[Talk-us] Whole-US Garmin Map update - 2016-06-01
These are based off of Lambertus's work here: http://garmin.openstreetmap.nl If you have questions or comments about these maps, please feel free to ask. However, please do not send me private mail. The odds are, someone else will have the same questions, and by asking on the talk-us@ list, others can benefit. Downloads: http://daveh.dev.openstreetmap.org/garmin/Lambertus/2016-06-01 Map to visualize what each file contains: http://daveh.dev.openstreetmap.org/garmin/Lambertus/2016-06-01/kml/kml.html FAQ Why did you do this? I wrote scripts to joined them myself to lessen the impact of doing a large join on Lambertus's server. I've also cut them in large longitude swaths that should fit conveniently on removable media. http://daveh.dev.openstreetmap.org/garmin/Lambertus/2016-06-01 Can or should I seed the torrents? Yes!! If you use the .torrent files, please seed. That web server is in the UK, and it helps to have some peers on this side of the Atlantic. Why is my map missing small rectangular areas? There have been some missing tiles from Lambertus's map (the red rectangles), I don't see any at the moment, so you may want to update if you had issues with the last set. Why can I not copy the large files to my new SD card? If you buy a new card (especially SDHC), some are FAT16 from the factory. I had to reformat it to let me create a >2GB file. Does your map cover Mexico/Canada? Yes!! I have, for the purposes of this map, annexed Ontario in to the USA. Some areas of North America that are close to the US also just happen to get pulled in to these maps. This might not happen forever, and if you would like your non-US area to get included, let me know. -- Dave ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Import in progress: NYC DEP Watershed Recreation Areas
I just realized on further inspection that 'protect_class' on the protected areas is erroneously spelt out 'protection_class'. I think that this proves that no matter how careful one is, at least one bug slips past when a system 'goes live.' I'll correct the typo in the other 39 townships, and correct it manually in the 25 places it appears in this changeset. I'm going to defer the correction in the upload until I'm resuming uploading. so as to avoid complicating a revert should one prove necessary. On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 11:00 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: > I've now begun the import for the NYC DEP Watershed Recreation Areas. > > According to the plan, I've imported the units that lie in a single > township out of the forty townships that contain these areas. (Town of > Andes - the first of the list in alphabetical order). The changeset > for this activity is https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/39807853 > > JOSM uploaded the areas without errors or warnings. > > A quick visual check at least appears plausible. I notice several things: > > There are numerous cases where the parcel is clearly supposed to be at > a fixed setback from a highway. Some of these do not align to the > highway. In every case that I checked visually against Bing Aerial. > New York City is right and TIGER is wrong. Virtually all the highways > in the area are unreviewed TIGER ways. > > The alignment of the protected_area boundaries with the New York State > lands is rather untidy. There has been considerably interagency > coordination of these in recent years, and the current version of > 'NYSDEP Lands' is in considerably better alignment with the New York > City data. That misalignment is one of a number of reasons why I think > that the 'NYSDEP Lands' file should be reimported, and not just have > its tagging fixed by a mechanical edit. I'm still working on a plan > for this. I think I may be close to a breakthrough on techniques for > semiautomatic repair of the sort of mildly inconsistent cadastral data > that we have here. > > According to the plan, I'll now stop for a week, so that if there are > any screams of horror, there will be only a single changeset, > consisting only of added objects, to be reverted. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Import in progress: NYC DEP Watershed Recreation Areas
I've now begun the import for the NYC DEP Watershed Recreation Areas. According to the plan, I've imported the units that lie in a single township out of the forty townships that contain these areas. (Town of Andes - the first of the list in alphabetical order). The changeset for this activity is https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/39807853 JOSM uploaded the areas without errors or warnings. A quick visual check at least appears plausible. I notice several things: There are numerous cases where the parcel is clearly supposed to be at a fixed setback from a highway. Some of these do not align to the highway. In every case that I checked visually against Bing Aerial. New York City is right and TIGER is wrong. Virtually all the highways in the area are unreviewed TIGER ways. The alignment of the protected_area boundaries with the New York State lands is rather untidy. There has been considerably interagency coordination of these in recent years, and the current version of 'NYSDEP Lands' is in considerably better alignment with the New York City data. That misalignment is one of a number of reasons why I think that the 'NYSDEP Lands' file should be reimported, and not just have its tagging fixed by a mechanical edit. I'm still working on a plan for this. I think I may be close to a breakthrough on techniques for semiautomatic repair of the sort of mildly inconsistent cadastral data that we have here. According to the plan, I'll now stop for a week, so that if there are any screams of horror, there will be only a single changeset, consisting only of added objects, to be reverted. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?
All these discussions are the reason why I almost never touch the highway=* tag and rather add surface=* or other descriptive tags to TIGER roads. There just isn't any consensus and many good reasons for many positions about residential, unclassified, track, etc. Harald. On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 5:50 PM Eric Ladner wrote: > On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 5:01 PM Kevin Kenny > wrote: > >> I'm usually talking about mapping in much more remote areas, and I've >> been using 'track' more to denote more road quality. In some of the >> places I go, there are public rights-of-way that haven't been >> maintained by the counties in decades, that would still be lawful to >> drive on if you had a vehicle that could do it. They range from >> "completely grown to trees but you can most likely ride an ATV" >> through "mostly used for forestry, and high-clearance vehicles >> shouldn't have much problem, but don't try it in a passenger car" to >> "pea gravel and sugar sand that someone grades once a season, used as >> an auto road in the summer and a snowmobile track in the winter." > > > Isn't that what "tracktype=gradeX" is for? The first case would be > highway=track; tracktype=grade5, the second probably tracktype=grade2 and > the last tracktype=grade1. They're all highway=track (utility/farm vehicle > access), but just different grades (from grassy cow paths up to hard packed > gravel/clay roads that are, in some places, probably nicer than most back > water county paved roads. > > You mentioned forestry, so naturally I think of logging roads. > Technically it's public land, so there's no restriction to access, but for > all intents and purposes, they are highway=track. > > The >> first is "highway=path" with appropriate notations for what uses are >> permitted, the second is "highway=track" (I could add "access=yes" but >> I thought that was the default for all highways); the third I'm less >> sure about, and I'm inconsistent between "track" and "unclassified" >> (with restrictions of 15 May-15 October, or whatever the season is). >> These are all roads where I have to keep reassuring my city-bred wife, >> "yes, this is a public road, even if it looks like an abandoned >> driveway!" when driving a 4WD down one. >> > > General public access roads, though, in extreme rural areas where the road > is not what city folks would call a road -- probably would be unclassified > with a "surface" qualifier (unpaved, compacted, dirt, earth, whatever). > > The description for highway=path says it's generally used for > non-motorized vehicles. I'd prefer highway=unclassified, also with a > surface qualifier. But... > > ... I'm not bashing anybody over the head with my opinion, just stating an > alternate point of view. I'm fine with whatever anybody wants to do as > long as it's consistent and has some kind of rationale behind it. > > E > > > ___ > 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] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?
On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 5:01 PM Kevin Kenny wrote: > I'm usually talking about mapping in much more remote areas, and I've > been using 'track' more to denote more road quality. In some of the > places I go, there are public rights-of-way that haven't been > maintained by the counties in decades, that would still be lawful to > drive on if you had a vehicle that could do it. They range from > "completely grown to trees but you can most likely ride an ATV" > through "mostly used for forestry, and high-clearance vehicles > shouldn't have much problem, but don't try it in a passenger car" to > "pea gravel and sugar sand that someone grades once a season, used as > an auto road in the summer and a snowmobile track in the winter." Isn't that what "tracktype=gradeX" is for? The first case would be highway=track; tracktype=grade5, the second probably tracktype=grade2 and the last tracktype=grade1. They're all highway=track (utility/farm vehicle access), but just different grades (from grassy cow paths up to hard packed gravel/clay roads that are, in some places, probably nicer than most back water county paved roads. You mentioned forestry, so naturally I think of logging roads. Technically it's public land, so there's no restriction to access, but for all intents and purposes, they are highway=track. The > first is "highway=path" with appropriate notations for what uses are > permitted, the second is "highway=track" (I could add "access=yes" but > I thought that was the default for all highways); the third I'm less > sure about, and I'm inconsistent between "track" and "unclassified" > (with restrictions of 15 May-15 October, or whatever the season is). > These are all roads where I have to keep reassuring my city-bred wife, > "yes, this is a public road, even if it looks like an abandoned > driveway!" when driving a 4WD down one. > General public access roads, though, in extreme rural areas where the road is not what city folks would call a road -- probably would be unclassified with a "surface" qualifier (unpaved, compacted, dirt, earth, whatever). The description for highway=path says it's generally used for non-motorized vehicles. I'd prefer highway=unclassified, also with a surface qualifier. But... ... I'm not bashing anybody over the head with my opinion, just stating an alternate point of view. I'm fine with whatever anybody wants to do as long as it's consistent and has some kind of rationale behind it. E ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?
I'm usually talking about mapping in much more remote areas, and I've been using 'track' more to denote more road quality. In some of the places I go, there are public rights-of-way that haven't been maintained by the counties in decades, that would still be lawful to drive on if you had a vehicle that could do it. They range from "completely grown to trees but you can most likely ride an ATV" through "mostly used for forestry, and high-clearance vehicles shouldn't have much problem, but don't try it in a passenger car" to "pea gravel and sugar sand that someone grades once a season, used as an auto road in the summer and a snowmobile track in the winter." The first is "highway=path" with appropriate notations for what uses are permitted, the second is "highway=track" (I could add "access=yes" but I thought that was the default for all highways); the third I'm less sure about, and I'm inconsistent between "track" and "unclassified" (with restrictions of 15 May-15 October, or whatever the season is). These are all roads where I have to keep reassuring my city-bred wife, "yes, this is a public road, even if it looks like an abandoned driveway!" when driving a 4WD down one. These are all legally public highways. Many of them are of a classification that allows a landowner to gate them to restrain livestock while allowing the stock to cross the road, as long as the gate is left unlocked so that a traveler can pass, so they might be gated and still public. On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Greg Troxel wrote: > > Eric Ladner writes: > >> On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 5:58 AM Greg Troxel wrote: >> >>> >>> Kevin Kenny writes: >>> >>> > OK, 'residential' if it looks like 'subdivision', 'unclassified' >>> > otherwise (as long as it's drivable in, say, my daughter's car rather >>> > than my 4-wheeler). Got it. >>> >>> I also see a distinction between residential/unclassified as denoting a >>> legal road (around me, carved-out parcel wise from the surrounding land) >>> vs track and some service denoting a non-legal-road. However, others >>> see the physical and legal attributes as separate. >>> >> My understanding of the description of "unclassified" is unclassified is a >> step between residential and tertiary. It's a connecting road, minor >> connector, whatever, that doesn't have residential on it, but it's not high >> enough in classification to make it a tertiary road. > > I agree with that notion. > >> I usually use it for roads in industrial complexes, loops around malls, >> business complexes, or other connectors/roads where there's no obvious >> residential around. > > Mostly agree, but I only use it for legal roads, not driveways or > private roads. Meaning someplace where (in new england) it's legally > separate and the public has a right of access. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?
On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Eric Ladner wrote: > On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 5:58 AM Greg Troxel wrote: > >> >> Kevin Kenny writes: >> >> > OK, 'residential' if it looks like 'subdivision', 'unclassified' >> > otherwise (as long as it's drivable in, say, my daughter's car rather >> > than my 4-wheeler). Got it. >> >> I also see a distinction between residential/unclassified as denoting a >> legal road (around me, carved-out parcel wise from the surrounding land) >> vs track and some service denoting a non-legal-road. However, others >> see the physical and legal attributes as separate. >> >> > My understanding of the description of "unclassified" is unclassified is a > step between residential and tertiary. It's a connecting road, minor > connector, whatever, that doesn't have residential on it, but it's not high > enough in classification to make it a tertiary road. > Generally speaking, yes. It's roughly the BFE version of residential. > I usually use it for roads in industrial complexes, loops around malls, > business complexes, or other connectors/roads where there's no obvious > residential around. > That might work in some situations but for the most part, that's highway=service; service=* ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?
Eric Ladner writes: > On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 5:58 AM Greg Troxel wrote: > >> >> Kevin Kenny writes: >> >> > OK, 'residential' if it looks like 'subdivision', 'unclassified' >> > otherwise (as long as it's drivable in, say, my daughter's car rather >> > than my 4-wheeler). Got it. >> >> I also see a distinction between residential/unclassified as denoting a >> legal road (around me, carved-out parcel wise from the surrounding land) >> vs track and some service denoting a non-legal-road. However, others >> see the physical and legal attributes as separate. >> > My understanding of the description of "unclassified" is unclassified is a > step between residential and tertiary. It's a connecting road, minor > connector, whatever, that doesn't have residential on it, but it's not high > enough in classification to make it a tertiary road. I agree with that notion. > I usually use it for roads in industrial complexes, loops around malls, > business complexes, or other connectors/roads where there's no obvious > residential around. Mostly agree, but I only use it for legal roads, not driveways or private roads. Meaning someplace where (in new england) it's legally separate and the public has a right of access. signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?
On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 5:58 AM Greg Troxel wrote: > > Kevin Kenny writes: > > > OK, 'residential' if it looks like 'subdivision', 'unclassified' > > otherwise (as long as it's drivable in, say, my daughter's car rather > > than my 4-wheeler). Got it. > > I also see a distinction between residential/unclassified as denoting a > legal road (around me, carved-out parcel wise from the surrounding land) > vs track and some service denoting a non-legal-road. However, others > see the physical and legal attributes as separate. > > My understanding of the description of "unclassified" is unclassified is a step between residential and tertiary. It's a connecting road, minor connector, whatever, that doesn't have residential on it, but it's not high enough in classification to make it a tertiary road. I usually use it for roads in industrial complexes, loops around malls, business complexes, or other connectors/roads where there's no obvious residential around. Eric ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] How to get open street maps
On 28/05/2016 11:51, David Niklas wrote: Hello, I downloaded the maps, but they changed over night, so the md5 sums don't match up. I tried using rsync -cav to ftp.spline.de, but the connection times out "[Receiver] io timeout after 181 seconds -- exiting" (return code 30) I know that the port is accessible because I used nmap on it. I tried passing the --timeout flags but that made no difference. What could I do? I can't download that much data from scratch and a subset of the world cannot be resynced with the master? What to download depends very much on what you want to do. It sounds like you're trying to download the whole planet from a mirror of http://planet.osm.org/ (see also http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Planet.osm ). If you want OSM data for a small country or region, then I'd start with one of the extracts mentioned at those links. http://download.geofabrik.de/ is a good start because you can see what you're getting and how big it's going to be. If you really do want OSM data for the whole planet then have a look at http://planet.osm.org/planet/2016/ for how often they change - that should enable you to time the download of a whole one before it gets replaced with a new version (or go for a particular date rather than "latest"). It's 50Gb though, so as well as taking a while to download it'll take a while to do anything useful with once you have downloaded it. However if you really do want "maps" rather than "data", then where to go depends on what you want maps for. For example, various maps that are suitable for a Garmin handheld or satnav are available (such as http://garmin.openstreetmap.nl/ , see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Map_On_Garmin/Download ), but they won't work with (say) MAPS.ME or OsmAnd on a phone. If you instead want all the examples of a particular tag* in OSM, then you can start with something like http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/railway=station and click through to see that on a map by clicking the "Overpass Turbo" link there (and get that data as JSON by clicking the "data" link at the top right). The best place for general "How do I do X" questions is probably the help site https://help.openstreetmap.org/ . Best Regards, Andy * and see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Elements for more info about that. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for dealing with old TIGER tags?
Kevin Kenny writes: > OK, 'residential' if it looks like 'subdivision', 'unclassified' > otherwise (as long as it's drivable in, say, my daughter's car rather > than my 4-wheeler). Got it. I also see a distinction between residential/unclassified as denoting a legal road (around me, carved-out parcel wise from the surrounding land) vs track and some service denoting a non-legal-road. However, others see the physical and legal attributes as separate. If you do change a legal road to track because of poor condition, please add access=yes if that is how it is. highway=residential has a pretty safe access=yes default, and I find that most highway=track are not actually access=yes, even though most do not have tags. This is further messy on rendering, as it might be that tracks should be rendered with an access color if they are access=yes, and not colored if they are access=private. > I suspect that 'residential'/'unclassified' right now is almost a > difference without a distinction. In the US, that's true. Driving in Scotland recently gave me more insight into the UK origins of the classification. > I suppose that 'residential' might be a weak indication to a router to > avoid the route, but the consequences of getting it wrong don't appear > to be terribly severe. Which is a relief. I would say that a router avoiding residential is incorrect, unless it's a tiny bit of avoidance. It should really be about speeds, width, lights, etc. As for where Richard Welty draws the line, if there are a lot of houses on 4 acre lots, I don't think that's iffy. The questions to me is not subdivision but whether most of the landuse along the road is residential or not and the much harder whether much of the traffic is to/from residential vs other, which is even harder for collector roads to neighborhoods and what you call through in the end I tink where this line is drawn is very far down on the OSM problem list. signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
