Re: [Talk-us] Proposed import: Alaska Boroughs/CPDs

[Paul Norman]

> From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com]
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Proposed import: Alaska Boroughs/CPDs
> 
> Given that the comments received have been generally positive and the
> concerns raised are addressed I'm going to go ahead and start post-
> processing the data so I can merge it in as well as figuring out how the
> heck to identify all the existing imported borough/CPD boundaries, all
> tagged differently.

Completed successfully. Because the boundaries are now much less "nodey" the
boundaries went from about 170k nodes to 25k nodes. 

I added wikipedia=* and website=* tags as applicable. Wikipedia tags should
help Nominatim determine importance when there are two places with the same
name.

As most states aren't adding counties at the rate that Alaska has added
boroughs I doubt it'll come up again but I documented the SQL I used to
identify and delete the existing boundaries without conflicts on deleted
nodes at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Alaska/TIGER_Counties.


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

Re: [Talk-us] US Addressing

[Jeff Meyer]

Does anyone have any success stories of asking localities to open up
previously copyrighted data? I'm going down the "just ask nicely for
*really* open data" path here in Seattle, but have yet to hear back from
the authorities. It seems that having a list of other cities that have
opened up and shared data would be a good reference tool when going to ask
for looser restrictions. - Jeff


On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Brian May  wrote:

>  On 11/28/2012 6:35 PM, Ian Dees wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
>  So SteveC's blog post sparked a bit of conversation today:
> http://stevecoast.com/2012/11/28/openstreetmap-addressable/
>
>  I'd love to see OSM US lead the way on collecting high quality
> addressing data from as many places as possible and throw it in to OSM. To
> that end I started with this spreadsheet here:
>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AsVnlPsfrhUIdEVZTzVFalFYYnlvTkc0R05wcUpsWVE
>
>  I think we should crowd-source an effort to collect as much local
> addressing data as possible, convert it to OSM format, and import it.
> Obviously we should do it in a controlled manner and follow the usual
> import guidelines, but a *large* part of the work is in collecting the
> data in the first place and convincing municipalities to license it to us
> in a compatible manner.
>
>  Is anyone else interested in this? I could use some help gathering
> volunteers to the cause.
>
>  -Ian
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing 
> listTalk-us@openstreetmap.orghttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>  I support this 1000%. 2013 should be the year of the addresses for OSM in
> the US. Addresses are sorely needed in a big way. And there's tons of
> accurate info that local governments have spent millions collecting already
> (could be hundreds of millions). I was just reading an old thread from last
> year on importing address info based on parcels. I can help in many areas
> of Florida. GIS data in FL is essentially public domain. We have very
> liberal open records laws. I already have parcels for the whole state,
> which all include site addresses (many have city and zipcode as well) as
> well as address points for several counties. There's a few counties with
> building outlines as well. For those, we could do some pre-processing to
> attach addresses to buildings and import that, at least for the counties
> where individual address points are not available and for parcels with one
> building. Multiple buildings and addresses per parcel are another issue.
>
> In the spreadsheet, would it make more sense to have the records by
> county, and split out into cities where necessary? In Florida, its the
> county govmts and county property appraisers that create / maintain parcels
> and addresses databases. I know that is not the case in some NE states,
> though.
>
> Brian
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>


-- 
Jeff Meyer
Global World History Atlas
www.gwhat.org
j...@gwhat.org
206-676-2347
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Operation Cowboy - Preaparing Thank you gift

[Matthias Meißer]

Am 29.11.2012 00:04, schrieb Richard Fairhurst:

!i! wrote:

Hi, one last personal note on the mapathon and a big thank you
(literally): http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/!i!/diary/18132


And thank you, too. I've always been sceptical about this sort of event - my
vision for OSM is that we need more contributors with local knowledge, not
more "remote mapping" - but in hindsight I think this, and MapRoulette, are
showing some really interesting ways forward. By applying the OSM community
to a problem in Mechanical Turk fashion, we're able to achieve much better
results than an unthinking import or automated edit would do.


I absolutely agree with that opinion. What OSM makes strong is a huge 
crowd of people _on the ground_, that contribute and update data.
On the other hand, there are still a lot of countries, where we sadly 
haven't this public attention and only a few inhabitant participate on 
our project. So what we can do here is to wait, till there is a critical 
number of mappers, or try to help from outside.


Similar to Richard (and others) I was sceptical, too if armchair-mapping 
will work with such an general mission. So first approach (night of the 
living maps) was focused on contribute on a semi-local level, where 
people have usually no problem with identifying objects, ...
So OPC2012 was the next step, to see if it will work on another 
continents, as well and get feedback by the community. And it seemed to 
work, even if some users would prefer to work on their own regions again ;)



I had similar concerns to do tracings here in my state of Mecklenburg 
Vorpommern (in north east Germany). As this is a wide area with only 
sparse community, I wasn't sure if it will be bad (as to 'steal' the 
work from other upcoming local mappers) or good idea to trace places 
100km away.
But it turned out, that most externals enjoyed to see their city with 
buildings (usually a giant batch job that frightens people) and attract 
them to add more minor changes as adding POIs they now can easily point 
to. A few dozen times, it worked, too , to invite inhabitants (local 
bureaus, associations, sport clubs, ...) to add their knowledge using 
osmbugs.org.
That doesn't have to be a general effort, but was my personal motivation 
to see armchair mapping more positive.


So what else can be done to attract people? I don't think that we have 
so much choices:

-get into media (IT, GIS, ...)
-get into usual apps
-offer better/more innovative services than other
-allow even minor places to get as detailed, as boom towns

The first idea needs some storys (as OPC2012 might was) and doesn't work 
without new or innovative facts, so new developments. Here in Germany it 
seems to be now a problem, as anybody from the IT sector seems to know 
OSM, but only very few from the mainstream. So maybe here we might need 
really to focus on the "consumers" to recruit a few more of them as mappers.


-Erfahrungen vom ländlichen Raum in Ostdeutschland
-Wie Leute gewinnen?
-hier breiter bewerben, da OSM zwar bei IT Leuten bekannt, aber kaum bei 
Normalsterblichen

-man weis immer nur sehr wenig von anderen teilen der Erde
-Mapper sind gewissenhafter als man denkt. Es scheint nur den wenigsten 
um Masse statt Klasse zu gehen


Give the OSM community a task and it will carry it out much better than
you'd imagine. There's lots we can learn from that.


Yes most mappers (as you and me) seem to care more on quality and 
quantity. Maybe this is because everybody knows mapping from a lot of 
different perspectives (local survey , mapping well know areas,  
editing existing 3rd party data).


Personally I saw that we all have very limited knowledge from other 
parts of this world :)


bye,
Matthias

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

Re: [Talk-us] Proposed import: Alaska Boroughs/CPDs

[Toby Murray]

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 3:58 AM, Paul Norman  wrote:
>> From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com]
>> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Proposed import: Alaska Boroughs/CPDs
>>
>> Given that the comments received have been generally positive and the
>> concerns raised are addressed I'm going to go ahead and start post-
>> processing the data so I can merge it in as well as figuring out how the
>> heck to identify all the existing imported borough/CPD boundaries, all
>> tagged differently.
>
> Completed successfully. Because the boundaries are now much less "nodey" the
> boundaries went from about 170k nodes to 25k nodes.
>
> I added wikipedia=* and website=* tags as applicable. Wikipedia tags should
> help Nominatim determine importance when there are two places with the same
> name.
>
> As most states aren't adding counties at the rate that Alaska has added
> boroughs I doubt it'll come up again but I documented the SQL I used to
> identify and delete the existing boundaries without conflicts on deleted
> nodes at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Alaska/TIGER_Counties.

Thanks for cleaning this up.

Toby

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

Re: [Talk-us] US Addressing

[Jeffrey Ollie]

On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Ian Dees  wrote:
>
> I think we should crowd-source an effort to collect as much local addressing
> data as possible, convert it to OSM format, and import it. Obviously we
> should do it in a controlled manner and follow the usual import guidelines,
> but a large part of the work is in collecting the data in the first place
> and convincing municipalities to license it to us in a compatible manner.

The Iowa DNR has an ongoing project to provide statewide geocoding
data.  As of this summer they had about 50% of the state covered:

http://iagiservicebureau.blogspot.com/2012/06/first-batch-of-geocoding-project-points.html

It would be fairly trivial to convert these shape files and import them.

--
Jeff Ollie

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

Re: [Talk-us] US Addressing

[Ian Dees]

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Jeffrey Ollie  wrote:

> The Iowa DNR has an ongoing project to provide statewide geocoding
> data.  As of this summer they had about 50% of the state covered:
>
>
> http://iagiservicebureau.blogspot.com/2012/06/first-batch-of-geocoding-project-points.html
>
> It would be fairly trivial to convert these shape files and import them.


That is awesome. I'm adding data to the spreadsheet based on this listing
here:
ftp://ftp.igsb.uiowa.edu/gis_library/counties/
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] First vs 1st

[Brian Quinion]

On 28 November 2012 14:28, Richard Welty  wrote:

> On 11/28/12 9:23 AM, Peter Dobratz wrote:
>
>> I think the key word here is abbreviated. In the OSM name, the
>> un-abbreviated form
>> should be used: name=Fourth Street To record the abbreviated form, you
>> could use the following: short_name=4th St As with all abbreviations,
>> sometimes they will
>> appear on signs and sometimes the full word will be written out (often
>> depending on size contstraints of the sign itself).
>>
> which is ok, but is it documented and do any of the search entities (such
> as
> Nominatum) actually pay attention to it?
>
> and if this convention hasn't been followed, is it ok if search engines
> fail
> to find the streets because the wrong form is used?
>
> what i'm getting at is that naive users are likely to enter it in either
> form, so we
> should endeavor to have both forms work reliably.
>
>
If you mapped is as above it would work in nominatim since both name and
short_name are supported.

Translation of 'Street' => 'St' is supported anyway but 'First' => '1st'
isn't because that would require a large multilingual number database to
resolve this in the general case.

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

Re: [Talk-us] US Addressing

[Steven Johnson]

I'm wholeheartedly behind this effort as address data have long been an
interest.

So I just had a quick look at obtaining data for Arlington, VA. The data
(current as of May 2012) are available on CD for cost of reproduction
($125) and includes address points, plus parcels, zoning, flood control
zones, etc. The data are furnished in ArcGIS *personal* database format
ONLY. (I have access to ArcGIS, so could theoretically convert them.) The
data are copyrighted and Arlington County owns all rights to the data and
allows use "...as an acknowledged source to produce maps or analysis but
you may not redistribute, resell, or copy the data (except for back-up
purposes)."

Probably other jurisdictions out there that place similar conditions on
their data.

-- SEJ
-- twitter: @geomantic
-- skype: sejohnson8

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." --
Einstein



On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Ian Dees  wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Jeffrey Ollie  wrote:
>
>> The Iowa DNR has an ongoing project to provide statewide geocoding
>> data.  As of this summer they had about 50% of the state covered:
>>
>>
>> http://iagiservicebureau.blogspot.com/2012/06/first-batch-of-geocoding-project-points.html
>>
>> It would be fairly trivial to convert these shape files and import them.
>
>
> That is awesome. I'm adding data to the spreadsheet based on this listing
> here:
> ftp://ftp.igsb.uiowa.edu/gis_library/counties/
>
> ___
> 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] US Addressing

[Richard Welty]

On 11/29/12 1:03 PM, Steven Johnson wrote:

The
data are copyrighted and Arlington County owns all rights to the data and
allows use "...as an acknowledged source to produce maps or analysis but
you may not redistribute, resell, or copy the data (except for back-up
purposes)."


the redistribute clause is a real problem, as we don't attempt to control
people taking copies of OSM as long as they honor the ODbL. i'd say this
license is ODbL incompatible (not a lawyer, though.)

richard


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

Re: [Talk-us] US Addressing

[Jeff Meyer]

QGIS 1.8 on Windows can open ESRI Personal Database format files (.mdb,
right?).


On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Steven Johnson wrote:

> I'm wholeheartedly behind this effort as address data have long been an
> interest.
>
> So I just had a quick look at obtaining data for Arlington, VA. The data
> (current as of May 2012) are available on CD for cost of reproduction
> ($125) and includes address points, plus parcels, zoning, flood control
> zones, etc. The data are furnished in ArcGIS *personal* database format
> ONLY. (I have access to ArcGIS, so could theoretically convert them.) The
> data are copyrighted and Arlington County owns all rights to the data and
> allows use "...as an acknowledged source to produce maps or analysis but
> you may not redistribute, resell, or copy the data (except for back-up
> purposes)."
>
> Probably other jurisdictions out there that place similar conditions on
> their data.
>
> -- SEJ
> -- twitter: @geomantic
> -- skype: sejohnson8
>
> "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
> -- Einstein
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Ian Dees  wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Jeffrey Ollie  wrote:
>>
>>> The Iowa DNR has an ongoing project to provide statewide geocoding
>>> data.  As of this summer they had about 50% of the state covered:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://iagiservicebureau.blogspot.com/2012/06/first-batch-of-geocoding-project-points.html
>>>
>>> It would be fairly trivial to convert these shape files and import them.
>>
>>
>> That is awesome. I'm adding data to the spreadsheet based on this listing
>> here:
>> ftp://ftp.igsb.uiowa.edu/gis_library/counties/
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>
>


-- 
Jeff Meyer
Global World History Atlas
www.gwhat.org
j...@gwhat.org
206-676-2347
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Dual Carriageway?

[Richard Welty]

Found in Albany this morning:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nfgusedautoparts/8229572497/



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

Re: [Talk-us] Dual Carriageway?

[Steven Johnson]

Yes, in that the carriageways are effectively separated. But in a very
tortured sort of way.

-- SEJ
-- twitter: @geomantic
-- skype: sejohnson8

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." --
Einstein



On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Richard Welty wrote:

> Found in Albany this morning:
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/**nfgusedautoparts/8229572497/
>
>
>
> __**_
> 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] US Addressing

[Brian May]

On 11/29/2012 1:11 PM, Richard Welty wrote:

On 11/29/12 1:03 PM, Steven Johnson wrote:

The
data are copyrighted and Arlington County owns all rights to the data 
and

allows use "...as an acknowledged source to produce maps or analysis but
you may not redistribute, resell, or copy the data (except for back-up
purposes)."


the redistribute clause is a real problem, as we don't attempt to control
people taking copies of OSM as long as they honor the ODbL. i'd say this
license is ODbL incompatible (not a lawyer, though.)

richard



Local governments may claim copyright, but whether they can legally is 
another matter. A very quick review of Virginia state law appears to 
show they have liberal open records laws.

http://www.opengovva.org/virginias-foia-the-law

We should probably track these public records problems, e.g. counties 
and cities that claim copyright, etc but the state law says otherwise.


Brian


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

Re: [Talk-us] Dual Carriageway?

[Richard Welty]

On 11/29/12 1:48 PM, Steven Johnson wrote:

Yes, in that the carriageways are effectively separated. But in a very
tortured sort of way.

from looking at bing imagery, it looks like they tore out a badly 
deteriorated

section between the two carriageways.

richard


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

Re: [Talk-us] US Addressing

[Steven Johnson]

That was exactly my reaction as well. My understanding is that these data
are essentially in the public domain. I'll note it in the spreadsheet.

-- SEJ
-- twitter: @geomantic
-- skype: sejohnson8

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." --
Einstein



On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Brian May  wrote:

> On 11/29/2012 1:11 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
>
>> On 11/29/12 1:03 PM, Steven Johnson wrote:
>>
>>> The
>>> data are copyrighted and Arlington County owns all rights to the data and
>>> allows use "...as an acknowledged source to produce maps or analysis but
>>> you may not redistribute, resell, or copy the data (except for back-up
>>> purposes)."
>>>
>>>  the redistribute clause is a real problem, as we don't attempt to
>> control
>> people taking copies of OSM as long as they honor the ODbL. i'd say this
>> license is ODbL incompatible (not a lawyer, though.)
>>
>> richard
>>
>>
> Local governments may claim copyright, but whether they can legally is
> another matter. A very quick review of Virginia state law appears to show
> they have liberal open records laws.
> http://www.opengovva.org/**virginias-foia-the-law
>
> We should probably track these public records problems, e.g. counties and
> cities that claim copyright, etc but the state law says otherwise.
>
> Brian
>
>
>
> __**_
> 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] First vs 1st

[Richard Welty]

On 11/29/12 12:30 PM, Brian Quinion wrote:


If you mapped is as above it would work in nominatim since both name and
short_name are supported.

Translation of 'Street' => 'St' is supported anyway but 'First' => '1st'
isn't because that would require a large multilingual number database to
resolve this in the general case.


fixing it in the OSM database by adding both would require mappers
everywhere to detect the issue and do the right thing. what are the odds
on this happening?

fixing it in the search engines would be a bunch of work, but has the
potential to fix it consistently everywhere.

richard


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

Re: [Talk-us] Dual Carriageway?

[Jim McAndrew]

It looks like there were a few points where there were "garden" dividers,
but that changed after a repaving.

>From looking around on OSM, it doesn't seem like people are marking roads
with a garden in the middle of the road as a dual carriageway, maybe they
should be?

Bing Maps:
http://binged.it/RlDDUD

Google Streetview:
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Albany,+NY&hl=en&ll=42.643872,-73.778837&spn=0.006235,0.007263&sll=38.997934,-105.550567&sspn=6.743459,7.437744&oq=alb&t=h&hnear=Albany,+New+York&z=17&layer=c&cbll=42.643811,-73.778784&panoid=uk2V_olPu0SkG1ZsvlA-oA&cbp=12,298.26,,0,11.3



On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Richard Welty wrote:

> On 11/29/12 1:48 PM, Steven Johnson wrote:
>
>> Yes, in that the carriageways are effectively separated. But in a very
>> tortured sort of way.
>>
>>  from looking at bing imagery, it looks like they tore out a badly
> deteriorated
> section between the two carriageways.
>
> richard
>
>
>
> __**_
> 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] Dual Carriageway?

[Richard Welty]

On 11/29/12 2:18 PM, Jim McAndrew wrote:

It looks like there were a few points where there were "garden" dividers,
but that changed after a repaving.

>From looking around on OSM, it doesn't seem like people are marking roads
with a garden in the middle of the road as a dual carriageway, maybe they
should be?

i have been:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.676329&lon=-73.793871&zoom=18&layers=M

i think we need to because it will impact routing, particularly when we 
have housenumber
based addressing working and can in theory direct people to the door or 
driveway.


richard


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

Re: [Talk-us] US Addressing

[Jim McAndrew]

The city/county of Denver, CO does have a parcels database (in a bunch of
formats)
(http://data.denvergov.org/dataset/city-and-county-of-denver-parcels)

But it is licensed under a CC BY 3.0 License
(http://data.denvergov.org/dataset/city-and-county-of-denver-parcels)

Is this something that should even be added to the spreadsheet?  It looks
like all their data is from Sanborn, so the older data should be out of
copyright by now, if it can be found elsewhere.



On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Steven Johnson wrote:

> That was exactly my reaction as well. My understanding is that these data
> are essentially in the public domain. I'll note it in the spreadsheet.
>
>
> -- SEJ
> -- twitter: @geomantic
> -- skype: sejohnson8
>
> "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
> -- Einstein
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Brian May  wrote:
>
>> On 11/29/2012 1:11 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/29/12 1:03 PM, Steven Johnson wrote:
>>>
 The
 data are copyrighted and Arlington County owns all rights to the data
 and
 allows use "...as an acknowledged source to produce maps or analysis but
 you may not redistribute, resell, or copy the data (except for back-up
 purposes)."

  the redistribute clause is a real problem, as we don't attempt to
>>> control
>>> people taking copies of OSM as long as they honor the ODbL. i'd say this
>>> license is ODbL incompatible (not a lawyer, though.)
>>>
>>> richard
>>>
>>>
>> Local governments may claim copyright, but whether they can legally is
>> another matter. A very quick review of Virginia state law appears to show
>> they have liberal open records laws.
>> http://www.opengovva.org/**virginias-foia-the-law
>>
>> We should probably track these public records problems, e.g. counties and
>> cities that claim copyright, etc but the state law says otherwise.
>>
>> Brian
>>
>>
>>
>> __**_
>> 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
>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Dual Carriageway?

[Phil! Gold]

* Jim McAndrew  [2012-11-29 12:18 -0700]:
> From looking around on OSM, it doesn't seem like people are marking roads
> with a garden in the middle of the road as a dual carriageway, maybe they
> should be?

For short islands in the middle of a road (like the links you gave), I
usually don't map as a dual carriageway unless it makes a difference to
routing (i.e. there's a road that only connects to one side of the
island).

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

Re: [Talk-us] Dual Carriageway?

[Mike N]

On 11/29/2012 2:18 PM, Jim McAndrew wrote:

 From looking around on OSM, it doesn't seem like people are marking
roads with a garden in the middle of the road as a dual carriageway,
maybe they should be?


  I do this is if there is a 'significant impact' on routing 
(subjective, I know).   Some of these garden dividers on roads in our 
area have been strategically placed so that all driveways have full 
access to either direction.


 On the other hand on a different road, a new set of garden dividers 
were placed so that dangerous left turns were blocked - I created dual 
carriageways for those because of the large change in the routing graph.


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

Re: [Talk-us] US Addressing

[Brian May]

If Sanborn was just a contractor hired by the govmt agency to help with 
digitizing, data conversion, etc. there should be no copyright issues 
with them. I didn't see a reference to Sanborn in the parcel metadata.


Brian

 On 11/29/2012 2:36 PM, Jim McAndrew wrote:
The city/county of Denver, CO does have a parcels database (in a bunch 
of formats)

(http://data.denvergov.org/dataset/city-and-county-of-denver-parcels)

But it is licensed under a CC BY 3.0 License
(http://data.denvergov.org/dataset/city-and-county-of-denver-parcels)

Is this something that should even be added to the spreadsheet?  It 
looks like all their data is from Sanborn, so the older data should be 
out of copyright by now, if it can be found elsewhere.




On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Steven Johnson > wrote:


That was exactly my reaction as well. My understanding is that
these data are essentially in the public domain. I'll note it in
the spreadsheet.


-- SEJ
-- twitter: @geomantic
-- skype: sejohnson8

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age
eighteen." -- Einstein



On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Brian May mailto:b...@mapwise.com>> wrote:

On 11/29/2012 1:11 PM, Richard Welty wrote:

On 11/29/12 1:03 PM, Steven Johnson wrote:

The
data are copyrighted and Arlington County owns all
rights to the data and
allows use "...as an acknowledged source to produce
maps or analysis but
you may not redistribute, resell, or copy the data
(except for back-up
purposes)."

the redistribute clause is a real problem, as we don't
attempt to control
people taking copies of OSM as long as they honor the
ODbL. i'd say this
license is ODbL incompatible (not a lawyer, though.)

richard


Local governments may claim copyright, but whether they can
legally is another matter. A very quick review of Virginia
state law appears to show they have liberal open records laws.
http://www.opengovva.org/virginias-foia-the-law

We should probably track these public records problems, e.g.
counties and cities that claim copyright, etc but the state
law says otherwise.

Brian



___
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




___
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] US Addressing

[Jim McAndrew]

Brian,

That's probably true.  There is no reference to Sanborn in the metadata,
but there is an attribute "PARCEL_SOURCE" which seems to be set to Sanborn
in most cases.

--
Jim


On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Brian May  wrote:

>  If Sanborn was just a contractor hired by the govmt agency to help with
> digitizing, data conversion, etc. there should be no copyright issues with
> them. I didn't see a reference to Sanborn in the parcel metadata.
>
> Brian
>
>
>  On 11/29/2012 2:36 PM, Jim McAndrew wrote:
>
> The city/county of Denver, CO does have a parcels database (in a bunch of
> formats)
> (http://data.denvergov.org/dataset/city-and-county-of-denver-parcels)
>
>  But it is licensed under a CC BY 3.0 License
> (http://data.denvergov.org/dataset/city-and-county-of-denver-parcels)
>
>  Is this something that should even be added to the spreadsheet?  It
> looks like all their data is from Sanborn, so the older data should be out
> of copyright by now, if it can be found elsewhere.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Steven Johnson wrote:
>
>> That was exactly my reaction as well. My understanding is that these data
>> are essentially in the public domain. I'll note it in the spreadsheet.
>>
>>
>> -- SEJ
>> -- twitter: @geomantic
>> -- skype: sejohnson8
>>
>> "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
>> -- Einstein
>>
>>
>>
>>   On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Brian May  wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/29/2012 1:11 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
>>>
 On 11/29/12 1:03 PM, Steven Johnson wrote:

> The
> data are copyrighted and Arlington County owns all rights to the data
> and
> allows use "...as an acknowledged source to produce maps or analysis
> but
> you may not redistribute, resell, or copy the data (except for back-up
> purposes)."
>
>  the redistribute clause is a real problem, as we don't attempt to
 control
 people taking copies of OSM as long as they honor the ODbL. i'd say this
 license is ODbL incompatible (not a lawyer, though.)

 richard


>>>  Local governments may claim copyright, but whether they can legally is
>>> another matter. A very quick review of Virginia state law appears to show
>>> they have liberal open records laws.
>>> http://www.opengovva.org/virginias-foia-the-law
>>>
>>> We should probably track these public records problems, e.g. counties
>>> and cities that claim copyright, etc but the state law says otherwise.
>>>
>>> Brian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing 
> listTalk-us@openstreetmap.orghttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] US Addressing

[Toby Murray]

Well this thread rekindled a conversation I had started with my county
GIS office over a year ago. At that time they gave me a copy of their
6" imagery which I have used extensively. Within the last 24 hours I
have reestablished contact and been given permission to use their data
in OSM as well as supplied with credentials to log in to their FTP
server and help myself to shapefiles.

The only restriction they place on the data (which is in line with the
Kansas Open Records Act) is that you can't use the land owner name
plus address information in their parcel data for commercial purposes,
specifically marketing. I made it very clear that I had no interest
whatsoever in using the names and that all I needed was address and
location. They were happy with this.

Now for the hard part. Converting and conflating the information with
the non-trivial number of addresses I have already collected on the
ground.

Toby

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

Re: [Talk-us] US Addressing

[Jeffrey Ollie]

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Ian Dees  wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Jeffrey Ollie  wrote:
>>
>> The Iowa DNR has an ongoing project to provide statewide geocoding
>> data.  As of this summer they had about 50% of the state covered:
>>
>> http://iagiservicebureau.blogspot.com/2012/06/first-batch-of-geocoding-project-points.html
>>
>> It would be fairly trivial to convert these shape files and import them.
>
> That is awesome. I'm adding data to the spreadsheet based on this listing
> here:
> ftp://ftp.igsb.uiowa.edu/gis_library/counties/

I quickly hacked up a script to convert the Iowa data into a JOSM
changeset.  I converted Story County, Iowa (which includes Ames, Iowa
and Iowa State University) and stuck what I came up with here:

https://docs.google.com/a/ocjtech.us/folder/d/0B5VwdTUBhU7UdVNnb2swamx6MVE/edit

(hopefully that link works for you, this is the first time I've used
Google docs to share data in this way).

It looks pretty good from what I saw, with the obvious exception that
newer homes aren't tagged.  I'm going to clean up my code a bit and
stick it up on github somewhere.

--
Jeff Ollie

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

Re: [Talk-us] US Addressing

[Richard Fairhurst]

Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
> It looks pretty good from what I saw, with the obvious exception 
> that newer homes aren't tagged.  I'm going to clean up my code 
> a bit and stick it up on github somewhere.

If you chaps are all dead set on doing another massive TIGER import - hey,
it's your funeral - could I at least urge a little caution on the
practicalities of it all?

Just having a look at the .osm file posted here, for example, the street
names are all unexpanded: Washington St, Park Ave, Deer Run Ln, etc. There
have been about 937 threads about expanding TIGER street names since the
initial import and it would be a shame to fall into the same hole again.

I'm also very very doubtful about the value of importing city, state and (!)
country: if we don't have polygons for all of those already, then we really
should. Importing n billion nodes into the States which all say "hey, this
is in the States" will bloat the database and hammer download speeds for
absolutely no gain whatsoever.

cheers
Richard





--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/US-Addressing-tp5738103p5738298.html
Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [Talk-us] US Addressing

[Richard Welty]

On 11/29/12 5:26 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

I'm also very very doubtful about the value of importing city, state and (!)
country: if we don't have polygons for all of those already, then we really
should. Importing n billion nodes into the States which all say "hey, this
is in the States" will bloat the database and hammer download speeds for
absolutely no gain whatsoever.

sorry, but we have to do it that way. addressing in the US is by postal 
route,

which frequently does not match up with city/town/village boundaries.
i have a friend who lives in the Town of Colonie, Albany County, but his
postal address is Schenectady (Schenectady being a city in Schenectady
County, next door.)

and there are no polygons for postal routes, only best guesses. the post
office won't publish them on the grounds that they're routes, not polygons;
the Census Bureau has published them in the past, but they're guesses
because as far as i know, the postal service wasn't cooperative.

richard


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

Re: [Talk-us] US Addressing

[Ian Dees]

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

> Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
> > It looks pretty good from what I saw, with the obvious exception
> > that newer homes aren't tagged.  I'm going to clean up my code
> > a bit and stick it up on github somewhere.
>
> If you chaps are all dead set on doing another massive TIGER import - hey,
> it's your funeral - could I at least urge a little caution on the
> practicalities of it all?
>

I really don't want to support a complete TIGER address import unless our
effort at finding "real" local addressing data fails in some places.


> Just having a look at the .osm file posted here, for example, the street
> names are all unexpanded: Washington St, Park Ave, Deer Run Ln, etc. There
> have been about 937 threads about expanding TIGER street names since the
> initial import and it would be a shame to fall into the same hole again.
>

Just about all the data I've seen is unexpanded. We'll probably have to
deal with that on a per-county basis (assuming we're not importing TIGER).


>
> I'm also very very doubtful about the value of importing city, state and
> (!)
> country: if we don't have polygons for all of those already, then we really
> should. Importing n billion nodes into the States which all say "hey, this
> is in the States" will bloat the database and hammer download speeds for
> absolutely no gain whatsoever.


I think that anything beyond house number, street, and maybe city would be
superfluous and shouldn't be included in addressing imports and will try to
advocate for that.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] US Addressing

[Jeffrey Ollie]

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:
> Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
>> It looks pretty good from what I saw, with the obvious exception
>> that newer homes aren't tagged.  I'm going to clean up my code
>> a bit and stick it up on github somewhere.
>
> If you chaps are all dead set on doing another massive TIGER import - hey,
> it's your funeral - could I at least urge a little caution on the
> practicalities of it all?
>
> Just having a look at the .osm file posted here, for example, the street
> names are all unexpanded: Washington St, Park Ave, Deer Run Ln, etc. There
> have been about 937 threads about expanding TIGER street names since the
> initial import and it would be a shame to fall into the same hole again.

None of the Iowa data that I am processing originates with the US
Census or TIGER.  The underlying sources of the data are described ad
nauseum here:

ftp://ftp.igsb.uiowa.edu/gis_library/counties/Story/Address_85.html

Basically the data comes from county auditor parcel data, processed
through the US Postal Service addressing database, and compared
against aerial photography to move the point to the intersection of
the driveway with the road.

As for name expansion, I'll take a look into that.  The data source
that I'm using doesn't separate prefixes and suffixes out like TIGER
does though...

> I'm also very very doubtful about the value of importing city, state and (!)
> country: if we don't have polygons for all of those already, then we really
> should. Importing n billion nodes into the States which all say "hey, this
> is in the States" will bloat the database and hammer download speeds for
> absolutely no gain whatsoever.

As Richard Welty said, the addr:city tag is pretty much required, as
US addresses aren't defined by the boundaries of the city you live in
(or don't live in for rural addresses), but the post office that
delivers your mail.

I can see not including the country or the state, do the various
routing/geocoding engines take advantage of state/country polygons?
Are there any exceptions out there where the address is physically in
one state, but their postal address is from a neighboring state
because that's where the post office is?

--
Jeff Ollie

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

Re: [Talk-us] US Addressing

[Jim McAndrew]

There are a few exceptions, but the local post offices know how to handle
them.  They are also extremely minor and the people who live or do business
in these areas are probably used to the confusion.

If you're curious though:

Part of Kentucky has a Tennessee zip code and addresses:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_Bend

There's also a town in Illinois with a Missouri zip code, although the
current ZCTA map shows it as being in an Illinois zip code:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaskaskia,_Illinois


Fishers Island, NY has a Connecticut zip code, but its own post office, so
this is really only a special case from a routing point of view:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fishers_Island,_New_York#Culture

--
Jim McAndrew

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Jeffrey Ollie  wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Richard Fairhurst 
> wrote:
> > Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
> >> It looks pretty good from what I saw, with the obvious exception
> >> that newer homes aren't tagged.  I'm going to clean up my code
> >> a bit and stick it up on github somewhere.
> >
> > If you chaps are all dead set on doing another massive TIGER import -
> hey,
> > it's your funeral - could I at least urge a little caution on the
> > practicalities of it all?
> >
> > Just having a look at the .osm file posted here, for example, the street
> > names are all unexpanded: Washington St, Park Ave, Deer Run Ln, etc.
> There
> > have been about 937 threads about expanding TIGER street names since the
> > initial import and it would be a shame to fall into the same hole again.
>
> None of the Iowa data that I am processing originates with the US
> Census or TIGER.  The underlying sources of the data are described ad
> nauseum here:
>
> ftp://ftp.igsb.uiowa.edu/gis_library/counties/Story/Address_85.html
>
> Basically the data comes from county auditor parcel data, processed
> through the US Postal Service addressing database, and compared
> against aerial photography to move the point to the intersection of
> the driveway with the road.
>
> As for name expansion, I'll take a look into that.  The data source
> that I'm using doesn't separate prefixes and suffixes out like TIGER
> does though...
>
> > I'm also very very doubtful about the value of importing city, state and
> (!)
> > country: if we don't have polygons for all of those already, then we
> really
> > should. Importing n billion nodes into the States which all say "hey,
> this
> > is in the States" will bloat the database and hammer download speeds for
> > absolutely no gain whatsoever.
>
> As Richard Welty said, the addr:city tag is pretty much required, as
> US addresses aren't defined by the boundaries of the city you live in
> (or don't live in for rural addresses), but the post office that
> delivers your mail.
>
> I can see not including the country or the state, do the various
> routing/geocoding engines take advantage of state/country polygons?
> Are there any exceptions out there where the address is physically in
> one state, but their postal address is from a neighboring state
> because that's where the post office is?
>
> --
> Jeff Ollie
>
> ___
> 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] US Addressing

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 29.11.2012 23:26, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

If you chaps are all dead set on doing another massive TIGER import - hey,
it's your funeral


It's not a funeral. It's a sacrifice of long-term project health for a 
short term gain.


Nobody in the overheated IT business world makes plans for something in 
five years; stuff that is in planning today will launch in 2013 and be 
dead in 2014. Naturally, if OSM can't promise addresses for 2013 then 
the business world isn't interested.


OSM has a choice. We don't have to submit to commercial life cycles; 
we've come as far as we have without doing it and we'll grow further 
even if we're not doing it. We can afford to tell those who ask: Thank 
you, we agree that addresses are important, but we'll do it our way and 
this will take time.


We might miss a few opportunities that way - we might see a little less 
announcements about some other big player having made the "switch2osm" 
in the short term. We might see a couple businesses throwing together 
OSM and third-party addressing and try to make a viable offer from that. 
But we'd be doing things our way, building a strong community and a good 
foundation for future growth.


Or we could opt for the quick success story, for a couple more minutes 
of fame, import data that we haven't created, haven't even seen - 
essentially become a distributor of third-party datasets. Garner some 
headlines, give a couple smart interviews to the press about why OSM is 
great (when in fact the data import is admitting the failure of 
precisely that which is great about OSM - individuals surveying the world).


We've been ignored by the big guys long enough - and even so flourished 
in the shadow. Does it really hurt if we're ignored for a while longer, 
and slowly and steadily grow?


I'd like to think that mankind has meanwhile learned to ask the 
sustainability question, and certainly imports aren't sustainable.


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] US Addressing

[andrzej zaborowski]

On 29 November 2012 21:12, Toby Murray  wrote:
> Now for the hard part. Converting and conflating the information with
> the non-trivial number of addresses I have already collected on the
> ground.

Compared to conflating names or geometries, addresses are not a
problem because the street and the housenumber form a unique id.
Before comparing them it is worth splitting the street name into
words, reordering the words within the name to order them lexically,
and abbreviating them using a not-necessarily-perfect word list (such
as that from tiger or nominatim), to account for variations.  We've
had to do that for one city recently but it turned out to be a simple
check.

The (150 loc) conversion script for that data would read 4 files:
* the new addresses in a particular format,
* an output of an overpass/xapi query for elements tagged with
adds:housenumber=*
* an output of an overpass/xapi query for ways tagged with building=*
* an output of an overpass/xapi query for named highways.

it would output:
* an .osm file adding the addresses missing from OSM, either attached
to existing buildings or added as nodes
* a list of potentially missing streets who's names appeared in the addresses.

Cheers

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

Re: [Talk-us] US Addressing

[Richard Fairhurst]

On 29/11/2012 22:46, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:

None of the Iowa data that I am processing originates with the US
Census or TIGER.


Sure, I should have said "big massive ---k-off import" rather than 
"TIGER". They both look the same from several thousand miles away I'm 
afraid. :)



As Richard Welty said, the addr:city tag is pretty much required, as
US addresses aren't defined by the boundaries of the city you live in
(or don't live in for rural addresses), but the post office that
delivers your mail.

I can see not including the country or the state, do the various
routing/geocoding engines take advantage of state/country polygons?


I'm pretty sure they do. But regardless, the point is: they could. It's 
saner to fix (say) Nominatim than it is to import a really huge quantity 
of redundant data into OSM. If you're determined on doing this, then an 
extra few days to get it right won't hurt.


You could pretty easily, I think, generate automated post office 
boundary polygons from the source data, rather than settling for 
addr:city. If it takes a few extra hours of coding, it's worth it; it'd 
make it _much_ quicker and easier to add a new house in the future. (One 
less thing to mistype.)


Similarly, you might have to scratch your head a bit to write the code 
which expands "St Andrews St" into "St Andrews Street" and not "Street 
Andrews Street". But it's worth it. Because if you don't do it, the 50 
poor sods who write the turn-by-turn voiceover code are going to have 
to, every time they use your data.


The specifics of what you have to do aren't really my point. I don't 
know much about the US and even here in Britain I don't have any 
personal use for addressing, so you shouldn't listen to me on the 
specifics. What's important is that the ideas get waved around in front 
of lots of people - and ideally not just on the US list - so that the 
hive mind can get to work and achieve the best result possible.


cheers
Richard


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

Re: [Talk-us] US Addressing

[Serge Wroclawski]

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Ian Dees  wrote:

> I really don't want to support a complete TIGER address import unless our
> effort at finding "real" local addressing data fails in some places.

I believe that Richard was speaking about TIGER in the sense of the
style of import, rather than about the dataset itself.

The issues around TIGER were that it gave us a boost initially, but
we've been also dealing with the consequences of that import for
years, and I think Richard is suggesting that we consider our actions
carefully.

> Just about all the data I've seen is unexpanded. We'll probably have to deal
> with that on a per-county basis (assuming we're not importing TIGER).

Yes, but it's an excellent point- one that should go along with any data import.


More than that, I'd like to see the imports follow a process (one
which I was writing up about the TIGER expansion), but here's the
rough outline:

1. Initial announcement of interest (I'd like to do ___ and either I
have the script or data to do so). Ask the community if there's
interest/objections.
(have some waiting/feedback period)
2. If there's interest and no serious objections, post the data files
and scripts for testing.
(have some waiting/feedback period)
3. Have a formal code review (as we're doing tonight for the TIGER
expansion bot).
4. Have a "last call.
(have a waiting/patch subimission period)
5. Do the automated edit process.

- Serge

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

[Talk-us] Thank You for the Operation Cowboy mappers

[Martijn van Exel]

Hi folks,

I put together this short Thank You video for  all who took part in
Operation Cowboy around the world.
Because this is a thank you on behalf of the US community, I thought
I'd show it to you first before I post it on Talk and on osm.us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yvj-UyZbeY

Let me know what you think.
M

-- 
Martijn van Exel
http://oegeo.wordpress.com/
http://openstreetmap.us/

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

Re: [Talk-us] US Addressing

[Paul Norman]

Ogr will read personal geodatabases with the appropriate drivers so ogr2osm
will read them, so if the legal issues can be sorted out there's no problem.

 

From: Steven Johnson [mailto:sejohns...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 10:04 AM
To: Open Street Map Talk-US
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] US Addressing

 

I'm wholeheartedly behind this effort as address data have long been an
interest. 

So I just had a quick look at obtaining data for Arlington, VA. The data
(current as of May 2012) are available on CD for cost of reproduction ($125)
and includes address points, plus parcels, zoning, flood control zones, etc.
The data are furnished in ArcGIS *personal* database format ONLY. (I have
access to ArcGIS, so could theoretically convert them.) The data are
copyrighted and Arlington County owns all rights to the data and allows use
"...as an acknowledged source to produce maps or analysis but you may not
redistribute, resell, or copy the data (except for back-up purposes)."

Probably other jurisdictions out there that place similar conditions on
their data. 

-- SEJ
-- twitter: @geomantic
-- skype: sejohnson8

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." --
Einstein




On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Ian Dees  wrote:

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Jeffrey Ollie  wrote:

The Iowa DNR has an ongoing project to provide statewide geocoding
data.  As of this summer they had about 50% of the state covered:

http://iagiservicebureau.blogspot.com/2012/06/first-batch-of-geocoding-proje
ct-points.html

It would be fairly trivial to convert these shape files and import them.

 

That is awesome. I'm adding data to the spreadsheet based on this listing
here:

ftp://ftp.igsb.uiowa.edu/gis_library/counties/ 


___
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] US Addressing

[Steven Johnson]

Let me pose something to help clarify what we're talking about when we say,
"importing addresses"
First, are we talking about
1) Address *ranges*, which are linear features and apply to streets/roads?
TIGER has address ranges, useful for interpolation. But TIGER does not
contain individual addresses.
2) Individual addresses? Points, if you will, associated with buildings,
landmarks, postal addresses. These are more likely to come from state/local
data sources.

Both are important for routing and other applications. But I don't have a
good feel yet for how important the relationship is between the two, or how
we need to facilitate it.

Secondly, about Census data... The Census Bureau publishes ZIP Code
Tabulation Areas (ZCTAs, as polygons) but they are an approximation of US
Postal Service data and used for downstream analytical purposes. But as far
as USPS is concerned, the ZIP code is a point data feature that only exists
to deliver the mail. The USPS does not maintain ZIP codes as polygons.

-- SEJ
-- twitter: @geomantic
-- skype: sejohnson8

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." --
Einstein
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Imports

[Ian Dees]

(Changing the subject because we seemed to have gotten side-tracked to
imports rather than collecting address information)

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Serge Wroclawski  wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Ian Dees  wrote:
>
> > I really don't want to support a complete TIGER address import unless our
> > effort at finding "real" local addressing data fails in some places.
>
> I believe that Richard was speaking about TIGER in the sense of the
> style of import, rather than about the dataset itself.
>
> The issues around TIGER were that it gave us a boost initially, but
> we've been also dealing with the consequences of that import for
> years, and I think Richard is suggesting that we consider our actions
> carefully.


All actions have consequences. Did importing TIGER hamper the OSM community
building in the US or did poor advocacy? Maybe it was the existing vast,
free data ecosystem? Maybe it was simply the sheer size of the country?


> > Just about all the data I've seen is unexpanded. We'll probably have to
> deal
> > with that on a per-county basis (assuming we're not importing TIGER).
>
> Yes, but it's an excellent point- one that should go along with any data
> import.
>

Yes, we can talk about an import process once we start talking about
importing the addresses.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] US Addressing

[Ian Dees]

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 8:12 PM, Steven Johnson wrote:

> Let me pose something to help clarify what we're talking about when we
> say, "importing addresses"
> First, are we talking about
> 1) Address *ranges*, which are linear features and apply to streets/roads?
> TIGER has address ranges, useful for interpolation. But TIGER does not
> contain individual addresses.
>

We are not talking about importing TIGER addresses at all.


> 2) Individual addresses? Points, if you will, associated with buildings,
> landmarks, postal addresses. These are more likely to come from state/local
> data sources.


Yes, individual address points. The topic of this thread was to collect the
location of address point data wherever we can find it. We should be
talking to state/county/local GIS people to gather this data (thus the
spreadsheet).
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] US Addressing

[Mike N]

 We certainly need to take our time before importing addresses.  I 
considered the problem of manually collecting the city and concluded 
that it is not possible short of opening mailboxes and reading the 
address on any mail (highly illegal), or knocking on every door to 
confirm the mailing address.   Much like boundaries, complete address 
information is possible only with an import.



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

Re: [Talk-us] Imports

[Steven Johnson]

This speaks to the message I just posted to the list: I believe Richard F's
inspiration was SteveC's post suggesting we import TIGER (*range*) data,
and apply it to ways. OTHO, I believe Ian (also prompted by SteveC) is
suggesting importing local address (*point*) data, and applying it to
buildings and parcels.

Several people have responded with examples of state/local address data to
import into OSM. Are these address *points* or address *ranges*?

-- SEJ,
-- twitter: @geomantic
-- skype: sejohnson8

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." --
Einstein



On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 9:16 PM, Ian Dees  wrote:

> (Changing the subject because we seemed to have gotten side-tracked to
> imports rather than collecting address information)
>
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Ian Dees  wrote:
>>
>> > I really don't want to support a complete TIGER address import unless
>> our
>> > effort at finding "real" local addressing data fails in some places.
>>
>> I believe that Richard was speaking about TIGER in the sense of the
>> style of import, rather than about the dataset itself.
>>
>> The issues around TIGER were that it gave us a boost initially, but
>> we've been also dealing with the consequences of that import for
>> years, and I think Richard is suggesting that we consider our actions
>> carefully.
>
>
> All actions have consequences. Did importing TIGER hamper the OSM
> community building in the US or did poor advocacy? Maybe it was the
> existing vast, free data ecosystem? Maybe it was simply the sheer size of
> the country?
>
>
>> > Just about all the data I've seen is unexpanded. We'll probably have to
>> deal
>> > with that on a per-county basis (assuming we're not importing TIGER).
>>
>> Yes, but it's an excellent point- one that should go along with any data
>> import.
>>
>
> Yes, we can talk about an import process once we start talking about
> importing the addresses.
>
> ___
> 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] US Addressing

[Steven Johnson]

Okay, so we're talking about importing address *points*. Good.

Now, are we talking strictly about *postal* addresses? Or *site* addresses?
In some cases (cities, typically) they're typically the same. But in rural
areas not always the case.

-- SEJ
-- twitter: @geomantic
-- skype: sejohnson8

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." --
Einstein



On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 9:21 PM, Mike N  wrote:

>
>  We certainly need to take our time before importing addresses.  I
> considered the problem of manually collecting the city and concluded that
> it is not possible short of opening mailboxes and reading the address on
> any mail (highly illegal), or knocking on every door to confirm the mailing
> address.   Much like boundaries, complete address information is possible
> only with an import.
>
>
>
> __**_
> 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

[Richard Welty]

On 11/29/12 9:26 PM, Steven Johnson wrote:

Several people have responded with examples of state/local address data to
import into OSM. Are these address *points* or address *ranges*?


my plan is to obtain permission to import, where available, the enhanced
911 address _points_ for various counties in New  York State. these data
sets have a very high reputation for accuracy and i intend to apply 
considerable

quality control to the import, as my ultimate goal is to supply accurate GPS
maps to first responders in NYS. the quality requirement is very high for
such an application.

richard


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

Re: [Talk-us] US Addressing

[Ian Dees]

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Steven Johnson wrote:

> Okay, so we're talking about importing address *points*. Good.
>
> Now, are we talking strictly about *postal* addresses? Or *site*
> addresses? In some cases (cities, typically) they're typically the same.
> But in rural areas not always the case.


We're not talking about importing anything yet. We're simply *collecting* any
addressing information you can find. We'll take either site or postal
addresses. Iowa, for example has two datasets for addressing: one for the
end of the driveway (postal) and one for the building ("rooftop" or "site"
addresses).
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Imports

[Brian May]

On 11/29/2012 9:33 PM, Richard Welty wrote:

On 11/29/12 9:26 PM, Steven Johnson wrote:
Several people have responded with examples of state/local address 
data to

import into OSM. Are these address *points* or address *ranges*?


my plan is to obtain permission to import, where available, the enhanced
911 address _points_ for various counties in New  York State. these data
sets have a very high reputation for accuracy and i intend to apply 
considerable
quality control to the import, as my ultimate goal is to supply 
accurate GPS

maps to first responders in NYS. the quality requirement is very high for
such an application.

richard

To add to what Richard is saying, many local governments use 911 
services as a major justification for creating these address point 
layers. In addition, many government services are tied to addresses and 
gain significant efficiencies by having accurate addresses, both 
spatially and tabularly. A lot of money and sweat equity has been put 
into these efforts. An example describing Lake County FL efforts:

http://www.lakecountyfl.gov/pdfs/gis/case_study_GISAddressingStreetsLayersEnhancements.pdf

Brian


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

Re: [Talk-us] US Addressing

[Brian May]

On 11/29/2012 9:12 PM, Steven Johnson wrote:


Secondly, about Census data... The Census Bureau publishes ZIP Code 
Tabulation Areas (ZCTAs, as polygons) but they are an approximation of 
US Postal Service data and used for downstream analytical purposes. 
But as far as USPS is concerned, the ZIP code is a point data feature 
that only exists to deliver the mail. The USPS does not maintain ZIP 
codes as polygons.
For points coming from parcel centroids, Property Appraisers store 
mailing addresses, and they need to get that right in order to deliver 
the tax bills. When the owner mailing address and site address match, I 
would bet there is a high degree of accuracy for the city and zipcode 
values in the site address fields (where they are populated).


Where the site address zipcode was not available, and mailing street 
address matched site address, I have used mailing address zipcodes to 
map zipcode boundaries  and obtained what appeared to be good results.


Brian


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

Re: [Talk-us] US Addressing

[Paul Johnson]

On Thursday, November 29, 2012, Brian May wrote:

> On 11/29/2012 9:12 PM, Steven Johnson wrote:
>
>>
>> Secondly, about Census data... The Census Bureau publishes ZIP Code
>> Tabulation Areas (ZCTAs, as polygons) but they are an approximation of US
>> Postal Service data and used for downstream analytical purposes. But as far
>> as USPS is concerned, the ZIP code is a point data feature that only exists
>> to deliver the mail. The USPS does not maintain ZIP codes as polygons.
>>
> For points coming from parcel centroids, Property Appraisers store mailing
> addresses, and they need to get that right in order to deliver the tax
> bills. When the owner mailing address and site address match, I would bet
> there is a high degree of accuracy for the city and zipcode values in the
> site address fields (where they are populated).
>

Is there a compelling reason not to get parcels instead?  As parcels change
shape, the centroid can be easily interpolated.  It's not really possible
to extrapolate geometry from centroid, however.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] US Addressing

[Paul Johnson]

On Thursday, November 29, 2012, Brian May wrote:

> On 11/29/2012 9:12 PM, Steven Johnson wrote:
>
>>
>> Secondly, about Census data... The Census Bureau publishes ZIP Code
>> Tabulation Areas (ZCTAs, as polygons) but they are an approximation of US
>> Postal Service data and used for downstream analytical purposes. But as far
>> as USPS is concerned, the ZIP code is a point data feature that only exists
>> to deliver the mail. The USPS does not maintain ZIP codes as polygons.
>>
> For points coming from parcel centroids, Property Appraisers store mailing
> addresses, and they need to get that right in order to deliver the tax
> bills. When the owner mailing address and site address match, I would bet
> there is a high degree of accuracy for the city and zipcode values in the
> site address fields (where they are populated).
>

Is there a compelling reason not to get parcels instead?  As parcels change
shape, the centroid can be easily interpolated.  It's not really possible
to extrapolate geometry from centroid, however.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] US Addressing

[Rick Marshall]

One of the problems we run into in portions of the midwest (like here
in the St Louis area) is that the local county and municipal
governments only lease the parcel data and don't own the data.  They
are not allowed to share that data without paying a large fee to the
company who leases it to them.  Here the company that leases the
parcel data to the governments is Sidwell.

It might make getting parcel data released for geocoding purposes
difficult in certain parts of the country.

Rick Marshall

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 9:32 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> On Thursday, November 29, 2012, Brian May wrote:
>>
>> On 11/29/2012 9:12 PM, Steven Johnson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Secondly, about Census data... The Census Bureau publishes ZIP Code
>>> Tabulation Areas (ZCTAs, as polygons) but they are an approximation of US
>>> Postal Service data and used for downstream analytical purposes. But as far
>>> as USPS is concerned, the ZIP code is a point data feature that only exists
>>> to deliver the mail. The USPS does not maintain ZIP codes as polygons.
>>
>> For points coming from parcel centroids, Property Appraisers store mailing
>> addresses, and they need to get that right in order to deliver the tax
>> bills. When the owner mailing address and site address match, I would bet
>> there is a high degree of accuracy for the city and zipcode values in the
>> site address fields (where they are populated).
>
>
> Is there a compelling reason not to get parcels instead?  As parcels change
> shape, the centroid can be easily interpolated.  It's not really possible to
> extrapolate geometry from centroid, however.
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>



-- 
Rick Marshall, PhD, GISP
President
Vertical GeoSolutions, Inc (VerticalGeo)
130 Sawgrass Ln
O'Fallon, IL  62269
(618) 670-4259
rick.marsh...@verticalgeo.com
http://www.verticalgeo.com
http://www.culturescapes.net
Vertically Thinking Blog: http://verticalgeo.wordpress.com

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

Re: [Talk-us] US Addressing

[Paul Johnson]

On Thursday, November 29, 2012, Brian May wrote:

> On 11/29/2012 9:12 PM, Steven Johnson wrote:
>
>>
>> Secondly, about Census data... The Census Bureau publishes ZIP Code
>> Tabulation Areas (ZCTAs, as polygons) but they are an approximation of US
>> Postal Service data and used for downstream analytical purposes. But as far
>> as USPS is concerned, the ZIP code is a point data feature that only exists
>> to deliver the mail. The USPS does not maintain ZIP codes as polygons.
>>
> For points coming from parcel centroids, Property Appraisers store mailing
> addresses, and they need to get that right in order to deliver the tax
> bills. When the owner mailing address and site address match, I would bet
> there is a high degree of accuracy for the city and zipcode values in the
> site address fields (where they are populated).
>

Is there a compelling reason not to get parcels instead?  As parcels change
shape, the centroid can be easily interpolated.  It's not really possible
to extrapolate geometry from centroid, however.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] US Addressing

[Paul Johnson]

On Thursday, November 29, 2012, Brian May wrote:

> On 11/29/2012 9:12 PM, Steven Johnson wrote:
>
>>
>> Secondly, about Census data... The Census Bureau publishes ZIP Code
>> Tabulation Areas (ZCTAs, as polygons) but they are an approximation of US
>> Postal Service data and used for downstream analytical purposes. But as far
>> as USPS is concerned, the ZIP code is a point data feature that only exists
>> to deliver the mail. The USPS does not maintain ZIP codes as polygons.
>>
> For points coming from parcel centroids, Property Appraisers store mailing
> addresses, and they need to get that right in order to deliver the tax
> bills. When the owner mailing address and site address match, I would bet
> there is a high degree of accuracy for the city and zipcode values in the
> site address fields (where they are populated).
>

Is there a compelling reason not to get parcels instead?  As parcels change
shape, the centroid can be easily interpolated.  It's not really possible
to extrapolate geometry from centroid, however.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] US Addressing

[Mike N]

On 11/29/2012 10:32 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:

Is there a compelling reason not to get parcels instead?  As parcels
change shape, the centroid can be easily interpolated.  It's not really
possible to extrapolate geometry from centroid, however.


 It would be useful to navigate to address points - properly placed, 
they will lead to the building of interest or driveway.   Centroids on 
large parcels will frequently misdirect to a side street with no access.



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

Re: [Talk-us] US Addressing

[Brian May]

On 11/29/2012 10:45 PM, Mike N wrote:

On 11/29/2012 10:32 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:

Is there a compelling reason not to get parcels instead?  As parcels
change shape, the centroid can be easily interpolated.  It's not really
possible to extrapolate geometry from centroid, however.


 It would be useful to navigate to address points - properly placed, 
they will lead to the building of interest or driveway. Centroids on 
large parcels will frequently misdirect to a side street with no access.


Right. From what I have seen, an address point layer is "rooftop" 
points. In the example of Lake County, they centered the points on top 
of residential structures, and for retail commercial, they put the 
points at the store fronts. There may be some variations, as Richard 
pointed out, for rural areas they may put the points at the ends of 
driveways. In Lake County, they put the points on the residential 
structure on large parcels. You can check out the Lake County data by 
looking at the Address Locations layer in the online map viewer: 
http://gis.lakecountyfl.gov/gisweb/


Parcel centroids are a fall-back position if the address points are not 
available. Parcel centroids do work really well for smaller residential 
lots. For large parcels, you can generate centroids that fall within the 
parcel (even for irregularly shaped parcels), but still need to properly 
place the points, And then for condos and multi-tenant commercial, you 
need more points than is in one parcel. For condos, sometimes the 
appraiser maps "fake" polygons for each condo, and you can use those as 
a starting point. In other cases, appraisers stack the parcel polygons 
on top of each other to represent condos. In other cases, they map 
building footprints and split them up by the number of condos in the 
building. And the list goes on...


Brian


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

Re: [Talk-us] First vs 1st

[Brian Quinion]

On 29 November 2012 19:06, Richard Welty  wrote:

> On 11/29/12 12:30 PM, Brian Quinion wrote:
>
>  If you mapped is as above it would work in nominatim since both name and
>> short_name are supported.
>>
>> Translation of 'Street' => 'St' is supported anyway but 'First' => '1st'
>> isn't because that would require a large multilingual number database to
>> resolve this in the general case.
>>
>>  fixing it in the OSM database by adding both would require mappers
> everywhere to detect the issue and do the right thing. what are the odds
> on this happening?
>
> fixing it in the search engines would be a bunch of work, but has the
> potential to fix it consistently everywhere.
>
>
I'm very happy for it to be fixed as you suggest, adding code to the
geocoders is definitely preferable, I just don't have the bandwidth to get
it done myself at the second.  Also just wanted to make clear that any
solution like this needs to handle multiple languages - I'm reluctant to
get an english only solution.

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

Re: [Talk-us] First vs 1st

[Richard Welty]

On 11/29/12 11:07 PM, Brian Quinion wrote:

I'm very happy for it to be fixed as you suggest, adding code to the
geocoders is definitely preferable, I just don't have the bandwidth to get
it done myself at the second.  Also just wanted to make clear that any
solution like this needs to handle multiple languages - I'm reluctant to
get an english only solution.



i don't have a problem with any of this. there's a lot that we need to
do that's going to take some time, and some thought about the right
way to do it.

richard


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

Re: [Talk-us] US Addressing

[Brian May]

Here's an interesting exercise so you can see how google is doing 
address geocoding. In google maps, search for: 2109 Lisa Dare Dr, 
Leesburg, FL


Make sure you have the map version turned on so you can see the parcel 
outlines. See the address location? Its the parcel centroid.


Now look at the Lake County FL map viewer at 
http://gis.lakecountyfl.gov/gisweb/default.aspx and search for 2109 Lisa 
Dare Dr

The address location is the house rooftop.

Now search for 3329 US Hwy 441, Leesburg, FL in google maps. The address 
location is now on the street, and its not even in front of the correct 
parcel. Why is that? Because the parcel database does not have a 3329 US 
Hwy 441 address in it, and they fell back to interpolated addresses.


Do the same search in the Lake County map viewer and you'll end up at 
the store front. This is an example of the multi-tenant retail address 
problem and trying to use parcels for that.


So, when we import address point layers, we will be better than Google! 
That's assuming that the data is all that and a bag of chips. And that's 
why we need to be vigilant in heavily QA'ing the data before importing.


Brian



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

Re: [Talk-us] US Addressing

[Paul Johnson]

On Thursday, November 29, 2012, Mike N wrote:

> On 11/29/2012 10:32 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
>> Is there a compelling reason not to get parcels instead?  As parcels
>> change shape, the centroid can be easily interpolated.  It's not really
>> possible to extrapolate geometry from centroid, however.
>>
>
>  It would be useful to navigate to address points - properly placed, they
> will lead to the building of interest or driveway.   Centroids on large
> parcels will frequently misdirect to a side street with no access.
>

So map the driveways and buildings, too.  I mean, how core are we?
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] US Addressing

[Ian Dees]

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 10:28 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:

> On Thursday, November 29, 2012, Mike N wrote:
>
>> On 11/29/2012 10:32 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>>
>>> Is there a compelling reason not to get parcels instead?  As parcels
>>> change shape, the centroid can be easily interpolated.  It's not really
>>> possible to extrapolate geometry from centroid, however.
>>>
>>
>>  It would be useful to navigate to address points - properly placed, they
>> will lead to the building of interest or driveway.   Centroids on large
>> parcels will frequently misdirect to a side street with no access.
>>
>
> So map the driveways and buildings, too.  I mean, how core are we?
>

My hope is that we can get the best address points added to OSM then we
improve on it when needed. Automating the repetitive task of address entry
by converting existing government data is a huge step to getting addressing
coverage. Once we get it in there we can move it/correct it in less time.

We should probably decide now if the goal of OSM's address points should be
rooftop or driveway points. It sounds like we're mostly in agreement that
it should be rooftop.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] US Addressing

[Richard Welty]

On 11/29/12 11:28 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:

On Thursday, November 29, 2012, Mike N wrote:

It would be useful to navigate to address points - properly placed, 
they will lead to the building of interest or driveway. Centroids on 
large parcels will frequently misdirect to a side street with no access. 

So map the driveways and buildings, too.  I mean, how core are we?

for rural routing purposes, mapping the driveways is pretty much a 
requirement,
if for no other reason than so we can deliver routes to the foot of the 
driveway.


richard


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

Re: [Talk-us] US Addressing

[Richard Welty]

On 11/29/12 11:36 PM, Ian Dees wrote:

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 10:28 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:


On Thursday, November 29, 2012, Mike N wrote:

So map the driveways and buildings, too.  I mean, how core are we?


My hope is that we can get the best address points added to OSM then we
improve on it when needed. Automating the repetitive task of address entry
by converting existing government data is a huge step to getting addressing
coverage. Once we get it in there we can move it/correct it in less time.

We should probably decide now if the goal of OSM's address points should be
rooftop or driveway points. It sounds like we're mostly in agreement that
it should be rooftop.


roof top works as long as we provide the driveways in cases where they
are long or "unusual".

for the garmin/mkgmap case, we have to actually attach the address to
notes on the road. having the long/twisty driveways mapped helps a lot.

richard


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