Re: [Talk-us] Mapping rail trails
Phil! and Kevin, I like everything said! "Huge are tough to edit," yes. "Tie them all together with a super-relation to show that they are together with certain tags," yes, or maybe. I'm kicking it around, we are. The C Trail does make for an interesting case. We might agree that cycle_network=US:NPS is a good start. But exactly which object in OSM to tag this? Sometimes we make what seems like a duplicate of existing data, sometimes we shine a bright light forward by keeping things separate at the cost of a bit of apparent redundancy but really more like specificity. Sometimes we tie a bow AND a ribbon on things. OK. Richard (username) edited relation 1392951 a day or so ago and I'd say tightened up at the Maryland level. If somebody tied this COC and others together into a "C" super-relation tagged with cycle_network=US:NPS (and "the correct" member elements as state-level routes) I could see balls continuing to bounce as they have been, especially as mild naming conventions "stitch a whole" together, Lonvia's routes panel is quite informative in this regard, though the alphabetic vs. numeric sorting of the USBRs went out the window long ago. If not, OK. If COC and others get a cycle_network=US:NPS tag, and we pause, no super-relation, OK, that makes sense, too. I think we have to "keep being sensible." Maybe have a check point amongst ourselves every once in a while. Consensus can be slow. With less wordiness, I know. It's a big country, a big map, a big planet. Let's do our best, especially when talking with each other about how we agree things are built. It's been chaotic, it has always a little chaotic, nothing wrong with a little order understood amongst us. SteveA ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Next Mappy Hour July 10!
I like this idea, I would be happy to talk about StreetComplete and Vespucci. 12 Jul 2019, 23:10 by m...@rtijn.org: > Hi all, > > Thanks for participating in the Virtual Mappy Hour this week! We had a record > number of 16 participants (from as far away as Poland and Japan) and lively > discussion on a variety of mappy topics. I enjoyed it very much and I hope > you did as well. > > I will announce the next Mappy Hour soon. I suggest we make the next one > about field mapping and associated tools like StreetComplete, GoMap, > Vespucci, Fieldpapers etc! What do you think? > -- > Martijn van Exel > m...@rtijn.org > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2019, at 12:34, Martijn van Exel wrote: > >> Hi all, >> Final call for people who want to present a mappy topic at tomorrow's >> mappy hour! >> Doesn't have to be anything too formal / prepared.. Just take 5 minutes >> to present what you work on / how you map / how OSM has changed your >> life / what you think the difference is between amenity=pub and >> amenity=bar / ... >> In any case, see you tomorrow! >> -- >> Martijn van Exel >> m...@rtijn.org >> >> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019, at 08:58, Martijn van Exel wrote: >> > Hi all! >> > >> > Here’s a reminder, Mappy Hour next Wednesday! Sending out the reminder >> > a little early because of the upcoming holiday weekend. Details and >> > sign up link in the thread below. So far we have 9 folks signed up. >> > Signing up is optional but you get to express your topic preferences. >> > So far we have a wide range: >> > >> > * Tagging for data consumers >> > * Vodka >> > * Mapping bike routes and trails; and OSMAnd Specific considerations >> > * A future program to qualify new mappers >> > * Tips on how to quickly determine potentially missing/old information >> > of existing ways (buildings, roads, forests, etc.) >> > >> > I hope to see you there! July 10 6pm PT / 9pm ET >> > >> > Martijn >> > >> > -- >> > Martijn van Exel >> > m...@rtijn.org >> > >> > On Wed, Jun 26, 2019, at 16:05, Martijn van Exel wrote: >> > > Here's a sign up link. It helps me a lot if you fill this out if you >> > > plan to attend. Thanks! >> > > https://forms.gle/WktPPimyB69jGnH29 >> > > -- >> > > Martijn van Exel >> > > m...@rtijn.org >> > > >> > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2019, at 11:16, Martijn van Exel wrote: >> > > > Hi all, >> > > > The next OSM US Virtual Mappy Hour will be on July 10 at 6pm PT / 9pm >> > > > ET! >> > > > As always the Mappy Hour is a great place to catch up with your fellow >> > > > mappers, and learn something new. >> > > > I am always looking for volunteers to do a 5 minute presentation on >> > > > something they are working on. This can be a personal mapping project, >> > > > a local mapping group update, something interesting going on at your >> > > > company.. As long as it's OSM related! >> > > > See the OSM wiki for more details on how to join --> >> > > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters/United_States/Virtual_Mappy_Hours >> > > > See you then! >> > > > -- >> > > > Martijn van Exel >> > > > m...@rtijn.org >> > > > >> > > > ___ >> > > > 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 >> > >> >> ___ >> 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] Next Mappy Hour July 10!
Hi all, Thanks for participating in the Virtual Mappy Hour this week! We had a record number of 16 participants (from as far away as Poland and Japan) and lively discussion on a variety of mappy topics. I enjoyed it very much and I hope you did as well. I will announce the next Mappy Hour soon. I suggest we make the next one about field mapping and associated tools like StreetComplete, GoMap, Vespucci, Fieldpapers etc! What do you think? -- Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org On Tue, Jul 9, 2019, at 12:34, Martijn van Exel wrote: > Hi all, > Final call for people who want to present a mappy topic at tomorrow's > mappy hour! > Doesn't have to be anything too formal / prepared.. Just take 5 minutes > to present what you work on / how you map / how OSM has changed your > life / what you think the difference is between amenity=pub and > amenity=bar / ... > In any case, see you tomorrow! > -- > Martijn van Exel > m...@rtijn.org > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019, at 08:58, Martijn van Exel wrote: > > Hi all! > > > > Here’s a reminder, Mappy Hour next Wednesday! Sending out the reminder > > a little early because of the upcoming holiday weekend. Details and > > sign up link in the thread below. So far we have 9 folks signed up. > > Signing up is optional but you get to express your topic preferences. > > So far we have a wide range: > > > > * Tagging for data consumers > > * Vodka > > * Mapping bike routes and trails; and OSMAnd Specific considerations > > * A future program to qualify new mappers > > * Tips on how to quickly determine potentially missing/old information > > of existing ways (buildings, roads, forests, etc.) > > > > I hope to see you there! July 10 6pm PT / 9pm ET > > > > Martijn > > > > -- > > Martijn van Exel > > m...@rtijn.org > > > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2019, at 16:05, Martijn van Exel wrote: > > > Here's a sign up link. It helps me a lot if you fill this out if you > > > plan to attend. Thanks! > > > https://forms.gle/WktPPimyB69jGnH29 > > > -- > > > Martijn van Exel > > > m...@rtijn.org > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2019, at 11:16, Martijn van Exel wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > The next OSM US Virtual Mappy Hour will be on July 10 at 6pm PT / 9pm > > > > ET! > > > > As always the Mappy Hour is a great place to catch up with your fellow > > > > mappers, and learn something new. > > > > I am always looking for volunteers to do a 5 minute presentation on > > > > something they are working on. This can be a personal mapping project, > > > > a local mapping group update, something interesting going on at your > > > > company.. As long as it's OSM related! > > > > See the OSM wiki for more details on how to join --> > > > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters/United_States/Virtual_Mappy_Hours > > > > See you then! > > > > -- > > > > Martijn van Exel > > > > m...@rtijn.org > > > > > > > > ___ > > > > 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 > > > > ___ > 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] Mapping rail trails
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 9:36 AM Phil! Gold wrote: > The "state at a time" pattern, as I have always understood it, exists to > keep vastly distant objects from being linked with each other. It makes > it much less likely for someone, say, updating I-95 in Florida to get an > editing conflict with someone else who made a change in Massachusetts. > State borders provide convenient locations for the division of overly-lond > relations. It's mostly, as I understand it, "huge routes cause editing conflicts, make validation difficult, and otherwise make trouble for the tools," combined with, "if you're going to break up a route, break it in places that make some sort of sense." When I created the (still incomplete, sorry!) relation for the Long Path hiking trail, I found that the tools were struggling with the number of way segments. (I switched to Meerkartor briefly at one point because JOSM would crash on me!) I made the totally arbitrary decision that the best points to break it up were the county lines. I then made the even more arbitrary decision that I'd lump in the George Washington Bridge and 179th Street in with Bergen County, because it just didn't feel right to create a New York County trail section for that short a distance over city streets. If it turns out that the sections will indeed have distinct attributes (this includes Richard Fairhurst's observation that different states treat their bicycle routes with different levels of respect), it'll be easy to break them apart. Merging route relations is harder, because when two relations merge into one, one of them is deleted, damaging the ability of some of the history tools to track changes. I'm therefore inclined to say, "if it's already split in the database, leave it split; create a group if necessary". The tools deal with routes-inside-routes pretty well. https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=919642 manages to assemble the sections into a coherent whole. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Mapping rail trails
* stevea [2019-07-11 17:38 -0700]: > I know it seems "like it just makes sense" to combine Maryland and DC > relations, but there are rather deliberate reasons to keep these > separate. One is state-level, the other is federal-level (is one), but > the "state at a time for route relations" is a fairly well-established > method of tossing things into buckets. We do it with bike routes, > motorways and more. However: The C Trail is contained within the C National Historic Park, which is owned by the National Park Service, so it's all really at the same (federal) level. The "state at a time" pattern, as I have always understood it, exists to keep vastly distant objects from being linked with each other. It makes it much less likely for someone, say, updating I-95 in Florida to get an editing conflict with someone else who made a change in Massachusetts. State borders provide convenient locations for the division of overly-lond relations. It's also a rule of thumb; I've seen plenty of cases where short distances in multiple states are aggregated into a single relation. (e.g. there's only one relation for US 340, although it spans MD, VA (in two sections), and WV.) Since there's only a short section of the C Canal Trail in DC, I don't really see the harm in putting all of its ways into a single relation. -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- Anyone who has never hacked sendmail.cf has no soul. Anyone who has hacked it twice has no brain. -- Peter da Silva --- -- ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Mapping rail trails
Minh Nguyen wrote: > As with the network tag on bus routes, what's important for both > network and cycle_network is that the route is intended to form > part of a coherent *network* (almost like a brand, but not quite). It's also useful for those of us writing routers, as it means we can avoid applying a route relation uplift in those states that send bike routes along entirely unsuitable state roads. (New York is a particular offender but there are others.) On my relationising travels, I spotted a couple of places where people had mapped a city cycle network as a single route relation, often with "System" in the title: Flagstaff Urban Trail System was one such. This is clearly wrong. As a quick fix I changed the relation tagging from type=route to type=network - which, interestingly, Waymarked Trails still renders: https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=2815833 - and created relations for some of the longer routes. But really it needs all the routes to be broken out into individual relations and given a common cycle_network tag. cheers Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/USA-f5284732.html ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
