Re: [Talk-us] ref tags
On 06/22/2013 08:04 PM, James Mast wrote: It seems that only NC seems to do it this way. Don't know of any other states that post "Future" Interstates except for those "Future I-xx Corridor" signs" (NC does that too on highways that aren't going to be part of a future Interstate). NY 17 is posted as 'Future Interstate 86' along the portion of its length where it's close to complying with Interstate standards. -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] what do we mean by geocoding?
On 6/22/13 9:04 PM, Paul Norman wrote: ...lots of good points... Something else worth noting is this isn't an either-or situation for geocoding. There is no reason you can't have both the street address and postal address geocode to the same physical location. It is common to have multiple inputs geocode to the same location. For reverse geocoding you probably want the street address, not the postal address. I suspect looking up the address of a point to navigate there is far more common than looking up the address of a point to send it mail. right. my fundamental point is we need to have some specification for what we thing geocoding is and how its behavior should look for the end users of the data. in the rural areas where i live, a lot of the digital mapping solutions are more than a little messed up in spots. one of my daughter's friends lives in Chatham, but her street address is Brainerd because the Brainerd PO delivers the mail - and Brainerd isn't even in the same county. a conversation with her parents about the address generally includes a list of things to try because there's no reliability or consistency much of anywhere. richard ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Route relation pages
Route relation tagging is explained on the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Road_routes On 6/22/2013 7:21 PM, Evin Fairchild wrote: I get that you say that keeping wiki pages up to date with the status of route relations is a pain, but I do hope that this new form of tagging routes will get explained on the wiki. The wiki is really useful (even with experienced mappers like me) as documentation for how to use tags, and it’s very important that it’s explained there. Besides, there are probably many mappers that may not be aware of this discussion, let alone the fact that these mailing lists even /exist/. -Compdude *From:*Martijn van Exel [mailto:m...@rtijn.org] *Sent:* Friday, June 21, 2013 8:35 PM *To:* OSM US Talk *Subject:* [Talk-us] Route relation pages Hi, A few of us were talking about setting up custom highway shield rendering on the US tile server earlier this week. Because this rendering relies heavily on route relations (rather than ref tags on the way, as the default mapnik stylesheet does) we need a better way to track the status of numbered route relations. The wiki pages are a PITA to maintain and thus not very reliable. So I spent a little time on pages that always show the current status of US numbered route relations, plus some handy links to relation tools. See for example the interstate relations page here: http://maproulette.org/relationpages/interstates.html There is no nice index page yet, for now you have to look for your state of interest in here: http://maproulette.org/relationpages/ There are pages for each state, for the US routes, and for the Interstates. Code (pretty messy) is on github, here: https://github.com/mvexel/relationpages - if you want to help out and make this more useful, fork away. The pages are currently being refreshed every four hours. This could be increased. Let me know what you think, how this could be improved, and so on. -- 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] what do we mean by geocoding?
> From: Richard Welty [mailto:rwe...@averillpark.net] > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] what do we mean by geocoding? > > On 6/21/13 9:39 PM, Mike N wrote: > > On 6/21/2013 1:42 PM, Richard Welty wrote: > > Surveying postal addresses by opening mailboxes (illegal) or knocking > > on doors doesn't seem feasible. > > > but the enhanced 911 addresses are basically the same as the postal > addresses and have the potential to become available. i'm working on > that in my part of upstate NY. For the choice between defining addresses as street addresses or as postal addresses and where street addresses are verifiable on the ground and postal addresses are not, it seems to make sense to me to use the verifiable street addresses in preference to the postal addresses. My last job had different street addresses and postal addresses. The street address was Main Building 6951 Westminster Highway Richmond, BC The postal addresses were PO Box 5350 Stn Terminal Vancouver BC V6B 5L5 *and* PO Box 4700 Stn Terminal Vancouver, BC V6B 1J1 I'm not sure how the mail got routed. I think we had enough mail for them to send an entire truck every day filled with mail just for us. Something else worth noting is this isn't an either-or situation for geocoding. There is no reason you can't have both the street address and postal address geocode to the same physical location. It is common to have multiple inputs geocode to the same location. For reverse geocoding you probably want the street address, not the postal address. I suspect looking up the address of a point to navigate there is far more common than looking up the address of a point to send it mail. For what it's worth for my last place of work Google only returns a result for the street address, not the postal addresses. The point Google returns is also off by about 12km. Bing is the same for what returns, but it's reasonably accurate. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Route relation pages
I get that you say that keeping wiki pages up to date with the status of route relations is a pain, but I do hope that this new form of tagging routes will get explained on the wiki. The wiki is really useful (even with experienced mappers like me) as documentation for how to use tags, and it’s very important that it’s explained there. Besides, there are probably many mappers that may not be aware of this discussion, let alone the fact that these mailing lists even exist. -Compdude From: Martijn van Exel [mailto:m...@rtijn.org] Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 8:35 PM To: OSM US Talk Subject: [Talk-us] Route relation pages Hi, A few of us were talking about setting up custom highway shield rendering on the US tile server earlier this week. Because this rendering relies heavily on route relations (rather than ref tags on the way, as the default mapnik stylesheet does) we need a better way to track the status of numbered route relations. The wiki pages are a PITA to maintain and thus not very reliable. So I spent a little time on pages that always show the current status of US numbered route relations, plus some handy links to relation tools. See for example the interstate relations page here: http://maproulette.org/relationpages/interstates.html There is no nice index page yet, for now you have to look for your state of interest in here: http://maproulette.org/relationpages/ There are pages for each state, for the US routes, and for the Interstates. Code (pretty messy) is on github, here: https://github.com/mvexel/relationpages - if you want to help out and make this more useful, fork away. The pages are currently being refreshed every four hours. This could be increased. Let me know what you think, how this could be improved, and so on. -- 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] ref tags
> Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2013 15:28:12 -0400 > From: phi...@pobox.com > To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] ref tags > > * James Mast [2013-06-22 07:22 -0400]: > > > the segment of I-26 between I-240 and Exit #9 is still considered to > > be a "Future" Interstate and it is posted as such with "FUTURE" tabs > > above all I-26 shields on that segment (and missing the word > > "Interstate" in the shields itself. > > Would it be worthwhile to declare a separate network for these > (US:I:Future seems natural) and give them their own relations? If > there are signs on the ground, I could see about putting images in my > rendering for them. > > Yep, here's picture proof that I personally took a few years ago of a "Future I-26" shield: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/rickmastfan67/Interstates/NC/I-26/Img_2043s.jpg And here's one for I-74 in NC along the Rockingham US-74 Bypass when I was on it a few years ago: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/rickmastfan67/Interstates/NC/I-74/P1030940s.jpg And for quick reference, here's a I-840 from StreetView: http://goo.gl/maps/K20Hs And a Future I-73/I-840 combo from StreetView: http://goo.gl/maps/G0qOG It seems that only NC seems to do it this way. Don't know of any other states that post "Future" Interstates except for those "Future I-xx Corridor" signs" (NC does that too on highways that aren't going to be part of a future Interstate). -James ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] what do we mean by geocoding?
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Richard Welty wrote: > Surveying postal addresses by opening mailboxes (illegal) or knocking on >> doors doesn't seem feasible. >> >> but the enhanced 911 addresses are basically the same as the postal > addresses and have the potential to become available. i'm working on > that in my part of upstate NY. e911 is a very hopeful source for OSM: high quality coding would be huge. For good background, read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_9-1-1#Wireline_enhanced_911 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Route relation pages
Pretty cool so far, though for the Ref, it'd help a lot if it sorted numerically rather than alphabetically. 117A shouldn't appear before 3... On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote: > Hi, > > A few of us were talking about setting up custom highway shield rendering > on the US tile server earlier this week. Because this rendering relies > heavily on route relations (rather than ref tags on the way, as the default > mapnik stylesheet does) we need a better way to track the status of > numbered route relations. The wiki pages are a PITA to maintain and thus > not very reliable. > > So I spent a little time on pages that always show the current status of > US numbered route relations, plus some handy links to relation tools. See > for example the interstate relations page here: > > http://maproulette.org/relationpages/interstates.html > > There is no nice index page yet, for now you have to look for your state > of interest in here: > > http://maproulette.org/relationpages/ > > There are pages for each state, for the US routes, and for the Interstates. > > Code (pretty messy) is on github, here: > https://github.com/mvexel/relationpages - if you want to help out and > make this more useful, fork away. > > The pages are currently being refreshed every four hours. This could be > increased. > > Let me know what you think, how this could be improved, and so on. > -- > 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] ref tags
* James Mast [2013-06-22 07:22 -0400]: > I do hope that the render will avoid using the Super relations. My rendering doesn't use super relations (mostly[0]), because it doesn't need to; the per-state relations contain all of the tags needed for it to get the right shields. > the segment of I-26 between I-240 and Exit #9 is still considered to > be a "Future" Interstate and it is posted as such with "FUTURE" tabs > above all I-26 shields on that segment (and missing the word > "Interstate" in the shields itself. Would it be worthwhile to declare a separate network for these (US:I:Future seems natural) and give them their own relations? If there are signs on the ground, I could see about putting images in my rendering for them. [0] At lower zoom levels the rendering uses the osm2pgsql route relation geometries for overview rendering of two-digit Interstate shields, which might end up using super relations, if osm2pgsql generates geometries from them, but that's a fairly minor part of the rendering and only applies from zoom 7 to zoom 9. -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- I hate users you sound like a sysadmin already! -- seen on #debian --- -- ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Hamlets!
* Elliott Plack [2013-06-21 21:01 -0400]: > In the city of Baltimore, we have over 250 well defined neighborhoods, yet > their boundaries are defined by a planning dept., not the people per se. > Most of the neighborhoods have nodes place=suburb, but it probably should > be place=neighborhood. I put those there and at the time place=suburb seemed the best tag to use; place=neighborhood wasn't yet in common use. Based on my understanding of current usage of the tags, most should probably be place=neighborhood, but the larger or more prominent neighborhoods (like Hampden or Fells Point) should get place=suburb, in a vein similar to the distinctions between place=town/village/hamlet. -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- #define NULL 0 /* silly thing is, we don't even use this */ -- perl.c, perl source code --- -- ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Hamlets!
* Serge Wroclawski [2013-06-21 09:17 -0400]: > During the TIGER import, small neighborhoods were imported as hamlets. I tend to think of the GNIS "hamlets" as small places-where-people-live. Around my section of the Baltimore suburbs, most of them are housing developments, apartment complexes, trailer parks or similar. Some, however, do correspond to things that people would more readily describe as towns or suburbs. (Interestingly, none of Baltimore's neighborhoods shoed up in the GNIS import. All of the GNIS place=* nodes stop at the city line.) For the most part, I retag these nodes as landuse=residential unless I am reasonably certain they correspond to a larger place designation, in which case I give them an appropriate place= value. I have something of an advantage based on my location, because nowhere in the immediate Baltimore metropolitan region is there a place that would qualify as a hamlet (because the suburbs are all wide-ranging enough to be place=village or, in some cases, place=town). Note that I usually leave the nodes tagged landuse=residential, unless I'm in the mood for figuring out subdividion boundaries based on subdivision plats. I know that the landuse= tags make more sense on areas than on nodes, but it seems more correct to me than leaving the node tagged place=hamlet. > I'm wondering what other people's experience with the hamlets are. Are > they useful where you live? Are they nonsense (as they have been in > NYC and DC)? I don't think they're "nonsense". I think most of them in my area don't qualify for place= tagging, but most of them do correspond to *something* that actually exists. (Not all; if I can't match a node to a place name or subdivision, I'll just delete it, but that's not tremendously common in my experience..) -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take Hofstadter's Law into account. --- -- ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Hamlets!
On 22/giu/2013, at 17:42, Kevin Kenny wrote: >> and we can use that to inform our local decisions. > > But let the locals make the decisions! Don't just go deleting > hamlets based on the fact that they are unincorporated. A great many > hamlets in New York State have a strong local identity +1 to your whole post, it is important not to confuse place with administrative units, they are orthogonal (but often also coincide, hence the risk of seeing them as the same thing) cheers, Martin ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Hamlets!
On 6/22/13 11:42 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote: On 06/21/2013 08:07 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote: The map should reflect ground reality, so unless there are hamlets in these places, we should strive to fix them. By sharing our experiences, we can have a better sense of how others are doing that, and we can use that to inform our local decisions. But let the locals make the decisions! Don't just go deleting hamlets based on the fact that they are unincorporated. A great many hamlets in New York State have a strong local identity. The locals can tell you their precise borders. They are signed. The post offices and railroad stations are named for them. If you ask a local what town he lives in, he'll reply with the name of the hamlet. the city of Lansingburgh merged with Troy, NY more than 100 years ago but Lansingburgh still has a very strong local identity. the post office still delivers to Lansingburgh, the school district is distinct from the Troy district, and back when i lived there i told people Lansingburgh, not Troy. and people who know the difference will still tell you rather pointedly that Lansingburgh is distinct from North Troy. so yes, we need to defer to local mappers on this one. richard ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Hamlets!
On 06/21/2013 08:07 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote: The map should reflect ground reality, so unless there are hamlets in these places, we should strive to fix them. By sharing our experiences, we can have a better sense of how others are doing that, and we can use that to inform our local decisions. But let the locals make the decisions! Don't just go deleting hamlets based on the fact that they are unincorporated. A great many hamlets in New York State have a strong local identity. The locals can tell you their precise borders. They are signed. The post offices and railroad stations are named for them. If you ask a local what town he lives in, he'll reply with the name of the hamlet. A resident of Woodmere, New York - a well-defined hamlet with identifiable borders - will be puzzled or even offended if you say that he's a resident of Hempstead (the name of the containing township). And there was some rather heated political turmoil a few years ago when the town of Clifton Park posted large "Welcome to Clifton Park" signs at its borders. Eventually, they were forced to replace them with signs that read something like "WELCOME TO REXFORD - Town of Clifton Park" with the "Town of Clifton Park" in much smaller lettering. Because to the locals, Rexford is not Clifton Park - it just happens to be in the township of that name. Even within New York City, some of the hamlets very much keep their identity and their borders. In the boroughs of Queens and Staten Island, the names of the post offices are for the most part the names of the hamlets, and the locals, once again, identify with them. Even though Neponsit or Woodhaven or Astoria may have no separate political identity, mail is still addressed under those names, and the locals respond first with those names when asked where they live. (I'll say that I was born in Queens only when I'm not talking to a fellow native: if I am talking to a fellow New Yorker, I was born in Far Rockaway.) Of course, New York's local administration is complicated. School districts, fire districts, post office service areas, and the like frequently have borders that fail to follow the borders of the municipalities. -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] ref tags
I do hope that the render will avoid using the Super relations. Mainly because some have "Future" segments tied into normal Interstates using the Super relation. I plan on cleaning up some of the NC problems with I-73 & I-74 later. Also split I-26 into a Future and normal relation since the segment of I-26 between I-240 and Exit #9 is still considered to be a "Future" Interstate and it is posted as such with "FUTURE" tabs above all I-26 shields on that segment (and missing the word "Interstate" in the shields itself". -James ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Route relation pages
Not bad! Does this mean that any new relations would automatically be added to the page (like one for the new I-2 in TX when it's posted this year)? Also, thanks to that new Interstate page, I noticed right away that the I-495 (DE) relation's ref tags weren't correct (it had ref=I 495 (DE)). So, I was able to quickly fix it to put it back to the current tagging scheme. This might give me a reason to go cleaning up some "Future" Interstate relations where the highway is really posted with "Future I-XX" shields in NC (segments of I-26, I-73, I-74, and all of I-840). Can't wait to have a render properly put the word "Future" above the shields! -James ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Route relation pages
On 6/21/2013 11:59 PM, Chris Lawrence wrote: Looks nice so far. However, the state pages probably should pick up subnetworks and the like (for example, Georgia's spurs/loops/connectors, and the various Texas FM/RM/Loop/Spur/etc.) like the US route one does(?). Very nice - thanks for this. An example of a business style route in SC is http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2557342 . (There might be more, but I can't re-locate them at the moment). ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
