Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.

[John F. Eldredge]

James Mast  wrote:

> 
> Well guys, as far as I know, as long as the non-CT user didn't add any
> tags to the node, all you have to do is move said node to a new
> coordinate and it should then be considered un-tainted.  That's what I
> was told and that's what happens on the OSM Inspector.  Plus, if
> you're using the License Change plugin in JOSM, you can see with that
> what nodes are considered "tainted" when you're cleaning a way. At
> least I don't have to worry about I-81 in TN getting axed.  I rebuild
> it from the ground up, and the only parts that could be considered
> tainted in any way are the ramps from I-40 or I-26 as I just retraced
> them and kept the nodes, but the nodes were all moved from their
> original locations. --James
>
One drawback to this new-coordinate technique is that, in some cases, the 
tainted nodes will have been in the proper locations to match the real world.  
So, in order to make the cleanup bot not consider the nodes to be tainted, we 
have to knowingly make the map data less accurate than it had formerly been.

-- 
John F. Eldredge --  j...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to 
think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria

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

Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.

[James Mast]

Well guys, as far as I know, as long as the non-CT user didn't add any tags to 
the node, all you have to do is move said node to a new coordinate and it 
should then be considered un-tainted.  That's what I was told and that's what 
happens on the OSM Inspector.  Plus, if you're using the License Change plugin 
in JOSM, you can see with that what nodes are considered "tainted" when you're 
cleaning a way. At least I don't have to worry about I-81 in TN getting axed.  
I rebuild it from the ground up, and the only parts that could be considered 
tainted in any way are the ramps from I-40 or I-26 as I just retraced them and 
kept the nodes, but the nodes were all moved from their original locations. 
--James   ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 4/13/2012 8:42 AM, Phil! Gold wrote:

First off, I still feel that there was a consensus last year on using the
network tag for distinct network subsets as well as for mainline roads and
you, despite being the only dissenter, continue to argue against something
the rest of community more or less settled on.


Whether or not there was a consensus last year, it's clear that there is 
none at the present time. See the recent thread about the network tag.


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

Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.

[Toby Murray]

On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Clifford Snow  wrote:
>
> I've been working in Seattle.  An undecided (and probably long gone) mapper
> touched a large segment of the area.  Looking at CLEANMAP, Seattle looks
> much better after hours of work by many people.  However if every tainted
> point get deleted, the map will look like a mess.  For those that don't know
> Seattle, it is a city of hills.  So roads bend.  Deleting points means
> hundreds of ways straightened.  Ouch.
>
> This is not only difficult but a LOT of work!
>
> What I would suggest is that we get a snapshot of what the world will look
> like after the bot is done.  I wonder if Simon Poole would be interested in
> creating a version of CLEANMAP that would show the result of the bot
> deleting tainted points?

Well that's the thing... there is no actual data about what things
will look like because the code is still being worked on:
https://github.com/zerebubuth/openstreetmap-license-change

The tools we have now are an approximation. Cleanmap/badmap only shows
renderable objects. So you only see the status of ways, not their
individual constituent nodes. OSMI is probably as close an estimate as
we have right now. However just because an object is tainted doesn't
mean it will always disappear. It might just revert to an older
version. So nodes might move or lose tags. So yes, it's kind of messy
:(

Toby

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

Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.

[Clifford Snow]

On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Toby Murray  wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:27 AM, stevea 
> wrote:
> >> I don't know who's doing that work in Columbia on the Interstates, but
> >> they are doing it wrong unfortunately.  While the ways aren't "tainted"
> >> anymore, all of the nodes are still.  Meaning that once the bot gets
> >> unleashed, the highways will still get "fucked-up".  It seems that they
> are
> >> just starting a new way and connecting each old node to the new way
> without
> >> at least moving the old node, which means if Lar created the node and
> nobody
> >> has moved it since, it still will get deleted and mess up the highway
> >> alignment.
> >
> >
> > Doh!  In my haste to "untaint ways," it is entirely possible this is
> exactly
> > what I am doing, too.  I'm using a rapid editing technique which does
> > untaint ways, but which after reading your comment, it appears I am
> leaving
> > points still tainted.  OSM Inspector is helpful in seeing the "error of
> my
> > ways" (uh, of error of the POINTS) and I fear that I am not the only one
> > making this mistake.  Thank you for calling this to our attention.
> >
> > This makes what is "simply tedious" border on the realm of "utterly
> > overwhelming."
> >
> > EVERY SINGLE POINT?  Ugh!  (Why does so much have to be difficult?)
>
> I've been working in Seattle.  An undecided (and probably long gone)
mapper touched a large segment of the area.  Looking at CLEANMAP, Seattle
looks much better after hours of work by many people.  However if every
tainted point get deleted, the map will look like a mess.  For those that
don't know Seattle, it is a city of hills.  So roads bend.  Deleting points
means hundreds of ways straightened.  Ouch.

This is not only difficult but a LOT of work!

What I would suggest is that we get a snapshot of what the world will look
like after the bot is done.  I wonder if Simon Poole would be interested in
creating a version of CLEANMAP that would show the result of the bot
deleting tainted points?

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

Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.

[Martijn van Exel]

Agreed. I am spending some cozy times with I65 in Alabama, next on my list
is US 78. Better late than never. Cleaning up lots of bridge trouble too
(missing grade separations).

For those interested, I identified ~12000 points of highway Trouble for the
US (here is the blog post ->
https://oegeo.wordpress.com/2012/04/07/detecting-highway-trouble-in-openstreetmap/direct
link to the OSM XML file ->
http://mvexel.dev.openstreetmap.org/highwaytrouble/candidates-us.osm ). I
find that I clean up much of these Trouble items while remapping, but if
you want to help clean up the interstate and US highway network after that,
this may be a good start.

Martijn

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 6:36 PM, stevea  wrote:

> Hey, us, vaguely northamerican OSMers:  nice work so far!
>
> I see excellent progress in California during the recent eight days of
> re-mapping.  If you are an editing maniac (like me in the last few days)
> you have discovered that BADMAP lag makes you move onto another region.  I
> have chased myself over much of San Diego and patched up the old home town.
>  Its freeways now emerge as navigable.  The Bay Area shapes up nicely.
>  Greater Southern California shows vast improvement, and yet there is still
> so much more to do.
>
> We are so many people, loving what we do so hard.
>
> Just a pat on the back and bit of cheer-leading.  Now get back to work!
>  (Oops, I mean the fun of OSM).
>
> SteveA
> California
>
> __**_
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-us
>



-- 
martijn van exel
geospatial omnivore
1109 1st ave #2
salt lake city, ut 84103
801-550-5815
http://oegeo.wordpress.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.

[Toby Murray]

On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:27 AM, stevea  wrote:
>> I don't know who's doing that work in Columbia on the Interstates, but
>> they are doing it wrong unfortunately.  While the ways aren't "tainted"
>> anymore, all of the nodes are still.  Meaning that once the bot gets
>> unleashed, the highways will still get "fucked-up".  It seems that they are
>> just starting a new way and connecting each old node to the new way without
>> at least moving the old node, which means if Lar created the node and nobody
>> has moved it since, it still will get deleted and mess up the highway
>> alignment.
>
>
> Doh!  In my haste to "untaint ways," it is entirely possible this is exactly
> what I am doing, too.  I'm using a rapid editing technique which does
> untaint ways, but which after reading your comment, it appears I am leaving
> points still tainted.  OSM Inspector is helpful in seeing the "error of my
> ways" (uh, of error of the POINTS) and I fear that I am not the only one
> making this mistake.  Thank you for calling this to our attention.
>
> This makes what is "simply tedious" border on the realm of "utterly
> overwhelming."
>
> EVERY SINGLE POINT?  Ugh!  (Why does so much have to be difficult?)

I think I saw a little of this along a coastline last night as well.
In this case all nodes connecting coastline ways were clean and some
in the middle of the way were clean too. So I just selected a way, ran
the licesnse plugin against it, selected all dirty nodes and deleted
them. Then I used the improve way accuracy mode in JOSM (w) to retrace
any missing nodes to fit the geometry to bing imagery. Same technique
might be useful for interstates too.

Toby

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

Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.

[stevea]

I don't know who's doing that work in Columbia on the Interstates, 
but they are doing it wrong unfortunately.  While the ways aren't 
"tainted" anymore, all of the nodes are still.  Meaning that once 
the bot gets unleashed, the highways will still get "fucked-up".  It 
seems that they are just starting a new way and connecting each old 
node to the new way without at least moving the old node, which 
means if Lar created the node and nobody has moved it since, it 
still will get deleted and mess up the highway alignment.


Doh!  In my haste to "untaint ways," it is entirely possible this is 
exactly what I am doing, too.  I'm using a rapid editing technique 
which does untaint ways, but which after reading your comment, it 
appears I am leaving points still tainted.  OSM Inspector is helpful 
in seeing the "error of my ways" (uh, of error of the POINTS) and I 
fear that I am not the only one making this mistake.  Thank you for 
calling this to our attention.


This makes what is "simply tedious" border on the realm of "utterly 
overwhelming."


EVERY SINGLE POINT?  Ugh!  (Why does so much have to be difficult?)

SteveA
California

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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering

[Paul Johnson]

On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 5:42 AM, Phil! Gold  wrote:

> * Nathan Edgars II  [2012-04-12 16:03 -0400]:
>> Also I-270 Spur in Maryland, which *is* part of the Interstate
>> Highway System and thus belongs in network=US:I
>
> First off, I still feel that there was a consensus last year on using the
> network tag for distinct network subsets as well as for mainline roads and
> you, despite being the only dissenter, continue to argue against something
> the rest of community more or less settled on.
>
> Secondly, I think this highlights a reason to use network subsets in the
> network tag: because it's a simpler rule to apply than deciding whether a
> variant route is different enough to deserve its own network value.  You
> seem to have a clear idea about what constitutes a network from your
> perspective--Interstate 75 Alternate and Downtown Interstates do, but
> Interstate 270 Spur doesn't.  I think there's a lot of grey area where
> people with different perspectives would disagree[0], especially mappers
> who just want to represent what they see on the signs where they live
> without arguing the minutiae of which road network a route is really a
> member of.
>
> In short, you seem to want to have the final say about what is or isn't a
> "real" network, but OpenStreetMap is a community effort and not only does
> the "network tag can have distinct values for network subsets" scheme
> appear to have broader community support, but it also seems to me to be
> the most generally applicable by people who in all likelihood will have
> different opinions about what *really* constitutes a distinct road
> network.

Wait, what?  I was under the impression that the "banners as a
network" thing was proposed initially in this discussion, given that
the "modifier" tag has been documented in the wiki for well over a
year now.  And it makes a lot more sense, since bannered routes aren't
a different network.

> [0] I feel, for instance, that I could make a convincing argument either
>    way as to whether Texas's loop roads should count as their own network
>    or should be part of the state's main network.

Texas considers itself to have multiple state networks (Texas, Park,
Rec, NASA, Loop, Spur).  What's not entirely obvious is if toll routes
are their own network (like Kansas and Oklahoma) or merely a bannered
route.

>Likewise for routes
>    signed as US 1, US 1A, and US 1 Alternate.

Those would be the same network, though US 1A and 1 Alternate may be
the same route.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering

[Phil! Gold]

* Nathan Edgars II  [2012-04-12 15:52 -0400]:
> On 4/12/2012 2:59 PM, Phil! Gold wrote:
> >* Minh Nguyen  [2012-04-12 10:06 -0700]:
> >>There's an ALT I-75 that needs its own sequence file
> 
> I wouldn't necessarily oppose a separate network tag in this case, since
> it's clearly not part of the Interstate Highway System. (The same would
> apply to business Interstates.)

* Nathan Edgars II  [2012-04-12 16:03 -0400]:
> Also I-270 Spur in Maryland, which *is* part of the Interstate
> Highway System and thus belongs in network=US:I

First off, I still feel that there was a consensus last year on using the
network tag for distinct network subsets as well as for mainline roads and
you, despite being the only dissenter, continue to argue against something
the rest of community more or less settled on.

Secondly, I think this highlights a reason to use network subsets in the
network tag: because it's a simpler rule to apply than deciding whether a
variant route is different enough to deserve its own network value.  You
seem to have a clear idea about what constitutes a network from your
perspective--Interstate 75 Alternate and Downtown Interstates do, but
Interstate 270 Spur doesn't.  I think there's a lot of grey area where
people with different perspectives would disagree[0], especially mappers
who just want to represent what they see on the signs where they live
without arguing the minutiae of which road network a route is really a
member of.

In short, you seem to want to have the final say about what is or isn't a
"real" network, but OpenStreetMap is a community effort and not only does
the "network tag can have distinct values for network subsets" scheme
appear to have broader community support, but it also seems to me to be
the most generally applicable by people who in all likelihood will have
different opinions about what *really* constitutes a distinct road
network.


[0] I feel, for instance, that I could make a convincing argument either
way as to whether Texas's loop roads should count as their own network
or should be part of the state's main network.  Likewise for routes
signed as US 1, US 1A, and US 1 Alternate.

-- 
...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/
PGP: 026A27F2  print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248  9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2
--- --
How do RPG characters manage to carry so much?  Very deep pockets.
   -- MenTaLguY
 --- --

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

Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.

[Mike N]

On 4/12/2012 11:13 PM, James Mast wrote:

   It seems that they are just starting a new way and connecting each
old node to the new way without at least moving the old node, which
means if Lar created the node and nobody has moved it since, it still
will get deleted and mess up the highway alignment.


My first plan of action after the removal bot is to revalidate all 
interstate geometry.   In my Interstate remapping, I didn't bother with 
all nodes to be removed, and I'll just go in and correct that later.


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