Re: [Talk-us] Territorial municipalities, Guam's villages (Max Erickson)
Guam now has its Municipalities entered as boundary=administrative + admin_level=6. I also changed several named and human-settled areas from place=locality (which means uninhabited) to place=hamlet. Hamlet seems appropriate as there appear to be no more than one or two hundred persons and the "next one bigger" (place=village) both seemed too large and could create confusion or ambiguity with the now-entered "Villages," which are properly named with the word "Municipality" at the end of their name. Thanks, everybody! (This thread now really IS closed). SteveA California ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Territorial municipalities, Guam's villages (Max Erickson)
Josh Lee writes: "TIGER Line gives these village boundaries in the "County Subdivisions" file." Thank you, I'm taking a look now. Effectively closing this thread, SteveA California ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Territorial municipalities, Guam's villages (Max Erickson)
Thank you, Nelson. Per the link (and a further link, which points to Simon Poole for the OSMF License Group):"But while neither CC nor the OSMF has undertaken a complete compatibility analysis, we have identified at least one point of incompatibility and one possible challenge regarding attribution that lead us to our decision to continue to ask for explicit permission to use BY 4.0-licensed material in the OSM project."So, if OSM receives explicit permission (I can and have received such permission before, including open-ended permission on future published documents of a certain kind from AASHTO) we are OK. That is satisfactory (I presume) if we get it, but I'd like to ask our community again:Are there are better data regarding Guam's villages/municipality boundaries, with terms compatible with OSM's ODbL?Thank you,SteveACalifornia ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Territorial municipalities, Guam's villages (Max Erickson)
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 1:03 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote: >> Max Erickson writes: >> >> The image the linked image was traced from provides no provenance >> (beyond "Own work"). It's tough to go from there to being sure that >> derived data is okay to contribute to OSM. > > It is explicitly CC BY-SA 4.0. Does OSM have a problem with that? Don't I recall that CC0 is the only CC license that isn't a problem? BY - is attribution on the Contributors page good enough? Nobody knows, so we ask for specific clearance. SA - ODBL doesn't require SA for certain derivative works. ND - Totally unacceptable for a database open for all to edit.. NC - We do not restrict the field of endeavour of our users. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Territorial municipalities, Guam's villages
>> Max Erickson writes: >> >> The image the linked image was traced from provides no provenance >> (beyond "Own work"). It's tough to go from there to being sure that >> derived data is okay to contribute to OSM. > >It is explicitly CC BY-SA 4.0. Does OSM have a problem with that? > >SteveA >California I don't claim to speak for the gestalt that might be OSM, but all we see there is that a Wikipedia editor, "Mr.Election" has asserted CC BY-SA 4.0 over their contribution to the work. They give as a source "This SVG map was traced from Guam-administracja", so to evaluate the copyright status of the SVG, it is also necessary to evaluate the copyright status of the Guam-administracja image. I don't see sufficient provenance to come to a safe conclusion about the status of the Guam-administracja image. In any case, it seems similar boundaries are available from the Census. Max ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Territorial municipalities, Guam's villages (Max Erickson)
> Max Erickson writes: > > The image the linked image was traced from provides no provenance > (beyond "Own work"). It's tough to go from there to being sure that > derived data is okay to contribute to OSM. It is explicitly CC BY-SA 4.0. Does OSM have a problem with that? SteveA California ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Territorial municipalities, Guam's villages
TIGER Line gives these village boundaries in the "County Subdivisions" file. https://www2.census.gov/geo/tiger/TIGER2016/COUSUB/tl_2016_66_cousub.zip The existing boundaries in Guam seem to be tagged as [boundary=census], since they're Census-Designated Places imported from an older version of TIGER. The 2016 vintage is better aligned with the actual boundaries. On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Max Erickson wrote: > The image the linked image was traced from provides no provenance > (beyond "Own work"). It's tough to go from there to being sure that > derived data is okay to contribute to OSM. > > > Max > > ___ > 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 practice in Lane Editing 3
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Horea Meleg wrote: > Hello all, > > Me and my Telenav colleagues are editing lane numbers in Detroit area. We > have two cases, where any opinion would be appreciated. > > *Case 1 * > > We are editing lanes and turn lanes and we came across with those 2 > situations: > I'd consider "a" to be better mapped, though could use improvement, connecting it to the ways to the north and south and specifying turn restrictions (since, theoretically, an emergency vehicle, could physically make it). > *Which road geometry do you think is correct edited? The links are edited > different even that, according to Bing aerial imagery they should be edited > in the same way. Also, in these situations, each road geometry causes a > different lane and turn lane tagging. * > > *Case 2* > > We have this situation: > > 42.6515832, -83.1619915 > > I wouldn't consider the hooks to be part of the same ways on the sides, but their own links. Might have to research local rules to find out what turn restrictions would be applicable. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Territorial municipalities, Guam's villages
The image the linked image was traced from provides no provenance (beyond "Own work"). It's tough to go from there to being sure that derived data is okay to contribute to OSM. Max ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
