[Talk-us] Possible [re]import: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Lands

[Kevin Kenny]

In some mapping projects that I've been doing recently, I've wanted
to show the cadastral data for the New York State Forest Preserve.
This immense set of state lands (nearly three million acres, or 1.2
million hectares) comprises by far the largest share of state lands
in the Adirondack and Catskill Parks.

The boundaries of these parcels are publicly available on the
World-Wide Web at 
http://gis.ny.gov/gisdata/inventories/details.cfm?DSID=1114


This file - in an earlier version - has been imported once before.
Unfortunately, part of the import appears to have gone awry. A number
of large parcels are simply missing. For instance, a comparison
of http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.115&lon=-74.113&zoom=13&layers=M
with 
http://kbk.is-a-geek.net/catskills/test.html?la=42.115&lo=-74.113&z=13 
shows that most of the Indian Head Wilderness is

not in OSM: all that is there is the narrow strip on the east face
of the Catskill Escarpment. Similar missing parcels appear in other
places. I suspect that the root cause is that in one file format
conversion or another, only the first polygon of multipolygon areas
was retained, but it hardly matters.

In any case, the existing import predates the current version of the
file from New York State, so an update may well be in order.
[http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue lists the
import as 'ongoing' - but in fact it has not been repeated.]

Unfortunately, the import also predates the Great License Change, and
the state government *appears* to be restrictive about the terms of use.
In one place, the metadata give:

Use_Constraints:

1. The NYS DEC asks to be credited in derived products.
2. Secondary Distribution of the data is not allowed.
3. Any documentation provided is an integral part of the data set. 
Failure to use the documentation in conjunction with the digital data 
constitutes misuse of the data.
4. Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of 
information, errors may be reflected in the data supplied.  The user 
must be aware of data conditions and bear responsibility for the 
appropriate use of the information with respect to possible errors, 
original map scale, collection methodology, currency of data, and other 
conditions.


With that said, there is still hope. I've been in touch with the mapper
who did the original import, and he says that he cleared it with the
relevant agencies at the time. Unfortunately, the email chain of the
negotiation is lost in a system failure. I certainly shall not proceed
until and unless I have clarification that publishing the data in OSM
format according to the terms and conditions of the new license is
acceptable to the issuing agency. Nor shall I do anything while the
license redaction is in progress.

I recognize that imports should be the exception and not the rule,
but this is one case where I suspect an import is mostly harmless.

(1) The import was already done once, and appears to
have added value to the map, despite the problems that I've
identified with the details of how it was done.

(2) Field verification of these data would be inordinately difficult.
To set a typical point on the boundaries accurately would require
hiking in over what is often very forbidding terrain, and attempting
to locate either survey monuments (generally, small cairns of
stones) or surveyors' corner stakes. (Finding the stakes generally
requires a metal detector and a considerable amount of good
fortune.) For instance, note that the contour map illustrated
above shows that the strip of land to the east comprises
a line of cliffs that are some two thousand feet (600 m) high.
We are not talking about mapping the street corners that bound
a city park!

There are - as the metadata notes - ongoing boundary
disputes regarding some of the parcels. These disputes often take
years to resolve, partly because surveys are so difficult to
conduct. (They typically pertain to whether a lumber company
may or may not access certain areas for logging.)

(3) Because of the difficulty of verification, it is highly unlikely
that any mapper has had reason or ability to modify the state's
cadastre, with the possible exception of adding new tags (such
as Wikipedia or other reference links).  An automated process that
examines areas tagged with NYDEC_Lands:LANDS_UID can readily
identify whether any tags have been added that were not present
in the original import.

(4) The data in question are of very high quality. They appear to
be the source of the boundary lines in most of the commercially
published large-scale maps of the region in question.

So, what do people think? Is this a project that is worth pursuing?
Does it meet the (justifiably) high bar for pursuing it as an automated
import?

--
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

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

Re: [Talk-us] railway=abandoned and mapping things that are not there any more?

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 7/13/2012 11:56 PM, Peter Dobratz wrote:

I guess the main thing that is problematic about former railways is
their verifiability.

Between TIGER and GNIS and other imports, when I come across a road or
church that no longer exists (or in some cases never existed), I just
delete them.  But before I delete the objects, I try to make some effort
to move them to their correct location where applicable.  How am I
supposed to tell if these railways are in the right spot?  In this
specific case, I was able to make an argument that the railway was in
the wrong spot and you managed to dig up a map that's more than 100
years old to help find the correct former railroad location.


Old USGS topos are a good source for most abandoned railways, and 
they're now mostly online: http://nationalmap.gov/historical/ Even 
modern topos (available in JOSM - "MSR Maps Topo" in the imagery 
preferences) show many that are not obvious on aerials.



Where does the information about the geometry of these former railways
come from?  What steps did you take to verify the data before putting it
in the OSM database?  How are you going to document this information for
future mappers?  It would seem to make sense to add additional
information to a source= or a note= tag indicating where the information
about the previous existence of the railway came from.  Or maybe there
can be more verbose information added to the wiki somewhere.


Given that most roads added by mappers are at most tagged source=Yahoo 
or Bing, despite these only being used for location and not name or 
other characteristics, sourcing is not in practice a major concern for 
most mappers. However, I understand the point about being difficult to 
verify, and will try to provide better source tags where applicable.


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

Re: [Talk-us] railway=abandoned and mapping things that are not there any more?

[Peter Dobratz]

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

> On 7/13/2012 8:45 AM, Peter Dobratz wrote:
>
>> On 7/13/12, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/12/2012 11:43 PM, Peter Dobratz wrote:
>>>
 NE2,

 So after I bring up that I don't think railways should be drawn through
 buildings, and most people agree with me on that, you decide to do this:

 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?**lat=42.762886&lon=-71.430509&**
 zoom=18&layers=M

 Does 86 Central Street, Hudson, NH have remnants of a railroad running
 through their living room?  No, because that's ridiculous.

>>>
>>> Is it on the former route of a railway? Of course. And that's what
>>> railway=abandoned has meant since I joined OSM.
>>>
>>
>> That is the exact point being discussed.  Why are we singling out
>> railways as a feature that essentially never goes away entirely even
>> though areas have been completely redeveloped?
>>
>> In the case of the houses on Central Street in Hudson, these aren't
>> exactly new construction.  Here are the dates of construction
>> according to the town of Hudson's property tax assessor:
>>
>
> Sorry about that, and thanks. I did in fact have it on the wrong side of
> the street: http://historical.mytopo.com/**getImage.asp?fname=mnch41sw.**
> jpg&state=NH
> http://www.wardmaps.com/viewasset.php?aid=5127
>
>
I guess the main thing that is problematic about former railways is their
verifiability.

Between TIGER and GNIS and other imports, when I come across a road or
church that no longer exists (or in some cases never existed), I just
delete them.  But before I delete the objects, I try to make some effort to
move them to their correct location where applicable.  How am I supposed to
tell if these railways are in the right spot?  In this specific case, I was
able to make an argument that the railway was in the wrong spot and you
managed to dig up a map that's more than 100 years old to help find the
correct former railroad location.

Where does the information about the geometry of these former railways come
from?  What steps did you take to verify the data before putting it in the
OSM database?  How are you going to document this information for future
mappers?  It would seem to make sense to add additional information to a
source= or a note= tag indicating where the information about the previous
existence of the railway came from.  Or maybe there can be more verbose
information added to the wiki somewhere.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] railway=abandoned and mapping things that are not there any more?

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 7/13/2012 4:43 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

If you want to change portions to railway=dismantled, I won't complain.
But note that there are definite traces in places, at least across the
Merrimack.


In fact I've just done this. Enjoy.

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

Re: [Talk-us] railway=abandoned and mapping things that are not there any more

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 7/13/2012 11:28 AM, william skora wrote:

Although historical features such as abandoned railways can be
valuable information and interesting, OSM is a consists of physical
features that currently exist, as Shawn succinctly stated,
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2012-July/008563.html


That's simply not true; OSM has included abandoned railways, even where 
no traces remain, since before I joined. (I'm not talking about the 
TIGER import, but actual railways mapped by people.)


Historical items that no longer have a physical presence (like railway
lines) would be better suited to a separate entity that focuses on
historical ways.


This would be a great duplication of work, since at least 80-90% of 
former railways still do have traces.


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

Re: [Talk-us] railway=abandoned and mapping things that are not there any more?

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 7/13/2012 9:31 AM, Richard Weait wrote:

And it seems like there is broad
agreement that such an object with no such visible hints is currently
not appropriate for the OSM db.  Right?


Not right. There has been a good deal of mapping former railways by a 
number of users over several years.


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

Re: [Talk-us] railway=abandoned and mapping things that are not there any more?

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 7/13/2012 8:45 AM, Peter Dobratz wrote:

On 7/13/12, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:

On 7/12/2012 11:43 PM, Peter Dobratz wrote:

NE2,

So after I bring up that I don't think railways should be drawn through
buildings, and most people agree with me on that, you decide to do this:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.762886&lon=-71.430509&zoom=18&layers=M

Does 86 Central Street, Hudson, NH have remnants of a railroad running
through their living room?  No, because that's ridiculous.


Is it on the former route of a railway? Of course. And that's what
railway=abandoned has meant since I joined OSM.


That is the exact point being discussed.  Why are we singling out
railways as a feature that essentially never goes away entirely even
though areas have been completely redeveloped?

In the case of the houses on Central Street in Hudson, these aren't
exactly new construction.  Here are the dates of construction
according to the town of Hudson's property tax assessor:


Sorry about that, and thanks. I did in fact have it on the wrong side of 
the street: 
http://historical.mytopo.com/getImage.asp?fname=mnch41sw.jpg&state=NH

http://www.wardmaps.com/viewasset.php?aid=5127

If you want to change portions to railway=dismantled, I won't complain. 
But note that there are definite traces in places, at least across the 
Merrimack.


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

Re: [Talk-us] More things that are no longer there: schools.

[Richard Weait]

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Kevin Kenny  wrote:
> On 07/13/2012 03:00 PM, James Umbanhowar wrote:
>>
>> Check out the historic tag
>> (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Historic).  You could add
>> historic=school and maybe historic:name="School Name".
>
>
> Is that accepted practice? I had rather presumed that tags not
> enumerated in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:historic were
> deprecated, even though there are hundreds of distinct values for
> the 'historic' tag in the database.


historic:name isn't widely used, 125 times.  But that doesn't make it
wrong, I guess.
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=historic%3Aname

historic is used almost 200k times.
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=historic

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

Re: [Talk-us] More things that are no longer there: schools.

[Kevin Kenny]

On 07/13/2012 03:00 PM, James Umbanhowar wrote:

Check out the historic tag
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Historic).  You could add
historic=school and maybe historic:name="School Name".


Is that accepted practice? I had rather presumed that tags not
enumerated in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:historic were
deprecated, even though there are hundreds of distinct values for
the 'historic' tag in the database.

--
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

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

Re: [Talk-us] More things that are no longer there: schools.

[James Umbanhowar]

Check out the historic tag
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Historic).  You could add
historic=school and maybe historic:name="School Name".  

On Fri, 2012-07-13 at 14:40 -0400, Kevin Kenny wrote: 
> As I've mentioned in the past, I have some personal mapping projects
> that use OSM data.
> 
> One at least one of them, I display icons for facilities such as
> schools, hospitals, police and fire stations, and houses of worship.
> I notice that a great many of the schools that appear in the generated
> map are, in fact, not usable as landmarks, because the map is reporting
> places where schoolhouses once stood; in many cases the sites have been
> redeveloped and no trace of the historic school remains, or the site
> has changed hands and the historic schoolhouse is now a private home.
> For many of the old schoolhouses, it certainly isn't obvious from the
> street that they were ever anything but private homes.
> 
> I see that these tend to have (historical) ending their names. Is
> this generally a reliable indicator? Is there another tag I should be
> looking for to tell me "there was once a school here, but there is
> no longer?" I don't see anything obvious, for instance, in the feature
> with OSM ID = 375600685 to distinguish it from an active school.
> 
> If there is no reliable information distinguishing historical schools,
> and if I were to attempt to correct the situation in areas where I have
> personal knowledge, is there any consensus on the correct way to tag
> these objects? I surely don't want to revert someone else's edits
> simply because they contain data that do not interest me, but is there
> any way that I can start being able to filter them?
> 
> I have read http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/USGS_GNIS - but I find
> it uninformative for answering this question. I see the instruction,
> "If you come across a feature that no longer exists in the real world,
> feel free to delete it," but what's the right thing to do with a
> former schoolhouse that still stands as a private house? It exists,
> but it is not in service nor any longer easily identifiable as a school.
> 
> And please, don't flame me. This is simply a question about, "if I
> wish to exclude historical schools from a rendered map, is there a
> way to identify them in order that I can do so?" I advance no position
> about whether they ought or ought not be in OSM.  I recognize that
> they must have been of value to whoever put them there, and respect
> that.
> 
> If my question has no good answer, I'd rather tolerate the clutter
> than mess up the map.
> 



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

Re: [Talk-us] More things that are no longer there: schools.

[Brad Neuhauser]

If the building is still there, but not used as a school, I'd tag the
building with old_name=[school_name].  Sometimes the name is still chiseled
on the side somewhere.  Brad

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Kevin Kenny  wrote:

> As I've mentioned in the past, I have some personal mapping projects
> that use OSM data.
>
> One at least one of them, I display icons for facilities such as
> schools, hospitals, police and fire stations, and houses of worship.
> I notice that a great many of the schools that appear in the generated
> map are, in fact, not usable as landmarks, because the map is reporting
> places where schoolhouses once stood; in many cases the sites have been
> redeveloped and no trace of the historic school remains, or the site
> has changed hands and the historic schoolhouse is now a private home.
> For many of the old schoolhouses, it certainly isn't obvious from the
> street that they were ever anything but private homes.
>
> I see that these tend to have (historical) ending their names. Is
> this generally a reliable indicator? Is there another tag I should be
> looking for to tell me "there was once a school here, but there is
> no longer?" I don't see anything obvious, for instance, in the feature
> with OSM ID = 375600685 to distinguish it from an active school.
>
> If there is no reliable information distinguishing historical schools,
> and if I were to attempt to correct the situation in areas where I have
> personal knowledge, is there any consensus on the correct way to tag
> these objects? I surely don't want to revert someone else's edits
> simply because they contain data that do not interest me, but is there
> any way that I can start being able to filter them?
>
> I have read 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/**wiki/USGS_GNIS-
>  but I find
> it uninformative for answering this question. I see the instruction,
> "If you come across a feature that no longer exists in the real world,
> feel free to delete it," but what's the right thing to do with a
> former schoolhouse that still stands as a private house? It exists,
> but it is not in service nor any longer easily identifiable as a school.
>
> And please, don't flame me. This is simply a question about, "if I
> wish to exclude historical schools from a rendered map, is there a
> way to identify them in order that I can do so?" I advance no position
> about whether they ought or ought not be in OSM.  I recognize that
> they must have been of value to whoever put them there, and respect
> that.
>
> If my question has no good answer, I'd rather tolerate the clutter
> than mess up the map.
>
> --
> 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
>
> __**_
> 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] More things that are no longer there: schools.

[Richard Weait]

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Kevin Kenny  wrote:
> As I've mentioned in the past, I have some personal mapping projects
> that use OSM data.
>
> One at least one of them, I display icons for facilities such as
> schools, hospitals, police and fire stations, and houses of worship.
> I notice that a great many of the schools that appear in the generated
> map are, in fact, not usable as landmarks, because the map is reporting
> places where schoolhouses once stood; in many cases the sites have been
> redeveloped and no trace of the historic school remains, or the site
> has changed hands and the historic schoolhouse is now a private home.
> For many of the old schoolhouses, it certainly isn't obvious from the
> street that they were ever anything but private homes.
[ ... ]
> I have read http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/USGS_GNIS - but I find
> it uninformative for answering this question. I see the instruction,
> "If you come across a feature that no longer exists in the real world,
> feel free to delete it,"
[ ... ]
> If my question has no good answer, I'd rather tolerate the clutter
> than mess up the map.

When you have local knowledge that supersedes existing map data,
please fix the data. :-)  That "If you come across a feature that no
longer exists in the real world, feel free to delete it," is pretty
good general guidance.

Your first-quoted paragraph above suggests that you are looking for
historic markers and other evidence.  That's good too.  If there is
such a marker, you might consider adding a tag for it to the otherwise
ordinary not-school-building.

There might be other exceptions as well, that would lead you to tag
something like, loc_name="The old school house what ain't thar no
more" if it is still used as a local landmark based only on local
knowledge but I'd expect that to be rare.  :-)

And, with GNIS and any other source, the questionable data that you
are seeing could well be an error from the source.

Recapping: If your local survey suggests that something is gone, then
you can delete it from the database.  Use your best judgement.

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

[Talk-us] More things that are no longer there: schools.

[Kevin Kenny]

As I've mentioned in the past, I have some personal mapping projects
that use OSM data.

One at least one of them, I display icons for facilities such as
schools, hospitals, police and fire stations, and houses of worship.
I notice that a great many of the schools that appear in the generated
map are, in fact, not usable as landmarks, because the map is reporting
places where schoolhouses once stood; in many cases the sites have been
redeveloped and no trace of the historic school remains, or the site
has changed hands and the historic schoolhouse is now a private home.
For many of the old schoolhouses, it certainly isn't obvious from the
street that they were ever anything but private homes.

I see that these tend to have (historical) ending their names. Is
this generally a reliable indicator? Is there another tag I should be
looking for to tell me "there was once a school here, but there is
no longer?" I don't see anything obvious, for instance, in the feature
with OSM ID = 375600685 to distinguish it from an active school.

If there is no reliable information distinguishing historical schools,
and if I were to attempt to correct the situation in areas where I have
personal knowledge, is there any consensus on the correct way to tag
these objects? I surely don't want to revert someone else's edits
simply because they contain data that do not interest me, but is there
any way that I can start being able to filter them?

I have read http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/USGS_GNIS - but I find
it uninformative for answering this question. I see the instruction,
"If you come across a feature that no longer exists in the real world,
feel free to delete it," but what's the right thing to do with a
former schoolhouse that still stands as a private house? It exists,
but it is not in service nor any longer easily identifiable as a school.

And please, don't flame me. This is simply a question about, "if I
wish to exclude historical schools from a rendered map, is there a
way to identify them in order that I can do so?" I advance no position
about whether they ought or ought not be in OSM.  I recognize that
they must have been of value to whoever put them there, and respect
that.

If my question has no good answer, I'd rather tolerate the clutter
than mess up the map.

--
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

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

Re: [Talk-us] railway=abandoned and mapping things that are not there any more

[william skora]

Although historical features such as abandoned railways can be
valuable information and interesting, OSM is a consists of physical
features that currently exist, as Shawn succinctly stated,
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2012-July/008563.html
(I don't know if there's an official statement from the OSM Foundation
about it, but there's been a strong community consensus through
previous discussions supporting this).

With that in mind, adding a tag (railway=abandoned or railway=disused)
where the physical features (old spurs, gravel, underneath the bed) of
the railroad tracks are still visible are okay to be included in OSM
in my opinion, as Mike N mentions -
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2012-July/008574.html

Historical items that no longer have a physical presence (like railway
lines) would be better suited to a separate entity that focuses on
historical ways.

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

Re: [Talk-us] railway=abandoned and mapping things that are not there any more?

[Mike N]

On 7/13/2012 12:29 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

I can buy former spurs, though I'll usually only map them if they're
significant in length or history or there are still remnants. Was this
mapper adding multiple tracks on the same right-of-way?


  This was single tracks per right-of-way, but there have been 2 
feeders and N spurs servicing old textile mills.


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

Re: [Talk-us] railway=abandoned and mapping things that are not there any more?

[Mike N]

On 7/13/2012 8:45 AM, Peter Dobratz wrote:

That is the exact point being discussed.  Why are we singling out
railways as a feature that essentially never goes away entirely even
though areas have been completely redeveloped?


  Abandoned railways are subject to accidental deletion by newbies who 
have surveyed the area and know that there is no railway there.  Maybe 
they didn't study the wiki to know that a 0.5" depression in the ground 
or a plaque on the wall qualifies the presence in OSM.   This is much 
the same way I delete xyz(historical) GNIS objects today- they simply 
aren't there.


  This would seem to be much more suited to the oft-discussed 
historical OSM database.  In that way, the old tracks would be 
completely represented, not cut off where the bulldozer has come in and 
constructed a shopping center.


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

Re: [Talk-us] railway=abandoned and mapping things that are not there any more?

[Ian Dees]

Hi,

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 07/13/2012 05:43 AM, Peter Dobratz wrote:
>
>> So after I bring up that I don't think railways should be drawn through
>> buildings, and most people agree with me on that, you decide to do this:
>>
>
> I think that NE2 is clearly abusing OSM on order to prove a point and I
> don't think it is acceptable. I also think that it is very unlikely that
> NE2 has been there and surveyed the data; I think it may be a data import
> that violates the import guidelines.
>
> I think that NE2 is generally behaving in a way suitable to damage the
> community, and that he does this on purpose.
>
> I have lost track of the number of nast I-am-right-no-I-am-right
> discussions that NE2 has been at the centre of.
>
> I think he should be banned from OSM completely.


Let's stop this thread here.

If there are concerns about a particular user's edits, they should be
directed to the Data Working Group and at the very least discussed in a
separate, new thread.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] railway=abandoned and mapping things that are not there any more?

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 07/13/2012 05:43 AM, Peter Dobratz wrote:

So after I bring up that I don't think railways should be drawn through
buildings, and most people agree with me on that, you decide to do this:


I think that NE2 is clearly abusing OSM on order to prove a point and I 
don't think it is acceptable. I also think that it is very unlikely that 
NE2 has been there and surveyed the data; I think it may be a data 
import that violates the import guidelines.


I think that NE2 is generally behaving in a way suitable to damage the 
community, and that he does this on purpose.


I have lost track of the number of nast I-am-right-no-I-am-right 
discussions that NE2 has been at the centre of.


I think he should be banned from OSM completely.

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"



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

Re: [Talk-us] railway=abandoned and mapping things that are not there any more?

[Toby Murray]

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Richard Weait  wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
>> On 7/12/2012 11:43 PM, Peter Dobratz wrote:
>>>
>>> NE2,
>>>
>>> So after I bring up that I don't think railways should be drawn through
>>> buildings, and most people agree with me on that, you decide to do this:
> [ ... ]
>>
>> For the record, I do object. And the fact that you would consider killing a
>> fly with a sledgehammer is disturbing.
>
> Have I missed something here?  It seems like we were discussing the
> conditions for including a "just barely visible from hints" feature
> like railway=abandoned/dismantled.  And it seems like there is broad
> agreement that such an object with no such visible hints is currently
> not appropriate for the OSM db.  Right?
>
> So how did this turn into,"Hey, here's a whole bunch of abandoned
> railways covering five states" ?
>
> I would expect that any addition of objects that are known to be
> marginal, like railway=abandoned, would need verification from another
> source that such object meets our minimum criteria.  Can we agree on
> that?
>
> Also, "NE2", these edits have all the hallmarks of mass / bulk edits.
> 1) Large in volume and extent.  2) Unlikely to be verified or
> reconciled with other sources.  3) No supporting local knowledge.

4) uselessly vague changeset comment

Guess that one isn't restricted to bulk edits.  But isn't this
actually an import? Where are you getting geometry for 150 year old
railways from? And why isn't the source mentioned in your changeset?

Toby

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

Re: [Talk-us] railway=abandoned and mapping things that are not there any more?

[Richard Weait]

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
> On 7/12/2012 11:43 PM, Peter Dobratz wrote:
>>
>> NE2,
>>
>> So after I bring up that I don't think railways should be drawn through
>> buildings, and most people agree with me on that, you decide to do this:
[ ... ]
>
> For the record, I do object. And the fact that you would consider killing a
> fly with a sledgehammer is disturbing.

Have I missed something here?  It seems like we were discussing the
conditions for including a "just barely visible from hints" feature
like railway=abandoned/dismantled.  And it seems like there is broad
agreement that such an object with no such visible hints is currently
not appropriate for the OSM db.  Right?

So how did this turn into,"Hey, here's a whole bunch of abandoned
railways covering five states" ?

I would expect that any addition of objects that are known to be
marginal, like railway=abandoned, would need verification from another
source that such object meets our minimum criteria.  Can we agree on
that?

Also, "NE2", these edits have all the hallmarks of mass / bulk edits.
1) Large in volume and extent.  2) Unlikely to be verified or
reconciled with other sources.  3) No supporting local knowledge.

Bulk / mass edits and imports are on hold during the redaction
period.[1]  Don't continue these without previous consultation with
the sysadmins.

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

Re: [Talk-us] railway=abandoned and mapping things that are not there any more?

[Peter Dobratz]

On 7/13/12, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
> On 7/12/2012 11:43 PM, Peter Dobratz wrote:
>> NE2,
>>
>> So after I bring up that I don't think railways should be drawn through
>> buildings, and most people agree with me on that, you decide to do this:
>>
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.762886&lon=-71.430509&zoom=18&layers=M
>>
>> Does 86 Central Street, Hudson, NH have remnants of a railroad running
>> through their living room?  No, because that's ridiculous.
>
> Is it on the former route of a railway? Of course. And that's what
> railway=abandoned has meant since I joined OSM.

That is the exact point being discussed.  Why are we singling out
railways as a feature that essentially never goes away entirely even
though areas have been completely redeveloped?

In the case of the houses on Central Street in Hudson, these aren't
exactly new construction.  Here are the dates of construction
according to the town of Hudson's property tax assessor:

84 Central Street - built 1854
86 Central Street - built 1880
90 Central Street - built 1880
94 Central Street - built 1860
96 Central Street - built 1964

When was this railway that runs through the above buildings in
operation?  It must have been more than 150 years ago.  Maybe we can
agree to delete this instance of railway=abandoned as it either no
longer exists or it's clearly not in the right spot.

>> Maybe you could hold off dumping stuff on top of work that I've done
>> while we continue to discuss the matter.
>
> Back at ya. Don't delete something that doesn't interest you.
>>
>> Does anyone have any objection to reverting the following changesets?:
>>
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/12202043
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/12186087
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/12191431
>
> For the record, I do object. And the fact that you would consider
> killing a fly with a sledgehammer is disturbing.
>

A sledgehammer is doing edits over a large geographic area dispite the
objection of a local mapper.  If you're going to put stuff over things
that are already mapped at least you can make it mesh nicely.

My primary objection to imports is basically dumping things on top of
already existing things without regard to work that other people have
done.

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

Re: [Talk-us] TIGER fixup and mapping "more"

[Alexander Jones]

Hello.

I have plently of spare time, and my home (San Antonio) has almost no 
remapping to do. Where is my help most needed? I'm adept with relations, and 
I practically redrew almost all of Visalia, CA. (100,000+ people) No GPS, 
though. :(

Alexander


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