Re: [Talk-us] Tagging a super-two highway (trunk or motorway?)

[Chris Lawrence]

A true "super two" freeway, with no at-grade intersections whatsoever,
would be properly classified as a motorway under global OSM tagging
conventions.  These may not be particularly common in the U.S.
(although they exist), but they are common enough around the world to
be consistent.

Sorta-I-93 through Franconia Notch would not technically be a super
two due to the median barrier; it's two separate one-lane motorway
carriageways under OSM tagging conventions.

IMO the first criterion I'd look for is: does this road carry the same
restrictions associated with a freeway in the state in question?  For
example, in many states, freeways have posted access restriction signs
limiting use by pedestrians, bikes, low-cc motorized vehicles, and
sometimes farm equipment.  If it does, it's a motorway, at least where
those restrictions apply.  If it doesn't, it's not.

If that fails, what is the official stance of the operator of the
route?  If it has full access control, it's a motorway.  If not, it's
not one.  This is where referring to an official state highway map
would potentially be helpful.

Then you've got the headscratchers, like US 27/280 southeast of
Columbus, Georgia, which has no at-grade access for miles because of
post-9/11 security enhancements at Fort Benning, but I don't think
technically is considered by GDOT to be a freeway and isn't posted as
one, even though I'm sure any pedestrian or cyclist using it would
enjoy a long conversation with some friendly military police officers.
 Someone (no idea who) upgraded it to freeway.


Chris
-- 
Chris Lawrence 

Website: http://www.cnlawrence.com/

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

Re: [Talk-us] Cam4rd98 just doesn't get it

[Clay Smalley]

I agree that OSM needs to be more noob-proof than Wikipedia. Erroneously
changing one thing on Wikipedia won't make much of a difference, whereas
erroneously changing one thing on OSM could throw off a lot of software
that depends on the data being correct. There's only so far OpenStreetMap
can go without some kind of quality control.
On Jun 25, 2013 6:34 PM, "Bryce Nesbitt"  wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:29 AM, James Mast wrote:
>
>> I'll let his comments here[1] on a note page speak
>>
>
> Again, all I see is a well meaning user who very clearly is not yet
> absorbed OSM culture.
> There is no belligerence, just a bit of confusion.
>
> The tools could help:
> 1) After the first edit from a new user, the tools could present a list of
> rules (chief among them don't copy from unapproved sources!).
> 2) A new users could be required to take a small quiz, like certain dating
> sites do, prior to finalizing the edit.
> 3) Your first edit could go in a queue for an experienced mapper to look
> at and comment on.
> 4) Editing part of a route relation could bring up education on route
> relations.
> 5) New users could be given 10 free edits, prior to needing to provide
> more contact information and/or pass an editing quiz.
> 6) New users could be given their choice of a mapping challenge, where the
> "correct" results are known.
> 7) etc.
>
> With all this effort to get new mappers in the USA we should be thrilled a
> mapper wants to contribute...
> ... and put in the work to ensure such new users be onboarded
> and brought into OSM culture.
>
> Note that:
> Wikipedia has a strong reasons to allow completely anonymous edits. OSM I
> think not so much.  We could ask
> more of people who want to edit, with the goal of making more good
> mappers, rather than just more mappers.
> We should honor an support mappers who have narrow interests (e.g. single
> feature types, certain types of corrections, certain
> events) as well as those who want to map regionally.
>
> If this particular user wants to map planned and under-construction
> features (and clearly he or she does), there's a way to bring that energy
> into OSM and make it productive.
>
> ___
> 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] Cam4rd98 just doesn't get it

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:29 AM, James Mast wrote:

> I'll let his comments here[1] on a note page speak
>

Again, all I see is a well meaning user who very clearly is not yet
absorbed OSM culture.
There is no belligerence, just a bit of confusion.

The tools could help:
1) After the first edit from a new user, the tools could present a list of
rules (chief among them don't copy from unapproved sources!).
2) A new users could be required to take a small quiz, like certain dating
sites do, prior to finalizing the edit.
3) Your first edit could go in a queue for an experienced mapper to look at
and comment on.
4) Editing part of a route relation could bring up education on route
relations.
5) New users could be given 10 free edits, prior to needing to provide more
contact information and/or pass an editing quiz.
6) New users could be given their choice of a mapping challenge, where the
"correct" results are known.
7) etc.

With all this effort to get new mappers in the USA we should be thrilled a
mapper wants to contribute...
... and put in the work to ensure such new users be onboarded
and brought into OSM culture.

Note that:
Wikipedia has a strong reasons to allow completely anonymous edits. OSM I
think not so much.  We could ask
more of people who want to edit, with the goal of making more good mappers,
rather than just more mappers.
We should honor an support mappers who have narrow interests (e.g. single
feature types, certain types of corrections, certain
events) as well as those who want to map regionally.

If this particular user wants to map planned and under-construction
features (and clearly he or she does), there's a way to bring that energy
into OSM and make it productive.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging a super-two highway (trunk or motorway?)

[Richard Welty]

On 6/25/13 8:49 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:


It's not the number of lanes that makes the distinction, but the character
of the road.  People don't expect an undivided motorway, but describing it
as a trunk will cue most renderers to go for something motorway-like but
not quite there.  A super-two with a jersey wall or median strip or some
other physical separation would be a motorway.


right. when i entered the Bennington Bypass (the new VT 279), initially
i classified it as a motorway because of the ramps, but on a revisit i
realized it was undivided and downgraded it to trunk.

to be a motorway i think it needs to be a dual carriage way without
any at grade junctions.

richard


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

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging a super-two highway (trunk or motorway?)

[Paul Johnson]

On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:48 PM,  wrote:

> I have marked US 169 between Iola and Chanute as Motorway because,
> although it is a super-two, it is fully controlled access along this
> segment. I believe this is consistent with the way most commercial
> map-makers would mark this segment. For example, Rand McNally marks this
> segment using their freeway symbol with a "TWO LANES" notation (they also
> mark US 400 near Neodesha this way, however, it is NOT controlled access,
> and is properly marked as Trunk in OSM)
>

The goal here is for accuracy, not to imitate another map's style, style
can be handled quite readily by renderers for a specific purpose.

I would also point out that I-93 in Franconia Notch is also two lanes, with
> a median barrier separating the lanes. If all super-two facilities are to
> be labeled as "Trunk," then this segment would have to be labeled as
> "Trunk" to be consistent. It would, however, confuse the hell out of the
> general public.
>

It's not the number of lanes that makes the distinction, but the character
of the road.  People don't expect an undivided motorway, but describing it
as a trunk will cue most renderers to go for something motorway-like but
not quite there.  A super-two with a jersey wall or median strip or some
other physical separation would be a motorway.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Cam4rd98 just doesn't get it

[stevea]

In the most sincere way:  apology accepted.  I truly will be quite 
careful to follow these (and all talk-us) guidelines in the future to 
avoid misunderstandings.


SteveA
California

SteveA, I apologize for jumping on your post so quickly. I was 
frustrated that you posted an off-topic comment on a thread that was 
meant to have been closed. Moderation was unfair because I didn't 
set clear expectations in my previous message.


To be more clear for everyone:
- talk-us is not a forum for personal attacks or mockery
- please keep threads on topic (both on topic to the US community 
and on topic to the thread you're replying to)


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

[Talk-us] access restriction, water only: How to tag?

[Thomas Colson]

I'm tagging some camp sites as "boat=yes" to imply water access only, but I
don't think this is right. Is there a water-only access tag?

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

Re: [Talk-us] Future Interstate Relations

[stevea]

Paul Johnson writes:

Not likely but not entirely out of the possibility given some 
regional (above county, below state) names, which would be an issue 
if we were to bring bike networks into the hierarchical scheme 
(which seems like a good idea since the US has some rather complex 
hierarchy of bike networks that don't always fit the Sustrans schema 
cleanly, like greater Tulsa's INCOG network or greater Portland's 
Metro Region network, that don't get distinguished from the more 
minor county and city networks).


The four levels of bike routes (continental/international, national, 
regional/state and local) that OSM supports in its current tagging 
scheme truly fit a European/UK/Sustrans model better than what we 
have in this realm in the USA.  In addition to the "odd ducks" that 
Paul notes, there are a number of what I am naming with Kerry Irons 
of ACA "quasi-national" and "private-national" routes, like the 
Mississipi River Trail (MRT) and the East Coast Greenway (ECG).  Both 
MRT and ECG are not sponsored by governments, but rather "private" 
(or quasi-private, sometimes charitable, sometimes for-profit) 
organizations.  And so, where do these "fit in" to the bicycle 
networking schema used in OSM?  Currently, these two (there are 
dozens more, hundreds if we include more state/regional sized routes) 
are considered to be so "national in scope" that they share bicycle 
network "address space" along with AASHTO's United States Bicycle 
Route (USBR) numbering.


So, for example on a rendering like 
http://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/en/?zoom=5&lat=39.3&lon=-92&hill=0&route=1#


we see routes 1, 20, 35, and 76, but we also see MRT and ECG.  In the 
case of MRT, there is even a segment which has been designated by 
AASHTO as USBR 45, yet folks in Minnesota are "proud of their (MRT) 
brand" (says Kerry) that we found a way in OSM renderings to respect 
both (dual naming, super-relation inclusion...).  This is similar to 
how the Lincoln Highway or National Road are still historical 
designators or enthusiast names which are still respected, but 
state/national highway numbering have largely "superceded" (though 
not completely) these historical names.  The situation is similar 
with USBR 45 and MRT in Minnesota, and once again, as long as 
consensus is reached as to the semantics, with careful tagging, OSM's 
tagging syntax is able to accommodate.


So, what I am saying is that while icn/ncn/rcn/lcn is a bit 
restrictive as a cycleway networking numbering scheme, being derived 
from "government only" UK/European/Sustrans models, OSM is able to 
fit into it the multitude of mixed government and private routing 
found in the USA.  It isn't always easy, and discussion can be 
tedious and lengthy, but I believe it can be done.


SteveA
California

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

Re: [Talk-us] Cam4rd98 just doesn't get it

[Ian Dees]

SteveA, I apologize for jumping on your post so quickly. I was frustrated
that you posted an off-topic comment on a thread that was meant to have
been closed. Moderation was unfair because I didn't set clear expectations
in my previous message.

To be more clear for everyone:
- talk-us is not a forum for personal attacks or mockery
- please keep threads on topic (both on topic to the US community and on
topic to the thread you're replying to)



On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Ian Dees  wrote:

> SteveA,
>
> This message is completely off topic and goes in direct contradiction with
> my previous message.
>
> You have been temporarily moderated as a result.
>
> -Your friendly talk-us@ mod
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 2:55 PM, stevea  wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>> Folks, talk-us@ is a place for discussion, not personal attacks.
>>
>>
>> If you have a problem with a particular user, contact the user and if
>> they don't respond e-mail d...@osmfoundation.org.
>>
>>
>> Apologies to all.  I did/do not wish to attack anybody, just note what
>> seemed ironic or even humorous.  I hereby promise to be more careful with
>> my tone here.
>>
>> While NE2 is no longer contributing, and many of his contributions, to
>> put it mildly, were "controversial," I do believe he made many important
>> contributions.  For example, his assertions about national bike routes,
>> while quite premature compared to which routes AASHTO has vs. hasn't
>> approved, DID spark important discussion between American Cycling
>> Association and one OSM contributor (me), and I have gone to great lengths
>> in the last few weeks to improve the situation.
>>
>> In some cases this includes deleting a "state=proposed" or "ncn=proposed"
>> tag from a route relation (which is correct, as AASHTO hasn't approved it
>> -- a state has not made such an application and it was quite premature of
>> NE2 to have "jumped the gun" here), I am regularly leaving NE2's relations
>> in the OSM database as "dummy placeholders" so that when/as Kerry and I
>> better coordinate state teams who are doing this work in the present and
>> future, much of the work of adding highway segments will have already been
>> completed (by NE2).  True, they'll have to correct 2% to 10% of what NE2
>> did (it varies on each ncn route he asserted), and they'll have to add back
>> the tags so that OpenCycleMap and waymarkedtrails.org renderers pick up
>> and render those routes, but that is much better than starting from
>> scratch.  In that sense, I'd like to thank NE2 for that work, even if what
>> he did was foment a national bicycle route conversation and how it is
>> mapped in OSM in a "jump the gun" kind of way.
>>
>> This message really is meant to convey that there is an important
>> (off-line now, but started here on talk-us) discussion going on about
>> national bicycle route mapping, and even thanks a person whom I was
>> described as attacking.  Again, I do not wish to attack, I wish to
>> discuss.  Thank you also to this talk-us forum for the opportunity to do so.
>>
>> Renderings at
>> http://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/en/?zoom=5&lat=39.3&lon=-92&hill=0&route=1#
>> of national bike routes are quite accurate (I'd say 98%) as of right about
>> now.  That's a result of literally dozens of tedious emails back and forth
>> between me and Kerry, and me JOSM-ing my stubby thick fingers off, almost
>> exclusively what I've been doing the last couple of weeks.  OSM, I don't
>> seek accolades, although you are welcome (we are welcome?).  And yet, there
>> is still so very much more to do!
>>
>> SteveA
>> California
>>
>> ___
>> 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?

[Brian May]

The USPS site referenced below has zipcode polygons and postal delivery 
routes overlaid on an interactive map along with the number of 
residences and business each route serves. Search for a zipcode or an 
address to get started.

https://eddm.usps.com/eddm/customer/routeSearch.action

It looks like the zipcodes may be the Census version, just guessing by 
the field naming convention. You can browse the ArcGIS Server here: 
https://gis.usps.com/ArcSRV/rest/services/EDDM/EDDM_ZIP5/MapServer/0


Brian


On 6/25/2013 4:59 PM, Darrell Fuhriman wrote:

Part of the reason that the USPS disavows a geographic boundary for ZIP Codes 
is that they often keep residential delivery and commercial delivery and 
high-rise delivery (having apts or suites) separate even when they are next to 
each other on the street.  This can be confusing if you assume a geographic 
basis for ZIP Codes.

Carl.

I've always thought the best way to think of it is that ZIP codes are built 
from delivery routes. In essence they are linear features.

My favorite example is that many National Parks have a DC ZIP code, despite 
being.. well... a long way from DC, because mail is routed through the National 
Park Service headquarters.

d.






___
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?

[Darrell Fuhriman]

> 
> Part of the reason that the USPS disavows a geographic boundary for ZIP Codes 
> is that they often keep residential delivery and commercial delivery and 
> high-rise delivery (having apts or suites) separate even when they are next 
> to each other on the street.  This can be confusing if you assume a 
> geographic basis for ZIP Codes.
> 
> Carl.

I've always thought the best way to think of it is that ZIP codes are built 
from delivery routes. In essence they are linear features. 

My favorite example is that many National Parks have a DC ZIP code, despite 
being.. well… a long way from DC, because mail is routed through the National 
Park Service headquarters.

d.






smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] what do we mean by geocoding?

[Carl Anderson]

Steve,

On a more technical level "ZIP Code Tabulation Areas" (ZCTA5) are
statistical areas that are built using a predominant ZIP Code method.
The predominant ZIP Code for addresses within a Face (Faces combine into
Blocks) is assigned to the Face.  Then a complex algorithm in-fills ZCTA5
information onto Faces and Blocks that do not have a ZCTA5 from adjacent
and nearby Faces and Blocks.

Part of the reason that the USPS disavows a geographic boundary for ZIP
Codes is that they often keep residential delivery and commercial delivery
and high-rise delivery (having apts or suites) separate even when they are
next to each other on the street.  This can be confusing if you assume a
geographic basis for ZIP Codes.

Carl.


On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Steven Johnson wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
>
>>
>> At SOTM-US (State of the Map US) I spoke to Steven Johnson of the Census
>> Bureau on the issue of what data USPS actually has internally (as the
>> Census Bureau has some special licensed access to this data).
>>
>> Yes, just to amplify: the Census Bureau purchases the Delivery Sequence
> File (DSF) from USPS on an ongoing basis (at least 2x/year). The use of the
> DSF dates from 1994 and Congressional authorization was required for the
> Bureau to use the DSF. The DSF served as the foundation for the Bureau's
> Master Address File (MAF). The DSF is by far the largest source of address
> data for the Bureau, in excess of 90%.
>
> Apparently, the USPS does not even know the geocoordinates of most of
>> their assets (e.g. post boxes, post offices, delivery addresses).  They do
>> have a near perfect database of *what* these assets are, just not
>> the coordinates.  And that itself is useful.  Knowing a postbox exists is a
>> huge clue to geocoding it.  Knowing a postbox has been removed from service
>> is a huge clue.
>>
>
> Actually, I think I was referring to ZIP codes (but you're forgiven for
> not recalling the details. ;-) ). The USPS *does not* maintain ZIP codes as
> polygon features, because the ZIP code is associated with a delivery
> *point* (i.e. a postal address). The Census Bureau combines those into
> something known as "ZIP Code Tabulation Areas", which are an approximation
> created by drawing boundaries around a collection of *points* that have ZIP
> code in common. Many other commercial vendors create something similar. But
> there is no official database of ZIP code polygons.
>
> As to whether USPS has coordinates/geocoded coords for all of the postal
> 'furniture' out there, that I don't know.
>
> -- SEJ
> -- twitter: @geomantic
> -- skype: sejohnson8
>
> There are two types of people in the world. Those that can extrapolate
> from incomplete data.
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] dirty2osm

[Martijn van Exel]

Yea, that would be nice I guess - I personally never deal with DMS-style
coordinates, so I have no incentive (or time) to add that. But if you do
I'd be happy to merge it!

Martijn


On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Dale Puch  wrote:

> Before I whine about what this nice free tool can't do...
>
> Thank you! :)
>
> Now a suggestion for someone that can add the capability to decode
> cordinates with minutes and seconds  IE.
> Decimal (WGS84) already working : 28.039521, -81.949792
> Decimal Minutes (GPS) : N28 2.37126 W81 56.98752
> Degrees Minutes Seconds : N 28° 2' 22.2756", W 81° 56' 59.2512"
>
> Since it seems to mainly be a Regex match, perhaps this will help
> https://gist.github.com/moole/3707127#file-gps_coord_regexp
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:50 AM, Martijn van Exel  wrote:
>
>> Sometimes I get coordinates like this:
>>
>> 37.3443,-110.3246
>>
>> or like this:
>>
>>
>> http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=40.750836~-111.854014&lvl=16&dir=0&sty=r&where=salt%20lake%20city&ss=yp.liberty%20park~pg.1~rad.80&form=LMLTCC
>>
>> or like this even:
>>
>> > value="DLL=37.81209,-122.19888"/>
>>
>> And I quickly want to look at that area in OSM. So I hacked this
>> together: dirty2osm
>>
>> http://maproulette.org/ll/
>>
>> It worked well for me today, used it 30 something times with different
>> kinds of input. Success definitely not guaranteed though.
>>
>> Martijn
>> --
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Dale Puch
>
> ___
> 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] dirty2osm

[Martijn van Exel]

I think someone had a stab at this already, for Firefox I believe - can't
remember details.


On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Alex Barth  wrote:

> LOVE IT!!!
>
> This should be a Chrome plugin. Open any map in OSM at the right zoom
> level at a single mouse click or keyboard shortcut.
>
> Just throwing this out there, I _have_ read the GitHub sign :-)
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 1:14 AM, Dale Puch  wrote:
>
>> Before I whine about what this nice free tool can't do...
>>
>> Thank you! :)
>>
>> Now a suggestion for someone that can add the capability to decode
>> cordinates with minutes and seconds  IE.
>> Decimal (WGS84) already working : 28.039521, -81.949792
>> Decimal Minutes (GPS) : N28 2.37126 W81 56.98752
>> Degrees Minutes Seconds : N 28° 2' 22.2756", W 81° 56' 59.2512"
>>
>> Since it seems to mainly be a Regex match, perhaps this will help
>> https://gist.github.com/moole/3707127#file-gps_coord_regexp
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:50 AM, Martijn van Exel  wrote:
>>
>>> Sometimes I get coordinates like this:
>>>
>>> 37.3443,-110.3246
>>>
>>> or like this:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=40.750836~-111.854014&lvl=16&dir=0&sty=r&where=salt%20lake%20city&ss=yp.liberty%20park~pg.1~rad.80&form=LMLTCC
>>>
>>> or like this even:
>>>
>>> >> value="DLL=37.81209,-122.19888"/>
>>>
>>> And I quickly want to look at that area in OSM. So I hacked this
>>> together: dirty2osm
>>>
>>> http://maproulette.org/ll/
>>>
>>> It worked well for me today, used it 30 something times with different
>>> kinds of input. Success definitely not guaranteed though.
>>>
>>> Martijn
>>> --
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dale Puch
>>
>> ___
>> 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] what do we mean by geocoding?

[Brad Neuhauser]

One more point of good news/bad news to add: the Census did do its best to
collect GPS coords for most structures during the 2010 Census, but will not
be sharing that anytime soon:
https://www.census.gov/privacy/data_protection/gps_coordinates.html


On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Steven Johnson wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
>
>>
>> At SOTM-US (State of the Map US) I spoke to Steven Johnson of the Census
>> Bureau on the issue of what data USPS actually has internally (as the
>> Census Bureau has some special licensed access to this data).
>>
>> Yes, just to amplify: the Census Bureau purchases the Delivery Sequence
> File (DSF) from USPS on an ongoing basis (at least 2x/year). The use of the
> DSF dates from 1994 and Congressional authorization was required for the
> Bureau to use the DSF. The DSF served as the foundation for the Bureau's
> Master Address File (MAF). The DSF is by far the largest source of address
> data for the Bureau, in excess of 90%.
>
> Apparently, the USPS does not even know the geocoordinates of most of
>> their assets (e.g. post boxes, post offices, delivery addresses).  They do
>> have a near perfect database of *what* these assets are, just not
>> the coordinates.  And that itself is useful.  Knowing a postbox exists is a
>> huge clue to geocoding it.  Knowing a postbox has been removed from service
>> is a huge clue.
>>
>
> Actually, I think I was referring to ZIP codes (but you're forgiven for
> not recalling the details. ;-) ). The USPS *does not* maintain ZIP codes as
> polygon features, because the ZIP code is associated with a delivery
> *point* (i.e. a postal address). The Census Bureau combines those into
> something known as "ZIP Code Tabulation Areas", which are an approximation
> created by drawing boundaries around a collection of *points* that have ZIP
> code in common. Many other commercial vendors create something similar. But
> there is no official database of ZIP code polygons.
>
> As to whether USPS has coordinates/geocoded coords for all of the postal
> 'furniture' out there, that I don't know.
>
> -- SEJ
> -- twitter: @geomantic
> -- skype: sejohnson8
>
> There are two types of people in the world. Those that can extrapolate
> from incomplete data.
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Cam4rd98 just doesn't get it

[Ian Dees]

SteveA,

This message is completely off topic and goes in direct contradiction with
my previous message.

You have been temporarily moderated as a result.

-Your friendly talk-us@ mod


On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 2:55 PM, stevea  wrote:

> **
>
> Folks, talk-us@ is a place for discussion, not personal attacks.
>
>
> If you have a problem with a particular user, contact the user and if they
> don't respond e-mail d...@osmfoundation.org.
>
>
> Apologies to all.  I did/do not wish to attack anybody, just note what
> seemed ironic or even humorous.  I hereby promise to be more careful with
> my tone here.
>
> While NE2 is no longer contributing, and many of his contributions, to put
> it mildly, were "controversial," I do believe he made many important
> contributions.  For example, his assertions about national bike routes,
> while quite premature compared to which routes AASHTO has vs. hasn't
> approved, DID spark important discussion between American Cycling
> Association and one OSM contributor (me), and I have gone to great lengths
> in the last few weeks to improve the situation.
>
> In some cases this includes deleting a "state=proposed" or "ncn=proposed"
> tag from a route relation (which is correct, as AASHTO hasn't approved it
> -- a state has not made such an application and it was quite premature of
> NE2 to have "jumped the gun" here), I am regularly leaving NE2's relations
> in the OSM database as "dummy placeholders" so that when/as Kerry and I
> better coordinate state teams who are doing this work in the present and
> future, much of the work of adding highway segments will have already been
> completed (by NE2).  True, they'll have to correct 2% to 10% of what NE2
> did (it varies on each ncn route he asserted), and they'll have to add back
> the tags so that OpenCycleMap and waymarkedtrails.org renderers pick up
> and render those routes, but that is much better than starting from
> scratch.  In that sense, I'd like to thank NE2 for that work, even if what
> he did was foment a national bicycle route conversation and how it is
> mapped in OSM in a "jump the gun" kind of way.
>
> This message really is meant to convey that there is an important
> (off-line now, but started here on talk-us) discussion going on about
> national bicycle route mapping, and even thanks a person whom I was
> described as attacking.  Again, I do not wish to attack, I wish to
> discuss.  Thank you also to this talk-us forum for the opportunity to do so.
>
> Renderings at
> http://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/en/?zoom=5&lat=39.3&lon=-92&hill=0&route=1#
> of national bike routes are quite accurate (I'd say 98%) as of right about
> now.  That's a result of literally dozens of tedious emails back and forth
> between me and Kerry, and me JOSM-ing my stubby thick fingers off, almost
> exclusively what I've been doing the last couple of weeks.  OSM, I don't
> seek accolades, although you are welcome (we are welcome?).  And yet, there
> is still so very much more to do!
>
> SteveA
> California
>
> ___
> 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?

[Steven Johnson]

On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Bryce Nesbitt  wrote:

>
> At SOTM-US (State of the Map US) I spoke to Steven Johnson of the Census
> Bureau on the issue of what data USPS actually has internally (as the
> Census Bureau has some special licensed access to this data).
>
> Yes, just to amplify: the Census Bureau purchases the Delivery Sequence
File (DSF) from USPS on an ongoing basis (at least 2x/year). The use of the
DSF dates from 1994 and Congressional authorization was required for the
Bureau to use the DSF. The DSF served as the foundation for the Bureau's
Master Address File (MAF). The DSF is by far the largest source of address
data for the Bureau, in excess of 90%.

Apparently, the USPS does not even know the geocoordinates of most of their
> assets (e.g. post boxes, post offices, delivery addresses).  They do have a
> near perfect database of *what* these assets are, just not
> the coordinates.  And that itself is useful.  Knowing a postbox exists is a
> huge clue to geocoding it.  Knowing a postbox has been removed from service
> is a huge clue.
>

Actually, I think I was referring to ZIP codes (but you're forgiven for not
recalling the details. ;-) ). The USPS *does not* maintain ZIP codes as
polygon features, because the ZIP code is associated with a delivery
*point* (i.e. a postal address). The Census Bureau combines those into
something known as "ZIP Code Tabulation Areas", which are an approximation
created by drawing boundaries around a collection of *points* that have ZIP
code in common. Many other commercial vendors create something similar. But
there is no official database of ZIP code polygons.

As to whether USPS has coordinates/geocoded coords for all of the postal
'furniture' out there, that I don't know.

-- SEJ
-- twitter: @geomantic
-- skype: sejohnson8

There are two types of people in the world. Those that can extrapolate from
incomplete data.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Cam4rd98 just doesn't get it

[stevea]

Folks, talk-us@ is a place for discussion, not personal attacks.

If you have a problem with a particular user, contact the user and 
if they don't respond e-mail 
d...@osmfoundation.org.


Apologies to all.  I did/do not wish to attack anybody, just note 
what seemed ironic or even humorous.  I hereby promise to be more 
careful with my tone here.


While NE2 is no longer contributing, and many of his contributions, 
to put it mildly, were "controversial," I do believe he made many 
important contributions.  For example, his assertions about national 
bike routes, while quite premature compared to which routes AASHTO 
has vs. hasn't approved, DID spark important discussion between 
American Cycling Association and one OSM contributor (me), and I have 
gone to great lengths in the last few weeks to improve the situation.


In some cases this includes deleting a "state=proposed" or 
"ncn=proposed" tag from a route relation (which is correct, as AASHTO 
hasn't approved it -- a state has not made such an application and it 
was quite premature of NE2 to have "jumped the gun" here), I am 
regularly leaving NE2's relations in the OSM database as "dummy 
placeholders" so that when/as Kerry and I better coordinate state 
teams who are doing this work in the present and future, much of the 
work of adding highway segments will have already been completed (by 
NE2).  True, they'll have to correct 2% to 10% of what NE2 did (it 
varies on each ncn route he asserted), and they'll have to add back 
the tags so that OpenCycleMap and waymarkedtrails.org renderers pick 
up and render those routes, but that is much better than starting 
from scratch.  In that sense, I'd like to thank NE2 for that work, 
even if what he did was foment a national bicycle route conversation 
and how it is mapped in OSM in a "jump the gun" kind of way.


This message really is meant to convey that there is an important 
(off-line now, but started here on talk-us) discussion going on about 
national bicycle route mapping, and even thanks a person whom I was 
described as attacking.  Again, I do not wish to attack, I wish to 
discuss.  Thank you also to this talk-us forum for the opportunity to 
do so.


Renderings at 
http://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/en/?zoom=5&lat=39.3&lon=-92&hill=0&route=1# 
of national bike routes are quite accurate (I'd say 98%) as of right 
about now.  That's a result of literally dozens of tedious emails 
back and forth between me and Kerry, and me JOSM-ing my stubby thick 
fingers off, almost exclusively what I've been doing the last couple 
of weeks.  OSM, I don't seek accolades, although you are welcome (we 
are welcome?).  And yet, there is still so very much more to do!


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

Re: [Talk-us] dirty2osm

[Alex Barth]

LOVE IT!!!

This should be a Chrome plugin. Open any map in OSM at the right zoom level
at a single mouse click or keyboard shortcut.

Just throwing this out there, I _have_ read the GitHub sign :-)


On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 1:14 AM, Dale Puch  wrote:

> Before I whine about what this nice free tool can't do...
>
> Thank you! :)
>
> Now a suggestion for someone that can add the capability to decode
> cordinates with minutes and seconds  IE.
> Decimal (WGS84) already working : 28.039521, -81.949792
> Decimal Minutes (GPS) : N28 2.37126 W81 56.98752
> Degrees Minutes Seconds : N 28° 2' 22.2756", W 81° 56' 59.2512"
>
> Since it seems to mainly be a Regex match, perhaps this will help
> https://gist.github.com/moole/3707127#file-gps_coord_regexp
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:50 AM, Martijn van Exel  wrote:
>
>> Sometimes I get coordinates like this:
>>
>> 37.3443,-110.3246
>>
>> or like this:
>>
>>
>> http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=40.750836~-111.854014&lvl=16&dir=0&sty=r&where=salt%20lake%20city&ss=yp.liberty%20park~pg.1~rad.80&form=LMLTCC
>>
>> or like this even:
>>
>> > value="DLL=37.81209,-122.19888"/>
>>
>> And I quickly want to look at that area in OSM. So I hacked this
>> together: dirty2osm
>>
>> http://maproulette.org/ll/
>>
>> It worked well for me today, used it 30 something times with different
>> kinds of input. Success definitely not guaranteed though.
>>
>> Martijn
>> --
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Dale Puch
>
> ___
> 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] Cam4rd98 just doesn't get it

[Ian Dees]

Folks, talk-us@ is a place for discussion, not personal attacks.

If you have a problem with a particular user, contact the user and if they
don't respond e-mail d...@osmfoundation.org.

Do not come here to laugh at anyone or their contributions to our dataset.

-Your friendly talk-us@ mod


On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 1:21 PM, stevea  wrote:

> **
> Oh, that is rich:  NE2 saying that somebody ELSE has "a history of
> gun-jumping"  Wow, the mote in one's eye!
>
> SteveA
> California
>
>
> I'll let his comments here[1] on a note page speak.
>
> - James
>
>
> [1] - http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/note/3173
>
>
> ___
> 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 a super-two highway (trunk or motorway?)

[richiekennedy56]

I'm a little late to the party here, but I am involved in this question.


I have marked US 169 between Iola and Chanute as Motorway because, although it 
is a super-two, it is fully controlled access along this segment. I believe 
this is consistent with the way most commercial map-makers would mark this 
segment. For example, Rand McNally marks this segment using their freeway 
symbol with a "TWO LANES" notation (they also mark US 400 near Neodesha this 
way, however, it is NOT controlled access, and is properly marked as Trunk in 
OSM)


I would also point out that I-93 in Franconia Notch is also two lanes, with a 
median barrier separating the lanes. If all super-two facilities are to be 
labeled as "Trunk," then this segment 


would have to be labeled as "Trunk" to be consistent. It would, however, 
confuse the hell out of the general public


In reviewing the thread, I noticed someone mentioned Maryland State Highway 90. 
I do not know the specific characteristics of this highway, but if it is a 
fully controlled-access facility, I would mark it as "motorway." Rand McNally 
does mark it with the freeway symbol.


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

Re: [Talk-us] Cam4rd98 just doesn't get it

[stevea]

Oh, that is rich:  NE2 saying that somebody ELSE has "a history of 
gun-jumping"  Wow, the mote in one's eye!


SteveA
California



I'll let his comments here[1] on a note page speak.

- James

[1] - 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/note/3173___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Future Interstate Relations

[Paul Johnson]

Not likely but not entirely out of the possibility given some regional
(above county, below state) names, which would be an issue if we were to
bring bike networks into the hierarchical scheme (which seems like a good
idea since the US has some rather complex hierarchy of bike networks that
don't always fit the Sustrans schema cleanly, like greater Tulsa's INCOG
network or greater Portland's Metro Region network, that don't get
distinguished from the more minor county and city networks).
On Jun 25, 2013 11:08 AM, "Martijn van Exel"  wrote:

> But that would not apply to the Interstate network, which otherwise has no
> 'children', right?
>
> If the modifier paradigm also applies to State Routes, then there would be
> the possibility of confusion between US:UT:Future as a future state route
> and US:UT:Future as a county highway in 'Future County'. I guess it is
> imaginable. Not likely, but imaginable.
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
>
>> I prefer the modifier proposal, since it prevents "Future" from being
>> confused with a county level network.
>> On Jun 24, 2013 11:16 PM, "James Mast"  wrote:
>>
>>>  Later tonight, I'm planning on splitting up the relations for the
>>> following Interstates (I-26, I-73, I-74) in North Carolina to separate the
>>> segments of said Interstates into normal and the parts that are posted as
>>> "Future". (will also update the ref tags on the ways since they are
>>> still being used too)
>>>
>>> Now, the "Future" ones will only be for segments that have signage
>>> clearly stating they are "Future Interstates".  I'm not going to be doing
>>> anything like this for ones signed as "Future Interstate Corridors".  The
>>> signage has to be like the following to qualify (blame different NCDOT
>>> divisions for the different styles):
>>>
>>> I-26:
>>> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/rickmastfan67/Interstates/NC/I-26/Img_2043s.jpg
>>> I-73: http://goo.gl/maps/G0qOG
>>> I-74:
>>> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/rickmastfan67/Interstates/NC/I-74/P1030940s.jpg
>>> I-840: http://goo.gl/maps/K20Hs
>>> Now, I'm going to initially use the following to tag the "Future"
>>> segments inside of relations:
>>> network=US:I:Future
>>>
>>> However, somebody else suggested this:
>>> network=US:I
>>> modifier=Future
>>>
>>> Which do you guys think would be the better way to go?  I can always
>>> change the relation tags later once we all agree on a proper tagging scheme
>>> for these types of Interstates that aren't true Interstates just yet.
>>>
>>> -James (rickmastfan67)
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 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] Future Interstate Relations

[Martijn van Exel]

But that would not apply to the Interstate network, which otherwise has no
'children', right?

If the modifier paradigm also applies to State Routes, then there would be
the possibility of confusion between US:UT:Future as a future state route
and US:UT:Future as a county highway in 'Future County'. I guess it is
imaginable. Not likely, but imaginable.


On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Paul Johnson  wrote:

> I prefer the modifier proposal, since it prevents "Future" from being
> confused with a county level network.
> On Jun 24, 2013 11:16 PM, "James Mast"  wrote:
>
>>  Later tonight, I'm planning on splitting up the relations for the
>> following Interstates (I-26, I-73, I-74) in North Carolina to separate the
>> segments of said Interstates into normal and the parts that are posted as
>> "Future". (will also update the ref tags on the ways since they are
>> still being used too)
>>
>> Now, the "Future" ones will only be for segments that have signage
>> clearly stating they are "Future Interstates".  I'm not going to be doing
>> anything like this for ones signed as "Future Interstate Corridors".  The
>> signage has to be like the following to qualify (blame different NCDOT
>> divisions for the different styles):
>>
>> I-26:
>> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/rickmastfan67/Interstates/NC/I-26/Img_2043s.jpg
>> I-73: http://goo.gl/maps/G0qOG
>> I-74:
>> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/rickmastfan67/Interstates/NC/I-74/P1030940s.jpg
>> I-840: http://goo.gl/maps/K20Hs
>> Now, I'm going to initially use the following to tag the "Future"
>> segments inside of relations:
>> network=US:I:Future
>>
>> However, somebody else suggested this:
>> network=US:I
>> modifier=Future
>>
>> Which do you guys think would be the better way to go?  I can always
>> change the relation tags later once we all agree on a proper tagging scheme
>> for these types of Interstates that aren't true Interstates just yet.
>>
>> -James (rickmastfan67)
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>
>


-- 
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] Tagging a super-two highway (trunk or motorway?)

[Richard Welty]

On 6/25/13 10:59 AM, Phil! Gold wrote:

Maryland Route 90 seems to be what people would call a super-two and,
although parts of it are divided, other parts have no physical separation.
For most of its length, it has no at-grade intersections.  When I was
doing TIGER cleanup in that area, I decided that highway=trunk fit better
than highway=motorway.  (Although NE2, somewhat unsurprisingly, decided
that he knew better and has retagged it highway=motorway with oneway=no on
the undivided sections.)


for something like this, i suggest the model used with the Taconic
Parkway in NY is reasonable. there are sections with a mix of at grade
intersections and full interchanges, and sections w/o the grade level
crossings. so long as the lengths of the sections are reasonably long
(it's a judgement call, but 100 meters is probably way to short) it's
ok to use trunk where at-grade crossings exists or there's no median
or divider, and motorway where motorway requirements are met.

what NE2 did there seems kind of wonky to me.

richard


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

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging a super-two highway (trunk or motorway?)

[Phil! Gold]

* Paul Johnson  [2013-06-25 09:40 -0500]:
> There seems to be some disagreement on how to handle the super-two (or
> super-four s California has a few of) highways.
[snip]
> I'm under the understanding that the consensus for a motorway would be
> fully multiple (at minimum 2) carriageway with limited access, whereas a
> trunk would be any motorway that doesn't meet that criteria (intersections,
> single carriageway, etc).

That matches my understanding.

Maryland Route 90 seems to be what people would call a super-two and,
although parts of it are divided, other parts have no physical separation.
For most of its length, it has no at-grade intersections.  When I was
doing TIGER cleanup in that area, I decided that highway=trunk fit better
than highway=motorway.  (Although NE2, somewhat unsurprisingly, decided
that he knew better and has retagged it highway=motorway with oneway=no on
the undivided sections.)

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

Re: [Talk-us] Future Interstate Relations

[Paul Johnson]

I prefer the modifier proposal, since it prevents "Future" from being
confused with a county level network.
On Jun 24, 2013 11:16 PM, "James Mast"  wrote:

>  Later tonight, I'm planning on splitting up the relations for the
> following Interstates (I-26, I-73, I-74) in North Carolina to separate the
> segments of said Interstates into normal and the parts that are posted as
> "Future". (will also update the ref tags on the ways since they are
> still being used too)
>
> Now, the "Future" ones will only be for segments that have signage clearly
> stating they are "Future Interstates".  I'm not going to be doing anything
> like this for ones signed as "Future Interstate Corridors".  The signage
> has to be like the following to qualify (blame different NCDOT divisions
> for the different styles):
>
> I-26:
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/rickmastfan67/Interstates/NC/I-26/Img_2043s.jpg
> I-73: http://goo.gl/maps/G0qOG
> I-74:
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/rickmastfan67/Interstates/NC/I-74/P1030940s.jpg
> I-840: http://goo.gl/maps/K20Hs
> Now, I'm going to initially use the following to tag the "Future" segments
> inside of relations:
> network=US:I:Future
>
> However, somebody else suggested this:
> network=US:I
> modifier=Future
>
> Which do you guys think would be the better way to go?  I can always
> change the relation tags later once we all agree on a proper tagging scheme
> for these types of Interstates that aren't true Interstates just yet.
>
> -James (rickmastfan67)
>
> ___
> 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 a super-two highway (trunk or motorway?)

[Richard Welty]

On 6/25/13 10:40 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:

I'm under the understanding that the consensus for a motorway would be
fully multiple (at minimum 2) carriageway with limited access, whereas a
trunk would be any motorway that doesn't meet that criteria (intersections,
single carriageway, etc).  Could I get a clarification?


most of us, i think, see super twos as trunks. the center divide or 
median is

a key characteristic.

richard


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

[Talk-us] Route Relation Tagging, again (was Re: ref tags)

[Phil! Gold]

* Paul Johnson  [2013-06-24 09:11 -0500]:
> network=US:I
> modifier=Future

* James Mast  [2013-06-25 00:15 -0400]:
> Now, I'm going to initially use the following to tag the "Future"
> segments inside of relations: network=US:I:Future However, somebody else
> suggested this: network=US:I modifier=Future Which do you guys think
> would be the better way to go?

There's been discussion about how to tag the relations for bannered routes
in the past.  My understanding of the list consensus, as I summarize in
this previous email:

  http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Highway-Shield-Rendering-tp5612357p5640994.html

is that "Future Interstate 26" should be tagged as follows:

network=US:I:Future
ref=26
modifier=Future

However, in a Google Hangout last week, Paul indicated a desire to reopen
the discussion on tagging bannered routes, so here we go:

There are basically three options for tagging bannered routes.  I'll use
Future I-26 as an example here, but the principle applies equally to any
other routes.

Option A (network-classification-per-banner):

network=US:I:Future
ref=26
modifier=Future

Option B (banner-in-ref):

network=US:I
ref=26 Future
modifier=Future

Option C (banner-in-modifier):

network=US:I
ref=26
modifier=Future

In my opinion, either option A or option B should be used.  Because a
veriety of people with a variety of OSM experience edit OSM data, I think
it's important to consider how damaged or incomplete data will be treated
by data consumers.

In any of the above cases, a data consumer that only sees or understands
the ref= tag (e.g. something that was written to handle ways and is now
looking at a relation) will not get a complete picture, but also won't get
a wrong impression (thinking that I-26 is US 26 or something similar).
Furthermore, the network/ref tagging has been pretty well established on
the wiki and in general usage for some time now.

If a data consumer only sees or understands the network and ref tags, both
options A and B will give it a complete picture of the route, but option C
will be incorrectly interpreted as the main I-26.  I think that's a pretty
strong argument against option C.  In programming or database design, one
strives to eliminate all duplication, but in a project like OSM I think a
little duplication of data serves as useful redundancy.

Note that if the modifier tag is present, both options A and B can be
processed to remove the redundant information if that's desired.

I think the choice between options A and B is more of an aesthetic one.
What matters is that there is a consensus on what the tagging is.  I think
in previous discussions more people were tipped toward option A because it
makes the decision of when to use a different network easy, because
"network" essentially means "different road sign".  Option B has a little
more grey area, since there were people (well, mostly NE2) saying things
like "alternate and business Interstates are clearly not part of the
Interstate Highway System, but alternate and business US Highways are
clearly part of the US Highway System" (paraphrase from [1] and [2]).

  [1]: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Highway-Shield-Rendering-tp5612357p5636639.html
  [2]: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Use-of-ref-tag-on-state-highways-tp5285587p5285594.html

As I said before, my understanding of the list consensus in previous
discussions is for option A and that's what my renderer understands (see
[3]).  If you have an opinion on what we should be using (whether it's one
of options A, B, or C above or some other system), I guess this is the
place to voice that opinion.

  [3]: http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/supported.html

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

[Talk-us] Tagging a super-two highway (trunk or motorway?)

[Paul Johnson]

There seems to be some disagreement on how to handle the super-two (or
super-four s California has a few of) highways.  These highways are two
lanes, one each way (or four lanes, two each way) with no central division
or median, but freeway-like connecting ramps.  Examples would be long
stretches of US 400 in Kansas, parts of US 169 through Kansas, the tolled
section of the Chickasaw Turnpike in Oklahoma, and and IIRC, a long section
of either WA 539 or US 12 heading north into Monroe, Washington (I know the
town's right I just can't remember the route number from last time I drove
it).

I'm under the understanding that the consensus for a motorway would be
fully multiple (at minimum 2) carriageway with limited access, whereas a
trunk would be any motorway that doesn't meet that criteria (intersections,
single carriageway, etc).  Could I get a clarification?
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Parsing web map URLs (Re: dirty2osm)

[Mark Gray]

I have spent some time adding the ability to go to and from web
map URLs in my program for viewing tiled maps.

The source code is available at:

http://code.google.com/p/vataviamap/source/browse/trunk/VataviaMap/Shared/clsServer.vb

The part that parses web map URLs is:

Private Const OSMshortlinkPrefix As String = "http://osm.org/go/";
Private Const OSMshortlinkEncoding As String = 
"ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789_~"

''' 
''' Given a web map URL, look for the center latitude/longitude, zoom, and 
bounding box
''' 
''' Web map URL to examine
''' returns latitude at center of area
''' returns longitude at center of area
''' returns zoom level
''' returns north latitude of bounding box
''' returns west longitude of bounding box
''' returns south latitude of bounding box
''' returns east longitude of bounding box
''' 
''' True if link was parsed and reasonable values for the center latitude and 
longitude were found
''' 
Function ParseWebmapURL(ByVal aURL As String, _
ByRef aCenterLatitude As Double,
ByRef aCenterLongitude As Double, _
ByRef aZoom As Integer, _
ByRef aNorth As Double, ByRef aWest As Double, _
ByRef aSouth As Double, ByRef aEast As Double) As 
Boolean
Try
Dim lBounds As Boolean = False
Dim lURL As String = aURL.ToLower
Dim lArgs() As String
If lURL.StartsWith(OSMshortlinkPrefix) Then
Return 
ParseOSMshortlink(aURL.Substring(OSMshortlinkPrefix.Length), aCenterLatitude, 
aCenterLongitude, aZoom)
ElseIf lURL.StartsWith("http://maps.stamen.com/m2i/";) Then
lArgs = lURL.Split("/")
If lArgs.Length > 3 AndAlso IsNumeric(lArgs(lArgs.Length - 3)) _
AndAlso IsNumeric(lArgs(lArgs.Length - 2)) _
AndAlso IsNumeric(lArgs(lArgs.Length - 1)) 
Then
aZoom = Double.Parse(lArgs(lArgs.Length - 3))
aCenterLatitude = Double.Parse(lArgs(lArgs.Length - 2))
aCenterLongitude = Double.Parse(lArgs(lArgs.Length - 1))
End If
ElseIf lURL.StartsWith("geo:") Then
lArgs = lURL.Substring(4).Split(",")
If lArgs.Length > 1 AndAlso IsNumeric(lArgs(0)) AndAlso 
IsNumeric(lArgs(1)) Then
aCenterLatitude = Double.Parse(lArgs(0))
aCenterLongitude = Double.Parse(lArgs(1))
End If
Else
lArgs = lURL.Split("&"c, "?"c)
For Each lArg As String In lArgs
Dim lArgPart() As String = lArg.Split("=")
If lArgPart.Length = 2 Then
Select Case lArgPart(0)
Case "latitude", "lat", "mlat"
aCenterLatitude = Double.Parse(lArgPart(1))
Case "longitude", "lon", "mlon", "lng", "mlng"
aCenterLongitude = Double.Parse(lArgPart(1))
Case "zoom", "z"
aZoom = Integer.Parse(lArgPart(1))
Case "ll", "q"
Dim ll() As String = lArgPart(1).Split(",")
If ll.Length = 2 AndAlso IsNumeric(ll(0)) Then
'GoogleMaps
DoubleTryParse(ll(0), aCenterLatitude)
DoubleTryParse(ll(1), aCenterLongitude)
End If
Case "spn"
'TODO: parse Google's height,width into zoom
Case "cp"
'Bing
Dim ll() As String = lArgPart(1).Split("~")
If ll.Length = 2 AndAlso IsNumeric(ll(0)) 
AndAlso IsNumeric(ll(1)) Then
aCenterLatitude = Double.Parse(ll(0))
aCenterLongitude = Double.Parse(ll(1))
End If
Case "lvl" : aZoom = lArgPart(1)
Case "starttop" : aNorth = 
Double.Parse(lArgPart(1)) : lBounds = True
Case "startbottom" : aSouth = 
Double.Parse(lArgPart(1))
Case "startleft" : aWest = 
Integer.Parse(lArgPart(1))
Case "startright" : aEast = 
Integer.Parse(lArgPart(1))
Case "bbox"
Dim bbox() As String = lArgPart(1).Split(",")
If bbox.Length = 4 Then
lBounds = DoubleTryParse(bbox(0), aWest) _
  AndAlso DoubleTryParse(bbo

Re: [Talk-us] Cam4rd98 just doesn't get it

[James Mast]

I'll let his comments here[1] on a note page speak.
 
- James
 
[1] - http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/note/3173
  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Cam4rd98 just doesn't get it

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:56 PM, Clay Smalley wrote:

> They seem to put in a lot of "future" things using tags that imply
> something is currently there. On top of that, they use the wrong tags
> (landuse=industrial instead of landuse=retail). They've also screwed up a
> bit of TX 71 and US 290, removing them from relations, in an erroneous
> attempt to make the road dual-carriageway.
>

A you sure Cam4rd98 even realizes he/she has messages from you?

Potlatch/iD users damaging relations is... I have to say... a tool issue.
 How could a new mapper realize what's going on?

The future tagging is not so well defined in OSM.  It is quite common on
paper maps to mark future facilities, due to the publication cycle times.
 There is this page to point people to:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:proposed and
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:construction
Cam4rd98 seems to have at least tried to mark these as future facilities,
by using the name tag with the word "futture", though landuse=construction
would follow the wiki better.




Long term I think OSM will have to put some form of limits or peer review
in place.
Perhaps you can't edit your 11th feature until you've had a two
way communication with an established mapper?
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us