Re: [Talk-us] Proposition for changing the common name tag

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

I'll refrain from whether adding (or not) "of America" to the end has anything 
to do with cabals or sovereignty.  I agree with Kevin (and others) that adding 
"it is never incorrect to add it" (can't hurt), usually helps and distinguishes 
Mexican states from the fifty north of the Rio Grande (in some places).  Yes, 
there are eighty to ninety admin_level=4 entities in North America when you add 
Canadian provinces and states in Mexico to the fifty in the USA.

I will say that in the USA there are fifty sovereign states AND a Union of 
these together as a "federal" sovereign state.  In short, "the federal entity" 
and "one of the fifty" are wholly different legal entities and "Union" is an 
approximate word.  Our courts agree.

That's OK:  most people know "there's federal law and there's state law" and 
yeah, that's right.

We do pretty well sorting these things out in OSM, with admin_level and so on.  
I don't think we need any major (or minor) changes to how we name countries or 
states, though sometimes the edges blur and we get better at defining things.  
There are some disputes, there are some boundary issues, we are people making a 
map, we both agree and disagree and we do the best we can.

SteveA
California

> On Aug 16, 2018, at 2:52 PM, talk-us-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
> 
> Send Talk-us mailing list submissions to
>   talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>   https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>   talk-us-requ...@openstreetmap.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>   talk-us-ow...@openstreetmap.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Talk-us digest..."
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. Re: buggy buildings in Maryland (Elliott Plack)
>   2. Re: Proposition for changing the common name tag (Daniel Koć)
>   3. Re: Proposition for changing the common name tag (Daniel Koć)
>   4. Re: Proposition for changing the common name tag (Kevin Kenny)
> 
> From: Elliott Plack 
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] buggy buildings in Maryland
> Date: August 16, 2018 at 11:08:00 AM PDT
> To: Frederik Ramm 
> Cc: "talk-us@openstreetmap.org Openstreetmap" 
> 
> 
> Thanks for bringing this up, Frederik. I reached out to the user in a 
> changeset and a mail thread (links below) and was under the impression that 
> they would fix the problem. Was that really two years ago?
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41375854 - changeset
> https://gist.github.com/talllguy/7d813ece238f359317786a18f7b7bbcb - message 
> thread copy
> 
> I'd say go ahead and remove the extraneous nodes and also any buildings that 
> are either version 0 or do not have any new tags (like names or addresses). 
> The Microsoft buildings could replace any buildings that are only footprints. 
> If you can cull this down to those with some information besides the geometry 
> alone, the community can fill in the blanks.
> 
> 
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 8:10 AM Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> over the last 2 years, DWG has had a three different complaints about a
> buggy building import that has been run on and off by the user
> "annapolissailor".
> 
> The import was problematic in many ways, most obviously because huge
> batches of un-used nodes were uploaded and later it was attempted to
> connect them, which sometimes failed, leaving lots of un-used nodes in
> the database; also, almost all buildings are over-noded, taking 10 or
> more nodes for a simple rectangular building (eg
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/435663194). Buildings that were in the
> area before have been deleted outright, and the data source and legal
> situation is unclear (many buildings are much too precise to have come
> from aerial imagery).
> 
> (Needless to say, had the import been discussed up front as is
> customary, all these issues could have been avoided.)
> 
> I have tried to work with the importer but they seem to be ultimately
> unable or unwilling to fix the problems even though they did seem to
> understand the issue at some point
> (https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/1587). They asked me a couple
> of times to "hold off reverting data until next steps are discussed on
> the imports list" but never followed up on the promise. They claimed to
> have spent hundreds of hours on the JOSM validator improving problems
> they had introduced.
> 
> I am at the moment deleting about 70,000 untagged and un-used nodes that
> have been left over from this import, which is the uncontroversial part.
> 
> The total amount of buildings created and still visible is 177,151, with
> a total of 1,980,336 nodes, in the general area "East of Washington DC,
> South of Baltimore, North of Chesapeake Beach".
> 
> I think these buildings need to be deleted too, given their technical
> (over-noding) and legal (we don't know where the data came from and what
> 

Re: [Talk-us] buggy buildings in Maryland

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 08/16/2018 08:08 PM, Elliott Plack wrote:
> I'd say go ahead and remove the extraneous nodes 

This has now been done.

> and also any buildings
> that are either version 0 or do not have any new tags (like names or
> addresses)

It appears that of the 177,151 buildings still there, only 29,513 have
tags other than building=*. In most cases, these other tags are
addr:street and addr:housenumber.

I'll let this rest for a bit to give others a chance to chime in.

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] place=locality on rail junction

[Kevin Kenny]

I notice around me that the map appears cluttered by a number of
'place=locality' points with alphanumeric names like 'CPF 499' which
appear to be the reference numbers of rail junctions.

Tellingly, the objects all seem to have been added by user 'NE2', who
was well known a few years ago for having eccentric ideas about how
things go on the map.

When I come upon these, what's The Right Thing?  'railway=junction
ref="CPF 499"' instead?
I'm ignorant of rail mapping, since I live in Russ Nelson country and
he's left me little to do in that domain.

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

[Talk-us] Whole-US Garmin Map update - 2018-08-15

[Dave Hansen]

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/2018-08-15

Map to visualize what each file contains:


http://daveh.dev.openstreetmap.org/garmin/Lambertus/2018-08-15/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/2018-08-15

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] Proposition for changing the common name tag

[Kevin Kenny]

The Articles of Confederation included the text, "The Stile of this
Confederation shall be the 'United States of America'"

The Constitution omits any declaration of the correct name and style,
and in fact uses both styles, even in the Preamble. as Daniel Koć
observes.

There are conspiracy theorists who assert that the two are different
entities - they spout bizarre nonsense like
http://supremelaw.org/letters/us-v-usa.htm and http://usavsus.info/ .
(Ordinarily, these are the 'sovereign citizens' who believe that they
can get out of paying their taxes if they come up with the correct
magic words to invalidate the whole body of Federal law. They do not
enjoy very much success in court, but that doesn't keep them from
putting reams of material up on the Web.) Their usual contention is
that the 'United States' is some sort of cabal or corporation that
established the Constitution for the separate entity of the 'United
States of America.'

In practice, it's simply brief writing. The phrase, 'of America,' is
omitted when it is clear from the context, but it is never incorrect
to add it.

More complex is whether the term is singular or plural. It was
reasonably consistent in the early days of the republic that one would
write, 'the United States ARE'. After the time of Reconstruction,
there was a much stronger identity as a nation, and it became
conventional to write, 'the United States IS.' There is a difference
there: the first refers to a collection of separate States, while the
second refers to a singular unified nation. Those who draft the laws
have followed the common speech, giving the conspiracy theorists more
ammunition in the claim that the 'United States' and 'the United
States of America' are separate entities.

Let's try not to throw any more fuel on that particular fire.
On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 2:33 PM Daniel Koć  wrote:
>
> W dniu 16.08.2018 o 19:43, Volker Schmidt pisze:
>
> Looks somewhat strange to me in view of the preamble of the US Constitution:
> " We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, 
> establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common 
> defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to 
> ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for 
> the United States of America. "
>
>
> Could you tell in your words what is strange for you, so we could discuss 
> things in more specific way?
>
> --
> "My method is uncertain/ It's a mess but it's working" [F. Apple]
>
> ___
> 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] Proposition for changing the common name tag

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 16.08.2018 o 19:33, Jack Burke pisze:
> Yes, when people say "United States" they typically mean America and
> not Mexico, but the USA is just as often referred to as "America" as
> it is "United States," which is another reason not to proceed with the
> change.

Hi, Jack!

I think that key word here is "common" - for me "typically mean America
and not Mexico" is a clear example of common use.

English is a foreign language for me, but I have also never heard about
"United States" in the meaning Mexico ("United Mexican States"), which
makes this case stronger for me.

-- 
"My method is uncertain/ It's a mess but it's working" [F. Apple]



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

Re: [Talk-us] Proposition for changing the common name tag

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 16.08.2018 o 19:43, Volker Schmidt pisze:

> Looks somewhat strange to me in view of the preamble of the US
> Constitution:
> " We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
> Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
> common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings
> of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish
> this Constitution for the United States of America. "

Could you tell in your words what is strange for you, so we could
discuss things in more specific way?

-- 
"My method is uncertain/ It's a mess but it's working" [F. Apple]

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

Re: [Talk-us] buggy buildings in Maryland

[Elliott Plack]

Thanks for bringing this up, Frederik. I reached out to the user in a
changeset and a mail thread (links below) and was under the impression that
they would fix the problem. Was that really two years ago?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41375854 - changeset
https://gist.github.com/talllguy/7d813ece238f359317786a18f7b7bbcb - message
thread copy

I'd say go ahead and remove the extraneous nodes and also any buildings
that are either version 0 or do not have any new tags (like names or
addresses). The Microsoft buildings could replace any buildings that are
only footprints. If you can cull this down to those with some information
besides the geometry alone, the community can fill in the blanks.


On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 8:10 AM Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> over the last 2 years, DWG has had a three different complaints about a
> buggy building import that has been run on and off by the user
> "annapolissailor".
>
> The import was problematic in many ways, most obviously because huge
> batches of un-used nodes were uploaded and later it was attempted to
> connect them, which sometimes failed, leaving lots of un-used nodes in
> the database; also, almost all buildings are over-noded, taking 10 or
> more nodes for a simple rectangular building (eg
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/435663194). Buildings that were in the
> area before have been deleted outright, and the data source and legal
> situation is unclear (many buildings are much too precise to have come
> from aerial imagery).
>
> (Needless to say, had the import been discussed up front as is
> customary, all these issues could have been avoided.)
>
> I have tried to work with the importer but they seem to be ultimately
> unable or unwilling to fix the problems even though they did seem to
> understand the issue at some point
> (https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/1587). They asked me a couple
> of times to "hold off reverting data until next steps are discussed on
> the imports list" but never followed up on the promise. They claimed to
> have spent hundreds of hours on the JOSM validator improving problems
> they had introduced.
>
> I am at the moment deleting about 70,000 untagged and un-used nodes that
> have been left over from this import, which is the uncontroversial part.
>
> The total amount of buildings created and still visible is 177,151, with
> a total of 1,980,336 nodes, in the general area "East of Washington DC,
> South of Baltimore, North of Chesapeake Beach".
>
> I think these buildings need to be deleted too, given their technical
> (over-noding) and legal (we don't know where the data came from and what
> license it is under) issues.
>
> However, given how much work the mapper claims to have invested in this,
> I wonder if there's maybe a way to salvage the data. That would first
> require us to clear up the legal situation, and if it turns out the
> source is legal, then we'd have to go about killing the extra nodes in
> buildings.
>
> I'm basically looking for volunteers here. Other mappers have tried to
> discuss the issue with the mapper himself and never got far either, but
> of course if someone wanted to try and enlist annapolissailor's support,
> fair enough (perhaps agree here on the list who's doing it though, so
> that we don't have 10 people spamming him...)
>
> I have prepared a file that contains all the buildings in question:
>
> http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/annapolis.osm.gz
>
> 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
>
-- 
Elliott Plack
http://elliottplack.me
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [Talk-us-nps] [EXTERNAL] North Carolina National Park

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

domain. US Federal government datasets are mandated to be in the 
> public domain, so there are no issues using them for OpenStreetMap.
> 
> Since this National Forest and Wildlife area are not units of the National 
> Park System, you will not find them in the irma.nps.gov<http://irma.nps.gov> 
> dataset. It looks like your best source of data for this will be the PDF that 
> you linked: 
> https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5403940.pdf -- 
> Although it doesn't appear that the PDF is geo-enabled.
> 
> I was able to find the boundary in the dataset named "Administrative Forest 
> Boundaries": 
> https://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/edw/datasets.php?dsetCategory=boundaries
> That may be another good source.
> 
> I would also suggest overlaying the boundaries and making tweaks to the 
> existing OSM boundary instead of importing the new boundary and deleting the 
> old. That would allow existing points in the database to maintain their 
> history.
> 
> I'm hoping someone from the general talk-us group can provide more input on 
> this. Best of luck!
> 
> --
> Jim McAndrew
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 9:39 AM Nicolas Duclos 
> mailto:dunic...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> I’m new in OSM Community and after a short trip on East Coast of North 
> Carolina, I decided to help making NC more accurate than it is right now.
> 
> I’m currently trying to edit or remake the Croatan National Forest, but I’m 
> not too sure how to achieve it by importing data. Currently for some reasons 
> there is two Croatan National Forest at the same place and the shape is not 
> really accurate compared to other maps out there.
> 
> Here is what I found :
> 
> http://data.nconemap.gov/geoportal/dataexplorer/index.jsp
> 
> https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5403940.pdf
> 
> Not too sure about the proclamation area on the map and what’s the difference 
> between national forest and wilderness.
> 
> I could also create trails and outdoor activities spot in OSM.
> 
> Data :
> 
> http://data.nconemap.gov/geoportal/catalog/main/home.page (type marea in 
> search box)
> or
> https://irma.nps.gov/DataStore/Reference/Profile/2224545?lnv=True
> 
> Not too sure which data to take or how they works.
> 
> Thank you very much for your help.
> 
> Nic from Canada 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This electronic message contains information generated by the USDA solely for 
> the intended recipients. Any unauthorized interception of this message or the 
> use or disclosure of the information it contains may violate the law and 
> subject the violator to civil or criminal penalties. If you believe you have 
> received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete the email 
> immediately.
> ------ next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us-nps/attachments/20180816/6a533f9d/attachment.html>
> -- next part --
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image001.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 7801 bytes
> Desc: image001.png
> URL: 
> <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us-nps/attachments/20180816/6a533f9d/attachment.png>
> -- next part --
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image002.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 1701 bytes
> Desc: image002.png
> URL: 
> <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us-nps/attachments/20180816/6a533f9d/attachment-0001.png>
> -- next part --
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image003.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 1594 bytes
> Desc: image003.png
> URL: 
> <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us-nps/attachments/20180816/6a533f9d/attachment-0002.png>
> -- next part --
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image004.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 1453 bytes
> Desc: image004.png
> URL: 
> <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us-nps/attachments/20180816/6a533f9d/attachment-0003.png>
> 
> --
> 
> Subject: Digest Footer
> 
> ___
> Talk-us-nps mailing list
> talk-us-...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us-nps
> 
> 
> --
> 
> End of Talk-us-nps Digest, Vol 13, Issue 5
> **


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

[Talk-us] Proposition for changing the common name tag

[Volker Schmidt]

>
> I wanted to let you know about proposed change in tagging the name of
> USA and I seek for the feedback about it - see the proposition here:
>
> https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=63384
>  openstreetmap.org%2Fviewtopic.php%3Fid%3D63384=3>
>
> Looks somewhat strange to me in view of the preamble of the US
Constitution:
" We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of
Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America. "
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Proposition for changing the common name tag

[Jack Burke]

I am opposed to this suggestion, because there are two countries called "United 
States" in North America: the United States of America, and the United States 
of Mexico.

Yes, when people say "United States" they typically mean America and not 
Mexico, but the USA is just as often referred to as "America" as it is "United 
States," which is another reason not to proceed with the change. 

-jack

-- 
Typos courtesy of fancy auto spell technology

On August 16, 2018 12:51:27 PM EDT, "Daniel Koć"  wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I wanted to let you know about proposed change in tagging the name of
>USA and I seek for the feedback about it - see the proposition here:
>
>https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=63384
>
>
>
>
>
>-- 
>"My method is uncertain/ It's a mess but it's working" [F. Apple]
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] State of the Map US Early Bird tickets end tomorrow!

[Bryan Housel]

A few quick reminders about... 
State of the Map US    Detroit, MI · October 5-7th  


  The reduced-price tickets will be available until midnight tomorrow on 
Friday, August 17th.
Sign up today before the price doubles… 
https://2018.stateofthemap.us/ 

By the way if you are an OpenStreetMap US member, we just sent out a coupon 
code...
If you’re not an OpenStreetMap US member, join today to save some money on the 
conference!  
Visit this link to check or renew your membership: 
https://join.openstreetmap.us/ 


  Check out full State of the Map US Program!
The program for State of the Map US is going to be amazing.  We're excited to 
have over 45 talks spread over 3 days in October so you can learn more from the 
OpenStreetMap US community!  There will also be workshops, social events, and 
hacking.
https://2018.stateofthemap.us/program/ 

Some highlights:
• Clifford Snow will be talkingabout OpenStreetMap in rural America.
• Julian Simioni will be talking about how to improve data for geocoding.
• Drishtie Patel will talk about Facebook's use of OpenStreetMap.

Follow State of the Map US on Twitter and share the latest news:  
https://twitter.com/sotmus 
Looking forward to seeing everyone in Detroit!! 

Bryan


P.S. Want to know what to expect?  Check out our pictures from previous years 
State of the Map US:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/openstreetmapus/albums 



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

[Talk-us] Proposition for changing the common name tag

[Daniel Koć]

Hi,

I wanted to let you know about proposed change in tagging the name of
USA and I seek for the feedback about it - see the proposition here:

https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=63384





-- 
"My method is uncertain/ It's a mess but it's working" [F. Apple]

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

Re: [Talk-us] State Open Data (Brian May)

[Tom Lee]

> If a billionaire is reading this list and wants to put their money
> towards doing a lot of public good and good for the economy in general
> (data is the new oil), they could make the sky rain lawyers!

I share your enthusiasm for billionaires with idiosyncratic obsessions (who
doesn't like Batman?) and think this would be a great project.

But let me also add that there's a lot of work we non-billionaires (and
even non-lawyers) can do to make this scenario more likely. Going through
the tedious process of FOIAing, appealing the denial, then FOIAing for the
emails about the process, then publishing everything in a blog post --
these steps set the stage for a larger action (if appropriate) and
typically have to be done first. Actual practitioners are the ones in the
best position to know what data is needed and where the rationale for
keeping it locked up is most absurd. Not every one of these efforts will
end in success, but it's a necessary start.

I'll add that folks who do undertake such an effort might want to check out
MuckRock, which is a great resource for submitting and sharing FOIAs. And
of course Carl Malamud's work at public.resource.org is an inspiration on
this front, though I suspect he's so much on his plate that it might be
hard to get him interested in geodata.

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

[Talk-us] [Talk-us-nps] North Carolina National Park

[Jim McAndrew]

Nic,

I'm CCing the general talk-us on this, since National Forests are outside
of the separate from the National Park Service, and there may be someone
there who can provide more guidance.

In this particular case the Pocosin Wilderness Area is managed by the
Forest Service (part of the US Dept of Agriculture), although "wilderness
areas" can be managed by a number of groups within the federal government.

If you're using data from state governments, you will need to look at the
licensing restrictions, because many states do not release their data into
public domain. US Federal government datasets are mandated to be in the
public domain, so there are no issues using them for OpenStreetMap.

Since this National Forest and Wildlife area are not units of the National
Park System, you will not find them in the irma.nps.gov dataset. It looks
like your best source of data for this will be the PDF that you linked:
https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5403940.pdf --
Although it doesn't appear that the PDF is geo-enabled.

I was able to find the boundary in the dataset named "Administrative Forest
Boundaries": https://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/edw/datasets.
php?dsetCategory=boundaries
That may be another good source.

I would also suggest overlaying the boundaries and making tweaks to the
existing OSM boundary instead of importing the new boundary and deleting
the old. That would allow existing points in the database to maintain their
history.

I'm hoping someone from the general talk-us group can provide more input on
this. Best of luck!

--
Jim McAndrew



On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 9:39 AM Nicolas Duclos  wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I’m new in OSM Community and after a short trip on East Coast of North
> Carolina, I decided to help making NC more accurate than it is right now.
>
> I’m currently trying to edit or remake the Croatan National Forest, but
> I’m not too sure how to achieve it by importing data. Currently for some
> reasons there is two Croatan National Forest at the same place and the
> shape is not really accurate compared to other maps out there.
>
> Here is what I found :
>
> http://data.nconemap.gov/geoportal/dataexplorer/index.jsp
>
> https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5403940.pdf
>
> Not too sure about the proclamation area on the map and what’s the
> difference between national forest and wilderness.
>
> I could also create trails and outdoor activities spot in OSM.
>
> Data :
>
> http://data.nconemap.gov/geoportal/catalog/main/home.page (type *marea*
> in search box)
> or
> https://irma.nps.gov/DataStore/Reference/Profile/2224545?lnv=True
>
> Not too sure which data to take or how they works.
>
> Thank you very much for your help.
>
> Nic from Canada 
>
>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] buggy buildings in Maryland

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

over the last 2 years, DWG has had a three different complaints about a
buggy building import that has been run on and off by the user
"annapolissailor".

The import was problematic in many ways, most obviously because huge
batches of un-used nodes were uploaded and later it was attempted to
connect them, which sometimes failed, leaving lots of un-used nodes in
the database; also, almost all buildings are over-noded, taking 10 or
more nodes for a simple rectangular building (eg
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/435663194). Buildings that were in the
area before have been deleted outright, and the data source and legal
situation is unclear (many buildings are much too precise to have come
from aerial imagery).

(Needless to say, had the import been discussed up front as is
customary, all these issues could have been avoided.)

I have tried to work with the importer but they seem to be ultimately
unable or unwilling to fix the problems even though they did seem to
understand the issue at some point
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/1587). They asked me a couple
of times to "hold off reverting data until next steps are discussed on
the imports list" but never followed up on the promise. They claimed to
have spent hundreds of hours on the JOSM validator improving problems
they had introduced.

I am at the moment deleting about 70,000 untagged and un-used nodes that
have been left over from this import, which is the uncontroversial part.

The total amount of buildings created and still visible is 177,151, with
a total of 1,980,336 nodes, in the general area "East of Washington DC,
South of Baltimore, North of Chesapeake Beach".

I think these buildings need to be deleted too, given their technical
(over-noding) and legal (we don't know where the data came from and what
license it is under) issues.

However, given how much work the mapper claims to have invested in this,
I wonder if there's maybe a way to salvage the data. That would first
require us to clear up the legal situation, and if it turns out the
source is legal, then we'd have to go about killing the extra nodes in
buildings.

I'm basically looking for volunteers here. Other mappers have tried to
discuss the issue with the mapper himself and never got far either, but
of course if someone wanted to try and enlist annapolissailor's support,
fair enough (perhaps agree here on the list who's doing it though, so
that we don't have 10 people spamming him...)

I have prepared a file that contains all the buildings in question:

http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/annapolis.osm.gz

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