Re: [Talk-us] Should driveways be on OSM?

[Martijn van Exel]

We could easily do a MapRoulette challenge to go through them
systematically?

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 9:25 PM Minh Nguyen 
wrote:

> Marc Gemis  writes:
>
> >
> >
> > They can be mapped, especially the long ones and tagged as
> highway=service, service=driveway, and typically access=private.I don't
> care
> for the appearance of the map, it's more important to connect houses that
> are further away from the main road via the proper driveway to allow
> navigation to the front door.
> > They have been mapped in several places around the world, also in places
> where there was no Tiger import.
>
> The Standard style omits service=driveway until z16, whereas ordinary
> highway=service shows up at z13. At z16, you're close enough to see any
> other micromapping that might take place around the house, like fences and
> backyard swimming pools. :-)
>
> --
> m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us
>
>
> ___
> 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] Should driveways be on OSM?

[Martijn van Exel]

Is this what we're after? http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/bIQ

(I chose Kansas to annoy Toby)

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 10:51 AM Martijn van Exel 
wrote:

> We could easily do a MapRoulette challenge to go through them
> systematically?
>
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 9:25 PM Minh Nguyen 
> wrote:
>
>> Marc Gemis  writes:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > They can be mapped, especially the long ones and tagged as
>> highway=service, service=driveway, and typically access=private.I don't
>> care
>> for the appearance of the map, it's more important to connect houses that
>> are further away from the main road via the proper driveway to allow
>> navigation to the front door.
>> > They have been mapped in several places around the world, also in places
>> where there was no Tiger import.
>>
>> The Standard style omits service=driveway until z16, whereas ordinary
>> highway=service shows up at z13. At z16, you're close enough to see any
>> other micromapping that might take place around the house, like fences and
>> backyard swimming pools. :-)
>>
>> --
>> m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Cycle_greenway

[stevea]

Harald Klems writes:
I would map greenways/bike boulevards as lcn=yes or, if they have a 
name, maybe as a lcn route relation. Other than that, I think it's 
more important to map physical characteristics such as stop signs, 
bike-specific infrastructure, diverters, and speed limits on those 
routes.


As a dedicated OSM bicycle mapping geek, I consider two major 
components we map to be infrastructure (each underlying facility, 
like highway=cycleway, cycleway=lane, others) AND a route if one 
exists.  At a local level like these Seattle greenways, it seems 
sensible to do what Harald suggests and tag a route as lcn=yes on the 
individual infrastructure (cycleway=cycle_greenway) elements.  You 
could also sensibly collect these into a relation tagged network=lcn 
if they have a name= or a number (ref=) as a route.


A nod toward "tagging for the renderer" hereby acknowledged, I don't 
believe cycleway=cycle_greenway renders at the present time in Cycle 
Map layer/OpenCycleMap (as other cycleway tags do:  highway=cycleway 
as a blue dashed line, cycleway=lane as blue casings on the way, 
others).  Still, one might tag cycleway=cycle_greenway knowing it 
doesn't render, and still also correctly tag lcn=yes on the ways or 
collect them together into a relation with network=lcn (if named or 
numbered) and get THAT to render.


There is bicycle infrastructure tagging and how THAT renders, and 
there is bicycle route relation tagging and how THAT renders.  As you 
keep these considerations in mind you can both accurately tag as well 
as get a rendering that makes sense from those tags.  Accurate 
tagging is more important than pleasing rendering.  Again, I'm 
agreeing with Harald as he says physical characteristics (starting 
with infrastructure) are "more important."  Yet, so are routes if 
they truly exist as named or numbered entities, so add them if they 
do.  The "in-between solution" of adding lcn=yes tags to the 
underlying infrastructure (yet no relation with network=lcn) 
especially makes sense if, for example, the greenways are also signed 
with "Bike Route" signs but don't have a name or number.


I do hope that helps!

SteveA
California

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

Re: [Talk-us] Should driveways be on OSM?

[Hans De Kryger]

On Sep 28, 2015 11:57 AM, "Eric Ladner"  wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 1:44 PM Hans De Kryger 
wrote:
>>
>> I've always hated when someone maps driveways in residential area's. But
that's just my opinion. Everyone has their opinion on what should and
should not be mapped. Driveways are only fine in urban area's. It makes
sense to me. But otherwise no.
>
> Did you mean "rural areas"?

Yes that's what i meant. Thanks
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Should driveways be on OSM?

[Paul Johnson]

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 8:38 AM, Shawn K. Quinn 
wrote:

> In urban areas, it makes no sense to try to map residential driveways


I disagree.  There's  situations where this information is useful for
finding the best way to a property, particularly on narrow blocks where a
residence may have two frontages, one in front, one in rear (or alleyway
situations).  Now, it's not practical in many cases to just map everything
at once (boredom for one) so I tend to map driveways incidentally when I'm
detail mapping a property for other reasons.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] what happened to Sacramento?

[Minh Nguyen]

Jack Burke  writes:

> 
> You're not crazy. Just using the regular OSM website interface, I can find
the city node, and the county boundary, but not a city boundary. AFAICT, it
isn't a consolidated city-County, so it should exist. 

Looks like the original TIGER boundary way got deleted back in 2010, and I
can't find any traces of ways that superseded it:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/4084221

As a first step, I undeleted that way using Potlatch 1:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/33135846

Now it needs to be turned into a relation and integrated with the adjacent
boundary ways.

-- 
m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us


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

Re: [Talk-us] what happened to Sacramento?

[Jack Burke]

You're not crazy. Just using the regular OSM website interface, I can find the 
city node, and the county boundary, but not a city boundary. AFAICT, it isn't a 
consolidated city-County, so it should exist. 

-jack


On September 29, 2015 5:10:25 PM EDT, Ray Kiddy  wrote:
>
>I have been fixing up boundaries of cities in California and I have
>found something odd.
>
>Where is the city of Sacramento?
>
>There is a city there. There is a county. The county boundaries are at
>http://openstreetmap.org/relation/396460 and that all looks good. And
>it is not a county/city hybrid thing like San Francisco. Yes? And I can
>find the cities of West Sacramento, Rancho Cordova and others nearby,
>But I cannot find boundaries for the actual city of Sacramento. Google
>has boundaries for it, but OSM does not?
>
>Or is there some way I should be finding it that I am not doing? I
>guess it could be mis-spelled.
>
>I am going to the area around the county in
>http://overpass-turbo.eu/ and doing this search:
>
>[out:json][timeout:360];
>(
>relation["name"="Sacramento"]({{bbox}});
>way["name"="Sacramento"]({{bbox}});
>node["name"="Sacramento"]({{bbox}});
>);
>out body;
>>;
>out skel qt;
>
>It finds lot of stuff, but no city. Any ideas?
>
>cheers - ray
>
>
>
>___
>Talk-us mailing list
>Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

-- 
Typos courtesy of fancy auto-spell technology. ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] what happened to Sacramento?

[Ray Kiddy]

I have been fixing up boundaries of cities in California and I have
found something odd.

Where is the city of Sacramento?

There is a city there. There is a county. The county boundaries are at
http://openstreetmap.org/relation/396460 and that all looks good. And
it is not a county/city hybrid thing like San Francisco. Yes? And I can
find the cities of West Sacramento, Rancho Cordova and others nearby,
But I cannot find boundaries for the actual city of Sacramento. Google
has boundaries for it, but OSM does not?

Or is there some way I should be finding it that I am not doing? I
guess it could be mis-spelled.

I am going to the area around the county in
http://overpass-turbo.eu/ and doing this search:

[out:json][timeout:360];
(
relation["name"="Sacramento"]({{bbox}});
way["name"="Sacramento"]({{bbox}});
node["name"="Sacramento"]({{bbox}});
);
out body;
>;
out skel qt;

It finds lot of stuff, but no city. Any ideas?

cheers - ray



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

[Talk-us] Consider running for the OSM US board? Join the October 1st campfire chat!

[Alex Barth]

*RSVP for an October 1st campfire chat with active board members* to learn
more about activities of the organization and responsibilities of the board:

https://docs.google.com/a/openstreetmap.us/forms/d/1s7H_jnL6SBRGcico33nqCM0ZQmVCDu5WyaadluwV6u4/viewform

Background:

*October 12-18th are OpenStreetMap US board elections*. Consider running!
OpenStreetMap US is a great place to promote OpenStreetMap with events and
outreach programs small (think mapathons) and large (think State of the Map
US).

http://openstreetmap.us/2015/09/do-you-want-to-be-on-the-osm-us-board/

-- 
Alex Barth
Vice President
OpenStreetMap United States Inc.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] what happened to Sacramento?

[Steven Johnson]

I just like the surprise way in which the issue was resolved. Good work all
around!

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

There are two types of people in the world. Those that can extrapolate from
incomplete data.

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 6:12 PM, Minh Nguyen 
wrote:

> Jack Burke  writes:
>
> >
> > You're not crazy. Just using the regular OSM website interface, I can
> find
> the city node, and the county boundary, but not a city boundary. AFAICT, it
> isn't a consolidated city-County, so it should exist.
>
> Looks like the original TIGER boundary way got deleted back in 2010, and I
> can't find any traces of ways that superseded it:
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/4084221
>
> As a first step, I undeleted that way using Potlatch 1:
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/33135846
>
> Now it needs to be turned into a relation and integrated with the adjacent
> boundary ways.
>
> --
> m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us
>
>
> ___
> 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