Re: [Talk-us] Interested in importing address points in New York State

[Alex Hennings]

Regarding: "No license needed for facts"
A reminder that the *collection *of facts is part of it's presentation, and
can have copyright protection. You'd be creating a derivative work. This is
what protects recipe books, maps, and dictionaries. I'm not a lawyer.

On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 7:37 AM Russell Nelson  wrote:

> On 7/16/20 5:26 AM, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us wrote:
> > On the other hand, it may be unoriginal database... Still, the
> > preferred version is to have an explicit
> > license.
>
> I tried getting some acknowledgement from New York State GIS that their
> data was not copyrighted or not copyrightable back when I imported the
> NYSDEC lands shapefile. The most I could get out of them was that they
> don't claim a copyright. I had saved that email thread on my Cloudmade
> laptop. After I got laid off and had to send the laptop back, I didn't
> think to save that email.
>
> As you say, it's just a listing of facts about the world. At most the
> presentation of them is copyrightable, but as Skyler noted, he's
> changing the presentation.
>
> No license needed for facts.
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] access=private on driveways

[Alex Hennings]

Regarding:
> a driveway to a house should not be tagged access=yes
> because a no trespassing sign cannot be seen.  That is a complete
> violation of verfiability, becuase the mapper has zero evidence that
> access should be yes.
*Given our defaults, no access tag is equivalent> to that.*

You're saying *omitting* a tag violates *verifiability*. That doesn't
compute. Requiring tags to be verifiable with evidence specifically means
the opposite of that. But that might get us closer to the source of
disagreement. You and I interpret a *missing* access tag differently. *You
read a missing access tag to mean access=yes*. (Is there documentation to
support that somewhere? or... why do you think that?)

I read a missing access tag to mean access=unknown, and "we don't yet have
evidence of what the access restricts are" and "someone should find out and
add a tag" and "until then, *use your best judgement based on context,
because this is a service=driveway*". This opinion is supported by
service=driveway
documentation
: "There
is no defined default access tag for driveways".

A missing access tag surely needs to be interpreted based on context. For
example, consider a military base vs a playground. An explicit access tag
says "trust me, I have found evidence of this". We're discussing how to use
the access tag to describe a driveway, but that's solved with
service=driveway.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Deleting tiger:reviewed=no/addr:street for routes (was: Streaming JOSM -- suggestions?)

[Alex Hennings]

Kevin,

Maybe we have different contexts? In my area, we have privately owned roads
 that are more than just
driveways.

Regarding: "*don't worry about it*"

I find this dissatisfying.

The *sole purpose* of routing is to get the user to their destination
without breaking any laws. These are also *specifically my* *goals *when
I'm using a router. Frequently (in my rural area) getting to my destination
requires using a privately owned road. You might say "access=private" isn't
a problem because I can tell my router to ignore "access=private". But I
don't want to go down any roads that say "Stay out" and have a gate, or a
person brandishing a rifle.
When every privately owned road is marked as access=private, it is not
possible for me to achieve both of those goals (get there, don't break
laws) at the same time. By encouraging routers to ignore "access=private"
you're neutering real access restrictions.

So, you're either saying *don't worry about* breaking laws, or *don't worry
about* getting to your destination

That is my argument *against access=private* on privately owned roads. My
argument *for ownership=private* is to set a clear and visible precedent
that private ownership *has a tag*, which
*is not the access tag.*

-Alex



On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 11:49 PM Kevin Kenny 
wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 6:05 PM Mike Thompson  wrote:
> > >  - The access -- somewhat common to find a pubic road imported with
> access=private, so if I suspect this I'll leave the tiger:reviewed=no tag
> until access can be confirmed, and add a note or fixme. (It's also quite
> common to find driveways imported as access=private. When surveying, I tend
> to remove the private tag if the driveway isn't gated or signed private,
> since access=private will prevent routing to the house at the end of the
> driveway, sometimes even ending the route on a different residential road
> that's physically closer to the house than the road the driveway's
> connected to.)
> > I always thought that driveways to private residences and private roads
> (whether gated or not) should be tagged as access=private.  Often these
> private roads are posted with a sign that says something like "Private
> road, no trespassing", or "Private Road, Residents and Guests Only."
>
> One thing to watch out for in the countryside is that there are often
> streets signed 'Xxx Drive // PRIVATE'  meaning that the road is
> privately maintained, rather than meaning 'no trespassing.'
>
> But here I think that the importance of the distinction is overblown.
> I strongly suspect:
>
> (1) People don't ordinarily want to be routed down these
> privately-maintained roads (which are usually, in effect, driveways
> that happen to serve more than one establishment) unless they have
> business with some establishment on the road.
> (2) Delivery drivers use routers that allow for access to private
> drives to deliver to the associated residence.  (In effect, the person
> who ordered the goods for delivery has issued an invitation to the
> carrier.)
>
> and hence, the public/private distinction for service ways falls in my
> mental model under, 'don't worry about it.'
>
> --
> 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
>
> ___
> 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] Deleting tiger:reviewed=no/addr:street for routes (was: Streaming JOSM -- suggestions?)

[Alex Hennings]

Regarding:
"
Often these private roads are posted with a sign that says something like
"Private road, no trespassing", or "Private Road, Residents and Guests
Only."
"

I've developed a strong opinion that a privately owned road (or anything
else) should be tagged "ownership=private". Don't confuse the ownership
with the access rights even though we use the same word for them in
English. Them being "often posted..." doesn't mean we can assume they
always are. Please only record data that there is evidence for.

-Alex

On Sun, Jul 12, 2020, 6:05 PM Mike Thompson  wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 10:28 AM Jmapb  wrote:
>
> >  - The access -- somewhat common to find a pubic road imported with
> access=private, so if I suspect this I'll leave the tiger:reviewed=no tag
> until access can be confirmed, and add a note or fixme. (It's also quite
> common to find driveways imported as access=private. When surveying, I tend
> to remove the private tag if the driveway isn't gated or signed private,
> since access=private will prevent routing to the house at the end of the
> driveway, sometimes even ending the route on a different residential road
> that's physically closer to the house than the road the driveway's
> connected to.)
> I always thought that driveways to private residences and private roads
> (whether gated or not) should be tagged as access=private.  Often these
> private roads are posted with a sign that says something like "Private
> road, no trespassing", or "Private Road, Residents and Guests Only."
>
> Mike
>
> ___
> 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] Request for review of plan for scripted edit

[Alex Hennings]

Fixed: references -> relations.

Noted: "False impression of data freshness". I hadn't considered this and I
would like more opinions.

Regarding "single area-code Question" I think you're talking about 7 digit
numbers, and my plan to optimistically appending an area code in cases like
Maine where there is only one area code. I acknowledge that as the weakest
of the assumptions but I thought of it as a safe guess and a net positive
change. For context on why I feel confident, living in Maine where we only
have one area code, locals will omit the area code because we don't need it
when dialing locally.

Regarding "how many seven-digit numbers" Good question! There are *6 in
Maine*, *163 in USA*.
(node
['phone'~'^([^0-9]*[0-9]){7}[^0-9]*$']
(area:3600063512); // or 3609331155 for usa
 way
['phone'~'^([^0-9]*[0-9]){7}[^0-9]*$']
(area:3600063512);
 relation
['phone'~'^([^0-9]*[0-9]){7}[^0-9]*$']
(area:3600063512););
 out count;

The C# tools I'm building should work with any c# IDE. I use VisualStudio
<https://visualstudio.microsoft.com/vs/> which is free, and available on
iOS and Windows. I'm happy to help if you want to get them up and running.

-Alex

On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 3:58 PM Kevin Broderick 
wrote:

> I'm of mixed feelings on the apparent freshness, but as long as the
> guidelines are followed so changesets are of reasonable size and easily
> identified as scripted, I don't see much of an issue.
>
> While having an automated script make assumptions caused me to twitch a
> little, the reality is that a human is going to make the same assumption.
> If I see a seven-digit number on a sign and want to dial it, I'm going to
> assume that the area code is 207; if I'm across the state line in New
> Hampshire, I'm going to assume 603. If that assumption isn't correct, the
> source data is bad anyhow, and adding the implicit area code isn't making
> it substantially worse. Have you been able to discern how many seven-digit
> numbers are in the system?
>
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 2:56 PM Jmapb  wrote:
>
>> On 8/8/2019 1:28 PM, Alex Hennings wrote:
>> > Community,
>> >
>> > I'm planning a scripted change and would like feedback. Plans are
>> > outlined here:
>> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_edits/blackboxlogic
>> >
>> > I'd appreciate feedback or questions in the 'Discussion' portion of
>> > that wiki page, or within this email list.
>>
>> Hi Alex!
>>
>> First, a possible typo: I think "Nodes, Ways and References" should be
>> "Nodes, Ways and Relations"?
>>
>> I'm a fan of the +1-xxx-xxx- format, since it's the only standard
>> format that's visually intuitive to North American users. I often switch
>> numbers to this format when I make updates to an existing POI.
>>
>> Personally, though, I've always felt a little uneasy about automated
>> updates like this because they give a false impression of the freshness
>> of the data. If it's been five years since any "real" updates to a POI,
>> I'd rather that the date of last update reflected that. It's hard to
>> gauge the community consensus on this issue, but IMO running this on
>> POIs that have been manually updated (ie not by a mass edit) in the last
>> 6 months would be fine.
>>
>> Regarding the single area code question... now that cell phones, VOIP,
>> and nationwide calling plans are ubiquitous, the idea that a certain
>> area code refers to a certain area is steadily eroding. I have started
>> to see a few businesses with out-of-state phone numbers on their
>> signs... but at this point it's still more likely that an out-of-state
>> area code is an error or SEO spam. I'd suggest that these would go into
>> your "Manually review or flag" category.
>>
>> Regardless, the idea that an area can have a single "traditional" area
>> code is still true. Personally I have no problem with prepending the
>> traditional area code onto 7-digit phone numbers. (I do it all the time
>> in manual mapping.)
>>
>> Finally, thanks for posting your tools... I see these are written in
>> CSharp, which I'm only tangentially familiar with. What sort of
>> environment would one need to build these?
>>
>> Thanks, Jason
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
>
>
> --
> Kevin Broderick
> k...@kevinbroderick.com
> ___
> 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] Request for review of plan for scripted edit

[Alex Hennings]

Community,

I'm planning a scripted change and would like feedback. Plans are outlined
here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_edits/blackboxlogic

I'd appreciate feedback or questions in the 'Discussion' portion of that
wiki page, or within this email list.

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