Re: [Talk-us] gunnison national forest not being rendered
Have you tried loading affected relation in JOSM and running validator? It often spots important problems. If you want to do it but gave no idea how to do it, let us know and I will explain it in detail. Mar 3, 2019, 12:15 AM by bradha...@fastmail.com: > Help me understand why Gunnison NF is not being rendered on the OSMmap > (nor on my mkgmap build). Right next to it is San Isabel NF, same tags > & it shows up as do many other NF. > > Relation: > Gunnison National Forest> (> 5579230> ) > Relation: > San Isabel National Forest> (> 396343> ) > ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] gunnison national forest not being rendered
I'm not sure it's tagged correctly. boundary:type=protected_area, should be boundary=protected_area. Although I do see boundary:type in use. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area See https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1399218#map=9/47.9660/-121.5472 for a National Forest near me that renders or at least renders the borders. I'm also looking at tagging of conservation areas. We have 15K protected areas in the continental US. About 5K are missing the protect_class tag. Although it might be that they shouldn't be a tagged as boundary=protected_area. I hope to put together a Maproulette challenge to work on fixing these. Best, Clifford On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 4:08 PM brad wrote: > Help me understand why Gunnison NF is not being rendered on the OSM map > (nor on my mkgmap build). Right next to it is San Isabel NF, same tags & > it shows up as do many other NF. > > Relation: Gunnison National Forest (5579230) > Relation: San Isabel National Forest (396343) > > See attached screenshots > > Brad > > > > > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > -- @osm_seattle osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Road name update challenges
On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 5:27 AM Mike N wrote: > On 3/1/2019 12:49 PM, Clifford Snow wrote: > > > > One caution - when doing a building/address import a few years ago, we > > discovered errors in the counties address database. They had different > > street names from address street names. The street names matched the > > street signs but the addresses had a different street name. These were > > reported to the county > > Did you find that the addresses tended to be more correct in your > case? In the few cases I cross checked against a business mailing > address, the address seemed to be correct. > Yes - the address are a good indicator of street name. They were found using the JOSM mapcss paint style that colors by the street name. -- @osm_seattle osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Road name update challenges
On 3/1/2019 12:49 PM, Clifford Snow wrote: One caution - when doing a building/address import a few years ago, we discovered errors in the counties address database. They had different street names from address street names. The street names matched the street signs but the addresses had a different street name. These were reported to the county Did you find that the addresses tended to be more correct in your case? In the few cases I cross checked against a business mailing address, the address seemed to be correct. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Road name update challenges
On 3/1/2019 10:09 AM, Aaron Forsythe wrote: >> 1. Original TIGER had Ruppe Dr at a nearby but incorrect location. This seems a common enough occurrence that a TIGER data should not be used as permanent source. It's only there to get the map started and adjustments from TIGER are required. The "TIGER challenges" began as a way to fill in all the new subdivisions in areas with no other public data. It has been very effective for those areas. TIGER continues to evolve and improve in its own way, and is suitable as a reference when there is no better public data. >> The wrong Tuppe Drive still has a "source" tag which is now misleading. It's not really misleading, as that is still where it came from. Does 'it' refer to the geometry, the current or former name, the classification as residential (current) or service (previous)? What if the road has to be split in the future? Use the source tag and include a date of the survey. This won’t directly stop an overwrite, but will at least give a date to compare against. It seems the whole issue stems from an automatic edit without proper integration. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct I don't see these as automated edits; they are automated detection of possible places to improve the map. If the challenges are built with the latest data, the problem of disagreeing challenges goes away. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
