Re: [Talk-us] Civil War Mapping

[Jeff Meyer]

This is exactly the kind of stuff we'd love to have in the Historical OSM
setup, which is close to being ready for playing around with. Looking
forward to more updates!

- Jeff

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:14 PM, Richard Welty wrote:

> On 2/21/13 7:49 PM, Adam Schreiber wrote:
>
>> Richard,
>>
>> I hope you enjoy the area. I've already done a bit of mapping at the
>> Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania battlefields.
>>
>>  i look forward to it. is there any particular mapping task i should look
> for at Spotsylvania?
>
>
> richard
>
>
> __**_
> 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
 osm: Historical
OSM
 / my OSM user page 
 t: @GWHAThistory 
 f: GWHAThistory 
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Possible coping from Google Maps

[Toby Murray]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Rick Marshall
 wrote:
> I mistakenly sent this to Greg and not the entire list.  So, I'll
> retry it again:
>
> Hello all.  I am still fairly new to OSM, so I don't know all the ins
> and outs.  But I have to ask a question.  Other than Google Mapmaker
> is there any other ways that Google's data gets updated?  I recently
> made several updates of walking trails in a local park here:
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.58835&lon=-89.88472&zoom=16&layers=M
>
> And I just noticed the other day that the same updates I made to the
> trail system (including the names) within OpenStreetMap showed up in
> Google Maps:
>
>  http://goo.gl/maps/mJJMs
>
> Does Google import any data from OSM?  How do we know the data that is
> subject to this post was in Google Maps first?

Google is of course free to use OSM data just like anyone else... if
they comply with our license. So far they have not chosen to do so and
it doesn't seem likely that they will any time soon. There have been a
couple of instances of Google getting OSM data into their maps though
a 3rd party who was passing off our data as their own. In both
instances Google removed the data quickly once it was brought to their
attention.

Looking at the history of some of the park features you pointed out in
MapMaker it looks like at least some of them have been in there for a
while. I see some that were last touched in September and a couple
that haven't been touched since December 2011.

Toby

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

Re: [Talk-us] parcel data next steps

[Brian May]

On 2/21/2013 7:27 PM, Brian Cavagnolo wrote:

Hey guys,

In a previous thread on parcel data, some people expressed interest in
participating in creating some sort of open repository for parcel
data.  I was imagining a conference call or something to discuss next
steps, but I think we can advance with email.  I'm imagining that it
makes sense to separate the data gathering process from the data
standardization/import process.

Regarding the data gathering, the main objective is to gather recent
raw data, licensing terms, and meta data from jurisdictions in
whatever form they make it available, organize it in a dumb directory
structure.  I was just going to set up an FTP (read-write)  and HTTP
(read-only) server to get this going.  Are there any
recommendations/opinions on a longer-term approach here?  Custom
webapp?  Off-the-shelf webapp?  Somebody mentioned a git repository.

Regarding standardization/import, I was planning on setting up an
empty instance of the rails port as a test bed.  Then participating
users could point JOSM and other tools at this alternative rails port
to examine, edit, and import parcel data.  We could also provide
planet-style dumps and mapnik tiles.  The idea is that we would have a
safe place to screw up and learn.  Does this sound like a reasonable
direction?

Oh, and I found this fantastic paper that some parcel data people (Abt
Associates, Fairview Industries, Smart Data Strategies) recently put
together for HUD [1] that examines many of the issues that they faced
building a parcel database.  Timely.

Ciao,
Brian

[1] 
http://nationalcad.org/download/the-feasibility-of-developing-a-national-parcel-database-county-data-records-project-final-report/

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


Hi Brian,

I am interested in collaborating on this. So here's some thoughts:

From my perspective (and I think others as mentioned in other email 
threads), the main thrust of utilizing parcels is a source of addresses 
based on parcel centroids where address points or buildings with 
addresses are not available. In addition, several people have mentioned 
they utilize parcels as an overlay to assist with digitizing. The 
current consensus is that parcels should not be imported as a whole.


I think this project needs to dovetail / build upon the work that Ian 
Dees started with finding sources of address data. Parcel polygons are 
one potential source. However, parcel polygons are valuable by 
themselves, so we should be documenting all available sources of parcel 
data as we pursue addresses.


I also think we need a little bit more sophisticated Data Catalog than a 
google spreadsheet. We need to capture more information and a 
spreadsheet gets a bit unwieldy after so may columns. I've got a 
prototype that I am working on getting out in the wild soon, but 
basically its a web form that people register to use and the info sits 
in a database.


A by-product of the effort to identify, catalog, gather raw data, etc. 
would be having a central location for storing raw parcel data that is 
not readily downloadable. For example, someone happens to have a copy of 
X county parcel data that they had to send a check for $25 to acquire, 
they received it on CD, and they would like to donate it to a central 
repository. This is assuming there are no restrictions on the data. It 
sounds like you're willing and able to donate disk and bandwidth to 
support this effort. I don't see a need to make a copy of data that is 
already sitting on the web.


As far as standardization/import and the rails server - I think this is 
not the right path to take. As mentioned above, we shouldn't be 
wholesale importing parcels. Now you could do some standardization of 
parcel data for example to render polygons by land use codes and show 
single family, multi-family, commercial, government, etc land use types 
as an overlay layer for reference, but that is a huge effort by itself. 
Users knowledgeable about parcels in their state or local area could 
serve up something like this as a reference, but the goal is not to 
standardize the parcels and import them.


So, continuing on from the raw data gathering, taking it one step 
further, some organization could gather up the freely downloadable data 
plus the data sitting in this repository and serve up a WMS layer or 
tiles of parcel polygons. And this could be the goto source for a parcel 
overlay for the OSM community members interested in utilizing a parcel 
overlay layer for editing.


Email and a wiki page sounds good to me for coordination. Maybe we can 
bring it up in a Mappy Hour as well. And if there's enough of a need, we 
could do a separate parcels / address oriented Google Hangout. Sounds 
like Serge is already organizing something similar, and maybe we just 
particpiate in that to start, since there's a lot of overlap.


Thanks for sharing the link 

Re: [Talk-us] Possible coping from Google Maps

[Rick Marshall]

I mistakenly sent this to Greg and not the entire list.  So, I'll
retry it again:

Hello all.  I am still fairly new to OSM, so I don't know all the ins
and outs.  But I have to ask a question.  Other than Google Mapmaker
is there any other ways that Google's data gets updated?  I recently
made several updates of walking trails in a local park here:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.58835&lon=-89.88472&zoom=16&layers=M

And I just noticed the other day that the same updates I made to the
trail system (including the names) within OpenStreetMap showed up in
Google Maps:

 http://goo.gl/maps/mJJMs

Does Google import any data from OSM?  How do we know the data that is
subject to this post was in Google Maps first?

Take care and have a great week.

Rick Marshall

--
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


> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Greg Troxel  wrote:
>>
>> Chris Lawrence  writes:
>>
>>> On Feb 21, 2013 1:19 AM, "James Mast"  wrote:

 The user who added the interchange has no GPS traces listed for his
>>> account.
>>>
>>> They could have been using someone else's traces in JOSM/Potlatch - you'd
>>> have to load everyone's traces (GPX layer in JOSM) to be sure.
>>>
>>> You also would need to check the other free satellite overlays. Sometimes
>>> Bing is behind MQ, NAIP, etc. in updates. Also different zoom levels.
>>>
>>> And even then it's possible they used personal GPS traces they didn't
>>> upload.
>>
>> I have lots of traces, have drawn ways from them (in josm), and I
>> haven't uploaded any of them.  So not having traces in one's accounts
>> should not lead to the conclusion that GPS was not used.
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Possible coping from Google Maps

[James Mast]

Just got a message back from him and it confirmed my worst fears.  He openly 
admitted to me he used Google Maps to aid him adding the interchange to OSM. :( 
"Mostly I eyeballed it from Google satellite view with roads turned on. There 
are enough recognizable buildings & such that I could translate to a Bing 
background." Unfortunately, I'm now reporting him to the OSMF. :( --James
 From: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com
To: brad.neuhau...@gmail.com
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 20:58:45 -0500
CC: claysmal...@gmail.com; talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Possible coping from Google Maps








Well, I'm sending him a message right now asking him about this.  Will update 
this when/if I get a message back from him.
 
Also, I just downloaded the GPS tracks in that area, and none of them are along 
the new interchange ramps.
 
And the reason I got the possible assumption is that some of the same possible 
bugs for this interchange in OSM are also present in Google (and Google had it 
first).  I've seen plans for this interchange (but can't find them online 
anymore and didn't have them downloaded in the past when they were online).  
Also, take a look at the start of the WB off-ramp.  Look how the highway turns 
sharp right at almost in the same place in both Google and OSM.  Never seen a 
ramp do that before on the PA Turnpike, and that was the first thing that led 
me to think something was off big time. Just wish people would add changeset 
info when they upload changes.  Would be easier to keep track of stuff and 
sources to be honest.  Kinda wish JOSM would prevent "empty" changeset 
descriptions.  Something is better than nothing I guess.
 
--James.
 
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 09:21:38 -0600
From: brad.neuhau...@gmail.com
To: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com
CC: claysmal...@gmail.com; talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Possible coping from Google Maps

I don't get why the assumption is this is copying from Google.  It sure looks 
like this user lives in the area, and has likely seen this interchange in 
person, or maybe read about it in the news or something.  It would not be too 
much of a stretch for someone to sketch in the new roads based on other 
sources.  Regardless, the idea I just gave, like the original post, is 
speculation.  If you're concerned, contact the user directly FIRST, as 
suggested here: 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FAQ#I_think_someone.27s_been_entering_copyrighted_data_-_how_do_we_deal_with_that.3F


Cheers, Brad

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 12:18 AM, James Mast  wrote:





The user who added the interchange has no GPS traces listed for his account.
 
--James
 

Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 22:05:52 -0600
From: claysmal...@gmail.com
To: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com

CC: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Possible coping from Google Maps


If I weren't confined to my phone right now, I'd check it myself, but are there 
any GPS tracks along the new interchange? 
On Feb 20, 2013 9:58 PM, "James Mast"  wrote:









I just happened to spot a place where there is a possible coping from Google 
Maps.
 
http://tools.geofabrik.de/mc/?mt0=mapnik&mt1=googlemapmaker&lon=-75.5301&lat=40.07484&zoom=16


 
While it doesn't look exact on the curves, the places where the ramps 
start/end/merge seems to be an exact match to Google's.  The only reason I'm 
bringing this up is because of Bing Imagery not even showing the construction, 
let along the completion, of this new interchange on the PA Turnpike (I-76).


 
This interchange was added in Changeset 14937179. - 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/14937179
 
Anybody else have a comment on this changeset.  Also, anybody who has previous 
experence with the user that did this change be willing to contact him?


 
--James
  

___

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
  

___
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] Chicago Buildings Redux

[Alex Barth]

Awesome. NYC used to have the same retraction clause, luckily sane forces
did away with it there, too.

Bit by bit US city governments are outrunning OSM in openness :)


On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:23 PM, Skye Book  wrote:

> That is incredibly encouraging news, congrats on the win!  A few years
> back I started a small discussion on Talk-US on whether or not the NYC data
> license was usable as it has a very similar, if not identical, clause in
> their own license (The conclusion was the same as yours).
>
> I'm curious if this is perhaps a term that Socrata offers in their
> configuration that cities and municipalities opt-in for.  In any case,
> thanks for sharing this news.. Definitely something I'll add to my mental
> list of open data success stories :)
>
> -Skye
>
> On Feb 20, 2013, at 10:31 PM, Ian Dees  wrote:
>
> Hi imports,
>
> Earlier last year I downloaded the Chicago building footprints shapefile
> [0] from the Chicago data portal, chopped it into manageable bits and
> started importing it into OSM. Halfway through the process of merging and
> uploading this data I read the data portal's license [1] closer,
> discovering a clause that makes the datasets offered there incompatible
> with OSM. The troublesome clause allows the City of Chicago to require
> removal of any City data at any point in the future:
>
> "The City may require a user of this data to terminate any and all
> display, distribution or other use of any or all of the data provided at
> this website for any reason including, without limitation, violation of
> these Terms of Use or other terms as defined by City agencies or
> departments contributing data to this website."
>
> When I noticed this I immediately stopped uploading data and began a
> conversation with the city's data team to discuss ways OSM could move
> forward with using the datasets listed on the portal.
>
> After several months of phone calls, meetings, and waiting, I'm pleased to
> announce that the City of Chicago has started to release some of its
> datasets under the MIT license on GitHub: [2].
>
> As a result of this new license, I will be able to continue importing the
> excellent buildings and address data into OSM (more on that later) and
> businesses will be able to use this data in their apps and tools without
> worrying about an untested license.
>
> I'm pretty excited about this, as Chicago is seen as a leader in municipal
> data and other OSM/Open Data folks can point to this as proof that open
> licensing is a very important part of open data.
>
> -Ian
>
> [0] https://data.cityofchicago.org/Buildings/Building-Footprints/w2v3-isjw
> [1] http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/narr/foia/data_disclaimer.html
> [2] https://github.com/chicago/
>  ___
> 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] Civil War Mapping

[Richard Welty]

On 2/21/13 7:49 PM, Adam Schreiber wrote:

Richard,

I hope you enjoy the area. I've already done a bit of mapping at the
Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania battlefields.

i look forward to it. is there any particular mapping task i should look 
for at Spotsylvania?


richard


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

Re: [Talk-us] Possible coping from Google Maps

[James Mast]

Well, I'm sending him a message right now asking him about this.  Will update 
this when/if I get a message back from him.
 
Also, I just downloaded the GPS tracks in that area, and none of them are along 
the new interchange ramps.
 
And the reason I got the possible assumption is that some of the same possible 
bugs for this interchange in OSM are also present in Google (and Google had it 
first).  I've seen plans for this interchange (but can't find them online 
anymore and didn't have them downloaded in the past when they were online).  
Also, take a look at the start of the WB off-ramp.  Look how the highway turns 
sharp right at almost in the same place in both Google and OSM.  Never seen a 
ramp do that before on the PA Turnpike, and that was the first thing that led 
me to think something was off big time. Just wish people would add changeset 
info when they upload changes.  Would be easier to keep track of stuff and 
sources to be honest.  Kinda wish JOSM would prevent "empty" changeset 
descriptions.  Something is better than nothing I guess.
 
--James.
 
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 09:21:38 -0600
From: brad.neuhau...@gmail.com
To: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com
CC: claysmal...@gmail.com; talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Possible coping from Google Maps

I don't get why the assumption is this is copying from Google.  It sure looks 
like this user lives in the area, and has likely seen this interchange in 
person, or maybe read about it in the news or something.  It would not be too 
much of a stretch for someone to sketch in the new roads based on other 
sources.  Regardless, the idea I just gave, like the original post, is 
speculation.  If you're concerned, contact the user directly FIRST, as 
suggested here: 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FAQ#I_think_someone.27s_been_entering_copyrighted_data_-_how_do_we_deal_with_that.3F


Cheers, Brad

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 12:18 AM, James Mast  wrote:





The user who added the interchange has no GPS traces listed for his account.
 
--James
 

Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 22:05:52 -0600
From: claysmal...@gmail.com
To: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com

CC: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Possible coping from Google Maps


If I weren't confined to my phone right now, I'd check it myself, but are there 
any GPS tracks along the new interchange? 
On Feb 20, 2013 9:58 PM, "James Mast"  wrote:









I just happened to spot a place where there is a possible coping from Google 
Maps.
 
http://tools.geofabrik.de/mc/?mt0=mapnik&mt1=googlemapmaker&lon=-75.5301&lat=40.07484&zoom=16


 
While it doesn't look exact on the curves, the places where the ramps 
start/end/merge seems to be an exact match to Google's.  The only reason I'm 
bringing this up is because of Bing Imagery not even showing the construction, 
let along the completion, of this new interchange on the PA Turnpike (I-76).


 
This interchange was added in Changeset 14937179. - 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/14937179
 
Anybody else have a comment on this changeset.  Also, anybody who has previous 
experence with the user that did this change be willing to contact him?


 
--James
  

___

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

Re: [Talk-us] Civil War Mapping

[Adam Schreiber]

Richard,

I hope you enjoy the area. I've already done a bit of mapping at the
Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania battlefields.

Cheers,
Adam
On Feb 21, 2013 6:46 PM, "Richard Welty"  wrote:

>  i sent this out earlier today on conventional social  networks, but i
> know a lot of you probably
> don't participate in them...
>
> a year or so back Steve 
> Coast
>  called for some Civil War related mapping. i'm not sure how much has
> really happened (not nearly enough, i think), but i'm here in Northern VA
> visiting Chancellorsville and
> The Wilderness, and so i give you the First Day at Chancellorsville Trail:
>
>  http://www.openstreetmap.org/**?lat=38.29712748527527&lon=-77.**
> 59817361831665&zoom=16
>
> and as an added bonus, a modern approximation of the route of Jackson's
> Flank March on the second day:
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/**browse/relation/2776036
>
> this latter is a signed NPS route, not just something i made up on my own,
> and the location of the roads
> hasn't shifted much since 1863, so it's pretty close to where Jackson's
> troops actually marched that day...
>
> i spent some time at the Wilderness Battlefield today, so there's more to
> come. i may well
> spend a day at Spotsylvania before we leave on Sunday. lots to map here.
> somebody local
> might have a very productive time if they enjoy walking tails.
>
> 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

[Talk-us] parcel data next steps

[Brian Cavagnolo]

Hey guys,

In a previous thread on parcel data, some people expressed interest in
participating in creating some sort of open repository for parcel
data.  I was imagining a conference call or something to discuss next
steps, but I think we can advance with email.  I'm imagining that it
makes sense to separate the data gathering process from the data
standardization/import process.

Regarding the data gathering, the main objective is to gather recent
raw data, licensing terms, and meta data from jurisdictions in
whatever form they make it available, organize it in a dumb directory
structure.  I was just going to set up an FTP (read-write)  and HTTP
(read-only) server to get this going.  Are there any
recommendations/opinions on a longer-term approach here?  Custom
webapp?  Off-the-shelf webapp?  Somebody mentioned a git repository.

Regarding standardization/import, I was planning on setting up an
empty instance of the rails port as a test bed.  Then participating
users could point JOSM and other tools at this alternative rails port
to examine, edit, and import parcel data.  We could also provide
planet-style dumps and mapnik tiles.  The idea is that we would have a
safe place to screw up and learn.  Does this sound like a reasonable
direction?

Oh, and I found this fantastic paper that some parcel data people (Abt
Associates, Fairview Industries, Smart Data Strategies) recently put
together for HUD [1] that examines many of the issues that they faced
building a parcel database.  Timely.

Ciao,
Brian

[1] 
http://nationalcad.org/download/the-feasibility-of-developing-a-national-parcel-database-county-data-records-project-final-report/

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

Re: [Talk-us] USFS Wilderness data, import?

[stevea]

Have you tried ogr2ogr, going shape to shape with 
a GCS_North_American_1983 and WGS84 source transform to epsg:900913 
or epsg:4326 as a target ?


Then you'll at least be in the right coordinate system.


Awesome.  Good old ogr2ogr did the trick.  I now have eliminated the 
transformation error!


Most of my Question #2 remains.  I'll restate:

If this "test case" proves successful in uploading wilderness 
boundaries in central and southern California for the LPNF, and I 
document the set of steps I took (largely already just done), might 
the greater OSM community reach consensus that all national 
wilderness areas (and other national treasures it can be valuable to 
have in OSM, such as wild and scenic rivers) are suitable candidates 
for importation and upload?


Thanks everybody,

SteveA
California

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

[Talk-us] Civil War Mapping

[Richard Welty]

i sent this out earlier today on conventional social  networks, but i 
know a lot of you probably

don't participate in them...

a year or so backSteve Coast 
called for 
some Civil War related mapping. i'm not sure how much has
really happened (not nearly enough, i think), but i'm here in Northern 
VA visiting Chancellorsville and

The Wilderness, and so i give you the First Day at Chancellorsville Trail:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.29712748527527&lon=-77.59817361831665&zoom=16 



and as an added bonus, a modern approximation of the route of Jackson's 
Flank March on the second day:


http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2776036 



this latter is a signed NPS route, not just something i made up on my 
own, and the location of the roads
hasn't shifted much since 1863, so it's pretty close to where Jackson's 
troops actually marched that day...


i spent some time at the Wilderness Battlefield today, so there's more 
to come. i may well
spend a day at Spotsylvania before we leave on Sunday. lots to map here. 
somebody local

might have a very productive time if they enjoy walking tails.

richard

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

Re: [Talk-us] USFS Wilderness data, import with a "lenient transformation?"

[stevea]

Gregory Arenius writes:

Have you tried using a different program, such as QGIS or ArcGIS, to 
transform to WGS84 and then translate to OSM?


Hello Gregory:

Yes, please see my previous reply to John Novak; I am now in the 
process of something similar using ogr2ogr.



Do you have a link you could send me for the .shp you're looking at?


Yes, it is http://fsgeodata.fs.fed.us/vector/lsrs.php and I chose 
"Wilderness" under "Shapefile format" then unzipped this to get the 
23 MB of shapefile data.


SteveA
California

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

Re: [Talk-us] USFS Wilderness data, import with a "lenient transformation?"

[stevea]

John Novak writes:


Hi Steve,

Have you tried ogr2ogr, going shape to shape with 
a GCS_North_American_1983 and WGS84 source transform to epsg:900913 
or epsg:4326 as a target ?


Then you'll at least be in the right coordinate system.


Hi John:

Yes, I am now examining maybe something like:

ogr2ogr -f "ESRI Shapefile" -t_srs EPSG:4326 wilderness_wgs.shp 
wilderness_nad83.shp


via 
http://www.gdal.org/ogr2ogr.html 
and if I can get that to work, well, it's all gravy from there.


If you can offer different or better command-line flags, I'd be happy 
to hear them.


Thanks for the suggestion, you were not the first (big thanks to 
j03lar50n, who also suggested the link to the original USFS data, 
just published barely two weeks ago).


Great discussion so far.  It is amazing what just a handful of 
collaborators can make happen in OSM!


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

Re: [Talk-us] USFS Wilderness data, import with a "lenient transformation?"

[stevea]

An update:  after some cursory examination of just the sort I am 
proposing (USFS data imported from shapefile WITH a "potentially 
noisy" transformation with superimposed USGS data), I find very high 
data correlation.  The largest errors I am able to see (for the small 
subset of data I have visually examined like this) are 2 to 3 meters 
at most -- these following range/meridian/township lines.  Boundaries 
which follow creeks or parallel existing, uploaded roads are 
essentially spot-on, or maybe centimeter-level errors at worst.


So, "off by a kilometer" may be true as a POTENTIAL error in this 
transformation, but from what I see, any error is much less than 1% 
of this.  I am comfortable with this quite low level of noise in 
these data potentially imported into OSM using this transformation. 
I will, however, continue to both solicit opinion here and examine 
more data, especially at edge latitudes where the transformation may 
be more problematic.


SteveA
California

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

Re: [Talk-us] Possible coping from Google Maps

[Paul Johnson]

On Thursday, February 21, 2013, Mike N wrote:

> On 2/21/2013 5:05 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
>> Curious why someone would keep this information to themselves rather
>> than aiding others in improving the map.
>>
>
>  In my case, it's sheer laziness.  I would also prefer to block out
> sections around my immediate "home base", but have not found an easy way to
> automate it.
>

In JOSM, merge all the GPX layers in question, convert to OSM data, delete
area in question, convert back to GPX data.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Possible coping from Google Maps

[Mike N]

On 2/21/2013 5:05 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:

Curious why someone would keep this information to themselves rather
than aiding others in improving the map.


 In my case, it's sheer laziness.  I would also prefer to block out 
sections around my immediate "home base", but have not found an easy way 
to automate it.



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

Re: [Talk-us] Possible coping from Google Maps

[Paul Johnson]

On Thursday, February 21, 2013, Greg Troxel wrote:

> I have lots of traces, have drawn ways from them (in josm), and I
> haven't uploaded any of them.  So not having traces in one's accounts
> should not lead to the conclusion that GPS was not used.
>

Curious why someone would keep this information to themselves rather than
aiding others in improving the map.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] USFS Wilderness data, import with a "lenient transformation?"

[stevea]

I've been working on an amazing national resource, regional to me, 
which I greatly enjoy both in real life and mapping in OSM:  the 
Ventana Wilderness (around Big Sur, California) of the Los Padres 
National Forest (LPNF).  I have discovered that Ventana is only the 
northernmost of ten wilderness areas in this single national forest 
alone, and have found missing from OSM and multiple/conflicting 
sources for these wilderness boundary data, correct and current 
versions of which I very much want to see in OSM.


Recently, I was pointed to the "official" (US Department of 
Agriculture/Forest Service) data source for these wilderness areas, 
in the form of a shapefile containing all wilderness areas in all 
national forests.  This shapefile is about 23 megabytes, which 
becomes about seven times larger in .osm format, due to its xlm-ish 
nature.  However, before initiating the translation from .shp to 
.osm, JOSM informed me:


"JOSM was unable to find a strict mathematical transformation between 
GCS_North_American_1983 and WGS84."


And further warned that the polyconic spherical case for such a 
transformation is not implemented, so the algorithm would fall back 
to the (error-prone) elliptical equations. Such a lenient 
transformation can yield up to 1 kilometer errors. I am explicitly 
warned that choosing this methodology means the results should NOT be 
uploaded to OSM.


Yet, I am not so easily defeated.  I still need to "whittle away" the 
entire national dataset to just the ten LPNF multipolygons relations 
(and their members) representing the LPNF wilderness areas.  Assuming 
I do, I further believe that I can add to my JOSM editing a USGS 
layer which often or always has a wilderness boundary on it, 
potentially allowing me to engage in some smart edit-blending away of 
the (up to 1 km) transformation error.  In other words, I'm using 
multiple data sources to mitigate the potential error.


Question #1:  If the additional USGS layer showing wilderness 
boundaries does indeed allow me to mitigate away the transformation 
error with some careful edit adjustments where necessary (though, it 
is also possible NO or VERY MINIMAL adjustments are necessary), 
should I feel comfortable uploading these boundary data?  This begs 
the additional question of "why not just start with USGS rather than 
USFS data..." but you'll agree it is easier to start with something 
largely done and tweak it, than it is to start from nothing and 
painstakingly take a much longer time and effort to make it exact 
from scratch.


Question #2:  If this "test case" proves successful in uploading 
wilderness boundaries in central and southern California for the 
LPNF, and I document the set of steps I took (largely already just 
done), might the greater OSM community reach consensus that all 
national wilderness areas (and other national treasures it can be 
valuable to have in OSM, such as wild and scenic rivers) are suitable 
candidates for importation and upload?  Even with a potential error 
from a "lenient transformation?"


Question #3:  Is it possible to improve the JOSM's transformation 
algorithm so it uses polyconic spherical instead of the error-prone 
elliptical equations?  Is the best way to do this with a trac bug 
report/feature request?


Thank you for your feedback,

SteveA
California

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

Re: [Talk-us] Doodle on next US Import Committee Meeting

[Serge Wroclawski]

Ugg, wrong list again.

I'm sorry all.

- Serge

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

[Talk-us] Doodle on next US Import Committee Meeting

[Serge Wroclawski]

Sorry about the long delay in getting this meeting scheduled, I've
been dealing with some big personal stuff at home.

I want us to get on a regular meeting, especially now that the Kansas
country work is done.

I have worked a bit on the document I promised to draft for
guidelines, and now, Ian Dees has Chicago building data, so let's
schedule a meeting!

People said the meeting time didn't work for them, so I've made a new
Doodle with several meeting times, and we'll use the results to
schedule the next meeting.

Please fill it out!

http://doodle.com/b4bbny9z25dzdzt5

Thanks all,

- Serge

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

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] additional layers on osm.org

[Jason Remillard]

Hi,

> Well öpnvkarte was considered along with the current transport layer and the
> decision was that having two transport layers would be silly and that we
> preferred the one that we are currently offering.

OK, just to be clear. öpnvkarte passed all of the technical
requirements, but was rejected because operations group thought it was
redundant?

Thanks
Jason

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

Re: [Talk-us] Possible coping from Google Maps

[Greg Troxel]

Chris Lawrence  writes:

> On Feb 21, 2013 1:19 AM, "James Mast"  wrote:
>>
>> The user who added the interchange has no GPS traces listed for his
> account.
>
> They could have been using someone else's traces in JOSM/Potlatch - you'd
> have to load everyone's traces (GPX layer in JOSM) to be sure.
>
> You also would need to check the other free satellite overlays. Sometimes
> Bing is behind MQ, NAIP, etc. in updates. Also different zoom levels.
>
> And even then it's possible they used personal GPS traces they didn't
> upload.

I have lots of traces, have drawn ways from them (in josm), and I
haven't uploaded any of them.  So not having traces in one's accounts
should not lead to the conclusion that GPS was not used.


pgpp5JbV7wI4Z.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Possible coping from Google Maps

[Chris Lawrence]

On Feb 21, 2013 1:19 AM, "James Mast"  wrote:
>
> The user who added the interchange has no GPS traces listed for his
account.

They could have been using someone else's traces in JOSM/Potlatch - you'd
have to load everyone's traces (GPX layer in JOSM) to be sure.

You also would need to check the other free satellite overlays. Sometimes
Bing is behind MQ, NAIP, etc. in updates. Also different zoom levels.

And even then it's possible they used personal GPS traces they didn't
upload.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Possible coping from Google Maps

[Brad Neuhauser]

I don't get why the assumption is this is copying from Google.  It sure
looks like this user lives in the area, and has likely seen this
interchange in person, or maybe read about it in the news or something.  It
would not be too much of a stretch for someone to sketch in the new roads
based on other sources.  Regardless, the idea I just gave, like the
original post, is speculation.  If you're concerned, contact the user
directly FIRST, as suggested here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FAQ#I_think_someone.27s_been_entering_copyrighted_data_-_how_do_we_deal_with_that.3F

Cheers, Brad

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 12:18 AM, James Mast wrote:

>  The user who added the interchange has no GPS traces listed for his
> account.
>
> --James
>
> --
> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 22:05:52 -0600
> From: claysmal...@gmail.com
> To: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com
> CC: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Possible coping from Google Maps
>
> If I weren't confined to my phone right now, I'd check it myself, but are
> there any GPS tracks along the new interchange?
> On Feb 20, 2013 9:58 PM, "James Mast"  wrote:
>
>  I just happened to spot a place where there is a possible coping from
> Google Maps.
>
>
> http://tools.geofabrik.de/mc/?mt0=mapnik&mt1=googlemapmaker&lon=-75.5301&lat=40.07484&zoom=16
>
> While it doesn't look exact on the curves, the places where the ramps
> start/end/merge seems to be an exact match to Google's.  The only reason
> I'm bringing this up is because of Bing Imagery not even showing the
> construction, let along the completion, of this new interchange on the PA
> Turnpike (I-76).
>
> This interchange was added in Changeset 14937179. -
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/14937179
>
> Anybody else have a comment on this changeset.  Also, anybody who has
> previous experence with the user that did this change be willing to contact
> him?
>
> --James
>
> ___
> 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