[Talk-us] Telenav seeks OSM editors

[Martijn van Exel]

Hey all, 

Apologies for the plug but I just can’t think of a better place to ask. Telenav 
currently has a couple open positions for OSM editors at our HQ in Sunnyvale, 
California! Here is the link to the job description, you can apply directly 
from there - http://t.co/k1xURXw4r9
If you want to know what our OSM editor team has been up to, check out our SOTM 
US talk here: 
http://stateofthemap.us/telenav-map-data-team-behind-the-monitor-and-in-the-field-a-north-dallas-tx-case-study/

Get in touch with me or my colleague Vlad (cc) if you have any questions!

Martijn

PS before you ask - yes, for a number of reasons we do want these folks to be 
at our HQ in Sunnyvale, CA :)
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Question?

[Hans De Kryger]

Would this be better in OpenHistoricalMap?

http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/33.44692/-112.09043

*Regards,*

*Hans*


*http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheDutchMan13
*

*Sorry for any misspellings*
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Question?

[Clifford Snow]

Is there any feature on the ground that can be surveyed? From the image it
doesn't appear that the site has any historical markers that can be mapped.
If so, I would say it doesn't belong in OSM.  You'l' have to ask OHM if
they think it belongs there.

You should also contact the editor. I'm sure she would be happy to explain
why she felt it belongs in OSM.

Clifford

On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Hans De Kryger 
wrote:

> Would this be better in OpenHistoricalMap?
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/33.44692/-112.09043
>
> *Regards,*
>
> *Hans*
>
>
> *http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheDutchMan13
> *
>
> *Sorry for any misspellings*
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>


-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Question?

[Richard Welty]

On 6/29/15 3:58 PM, Clifford Snow wrote:
> Is there any feature on the ground that can be surveyed? From the
> image it doesn't appear that the site has any historical markers that
> can be mapped. If so, I would say it doesn't belong in OSM.  You'l'
> have to ask OHM if they think it belongs there. 
>
> You should also contact the editor. I'm sure she would be happy to
> explain why she felt it belongs in OSM.
>
> Clifford
>
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Hans De Kryger
> mailto:hans.dekryge...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Would this be better in OpenHistoricalMap?
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/33.44692/-112.09043
>
>

the canal, you mean?

it's probably appropriate for OHM, although i'd be interested in what is
actually
surveyable on the ground. the existence of something surveyable
determines if
anything should be in OSM in, perhaps, the disused: namespace.

it were to go into OHM, of course, we like it if it's documented and
start_date
and end_date tags are provided. but then we'd prefer the whole canal system,
or at least major chunks of it, instead of this fragment.

so the answer is definitely maybe.

richard

-- 
rwe...@averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Question?

[Brad Neuhauser]

I think there's also this?  http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/303225395

On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Richard Welty 
wrote:

> On 6/29/15 3:58 PM, Clifford Snow wrote:
> > Is there any feature on the ground that can be surveyed? From the
> > image it doesn't appear that the site has any historical markers that
> > can be mapped. If so, I would say it doesn't belong in OSM.  You'l'
> > have to ask OHM if they think it belongs there.
> >
> > You should also contact the editor. I'm sure she would be happy to
> > explain why she felt it belongs in OSM.
> >
> > Clifford
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Hans De Kryger
> > mailto:hans.dekryge...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Would this be better in OpenHistoricalMap?
> >
> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/33.44692/-112.09043
> >
> >
>
> the canal, you mean?
>
> it's probably appropriate for OHM, although i'd be interested in what is
> actually
> surveyable on the ground. the existence of something surveyable
> determines if
> anything should be in OSM in, perhaps, the disused: namespace.
>
> it were to go into OHM, of course, we like it if it's documented and
> start_date
> and end_date tags are provided. but then we'd prefer the whole canal
> system,
> or at least major chunks of it, instead of this fragment.
>
> so the answer is definitely maybe.
>
> richard
>
> --
> rwe...@averillpark.net
>  Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
>  OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
>  Java - Web Applications - Search
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Question?

[Clifford Snow]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Brad Neuhauser 
wrote:

> I think there's also this?  http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/303225395
>

That was the feature I pick up on and did look any further.




-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Question?

[Richard Welty]

On 6/29/15 4:58 PM, Brad Neuhauser wrote:
> I think there's also this?  http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/303225395
>
ah, missed that.

depends on whether the requirements of

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Darchaeological_site

are met; if they are, then OSM is correct. otherwise i don't think we've
discussed this in OHM in a lot of detail. we would see it as a place name
that is "real" for some period of time, so i don't think we'd just copy
the osm style tagging for this.

richard

-- 
rwe...@averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Question?

[Clifford Snow]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Richard Welty 
wrote:

> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Darchaeological_site
>

Thanks for pointing out the wiki page on archaeological sites. I wasn't
aware it was documented.


-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Question?

[Hans De Kryger]

Sorry about that, should of been more specific. I meant the archeological
site.
On Jun 29, 2015 2:24 PM, "Clifford Snow"  wrote:

>
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Richard Welty 
> wrote:
>
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Darchaeological_site
>>
>
> Thanks for pointing out the wiki page on archaeological sites. I wasn't
> aware it was documented.
>
>
> --
> @osm_seattle
> osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] ​Mapping Southern Maryland: A new local group

[Eric Christensen]

On Saturday, June 27, 2015 04:28:26 PM T M wrote:
> Did you contact Univ of MD Eastern Shore? If not I can put you in contact
> with their GIS professor?

I haven't, mostly because it's outside of our intended geographic area of 
interest*, but I certainly wouldn't be against it.  One of the people that 
showed interest is a student at UMD in College Park so we'll try to make 
contacts that way as well.

Thanks for the offer.  I'd very much enjoy talking with others and introducing 
OSM as a way to teach GIS/cartography.

--Eric


* Southern Maryland generally applies to the areas of Calvert, St. Mary's, 
Charles, and southern PG and Anne Arundel counties.  I am in no way limiting 
membership and would happily expand to other areas if there was enough 
interest.  The Eastern Shore, while 'close' geographically would require a 
boat ride to actually be close.  :)

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

[Talk-us] hgv=designated in US National Park

[Mike Thompson]

I am finding roads in Rocky Mountain National Park tagged as
"hgv=designated" in spite of the fact that on the ground it is clearly
posted "No Commercial Vehicles in RMNP."  While hgv doesn't exactly equal
"commercial" it would be improper to route a commercial vehicle through the
park.  Can this tagging be correct?

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

Re: [Talk-us] hgv=designated in US National Park

[Russell Deffner]

Mike, 

 

Highway 34 has a bit different rules, I remember when I was living in Fort 
Collins and working in Granby we could pass through the park for free and 
actually drove our ‘commercial pickup trucks and wood chippers in tow’ (which 
is a whole other story with potential tree pest/disease spread potential).  But 
I do not know the ‘complete rules’; I would think the other roads follow normal 
park rules.

 

=Russ

 

From: Mike Thompson [mailto:miketh...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 6:36 PM
To: Open Street Map Talk-US
Subject: [Talk-us] hgv=designated in US National Park

 

I am finding roads in Rocky Mountain National Park tagged as "hgv=designated" 
in spite of the fact that on the ground it is clearly posted "No Commercial 
Vehicles in RMNP."  While hgv doesn't exactly equal "commercial" it would be 
improper to route a commercial vehicle through the park.  Can this tagging be 
correct? 

 

Mike

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

Re: [Talk-us] hgv=designated in US National Park

[John Eldredge]

It sounds like someone interpreted hgv=designated as "heavy goods vehicles 
are mentioned", rather than "this is the designated road for heavy goods 
vehicles to use".


--
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot 
drive out hate; only love can do that." -- Martin Luther King, Jr.




On June 29, 2015 7:37:59 PM Mike Thompson  wrote:


I am finding roads in Rocky Mountain National Park tagged as
"hgv=designated" in spite of the fact that on the ground it is clearly
posted "No Commercial Vehicles in RMNP."  While hgv doesn't exactly equal
"commercial" it would be improper to route a commercial vehicle through the
park.  Can this tagging be correct?

Mike



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

Re: [Talk-us] hgv=designated in US National Park

[Mike Thompson]

Russ,

Thanks for the helpful information.  I should have mentioned it is US 36 in
question (I haven't looked at US 34 yet - east of Deer Junction anyway). In
any event, it sounds like you had special permission (since you didn't have
to pay an entrance fee at all). In which case hgv=private (Only with
permission of the owner on an individual basis).

Mike



On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 7:40 PM, Russell Deffner  wrote:

> Mike,
>
>
>
> Highway 34 has a bit different rules, I remember when I was living in Fort
> Collins and working in Granby we could pass through the park for free and
> actually drove our ‘commercial pickup trucks and wood chippers in tow’
> (which is a whole other story with potential tree pest/disease spread
> potential).  But I do not know the ‘complete rules’; I would think the
> other roads follow normal park rules.
>
>
>
> =Russ
>
>
>
> *From:* Mike Thompson [mailto:miketh...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, June 29, 2015 6:36 PM
> *To:* Open Street Map Talk-US
> *Subject:* [Talk-us] hgv=designated in US National Park
>
>
>
> I am finding roads in Rocky Mountain National Park tagged as
> "hgv=designated" in spite of the fact that on the ground it is clearly
> posted "No Commercial Vehicles in RMNP."  While hgv doesn't exactly equal
> "commercial" it would be improper to route a commercial vehicle through the
> park.  Can this tagging be correct?
>
>
>
> Mike
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] hgv=designated in US National Park

[Russell Deffner]

Hi again Mike, I should have specified – the entirety of Trail Ridge Road J

 

I think we did actually come in (from the east, i.e. FC to Granby) via 36.  I 
would say hgv=private is the ‘correct’ tag; in this case the ‘highway’ is 
actually ‘State controlled w/ agreements of the Park Service’, maybe Jim or one 
of them have a better answer, but it seems more like “this is a State Highway” 
if you ‘know the rules’ and have a valid ID you can use it accordingly. (in our 
case we just had to have a Fort Collins address and say “we’re on our way to 
work in Granby” – this was in either our work trucks or my personal vehicle).

 

Anyway, hope this helps find proper tagging for 34/36/Trail Ridge Road; cheers!

=Russ

 

From: Mike Thompson [mailto:miketh...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 7:55 PM
To: Russell Deffner
Cc: Open Street Map Talk-US
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] hgv=designated in US National Park

 

Russ,

 

Thanks for the helpful information.  I should have mentioned it is US 36 in 
question (I haven't looked at US 34 yet - east of Deer Junction anyway). In any 
event, it sounds like you had special permission (since you didn't have to pay 
an entrance fee at all). In which case hgv=private (Only with permission of the 
owner on an individual basis).

 

Mike

 

 

 

On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 7:40 PM, Russell Deffner  
wrote:

Mike, 

 

Highway 34 has a bit different rules, I remember when I was living in Fort 
Collins and working in Granby we could pass through the park for free and 
actually drove our ‘commercial pickup trucks and wood chippers in tow’ (which 
is a whole other story with potential tree pest/disease spread potential).  But 
I do not know the ‘complete rules’; I would think the other roads follow normal 
park rules.

 

=Russ

 

From: Mike Thompson [mailto:miketh...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 6:36 PM
To: Open Street Map Talk-US
Subject: [Talk-us] hgv=designated in US National Park

 

I am finding roads in Rocky Mountain National Park tagged as "hgv=designated" 
in spite of the fact that on the ground it is clearly posted "No Commercial 
Vehicles in RMNP."  While hgv doesn't exactly equal "commercial" it would be 
improper to route a commercial vehicle through the park.  Can this tagging be 
correct? 

 

Mike

 

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

Re: [Talk-us] hgv=designated in US National Park

[Russell Deffner]

Dang, sorry; just caught my typo, hgv=private may NOT be the proper tag.

 

From: Russell Deffner [mailto:russell.deff...@hotosm.org] 
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 8:02 PM
To: 'Mike Thompson'
Cc: 'Open Street Map Talk-US'
Subject: RE: [Talk-us] hgv=designated in US National Park

 

Hi again Mike, I should have specified – the entirety of Trail Ridge Road J

 

I think we did actually come in (from the east, i.e. FC to Granby) via 36.  I 
would say hgv=private is the ‘correct’ tag; in this case the ‘highway’ is 
actually ‘State controlled w/ agreements of the Park Service’, maybe Jim or one 
of them have a better answer, but it seems more like “this is a State Highway” 
if you ‘know the rules’ and have a valid ID you can use it accordingly. (in our 
case we just had to have a Fort Collins address and say “we’re on our way to 
work in Granby” – this was in either our work trucks or my personal vehicle).

 

Anyway, hope this helps find proper tagging for 34/36/Trail Ridge Road; cheers!

=Russ

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

Re: [Talk-us] hgv=designated in US National Park

[Mike Thompson]

Russ,

Thanks for the additional information. Perhaps hgv=destination?

I am pretty sure that if one showed up at one of the Estes Park entrances
with a semi and told them that you had to make a delivery in Granby they
wouldn't let you through. The next time I am up there I will ask.

Mike

On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 8:02 PM, Russell Deffner  wrote:

> Dang, sorry; just caught my typo, hgv=private may NOT be the proper tag.
>
>
>
> *From:* Russell Deffner [mailto:russell.deff...@hotosm.org]
> *Sent:* Monday, June 29, 2015 8:02 PM
> *To:* 'Mike Thompson'
> *Cc:* 'Open Street Map Talk-US'
> *Subject:* RE: [Talk-us] hgv=designated in US National Park
>
>
>
> Hi again Mike, I should have specified – the entirety of Trail Ridge Road
> J
>
>
>
> I think we did actually come in (from the east, i.e. FC to Granby) via
> 36.  I would say hgv=private is the ‘correct’ tag; in this case the
> ‘highway’ is actually ‘State controlled w/ agreements of the Park Service’,
> maybe Jim or one of them have a better answer, but it seems more like “this
> is a State Highway” if you ‘know the rules’ and have a valid ID you can use
> it accordingly. (in our case we just had to have a Fort Collins address and
> say “we’re on our way to work in Granby” – this was in either our work
> trucks or my personal vehicle).
>
>
>
> Anyway, hope this helps find proper tagging for 34/36/Trail Ridge Road;
> cheers!
>
> =Russ
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] hgv=designated in US National Park

[Russell Deffner]

No problem, had to do some searching and further remembering. The ‘agreement’ 
we were using was called the ‘tri-county waiver’ which allowed Boulder, Grand 
and Larimer county residents to pass through for work (it has changed a bit 
according to a search).  However, there is also: 
http://www.nps.gov/romo/planyourvisit/commercial_trucking_permits.htm so I 
think access=destination may be best choice through RMNP (according to the 
wiki, first thought was =permissive)? 

=Russ

 

From: Mike Thompson [mailto:miketh...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 9:28 PM
To: Russell Deffner
Cc: Open Street Map Talk-US
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] hgv=designated in US National Park

 

Russ,

 

Thanks for the additional information. Perhaps hgv=destination?

 

I am pretty sure that if one showed up at one of the Estes Park entrances with 
a semi and told them that you had to make a delivery in Granby they wouldn't 
let you through. The next time I am up there I will ask.

 

Mike

 

On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 8:02 PM, Russell Deffner  
wrote:

Dang, sorry; just caught my typo, hgv=private may NOT be the proper tag.

 

From: Russell Deffner [mailto:russell.deff...@hotosm.org] 
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 8:02 PM
To: 'Mike Thompson'
Cc: 'Open Street Map Talk-US'
Subject: RE: [Talk-us] hgv=designated in US National Park

 

Hi again Mike, I should have specified – the entirety of Trail Ridge Road J

 

I think we did actually come in (from the east, i.e. FC to Granby) via 36.  I 
would say hgv=private is the ‘correct’ tag; in this case the ‘highway’ is 
actually ‘State controlled w/ agreements of the Park Service’, maybe Jim or one 
of them have a better answer, but it seems more like “this is a State Highway” 
if you ‘know the rules’ and have a valid ID you can use it accordingly. (in our 
case we just had to have a Fort Collins address and say “we’re on our way to 
work in Granby” – this was in either our work trucks or my personal vehicle).

 

Anyway, hope this helps find proper tagging for 34/36/Trail Ridge Road; cheers!

=Russ

 

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