Re: [Talk-us] Tiger Zip Data Removal Project (Update)

[m]

Hi Hans,

I sincerely hope you’ll reconsider because I know that you have a lot of 
positive energy to bring to the US community.

I think what you might take away from this is that a single thread on the 
mailing list is not always enough to gauge the temperature of the community. 
There are many mappers who are not on the mailing list at all or, like me, are 
on it but pay only occasional attention to it.  Once you start to get negative 
feedback on edits, I think it is a signal to pause and rethink, and perhaps 
spend some more time discussing. Not necessarily to give up! Criticism and 
negativity are cheap commodities on the internet, and OSM is no exception. 

I think there is value in your idea to remove redundant TIGER tags but perhaps 
a different approach is called for. Frederik had some good advice to share in 
that regard. Perhaps a more gentle way to go about it is to discuss extending 
the set of tags that are automatically removed when editing a TIGER way in JOSM 
(and iD?).

Best
Martijn


> On Jul 8, 2017, at 2:37 PM, Hans De Kryger  wrote:
> 
> So last month i started a discussion about a project i took on removing Tiger 
> zip data across the U.S. I brought it to the community after i received 
> concern from quite a few mappers in the U.S. After getting more unfriendly 
> changeset comments and messages in my inbox i'm officially done.  The Project 
> is done for good. Not really wanting to get in an argument daily with the 
> messages I've gotten in my mailbox. I've learned first hand just how 
> unfriendly the osm community can be. It makes me quite sad to see that side 
> of the it. I've been apart of osm for 4+ years and this type of response from 
> the community makes me never want to contribute ever again.
> 
> Regards,
> Hans
> ___
> 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] Ferry durations

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

I like the idea of adding ferries without duration to MapRoulette — great idea!If you don't, I will!  (Well, it might take me a while).I'll check in a week or so and if nobody has, I'll give it a go.(Last ferry I rode in BC was to Bowen Island to attend a wedding of some friends who grew up there).SteveACalifornia
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [Talk-ca] Ferry durations

[m]

There were a few that one of my colleague added yesterday (look for *_telenav 
user names in the metadata, example https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/10853579 
 ) So if that completes the 
picture, great. If you want to check for other provinces, just replace the name 
in the overpass query.

There is a discussion thread emerging around tagging these durations that split 
off in talk-us. If you’re interested and not subscribed there I can cc this 
list again.

Martijn

> On Jul 12, 2017, at 2:03 PM, Alan Richards  wrote:
> 
> Are there any ferry routes without duration left? That overpass query shows 
> all the common ferry routes I know offhand in the province.
> 
> Alan
> 
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:57 AM, > 
> wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Just to let you know, my map team colleagues have been adding a few 
> `duration` tags to ferry routes in BC yesterday. Since this was already 
> established practice, I am only mentioning it now. I am crossposting to 
> talk-us because I wanted to see if folks there have given any thought to 
> ferry duration tagging? The documented practice is to add duration=hh:mm to 
> the way that makes up the ferry route. If you think this is fun to map I 
> could add ferry routes without duration to MapRoulette.
> 
> Here is the current state of duration tags in BC: 
> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/qlE 
> 
> Martijn
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Ferry durations

[m]

> On Jul 12, 2017, at 1:52 PM, m...@rtijn.org wrote:
> 
> I used to depend on a ferry for my commute[1] so the topic connects with me 
> as well.
> 
> Looking at how this is currently mapped, I see some shortcomings we might 
> want to address:
> * The duration is mostly mapped on the way, rather than the route=ferry 
> relation. Often the route is more than one way, wouldn’t it make more sense 
> to map duration as a tag on the relation?

Case in point, run this query and you see that the result is just the start / 
end stubs of the route, the ‘main’ ferry route way apparently has the duration 
tag: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/qlF

> * The duration can be different depending on time of day / direction. 
> Accounting for that may make the tagging unwieldy so I’m inclined to not deal 
> with that, but what are your thoughts?
> * Would it make sense to map hours / days of operation using the 
> opening_hours schema as well?
> 
> Martijn
> 
> [1] This was back in Amsterdam. There is a tunnel for motorized traffic to 
> the city, but the only option for cyclists and pedestrians (>50% of all 
> commutes!) is a ferry. It runs very frequently and the crossing is short, but 
> to optimize my commute I created a mobile web site that counted down to the 
> next departure, so I could quickly look up the time to the next departure so 
> I knew whether to pedal a little faster or slower. Defunct now but here is 
> the blog post for historical reference 
> https://oegeo.wordpress.com/2010/11/26/public-transit-schedule-encoding/ 
>  
> 
>> On Jul 12, 2017, at 1:24 PM, Nick Peihl > > wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Martijn,
>> 
>> As a resident of a ferry-served island in WA, I fully support adding this 
>> job to MapRoulette. Thanks!
>> 
>> Nick
>> 
>> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:57 AM, > 
>> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> Just to let you know, my map team colleagues have been adding a few 
>> `duration` tags to ferry routes in BC yesterday. Since this was already 
>> established practice, I am only mentioning it now. I am crossposting to 
>> talk-us because I wanted to see if folks there have given any thought to 
>> ferry duration tagging? The documented practice is to add duration=hh:mm to 
>> the way that makes up the ferry route. If you think this is fun to map I 
>> could add ferry routes without duration to MapRoulette.
>> 
>> Here is the current state of duration tags in BC: 
>> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/qlE 
>> 
>> Martijn
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> 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 mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Ferry durations

[m]

I used to depend on a ferry for my commute[1] so the topic connects with me as 
well.

Looking at how this is currently mapped, I see some shortcomings we might want 
to address:
* The duration is mostly mapped on the way, rather than the route=ferry 
relation. Often the route is more than one way, wouldn’t it make more sense to 
map duration as a tag on the relation?
* The duration can be different depending on time of day / direction. 
Accounting for that may make the tagging unwieldy so I’m inclined to not deal 
with that, but what are your thoughts?
* Would it make sense to map hours / days of operation using the opening_hours 
schema as well?

Martijn

[1] This was back in Amsterdam. There is a tunnel for motorized traffic to the 
city, but the only option for cyclists and pedestrians (>50% of all commutes!) 
is a ferry. It runs very frequently and the crossing is short, but to optimize 
my commute I created a mobile web site that counted down to the next departure, 
so I could quickly look up the time to the next departure so I knew whether to 
pedal a little faster or slower. Defunct now but here is the blog post for 
historical reference 
https://oegeo.wordpress.com/2010/11/26/public-transit-schedule-encoding/ 
 

> On Jul 12, 2017, at 1:24 PM, Nick Peihl  wrote:
> 
> Hi Martijn,
> 
> As a resident of a ferry-served island in WA, I fully support adding this job 
> to MapRoulette. Thanks!
> 
> Nick
> 
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:57 AM, > 
> wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Just to let you know, my map team colleagues have been adding a few 
> `duration` tags to ferry routes in BC yesterday. Since this was already 
> established practice, I am only mentioning it now. I am crossposting to 
> talk-us because I wanted to see if folks there have given any thought to 
> ferry duration tagging? The documented practice is to add duration=hh:mm to 
> the way that makes up the ferry route. If you think this is fun to map I 
> could add ferry routes without duration to MapRoulette.
> 
> Here is the current state of duration tags in BC: 
> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/qlE 
> 
> Martijn
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Ferry durations

[m]

Hi all, 

Just to let you know, my map team colleagues have been adding a few `duration` 
tags to ferry routes in BC yesterday. Since this was already established 
practice, I am only mentioning it now. I am crossposting to talk-us because I 
wanted to see if folks there have given any thought to ferry duration tagging? 
The documented practice is to add duration=hh:mm to the way that makes up the 
ferry route. If you think this is fun to map I could add ferry routes without 
duration to MapRoulette.

Here is the current state of duration tags in BC: 
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/qlE 

Martijn


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

Re: [Talk-us] Talk-us Digest, Vol 116, Issue 20

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 11.07.2017 22:31, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:
>> The only reason to have an admin level 4 boundary inside a state, would
>> be if there was somehow a piece of *federal* territory inside the state.
>> Only then would the state have a "hole" in it that would be tagged with
>> admin level 4! An area inside the state that is state-governed because
>> of a lack of admin_level 5+ entity does not need its own boundary. It is
>> defined by the boundaries of the admin_level 5+ entities that surround it.
> 
> OK, I'll take your word for it.  But I ask you to please further clarify that 
> in that first case (where you say *federal*):  is it more correct to say 
> "anything above state?"  

Yes, if there were something at admin_level 3 then of course the area
where a hole was punched into the admin_level 4 area (*or* a gap between
neihgbouring admin_level 4 areas!) would be assumed to be governed by
that admin_level 3 body.

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