Re: [Talk-us] Sabotage or a really bad bot?

[Greg Morgan]

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Charlotte Wolter 
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Looks like, given Paul's information, that I just have to go in and
> correct as many as I can.
> This is an occasional issue with TIGER data. Somehow, when an
> address is located at the end of a driveway, especially long driveways,
> the driveway is given the street name. It may be a thing with TIGER
> software. Having worked on the Census, I know they create streets by
> marking a GPS point for every address. So, somehow the processing of
> the information they get, driveways become streets.
> I'll keep working on it.
>

I think that you are doing the wrong thing here.  The data came from the
Virgina to Census as is.  It is not like the Census made a mistake here.
That's how the jurisdiction maps their area.  To remove the street names or
the driveways is wrong for the area.  I make my statements based on the
prior version.  Dave Hansen brought those driveways as the were.  The
bot-mode expanded a the names and removed moved a few Tiger tags.  You'll
have remove the names from a larger portion than just Rustburg. I don't
think that you are being respectful of the local customs by imposing your
jurisdictions customs on their area.

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

Re: [Talk-us] [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

[James Mast]

Martijn, that intersection for as long as I can remember, has allowed the right 
turn @ the intersection and also via the slip lane.  The slip lane being closed 
when StreetView drove by was indeed temporary.  They were using it as a 
temporary staging area for construction vehicles for the bridge they were 
replacing on Pine Creek Road (well since completed) that was on the other side 
of the intersection.


-James


From: Martijn van Exel 
Sent: Monday, April 3, 2017 1:18:38 PM
To: James Mast
Cc: talk...@openstreetmap.org; OSM US
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

James -- I could not find any OSC / Mapillary imagery at the location of your 
example so I took a peek at <> google street view. What I see there is 
that the slip road / ramp was (as of Aug 2016 -- temporarily?) closed to 
traffic which may very well inform the allowed right turn at the intersection? 
Or do you know this to be permanent? In this particular case, based on the info 
I have, the _link way should have access=no and indeed no restriction would be 
necessary. (Obviously I can't make those edits because of <> above.)

I'm not saying that there cannot be exceptions to the general rule that 'when 
there is a turn ramp one must use it', (and as I said before our team is not 
adding these 'implicit' restrictions until we clear this up). What I am looking 
for is more clarity (specifically in Canada but in the US also) as to traffic 
regulations that would make adding these restrictions not only valid but also a 
boost to the quality of OSM data. I would only want us to add these if there is 
no confusion regarding correctness and there is added value to adding them.

I'm cc-ing the US list as there are very similar traffic situations there and 
I'm interested in clarifying the situation there as well.

Martijn

On Apr 3, 2017, at 6:47 AM, James Mast 
> wrote:


Martijn, with your example you gave back 3/30 [1], are you 100% sure that it 
still might be legal to right turn at the main intersection?  It might be if 
you haven't been there, even with the slip lane being there.

Case in point, if you were to have one of your mappers modify this intersection 
[2] with a 'no right turn' relation, you would be adding false information to 
the OSM database.  While there is a 'slip' lane for right turns, there is 
overhead signage past that slip lane leaving US-19 saying that you are allowed 
to make a right hand turn at the intersection.  So, [3] would be completely 
legal and would be prevented if a false relation were to be added here.

This is just something you can't be 100% sure of without visiting it in person, 
or have imagery from something like Mapillary to see it.  So, I can see why 
Andrew was upset about this.

-James

[1] 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car=40.66610,-111.86760;40.66386,-111.86464#map=18/40.66520/-111.86552
[2] 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car=40.58570%2C-80.04423%3B40.58680%2C-80.04410#map=19/40.58625/-80.04431
[3] 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car=40.58614%2C-80.04461%3B40.58680%2C-80.04410#map=19/40.58648/-80.04457



From: Stewart C. Russell >
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 7:26:12 PM
To: talk...@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

On 2017-03-31 04:29 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> … the engine
> may decide, lacking an explicit restriction, to take the non _link turn
> because it's faster even if that is an illegal turn. That is why we need
> these restrictions to be explicit in the data.

but … but — that's Tagging For The Map, or worse, Tagging To Fix
Software Stupidity. It's explicitly mapping something that's *not*
there, and so is contrary to what we're supposed to map.

I don't have a problem with it being in Telenav's data, but it doesn't
belong in OSM.

 Stewart


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

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

Re: [Talk-us] Sabotage or a really bad bot?

[Rihards]

On 2017.04.04. 01:35, Charlotte Wolter wrote:
> 
> Yes, Rihards, I've been doing this since 2009, so I know what a
> driveway is.
> Maybe you should check my woerk to make sure I'm doing it right
> ... NOT!

hmm... that might have come across wrong - did not mean to imply you
doing anything wrong, just mentioned an approach seen before with other
mappers, and it seemed like a simple thing to check - maybe even meant
more for a casual list-reader who might get an impression that driveways
are not welcome in osm.

sorry if the sparse message did not transfer that well between our
cultures - i'll put the blame about the short content without smalltalk
on the lack of time ;)

> Charlotte Wolter
> 
> 
> At 01:54 AM 4/3/2017, you wrote:
>> On 2017.04.03. 04:26, Charlotte Wolter wrote: > Hello, > > I
>> came across a really weird situation while doing a Maproulette >
>> change. > In Rustberg, a small town in rural Virginia >
>> (http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=id#map=16/37.2772/-79.1011),  >
>> almost every driveway has been named after the street it intersects.
>> In > addition, numerous very short "driveways" have been created, some
>> of > which go nowhere. > The edits all were done four years
>> ago, it seems. Here is the > message about the edits: "Edited almost 4
>> years ago by bot-mode > Version #2 · Changeset #15805152." >
>> I removed most of the names and the "driveways" in town, but > they
>> continued well out of town, and finally I gave up. Could someone >
>> take a look at this and, perhaps, reverse the change set? >
>> Thanks the driveways, did you check with sat imagery ? were they at
>> least near what looked like roads or not ? > Charlotte > > > Charlotte
>> Wolter > 927 18th Street Suite A > Santa Monica, California > 90403 >
>> +1-310-597-4040 > techl...@techlady.com > Skype: thetechlady > > > >
>> ___ >  Talk-us mailing
>> list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org >
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us -- Rihards
>> ___ Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> 
> Charlotte Wolter
> 927 18th Street Suite A
> Santa Monica, California
> 90403
> +1-310-597-4040
> techl...@techlady.com
> Skype: thetechlady
> 
> 


-- 
 Rihards

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

Re: [Talk-us] Sabotage or a really bad bot?

[Charlotte Wolter]

Hello,

Looks like, given Paul's information, that I just have to go in and
correct as many as I can.
This is an occasional issue with TIGER data. Somehow, when an
address is located at the end of a driveway, especially long driveways,
the driveway is given the street name. It may be a thing with TIGER
software. Having worked on the Census, I know they create streets by
marking a GPS point for every address. So, somehow the processing of
the information they get, driveways become streets.
I'll keep working on it.

--C




At 01:54 AM 4/3/2017, you wrote:

On 2017.04.03. 04:26, Charlotte Wolter wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I came across a really weird situation while doing a Maproulette
> change.
> In Rustberg, a small town in rural Virginia
> (http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=id#map=16/37.2772/-79.1011),
> almost every driveway has been named after the street it intersects. In
> addition, numerous very short "driveways" have been created, some of
> which go nowhere.
> The edits all were done four years ago, it seems. Here is the
> message about the edits: "Edited almost 4 years ago by bot-mode
> Version #2 · Changeset #15805152."
> I removed most of the names and the "driveways" in town, but
> they continued well out of town, and finally I gave up. Could someone
> take a look at this and, perhaps, reverse the change set?
> Thanks

the driveways, did you check with sat imagery ?
were they at least near what looked like roads or not ?

> Charlotte
>
>
> Charlotte Wolter
> 927 18th Street Suite A
> Santa Monica, California
> 90403
> +1-310-597-4040
> techl...@techlady.com
> Skype: thetechlady
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


--
 Rihards


Charlotte Wolter
927 18th Street Suite A
Santa Monica, California
90403
+1-310-597-4040
techl...@techlady.com
Skype: thetechlady



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

Re: [Talk-us] [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On 04/03/2017 12:18 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> What I am looking for is more clarity (specifically in Canada but
> in the US also) as to traffic regulations that would make adding these
> restrictions not only valid but also a boost to the quality of OSM data.
> I would only want us to add these if there is no confusion regarding
> correctness and there is added value to adding them.
> 
> I'm cc-ing the US list as there are very similar traffic situations
> there and I'm interested in clarifying the situation there as well.

Around Houston, there were a couple of places where it was specifically
signed that one could not make a turn (usually a right turn) at the
intersection if there was a turning bay with a triangular/porkchop
island. However at others there is no explicit signage and in fact
there's one intersection where it's specifically signed that one can
turn out of the second lane at the intersection where it was signed
before "no right turn around island".

To more directly answer the question, I don't think there is a law in
Texas saying that one must use the turning lane if it's present. It's
often ill-advised to make a right turn at the intersection itself in
those cases, though.

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn 
http://www.rantroulette.com
http://www.skqrecordquest.com

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

Re: [Talk-us] [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

[Martijn van Exel]

James -- I could not find any OSC / Mapillary imagery at the location of your 
example so I took a peek at <> google street view. What I see there is 
that the slip road / ramp was (as of Aug 2016 -- temporarily?) closed to 
traffic which may very well inform the allowed right turn at the intersection? 
Or do you know this to be permanent? In this particular case, based on the info 
I have, the _link way should have access=no and indeed no restriction would be 
necessary. (Obviously I can't make those edits because of <> above.)

I'm not saying that there cannot be exceptions to the general rule that 'when 
there is a turn ramp one must use it', (and as I said before our team is not 
adding these 'implicit' restrictions until we clear this up). What I am looking 
for is more clarity (specifically in Canada but in the US also) as to traffic 
regulations that would make adding these restrictions not only valid but also a 
boost to the quality of OSM data. I would only want us to add these if there is 
no confusion regarding correctness and there is added value to adding them.

I'm cc-ing the US list as there are very similar traffic situations there and 
I'm interested in clarifying the situation there as well.

Martijn

> On Apr 3, 2017, at 6:47 AM, James Mast  wrote:
> 
> Martijn, with your example you gave back 3/30 [1], are you 100% sure that it 
> still might be legal to right turn at the main intersection?  It might be if 
> you haven't been there, even with the slip lane being there.
> 
> Case in point, if you were to have one of your mappers modify this 
> intersection [2] with a 'no right turn' relation, you would be adding false 
> information to the OSM database.  While there is a 'slip' lane for right 
> turns, there is overhead signage past that slip lane leaving US-19 saying 
> that you are allowed to make a right hand turn at the intersection.  So, [3] 
> would be completely legal and would be prevented if a false relation were to 
> be added here.
> 
> This is just something you can't be 100% sure of without visiting it in 
> person, or have imagery from something like Mapillary to see it.  So, I can 
> see why Andrew was upset about this.
> 
> -James
> 
> [1] 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car=40.66610,-111.86760;40.66386,-111.86464#map=18/40.66520/-111.86552
>  
> 
> [2] 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car=40.58570%2C-80.04423%3B40.58680%2C-80.04410#map=19/40.58625/-80.04431
>  
> 
> [3] 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car=40.58614%2C-80.04461%3B40.58680%2C-80.04410#map=19/40.58648/-80.04457
>  
> 
> From: Stewart C. Russell 
> Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 7:26:12 PM
> To: talk...@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions
>  
> On 2017-03-31 04:29 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> > … the engine
> > may decide, lacking an explicit restriction, to take the non _link turn
> > because it's faster even if that is an illegal turn. That is why we need
> > these restrictions to be explicit in the data.
> 
> but … but — that's Tagging For The Map, or worse, Tagging To Fix
> Software Stupidity. It's explicitly mapping something that's *not*
> there, and so is contrary to what we're supposed to map.
> 
> I don't have a problem with it being in Telenav's data, but it doesn't
> belong in OSM.
> 
>  Stewart
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> talk...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca 
> 
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> talk...@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca 
> 
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Building import in the Chicago suburbs

[Andy Townsend]

Still no response on this - can anyone suggest a better way of getting 
in contact with Chicago-area mappers?


Best Regards,

Andy Townsend, on behalf of OpenStreetMap's Data Working Group.


On 25/03/2017 08:59, Andy Townsend wrote:
It looks like someone's been trying to perform a building import in 
Oak Park, near Chicago.


I've tried to get in touch with them:

http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=5387019

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/1276

but have had no response so far, although I suspect that the comments 
may have been read because they've actually resolved one of the 
problems raised.


As far as I can tell, there's been no discussion of the import in the 
usual channels.



Does anyone know anything about it, such as the license under which 
the data was imported?  If not, would it be possible for anyone more 
local than me to try and find out?


Best Regards,

Andy Townsend, on behalf of OpenStreetMap's Data Working Group.





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

Re: [Talk-us] Sabotage or a really bad bot?

[Rihards]

On 2017.04.03. 04:26, Charlotte Wolter wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I came across a really weird situation while doing a Maproulette
> change.
> In Rustberg, a small town in rural Virginia
> (http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=id#map=16/37.2772/-79.1011),
> almost every driveway has been named after the street it intersects. In
> addition, numerous very short "driveways" have been created, some of
> which go nowhere.
> The edits all were done four years ago, it seems. Here is the
> message about the edits: "Edited almost 4 years ago by bot-mode
> Version #2 · Changeset #15805152."
> I removed most of the names and the "driveways" in town, but
> they continued well out of town, and finally I gave up. Could someone
> take a look at this and, perhaps, reverse the change set?
> Thanks

the driveways, did you check with sat imagery ?
were they at least near what looked like roads or not ?

> Charlotte
> 
> 
> Charlotte Wolter
> 927 18th Street Suite A
> Santa Monica, California
> 90403
> +1-310-597-4040
> techl...@techlady.com
> Skype: thetechlady
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


-- 
 Rihards

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