Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] shawnee county landuse
I dont think that zipcodes and housenumbers count as copyrightable in usa.
I am not importing the entire database, and I am not copying the shapes
there. Also I am matching them up with bing, I really have doubts about the
data being protected in any meaningful way. I will do more research with
the county and get an opinion from them in writing on monday.
mike
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 8:59 PM, Paul Norman wrote:
> To be clear, you do **not** have a license for this data but are relying
> on fair use and your opinion of what is copyrighted?
>
> ** **
>
> Also, are you relying on the fact that others haven’t gotten into trouble
> as support for this import being legally okay?
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Mike Dupont [mailto:jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, December 21, 2012 6:51 PM
> *To:* Paul Norman
> *Cc:* imports; talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Imports] [Talk-us] shawnee county landuse
>
> ** **
>
> Well we can remove the names of the lbcs codes, I left them for now
> because it is very useful for editing. I am using them to search while
> editing etc.
>
> ** **
>
> Well the amount of data we are extracting is very very limited, I see this
> as basic fair use and factual information. The county gis officer knows
> what I am doing and did not say anything. The data should be easy to delete
> if needed.
>
> ** **
>
> Right now I am still working out the tagging of the various nodes, and
> when it all done we will remove the lbcs data when it is no longer needed.
>
>
> This is all work in progress, but already the osm database is better than
> google and other databases, I have been removing misplaced tags and nodes.
>
>
> ** **
>
> Also on the issue of violation of the kansas law, trulia and zillow and
> many others have real copies of this data in a much more commercial manner
> and I dont see that they are getting in trouble. I dont think it will be a
> big issue.
>
> ** **
>
> mike
>
> ** **
>
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 8:41 PM, Paul Norman wrote:
>
> You are proposing importing both the code **and** the description of the
> code. Why both?
>
>
>
> For that matter, why either at all? A user isn’t going to know what to do
> with it when editing the other tags.
>
>
>
> I can’t see a link to the license on the wiki. Could you please provide
> one. A lack of a license does not indicate public domain. Some counties
> consider their geodata to be PD, some don’t. It’s likely that Shawanee
> does, but there’s no confirmation of that that I see.
>
>
>
> The K.S.A. 45-220(c)(2)(B) declaration is a bit odd. It doesn’t seem to
> match up exactly with K.S.A. 45-230 which is titled “unlawful use of names
> derived from public records.”
>
>
>
> Remember, ODbL like any open license (e.g. CC BY, CC0, CC BY-SA, etc)
> allows people to resell the data. Someone could take the OSM address data
> and do a mass mailing based on it.
>
>
>
> I guess **you** might get into trouble based on it but the person doing
> so would probably be okay since they didn’t make the K.S.A. 45-220(c)(2)
> certification.
>
>
>
> *From:* Mike Dupont [mailto:jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, December 21, 2012 9:51 AM
> *To:* Martin Koppenhöfer
> *Cc:* Paul Norman; imports; talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Imports] [Talk-us] shawnee county landuse
>
>
>
> I have added the info to the wiki
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Kansas/Shawnee_County/Import
>
>
>
> also the scripts are updated. I am been manually replacing the plot info
> with just the building, so the only info being imported are the house
> numbers and zip codes and the lbcs tags. Also for the new script, I create
> a single point with the average location of the points making up the plot
> and then manually place that on top of the major building manually. this
> checks the data and also basically removes all data being copied,
> everything is only just the basic facts.
>
>
>
> mike
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 7:14 AM, Mike Dupont <
> jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 2:09 AM, Martin Koppenhöfer <
> dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Am 15/dic/2012 um 22:39 schrieb Mike Dupont <
> jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com>:
>
> 3. What tagging are you proposing?
>
> addr:* and landuse
> the only additional tag are the four detailed landuse tags
> eg
> lbcs:activity:code{1100=1}
> lbcs:activity:name{Household activities=1}
> lbcs:function:code{1170=1}
> lbcs:function:name{Garden apartment complex (1=1}
>
> These codes are details on how the lot is zoned. otherwise I am using this
> information for fixing the street names and zip codes.
>
> Are the landuses you plan to tag actual landuses or permitted/planned
> landuses?
>
>
> These are actual landuses, the ones that describe the busi
Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] shawnee county landuse
To be clear, you do *not* have a license for this data but are relying on
fair use and your opinion of what is copyrighted?
Also, are you relying on the fact that others havent gotten into trouble as
support for this import being legally okay?
From: Mike Dupont [mailto:jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com]
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 6:51 PM
To: Paul Norman
Cc: imports; talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Imports] [Talk-us] shawnee county landuse
Well we can remove the names of the lbcs codes, I left them for now because
it is very useful for editing. I am using them to search while editing etc.
Well the amount of data we are extracting is very very limited, I see this
as basic fair use and factual information. The county gis officer knows what
I am doing and did not say anything. The data should be easy to delete if
needed.
Right now I am still working out the tagging of the various nodes, and when
it all done we will remove the lbcs data when it is no longer needed.
This is all work in progress, but already the osm database is better than
google and other databases, I have been removing misplaced tags and nodes.
Also on the issue of violation of the kansas law, trulia and zillow and many
others have real copies of this data in a much more commercial manner and I
dont see that they are getting in trouble. I dont think it will be a big
issue.
mike
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 8:41 PM, Paul Norman wrote:
You are proposing importing both the code *and* the description of the code.
Why both?
For that matter, why either at all? A user isnt going to know what to do
with it when editing the other tags.
I cant see a link to the license on the wiki. Could you please provide one.
A lack of a license does not indicate public domain. Some counties consider
their geodata to be PD, some dont. Its likely that Shawanee does, but
theres no confirmation of that that I see.
The K.S.A. 45-220(c)(2)(B) declaration is a bit odd. It doesnt seem to
match up exactly with K.S.A. 45-230 which is titled unlawful use of names
derived from public records.
Remember, ODbL like any open license (e.g. CC BY, CC0, CC BY-SA, etc) allows
people to resell the data. Someone could take the OSM address data and do a
mass mailing based on it.
I guess *you* might get into trouble based on it but the person doing so
would probably be okay since they didnt make the K.S.A. 45-220(c)(2)
certification.
From: Mike Dupont [mailto:jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com]
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 9:51 AM
To: Martin Koppenhöfer
Cc: Paul Norman; imports; talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Imports] [Talk-us] shawnee county landuse
I have added the info to the wiki
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Kansas/Shawnee_County/Import
also the scripts are updated. I am been manually replacing the plot info
with just the building, so the only info being imported are the house
numbers and zip codes and the lbcs tags. Also for the new script, I create a
single point with the average location of the points making up the plot and
then manually place that on top of the major building manually. this checks
the data and also basically removes all data being copied, everything is
only just the basic facts.
mike
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 7:14 AM, Mike Dupont
wrote:
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 2:09 AM, Martin Koppenhöfer
wrote:
Am 15/dic/2012 um 22:39 schrieb Mike Dupont
:
3. What tagging are you proposing?
addr:* and landuse
the only additional tag are the four detailed landuse tags
eg
lbcs:activity:code{1100=1}
lbcs:activity:name{Household activities=1}
lbcs:function:code{1170=1}
lbcs:function:name{Garden apartment complex (1=1}
These codes are details on how the lot is zoned. otherwise I am using this
information for fixing the street names and zip codes.
Are the landuses you plan to tag actual landuses or permitted/planned
landuses?
These are actual landuses, the ones that describe the business.
when you register a business here in kansas, you have to provide this
information.
https://www.kansas.gov/bess/flow/main?execution=e1s1
I will also be looking into how that data can be extracted and compared some
day. This is more than zoning infomation.
If you look at this for example :
http://www.snco.us/Ap/C_prop/Listing.asp?PRCL_ID=0973604030001000
"2151-Grocery store / supermarket"
"2110-Goods-oriented shopping"
that is very accurate and could be used for direct tag information.
there is a building layer on the snco gis site, but I have not figured out
how to extract it, it seems to be hidden. So I am tracing them from bing.
http://gis.snco.us/ArcGIS/rest/services/Basemap_102100/MapServer/7
http://gis.snco.us/ArcGIS/rest/services/Basemap_102100/MapServer/8
4. The last few times someone has proposed importing property lot data
the consensus has been that that type of data shouldnt be imported into
OSM. Why is this different?
I am im
Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] shawnee county landuse
Well we can remove the names of the lbcs codes, I left them for now because
it is very useful for editing. I am using them to search while editing etc.
Well the amount of data we are extracting is very very limited, I see this
as basic fair use and factual information. The county gis officer knows
what I am doing and did not say anything. The data should be easy to delete
if needed.
Right now I am still working out the tagging of the various nodes, and when
it all done we will remove the lbcs data when it is no longer needed.
This is all work in progress, but already the osm database is better than
google and other databases, I have been removing misplaced tags and nodes.
Also on the issue of violation of the kansas law, trulia and zillow and
many others have real copies of this data in a much more commercial manner
and I dont see that they are getting in trouble. I dont think it will be a
big issue.
mike
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 8:41 PM, Paul Norman wrote:
> You are proposing importing both the code **and** the description of the
> code. Why both?
>
> ** **
>
> For that matter, why either at all? A user isn’t going to know what to do
> with it when editing the other tags.
>
> ** **
>
> I can’t see a link to the license on the wiki. Could you please provide
> one. A lack of a license does not indicate public domain. Some counties
> consider their geodata to be PD, some don’t. It’s likely that Shawanee
> does, but there’s no confirmation of that that I see.
>
> ** **
>
> The K.S.A. 45-220(c)(2)(B) declaration is a bit odd. It doesn’t seem to
> match up exactly with K.S.A. 45-230 which is titled “unlawful use of names
> derived from public records.”
>
> ** **
>
> Remember, ODbL like any open license (e.g. CC BY, CC0, CC BY-SA, etc)
> allows people to resell the data. Someone could take the OSM address data
> and do a mass mailing based on it.
>
> ** **
>
> I guess **you** might get into trouble based on it but the person doing
> so would probably be okay since they didn’t make the K.S.A. 45-220(c)(2)
> certification.
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Mike Dupont [mailto:jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, December 21, 2012 9:51 AM
> *To:* Martin Koppenhöfer
> *Cc:* Paul Norman; imports; talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Imports] [Talk-us] shawnee county landuse
>
> ** **
>
> I have added the info to the wiki
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Kansas/Shawnee_County/Import
>
> ** **
>
> also the scripts are updated. I am been manually replacing the plot info
> with just the building, so the only info being imported are the house
> numbers and zip codes and the lbcs tags. Also for the new script, I create
> a single point with the average location of the points making up the plot
> and then manually place that on top of the major building manually. this
> checks the data and also basically removes all data being copied,
> everything is only just the basic facts.
>
> ** **
>
> mike
>
> ** **
>
> On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 7:14 AM, Mike Dupont <
> jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 2:09 AM, Martin Koppenhöfer <
> dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Am 15/dic/2012 um 22:39 schrieb Mike Dupont <
> jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com>:
>
> 3. What tagging are you proposing?
>
> addr:* and landuse
> the only additional tag are the four detailed landuse tags
> eg
> lbcs:activity:code{1100=1}
> lbcs:activity:name{Household activities=1}
> lbcs:function:code{1170=1}
> lbcs:function:name{Garden apartment complex (1=1}
>
> These codes are details on how the lot is zoned. otherwise I am using this
> information for fixing the street names and zip codes.
>
> Are the landuses you plan to tag actual landuses or permitted/planned
> landuses?
>
>
> These are actual landuses, the ones that describe the business.
> when you register a business here in kansas, you have to provide this
> information.
> https://www.kansas.gov/bess/flow/main?execution=e1s1
>
> I will also be looking into how that data can be extracted and compared
> some day. This is more than zoning infomation.
> If you look at this for example :
> http://www.snco.us/Ap/C_prop/Listing.asp?PRCL_ID=0973604030001000
>
> "2151-Grocery store / supermarket"
> "2110-Goods-oriented shopping"
>
> that is very accurate and could be used for direct tag information.
>
> there is a building layer on the snco gis site, but I have not figured out
> how to extract it, it seems to be hidden. So I am tracing them from bing.
> http://gis.snco.us/ArcGIS/rest/services/Basemap_102100/MapServer/7
> http://gis.snco.us/ArcGIS/rest/services/Basemap_102100/MapServer/8
>
> 4. The last few times someone has proposed importing property lot
> data the consensus has been that that type of data shouldn’t be imported
> into OSM. Why is this different?
>
> I am importing the plots for zipcode, house number and address d
Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] shawnee county landuse
You are proposing importing both the code *and* the description of the code.
Why both?
For that matter, why either at all? A user isnt going to know what to do
with it when editing the other tags.
I cant see a link to the license on the wiki. Could you please provide one.
A lack of a license does not indicate public domain. Some counties consider
their geodata to be PD, some dont. Its likely that Shawanee does, but
theres no confirmation of that that I see.
The K.S.A. 45-220(c)(2)(B) declaration is a bit odd. It doesnt seem to
match up exactly with K.S.A. 45-230 which is titled unlawful use of names
derived from public records.
Remember, ODbL like any open license (e.g. CC BY, CC0, CC BY-SA, etc) allows
people to resell the data. Someone could take the OSM address data and do a
mass mailing based on it.
I guess *you* might get into trouble based on it but the person doing so
would probably be okay since they didnt make the K.S.A. 45-220(c)(2)
certification.
From: Mike Dupont [mailto:jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com]
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 9:51 AM
To: Martin Koppenhöfer
Cc: Paul Norman; imports; talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Imports] [Talk-us] shawnee county landuse
I have added the info to the wiki
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Kansas/Shawnee_County/Import
also the scripts are updated. I am been manually replacing the plot info
with just the building, so the only info being imported are the house
numbers and zip codes and the lbcs tags. Also for the new script, I create a
single point with the average location of the points making up the plot and
then manually place that on top of the major building manually. this checks
the data and also basically removes all data being copied, everything is
only just the basic facts.
mike
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 7:14 AM, Mike Dupont
wrote:
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 2:09 AM, Martin Koppenhöfer
wrote:
Am 15/dic/2012 um 22:39 schrieb Mike Dupont
:
3. What tagging are you proposing?
addr:* and landuse
the only additional tag are the four detailed landuse tags
eg
lbcs:activity:code{1100=1}
lbcs:activity:name{Household activities=1}
lbcs:function:code{1170=1}
lbcs:function:name{Garden apartment complex (1=1}
These codes are details on how the lot is zoned. otherwise I am using this
information for fixing the street names and zip codes.
Are the landuses you plan to tag actual landuses or permitted/planned
landuses?
These are actual landuses, the ones that describe the business.
when you register a business here in kansas, you have to provide this
information.
https://www.kansas.gov/bess/flow/main?execution=e1s1
I will also be looking into how that data can be extracted and compared some
day. This is more than zoning infomation.
If you look at this for example :
http://www.snco.us/Ap/C_prop/Listing.asp?PRCL_ID=0973604030001000
"2151-Grocery store / supermarket"
"2110-Goods-oriented shopping"
that is very accurate and could be used for direct tag information.
there is a building layer on the snco gis site, but I have not figured out
how to extract it, it seems to be hidden. So I am tracing them from bing.
http://gis.snco.us/ArcGIS/rest/services/Basemap_102100/MapServer/7
http://gis.snco.us/ArcGIS/rest/services/Basemap_102100/MapServer/8
4. The last few times someone has proposed importing property lot data
the consensus has been that that type of data shouldnt be imported into
OSM. Why is this different?
I am importing the plots for zipcode, house number and address data. It is
being used to tag the buildings, it can be deleted when it has been totally
processed.
IMHO addresses belong (often) to plots, so in these cases there is no point
in transferring the address information to a building. Don't remember
consensus to not import property limits. I do remember though that there
were concerns about the sheer amount of data increase if we imported this
for the whole world.
Cheers,
Martin
Well these are plots/property limits. And I dont want to import them for the
whole world, just the streets that I am tracing buildings from so that I
can quickly find locations. Also did you notice that
http://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/ can now find house numbers accurately
for these streets I imported :
http://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/search.php?q=2033+Southwest+Wanamaker+Rd%
2C+Topeka%2C+Kansas
&viewbox=-217.97%2C80.28%2C217.97%2C-70.31
Until the houses are traced and the data transfered like i did here :
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/196582551 I removed the plot and the
lbcs data and left only the house itself.
I forgot the landuse=residential.
--
James Michael DuPont
Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org
Saving wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion http:/
Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] shawnee county landuse
Yes, I am going to be working on this.
We can remove the US and KS easily.
Not all is perfect, Some of the nodes dont have a house number.
That farm node you mentioned is an empty farmyard.
http://www.snco.us/Ap/R_prop/Listing.asp?PRCL_ID=0282701001001010 It does
not have a house number, but it does exist as a property. I will be either
removing them or removing the building nodes. What do you think?
Now Flu Con Inc is listed at that address. I added it for now, will be
checking it on monday by calling them.
This data does need fixing up, it is not perfect, but I am working on it.
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Toby Murray wrote:
> Just saw some of this going in and decided to take a look.
> Specifically this node:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/2078174875
>
> - I think there is pretty good consensus that we don't need addr:state
> and addr:country tags
> - The addr:street tag has odd capitalization
> - The building=* tag typically doesn't belong on nodes
> - It has both building and landuse tags. Seems odd.
> - There doesn't appear to be a building there on Bing. Is it new?
> - Not sure about all the lbcs: tags. Sometimes it is useful to pull in
> external information but it is also clutter in OSM
> - The tags are all identical to this node that is 60 meters north:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/2078081231
>
> Seems like this could use some more fixing up before it hits the OSM
> database.
>
> Toby
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Mike Dupont
> wrote:
> > I have added the info to the wiki
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Kansas/Shawnee_County/Import
> >
> > also the scripts are updated. I am been manually replacing the plot info
> > with just the building, so the only info being imported are the house
> > numbers and zip codes and the lbcs tags. Also for the new script, I
> create a
> > single point with the average location of the points making up the plot
> and
> > then manually place that on top of the major building manually. this
> checks
> > the data and also basically removes all data being copied, everything is
> > only just the basic facts.
> >
> > mike
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 7:14 AM, Mike Dupont
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 2:09 AM, Martin Koppenhöfer
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Am 15/dic/2012 um 22:39 schrieb Mike Dupont
> >>> :
> >>>
> 3. What tagging are you proposing?
> >>>
> >>> addr:* and landuse
> >>> the only additional tag are the four detailed landuse tags
> >>> eg
> >>> lbcs:activity:code{1100=1}
> >>> lbcs:activity:name{Household activities=1}
> >>> lbcs:function:code{1170=1}
> >>> lbcs:function:name{Garden apartment complex (1=1}
> >>>
> >>> These codes are details on how the lot is zoned. otherwise I am using
> >>> this information for fixing the street names and zip codes.
> >>>
> >>> Are the landuses you plan to tag actual landuses or permitted/planned
> >>> landuses?
> >>
> >>
> >> These are actual landuses, the ones that describe the business.
> >> when you register a business here in kansas, you have to provide this
> >> information.
> >> https://www.kansas.gov/bess/flow/main?execution=e1s1
> >>
> >> I will also be looking into how that data can be extracted and compared
> >> some day. This is more than zoning infomation.
> >> If you look at this for example :
> >> http://www.snco.us/Ap/C_prop/Listing.asp?PRCL_ID=0973604030001000
> >>
> >> "2151-Grocery store / supermarket"
> >> "2110-Goods-oriented shopping"
> >> that is very accurate and could be used for direct tag information.
> >>
> >> there is a building layer on the snco gis site, but I have not figured
> out
> >> how to extract it, it seems to be hidden. So I am tracing them from
> bing.
> >> http://gis.snco.us/ArcGIS/rest/services/Basemap_102100/MapServer/7
> >> http://gis.snco.us/ArcGIS/rest/services/Basemap_102100/MapServer/8
> >>
> 4. The last few times someone has proposed importing property
> lot
> data the consensus has been that that type of data shouldn’t be
> imported
> into OSM. Why is this different?
> >>>
> >>> I am importing the plots for zipcode, house number and address data. It
> >>> is being used to tag the buildings, it can be deleted when it has been
> >>> totally processed.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> IMHO addresses belong (often) to plots, so in these cases there is no
> >>> point in transferring the address information to a building. Don't
> remember
> >>> consensus to not import property limits. I do remember though that
> there
> >>> were concerns about the sheer amount of data increase if we imported
> this
> >>> for the whole world.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Martin
> >>
> >>
> >> Well these are plots/property limits. And I dont want to import them for
> >> the whole world, just the streets that I am tracing buildings from so
> that
> >> I can quickly find locations. Also did you notice that
> >> http://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/ can now find h
Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] shawnee county landuse
Just saw some of this going in and decided to take a look.
Specifically this node:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/2078174875
- I think there is pretty good consensus that we don't need addr:state
and addr:country tags
- The addr:street tag has odd capitalization
- The building=* tag typically doesn't belong on nodes
- It has both building and landuse tags. Seems odd.
- There doesn't appear to be a building there on Bing. Is it new?
- Not sure about all the lbcs: tags. Sometimes it is useful to pull in
external information but it is also clutter in OSM
- The tags are all identical to this node that is 60 meters north:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/2078081231
Seems like this could use some more fixing up before it hits the OSM database.
Toby
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Mike Dupont
wrote:
> I have added the info to the wiki
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Kansas/Shawnee_County/Import
>
> also the scripts are updated. I am been manually replacing the plot info
> with just the building, so the only info being imported are the house
> numbers and zip codes and the lbcs tags. Also for the new script, I create a
> single point with the average location of the points making up the plot and
> then manually place that on top of the major building manually. this checks
> the data and also basically removes all data being copied, everything is
> only just the basic facts.
>
> mike
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 7:14 AM, Mike Dupont
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 2:09 AM, Martin Koppenhöfer
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 15/dic/2012 um 22:39 schrieb Mike Dupont
>>> :
>>>
3. What tagging are you proposing?
>>>
>>> addr:* and landuse
>>> the only additional tag are the four detailed landuse tags
>>> eg
>>> lbcs:activity:code{1100=1}
>>> lbcs:activity:name{Household activities=1}
>>> lbcs:function:code{1170=1}
>>> lbcs:function:name{Garden apartment complex (1=1}
>>>
>>> These codes are details on how the lot is zoned. otherwise I am using
>>> this information for fixing the street names and zip codes.
>>>
>>> Are the landuses you plan to tag actual landuses or permitted/planned
>>> landuses?
>>
>>
>> These are actual landuses, the ones that describe the business.
>> when you register a business here in kansas, you have to provide this
>> information.
>> https://www.kansas.gov/bess/flow/main?execution=e1s1
>>
>> I will also be looking into how that data can be extracted and compared
>> some day. This is more than zoning infomation.
>> If you look at this for example :
>> http://www.snco.us/Ap/C_prop/Listing.asp?PRCL_ID=0973604030001000
>>
>> "2151-Grocery store / supermarket"
>> "2110-Goods-oriented shopping"
>> that is very accurate and could be used for direct tag information.
>>
>> there is a building layer on the snco gis site, but I have not figured out
>> how to extract it, it seems to be hidden. So I am tracing them from bing.
>> http://gis.snco.us/ArcGIS/rest/services/Basemap_102100/MapServer/7
>> http://gis.snco.us/ArcGIS/rest/services/Basemap_102100/MapServer/8
>>
4. The last few times someone has proposed importing property lot
data the consensus has been that that type of data shouldn’t be imported
into OSM. Why is this different?
>>>
>>> I am importing the plots for zipcode, house number and address data. It
>>> is being used to tag the buildings, it can be deleted when it has been
>>> totally processed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> IMHO addresses belong (often) to plots, so in these cases there is no
>>> point in transferring the address information to a building. Don't remember
>>> consensus to not import property limits. I do remember though that there
>>> were concerns about the sheer amount of data increase if we imported this
>>> for the whole world.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Martin
>>
>>
>> Well these are plots/property limits. And I dont want to import them for
>> the whole world, just the streets that I am tracing buildings from so that
>> I can quickly find locations. Also did you notice that
>> http://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/ can now find house numbers accurately
>> for these streets I imported :
>>
>> http://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/search.php?q=2033+Southwest+Wanamaker+Rd%2C+Topeka%2C+Kansas&viewbox=-217.97%2C80.28%2C217.97%2C-70.31
>>
>> Until the houses are traced and the data transfered like i did here :
>>
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/196582551 I removed the plot and
>> the lbcs data and left only the house itself.
>> I forgot the landuse=residential.
>>
>> --
>> James Michael DuPont
>> Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org
>> Saving wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion
>> http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com
>> Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org
>> Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3
>> Free Software Foundation Europe Fellow http://fsfe.org/support/?h4ck3rm1k3
>
>
>
>
> --
> James Michael DuPont
> Member of Free Libre O
Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] shawnee county landuse
I have added the info to the wiki
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Kansas/Shawnee_County/Import
also the scripts are updated. I am been manually replacing the plot info
with just the building, so the only info being imported are the house
numbers and zip codes and the lbcs tags. Also for the new script, I create
a single point with the average location of the points making up the plot
and then manually place that on top of the major building manually. this
checks the data and also basically removes all data being copied,
everything is only just the basic facts.
mike
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 7:14 AM, Mike Dupont wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 2:09 AM, Martin Koppenhöfer <
> dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Am 15/dic/2012 um 22:39 schrieb Mike Dupont <
>> jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com>:
>>
>> 3. **What tagging are you proposing?
>>>
>> addr:* and landuse
>> the only additional tag are the four detailed landuse tags
>> eg
>> lbcs:activity:code{1100=1}
>> lbcs:activity:name{Household activities=1}
>> lbcs:function:code{1170=1}
>> lbcs:function:name{Garden apartment complex (1=1}
>>
>> These codes are details on how the lot is zoned. otherwise I am using
>> this information for fixing the street names and zip codes.
>>
>> Are the landuses you plan to tag actual landuses or permitted/planned
>> landuses?
>>
>
> These are actual landuses, the ones that describe the business.
> when you register a business here in kansas, you have to provide this
> information.
> https://www.kansas.gov/bess/flow/main?execution=e1s1
>
> I will also be looking into how that data can be extracted and compared
> some day. This is more than zoning infomation.
> If you look at this for example :
> http://www.snco.us/Ap/C_prop/Listing.asp?PRCL_ID=0973604030001000
>
> "2151-Grocery store / supermarket"
> "2110-Goods-oriented shopping"
> that is very accurate and could be used for direct tag information.
>
> there is a building layer on the snco gis site, but I have not figured out
> how to extract it, it seems to be hidden. So I am tracing them from bing.
> http://gis.snco.us/ArcGIS/rest/services/Basemap_102100/MapServer/7
> http://gis.snco.us/ArcGIS/rest/services/Basemap_102100/MapServer/8
>
>
>>>
>>> **4. **The last few times someone has proposed importing property
>>> lot data the consensus has been that that type of data shouldn’t be
>>> imported into OSM. Why is this different?
>>>
>> I am importing the plots for zipcode, house number and address data. It
>> is being used to tag the buildings, it can be deleted when it has been
>> totally processed.
>>
>>
>>
>> IMHO addresses belong (often) to plots, so in these cases there is no
>> point in transferring the address information to a building. Don't remember
>> consensus to not import property limits. I do remember though that there
>> were concerns about the sheer amount of data increase if we imported this
>> for the whole world.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Martin
>>
>
> Well these are plots/property limits. And I dont want to import them for
> the whole world, just the streets that I am tracing buildings from so
> that I can quickly find locations. Also did you notice that
> http://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/ can now find house numbers accurately
> for these streets I imported :
>
> http://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/search.php?q=2033+Southwest+Wanamaker+Rd%2C+Topeka%2C+Kansas&viewbox=-217.97%2C80.28%2C217.97%2C-70.31
>
> Until the houses are traced and the data transfered like i did here :
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/196582551 I removed the plot and
> the lbcs data and left only the house itself.
> I forgot the landuse=residential.
>
> --
> James Michael DuPont
> Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org
> Saving wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion
> http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com
> Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org
> Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3
> Free Software Foundation Europe Fellow http://fsfe.org/support/?h4ck3rm1k3
>
--
James Michael DuPont
Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org
Saving wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com
Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org
Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3
Free Software Foundation Europe Fellow http://fsfe.org/support/?h4ck3rm1k3
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Import Committee Meetup Notes
Hi all, This is just a quick roundup with some notes on last night's committee meeting. We had a good number of people show up, and we had a very useful discussion on the utility and concerns about imports, the current status of US imports, the role of the DWG, what kind of help we could offer importers, etc. The outcome of the meeting is that there are folks who are interested, who want to help the process along, and we think that importers will also appreciate the hand holding. We're working on getting a new list together for this, and we'll announce that soon, and we'll also have a meeting in early January. Thanks all who attended and hopefully those who couldn't make it will be able to in the future. - Serge ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Importing highway surface tags
On 12/20/2012 05:03 PM, Adam Franco wrote: > * Has anyone located a good source for state or national road surface data? > The TIGER data doesn't seem to include surface information as far as I can > tell. The VCGI EmergencyE911_RDS file has a field for this. Unfortunately, 58773 out of 64302 values (91%) are "Unknown". The VCGI license doesn't explicitly give the permissions needed for OSM, but when I asked to use the town boundaries layer they gave permission. (I still need to get around to that...) > * Is this a project that the OSM community in Vermont, the broader region, > or nationally (assuming data is available) would support? I'd rather not do > a lot of work to prepare it if there is no desire for inclusion in the data > set. I'd support it. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
