Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute
It may be that what is happening is that NE2 is deliberately trying to start an edit war so that he will be allowed back onto this list to discuss it. If, as seems to be the case, the bulk of his edits are destructive and need to be reverted, then the sensible thing to do may be to put an auto revert bot in for him. This would protect the OSM database and allow people to just ignore him. Or, the more sensible thing would be just to ban him from editing. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute
After viewing the satellite imagery for this intersection, it is clear to me that the turn testifying should be in place. Were the same intersection in Georgia, a driver going straight across could be charged with Failure to obey a traffic control device (with the traffic control devices in question being the left turn only arrow and the gore markings. Any Florida traffic law experts on here? By reverting this (twice now?), NE2 has committed vandalism, in my opinion. Could we now get DWG involved and get a ban hammer swinging? Bill R. WASHBURN ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Previous disputes NE2 and Paul Johnson
These two accounts have a history of conflict with each other. http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2010-October/004432.html NE2 and Paul Johnson have been instructed previously to leave each other alone. Anthony DiPierro is the only person, so far, who has been banned from OSM for behaviour that wasn't simple spamming. The number of spammers blocked and banned is near-countless. Anthony has also been banned from Wikipedia[1]. In my opinion, if you get in an argument with Anthony or NE2 and you are right, you are still wrong. They argue for the sport. The entire point of their argument is the conflict, not the potential for resolution. The matter at hand has nothing to do with a turn restriction. The turn restriction is an excuse. Baloo and NE2, leave each other alone. You are equally complicit. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Quickpolls/Archive#Anthony_DiPierro_.2821:_16_for.2C_5_against_76.25.29 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Previous disputes NE2 and Paul Johnson
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 6:37 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: In my opinion, if you get in an argument with Anthony or NE2 and you are right, you are still wrong. They argue for the sport. The entire point of their argument is the conflict, not the potential for resolution. So why do we allow them to stay around? Honestly, how is that in any way productive? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 6:09 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 2:09 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/14989711 NE2 has ignored the discussion intentionally and reverted against consensus. You can't manufacture consensus by refusing to allow those in disagreement from participating in the discussion. He brought that on himself with full knowledge of the consequences. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute FHP
FYI, an official ruling from Mouseland. This email stuff is pretty cool, one can actually directly ask somebody who is a Subject Matter Expert! ;-) Michael -- Forwarded message -- From: FHP f...@flhsmv.gov Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 8:08 AM Subject: RE: Legal Intersection Crossing To: Michael Patrick geodes...@gmail.com Dear Michael, ** ** Thanks for your inquiry. Your question is: ** ** The maneuver in question is whether one can proceed from the off ramp stop line, proceed perpendicular across Buena Vista Dr. , and enter onto the southbound onramp back onto southbound World Drive. ** ** The answer is *“not without violating Florida law”.* ** ** Point #1: The off ramp lane in your scenario is clearly marked as a “Left Turn Only” lane by the turn arrows painted on the roadway. In your scenario, instead of making a legal left turn, you would drive straight across the intersection and cross a “solid white line” and enter a “Right turn only lane” as indicated by the right turn arrows painted on the roadway. ** ** Point #2: The right turn lane on Buena Vista Dr in which you would be entering, has a *solid white line* on both sides of the lane which means that a vehicle that has lawfully entered the lane cannot exit or change lanes and no other vehicles are permitted to cross the solid white line to enter the lane at that location. ** ** The Florida Driver Handbook states on page 47: ** ** *Solid White Line* A solid white line marks the right edge of the roadway or separates lanes of traffic moving in the same direction. You may travel in the same direction on both sides of this line, but you should not cross the line unless you must do so to avoid a hazard. ** ** Since no hazard exit, this would be a violation of Florida Law. ** ** *Customer Service Center* *Correspondence/Email Unit* *Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles* *www.flhsmv.gov*** ** ** The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles is committed to Service, Integrity, Courtesy, Professionalism, Innovation and Excellence in all we do. Please let us know how we are doing via our online customer service survey at *https://www.research.net/s/MLR9RGC.* ** *From:* Michael Patrick [mailto:geodes...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Monday, February 11, 2013 1:47 AM *To:* FHP *Subject:* Legal Intersection Crossing ** ** We are embedding turn restrictions in automated routing software. ** ** What is contested: ** ** The general area is west of Epcot Center, the end of the southbound off ramp from southbound World Drive to the intersection with Buena Vista Dr.*** * See attached photo BuenaVistaDrive-004.jpg ( or https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bxor0dnxUrN2S25sLXRLUW4wb0E/edit?usp=sharing ) ** ** The maneuver in question is whether one can proceed from the off ramp stop line, proceed perpendicular across Buena Vista Dr. , and enter onto the southbound on ramp back onto southbound World Drive. This is shown as the red arrow on BuenaVistaDrive-001.jpg ( or see https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bxor0dnxUrN2M0lIY0RoUUEzUTA/edit?usp=sharing) ** ** This seems to be indicated because of the double signal visible from the off ramp stop line, even though at this point the road is a single lane. Also,there is a white left turn pavement arrow on the exit ramp. See the red arrow on BuenaVistaDrive-002.jpg ( or https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bxor0dnxUrN2em84TG1jb2hTcTQ/edit?usp=sharing) ** ** Superficially, at least, it seems possible to do this without crossing the gore markers in the intersection. BuenaVistaDrive-003.jpg ( or https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bxor0dnxUrN2X1RKVzI3RXdzQzA/edit?usp=sharing) ** ** Also, although there is only a double signal on Buena Vista Dr. eastbound at this intersection, the stop line extends all the way across all three lanes of traffic, including the exit only onto the southbound World Drive ramp. BuenaVistaDrive-005.jpg ( or https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bxor0dnxUrN2YlotaTVMRHA2OW8/edit?usp=sharing) ** ** After researching the Federal Highway Standards, the Florida Driver's Manual, etc. we were unable to make a conclusion. ** ** ** Thank you for your time and consideration, ** ** Michael Patrick Open Street Map http://www.openstreetmap.org/ ** ** ** ** ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute FHP
On 02/11/2013 08:34 AM, Michael Patrick wrote: FYI, an official ruling from Mouseland. This email stuff is pretty cool, one can actually directly ask somebody who is a Subject Matter Expert! ;-) While I admire the resourcefulness, I do question whether we're doing the right thing if we are trying to interpret the law in this way. We're obviously ill-equipped to do so ourselves. I know the current turn restriction relations aren't suited for it. But, instead of tagging left turn restriction from X to Y shouldn't we be tagging the pavement has an arrow that says left turn only? One of those requires interpretation and is subject to the law changing or being interpreted differently. The other is only subject to change if someone goes out and scrapes the arrow off the pavement. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute FHP
Dave Hansen d...@sr71.net wrote: On 02/11/2013 08:34 AM, Michael Patrick wrote: FYI, an official ruling from Mouseland. This email stuff is pretty cool, one can actually directly ask somebody who is a Subject Matter Expert! ;-) While I admire the resourcefulness, I do question whether we're doing the right thing if we are trying to interpret the law in this way. We're obviously ill-equipped to do so ourselves. I know the current turn restriction relations aren't suited for it. But, instead of tagging left turn restriction from X to Y shouldn't we be tagging the pavement has an arrow that says left turn only? One of those requires interpretation and is subject to the law changing or being interpreted differently. The other is only subject to change if someone goes out and scrapes the arrow off the pavement. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us Well, you are then placing the burden of interpreting the legal meaning of the markings on the person who writes the routing software, and who may not even live in the country in question. I think the combination of a local mapper, and, if necessary, checking with the government department regulating such matters, as was done in this case, is better than the method you proposed. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute FHP
So can we revert NE2's revert from last night? On Feb 11, 2013 10:35 AM, Michael Patrick geodes...@gmail.com wrote: FYI, an official ruling from Mouseland. This email stuff is pretty cool, one can actually directly ask somebody who is a Subject Matter Expert! ;-) Michael -- Forwarded message -- From: FHP f...@flhsmv.gov Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 8:08 AM Subject: RE: Legal Intersection Crossing To: Michael Patrick geodes...@gmail.com Dear Michael, ** ** Thanks for your inquiry. Your question is: ** ** The maneuver in question is whether one can proceed from the off ramp stop line, proceed perpendicular across Buena Vista Dr. , and enter onto the southbound onramp back onto southbound World Drive. ** ** The answer is *“not without violating Florida law”.* ** ** Point #1: The off ramp lane in your scenario is clearly marked as a “Left Turn Only” lane by the turn arrows painted on the roadway. In your scenario, instead of making a legal left turn, you would drive straight across the intersection and cross a “solid white line” and enter a “Right turn only lane” as indicated by the right turn arrows painted on the roadway. ** ** Point #2: The right turn lane on Buena Vista Dr in which you would be entering, has a *solid white line* on both sides of the lane which means that a vehicle that has lawfully entered the lane cannot exit or change lanes and no other vehicles are permitted to cross the solid white line to enter the lane at that location. ** ** The Florida Driver Handbook states on page 47: ** ** *Solid White Line* A solid white line marks the right edge of the roadway or separates lanes of traffic moving in the same direction. You may travel in the same direction on both sides of this line, but you should not cross the line unless you must do so to avoid a hazard. ** ** Since no hazard exit, this would be a violation of Florida Law. ** ** *Customer Service Center* *Correspondence/Email Unit* *Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles* *www.flhsmv.gov*** ** ** The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles is committed to Service, Integrity, Courtesy, Professionalism, Innovation and Excellence in all we do. Please let us know how we are doing via our online customer service survey at *https://www.research.net/s/MLR9RGC.* ** *From:* Michael Patrick [mailto:geodes...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Monday, February 11, 2013 1:47 AM *To:* FHP *Subject:* Legal Intersection Crossing ** ** We are embedding turn restrictions in automated routing software. ** ** What is contested: ** ** The general area is west of Epcot Center, the end of the southbound off ramp from southbound World Drive to the intersection with Buena Vista Dr.* *** See attached photo BuenaVistaDrive-004.jpg ( or https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bxor0dnxUrN2S25sLXRLUW4wb0E/edit?usp=sharing ) ** ** The maneuver in question is whether one can proceed from the off ramp stop line, proceed perpendicular across Buena Vista Dr. , and enter onto the southbound on ramp back onto southbound World Drive. This is shown as the red arrow on BuenaVistaDrive-001.jpg ( or see https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bxor0dnxUrN2M0lIY0RoUUEzUTA/edit?usp=sharing) ** ** This seems to be indicated because of the double signal visible from the off ramp stop line, even though at this point the road is a single lane. Also,there is a white left turn pavement arrow on the exit ramp. See the red arrow on BuenaVistaDrive-002.jpg ( or https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bxor0dnxUrN2em84TG1jb2hTcTQ/edit?usp=sharing) ** ** Superficially, at least, it seems possible to do this without crossing the gore markers in the intersection. BuenaVistaDrive-003.jpg ( or https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bxor0dnxUrN2X1RKVzI3RXdzQzA/edit?usp=sharing) ** ** Also, although there is only a double signal on Buena Vista Dr. eastbound at this intersection, the stop line extends all the way across all three lanes of traffic, including the exit only onto the southbound World Drive ramp. BuenaVistaDrive-005.jpg ( or https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bxor0dnxUrN2YlotaTVMRHA2OW8/edit?usp=sharing) ** ** After researching the Federal Highway Standards, the Florida Driver's Manual, etc. we were unable to make a conclusion. ** ** ** Thank you for your time and consideration, ** ** Michael Patrick Open Street Map http://www.openstreetmap.org/ ** ** ** ** ___ 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] Turn restriction dispute FHP
I think it's a little ridiculous that this dispute is going so far that anyone even consulted an expert. Obviously NE2 is wrong; we get it. This dead horse hasn't just been beaten; it's been liquefied. Let's just let the OSM gods deal with it, and go on with our lives. On Feb 11, 2013 10:35 AM, Michael Patrick geodes...@gmail.com wrote: FYI, an official ruling from Mouseland. This email stuff is pretty cool, one can actually directly ask somebody who is a Subject Matter Expert! ;-) Michael -- Forwarded message -- From: FHP f...@flhsmv.gov Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 8:08 AM Subject: RE: Legal Intersection Crossing To: Michael Patrick geodes...@gmail.com Dear Michael, ** ** Thanks for your inquiry. Your question is: ** ** The maneuver in question is whether one can proceed from the off ramp stop line, proceed perpendicular across Buena Vista Dr. , and enter onto the southbound onramp back onto southbound World Drive. ** ** The answer is *“not without violating Florida law”.* ** ** Point #1: The off ramp lane in your scenario is clearly marked as a “Left Turn Only” lane by the turn arrows painted on the roadway. In your scenario, instead of making a legal left turn, you would drive straight across the intersection and cross a “solid white line” and enter a “Right turn only lane” as indicated by the right turn arrows painted on the roadway. ** ** Point #2: The right turn lane on Buena Vista Dr in which you would be entering, has a *solid white line* on both sides of the lane which means that a vehicle that has lawfully entered the lane cannot exit or change lanes and no other vehicles are permitted to cross the solid white line to enter the lane at that location. ** ** The Florida Driver Handbook states on page 47: ** ** *Solid White Line* A solid white line marks the right edge of the roadway or separates lanes of traffic moving in the same direction. You may travel in the same direction on both sides of this line, but you should not cross the line unless you must do so to avoid a hazard. ** ** Since no hazard exit, this would be a violation of Florida Law. ** ** *Customer Service Center* *Correspondence/Email Unit* *Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles* *www.flhsmv.gov*** ** ** The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles is committed to Service, Integrity, Courtesy, Professionalism, Innovation and Excellence in all we do. Please let us know how we are doing via our online customer service survey at *https://www.research.net/s/MLR9RGC.* ** *From:* Michael Patrick [mailto:geodes...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Monday, February 11, 2013 1:47 AM *To:* FHP *Subject:* Legal Intersection Crossing ** ** We are embedding turn restrictions in automated routing software. ** ** What is contested: ** ** The general area is west of Epcot Center, the end of the southbound off ramp from southbound World Drive to the intersection with Buena Vista Dr.* *** See attached photo BuenaVistaDrive-004.jpg ( or https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bxor0dnxUrN2S25sLXRLUW4wb0E/edit?usp=sharing ) ** ** The maneuver in question is whether one can proceed from the off ramp stop line, proceed perpendicular across Buena Vista Dr. , and enter onto the southbound on ramp back onto southbound World Drive. This is shown as the red arrow on BuenaVistaDrive-001.jpg ( or see https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bxor0dnxUrN2M0lIY0RoUUEzUTA/edit?usp=sharing) ** ** This seems to be indicated because of the double signal visible from the off ramp stop line, even though at this point the road is a single lane. Also,there is a white left turn pavement arrow on the exit ramp. See the red arrow on BuenaVistaDrive-002.jpg ( or https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bxor0dnxUrN2em84TG1jb2hTcTQ/edit?usp=sharing) ** ** Superficially, at least, it seems possible to do this without crossing the gore markers in the intersection. BuenaVistaDrive-003.jpg ( or https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bxor0dnxUrN2X1RKVzI3RXdzQzA/edit?usp=sharing) ** ** Also, although there is only a double signal on Buena Vista Dr. eastbound at this intersection, the stop line extends all the way across all three lanes of traffic, including the exit only onto the southbound World Drive ramp. BuenaVistaDrive-005.jpg ( or https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bxor0dnxUrN2YlotaTVMRHA2OW8/edit?usp=sharing) ** ** After researching the Federal Highway Standards, the Florida Driver's Manual, etc. we were unable to make a conclusion. ** ** ** Thank you for your time and consideration, ** ** Michael Patrick Open Street Map http://www.openstreetmap.org/ ** ** ** ** ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute FHP
If it wasn't this dispute then it would have been another. At least now there's a precedent set for ground truth and following the local laws. One of the premises of OSM is that crowd-sourcing and local knowledge improves the quality of the maps, I think this conversation and eventual legal conclusion attained by going to the local authorities is exactly what OSM is about. On Feb 11, 2013, at 12:22 PM, Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.com wrote: I think it's a little ridiculous that this dispute is going so far that anyone even consulted an expert. Obviously NE2 is wrong; we get it. This dead horse hasn't just been beaten; it's been liquefied. Let's just let the OSM gods deal with it, and go on with our lives. On Feb 11, 2013 10:35 AM, Michael Patrick geodes...@gmail.com wrote: FYI, an official ruling from Mouseland. This email stuff is pretty cool, one can actually directly ask somebody who is a Subject Matter Expert! ;-) Michael -- Forwarded message -- From: FHP f...@flhsmv.gov Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 8:08 AM Subject: RE: Legal Intersection Crossing To: Michael Patrick geodes...@gmail.com Dear Michael, Thanks for your inquiry. Your question is: The maneuver in question is whether one can proceed from the off ramp stop line, proceed perpendicular across Buena Vista Dr. , and enter onto the southbound onramp back onto southbound World Drive. The answer is “not without violating Florida law”. Point #1: The off ramp lane in your scenario is clearly marked as a “Left Turn Only” lane by the turn arrows painted on the roadway. In your scenario, instead of making a legal left turn, you would drive straight across the intersection and cross a “solid white line” and enter a “Right turn only lane” as indicated by the right turn arrows painted on the roadway. Point #2: The right turn lane on Buena Vista Dr in which you would be entering, has a solid white line on both sides of the lane which means that a vehicle that has lawfully entered the lane cannot exit or change lanes and no other vehicles are permitted to cross the solid white line to enter the lane at that location. The Florida Driver Handbook states on page 47: Solid White Line A solid white line marks the right edge of the roadway or separates lanes of traffic moving in the same direction. You may travel in the same direction on both sides of this line, but you should not cross the line unless you must do so to avoid a hazard. Since no hazard exit, this would be a violation of Florida Law. Customer Service Center Correspondence/Email Unit Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles www.flhsmv.gov The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles is committed to Service, Integrity, Courtesy, Professionalism, Innovation and Excellence in all we do. Please let us know how we are doing via our online customer service survey at https://www.research.net/s/MLR9RGC. From: Michael Patrick [mailto:geodes...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 1:47 AM To: FHP Subject: Legal Intersection Crossing We are embedding turn restrictions in automated routing software. What is contested: The general area is west of Epcot Center, the end of the southbound off ramp from southbound World Drive to the intersection with Buena Vista Dr. See attached photo BuenaVistaDrive-004.jpg ( or https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bxor0dnxUrN2S25sLXRLUW4wb0E/edit?usp=sharing ) The maneuver in question is whether one can proceed from the off ramp stop line, proceed perpendicular across Buena Vista Dr. , and enter onto the southbound on ramp back onto southbound World Drive. This is shown as the red arrow on BuenaVistaDrive-001.jpg ( or see https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bxor0dnxUrN2M0lIY0RoUUEzUTA/edit?usp=sharing ) This seems to be indicated because of the double signal visible from the off ramp stop line, even though at this point the road is a single lane. Also,there is a white left turn pavement arrow on the exit ramp. See the red arrow on BuenaVistaDrive-002.jpg ( or https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bxor0dnxUrN2em84TG1jb2hTcTQ/edit?usp=sharing ) Superficially, at least, it seems possible to do this without crossing the gore markers in the intersection. BuenaVistaDrive-003.jpg ( or https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bxor0dnxUrN2X1RKVzI3RXdzQzA/edit?usp=sharing ) Also, although there is only a double signal on Buena Vista Dr. eastbound at this intersection, the stop line extends all the way across all three lanes of traffic, including the exit only onto the southbound World Drive ramp. BuenaVistaDrive-005.jpg ( or https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bxor0dnxUrN2YlotaTVMRHA2OW8/edit?usp=sharing ) After researching the Federal Highway Standards, the Florida Driver's Manual, etc.
Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute
there is a precedent. mk408. He was active mainly in one area only. after some edit war and unwilling to discuss with others he got blocked by DWG and then left for good. On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 5:56 AM, Michal Migurski m...@teczno.com wrote: I don't agree. NE2’s edits, most of all the route relations, are enormously valuable to OSM in the US. I'm not aware of any precedent for banning a user like this, and I'm not eager to see one set. -mike. --- michal migurski http://mike.teczno.com On Feb 9, 2013, at 9:30 PM, stevea stevea...@softworkers.com wrote: Russ, I second your vote/motion, not that anybody called for a second, or even that I am able to offer it. What I AM able to do is be civil and use the talk-us list, as it is our nationwide forum to discuss. There are plenty of other consensus understandings that might be loosely called rules which make up the fabric of OSM as a community. NE2 has again proven that he is either unwilling or unable to abide by those. Consequently, I think we should inform him that serious discussion of permanently banning him from OSM (this thread) is underway, and his behavior can either change for the better, or he can count on eventually being permanently banned. He has had plenty of opportunities to do so, and so I am not optimistic he will be around much longer. But if the community wants him, that can emerge as a consensus as well. His better (than nothing) edits are in a clear minority compared to the usual messes he makes. He DOES, for better or worse, stir controversy, which is why we discuss, which is part of the community. If, for that reason alone (that he is controversial), there are those who do not wish to ban him, speak up now, as you may (may) be able to make the case that we need somebody like him as an example of what to do with difficult contributors. I think it is unanimous that he is that, at least. I wouldn't miss him if he were gone, either. SteveA California He's banned from (at least) this list. Consequently, you cannot expect him to discuss this issue here. We had a discussion of whether to ban him from editing in the past, which never really got resolved. It just died out. Yes, he's done a lot of editing, and yes, some of his edits have been fruitful, but no, some of his edits have been less than helpful. I wouldn't miss him if he were gone. I vote, not that anybody called for a vote, to ask him to leave. -russ ___ 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] ref tags
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 11:36 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: Someone with local knowledge might want to look over the ref=* tags in Florida, a lot seem to be missing the context that let you know what network they're a part of. I'd actually been kicking around proposing a bulk edit of ref=* tags to conform them with the quasi-standard of two-letter USPS state prefix + space + route number (+ one-char suffix)?(+ space + any long modifiers) but didn't want things to devolve into a pissing match. Since Mapquest seems to need ref tags to include the proper state shield, and this standard is valid, even if alternative styles might also be valid including the USPS prefix would seem to help. Personally I'd prefer downstream consumers like MQ just use the relations, like on the shield renderer at http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/ (they also can encode proper directional information, which would be very useful if OSRM understood route relations) but baby steps. The only drawback I can see is that many of the route numbers in Georgia would disappear from the default Mapnik style, due to GDOT's insistence on cosigning virtually every US-designated highway with a visible state designation, which would make the shields too big to render. But this problem wouldn't affect most of the states where the bare number and SR plague has set in. Chris -- Chris Lawrence lordsu...@gmail.com Website: http://www.cnlawrence.com/ ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] ref tags
The SR and SH designations were mostly put in by NE2, IIRC. Go figure. I'm personally okay with this mass edit, but expect a lot of hate mail from NE2. On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 11:36 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: Someone with local knowledge might want to look over the ref=* tags in Florida, a lot seem to be missing the context that let you know what network they're a part of. I'd actually been kicking around proposing a bulk edit of ref=* tags to conform them with the quasi-standard of two-letter USPS state prefix + space + route number (+ one-char suffix)?(+ space + any long modifiers) but didn't want things to devolve into a pissing match. Since Mapquest seems to need ref tags to include the proper state shield, and this standard is valid, even if alternative styles might also be valid including the USPS prefix would seem to help. Personally I'd prefer downstream consumers like MQ just use the relations, like on the shield renderer at http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/ (they also can encode proper directional information, which would be very useful if OSRM understood route relations) but baby steps. The only drawback I can see is that many of the route numbers in Georgia would disappear from the default Mapnik style, due to GDOT's insistence on cosigning virtually every US-designated highway with a visible state designation, which would make the shields too big to render. But this problem wouldn't affect most of the states where the bare number and SR plague has set in. Chris -- Chris Lawrence lordsu...@gmail.com Website: http://www.cnlawrence.com/ ___ 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] Turn restriction dispute
Without wading too deeply into the personalities here, there's a danger inherent to having rules that you will have people who think they're being very clever by trying to repeatedly bump up against them in ways that may respect the letter of the rules but not their underlying spirit. For example, a guideline like don't tag for the renderer gets distorted into any tagging scheme that could conceivably be valid is equally valid, even if some renderers will cope poorly with the one I like. OpenStreetMap is not the argument room from Monty Python. IMO people who want to be in a community have to accept that sometimes the consensus isn't what they'd like, and they can either live with it or take their ball and join another community. More importantly they have to demonstrate a willingness and an ability to participate in that consensus in the first place. If they can't play sufficiently well with others to help form a consensus, or refuse to accept what a clear majority has adopted as the consensus if they don't participate, then I'm not sure they can really be part of the community in any meaningful sense. What shouldn't be acceptable is wasting everyone else's time... because this is the exact sort of attention-seeking behavior-slash-performance art that people with this personality type thrive on. Which I fear is what this thread is. In the immediate circumstances, what I think should be considered is some general policy that creates a half-way house between either being permitted full privileges or being banned; perhaps a policy in which people are placed on mailing list moderation but can still contribute after their message is vetted for appropriateness (for example, to screen out ad hominem attacks and insults*) would be more appropriate to community-building than this weird limbo in which you can edit but largely can't be part of the community otherwise. Of course, that creates work for other people that may be unfair. The simpler route is the ban hammer. Chris * For example, if I can go to another site where you're a participant and *every single use* of f*** you directed at other members is by you, I might humbly suggest you need to work on your communication style. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] ref tags
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.com wrote: The SR and SH designations were mostly put in by NE2, IIRC. Go figure. I'm personally okay with this mass edit, but expect a lot of hate mail from NE2. FWIW I did get a pair of emails from NE2 that says, in part, he would grudgingly accept such a change. I'd pass them along except (a) I'm not sure I have permission to do so and (b) I'm not sure it would be permissible in the sense that it might constitute posting on his behalf. In lieu of certainty I'll paraphrase and lightly quote... He does reiterate the point it would lead to long ref tags that would conflict with Mapnik's limitations. He also argues that it would make the Mapnik rendering erroneous (I suppose he's referring to the practice of using SR xx on blade signs and lighted overhead street signs, where the postal abbreviation is not used). He also expresses concern that the anti-import bullies might disapprove of a mass edit. (My thoughts follow.) As far as the blade sign issue goes, I expect that directions are more likely to use street names rather than the ref tags for routes that have both, and that the average driver is unlikely to be confused by a reference to Florida xx or Florida Highway xx instead of State Road xx, even if it's not the local vernacular, especially since the shield in most of these cases - Florida, Georgia, and Alabama - actually looks like the state itself* (and certainly less likely to be confused by Florida xx than xx - Turn left on 46? 46 what?) - after all, I don't think anyone has seriously proposed renaming the ref tags on US 101 in Los Angeles as The 101. Chris * Ironically this argument would carry more weight in Mississippi... where the shield is a circle, even though legally they're Mississippi xxx (local vernacular though tends to be [State] Highway xxx in my experience). ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] ref tags
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Chris Lawrence lordsu...@gmail.com wrote: He does reiterate the point it would lead to long ref tags that would conflict with Mapnik's limitations. He also argues that it would make the Mapnik rendering erroneous Tagging for the renderer. As far as the blade sign issue goes, I expect that directions are more likely to use street names rather than the ref tags for routes that have both, and that the average driver is unlikely to be confused by a reference to Florida xx or Florida Highway xx instead of State Road xx, even if it's not the local vernacular, especially since the shield in most of these cases - Florida, Georgia, and Alabama - actually looks like the state itself* (and certainly less likely to be confused by Florida xx than xx - Turn left on 46? 46 what?) - after all, I don't think anyone has seriously proposed renaming the ref tags on US 101 in Los Angeles as The 101. +1 -- Clay ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Landuse polygons within landuse polygons
(While both are important, I begin this thread In the interests of taking this list out of the OSM social and more into the OSM technical/practical): I have questions about landuse polygons. For example, barracks, where soldiers are quartered (housed) inside of a military base. A polygon surrounding the military base (where the boundary is) with the tag landuse=military seems correct, indeed there are many examples. For the barracks specifically, do I draw the buildings and tag them building=residential? Sure, that seems correct, too. But, do I also add a polygon with landuse=residential to the zone or neighborhood where the barracks are clustered? This would be a double-overlap of landuse polygons, residential on top of or within military. Sure, I could make the landuse=military a multipolygon (outer member) and punch a hole in it with the barracks neighborhood as an inner polygon, but in so doing we lose the semantic that barracks are BOTH military AND housing. At the same time, we don't want to approach or achieve coding for the renderer. Similar questions arise with other (non-landuse) tags which might logically be applied over one another. An example is a (say, largely wooded) leisure=park polygon with several landuse=meadow polygons sprinkled about it. In this case, leisure and landuse ARE distinct tags, so no double-overlap is strictly happening. And in mapnik, the effect is rather pleasing. (See, for example, http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=36.98499083518982lon=-122.0841121673584zoom=15). In a nearby case, a leisure=park is so largely wooded that a natural=wood tag is ALSO applied to the entire park multipolygon, but there are also some landuse=meadow polygons sprinkled about. Here, we have three different polygon tags: leisure, landuse and natural. Mapnik handles this well, again with a pleasing effect (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=36.98982lon=-122.11378zoom=17layers=M). While these parks (woods, meadows) look good in mapnik, are such superimposed polygons the correct representation in the underlying OSM data? Is the correct answer to never double-overlap landuse (or any like-tagged) polygons, but to use multipolygons with inner members? What about where the semantics really include both, like barracks? Thanks for an enlightened discussion about superimposed polygons (with both same and different tags), SteveA California ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
