Re: [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

[Mateusz Konieczny]

20 Dec 2019, 01:25 by ba...@ursamundi.org:

> So, for example, in the US, instead of motorway, trunk, primary, secondary, 
> tertiary, perhaps something more like freeway, expressway, 
> major/minor_principal (just having this would fix a *lot* of problems with 
> Texas and Missouri and their extensive secondary systems), 
> major/minor_collector...the US just has a way more complex view of how 
> highways work.  
>
> Or at least some more serious consideration given to the proposal at > 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:UltimateRiff/HFCS>  (but perhaps 
> with "other principal arterials" as primary and a new "highway=quartinary".
>
Fitting thing like road classification
into UK system is irritating at times.

But idea of each country with separate tags
for roads is simply a bad idea.

This info is probably worth recording,
but legal status should go into a separate tag.

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

Re: [Talk-us] confusing state of USFS trail names in Oregon

[Tod Fitch]

In my area there are variations on the Forest Service signs as well (“Ice House 
Canyon Trail” vs “Icehouse Canyon Trail” and “Chiquito Trail” vs “Chiquita 
Trail” are two examples that come to mind). I suspect some of the variations 
are due to changes in spelling, etc. over time so the older signs don’t match 
the newer signs.

The Forest Service is supposed to maintain an official inventory of trails and 
roads. A copy should be at each District Ranger Station and also at the Forest 
Supervisor’s office and at the Region Offices. However at least in Region 5 
where I am it seems that every Forest is woefully understaffed on the 
recreation side because most of the money nowadays is going into fire. Because 
of that there may not even be a recreation officer you can get in contact with. 
I guess you should go up the line trying first at the district ranger station 
where the trail(s) are located.

In the meantime, I’ve dealt with multiple name variations on my mapping by 
putting the most common name (one with most signs in agreement) as the value 
for the OSM name tag and the less common version under the alt_name tag. 
Fortunately I haven’t run into trails that have more than two variations on 
their names. I guess that if/when I do I’ll also have to figure out how to 
parse semicolon separated options in a value using either Postgresql or Mapnik 
XML when I make my personal maps.

Cheers,
Tod


> On Dec 19, 2019, at 9:47 PM, Dion Dock  wrote:
> 
> I did some mountain biking around Bend, Oregon this summer.  Apparently the 
> Deschutes Ranger District of the US Forest Service can’t decide what to call 
> their trails.  For example, at the Skyliners trailhead, there’s a sign that 
> says
>   SKYLINER TRAIL NO. 28
>   JCT. WOOPS TRAIL NO 50 2 1/2
> 
> One of the USFS maps calls it the Woops trail, 
> https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd639418.pdf 
> .  And 
> there’s another map that I can’t find that seems to back this one up.
> Their web site calls it the Whoops Trail with no number, 
> https://www.fs.usda.gov/recarea/deschutes/recreation/bicycling/recarea/?recid=38294=24
>  
> .
> 
> There’s similar disagreement about Skyliner Trail vs Skyliners.
> 
> So…is this worth trying to straighten out?  Supposedly the trails all have 
> numbers but I can’t find a reliable source (e.g. nothing else gives Whoops 
> #50).
> 
> thanks,
> -Dion
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] confusing state of USFS trail names in Oregon

[Dion Dock]

I did some mountain biking around Bend, Oregon this summer.  Apparently the 
Deschutes Ranger District of the US Forest Service can’t decide what to call 
their trails.  For example, at the Skyliners trailhead, there’s a sign that says
SKYLINER TRAIL NO. 28
JCT. WOOPS TRAIL NO 50 2 1/2

One of the USFS maps calls it the Woops trail, 
https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd639418.pdf 
.  And there’s 
another map that I can’t find that seems to back this one up.
Their web site calls it the Whoops Trail with no number, 
https://www.fs.usda.gov/recarea/deschutes/recreation/bicycling/recarea/?recid=38294=24
 
.

There’s similar disagreement about Skyliner Trail vs Skyliners.

So…is this worth trying to straighten out?  Supposedly the trails all have 
numbers but I can’t find a reliable source (e.g. nothing else gives Whoops #50).

thanks,
-Dion___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

[Paul Johnson]

On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 1:19 PM Martijn van Exel  wrote:

> I actually like your suggestion that highway=trunk does not add much value
> to the U.S. map, Eric.
> We love to add detail / granularity to OSM so much, it can become hard to
> envisage taking some away.
> Not saying we should abolish trunk right here and now, but something I'd
> consider as one outcome.
>

I'd like to see a lot more left up to the data consumer and more regional
values to be widely acceptable.  For example, instead of trying to smash
the entire planet into the UK's prescribed values and trying to come up
with equivalences, use the terminology each country uses.  So, for example,
in the US, instead of motorway, trunk, primary, secondary, tertiary,
perhaps something more like freeway, expressway, major/minor_principal
(just having this would fix a *lot* of problems with Texas and Missouri and
their extensive secondary systems), major/minor_collector...the US just has
a way more complex view of how highways work.

Or at least some more serious consideration given to the proposal at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:UltimateRiff/HFCS (but perhaps
with "other principal arterials" as primary and a new "highway=quartinary".

Much like moving route refs to highway relations (freeing the ref=* tag on
highways for situations where the road and the route have different refs),
leaving the mental gymnastics up to an algorithm and leaving less confusion
to the mapper is getting to be long overdue.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

[Paul Johnson]

On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 5:13 AM Mike N  wrote:

> On 12/17/2019 10:19 PM, Evin Fairchild wrote:
> > some US routes are more important than others and lumping them all as
> > primary doesn???t make any sense;
>
> The arguments here about relative importance of parallel routes makes
> sense.
>
>Some massive changes such as in
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/78620805 are raising roads which
> have no other major choices, but are apparently just because they are
> the most important.
>

This smashing everything to the highest possible value I would generally
consider to be an undiscussed and problematic mechanical edit.  Going with
the lowest level that fits feels a bit more correct (think "minimum
effective dose" from medicine, for example), does give routers more
information where there's lots of routes available, and humans more of an
idea what kind of road they're going to encounter at a glance.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] Preliminary Import/Organized Mapping Effort Idea

[Paul Johnson]

On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 3:03 PM Mike Thompson  wrote:

> > I've avoided BIA because their data doesn't seem accurate
> We have gotten some additional feedback off list also suggesting that the
> BIA data may not be as accurate as some other sources.  Perhaps we should
> create a wiki page listing every reservation, its boundary status in OSM,
> and the known sources of data.  Mappers can then "sign up" to work on
> individual reservation boundaries (by adding their name to the wiki page),
> manually comparing the various sources, researching the most correct
> representation, and of course editing OSM to reflect their findings
> just thinking out loud here.--
>

I'm feeling this a lot more than the MapRoulette idea.  Especially if we
can get local participants involved.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] Preliminary Import/Organized Mapping Effort Idea

[Mike Thompson]

Clifford,

Thanks for your feedback.

> I've avoided BIA because their data doesn't seem accurate
We have gotten some additional feedback off list also suggesting that the
BIA data may not be as accurate as some other sources.  Perhaps we should
create a wiki page listing every reservation, its boundary status in OSM,
and the known sources of data.  Mappers can then "sign up" to work on
individual reservation boundaries (by adding their name to the wiki page),
manually comparing the various sources, researching the most correct
representation, and of course editing OSM to reflect their findings
just thinking out loud here.

Mike

On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 10:10 AM Clifford Snow 
wrote:

> Mike,
> Thanks to you, David and Paul for taking the initiative to mapping Natiive
> American Reservations. On and off for the last few years I've been
> attempting to reservations mapped in Washington State. My first choice for
> boundary information has always been from the reservation then the state.
> I've avoided BIA because their data doesn't seem accurate, at least at the
> time when I first started adding reservations. I look forward to seeing how
> it compares to the boundaries I added.
>
> I especially applaud your desire to involve Native American youth in the
> project. I have struggled to make any headway getting the tribes involved.
> Related to that I've been asking people I know that work for the tribes
> about adding features in their native language. A number of the tribes
> around me are working hard to ensure their languages not only survives but
> flourishes. I'm hoping with my connections I can partner with the tribe get
> them to actively contribute to OSM using their native language. It is
> something you might also consider doing.
>
> Let me know how I can help,
> Clifford
>
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 4:35 PM Mike Thompson  wrote:
>
>>
>> Village Earth's Native Land Advocacy Project[1], David Bartecchi[2], Paul
>> Johnson[3], and I[4] are considering an organized effort to improve the
>> boundaries of Native American Reservations in the US.  We have studied the
>> import guidelines on the wiki and will follow those, however, we first
>> wanted to see:
>>
>> 1) If there was any fundamental objection to this idea before even the
>> details are spelled out
>>
>> 2) If anyone is already working on this issue.
>>
>> 3) If anyone would like to join us.
>>
>>
>> We are thinking that our general approach will be:
>>
>> 1) Use data from this source:
>> https://biamaps.doi.gov/dataDownload/index.htmlIt has a compatible
>> license, but will verify and document as part of this process.
>>
>> 2) Somehow allow mappers to "check out" a particular reservation's
>> boundary.  Exact mechanism is TBD.
>>
>> 3) A human mapper will examine each boundary individually
>>
>> 4) Where OSM does not have a corresponding reservation boundary, the
>> mapper will import the boundary into OSM (not sure of the exact mechanics
>> at this time).  If the boundary needs to participate in a boundary
>> relation, that will be handled here. Tag mapping is TBD at this point.
>> Any conflicts with existing OSM features will be addressed in this step.
>>
>> 5) Where OSM has a boundary and it does not match the above source, and
>> it has not been edited by a human mapper, proceed as in 4 above, except
>> only replace geometry and preserve the history of the existing OSM
>> features.
>>
>> 6) Where OSM has a boundary and it does not match our source, but it has
>> been edited by a human mapper, use additional sources, including tribal
>> sources, and county sources, to determine the true boundary and make
>> necessary edits in OSM.  Deference will be given to the edits made by local
>> mappers.
>>
>> To be determined:
>> We are aware of some cases where different government bodies (e.g.
>> Federal Government vs. a state government) dispute the extent of a
>> reservation.
>>
>> Long term we would like to involve Native Americans, particularly youth
>> living on reservations, in adding additional details to OSM about
>> reservations, such as street names, amenities, etc., but we don't envision
>> this as part of this import/organized effort process.
>>
>> We look forward to your initial feedback on this preliminary concept.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>> [1] Village Earth is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that has worked
>> in Indian Country for over 20 years and works closely with the Indian Land
>> Tenure Foundation
>> [2] David works for Village Earth
>> [3] Most people on this list are probably familiar with Paul, a long time
>> contributor to OSM
>> [4] My OSM user name is tekim, I have been mapping in OSM since 2009.
>> ___
>> Imports mailing list
>> impo...@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
>>
>
>
> --
> @osm_washington
> www.snowandsnow.us
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
>
___
Talk-us mailing list

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary

[stevea]

I now reiterate the fundamental struggle in this discussion (which can be 
summed up as "both"):

highway=trunk is another level of granularity (above primary) to describe "high 
performance OR high importance roads" (emphasis mine).  Additionally,

(from the US-specific definition from our wiki):  highway=trunk is a "surface 
expressway:  a relatively high-speed divided road (at least 40 MPH with a 
barrier or median separating each direction of traffic), with a limited amount 
of intersections and driveways; or a major intercity highway."

Similar to "descriptive vs. prescriptive," this semantic "struggle" might be 
described as these two definitions being "relative vs. absolute."

Some people say a gravel road (or even a dirt road, if that dominates, say, in 
a developing country) is important enough to be tagged "trunk," for example in 
Alaska.  That is using "trunk" in its relative sense:  relative as to what is 
also meant by primary, secondary, etc. IN THAT LOCAL/REGIONAL CONTEXT.  Some 
people say "trunk must be divided with a barrier/median and medium-to-higher 
speed..." (or fill in some hand-waving additions).  That is using "trunk" in 
its absolute sense.

"Both."  Yes, both.  I'll say it again, OSM, I doubt it very much, will ever, 
EVER get away from how we now define "trunk" as "both."  Look at our wiki and 
see how there are differing definitions for differing countries and see how we 
define it relatively.  Look at our wiki's text and see how we define it 
absolutely.  Both.

Can we (as humans) and routers (as software) learn to live with this apparent 
dichotomy?  I can.  I believe the rest of us (humans and routers alike) can, 
too.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

[Eric H. Christensen via Talk-us]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Thursday, December 19, 2019 2:19 PM, Martijn van Exel  wrote:

> I actually like your suggestion that highway=trunk does not add much value to 
> the U.S. map, Eric.
> We love to add detail / granularity to OSM so much, it can become hard to 
> envisage taking some away.
> Not saying we should abolish trunk right here and now, but something I'd 
> consider as one outcome.

It does seem like there is a lot of arbitrary conditions separating some of 
these road types.  It would be nice to have solid reasoning for tagging a 
roadway a certain way instead of how "important" it is.

The routing engine should be able to take into account the road surface, number 
of stop lights, and other factors into consideration if there are multiple 
routes of similar highways that are "important", IMO.  Any idea why trunk was 
established in the first place?

--Sparks
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: ProtonMail
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=uMfV
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

[Martijn van Exel]

I actually like your suggestion that highway=trunk does not add much value
to the U.S. map, Eric.
We love to add detail / granularity to OSM so much, it can become hard to
envisage taking some away.
Not saying we should abolish trunk right here and now, but something I'd
consider as one outcome.
Martijn

On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 7:27 AM Eric Ladner  wrote:

> I personally dislike "trunk".  Its definition is vague and leaves a lot to
> interpretation (and argument).  It doesn't really add anything to the
> information on the map, IMO.  A US Highway is a US Highway regardless of
> how much traffic it carries or how many stoplights it has.
>
> Maybe if the definition of "trunk" was solidified to something more
> specific, it would have a more valuable use case.
>
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 5:15 AM Mike N  wrote:
>
>> On 12/17/2019 10:19 PM, Evin Fairchild wrote:
>> > some US routes are more important than others and lumping them all as
>> > primary doesn???t make any sense;
>>
>> The arguments here about relative importance of parallel routes makes
>> sense.
>>
>>Some massive changes such as in
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/78620805 are raising roads which
>> have no other major choices, but are apparently just because they are
>> the most important.
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
>
>
> --
> Eric Ladner
> ___
> 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] [Imports] Preliminary Import/Organized Mapping Effort Idea

[Oisin Herriott (Insight Global Inc) via Talk-us]

Hi all,

Looking to get more people/groups involved in OSM is always a challenge. One 
place I might start would be to reach out to those mappers who have last edited 
the current boundaries and ask them their thoughts on this project. If you are 
using JOSM editor you can use ‘Ctrl + h’ to find the history of an object and 
reach out to the previous editor of that feature via OSM.

The Openstreetmap Contributors map tool is 
also a way to see who is very active in an area, and could provide more local 
mappers of various experience that you could reach out to individually to for 
their input on local project proposals to get the community involved.

This looks like a great project- Best of luck!

Oisin

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

[Eric Ladner]

I personally dislike "trunk".  Its definition is vague and leaves a lot to
interpretation (and argument).  It doesn't really add anything to the
information on the map, IMO.  A US Highway is a US Highway regardless of
how much traffic it carries or how many stoplights it has.

Maybe if the definition of "trunk" was solidified to something more
specific, it would have a more valuable use case.

On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 5:15 AM Mike N  wrote:

> On 12/17/2019 10:19 PM, Evin Fairchild wrote:
> > some US routes are more important than others and lumping them all as
> > primary doesn???t make any sense;
>
> The arguments here about relative importance of parallel routes makes
> sense.
>
>Some massive changes such as in
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/78620805 are raising roads which
> have no other major choices, but are apparently just because they are
> the most important.
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>


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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

[Mike N]

On 12/17/2019 10:19 PM, Evin Fairchild wrote:
some US routes are more important than others and lumping them all as 
primary doesn???t make any sense;


The arguments here about relative importance of parallel routes makes 
sense.


  Some massive changes such as in 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/78620805 are raising roads which 
have no other major choices, but are apparently just because they are 
the most important.


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