wrote:


http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2011-March/005466.html
"I
might add that trying to revert such a large changeset without even
waiting
for a reply is also somewhat rude."


That's kind of fair. Although in my defense I did wait about a hundred
times longer than you did in that case.


Uh no. I never reverted the Four Corners stuff, even after determining all
the details. You, on the other hand, decided that redundant name=* tags were
more important than the improvements that I made, and reverted wholesale.


Well you TRIED to revert immediately, before even fully investigating
the problem and realizing that I wasn't the one that caused the error
and that reverting my changes would actually make it worse. Luckily it
failed because of conflicts.


I would have noticed very quickly. Give me a bit more credit than that.

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

Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] MA towns

[Metcalf, Calvin (DOT)]

 
All right so http://dl.dropbox.com/u/37626989/admin.zip
It retags all ways that make up counties to be admin_level=6;8
It adds a way with admin_level=8 and boundary=administrative to any town 
boarder that currently doesn't have one
All ways are non overlapping and are split based on where they need to be so 
that the same way can be used for both towns on the boarder

To do once this is done
-Redo the ways that make up both the ma outside boarder and the ma counties 
boarders. So that they are they are shared and not overlapping. 
-check out the coastline and see if it makes sense to replace it with the 
massgis one (it is probably going to be more accurate, the new boarders are 
significantly better then the old ones)
-Start create relations for all the towns.
>-Original Message-
>From: Metcalf, Calvin (DOT) [mailto:calvin.metc...@state.ma.us] 
>Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 10:09 AM
>To: 'Richard Weait'
>Cc: impo...@openstreetmap.org; talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [Imports] [Talk-us] MA towns
>
>So I did do that with stow as a test, I deleted the current 
>boarder added the new one, turned it into a relation, and 
>merged each of the overlapping county boarders into it. 
>What I intended to do was to import admin data only where 
>there was not already existing data, but didn't notice that a 
>few of the counties were only tagged as admin=6 in the 
>relation but not in the underlying ways.  
>
>So what I can do is go through and take those out and then 
>edit the ways that make up those relations to add the correct 
>tags to the way. 
>
>A thing to point out is that with the exception of the 
>counties (which are a bit of a mess as it looks like whoever 
>uploaded them used polygons, so there are double ways at each 
>border.) There is not much of the internal boundaries in ma 
>already, and I'm hoping these new one will make it 
>significantly easier for people to edit and add boundary 
>relations for their own towns. 
>
>Does that make sense ?
>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: Richard Weait [mailto:rich...@weait.com] 
>>Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 9:50 AM
>>To: Metcalf, Calvin
>>Cc: talk-us@openstreetmap.org; impo...@openstreetmap.org
>>Subject: Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] MA towns
>>
>>On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Metcalf, Calvin (DOT)
>> wrote:
>>>  If nobody objects I'll start uploading the towns from the 
>>admin8 file and stow file
>>
>>Dear Calvin,
>>
>>I have an objection and a suggestion.  See below.
>>
>>> I noticed that a couple of the counties are only relations 
>>(i.e. the ways aren't tagged admin_level=6) so no lines are 
>>going to go in there.
>>
>>I'm not sure I understand what you say here.  Are you saying that some
>>admin areas are only tagged on the relations?  Are you also saying you
>>object to such tagging only on the relations?  Or are you saying that
>>you won't upload into areas that are tagged only on the relations?
>>
>>> With this done all borders in Mass will be represented by a 
>>tagged way, if that looks good I can put in the new counties 
>>and state boarder files that don't include any overlaps.
>>
>>I believe that this thread (perhaps the other threads on the same
>>topic) has established that MA borders are sub-optimal.  Those borders
>>are from various imported sources.  Those imported sources disagree
>>with each other as shown by crossings and parallel borders where they
>>should be a shared line.
>>
>>My objection is this.  Importing state wide data from yet another
>>source without addressing the existing border weaknesses will make the
>>MA border condition worse, not better.
>>
>>My suggestion is this.  Please consider _editing_, not _importing_,
>>these town boundaries in a way that greatly improves MA borders.  Work
>>in very small areas at one time and touch each way individually, by
>>hand.  Reconcile the new town borders with the existing county / state
>>borders and improve those as you go.  Use a single way where
>>inappropriate duplicates now exist, and add the way to each of the
>>appropriate border relations.
>>
>>Starting with Stow, (is this the right Stow?)
>>http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.4237&lon=-71.5119&zoom=13
>&layers=M
>>you might decide that the existing town border is correct-enough, then
>>merge the Worcester / Middlesex border to the town line where they are
>>expected to overlap.  Refer to other sources, perhaps aerial imagery,
>>at the same time and you'll have the opportunity to fix other problems
>>in / around Stow as well.  Then do a couple of the adjacent towns as
>>well.  Adjacent towns should be easier because you'll have already
>>sorted out one of the shared borders.
>>
>>Yes, this sounds like a lot of work.  Yes, this is slower than just
>>throwing the import data over the garden wall.  But.  Do this and show
>>us a before and after screenshot with the beautiful, improved MA
>>borders.  Do this and provide these lists with the details of your
>>workflow and any helpful tricks and troub

Re: [Talk-us] NE2 doing mass retaggings

[Toby Murray]

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
> On 10/20/2011 10:40 AM, Toby Murray wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 2:07 AM, Nathan Edgars II
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2011-March/005466.html
>>> "I
>>> might add that trying to revert such a large changeset without even
>>> waiting
>>> for a reply is also somewhat rude."
>>
>> That's kind of fair. Although in my defense I did wait about a hundred
>> times longer than you did in that case.
>
> Uh no. I never reverted the Four Corners stuff, even after determining all
> the details. You, on the other hand, decided that redundant name=* tags were
> more important than the improvements that I made, and reverted wholesale.

Well you TRIED to revert immediately, before even fully investigating
the problem and realizing that I wasn't the one that caused the error
and that reverting my changes would actually make it worse. Luckily it
failed because of conflicts.

Toby

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

Re: [Talk-us] NE2 doing mass retaggings

[Paul Johnson]

+1. There's also temper and civility issues that make it difficult to amicably 
resolve issues that have been persistant for a very long time now. His 
contributions about geography on Wikipedia are a bit stronger and less 
controversial, perhaps "going with what you're good at" is apropos in the long 
term.
-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Serge Wroclawski  wrote:

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 3:07 AM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
> I see I have some new enemies, and the old ones are coming back to slander
> me.
> "threatened to remove whole cities from the map", "stomping local knowledge
> in Oklahoma", reverting a bunch of relation fixup because you don't like one
> particular element - what a crock of shit.

This response belies what many of us are feeling, which is a great
deal of frustration. And the idea that you call people who disagree
with you "enemies" shows that you aren't listening to our feedback.

Here's an archive of your threat to remove cities from the map:

http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2010-November/004777.html

You talked about a proposal that you would execute to remove any
Census designated places in the US (starting with Florida), and
defended this position even after several of us showed you how this
designation was useful in other places, such as Silver Spring,
Maryland (where I live), Bethesda, Maryland, etc.

The theme running through all of our frustration is that you override
local knowledge with your assumptions of how things should be.

If you want to edit your area, using local knowledge, go ahead, but
make up a lot of mapping rules that simply don't apply to other
places, and harm the work of other mappers.

- Serge

_

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] NE2 doing mass retaggings

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 10/20/2011 10:40 AM, Toby Murray wrote:

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 2:07 AM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:

http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2011-March/005466.html "I
might add that trying to revert such a large changeset without even waiting
for a reply is also somewhat rude."


That's kind of fair. Although in my defense I did wait about a hundred
times longer than you did in that case.


Uh no. I never reverted the Four Corners stuff, even after determining 
all the details. You, on the other hand, decided that redundant name=* 
tags were more important than the improvements that I made, and reverted 
wholesale.


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

Re: [Talk-us] NE2 doing mass retaggings

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 10/20/2011 10:57 AM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 3:07 AM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:

I see I have some new enemies, and the old ones are coming back to slander
me.
"threatened to remove whole cities from the map", "stomping local knowledge
in Oklahoma", reverting a bunch of relation fixup because you don't like one
particular element - what a crock of shit.


This response belies what many of us are feeling, which is a great
deal of frustration. And the idea that you call people who disagree
with you "enemies" shows that you aren't listening to our feedback.

Here's an archive of your threat to remove cities from the map:

http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2010-November/004777.html


Those are CDPs, not cities. And I was proposing to remove only the 
arbitrary boundary polygons, not the nodes.


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

Re: [Talk-us] NE2 doing mass retaggings

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 10/20/2011 10:56 AM, Paul Norman wrote:

From: Nathan Edgars II [mailto:nerou...@gmail.com]
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] NE2 doing mass retaggings

On 10/19/2011 9:31 PM, Paul Norman wrote:

He has a history in Canada of deleting data in the same manner


http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/50623496/history
Are you sure you're not talking about yourself?


The consensus on talk-ca@ was that NHS=* did not belong in OSM for a variety
of reasons.
Basically, it doesn't even correspond to a funding category.


So are you saying that a few mappers can decide that a valid tag cannot 
be used in their area? What if I decided to remove all local maxspeeds 
because nobody follows them?


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

Re: [Talk-us] NE2 doing mass retaggings

[Serge Wroclawski]

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 3:07 AM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
> I see I have some new enemies, and the old ones are coming back to slander
> me.
> "threatened to remove whole cities from the map", "stomping local knowledge
> in Oklahoma", reverting a bunch of relation fixup because you don't like one
> particular element - what a crock of shit.

This response belies what many of us are feeling, which is a great
deal of frustration. And the idea that you call people who disagree
with you "enemies" shows that you aren't listening to our feedback.

Here's an archive of your threat to remove cities from the map:

http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2010-November/004777.html

You talked about a proposal that you would execute to remove any
Census designated places in the US (starting with Florida), and
defended this position even after several of us showed you how this
designation was useful in other places, such as Silver Spring,
Maryland (where I live), Bethesda, Maryland, etc.

The theme running through all of our frustration is that you override
local knowledge with your assumptions of how things should be.

If you want to edit your area, using local knowledge, go ahead, but
make up a lot of mapping rules that simply don't apply to other
places, and harm the work of other mappers.

- Serge

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

Re: [Talk-us] NE2 doing mass retaggings

[Paul Norman]

> From: Nathan Edgars II [mailto:nerou...@gmail.com]
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] NE2 doing mass retaggings
> 
> On 10/19/2011 9:31 PM, Paul Norman wrote:
> > He has a history in Canada of deleting data in the same manner
> 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/50623496/history
> Are you sure you're not talking about yourself?
> 

The consensus on talk-ca@ was that NHS=* did not belong in OSM for a variety
of reasons.
Basically, it doesn't even correspond to a funding category.


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

Re: [Talk-us] NE2 doing mass retaggings

[Toby Murray]

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 2:07 AM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
> I see I have some new enemies, and the old ones are coming back to slander
> me.

The fact that you keep making new enemies might be something to stop
and think about. And for the record, I'm not really an enemy... I do
think you have done some good work. I initially wasn't sure about your
lane count edits but upon further review they seem to actually be
pretty good edits. And of coures all your work on US routes and
interstates have contributed greatly to the map.

But as an armchair mapper, there are limits to the kinds of things you
can do without ticking local mappers off. You overstep those limits
sometimes. I think I said this to you in a private message a little
while ago... I fully understand and even agree for the most part with
your desire to make some things more consistent across the nation. But
doing it without notice and discussion, as annoying as such
conversations can be, is not going to get you anywhere except
revertville.

> "threatened to remove whole cities from the map", "stomping local knowledge
> in Oklahoma", reverting a bunch of relation fixup because you don't like one
> particular element - what a crock of shit. And Toby, what the hell happened
> to this?
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2011-March/005466.html "I
> might add that trying to revert such a large changeset without even waiting
> for a reply is also somewhat rude."

That's kind of fair. Although in my defense I did wait about a hundred
times longer than you did in that case.

Toby

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

Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] MA towns

[Metcalf, Calvin (DOT)]

So I did do that with stow as a test, I deleted the current boarder added the 
new one, turned it into a relation, and merged each of the overlapping county 
boarders into it. 
What I intended to do was to import admin data only where there was not already 
existing data, but didn't notice that a few of the counties were only tagged as 
admin=6 in the relation but not in the underlying ways.  

So what I can do is go through and take those out and then edit the ways that 
make up those relations to add the correct tags to the way. 

A thing to point out is that with the exception of the counties (which are a 
bit of a mess as it looks like whoever uploaded them used polygons, so there 
are double ways at each border.) There is not much of the internal boundaries 
in ma already, and I'm hoping these new one will make it significantly easier 
for people to edit and add boundary relations for their own towns. 

Does that make sense ?

>-Original Message-
>From: Richard Weait [mailto:rich...@weait.com] 
>Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 9:50 AM
>To: Metcalf, Calvin
>Cc: talk-us@openstreetmap.org; impo...@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] MA towns
>
>On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Metcalf, Calvin (DOT)
> wrote:
>>  If nobody objects I'll start uploading the towns from the 
>admin8 file and stow file
>
>Dear Calvin,
>
>I have an objection and a suggestion.  See below.
>
>> I noticed that a couple of the counties are only relations 
>(i.e. the ways aren't tagged admin_level=6) so no lines are 
>going to go in there.
>
>I'm not sure I understand what you say here.  Are you saying that some
>admin areas are only tagged on the relations?  Are you also saying you
>object to such tagging only on the relations?  Or are you saying that
>you won't upload into areas that are tagged only on the relations?
>
>> With this done all borders in Mass will be represented by a 
>tagged way, if that looks good I can put in the new counties 
>and state boarder files that don't include any overlaps.
>
>I believe that this thread (perhaps the other threads on the same
>topic) has established that MA borders are sub-optimal.  Those borders
>are from various imported sources.  Those imported sources disagree
>with each other as shown by crossings and parallel borders where they
>should be a shared line.
>
>My objection is this.  Importing state wide data from yet another
>source without addressing the existing border weaknesses will make the
>MA border condition worse, not better.
>
>My suggestion is this.  Please consider _editing_, not _importing_,
>these town boundaries in a way that greatly improves MA borders.  Work
>in very small areas at one time and touch each way individually, by
>hand.  Reconcile the new town borders with the existing county / state
>borders and improve those as you go.  Use a single way where
>inappropriate duplicates now exist, and add the way to each of the
>appropriate border relations.
>
>Starting with Stow, (is this the right Stow?)
>http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.4237&lon=-71.5119&zoom=13&layers=M
>you might decide that the existing town border is correct-enough, then
>merge the Worcester / Middlesex border to the town line where they are
>expected to overlap.  Refer to other sources, perhaps aerial imagery,
>at the same time and you'll have the opportunity to fix other problems
>in / around Stow as well.  Then do a couple of the adjacent towns as
>well.  Adjacent towns should be easier because you'll have already
>sorted out one of the shared borders.
>
>Yes, this sounds like a lot of work.  Yes, this is slower than just
>throwing the import data over the garden wall.  But.  Do this and show
>us a before and after screenshot with the beautiful, improved MA
>borders.  Do this and provide these lists with the details of your
>workflow and any helpful tricks and troublesome traps.  Do this and
>perhaps you'll have other MA mappers flocking to assist in the great
>MA border cleanup.  You can make the MA borders and the cleanup
>process an example for other areas sharing the same border
>shortcomings.
>
>Best regards,
>Richard
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] MA towns

[Richard Weait]

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Metcalf, Calvin (DOT)
 wrote:
>  If nobody objects I'll start uploading the towns from the admin8 file and 
> stow file

Dear Calvin,

I have an objection and a suggestion.  See below.

> I noticed that a couple of the counties are only relations (i.e. the ways 
> aren't tagged admin_level=6) so no lines are going to go in there.

I'm not sure I understand what you say here.  Are you saying that some
admin areas are only tagged on the relations?  Are you also saying you
object to such tagging only on the relations?  Or are you saying that
you won't upload into areas that are tagged only on the relations?

> With this done all borders in Mass will be represented by a tagged way, if 
> that looks good I can put in the new counties and state boarder files that 
> don't include any overlaps.

I believe that this thread (perhaps the other threads on the same
topic) has established that MA borders are sub-optimal.  Those borders
are from various imported sources.  Those imported sources disagree
with each other as shown by crossings and parallel borders where they
should be a shared line.

My objection is this.  Importing state wide data from yet another
source without addressing the existing border weaknesses will make the
MA border condition worse, not better.

My suggestion is this.  Please consider _editing_, not _importing_,
these town boundaries in a way that greatly improves MA borders.  Work
in very small areas at one time and touch each way individually, by
hand.  Reconcile the new town borders with the existing county / state
borders and improve those as you go.  Use a single way where
inappropriate duplicates now exist, and add the way to each of the
appropriate border relations.

Starting with Stow, (is this the right Stow?)
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.4237&lon=-71.5119&zoom=13&layers=M
you might decide that the existing town border is correct-enough, then
merge the Worcester / Middlesex border to the town line where they are
expected to overlap.  Refer to other sources, perhaps aerial imagery,
at the same time and you'll have the opportunity to fix other problems
in / around Stow as well.  Then do a couple of the adjacent towns as
well.  Adjacent towns should be easier because you'll have already
sorted out one of the shared borders.

Yes, this sounds like a lot of work.  Yes, this is slower than just
throwing the import data over the garden wall.  But.  Do this and show
us a before and after screenshot with the beautiful, improved MA
borders.  Do this and provide these lists with the details of your
workflow and any helpful tricks and troublesome traps.  Do this and
perhaps you'll have other MA mappers flocking to assist in the great
MA border cleanup.  You can make the MA borders and the cleanup
process an example for other areas sharing the same border
shortcomings.

Best regards,
Richard

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

Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] MA towns

[Metcalf, Calvin (DOT)]

 If nobody objects I'll start uploading the towns from the admin8 file and stow 
file
I noticed that a couple of the counties are only relations (i.e. the ways 
aren't tagged admin_level=6) so no lines are going to go in there.

With this done all borders in Mass will be represented by a tagged way, if that 
looks good I can put in the new counties and state boarder files that don't 
include any overlaps.  

>-Original Message-
>From: Metcalf, Calvin (DOT) [mailto:calvin.metc...@dot.state.ma.us] 
>Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 4:03 PM
>To: Metcalf, Calvin; talk-us@openstreetmap.org; 
>impo...@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: RE: [Imports] MA towns
>
>Also havn't tagged the coastline or set the direction of the ways yet
>Sent with Verizon Mobile Email
>
>
>---Original Message---
>From: "Metcalf, Calvin (DOT)" 
>Sent: 10/19/2011 3:40 pm
>To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org, impo...@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: [Imports] MA towns
>
>
>ok so we have 
>http://dl.dropbox.com/u/37626989/admin8.osm
>town boarders (but no coasts, counties or any boarders that 
>include any of the towns already up)
>http://dl.dropbox.com/u/37626989/admin46.osm
>all the rest (but no stow also I didn't have time before I had 
>to leave work to finish tagging the counties on there, as it's 
>date night tonight, won't be able to finish that until tomorrow)
>http://dl.dropbox.com/u/37626989/stowhidef.xml
>stow, special for Greg Troxel, includes the boarders tagged 
>boundary administrative and admin level 8/8;6 ass appropriate 
>and a relation for the town
>http://dl.dropbox.com/u/37626989/coast.zip
>coast lines, 7MiB zipped, 70 unzipped
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] NE2 doing mass retaggings

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 10/20/11 08:16, Toby Murray wrote:

Sorry for undoing what I'm sure was a good chunk of work but
unilaterally retagging other peoples work on a state-wide bases from a
thousand miles away and without prior discussion is not acceptable.


+1, if I may say so from a couple thousand miles away.

Nobody has the right to impose their own way of tagging on others.

Bye
Frederik


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

Re: [Talk-us] NE2 doing mass retaggings

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 10/19/2011 9:31 PM, Paul Norman wrote:

He has a history in Canada of deleting data in the same manner


http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/50623496/history
Are you sure you're not talking about yourself?

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

Re: [Talk-us] NE2 doing mass retaggings

[Nathan Edgars II]

I see I have some new enemies, and the old ones are coming back to 
slander me.
"threatened to remove whole cities from the map", "stomping local 
knowledge in Oklahoma", reverting a bunch of relation fixup because you 
don't like one particular element - what a crock of shit. And Toby, what 
the hell happened to this? 
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2011-March/005466.html 
"I might add that trying to revert such a large changeset without even 
waiting for a reply is also somewhat rude."


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