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

[Minh Nguyen]

On 2015-09-30 08:34, Greg Morgan wrote:

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Toby Murray  wrote:

I run into this as well. If I don't see anything close to the way on
imagery I definitely have very little problem deleting them.

I also question the access=private tagging although not because of the
rendering. I mean technically it is correct I suppose but if you are
trying to route to an address at the end of a long driveway, the
router should tell you to go down the driveway. Tagging it as



If this really is true, then perhaps you should file a bug report.  If
I accurately map a residential gated community with access=private,
show the gates, then wouldn't that be more valuable to set what
expectations are required to get into the area.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/16842943#map=18/33.78757/-111.98892


Toby is suggesting that service=driveway should imply access=destination 
unless otherwise specified. The wiki is full of statements that one tag 
implies another tag. For example, highway=motorway_link implies 
surface=paved. [1]


But you do have a point: a router could route over access=private and 
access=destination if there's no other possible route, yet avoid 
access=private otherwise (to avoid riding roughshod over a private drive 
that happens to make a good shortcut). The user interface would have to 
make clear that the route includes a private drive, similar to the toll 
road warnings that some routers give.


[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=motorway_link


Who are these data consumers that you speak of?  If they are
freeloaders, I could careless about them.  One of shifts that I have
noticed over the years is that we appear to no longer care about what
mappers do or how we improve the ecosystem for mappers but I hear all
about data consumers.  The data consumers need to adapt to OSM and not
the other way around.


Data consumers are part of the OSM ecosystem; we don't map in a vacuum. 
All the renderers and routers available from the osm.org front page are 
data consumers, after all. For better or worse, renderers and routers 
already "adapt to OSM" by normalizing diverse tagging styles and 
preprocessing away common errors. (A highly opinionated data consumer 
would fail to support a good chunk of the dataset.) That's not to say 
the current crop of routers is unimpeachable, but I don't think they 
should be viewed in an adversarial light.


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


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

Re: [Talk-us] Find missing roads

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On Wed, 2015-09-30 at 15:11 +, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> Hi all, 
> 
> 
> Our OSM team cooked up something new. A missing roads plugin for JOSM.
> I think it's pretty nice but I would really like to hear what you
> think. 
> 
> 
> You can read some more about it on my diary
> (http://bit.ly/missingroads) but it's basically what it says on the
> tin. The plugin will show where we think roads are missing from OSM
> based on GPS data so you can add them :)
> 
> 
> Take it for a spin and let me know what you think, what we could
> improve, or just if you like it!

First observations:

I had to use the browser first instead of hunting for an area in JOSM.
Once I did, I noticed most tiles only showed part of a road, not the
whole thing.

The JOSM plugin really should allow selections of multiple types instead
of restricting one to parking *or* roads *or mixed.

That said, I see the potential for this to be very useful. I added a
couple of roads with it in the Houston, TX, area already.

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn 


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

Re: [Talk-us] Find missing roads

[Jack Burke]

Clearly, your sample contained nuts. 


On September 30, 2015 2:40:37 PM EDT, Paul Johnson  wrote:
>On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 10:11 AM, Martijn van Exel  wrote:
>>
>> Our OSM team cooked up something new. A missing roads plugin for
>JOSM. I
>> think it's pretty nice but I would really like to hear what you
>think.
>>
>
>Neat, has potential.
>
>You can read some more about it on my diary
>(http://bit.ly/missingroads)
>> but it's basically what it says on the tin. The plugin will show
>where we
>> think roads are missing from OSM based on GPS data so you can add
>them :)
>>
>
>Based on whose GPS data from where?  I trust the source in this
>question
>is completely halal, kosher, gluten-free, vegan, organic, free-range,
>all-natural data, but some of the output I'm getting from it is rather
>odd.  Take, for example, this screenshot in JOSM near node 148319848
>
>in my
>neighborhood.
>
>
>​
>Other than highlighting my own inadvertently selective blindness (what
>with
>having not mapped the large and aging chain link fence factory on the
>northeast corner of the intersection; Brinks behind my favorite
>QuikTrip
>
>only
>recently appeared on Bing), I do find two things remarkable about this
>plugin's output:
>
>   1. It seems to have picked out an incomplete set based on the paths
>   relative to imagery.
> 2. I have no way of being able to survey the exact location of the GPS
>output from the plugin from the ground (it's inside a fence factory,
>*of
> course* it's fenced off!), so I can only assume the GPS was located on
>   one of those big diesel-powered forklifts.
>
>
>
>
>___
>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

Re: [Talk-us] Self Storage Places

[Jack Burke]

I use commercial. 

To me, retail implies that you can take home a product (even if it's food in 
your stomach). Commercial means you are buying a service. 

-jack



On October 1, 2015 1:35:14 AM EDT, Clifford Snow  
wrote:
>On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 9:53 PM, Hans De Kryger
>
>wrote:
>
>> What landuse should i use for Self Storage places?
>
>
>I'd most likely use retail but commercial depending on the
>location,might
>also be appropriate.
>
>
>-- 
>@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

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

Re: [Talk-us] Self Storage Places

[Clifford Snow]

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 9:53 PM, Hans De Kryger 
wrote:

> What landuse should i use for Self Storage places?


I'd most likely use retail but commercial depending on the location,might
also be appropriate.


-- 
@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] Self Storage Places

[Hans De Kryger]

What landuse should i use for Self Storage places?

Example - https://goo.gl/hsUYNm
Thanks for any help in advance.

*Regards,*

*Hans*

*http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheDutchMan13
*
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Find missing roads

[Paul Johnson]

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Mike N  wrote:

> On 9/30/2015 2:40 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
>>  I do find two things remarkable about this plugin's
>> output:
>>
>>  1. It seems to have picked out an incomplete set based on the paths
>> relative to imagery.
>>  2. I have no way of being able to survey the exact location of the GPS
>> output from the plugin from the ground (it's inside a fence factory,
>> /of course/ it's fenced off!), so I can only assume the GPS was
>> located on one of those big diesel-powered forklifts.
>>
>
>   I had a look at the plugin - it does find some interesting things.  I
> find that truckers use the Scout App, and the profile where they drive
> around a huge factory to pick up / drop off a load appears the same as if a
> car is going through a previously unknown subdivision.
>

Wow, that's both awesome and a little toe-curling, though would be nice if
Scout had some of the alarm and vehicle parameter options of Osmand.


>   So once the plugin identifies an area of interest, confirm with imagery
> or TIGER for the next step
>- add driveways to a factory
>

Done.  Might have to check


>   The odd cloud of points comes from random inaccuracies of a smartphone
> inside a vehicle, and excluded for a certain distance from existing roads
> to minimize false positives.
>

OK, that makes a bit of sense.  Wonder if there's a way to enable that edge
case data to see other routable approaches.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Find missing roads

[Mike N]

On 9/30/2015 2:40 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:

 I do find two things remarkable about this plugin's
output:

 1. It seems to have picked out an incomplete set based on the paths
relative to imagery.
 2. I have no way of being able to survey the exact location of the GPS
output from the plugin from the ground (it's inside a fence factory,
/of course/ it's fenced off!), so I can only assume the GPS was
located on one of those big diesel-powered forklifts.


  I had a look at the plugin - it does find some interesting things.  I 
find that truckers use the Scout App, and the profile where they drive 
around a huge factory to pick up / drop off a load appears the same as 
if a car is going through a previously unknown subdivision.


  So once the plugin identifies an area of interest, confirm with 
imagery or TIGER for the next step

   - add driveways to a factory
   - Add new road(s) from TIGER
   - Schedule the area for a survey


  The odd cloud of points comes from random inaccuracies of a 
smartphone inside a vehicle, and excluded for a certain distance from 
existing roads to minimize false positives.



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

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

[Richard Welty]

On 9/30/15 12:47 PM, Ray Kiddy wrote:
> Wow. I have not gotten to the point, in my mapping adventures, where I
> have had to look at changesets like this. A new thing to learn.
>
> Thanks for the reverts. I will get to fixing the rest of that soon.
>
>
you may want to look to newer TIGER boundary data as it does change
over time. 2014 City boundaries for California may be found here, already
converted into useful forms:

GeoJSON:
https://github.com/boundaryissues/TIGER2014/blob/master/place/CA/tl_2014_06_place-25.geojson

Shapefiles:
https://github.com/boundaryissues/TIGER2014/blob/master/place/CA/tl_2014_06_place-25.zip

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] Should driveways be on OSM?

[Paul Johnson]

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Greg Morgan 
wrote:

> Who are these data consumers that you speak of?  If they are
> freeloaders, I could careless about them.  One of shifts that I have
> noticed over the years is that we appear to no longer care about what
> mappers do or how we improve the ecosystem for mappers but I hear all
> about data consumers.  The data consumers need to adapt to OSM and not
> the other way around.
>

Along these same lines, have I mentioned that it's time we stop tagging
routes on the underlying ways like they're the same congruent entity (eg,
lcn=yes and ref=* on member ways) and fully embrace route=road and
route=bicycle relations yet?
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

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

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 10:33 PM, Tom Bloom  wrote:

> I've been deleting them if wildly wrong, and would like to delete all I
> encounter. Any ideas?
>

When an area of tiger data has dozens of such driveways, which bear
basically random correspondence with air photos,
I'll delete them also.

They're not good data.  If someone wants to map driveways, fine, they can
start from scratch and be ahead.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

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

[Ray Kiddy]

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 22:12:52 + (UTC)
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.
> 

Wow. I have not gotten to the point, in my mapping adventures, where I
have had to look at changesets like this. A new thing to learn.

Thanks for the reverts. I will get to fixing the rest of that soon.

thanx - ray

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

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

[Greg Morgan]

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Toby Murray  wrote:
> I run into this as well. If I don't see anything close to the way on
> imagery I definitely have very little problem deleting them.
>
> I also question the access=private tagging although not because of the
> rendering. I mean technically it is correct I suppose but if you are
> trying to route to an address at the end of a long driveway, the
> router should tell you to go down the driveway. Tagging it as


If this really is true, then perhaps you should file a bug report.  If
I accurately map a residential gated community with access=private,
show the gates, then wouldn't that be more valuable to set what
expectations are required to get into the area.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/16842943#map=18/33.78757/-111.98892

> access=private would probably prevent that from happening in most
> routers. I would say access=destination might be more accurate however
> really I think data consumers should know what highway=service and

Who are these data consumers that you speak of?  If they are
freeloaders, I could careless about them.  One of shifts that I have
noticed over the years is that we appear to no longer care about what
mappers do or how we improve the ecosystem for mappers but I hear all
about data consumers.  The data consumers need to adapt to OSM and not
the other way around.

> service=driveway together mean and appropriately handle it without an
> explicit access tag.

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

[Talk-us] Find missing roads

[Martijn van Exel]

Hi all,

Our OSM team cooked up something new. A missing roads plugin for JOSM. I
think it's pretty nice but I would really like to hear what you think.

You can read some more about it on my diary (http://bit.ly/missingroads)
but it's basically what it says on the tin. The plugin will show where we
think roads are missing from OSM based on GPS data so you can add them :)

Take it for a spin and let me know what you think, what we could improve,
or just if you like it!

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

Re: [Talk-us] Cycle_greenway

[Paul Johnson]

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Harald Kliems  wrote:

> 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.
>

Even if it's not named, the fact that it may be named or numbered in the
future and generally traverses multiple ways (or a way that may be split
with the addition of more detail later), I tend to go with relations for
routes rather than go with lcn/rcn/ncn=yes.  The tags on the way should
describe the way, not the route; the route relation is there for the route.
 (Have I mentioned it's time to kill ref=* on ways as describing the
overlying route yet, like Linus killed ext1 after ext3 became a thing?)
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Cycle_greenway

[Paul Johnson]

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Natfoot  wrote:

> Hello to the US community,
>
> I have found some edits in the Seattle area that have cycleway:
> cycle_greenway
> I can find no reference to this tag within the wiki.   Can someone please
> advise on the credibility of this tag. Also comment if someone is using
> this tag in a rendering or other application.
>

 Sounds like someone invented a tag that has no distinction versus
highway=cycleway, foot=yes, which is what I would tag these as.  While I
lament the lack of sidewalks on increasingly congested corridors.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Cycle_greenway

[Volker Schmidt]

Some comments from Europe.
"greenway" is used in many places in many different ways. To me the label
"Green..." looks more like a brand name.

Have a look around:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Route_Verte (Québec)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_boulevard
http://avenuevertelondonparis.co.uk/

Then compare to other similar items:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bicycle_road
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dliving_street

I looked at the Seattle examples, and would suggest to not use the
cycleway=cycle_greenway. To me it would look natural to map the Seattle
examples as highway=living_street (as they are already tagged). This
implies that the road is shared between all types of traffic, in line with
the greenway description in
http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/greenways.htm.
If you really need an additional key, why not use the existing key
cycleway=shared where appropriate.

Regarding relations: If the Greenways are interconnected and form a
network, I would opt for lcn route relations with names. I presume that
this list http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/greenwaysworkplan.htm shows
names and references (numbers).

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