Re: [Talk-us] Tagging camp sites within campground
2013/6/14 Tod Fitch t...@fitchdesign.com Since I sent out the query to this list I've been mulling over setting adds:street=CampgroundName and addr:housenumber=SiteNumber on each of those. addr:street shouldn't be used if there is not a street with the name. Better use addr:place or addr:full for addresses that don't fit into our standard addressing scheme. See the wiki for more info. cheers, Martin -- Martin Koppenhoefer (Dipl-Ing. Arch.) Via del Santuario Regina degli Apostoli, 18 00145 Roma |I|I|I|I|I|I|I|I| Italia N41.851, E12.4824 tel1: +39 06.916508070 tel2: +49 30 868708638 mobil: +39 392 3114712 mobil: +49 1577 7793740 m...@koppenhoefer.com http://www.koppenhoefer.com Hinweis: Diese Nachricht wurde manuell erstellt. Wir bemühen uns um fehlerfreie Korrespondenz, dennoch kann es in Ausnahmefällen vorkommen, dass bei der manuellen Übertragung von Informationen in elektronische Medien die übertragenen Informationen Fehler aufweisen. Wir bitten Sie, dies zu entschuldigen. Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of koppenhoefer.com unless specifically stated. This email and any files attached are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify postmas...@koppenhoefer.com Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of our clients and business, we may monitor and read messages sent to and from our systems. Thank You. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Neighborhoods / Zillow
2013/6/14 Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com The OSM node could even link to a wiki page where the neighborhood can be described in all its richness and complexity. you could do this with wikipedia links. My usecase would be to enter an address in a search field and get information about the neighbourhoods the results are located in. Given the huge differences in shape and extension of place areas I'd rather prefer an unprecise and to some extend subjective polygon than a node that doesn't convey the necessary information to get an idea where it is valid for (especially in a setting like osm, where you always have missing information bits). Cheers, Martin -- Martin Koppenhoefer (Dipl-Ing. Arch.) Via del Santuario Regina degli Apostoli, 18 00145 Roma |I|I|I|I|I|I|I|I| Italia N41.851, E12.4824 tel1: +39 06.916508070 tel2: +49 30 868708638 mobil: +39 392 3114712 mobil: +49 1577 7793740 m...@koppenhoefer.com http://www.koppenhoefer.com Hinweis: Diese Nachricht wurde manuell erstellt. Wir bemühen uns um fehlerfreie Korrespondenz, dennoch kann es in Ausnahmefällen vorkommen, dass bei der manuellen Übertragung von Informationen in elektronische Medien die übertragenen Informationen Fehler aufweisen. Wir bitten Sie, dies zu entschuldigen. Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of koppenhoefer.com unless specifically stated. This email and any files attached are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify postmas...@koppenhoefer.com Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of our clients and business, we may monitor and read messages sent to and from our systems. Thank You. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Black Forest Fire Update
The Bing images for the area appear to be from 2007 . (I've found a house mid-construction in the Bing images that was finished in 2007). So use caution before changing what someone else has entered based solely on what you see in Bing. It is unlikely many structures disappeared between 2007 and the fire, but some may have increased in size I've added a few new houses I know exist (or did a few days ago) as simple triangles since I do not have an aerial image to outline them. Mapbox Satellite, Mapquest Open Aerial, and USGS Large Scale Imagery have the 2007 house finished but none have a house finished 2 years ago. Images are much fuzzier, so I'd go with Bing unless someone can suggest something better. Interpolating addresses may have difficulties - many houses are not associated with the closest street, and some lots are behind another for the same street. I'm entering addresses where I have them - including nodes next to the street for vacant lots. Debating if I should put a note=vacant lot on them. I'm checking on an OSM license compatible access to a source of addresses; will let you know if It comes through. Addresses of destroyed houses are available; is there some tag or a note that should (or could) be used for a short period of time as opposed to removing the house outline? It could be very useful to know for a month or so where a destroyed house once was. Even with the house gone, the address is still valid for the lot, so no one should delete addresses. Murry On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 9:21 PM, Russell Deffner russdeff...@gmail.comwrote: Affectionately, in memory… First: In the State of Colorado it is now unsafe to be within roughly the area of I-25 to the east, bounded by El Paso/Douglas/Elbert county lines on the north, and by Highway 24 on the east! Please heed all evacuation areas/warnings/etc.! ** ** I am deeply saddened to inform the community that it has been confirmed that two (2) individuals were unable to escape the Black Forest Fire burning Northeast of Colorado Springs, CO. [1] and died while trying to evacuate. I directly apologize to anyone who my words affect emotionally, I have been told I can be overly technical and miss the human side of the story. ** ** To be frank, being born and raised in Colorado, this is the most extreme humanitarian event conceivable for my neighbors. I again ask the OSM-US community to lend a moment (or as much as possible) to map the ‘area of concern’ [1]. ** ** Again, only remote mapping is suggested at this time. Local knowledge to interpolate addressing would be an absolutely amazing advantage of OSM versus other mapping platforms, please refer to the wiki[2]; and if ‘mentors’ are available, please look at the changesets and you should see the ‘newbies’ who are doing their best but could use some guidance. ** ** P.S. I think it would still be beneficial to use the HOT Tasking Manager, even to simply have HOT ‘experts’ verify that the ‘square’ is ‘mapped to ‘US standards’…’ ** ** Sincerely, ** ** Russell Deffner russdeffner on OSM russdeff...@gmail.com ** ** For issues directly related to American Red Cross Operations (I am not officially assigned to the DRO) please email me at – russell.deff...@redcross.org ** ** [1]Black Forest Fire, General Area: http://osm.org/go/TzfCTco-- [2]OSM wiki: http://wiki.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] Tagging camp sites within campground
Looks like the proposed way of marking campsites within a campground is described at: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extend_camp_site#Tagging_of_lots which involves setting nodes at the individual sites tagged with camp_site=lot and lot:number=* I see only 61 instances of camp_site=lot in tag info http://taginfo.openstreetmap.us/tags/camp_site=lot so it is not widely used (yet). One of those uses is at http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=56.06624lon=14.45492zoom=17layers=M The standard renderer(s) do not show these but if you browse the map data you will see the individual sites. I can't make Nominatim find the individual lot:numbers either, so sites so coded will not be very useful for most map users. But, presumably, rendering and searching will follow if sufficient tagging using that schema is performed. If method of tagging individual sites within a campground seems reasonable to the talk-us list, I'll go ahead and change McGill campground to use that and extend that to the nearby Pinos campground when I'm in the area later this month and can survey that information -Tod ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Parking rendering
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Nathan Mills nat...@nwacg.net wrote: (I switched to talk-us for this reply because it doesn't touch on import issues) I don't think it's so much a bug in the stylesheet as much as a bug in the world we're trying to map. Many cities simply have excessive amounts of parking and that shows up on the map. This is partially (though not entirely) a US problem, and while we can argue the issues around parking in general, the map clutter is due to a combination of rendering issues and other problems. For example, in the Washington, DC area, there are many small, narrow parking areas which are in reality just street parking that has been improperly imported. I suspect that if we examine many areas where parking is so cluttered, we will find some combination of rendering issues and data issues. The data issues will need addressing, then the rendering problems are likely going to be fairly solvable. - Serge ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Parking rendering
I agree this should ideally be addressed at the data level. If all parking nodes had some capacity / access information, the renderer could prioritize for larger public parking when zooming out, for example. And entering every strip of street parking spots as parking in OSM does not make sense to me. As it is, it's probably better to have mappers being exposed to this 'over-parking' in some areas, so that we actually have this discussion. Whether that exposure should be on the main map or on a separate data dashboard is a non-issue until we actually have these data dashboards ;) Martijn On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 7:25 AM, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Nathan Mills nat...@nwacg.net wrote: (I switched to talk-us for this reply because it doesn't touch on import issues) I don't think it's so much a bug in the stylesheet as much as a bug in the world we're trying to map. Many cities simply have excessive amounts of parking and that shows up on the map. This is partially (though not entirely) a US problem, and while we can argue the issues around parking in general, the map clutter is due to a combination of rendering issues and other problems. For example, in the Washington, DC area, there are many small, narrow parking areas which are in reality just street parking that has been improperly imported. I suspect that if we examine many areas where parking is so cluttered, we will find some combination of rendering issues and data issues. The data issues will need addressing, then the rendering problems are likely going to be fairly solvable. - Serge ___ 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] Parking rendering
To amplify what Serge said about Washington, no distinction was made for the behind-the-house, 1-2 vehicle private space versus large public lots. So if you were to look at the WashDC map, you'd be misled into thinking there is parking everywhere! I rather like the suggestion of addressing it through capacity, public/private, and access. Scale-dependent display would help, as well. -- SEJ -- twitter: @geomantic -- skype: sejohnson8 There are two types of people in the world. Those that can extrapolate from incomplete data. On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote: I agree this should ideally be addressed at the data level. If all parking nodes had some capacity / access information, the renderer could prioritize for larger public parking when zooming out, for example. And entering every strip of street parking spots as parking in OSM does not make sense to me. As it is, it's probably better to have mappers being exposed to this 'over-parking' in some areas, so that we actually have this discussion. Whether that exposure should be on the main map or on a separate data dashboard is a non-issue until we actually have these data dashboards ;) Martijn On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 7:25 AM, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.comwrote: On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Nathan Mills nat...@nwacg.net wrote: (I switched to talk-us for this reply because it doesn't touch on import issues) I don't think it's so much a bug in the stylesheet as much as a bug in the world we're trying to map. Many cities simply have excessive amounts of parking and that shows up on the map. This is partially (though not entirely) a US problem, and while we can argue the issues around parking in general, the map clutter is due to a combination of rendering issues and other problems. For example, in the Washington, DC area, there are many small, narrow parking areas which are in reality just street parking that has been improperly imported. I suspect that if we examine many areas where parking is so cluttered, we will find some combination of rendering issues and data issues. The data issues will need addressing, then the rendering problems are likely going to be fairly solvable. - Serge ___ 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 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Parking rendering
2013/6/14 Steven Johnson sejohns...@gmail.com To amplify what Serge said about Washington, no distinction was made for the behind-the-house, 1-2 vehicle private space versus large public lots. So if you were to look at the WashDC map, you'd be misled into thinking there is parking everywhere! I rather like the suggestion of addressing it through capacity, public/private, and access. Scale-dependent display would help, as well. The access-tags for parkings already are taken into account in the current rendering rules, so this aspect is mainly an issue of incomplete data. +1 for taking capacity into account for rendering (to some extend this could also be done by looking at the area size of the parking without any capacity tags). IMHO parking nodes without capacity information (or with low capacity) ideally shouldn't be rendered at all until very high zoom levels to avoid cluttering. Still for many US Cities it is also true what was said above: the city center is composed of huge parking areas testimonial of past city restructuration (they had torn down the historical city centers because they were fearing riots by the then already mostly underprivileged inhabitants that hadn't made it to move to a suburb) - admittedly this is a bit generalized view on urban development and not valid for everywhere. cheers, Martin ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [HOT] Black Forest Fire Update
For areas inside what you can assume is private property, landuse=forest is what I typically use. 'Managed Forest'? Maybe needs to be a little more. From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com] Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 2:27 AM To: 'OSM US Talk' Cc: 'hot' Subject: Re: [HOT] [Talk-us] Black Forest Fire Update What do you think we should do with what I would normally tag natural=wood? There's plenty of woods in the residential areas that aren't mapped, but I'm not sure how to handle them. From: Russell Deffner [mailto:russdeff...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 8:21 PM To: OSM US Talk Cc: hot Subject: [Talk-us] Black Forest Fire Update Again, only remote mapping is suggested at this time. Local knowledge to interpolate addressing would be an absolutely amazing advantage of OSM versus other mapping platforms, please refer to the wiki[2]; and if 'mentors' are available, please look at the changesets and you should see the 'newbies' who are doing their best but could use some guidance. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Parking rendering
Makes sense to me. Private parking and parking accessible to the public should certainly be tagged and rendered differently. I would not be surprised if some people, trying to use an OSM map to find a place to park, and instead being directed again and again to parking that turned out to be off-limits, ended up giving up on the use of OSM altogether. Steven Johnson sejohns...@gmail.com wrote: To amplify what Serge said about Washington, no distinction was made for the behind-the-house, 1-2 vehicle private space versus large public lots. So if you were to look at the WashDC map, you'd be misled into thinking there is parking everywhere! I rather like the suggestion of addressing it through capacity, public/private, and access. Scale-dependent display would help, as well. -- SEJ -- twitter: @geomantic -- skype: sejohnson8 There are two types of people in the world. Those that can extrapolate from incomplete data. On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote: I agree this should ideally be addressed at the data level. If all parking nodes had some capacity / access information, the renderer could prioritize for larger public parking when zooming out, for example. And entering every strip of street parking spots as parking in OSM does not make sense to me. As it is, it's probably better to have mappers being exposed to this 'over-parking' in some areas, so that we actually have this discussion. Whether that exposure should be on the main map or on a separate data dashboard is a non-issue until we actually have these data dashboards ;) Martijn On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 7:25 AM, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.comwrote: On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Nathan Mills nat...@nwacg.net wrote: (I switched to talk-us for this reply because it doesn't touch on import issues) I don't think it's so much a bug in the stylesheet as much as a bug in the world we're trying to map. Many cities simply have excessive amounts of parking and that shows up on the map. This is partially (though not entirely) a US problem, and while we can argue the issues around parking in general, the map clutter is due to a combination of rendering issues and other problems. For example, in the Washington, DC area, there are many small, narrow parking areas which are in reality just street parking that has been improperly imported. I suspect that if we examine many areas where parking is so cluttered, we will find some combination of rendering issues and data issues. The data issues will need addressing, then the rendering problems are likely going to be fairly solvable. - Serge ___ 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 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us -- 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
[Talk-us] on the horizon
Hi all, At our monthly geoNYC meetup, we have a section where we announce upcoming events im the geo space. If there are any conferences, hangouts, trainings, milestones, etc that you would like us to share with this audience, please let me know in the next couple of days. Thanks! Alyssa. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Black Forest Fire Update
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 2:26 AM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote: What do you think we should do with what I would normally tag natural=wood? There’s plenty of woods in the residential areas that aren’t mapped, but I’m not sure how to handle them. I was hoping long time users and experts would jump on this question. It bothers me a little that land_use=forest is used in the area of the Black Forest community as there hasn't been any real managed forest in the area for decades. Historically it was the area that was logged to build early Colorado Springs, and was over harvested so was no longer a forest. Then it was replanted and brought back - but was also largely subdivided, so it is now largely woodland covering residential lots. The lots are large, many 5 acres and up. It now does not seem to fit the definition of landuse=forest of Managed forest or woodland plantation. The land cover is definitely trees in much of the area so natural=wood certainly fits and doen't conflict with landuse=residential but can complement it. natural=wood Woodland where timber production does not dominate use. How landuse=forest is presented on renderers makes a resident of the Western United States think of National Forest land, as that is what other maps do. It might lead some, rightly or wrongly, to think of hikes and camping can be done there, but it is mostly peoples yards. The parks and open space of the area have been marked very well (and are mostly forested). The county contains much actual National Forest, just not in this area. I am also aware that the tags can be badly defined, I'm trying to change that elsewhere now, but landuse=forest and natural=wood look to be good definitions. So experts, what is the proper way to map this? I'm just a casual mapper in OSM since April :-) Murry ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Black Forest Fire Update
Just for the record, I don't disagree with Murry's suggestion and he and I have talked about this face-to-face. And I think you'd be the most local expert on this one, please feel free to change my tags. Thanks! From: Murry McEntire [mailto:murry.mcent...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 9:07 AM To: Paul Norman Cc: hot; OSM US Talk Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Black Forest Fire Update On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 2:26 AM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote: What do you think we should do with what I would normally tag natural=wood? There's plenty of woods in the residential areas that aren't mapped, but I'm not sure how to handle them. I was hoping long time users and experts would jump on this question. It bothers me a little that land_use=forest is used in the area of the Black Forest community as there hasn't been any real managed forest in the area for decades. Historically it was the area that was logged to build early Colorado Springs, and was over harvested so was no longer a forest. Then it was replanted and brought back - but was also largely subdivided, so it is now largely woodland covering residential lots. The lots are large, many 5 acres and up. It now does not seem to fit the definition of landuse=forest of Managed forest or woodland plantation. The land cover is definitely trees in much of the area so natural=wood certainly fits and doen't conflict with landuse=residential but can complement it. natural=wood Woodland where timber production does not dominate use. How landuse=forest is presented on renderers makes a resident of the Western United States think of National Forest land, as that is what other maps do. It might lead some, rightly or wrongly, to think of hikes and camping can be done there, but it is mostly peoples yards. The parks and open space of the area have been marked very well (and are mostly forested). The county contains much actual National Forest, just not in this area. I am also aware that the tags can be badly defined, I'm trying to change that elsewhere now, but landuse=forest and natural=wood look to be good definitions. So experts, what is the proper way to map this? I'm just a casual mapper in OSM since April :-) Murry ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [HOT] Black Forest Fire Update
Here's a wiki page for coordination. Please feel free to edit http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Black_Forest_Fire_2013 Eugghh! The landuse data around here is a mess. Government data import I presume On the plus side. There's plenty to get stuck in and work on. I recommend JOSM for dealing with kind of tangled mess. Harry From: Tom Taylor tom.taylor.s...@gmail.com To: Russell Deffner russdeff...@gmail.com Cc: 'OSM US Talk' talk-us@openstreetmap.org; 'hot' h...@openstreetmap.org; 'Murry McEntire' murry.mcent...@gmail.com Sent: Friday, 14 June 2013, 16:55 Subject: Re: [HOT] [Talk-us] Black Forest Fire Update natural=wood is the obvious way to me. It's what I use here in Ottawa, Canada. On 14/06/2013 11:19 AM, Russell Deffner wrote: Just for the record, I don't disagree with Murry's suggestion and he and I have talked about this face-to-face. And I think you'd be the most local expert on this one, please feel free to change my tags. Thanks! From: Murry McEntire [mailto:murry.mcent...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 9:07 AM To: Paul Norman Cc: hot; OSM US Talk Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Black Forest Fire Update On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 2:26 AM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote: What do you think we should do with what I would normally tag natural=wood? There's plenty of woods in the residential areas that aren't mapped, but I'm not sure how to handle them. I was hoping long time users and experts would jump on this question. It bothers me a little that land_use=forest is used in the area of the Black Forest community as there hasn't been any real managed forest in the area for decades. Historically it was the area that was logged to build early Colorado Springs, and was over harvested so was no longer a forest. Then it was replanted and brought back - but was also largely subdivided, so it is now largely woodland covering residential lots. The lots are large, many 5 acres and up. It now does not seem to fit the definition of landuse=forest of Managed forest or woodland plantation. The land cover is definitely trees in much of the area so natural=wood certainly fits and doen't conflict with landuse=residential but can complement it. natural=wood Woodland where timber production does not dominate use. How landuse=forest is presented on renderers makes a resident of the Western United States think of National Forest land, as that is what other maps do. It might lead some, rightly or wrongly, to think of hikes and camping can be done there, but it is mostly peoples yards. The parks and open space of the area have been marked very well (and are mostly forested). The county contains much actual National Forest, just not in this area. I am also aware that the tags can be badly defined, I'm trying to change that elsewhere now, but landuse=forest and natural=wood look to be good definitions. So experts, what is the proper way to map this? I'm just a casual mapper in OSM since April :-) Murry ___ HOT mailing list h...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot ___ HOT mailing list h...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [HOT] Black Forest Fire Update
Thank you Harry, no - sorry - the landuse was mainly me; afterward I can explain why it's beneficial to mash landuse on the map for response purposes. Yes, it will need cleaned up and Murry and others are making good progress. =Russ From: Harry Wood [mailto:m...@harrywood.co.uk] Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 11:45 AM To: Tom Taylor; Russell Deffner Cc: 'OSM US Talk'; 'hot'; 'Murry McEntire' Subject: Re: [HOT] [Talk-us] Black Forest Fire Update Here's a wiki page for coordination. Please feel free to edit http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Black_Forest_Fire_2013 Eugghh! The landuse data around here is a mess. Government data import I presume On the plus side. There's plenty to get stuck in and work on. I recommend JOSM for dealing with kind of tangled mess. Harry _ From: Tom Taylor tom.taylor.s...@gmail.com To: Russell Deffner russdeff...@gmail.com Cc: 'OSM US Talk' talk-us@openstreetmap.org; 'hot' h...@openstreetmap.org; 'Murry McEntire' murry.mcent...@gmail.com Sent: Friday, 14 June 2013, 16:55 Subject: Re: [HOT] [Talk-us] Black Forest Fire Update natural=wood is the obvious way to me. It's what I use here in Ottawa, Canada. On 14/06/2013 11:19 AM, Russell Deffner wrote: Just for the record, I don't disagree with Murry's suggestion and he and I have talked about this face-to-face. And I think you'd be the most local expert on this one, please feel free to change my tags. Thanks! From: Murry McEntire [mailto:murry.mcent...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 9:07 AM To: Paul Norman Cc: hot; OSM US Talk Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Black Forest Fire Update On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 2:26 AM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote: What do you think we should do with what I would normally tag natural=wood? There's plenty of woods in the residential areas that aren't mapped, but I'm not sure how to handle them. I was hoping long time users and experts would jump on this question. It bothers me a little that land_use=forest is used in the area of the Black Forest community as there hasn't been any real managed forest in the area for decades. Historically it was the area that was logged to build early Colorado Springs, and was over harvested so was no longer a forest. Then it was replanted and brought back - but was also largely subdivided, so it is now largely woodland covering residential lots. The lots are large, many 5 acres and up. It now does not seem to fit the definition of landuse=forest of Managed forest or woodland plantation. The land cover is definitely trees in much of the area so natural=wood certainly fits and doen't conflict with landuse=residential but can complement it. natural=wood Woodland where timber production does not dominate use. How landuse=forest is presented on renderers makes a resident of the Western United States think of National Forest land, as that is what other maps do. It might lead some, rightly or wrongly, to think of hikes and camping can be done there, but it is mostly peoples yards. The parks and open space of the area have been marked very well (and are mostly forested). The county contains much actual National Forest, just not in this area. I am also aware that the tags can be badly defined, I'm trying to change that elsewhere now, but landuse=forest and natural=wood look to be good definitions. So experts, what is the proper way to map this? I'm just a casual mapper in OSM since April :-) Murry ___ HOT mailing list h...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot ___ HOT mailing list h...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [HOT] Black Forest Fire Update
To clarify, my question was not around what tags to use for the areas with trees, it was on how to handle the fact that the forest in many cases is presumably burnt out. If it weren't for the fire I'd be tracing a lot of natural=wood in the region. -Original Message- From: Tom Taylor [mailto:tom.taylor.s...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 8:56 AM To: Russell Deffner Cc: 'Murry McEntire'; 'Paul Norman'; 'hot'; 'OSM US Talk' Subject: Re: [HOT] [Talk-us] Black Forest Fire Update natural=wood is the obvious way to me. It's what I use here in Ottawa, Canada. On 14/06/2013 11:19 AM, Russell Deffner wrote: Just for the record, I don't disagree with Murry's suggestion and he and I have talked about this face-to-face. And I think you'd be the most local expert on this one, please feel free to change my tags. Thanks! From: Murry McEntire [mailto:murry.mcent...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 9:07 AM To: Paul Norman Cc: hot; OSM US Talk Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Black Forest Fire Update On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 2:26 AM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote: What do you think we should do with what I would normally tag natural=wood? There's plenty of woods in the residential areas that aren't mapped, but I'm not sure how to handle them. I was hoping long time users and experts would jump on this question. It bothers me a little that land_use=forest is used in the area of the Black Forest community as there hasn't been any real managed forest in the area for decades. Historically it was the area that was logged to build early Colorado Springs, and was over harvested so was no longer a forest. Then it was replanted and brought back - but was also largely subdivided, so it is now largely woodland covering residential lots. The lots are large, many 5 acres and up. It now does not seem to fit the definition of landuse=forest of Managed forest or woodland plantation. The land cover is definitely trees in much of the area so natural=wood certainly fits and doen't conflict with landuse=residential but can complement it. natural=wood Woodland where timber production does not dominate use. How landuse=forest is presented on renderers makes a resident of the Western United States think of National Forest land, as that is what other maps do. It might lead some, rightly or wrongly, to think of hikes and camping can be done there, but it is mostly peoples yards. The parks and open space of the area have been marked very well (and are mostly forested). The county contains much actual National Forest, just not in this area. I am also aware that the tags can be badly defined, I'm trying to change that elsewhere now, but landuse=forest and natural=wood look to be good definitions. So experts, what is the proper way to map this? I'm just a casual mapper in OSM since April :-) ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [HOT] Black Forest Fire Update
Sorry, again my take is to go ahead and trace - a little background, I would like to be able to suggest to fire/all emergency services that OSM is/can be the best 'situational awareness' tool/map. So although we will be creating more work to 'fix' - when I started it was a blank white area with horrible TIGER roads. Thank you everyone for helping out! =Russ -Original Message- From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com] Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 1:28 PM To: 'hot'; 'OSM US Talk' Subject: Re: [HOT] [Talk-us] Black Forest Fire Update To clarify, my question was not around what tags to use for the areas with trees, it was on how to handle the fact that the forest in many cases is presumably burnt out. If it weren't for the fire I'd be tracing a lot of natural=wood in the region. -Original Message- From: Tom Taylor [mailto:tom.taylor.s...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 8:56 AM To: Russell Deffner Cc: 'Murry McEntire'; 'Paul Norman'; 'hot'; 'OSM US Talk' Subject: Re: [HOT] [Talk-us] Black Forest Fire Update natural=wood is the obvious way to me. It's what I use here in Ottawa, Canada. On 14/06/2013 11:19 AM, Russell Deffner wrote: Just for the record, I don't disagree with Murry's suggestion and he and I have talked about this face-to-face. And I think you'd be the most local expert on this one, please feel free to change my tags. Thanks! From: Murry McEntire [mailto:murry.mcent...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 9:07 AM To: Paul Norman Cc: hot; OSM US Talk Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Black Forest Fire Update On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 2:26 AM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote: What do you think we should do with what I would normally tag natural=wood? There's plenty of woods in the residential areas that aren't mapped, but I'm not sure how to handle them. I was hoping long time users and experts would jump on this question. It bothers me a little that land_use=forest is used in the area of the Black Forest community as there hasn't been any real managed forest in the area for decades. Historically it was the area that was logged to build early Colorado Springs, and was over harvested so was no longer a forest. Then it was replanted and brought back - but was also largely subdivided, so it is now largely woodland covering residential lots. The lots are large, many 5 acres and up. It now does not seem to fit the definition of landuse=forest of Managed forest or woodland plantation. The land cover is definitely trees in much of the area so natural=wood certainly fits and doen't conflict with landuse=residential but can complement it. natural=wood Woodland where timber production does not dominate use. How landuse=forest is presented on renderers makes a resident of the Western United States think of National Forest land, as that is what other maps do. It might lead some, rightly or wrongly, to think of hikes and camping can be done there, but it is mostly peoples yards. The parks and open space of the area have been marked very well (and are mostly forested). The county contains much actual National Forest, just not in this area. I am also aware that the tags can be badly defined, I'm trying to change that elsewhere now, but landuse=forest and natural=wood look to be good definitions. So experts, what is the proper way to map this? I'm just a casual mapper in OSM since April :-) ___ HOT mailing list h...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags
Again, I'm still not hearing a suggestion that would keep this valuable information in OSM, or a compelling reason not to keep it. We do map proposed routes, we don't map for the renderer. It still sounds like the core issue is some proposals are mapped more specifically than they are on paper. I don't think this is an insurmountable problem to fix within the boundaries of not tagging for the renderer. With that in mind, I would love to hear ideas how to tackle the proposed corridor issue so that they may be more properly mapped, not outright excluded over cyclemap rendering issues. On Jun 9, 2013 7:25 AM, KerryIrons irons54vor...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Paul, ** ** You explicitly said that putting 50 mile wide corridors on OSM “would be an important advocacy tool.” ** ** That does not sound at all like “mapping reality.” ** ** I spend hundreds of hours a year on the phone, corresponding, and attending meetings to make the USBR a reality. I’ve personally been involved in getting over 2,000 miles of USBRs approved. Don’t give me stuff about being obtuse and saying the USBRS is a pipe dream. Personal insults are not the path forward. ** ** Kerry Irons ** ** ** ** *From:* Paul Johnson [mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org] *Sent:* Saturday, June 08, 2013 11:24 PM *To:* OpenStreetMap talk-us list *Subject:* Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags ** ** ** ** On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 3:18 PM, KerryIrons irons54vor...@sbcglobal.net wrote: So Paul, what you really want is advocacy mapping. Not mapping reality but mapping what you want to have. It comes as a great surprise to me that this is what OSM is all about. Do you think this is the consensus of the OSM community? I thought OSM’s goal was to “accurately describe the world” but you are saying it is also advocacy. No, that's not what I'm advocating, and honestly, the way you're approaching this now, I really have to be wondering if you're being deliberately obtuse. Because if that's actually where you're coming from, you're essentially saying that the USBR system is a pipe dream. I'm not ready to buy that argument because the premise is fundamentally flawed on a level amounting to argumentum ad absurdum. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags
Don't knock the unicorn viewing sites. They are everywhere. On Jun 14, 2013, at 5:55 PM, Darrell Fuhriman darr...@garnix.org wrote: Please for the love of god, I see no one here in favor of it but you. They are imaginary, let's delete them and move on. They have no more place in OSM than unicorn viewing locations and alien landing sites. d. On Jun 14, 2013, at 14:43, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: Again, I'm still not hearing a suggestion that would keep this valuable information in OSM, or a compelling reason not to keep it. We do map proposed routes, we don't map for the renderer. It still sounds like the core issue is some proposals are mapped more specifically than they are on paper. I don't think this is an insurmountable problem to fix within the boundaries of not tagging for the renderer. With that in mind, I would love to hear ideas how to tackle the proposed corridor issue so that they may be more properly mapped, not outright excluded over cyclemap rendering issues. On Jun 9, 2013 7:25 AM, KerryIrons irons54vor...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Paul, You explicitly said that putting 50 mile wide corridors on OSM “would be an important advocacy tool.” That does not sound at all like “mapping reality.” I spend hundreds of hours a year on the phone, corresponding, and attending meetings to make the USBR a reality. I’ve personally been involved in getting over 2,000 miles of USBRs approved. Don’t give me stuff about being obtuse and saying the USBRS is a pipe dream. Personal insults are not the path forward. Kerry Irons From: Paul Johnson [mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org] Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2013 11:24 PM To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 3:18 PM, KerryIrons irons54vor...@sbcglobal.net wrote: So Paul, what you really want is advocacy mapping. Not mapping reality but mapping what you want to have. It comes as a great surprise to me that this is what OSM is all about. Do you think this is the consensus of the OSM community? I thought OSM’s goal was to “accurately describe the world” but you are saying it is also advocacy. No, that's not what I'm advocating, and honestly, the way you're approaching this now, I really have to be wondering if you're being deliberately obtuse. Because if that's actually where you're coming from, you're essentially saying that the USBR system is a pipe dream. I'm not ready to buy that argument because the premise is fundamentally flawed on a level amounting to argumentum ad absurdum. ___ 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] Removing US Bicycle Route tags
Well then, we can use them to hide the parking lot symbols in DC. d. On Jun 14, 2013, at 15:11, alyssa wright alyssapwri...@gmail.com wrote: Don't knock the unicorn viewing sites. They are everywhere. On Jun 14, 2013, at 5:55 PM, Darrell Fuhriman darr...@garnix.org wrote: Please for the love of god, I see no one here in favor of it but you. They are imaginary, let's delete them and move on. They have no more place in OSM than unicorn viewing locations and alien landing sites. d. On Jun 14, 2013, at 14:43, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: Again, I'm still not hearing a suggestion that would keep this valuable information in OSM, or a compelling reason not to keep it. We do map proposed routes, we don't map for the renderer. It still sounds like the core issue is some proposals are mapped more specifically than they are on paper. I don't think this is an insurmountable problem to fix within the boundaries of not tagging for the renderer. With that in mind, I would love to hear ideas how to tackle the proposed corridor issue so that they may be more properly mapped, not outright excluded over cyclemap rendering issues. On Jun 9, 2013 7:25 AM, KerryIrons irons54vor...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Paul, You explicitly said that putting 50 mile wide corridors on OSM “would be an important advocacy tool.” That does not sound at all like “mapping reality.” I spend hundreds of hours a year on the phone, corresponding, and attending meetings to make the USBR a reality. I’ve personally been involved in getting over 2,000 miles of USBRs approved. Don’t give me stuff about being obtuse and saying the USBRS is a pipe dream. Personal insults are not the path forward. Kerry Irons From: Paul Johnson [mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org] Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2013 11:24 PM To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 3:18 PM, KerryIrons irons54vor...@sbcglobal.net wrote: So Paul, what you really want is advocacy mapping. Not mapping reality but mapping what you want to have. It comes as a great surprise to me that this is what OSM is all about. Do you think this is the consensus of the OSM community? I thought OSM’s goal was to “accurately describe the world” but you are saying it is also advocacy. No, that's not what I'm advocating, and honestly, the way you're approaching this now, I really have to be wondering if you're being deliberately obtuse. Because if that's actually where you're coming from, you're essentially saying that the USBR system is a pipe dream. I'm not ready to buy that argument because the premise is fundamentally flawed on a level amounting to argumentum ad absurdum. ___ 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] Cleaning up California FMMP residential
I've been doing some California landuse and have come across a lot of landuse=residential imported from FMMP which is clearly wrong. The landuse=residential covers entire cities, including commercial, industrial, retail, parks, schools, golf courses, airports, and pretty much anything within city limits. It's hard to be certain because whatever was done doesn't match the documentation at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/California_Farms but it appears that data corresponding to any urban area was imported as landuse=residential. Given that this is a systemic problem with this imported data and the problem originates with the import conversion, I think the best approach to fix it is a mechanical edit. Given that the data is 1.5 years old without being cleaned up, I believe it is the best option. To this end, I propose removing v1 imported ways/multipolygons from FMMP with FMMP_modified=no, FMMP_reviewed=no, landuse=residential, and either description=other land or description=urban land, starting with ways about 500 000 square Mercator meters (exact value subject to change). This would be about 750 areas. There are about 3000 smaller areas that would need dealing with later, but it'd be nice to get the large hard to edit ones cleaned up first. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags
On 6/14/2013 5:43 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: We do map proposed routes, we don't map for the renderer. earlier In which I would really prefer this be addressed as a rendering issue. I believe that's the reasonable compromise, to highlight a margin-of-error area defined by another tag (perhaps corridor_width=* or something similar). Since one point of view classified the solution under a rendering problem (showing corridor_width), the chances of the OpenCycleMap maintainer updating his style for a specific limited use case in the US are near zero. I think a great solution would be to do this in Openlayers / Leaflet and implement the corridor_width attribute when defining and showing the proposed routes. That could be hosted on any simple web host as KML; no database or PostGreSQL needs to be set up. And this could be implemented quite rapidly. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags
This would be an acceptable compromise. On Jun 14, 2013 6:00 PM, Mike N nice...@att.net wrote: On 6/14/2013 5:43 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: We do map proposed routes, we don't map for the renderer. earlier In which I would really prefer this be addressed as a rendering issue. I believe that's the reasonable compromise, to highlight a margin-of-error area defined by another tag (perhaps corridor_width=* or something similar). Since one point of view classified the solution under a rendering problem (showing corridor_width), the chances of the OpenCycleMap maintainer updating his style for a specific limited use case in the US are near zero. I think a great solution would be to do this in Openlayers / Leaflet and implement the corridor_width attribute when defining and showing the proposed routes. That could be hosted on any simple web host as KML; no database or PostGreSQL needs to be set up. And this could be implemented quite rapidly. __**_ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-ushttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [HOT] Black Forest Fire Update
I tag landuse=forest on public and private timber production polygons. This includes national forests, yes. It also includes at least one state demonstration forest I am aware of near me. I tag landuse=wood on virgin forest as well as second-growth forests or visually woody land. I do so widely on polygons which display from visual observation (including satellite and aerial imagery) as largely trees, essentially undisturbed woodland areas. I have superimposed meadows (small, medium and large) on top of these, to visually pleasing effect (in mapnik and other renderers alike). Scattering among these are what can be observed which sometimes become an OSM sketch of a building, road or the odd water tower. I have only today added two tags on some of the only essentially undeveloped (but surrounded) parcels in my city from landuse=residential to ALSO include a natural=wood tag. I'm OK with this (and admittedly, visually prefer the way mapnik tips towards a woody-green render). Call me guilty for coding for the renderer, but both tags are observably true. I'm not OK with changing the landuse=residential (it is so zoned, but not actively used) to landuse=greenfield but I am OK with that if/when/as a permit to develop gets approved at the City Council level. (Then it might properly get changed to landuse=construction and then again beyond that). I am not sure about the temporal aspects of how I use the map as distinct with how those dynamics are likely different in the context of HOT mapping. It seems OSM just experienced a slight muddying in Colorado. It's a plastic map, and it does bend and even break when certain basics aren't followed. Basics might mean certain things to certain people, but (HOT) beginners might get it mostly right. Making mistakes on a smaller scale is how some of us learn, making mistakes on a larger scale, while we can tolerate some of, should be prevented if it can be. SteveA California ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
