Re: [Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

[Paul Norman]

On 3/24/2016 5:50 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:

It is obvious to me that all occurrences of highway=social_path need to
be replaced with whatever they were before. I'd normally say let's give
them some time to come up with a better idea but seeing that the problem
has been highlighted to them pretty much at the time they made the edits
5 months ago, and they haven't come up with a better idea, I'd say the
time is up now.


After talking to some others involved and the talk-us@ discussion, it's 
reasonably clear that this is another of those cases where a path exists 
but the property owner or government doesn't allow access, and there's a 
well established way of tagging that: access=no, and I've tagged the 
paths accordingly.


If someone is unhappy with how access=no is rendered on a particular map 
or router, they should raise it on the issue tracker of that style or 
router profile. Complaints on a local list will not make it to the 
developers of most styles.


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

Re: [Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

[Mike Thompson]

Thanks for reaching out Alan. I hope that we - and in particular I -
haven't been too harsh in this discussion.

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Alan McConchie 
wrote:


>  In fact the big picture is the opposite: rather than ignore OSM, we want
> to expose OSM to a wider audience and to grow the OSM community. Many of
> the park managers we're working with have dismissed OSM entirely, and we're
> trying to convince them how useful and important it is to have the public
> contributing their knowledge to the map.
>
This is a great goal!  I would be interested in learning from your
experiences in order to get park managers here (Northern Colorado) using
OSM.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

[Mike Thompson]

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Mikel Maron  wrote:
>
>
> My view on the way forward in this particular situation.
>
Agree with your general approach

>
> * Decide on reasonable tagging. Agree that some use of "access" seems most
> appropriate (maybe access=social?)
>
In deciding this we should ask what specifically is it that Caliparks
wishes to express about these trails? Is it that the public is prohibited
from using them, then access=no or access=official may be the way to go.
If they wish to discourage people from using them, then access=discouraged,
is it that these trails are not maintained by Caliparks, then perhaps some
tag like "operator=" (on the official trails) may be called for.


> * Discuss how to better represent these on main OSM rendering, and other
> rendering. They should be rendered, but look different from official trails.
>
+1  There are also trails and tracks within parks that no one really uses
except for perhaps for occasional official maintenance activities.  The
public is not prohibited from using them, they just don't typically use
them. They should be mapped for completeness, but currently they would
clutter and confuse, hence in my area I have refrained from mapping them.

>
> Beyond this, there's a huge opportunity and lots of interesting issues
> regarding mapping in parks. Imagine a single map of every park in the US,
> or in the world. There's a lot to get into about how park managers and the
> public see parks, park data and park maps. Think OSM is the best place to
> do it!
>
+1

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

Re: [Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

[Mikel Maron]

I've reached out directly and began conversations with Dan after reading this 
article. Good to hear from Alan too.
My view on the way forward in this particular situation.
* Decide on reasonable tagging. Agree that some use of "access" seems most 
appropriate (maybe access=social?)* Get Caliparks rendering recognizing this 
tagging* Make the switch on OSM from social_path* Discuss how to better 
represent these on main OSM rendering, and other rendering. They should be 
rendered, but look different from official trails.
Beyond this, there's a huge opportunity and lots of interesting issues 
regarding mapping in parks. Imagine a single map of every park in the US, or in 
the world. There's a lot to get into about how park managers and the public see 
parks, park data and park maps. Think OSM is the best place to do it!
-Mikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron 

On Thursday, March 24, 2016 5:20 PM, Shawn K. Quinn  
wrote:
 
 

 On Thu, 2016-03-24 at 13:59 -0700, Alan McConchie wrote:
> It's true that the first comments on our changesets came 5 months ago,
> but in our defense, we haven't been tagging any additional social_path
> features since that time. We had always intended to seek input from
> the community to make this tag an officially recognized one, or to
> come up with an alternative solution. We were mindful that we didn't
> want to do a lot of editing before talking to the community, which is
> why we didn't do any further editing. In that sense, please think of
> those 17 features as an experiment to feed into the discussion that
> we're all having now.

I oppose the use of highway=social_path. There are better ways to
accomplish the same thing without breaking existing applications.

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn 


___
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] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On Thu, 2016-03-24 at 13:59 -0700, Alan McConchie wrote:
> It's true that the first comments on our changesets came 5 months ago,
> but in our defense, we haven't been tagging any additional social_path
> features since that time. We had always intended to seek input from
> the community to make this tag an officially recognized one, or to
> come up with an alternative solution. We were mindful that we didn't
> want to do a lot of editing before talking to the community, which is
> why we didn't do any further editing. In that sense, please think of
> those 17 features as an experiment to feed into the discussion that
> we're all having now.

I oppose the use of highway=social_path. There are better ways to
accomplish the same thing without breaking existing applications.

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn 


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

Re: [Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

[Alan McConchie]

Dear Frederik and all,

I’d like to apologize for a couple of things, on behalf of Stamen, GreenInfo 
Network, and CaliParks.

First, we've done a really bad job of communicating, and we'll do our best to 
improve on that.

Second, the language used in the subtitle of the CityLab article (that 
CaliParks is trying to "mute" OSM) is not how we would describe the situation. 
That makes it sound like OSM is bad and we're trying to avoid using it. In fact 
the big picture is the opposite: rather than ignore OSM, we want to expose OSM 
to a wider audience and to grow the OSM community. Many of the park managers 
we're working with have dismissed OSM entirely, and we're trying to convince 
them how useful and important it is to have the public contributing their 
knowledge to the map. 

Now, accepting that we should have communicated more and gained consent from 
the OSM community first, I want to point out that this is a very small number 
of trails we're talking about here. According to taginfo at this moment, there 
are only 17 features tagged with highway=social_path.

It's true that the first comments on our changesets came 5 months ago, but in 
our defense, we haven't been tagging any additional social_path features since 
that time. We had always intended to seek input from the community to make this 
tag an officially recognized one, or to come up with an alternative solution. 
We were mindful that we didn't want to do a lot of editing before talking to 
the community, which is why we didn't do any further editing. In that sense, 
please think of those 17 features as an experiment to feed into the discussion 
that we're all having now.

For 5 months our plans have been on the back burner, and we've made no further 
edits with that tag. But this week (with the launch of a new version of 
CaliParks) we planned to start the discussion in earnest. A few days ago we 
started an RFC on the wiki [1] but we hadn't yet sent an email to this list or 
the tagging list to get input. We're glad that discussion is happening now, a 
few days before we were ready!

Also, I'd like to clarify Frederik's comment about this being "commercial" 
editing. One of the reasons that this has been on the backburner for 5 months 
is because this is a project that is led by non-profits and for non-profits 
(yes, Stamen is a for-profit entity but our partner GreenInfo is a non-profit, 
and CaliParks is funded by philanthropies on behalf of the Parks Forward 
Commission, also a non-profit). This is a small, scrappy operation being done 
for the benefit of the public, not to exploit OSM for corporate greed.

I'd also like to emphasize that this is very much on-the-ground mapping. By 
bringing park managers into the OSM fold, we're getting some of the most local, 
most on-the-ground experts you could ask for. This is very different from 
remotely tracing paths from imagery or bad gps traces. We fully believe in 
mapping "what's on the ground", but of course there are often differing 
opinions about how to tag what's on the ground.

Above all, I want to emphasize that we're not wedded to this particular tag. 
The features using this tag are very small in number, and localized to a small 
area in Marin County, California. If the community decides that a different 
tagging scheme is more appropriate, we're happy to change what we're doing. 
Again, I'd like to apologize for our lack of communication, and I look forward 
to the discussion we're having now. I'll send an email the to tagging list 
shortly.

Alan McConchie
Stamen Design

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Social_path

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

Re: [Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

[Andy Townsend]

On 24/03/2016 15:50, James Umbanhowar wrote:

Regardless of the community's eventual solution, I think the most
important part of this event was the lack of engagement of Caliparks
and Stamen with the community.


Well, let's cut the individual editor a bit of slack here.  They've done 
exactly 16 edits to OSM, and I'm sure that before my 16th edit I'd done 
a few silly things too :)


If you look at http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussions?c=United 
States you'll see lots of "hello and welcome" messages (some from people 
in the US, some from people outside) explaining to new mappers how to 
get the hang of things.




Is there a similar process for
institutional (business, government, non-profit) editing of data as
there is for imports?  There should be.  I think institutional
engagement with OSM can bring many benefits, but has similar dangers as
imports.



I'm not aware of anything currently - a mapper is a mapper is a mapper - 
although there's fairly regularly been discussions within the community 
about how to work with "institutional" editing.  I suspect the first 
thing that comes as a surprise to e.g. someone mapping on behalf of a 
business is that they just think of OSM as a dataset or a map; they 
don't expect it to talk to them when they add stuff to it.


When a business tries to talk to OSM I suspect it comes as a bit of a 
surprise that there's not much of a hierarchy - there are just people 
adding data, and people trusting other people to do various jobs 
(writing editors, creating map styles, ensuring that international 
boundaries don't get broken) because they've done that job well in the 
past.  Everyone complains about everyone else, but somehow it seems to 
work...


Another thing that a business might not be prepared for is the need to 
compromise - that their vision of what and how things should be mapped 
may need to be discussed and considered among others. Sometimes 
organisations think that they can just dump their data into OSM, and 
it's job done, when instead people in OSM will tell them they need to 
think about data quality, maintenance and other things.  For example, I 
found one of the paragraphs of the precursor post to the one that Marc 
Gemis posted interesting:


https://hi.stamen.com/on-the-right-trail-39e386ba977f#.gggx7v77j

"We are also spreading the word about how to use the “social_path” tag 
through social media, the OSM community, and in our work with other 
parks and public land agencies and grassroots groups such as Nerds for 
Nature and Maptime."


It's a real shame that one of those "grassroots groups" didn't actually 
include OpenStreetMap :)


Best Regards,

Andy


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

Re: [Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

[Mike Thompson]

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Nathan Mills  wrote:

> Had it been discussed beforehand so that other consumers would be aware of
> the meaning of the new tag, I wouldn't personally have a problem with it.

It would be far better to create an additional tag rather than replacing a
standard tag as it wouldn't break existing tools and apps.


> access=no is also a decent suggestion

Yes, if, and only if, access really is prohibited.


> there is likely a quantitative difference between these informal trails
> and the official ones, so it makes sense to have a different tag value.
>
In which case we should map those quantities, e.g. width=*, visibility=*,
surface=*,  smoothness=*,  sac_scale=*, mtb:scale=*, etc.

The official_status tag[1] might be useful here.  They could tag their
official trails "official_status=Caliparks:official" and the other trails
"official_status=Caliparks:unofficial"

Mike
[1] wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Official_status

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

Re: [Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

[Nathan Mills]

Had it been discussed beforehand so that other consumers would be aware of the 
meaning of the new tag, I wouldn't personally have a problem with it. access=no 
is also a decent suggestion (and would not require discussion with the 
community beforehand), but there is likely a quantitative difference between 
these informal trails and the official ones, so it makes sense to have a 
different tag value.

-Nathan

On March 24, 2016 2:05:22 PM EDT, Mike Thompson  wrote:
>On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 9:50 AM, James Umbanhowar 
>wrote:
>
>> Regardless of the community's eventual solution, I think the most
>> important part of this event was the lack of engagement of Caliparks
>> and Stamen with the community.  Is there a similar process for
>> institutional (business, government, non-profit) editing of data as
>> there is for imports?  There should be.  I think institutional
>> engagement with OSM can bring many benefits, but has similar dangers
>as
>> imports.
>
>Regardless of who is editing (individual or institution), removing well
>accepted tags (highway=path) and substituting newly created tags
>(highway=social_path) shouldn't take place without community
>discussion.
>
>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] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

[Mike Thompson]

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 4:26 AM, Marc Gemis  wrote:

> They tagged them as "social_path", according to their blog entry [1]
>
> Totally unacceptable.  OpenStreetMap maps what is observable on the ground
(generally). If they:

1) Don't want that trail to exist, they can restore that area to its
natural state, and *then*, delete the data from OSM.
2) Don't want people to use those trails, they can place "no public access"
signs at the places where these "unofficial" trails join the "official"
trails, and then add the appropriate "access=* tags to OSM as others have
suggested.
3) Simply do not want these to show up on their map, they can do some post
processing of the OSM data after export, but before rendering

I often map unofficial trails based upon on the ground survey with GPS and
camera supplemented with Strava and BIng.  It is great to have the data in
there for my personal use and that of others who like to hike the back
country, but I also want it to be there for search and rescue, wildland
fire fighters and other emergency personnel. In effect removing this data
by using a tagging scheme that no one but the editor in question
understands is a huge disservice.
Mike
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

[Mike Thompson]

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 9:50 AM, James Umbanhowar 
wrote:

> Regardless of the community's eventual solution, I think the most
> important part of this event was the lack of engagement of Caliparks
> and Stamen with the community.  Is there a similar process for
> institutional (business, government, non-profit) editing of data as
> there is for imports?  There should be.  I think institutional
> engagement with OSM can bring many benefits, but has similar dangers as
> imports.

Regardless of who is editing (individual or institution), removing well
accepted tags (highway=path) and substituting newly created tags
(highway=social_path) shouldn't take place without community discussion.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

[James Umbanhowar]

Regardless of the community's eventual solution, I think the most
important part of this event was the lack of engagement of Caliparks
and Stamen with the community.  Is there a similar process for
institutional (business, government, non-profit) editing of data as
there is for imports?  There should be.  I think institutional
engagement with OSM can bring many benefits, but has similar dangers as
imports. 

James

On Thu, 2016-03-24 at 13:50 +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 03/24/2016 11:26 AM, Marc Gemis wrote:
> > 
> > They tagged them as "social_path", according to their blog entry
> > [1]
> Thank you for the link. This is what I feared.
> 
> highway=social_path is certainly unacceptable - a self-made tag that
> essentially deletes the data for all other consumers.
> 
> There would have been numerous other options that would have allowed
> them to single out the tracks they want - for example, tagging the
> official ones with an "operator" tag, or putting them into suitable
> relations or so. Had any of the players involved taken the time to
> ask
> on this list, I'm sure these options would have been pointed out to
> them.
> 
> As it stands, removing a proper, established highway tag and
> replacing
> it with something that nobody knows is just a little bit better than
> removing the way altogether.
> 
> To make matters worse, it seems that the issue has been pointed out
> almost half a year ago, and has not led to the issue being fixed:
> 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/34599982
> 
> It is obvious to me that all occurrences of highway=social_path need
> to
> be replaced with whatever they were before. I'd normally say let's
> give
> them some time to come up with a better idea but seeing that the
> problem
> has been highlighted to them pretty much at the time they made the
> edits
> 5 months ago, and they haven't come up with a better idea, I'd say
> the
> time is up now.
> 
> Bye
> Frederik
> 

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

Re: [Talk-us] State relationpages

[Martijn van Exel]

Okay. I found the repo: https://github.com/mvexel/relationpages 
 
There are sparse instructions. The scripts are messy but work(ed). If anyone 
wants to take on hosting this somewhere, that would make me happy. The time I 
can set aside to support this is, unfortunately, too limited to provide a 
stable service. If anyone does want to take this on, let me know if you need 
help.
Martijn

> On Mar 24, 2016, at 8:31 AM, Martijn van Exel  wrote:
> 
> It basically is an automatically updated table of state and US highway route 
> relations, with links to the appropriate QA tools. You may use it to inspect 
> which route relations exist for your state and when they were last updated.
> 
> I forget how I made it, probably a set of Python scripts. Let me look into it 
> and post more details. 
> 
> Martijn
> 
>> On Mar 24, 2016, at 8:26 AM, Jack Burke > > wrote:
>> 
>> I didn't even know they existed. What is their purpose? What is needed to 
>> maintain them? 
>> 
>> On March 24, 2016 9:51:56 AM EDT, Martijn van Exel > > wrote:
>> Hi, 
>> 
>> I haven’t paid any attention to these in a pretty long while. If they are 
>> still useful I can try and find some time to look into the issue. Anyone 
>> else still using the relation pages? Anyone wanting to help out with 
>> maintaining them?
>> 
>> Martijn
>> 
>>> On Mar 24, 2016, at 4:09 AM, Paul Johnson >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> I've noticed that 
>>> http://184.73.220.107/relationpages/oklahoma%20state%20routes.html 
>>>  has 
>>> not updated in an extremely long time now.  What's going on with these?
>>> ___
>>> 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 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>> ___
>> 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] State relationpages

[Jack Burke]

I didn't even know they existed. What is their purpose? What is needed to 
maintain them? 

On March 24, 2016 9:51:56 AM EDT, Martijn van Exel  wrote:
>Hi, 
>
>I haven’t paid any attention to these in a pretty long while. If they
>are still useful I can try and find some time to look into the issue.
>Anyone else still using the relation pages? Anyone wanting to help out
>with maintaining them?
>
>Martijn
>
>> On Mar 24, 2016, at 4:09 AM, Paul Johnson 
>wrote:
>> 
>> I've noticed that
>http://184.73.220.107/relationpages/oklahoma%20state%20routes.html
>
>has not updated in an extremely long time now.  What's going on with
>these?
>> ___
>> 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

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

[Andy Townsend]

On 24/03/2016 12:50, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Hi,

On 03/24/2016 11:26 AM, Marc Gemis wrote:

They tagged them as "social_path", according to their blog entry [1]

Thank you for the link. This is what I feared.

highway=social_path is certainly unacceptable - a self-made tag that
essentially deletes the data for all other consumers.

...

To make matters worse, it seems that the issue has been pointed out
almost half a year ago, and has not led to the issue being fixed:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/34599982

It is obvious to me that all occurrences of highway=social_path need to
be replaced with whatever they were before. I'd normally say let's give
them some time to come up with a better idea but seeing that the problem
has been highlighted to them pretty much at the time they made the edits
5 months ago, and they haven't come up with a better idea, I'd say the
time is up now.



Agreed.  I don't always agree with Gerd's somewhat doctrinaire approach 
to tagging, but he's spot on here.


It's an excellent advertisement for why people locally should monitor 
local changes - that way they'll get picked up way before 5 months have 
elapsed.  That does happen in lots of places in the US (such as to the 
east in places in Nevada and Arizona) but obviously not here.


However, people creating "unofficial trails", and adding trails based on 
GPS data that in reality doesn't match any kind of path on the ground is 
a real problem, and there does need to be a way for people managing 
these areas to deal with it.  Thankfully, there are a few options:


1) The first (already mentioned, and which is actually already in the 
tagging of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/284562871 ) is to use 
"access=no" if something really isn't legally accessible, but the 
physical path exists on the ground.  Similarly "bicycle=no" or 
"horse=no" might be needed on things that are only foot trails. Having 
something in the database with "access=no" is better than deleting it or 
setting a made-up highway tag because someone is less likely to come 
along later and "correct" the data.


2) Another thing to consider is "trail_visibility".  That might be 
really useful where something _almost_ exists (a legal trail that isn't 
well-maintained, say).  There are lots of other tags that might be 
useful here too - surface, sac_scale, tracktype, maybe even smoothness.  
Having lots of properly descriptive data in OSM means that people that 
are preparing maps for different purposes can create maps based on their 
target customers easily - do they want to highlight "official" trails?  
Trails for horseriders?  People on inline skates?  People that can't 
climb over stiles?  etc.


3) Consider adding "official" routes to local hiking, biking or 
horseriding relations so that they'll show up on e.g. 
http://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=11!37.9361!-122.5436 .


4) Make it clear what the source of a particular edit is.  This is 
mentioned just for completeness, as here 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/34599982 makes it very clear 
what the source of the changes in that changeset were.  This one isn't 
particularly helpful to mapmakers but it is to future mappers - it 
allows them to understand perhaps why something is mapped as it is.


5) Finally, if an trail has been added in error (perhaps following one 
Strava user who got lost), and there's really nothing on the ground, it 
does make perfect sense to delete it.  The only caveat is if you're 
worried that someone might add it back based on e.g. old aerial imagery 
or an old GPS trace - what I've sometimes done in those situations is 
left the way without a highway tag in but with a note on it saying that 
it used to exist, but I've surveyed recently and it doesn't any more.  
That will hopefully prevent it being added back in error.


Best Regards,

Andy (SomeoneElse)

PS  Although it was a while ago, I have walked some of the trails here 
and elsewhere in Marin county.  It's a beautiful part of the world, 
really not very far from SF / Berkeley and far less busy than any of the 
nearby "tourist trap" destinations such as Muir Woods. It's highly 
recommended for a visit.



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

Re: [Talk-us] State relationpages

[Martijn van Exel]

Hi, 

I haven’t paid any attention to these in a pretty long while. If they are still 
useful I can try and find some time to look into the issue. Anyone else still 
using the relation pages? Anyone wanting to help out with maintaining them?

Martijn

> On Mar 24, 2016, at 4:09 AM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> 
> I've noticed that 
> http://184.73.220.107/relationpages/oklahoma%20state%20routes.html 
>  has not 
> updated in an extremely long time now.  What's going on with these?
> ___
> 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] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

[Rihards]

On 2016.03.24. 14:50, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Hi,

On 03/24/2016 11:26 AM, Marc Gemis wrote:

They tagged them as "social_path", according to their blog entry [1]


Thank you for the link. This is what I feared.

highway=social_path is certainly unacceptable - a self-made tag that
essentially deletes the data for all other consumers.

There would have been numerous other options that would have allowed
them to single out the tracks they want - for example, tagging the
official ones with an "operator" tag, or putting them into suitable
relations or so. Had any of the players involved taken the time to ask
on this list, I'm sure these options would have been pointed out to them.

As it stands, removing a proper, established highway tag and replacing
it with something that nobody knows is just a little bit better than
removing the way altogether.

To make matters worse, it seems that the issue has been pointed out
almost half a year ago, and has not led to the issue being fixed:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/34599982

It is obvious to me that all occurrences of highway=social_path need to
be replaced with whatever they were before. I'd normally say let's give
them some time to come up with a better idea but seeing that the problem
has been highlighted to them pretty much at the time they made the edits
5 months ago, and they haven't come up with a better idea, I'd say the
time is up now.


supporting this.
if they don't want people to use those trails during normal 
circumstances[1], don't render them on your own map, tag them as 
access=no or whatever.

deleting something real that somebody has spent time mapping is plain evil.

[1] in an emergency i would appreciate any trail on my map, no matter 
how "official"



Bye
Frederik

--
 Rihards

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

Re: [Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 03/24/2016 11:26 AM, Marc Gemis wrote:
> They tagged them as "social_path", according to their blog entry [1]

Thank you for the link. This is what I feared.

highway=social_path is certainly unacceptable - a self-made tag that
essentially deletes the data for all other consumers.

There would have been numerous other options that would have allowed
them to single out the tracks they want - for example, tagging the
official ones with an "operator" tag, or putting them into suitable
relations or so. Had any of the players involved taken the time to ask
on this list, I'm sure these options would have been pointed out to them.

As it stands, removing a proper, established highway tag and replacing
it with something that nobody knows is just a little bit better than
removing the way altogether.

To make matters worse, it seems that the issue has been pointed out
almost half a year ago, and has not led to the issue being fixed:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/34599982

It is obvious to me that all occurrences of highway=social_path need to
be replaced with whatever they were before. I'd normally say let's give
them some time to come up with a better idea but seeing that the problem
has been highlighted to them pretty much at the time they made the edits
5 months ago, and they haven't come up with a better idea, I'd say the
time is up now.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] Boston, MA, USA addr:housenumber Import

[Roman Yepishev]

Hi Jason, all.

I added the addr:city to the tags to use w/o confirming first - what is
the balance between adding the address information directly on the
building as opposed to using the boundaries?

I suppose that for the ease of processing the building will need to
have as much information as possible, but then we will have two sources
of truth e.g. for city or zipcode - boundaries and the node.

Now, current status:

I have just terraced Back Bay (a historical district in Boston, old
narrow houses, around 1000 of them) and found this to be less fun than
I imagined :)

Additionally a look at South Boston shows that there are less building
ranges, and more building numbers that point to the same building (e.g.
number 45 is on first floor, 47 is on the second).

As much as I'd hate to do that, there appears to be no other way to
handle this than adding the address node, as I saw done in NY and
Seattle (and how e.g. Here maps handles it - no buildings, just numbers
on the ground). Now, that also means that I need to start operating on
the tax parcel shapefile to verify whether the building needs to be
split or an address node needs to be added.

I added an exception for buildings with source:addr=survey, as I found
that it is of no use trying to repeatedly mark a building which was
manually tagged and verified to have a different number than the
official one  as "fixme". So far there are ~3 buildings with this tag,
but there will be more as I am going through the dataset and buildings
on the ground.

-- 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Boston_Street_Address_Manage
ment_%28SAM%29_Import

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

[Marc Gemis]

They tagged them as "social_path", according to their blog entry [1]

regards

m

[1] 
https://hi.stamen.com/patrolling-trails-in-openstreetmap-a1c4762efb70#.2qq0g0v79

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> Hi,
>
>I find this article a bit worrying:
>
> http://www.citylab.com/cityfixer/2016/03/caliparks-app-safer-hiking-trails-california/475047/
>
> It is about an app that displays tracks in California public parks based
> on OSM. When officials were unhappy about unoffical paths being displayed,
>
> "Park managers have tried to delete these trails from OpenStreetMap, but
> they often pop back up",
>
> (I sure hope they pop back up, and if I catch any park managers deleting
> existing paths I'd have a word with them), and then
>
> "developers at Stamen, GreenInfo Network, and Trailhead Labs essentially
> “muted” the data that identifies the errant trails by tagging them with
> a code from differentiates them from authorized paths."
>
> I would be interested to find out how this "muting" happened and if it
> has any adverse effects on other data consumers. There's certainly good
> and bad ways to do it, but I don't remember anything having been
> discussed with the community. Could someone from one of the groups
> participating in this commercial editing enlighten us about what exactly
> is being done, which tags are changed/used, etc?
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> ___
> 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

[Talk-us] State relationpages

[Paul Johnson]

I've noticed that
http://184.73.220.107/relationpages/oklahoma%20state%20routes.html has not
updated in an extremely long time now.  What's going on with these?
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

   I find this article a bit worrying:

http://www.citylab.com/cityfixer/2016/03/caliparks-app-safer-hiking-trails-california/475047/

It is about an app that displays tracks in California public parks based
on OSM. When officials were unhappy about unoffical paths being displayed,

"Park managers have tried to delete these trails from OpenStreetMap, but
they often pop back up",

(I sure hope they pop back up, and if I catch any park managers deleting
existing paths I'd have a word with them), and then

"developers at Stamen, GreenInfo Network, and Trailhead Labs essentially
“muted” the data that identifies the errant trails by tagging them with
a code from differentiates them from authorized paths."

I would be interested to find out how this "muting" happened and if it
has any adverse effects on other data consumers. There's certainly good
and bad ways to do it, but I don't remember anything having been
discussed with the community. Could someone from one of the groups
participating in this commercial editing enlighten us about what exactly
is being done, which tags are changed/used, etc?

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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