Re: [Talk-us] New National Parks Mailing List
>> Once I get a solid methodology for park OSM tagging worked out, I am hoping I am misunderstanding this, but isn't it up to the OSM community to arrive at a consensus as to how things should be tagged? >> Another important aspect of NPS OSM mapping, *IMHO*, is mapping the surrounding community of a park (or improving its mapping). I would think that local business associations, such as chambers of commerce, would be interested. I understand that local park official maintain relations with such organizations. The park and the local business community are mutually dependent on each other in a way. They may help us connect to other groups that could help with the mapping, such as a local high school geography class (that is if they still teach the subject in high school). >> you’d be surprised at how bad TIGER data is for these smaller communities I am not surprised. I have seen many examples in small towns and rural areas. >> So do we just edit roads and POI’s around a park 1 by 1 in ID? Or in JOSM, or... pick your favorite editor. Nothing wrong with doing one edit at a time, just need to bring more people into the OSM community to do it all! Mike > ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Neighborhoods / Zillow
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote: > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote: > > > These are *your* answer these questions. I disagree with your conclusion > on > > #2, for reasons outlined. > > Let's not get personal here... > (Please don't force me to read every single post in this mailing list. I have a puppy that needs most of my attention -- it shouldn't all go to moderating the mailing list :) ) > 4. Why not agree to use another service for this data other than OSM? > Or conversely, why not use an existing dataset other than OSM, which > already contains neighborhoods, such as the Flickr dataset? Yes please! It's my opinion that OSM is not the place for subjective stuff like borders and admin_areas, especially neighborhood boundaries. David Blackman and Nathaniel Kelso et al. have worked tirelessly on building tools to make border polygons and tools around them. Let's use those tools for this sort of stuff and use the resulting shapes when rendering OSM data. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Neighborhoods / Zillow
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote: > > 1. How can someone survey a neighborhood? It seems that in many cases, > neighborhoods are subjective, and people may disagree on where it is, > and both be right. How does your proposal address this issue? > It's the same as named place nodes. It's something that is important as a geographical reference point, yet not strictly defined, but locals can easily agree on where it should be. > > 2. If I understand your proposal correctly, you are saying that your > solution is that nodes, rather than polygons, offer a concept of > "fuzzyness", that solves some of the subjectiveness issues. But if you > know the data is "fuzzy" then isn't it also, by definition, then a bit > wrong as well, since we can't make radius assumptions about > neighborhoods, and our scale of neighborhood changes so much depending > on where we're talking about? > > I'm not proposing a solution, I'm just contributing to the discussion with the hopes of reaching a consensus on how to do this, if at all. The answer to your question is no, the data would not be 'wrong', because it's what local mappers agree on. > 3. We already have "issues" with neighborhoods messing up the > geocoding problems in OSM. If we have lots of new users who are adding > nodes, won't this just get worse? > I don't know of those issues so I can't really answer that. > 4. Why not agree to use another service for this data other than OSM? > Or conversely, why not use an existing dataset other than OSM, which > already contains neighborhoods, such as the Flickr dataset As far as I am concerned, that could be an option, but the fact is that there is a place=neighbourhood tag and people are going to use it, and other people are going to look at the data and go: meh OSM has poor neighborhood coverage, let's do something about that - and then we'll have this discussion again. -- Martijn van Exel http://oegeo.wordpress.com/ http://openstreetmap.us/ ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Neighborhoods / Zillow
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote: > These are *your* answer these questions. I disagree with your conclusion on > #2, for reasons outlined. Let's not get personal here... I don't see how any of the discussions here have addressed some basic questions, so please explain it to me. Specifically: 1. How can someone survey a neighborhood? It seems that in many cases, neighborhoods are subjective, and people may disagree on where it is, and both be right. How does your proposal address this issue? 2. If I understand your proposal correctly, you are saying that your solution is that nodes, rather than polygons, offer a concept of "fuzzyness", that solves some of the subjectiveness issues. But if you know the data is "fuzzy" then isn't it also, by definition, then a bit wrong as well, since we can't make radius assumptions about neighborhoods, and our scale of neighborhood changes so much depending on where we're talking about? 3. We already have "issues" with neighborhoods messing up the geocoding problems in OSM. If we have lots of new users who are adding nodes, won't this just get worse? 4. Why not agree to use another service for this data other than OSM? Or conversely, why not use an existing dataset other than OSM, which already contains neighborhoods, such as the Flickr dataset? - Serge ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Neighborhoods / Zillow
I support this. Go to Google Maps and search for SoMa, South Beach, and Rincon Hill. The office I am sitting in right now is in all of those polygons. Some cities formally define their neighborhoods, and OSM could use that data. Some neighborhoods are more informal, and those may make sense as nodes rather than polygons. On Jun 12, 2013 11:30 AM, "Martin Koppenhoefer" wrote: > > 2013/6/12 stevea > >> Is Jane Street (NYC) "in" Chelsea or Greenwich Village? Well, kind of >> both. This is where nodes work better. >> > > > well, they could also overlap (so you could see from the polygons that > there is a certain area which somehow "belongs" to both neighbourhoods (and > probably to none of them clearly, as it is distant from both centers). > > > >> And again, neighborhood nodes belong not in some >> mathematically-determined "center" but rather at a "cultural crossroads" >> that represents the "heart of the center" of that neighborhood. >> > > > > +1, I agree that if you have no idea where the actual boundary might be > (perceived by the locals) it is best to put a node to where you are sure it > is a central place for this neighbourhood. > > cheers, > Martin > > ___ > 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] New National Parks Mailing List
I think we will be VERY reliant on Arm Chair Mappers to help add the NPS contribution to the community. Program needs will vary from park to park. Once I get a solid methodology for park OSM tagging worked out, I'll be looking for assistance with Great Smoky Mtns.. Another important aspect of NPS OSM mapping, IMHO, is mapping the surrounding community of a park (or improving its mapping). Most US Park are "in the middle of nowhere" and there aren't a lot (if any) OSM mappers around the park. The ability to accurately map in and around a park, so visitors can experience a high-quality navigation experience will improve the overall visitor experience, a major component of our mission to the public. Most parks have multiple entrances, trails that start at a boundary, rental communities around the park, fuel and dining...you'd be surprised at how bad TIGER data is for these smaller communities that no one pays attention to in terms of FH dollars. So this leads to, how do we map outside of a park? The NPS can't be involved in bulk-imports of other agency data due to conflict of interest. Some communities hold their data very closely, as it is a revenue stream. So do we just edit roads and POI's around a park 1 by 1 in ID? We are in discussions with our surrounding communities in TN and NC to move SOME of their data to OSM, but again, we'd need OSM mappers to do it, and the GIS people tell me their county gov't is not likely to approve a bulk import. From: Kathleen Danielson [mailto:kathleen.daniel...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 11:56 AM To: Clifford Snow Cc: talk-us Subject: Re: [Talk-us] New National Parks Mailing List Quick question: will there be opportunities for armchair mappers to help, or are you only looking for on-the-ground knowledge? On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Clifford Snow wrote: During discussions in presentations at this years SOTM-US, participants expressed a desire to create a mailing list for people interested in collaborating to improving our maps of National Parks. We will use this list to develop goals and processes to improve mapping of National Parks. Joining the list will be National Parks Service employes to help us in this process. Once the presentations from State of the Map US are posted we'll get links out to two great presentations by Nate Irwin and Mamata Akella about how the National Parks Service is working with OSM to improve both official NPS maps as well as OSM. If you would like to join in other OSM mappers and the National Parks Service, please sign up to the new National Parks mail list at http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us-nps. -- Clifford OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ 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] Neighborhoods / Zillow
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote: > The answer to #1 is "Yes", neighborhood data is useful. > > The answer to #2 is "No", for the reasons outlined. > These are *your* answer these questions. I disagree with your conclusion on #2, for reasons outlined. -- Martijn van Exel http://oegeo.wordpress.com/ http://openstreetmap.us/ ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Neighborhoods / Zillow
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Clifford Snow wrote: > I agree that most neighborhood boundaries are subjective. Of the cities I've > lived in, some neighborhoods are clearly define, usually by natural or man > made artifacts, others are definitely fluid. When importing addresses into > Seattle we considered adding a neighborhood tag to each address or building > node but decided against it. Administrative boundaries seemed like a better > plan. After this discussion I'm not longer so certain. > > So what are the pro and cons for importing boundaries? > Cons: > Neighborhood boundaries are fluid > Most neighborhood boundaries can not be surveyed > 3rd party data users and overlay their own boundary polygons > > Pros: > Helpful when doing queries > Search results show neighborhood boundaries > Irregularly shaped neighborhoods better depicted by a polygon than a node > > Personally I don't have any objection if someone wanted to import > neighborhood boundaries for their city. There are really two questions here, which have different answers: 1. Are neighborhoods useful? 2. Are neighborhoods good to put in OSM? The answer to #1 is "Yes", neighborhood data is useful. The answer to #2 is "No", for the reasons outlined. But that's okay, because we have other datasets available to us, like TIGER, or Quattroshapes or the Flickr neighborhood dataset (should it ever be made available), or even something like OpenGeocoder. This data can then be fed into a renderer, or geocoder to create the useful output. - Serge ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute, NE2
Ok all, I think we've rehashed this thread enough. The decision was made and we should move on. -Your friendly mod On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > Well, on the flip side, there's also been some serious damage from > torquing the primary and trunk tags on an indiscriminate nationwide basis > that's still in the process of being fixed two years later. > On Jun 12, 2013 8:49 AM, "Martin Koppenhoefer" > wrote: > >> I had some positive email exchange with him years ago, but I must admit >> back then we had the same opinion on what it was about. Maybe he is not the >> most social person on the planet, but maybe this block gave him some time >> to rethink how to solve problems together with others (as I agree this is >> an important point in a community crowdsourced project like osm is) and >> that sometimes you have to make compromises and cannot always have every >> detail like you personally would have to. Anyway, his contributions are >> impressive, he's been active in OSM almost every single day since he joined >> the project in 12/2009 and he's #61 for nodes, #22 for ways and #5 for >> relation contributions (according to Pascal Neis' service: >> http://hdyc.neis-one.org/?NE2 )! >> > ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute, NE2
Well, on the flip side, there's also been some serious damage from torquing the primary and trunk tags on an indiscriminate nationwide basis that's still in the process of being fixed two years later. On Jun 12, 2013 8:49 AM, "Martin Koppenhoefer" wrote: > I had some positive email exchange with him years ago, but I must admit > back then we had the same opinion on what it was about. Maybe he is not the > most social person on the planet, but maybe this block gave him some time > to rethink how to solve problems together with others (as I agree this is > an important point in a community crowdsourced project like osm is) and > that sometimes you have to make compromises and cannot always have every > detail like you personally would have to. Anyway, his contributions are > impressive, he's been active in OSM almost every single day since he joined > the project in 12/2009 and he's #61 for nodes, #22 for ways and #5 for > relation contributions (according to Pascal Neis' service: > http://hdyc.neis-one.org/?NE2 )! > > cheers, > Martin > > ___ > 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] Neighborhoods / Zillow
2013/6/12 stevea > Is Jane Street (NYC) "in" Chelsea or Greenwich Village? Well, kind of > both. This is where nodes work better. > well, they could also overlap (so you could see from the polygons that there is a certain area which somehow "belongs" to both neighbourhoods (and probably to none of them clearly, as it is distant from both centers). > And again, neighborhood nodes belong not in some > mathematically-determined "center" but rather at a "cultural crossroads" > that represents the "heart of the center" of that neighborhood. > +1, I agree that if you have no idea where the actual boundary might be (perceived by the locals) it is best to put a node to where you are sure it is a central place for this neighbourhood. cheers, Martin ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Whole-US Garmin Map update - 2013-06-10
These are based off of Lambertus's work here: http://garmin.openstreetmap.nl If you have questions or comments about these maps, please feel free to ask. However, please do not send me private mail. The odds are, someone else will have the same questions, and by asking on the talk-us@ list, others can benefit. Downloads: http://daveh.dev.openstreetmap.org/garmin/Lambertus/2013-06-10 Map to visualize what each file contains: http://daveh.dev.openstreetmap.org/garmin/Lambertus/2013-06-10/kml/kml.html FAQ Why did you do this? I wrote scripts to joined them myself to lessen the impact of doing a large join on Lambertus's server. I've also cut them in large longitude swaths that should fit conveniently on removable media. http://daveh.dev.openstreetmap.org/garmin/Lambertus/2013-06-10 Can or should I seed the torrents? Yes!! If you use the .torrent files, please seed. That web server is in the UK, and it helps to have some peers on this side of the Atlantic. Why is my map missing small rectangular areas? There have been some missing tiles from Lambertus's map (the red rectangles), I don't see any at the moment, so you may want to update if you had issues with the last set. Why can I not copy the large files to my new SD card? If you buy a new card (especially SDHC), some are FAT16 from the factory. I had to reformat it to let me create a >2GB file. Does your map cover Mexico/Canada? Yes!! I have, for the purposes of this map, annexed Ontario in to the USA. Some areas of North America that are close to the US also just happen to get pulled in to these maps. This might not happen forever, and if you would like your non-US area to get included, let me know. -- Dave ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Neighborhoods / Zillow
Martijn writes: I agree with the advantage of polygons when performing queries of the type 'show me all bakeries in this neighborhood'. This will however only work if that neighborhood is clearly defined in terms of boundaries. If we agree that this is not the case, we are just going to be creating confusion and perhaps even edit wars when we settle on polygons for neighborhoods. A node location for a neighborhood is something locals should be able to relatively easily agree on. I think we can see much faster progress proceeding along that avenue. I'll say it again: both polygons and nodes are useful as neighborhoods in the map. We shouldn't outright dissuade either one, as each type of data has value and is valid. However, we should be careful at encouraging non-locals from entering neighborhood data (of either type) as (IMHO) it truly is best for a local (person) to enter these. At a minimum, a non-local entering neighborhood data should vet the data with a local, or do some research to verify its accuracy, as difficult as either or both may be. I think that we should show great restraint with importing any more boundary polygons. They make mapping more difficult and confusing, for example because they often overlap with roads. They do not represent surveyable / verifiable data in many cases, which makes for dead data, which we have enough of in the US. Well, SOME polygons correspond, for example, to a sign on a road once the boundary is crossed saying "Welcome to (Neighborhood)." That is surveyable, but I agree, it is not widespread. Also, we have not well discussed those places where a street or small area realistically shares membership in two adjoining neighborhoods. Is Jane Street (NYC) "in" Chelsea or Greenwich Village? Well, kind of both. This is where nodes work better. And again, neighborhood nodes belong not in some mathematically-determined "center" but rather at a "cultural crossroads" that represents the "heart of the center" of that neighborhood. Back to my original question, rephrased slightly - would there be a legal impediment to use Zillow or Geonames data to derive neighborhood point data to increase coverage in OSM? Very incumbent upon any import is an "honest brokerage" to verify the data are fresh and accurate. This is true of not just neighborhood imports, but any import. Checking the legality/license-ability is one (important) thing. Checking its freshness and accuracy is another, and just as important. Why I care - because neighborhood data represents just what makes OSM unique - local knowledge. Why use external sources then you say? Well, the point would be to make it easy for locals to add neighborhood data to OSM, by offering a data starting point. A worthy goal, to be sure. But imagine a new user coming to an early map with both noisy TIGER data and noisy neighborhood data: possibly misnamed and mislocated centroid neighborhood nodes, and little else. Does that make for a good place for that user to jump-start mapping? I think not. Let's be careful at importing non-local neighborhood data. I'm OK with it being nodes or polygons, I'm OK with importing it, but it really should be accurate and verified data. ESPECIALLY with neighborhoods, getting a local person who knows the geography is an exceedingly helpful (maybe even required?) component of this sort of data entry. In short: if an automated (import or import-like) process, like Map-A-Thon, were to bring into the map either neighborhood polygons or neighborhood nodes, I'm OK with that, so long as somebody local gets to verify the data and say "yup, that's where I'd put that, because I know that's where that neighborhood is." Otherwise, it could very well be the TIGER import all over again. This makes such a process a bit more difficult, but it has the upside potential of better developing local OSM community, by reaching out to those who know an area well. Certainly, we can do exactly this, but let's do it right. (Martijn, thank you for encouraging us to "reach high" like this: it's a worthy goal, it's doable, and it challenges us in a rewarding way). SteveA California ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Neighborhoods / Zillow
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote: > Could we use either Geonames or Zillow to drive improvement to > neighborhood name coverage in OSM? > Using Zillow wouldn't be an improvement. Where I live, Zillow has the same incorrect information as the TIGER CDP (which I removed from OSM). I'd bet Geonames has equally inaccurate information. If you want large quantities of terrible neighbourhood information, just import the latest TIGER CDPs. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Neighborhoods / Zillow
Interesting discussion, I've been working at thinking how to approach doing this in my hometown of Tempe, AZ http://www.tempe.gov/index.aspx?page=792 They classify neighborhoods two ways, homeowners associations (the classic HOA) and neighborhood associations. The former is usually set up by the developer and the latter is more organic, either historically significant or like minded individuals band together to improve the community. Now I think I could import these boundaries without worry because they are city defined but I've been struggling with how it would impact the database. After reading this discussion I'm going to move forward and import them. -- James Fee 480-225-2287 @cageyjames On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Clifford Snow wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:21 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote: > >> Your reply really doesn't address what William is saying, which is >> that neighbourhood boundaries are subjective. I think we all agree >> that neighbourhoods are useful, but they're worse than political >> boundaries in terms of being unsurveyable. >> > > I agree that most neighborhood boundaries are subjective. Of the cities > I've lived in, some neighborhoods are clearly define, usually by natural or > man made artifacts, others are definitely fluid. When importing addresses > into Seattle we considered adding a neighborhood tag to each address or > building node but decided against it. Administrative boundaries seemed like > a better plan. After this discussion I'm not longer so certain. > > So what are the pro and cons for importing boundaries? > Cons: > Neighborhood boundaries are fluid > Most neighborhood boundaries can not be surveyed > 3rd party data users and overlay their own boundary polygons > > Pros: > Helpful when doing queries > Search results show neighborhood boundaries > Irregularly shaped neighborhoods better depicted by a polygon than a node > > Personally I don't have any objection if someone wanted to import > neighborhood boundaries for their city. > > > -- > Clifford > > OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch > > ___ > 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] Neighborhoods / Zillow
I agree with the advantage of polygons when performing queries of the type 'show me all bakeries in this neighborhood'. This will however only work if that neighborhood is clearly defined in terms of boundaries. If we agree that this is not the case, we are just going to be creating confusion and perhaps even edit wars when we settle on polygons for neighborhoods. A node location for a neighborhood is something locals should be able to relatively easily agree on. I think we can see much faster progress proceeding along that avenue. I think that we should show great restraint with importing any more boundary polygons. They make mapping more difficult and confusing, for example because they often overlap with roads. They do not represent surveyable / verifiable data in many cases, which makes for dead data, which we have enough of in the US. Back to my original question, rephrased slightly - would there be a legal impediment to use Zillow or Geonames data to derive neighborhood point data to increase coverage in OSM? Why I care - because neighborhood data represents just what makes OSM unique - local knowledge. Why use external sources then you say? Well, the point would be to make it easy for locals to add neighborhood data to OSM, by offering a data starting point. Martijn On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Clifford Snow wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:21 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote: > >> Your reply really doesn't address what William is saying, which is >> that neighbourhood boundaries are subjective. I think we all agree >> that neighbourhoods are useful, but they're worse than political >> boundaries in terms of being unsurveyable. >> > > I agree that most neighborhood boundaries are subjective. Of the cities > I've lived in, some neighborhoods are clearly define, usually by natural or > man made artifacts, others are definitely fluid. When importing addresses > into Seattle we considered adding a neighborhood tag to each address or > building node but decided against it. Administrative boundaries seemed like > a better plan. After this discussion I'm not longer so certain. > > So what are the pro and cons for importing boundaries? > Cons: > Neighborhood boundaries are fluid > Most neighborhood boundaries can not be surveyed > 3rd party data users and overlay their own boundary polygons > > Pros: > Helpful when doing queries > Search results show neighborhood boundaries > Irregularly shaped neighborhoods better depicted by a polygon than a node > > Personally I don't have any objection if someone wanted to import > neighborhood boundaries for their city. > > > -- > Clifford > > OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > -- Martijn van Exel http://oegeo.wordpress.com/ http://openstreetmap.us/ ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Neighborhoods / Zillow
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:21 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote: > Your reply really doesn't address what William is saying, which is > that neighbourhood boundaries are subjective. I think we all agree > that neighbourhoods are useful, but they're worse than political > boundaries in terms of being unsurveyable. > I agree that most neighborhood boundaries are subjective. Of the cities I've lived in, some neighborhoods are clearly define, usually by natural or man made artifacts, others are definitely fluid. When importing addresses into Seattle we considered adding a neighborhood tag to each address or building node but decided against it. Administrative boundaries seemed like a better plan. After this discussion I'm not longer so certain. So what are the pro and cons for importing boundaries? Cons: Neighborhood boundaries are fluid Most neighborhood boundaries can not be surveyed 3rd party data users and overlay their own boundary polygons Pros: Helpful when doing queries Search results show neighborhood boundaries Irregularly shaped neighborhoods better depicted by a polygon than a node Personally I don't have any objection if someone wanted to import neighborhood boundaries for their city. -- Clifford OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute, NE2
I had some positive email exchange with him years ago, but I must admit back then we had the same opinion on what it was about. Maybe he is not the most social person on the planet, but maybe this block gave him some time to rethink how to solve problems together with others (as I agree this is an important point in a community crowdsourced project like osm is) and that sometimes you have to make compromises and cannot always have every detail like you personally would have to. Anyway, his contributions are impressive, he's been active in OSM almost every single day since he joined the project in 12/2009 and he's #61 for nodes, #22 for ways and #5 for relation contributions (according to Pascal Neis' service: http://hdyc.neis-one.org/?NE2 )! cheers, Martin ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute, NE2
> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 08:34:18 -0400 > From: nice...@att.net > To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute, NE2 > > On 6/12/2013 7:53 AM, Josh Doe wrote: > > I'm > > disappointed that the above recommendation didn't acknowledge that NE2 > > has done good work. I would say that on the whole his contributions in > > terms of data are definitely a net positive, including a great deal of > > geometry improvement, addition of new roads, etc. > > +1 - He got many of the major Interstate, US and state highway > relations and routing connectivity in order. > > > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us I'll 2nd what both Mike and Josh have to say. -James ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute, NE2
On 6/12/2013 7:53 AM, Josh Doe wrote: I'm disappointed that the above recommendation didn't acknowledge that NE2 has done good work. I would say that on the whole his contributions in terms of data are definitely a net positive, including a great deal of geometry improvement, addition of new roads, etc. +1 - He got many of the major Interstate, US and state highway relations and routing connectivity in order. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute, NE2
On Fri May 31 23:48:45 UTC 2013, Paul Norman penorman at mac.com wrote: > > The full text of the DWG recommendation to the board is available at > http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/File:DWG_NE2_Turn_Restriction_dispute.pdf > but the executive summary is as follows: I missed this thread until now, so sorry for the late comment. I'm disappointed that the above recommendation didn't acknowledge that NE2 has done good work. I would say that on the whole his contributions in terms of data are definitely a net positive, including a great deal of geometry improvement, addition of new roads, etc. However I don't fundamentally disagree with the recommendation because of the communication problems, I just wish it didn't dismiss the thousands of hours of good work he has done. I hope he can be reconciled at some point and return to contributing. -Josh ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Neighborhoods / Zillow
Am 12.06.2013 um 06:21 schrieb Serge Wroclawski : > Your reply really doesn't address what William is saying, which is > that neighbourhood boundaries are subjective. I think we all agree > that neighbourhoods are useful, but they're worse than political > boundaries in terms of being unsurveyable. It really depends on the situation, when there are hard limits (railway tracks, waterways, motorways, cliffs, forests, ) the situation will be much clearer in respect to more fluid boundaries, but still having some rough info about the extension is much better than having a single point which doesn't tell you at all if this neighbourhood is 1 or 8 miles in "diameter". When you evaluate this info you could still take care how close to other neighborhoods and how close to the border of the neighbourhood polygon a feature is. Cheers, Martin > >> And while the boundaries may not be exact, people can always change them! > > OSM's model is about improving surveyed information, but does not > handle subjective data well. > > If you think that a boundary is on one place, and I think it is > another, the fact is that we both may be right. OSM doesn't handle > this concept. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Neighborhoods / Zillow
Am 12.06.2013 um 03:06 schrieb Clifford Snow : > One reason for including boundaries is querying to determine what exists in a > neighborhood. Another is to see the result from a search using nominatim. A > single node doesn't really tell much of a story, while a boundary give a > better scope of the neighborhood. It might be more compelling for 3rd parties > to use our information if we included the boundaries. They in turn give us > greater visibility. And while the boundaries may not be exact, people can > always change them! +1, you could still calculate the center point. IMHO places at the edge of a neighborhood might also belong to both of them, and overlapping areas would reflect this. Even if a boundary is not perfect it still is much better than a node who really leaves too much room open to speculation about its actual extension. Cheers, Martin___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
