Re: [Talk-us] place=neighborhood on subdivisions?

[Brian Stromberg]

If suburb is a commonly understood and useful concept in other countries
then it seems good to keep it around. I don't really know what the
implications are of retirement or what the process would be. I would
instead advocate for country-specific guidance on its usage.

--
Brian


On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 11:38 AM Paul Johnson  wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 8:32 AM Brian Stromberg 
> wrote:
>
>> This contradicts the OSM wiki but seems like the only way to avoid
>> confusion.
>>
>
> Much like sport=american_football vs sport=soccer, this makes sense.
> Maybe it's time to retire place=suburb as a tag due to its ambiguity?
>
>
>> The only reason I can think of to use 'suburb' as a tag in the context of
>> the United States would be if a tag indicating 'central city' or something
>> similar was introduced.
>>
>
> Ostensibly, that's what place=city was supposed to be, but not helping OSM
> would be that some places have cities and towns of different legal
> importance (Oklahoma), or "it's a city or it's not a city" with no room for
> nuance (Oregon).  Not making things any easier is how lopsided populations
> are in the US, a midsize municipality is about 5500 people.  Once you get
> to about 90,000, you're in the top 2% largest anything in the 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] place=neighborhood on subdivisions?

[Brian Stromberg]

>
> I don't know that I agree with "suburbs have had a very clear definition
> in the United States for decades."  To wit, some would say that a "suburb"
> can be an incorporated city that is smaller than, but "associated with"
> (and maybe even sharing a partial contiguous boundary with) a larger city,
> of which it "is a suburb."  (For example, Bellevue to Seattle, or El Cajon
> to San Diego).  These are quite precisely defined as incorporated cities
> with rather exact boundaries.
>

This is the only definition I've ever encountered in the US. I don't think
anyone who lives in Seattle would consider Wallingford, Fremont, or
Magnolia to be suburbs, much like nobody would consider the Upper East Side
or SoHo to be suburbs of New York City.

The all-knowing Wikipedia agrees with Minh [1], it looks like OSM uses the
UK/Aus/NZ/Ireland definition of suburb. That usage does not reconcile well
with the American usage which is more of a relational definition (Y is a
suburb of X). It seems like the proper procedure is to avoid using the tag
at all and use neighbourhood instead (if a tag is required). This
contradicts the OSM wiki but seems like the only way to avoid confusion.
The only reason I can think of to use 'suburb' as a tag in the context of
the United States would be if a tag indicating 'central city' or something
similar was introduced.

Just my two cents.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suburb

--
Brian


On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 5:37 AM Minh Nguyen 
wrote:

> Vào lúc 11:02 2020-09-23, stevea đã viết:
> > On Sep 23, 2020, at 10:51 AM, Brian Stromberg 
> wrote:
> >> A short question of a lengthy response: What is the history behind that
> definition of 'suburb'? Is it a result of the term being used that way in
> UK/Europe/elsewhere? Seems like an odd usage, since "suburbs" have had a
> very clear definition in the United States for decades now, and it has
> nothing to do with neighborhoods.
> >
> > I believe it is UK-derived, as are many OSM "definitions" (usually /
> often clarified in wiki for that key).
>
> If I'm not mistaken, the definition on the wiki seems to align more
> closely with the meaning of "suburb" in Australian English, in which
> it's understood to be anywhere within the city, even near the central
> business district. [1] place=suburb was originally proposed by an
> Australian mapper in 2006. [2] Also, around early 2008, Australia jumped
> from 7.8% to 29% of global place=suburb usage, which could have helped
> to reinforce that definition. [3]
>
> The wiki says place=suburb is "in a place=town or place=city", but that
> doesn't necessarily say it has to lie within the administrative boundary
> that contains the place=town/city as a label. place=town/city is mapped
> as a POI, not as an area with distinct boundaries. But even so, it is
> pretty far from how Americans associate suburbs with distinct
> incorporated municipalities or unincorporated areas on the outskirts of
> the city.
>
> [1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/suburb#English
> [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Special:Diff/55503
> [3] https://ohsome.org/apps/dashboard/
>
> --
> m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.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] place=neighborhood on subdivisions?

[Brian Stromberg]

A short question of a lengthy response: What is the history behind that
definition of 'suburb'? Is it a result of the term being used that way in
UK/Europe/elsewhere? Seems like an odd usage, since "suburbs" have had a
very clear definition in the United States for decades now, and it has
nothing to do with neighborhoods.

--
Brian


On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 12:36 PM stevea  wrote:

> Below, I answer Paul (first) and Joseph (second), both with substantial
> detail, so "lengthy post ahead."
>
> Paul Johnson  wrote:
> > In terms of Seattle, I don't think Ballard or Magnolia are a suburb.
> They're more of a neighborhood, both subordinate to Seattle.  Mercer Island
> or Bellvue are more suburbs as they're their own cities but really wouldn't
> matter or properly stand on their own without Seattle being in the
> immediate vicinity.  Note that place=city, place=neighborhood and
> place=suburb are all extant tags in common use already.
>
> I make the point in my previous post(s) and this one as well:  let's use
> care with differences between "Neighborhood" and "Suburb" (local
> vernacular, I've no problem with how people describe their local areas) vs.
> place=neighbourhood and place=suburb (OSM tagging, contrasted with
> vernacular).  In terms of Seattle, sure, Paul:  you, Clifford and I all
> likely agree that Ballard and Magnolia are CALLED "neighborhoods" by
> citizens.  However, TAGGING them place=suburb is not only correct
> (according to our wiki, especially given the relative size of Seattle as a
> larger city), it is what OSM correctly does.  I believe it would be
> incorrect to tag these place=neighbourhood ("a smaller named,
> geographically localised place within a suburb of a larger city") for one
> simple reason:  if Ballard and Magnolia are indeed place=neighbourhood in
> OSM, what is their "larger" place=suburb?  Bzzzt:  that doesn't work.
> Rather, place=suburb does work.  Go ahead and "call" them "Neighborhoods,"
> but please TAG them place=suburb.  Oh, OSM already does tag like that.
>
> Again, Bellevue is a de facto "suburb" of Seattle:  part of the
> conurbation of "Greater Seattle" one might say in local vernacular,
> according to Census Bureau conventions or by demographers in general who
> speak US English.  However, in OSM (both the idealized sense of what we
> should tag and actual tagging that is done), Bellevue is certainly both a
> "city" and place=city, with its population of perhaps 150,000.  That is
> most certainly NOT a place=suburb in the sense OSM defines it.  Oh, OSM
> already does tag like that.
>
> Paul further wrote:
> > Landuse-residential fits better for the lots within a place, not as a
> substitute for it..
>
> I don't wholly disagree.  (Meaning I agree).  Although I might say
> "blocks" rather than "lots," as the latter is far too granularly small and
> gets too close to cadastral-level data, which many agree don't belong in
> OSM.  Let's acknowledge that data entered into OSM might "start rough" and
> be refined over two, three or more iterations before being well-accepted as
> "good enough" to remain in OSM with no need for further refinement /
> improvement.  I mean, it does:  this actually happens.
>
> For example, in Santa Cruz California, areas smaller than a square
> kilometer were drawn as polygons and added inside the city limits as the
> "neighborhoods" as they are both known to locals and defined by the city's
> website (but with no administrative representation, more like "areas
> convenient to delineate like this as neighborhoods").  These are tagged
> landuse=residential and name=*, for example Lighthouse/West Cliff [1] or
> The Circles [2].  One such "neighborhood," Prospect Heights [3], has had
> ADDITIONAL, "smaller granularity" landuse=residential polygons [4], [5]
> drawn upon it that I believe most OSM contributors would agree is a very
> correct usage of that tag:  more-or-less "block-level" residential polygons
> that don't completely surround a larger area (as does [3], which also
> messily encloses a church, school and park).  This sort of "draw a large
> landuse=residential polygon that is a bit too inclusive and therefore
> slightly imprecise, but a good first draft," then later improves to the
> level we see here, is typical of OSM:  "good" at first (though not
> technically perfect), then much "better" with time and refinement.  OSM can
> be strict in its admonishments of "prescriptive" tagging (how we SHOULD
> tag), but we shouldn't to the detriment of falling into the trap of "the
> perfect is the enemy of the good."
>
> Joseph Eisenberg  wrote:
> > Settlements which are mapped with the place=* key are usually mapped as
> a node, not as an area.
>
> For his evidence here, Joseph uses "descriptive" OSM data (how we DO
> tag).  However, our key:place wiki (via "Populated settlements, urban"
> table, its Element column) says both nodes and ways are supported data
> structures for this tag.  Whether they are "usually" tagged this or that
> 

Re: [Talk-us] Opinions on Devil's Slide Bunker (San Mateo, CA)

[Brian Stromberg]

OSM comprises data but data are produced and interpreted by fallible
humans. I would argue that OSM doesn't "simply say" anything, because the
act of defining tags is a subjective process negotiated between individuals
with different ideas about, for example, what a "viewpoint" is. It's not a
simple matter of recording altitude or what type of rock formation is in a
location. We are defining what a lot of these data will be and how they
will be communicated through OSM to the users, and that has an impact on
how those users interpret the world. There's a certain amount of
responsibility inherent to that process. And if we are going to take the
tactic of simply putting "what is" on the map, then I would argue we should
only include viewpoints that are officially signed as such. Otherwise the
process of deciding which ones are included and which ones are becomes too
subjective and will never accurately reflect "what is".

I think Kevin provides a lot of really good examples of edge cases that
make a blanket rule difficult to develop, I appreciate you sharing them.
Creative usage of tagging might be the best way to approach those types of
situations, although I wonder how many OSM users will use that metadata, as
opposed simply looking at the locations on a map. The stories also speak to
the idea that people will find these places even if they aren't on OSM, and
it makes me wonder if OSM needs to include every trail and viewpoint known
to man (especially the story of the city folk being turned back for safety
concerns).

Sidenote: this discussion is such a great example of complicated it is to
produce a map, I'm very much enjoying it.

--
Brian


On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 2:33 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us <
talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
>
>
> 31 Aug 2020, 05:38 by stevea...@softworkers.com:
>
> On Aug 30, 2020, at 5:50 PM, Brian Stromberg 
> wrote:
>
> I would argue that maps can only show the world as the mapmaker wants it
> to be shown, and OSM should probably not be encouraging people (in any way)
> to be visiting sites that are clearly marked as illegal to visit. This
> seems like a bad precedent to set. I would include the bunker but not mark
> it as tourism. People will find it if they want to, whatever OSM tags it
> as, so it doesn't seem necessary to participate/encourage in whatever
> degree of illegality the access entails.
>
>
> And here is where some disagree: OSM does not "encourage." OSM is data. It
> simply says "this is" and "these are." OSM does not encourage people (in
> any way) to visit a site or trespass. It is a collection of data (of "what
> is") expressed as a map. Full stop.
>
> At the same time we know that viewpoint
> data can be used, is used and it's typical
> use is to display interesting locations
> worth visiting.
> ___
> 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] Opinions on Devil's Slide Bunker (San Mateo, CA)

[Brian Stromberg]

I agree on the tagging points, my comment on mapmakers was a response to
the claim that maps show the world as it is. By definition, maps are only
symbols. Those symbols can get extremely complex but they remain an
approximation of the real world. OSM should always strive to reflect what
is observable on the ground, whether those facts are embarrassing for some
or otherwise, but I personally find the symbolic and subjective nature of
maps fascinating =)

The viewpoint question is tricky. There are a lot of official viewpoints
with signage on popular drives and hikes. It would limit the subjectivity
of the tag if signage was the only consideration. I can understand wanting
to add others that aren't official, although those are sometimes only
accessible by wandering off of a trail (which is something I don't think
OSM should support, it's a big enough problem already).

I think there are other resources out there for people who are interested
in getting the best views they can, official trails be damned, so I lean
towards only including viewpoints that are accessible by established
trails/roads. Otherwise, people like me who use OSM for hiking trails,
might end up contributing to the degradation of the places we visit.

--
Brian


On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 9:28 AM Mike Thompson  wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 6:53 PM Brian Stromberg 
> wrote:
>
>> I would argue that maps can only show the world as the mapmaker wants it
>> to be shown...
>>
>
> In OSM we should map facts, what is observable on the ground (with the
> exception of personal information, and perhaps culturally sensitive sites
> whose location has not otherwise been published ). Like Stevea alluded to,
> what the data user does with the information is up to them.  Otherwise, we
> descend into only relying on opinion as to what facts are "dangerous" or
> what facts could "encourage dangerous or bad behavior."  Also, some facts
> are embarrassing to individuals or organizations because those facts might
> show they are not doing their job.  Of course, they will not come out and
> say, please don't publish these facts because it is an embarrassment to us,
> they will find some way to say "the facts are dangerous" or "while the
> facts portray a bad situation, publishing those facts will only make the
> situation worse."
>
> In this case, our obligation is to clearly indicate that access=no or
> access=private (in other words, not open to the general public).
>
> We can debate whether this should be tagged tourism=viewpoint, but the
> debate should be around whether the object fits our definition, not whether
> it may or may not encourage "bad" behavior.  For all we know,
> historic=ruins might actually encourage more bad behavior than
> tourism=viewpoint.  I am not saying it will, I am saying we don't have any
> evidence one way or the other.
>
> Mike
>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Opinions on Devil's Slide Bunker (San Mateo, CA)

[Brian Stromberg]

I would argue that maps can only show the world as the mapmaker wants it to
be shown, and OSM should probably not be encouraging people (in any way) to
be visiting sites that are clearly marked as illegal to visit. This seems
like a bad precedent to set. I would include the bunker but not mark it as
tourism. People will find it if they want to, whatever OSM tags it as, so
it doesn't seem necessary to participate/encourage in whatever degree of
illegality the access entails.

--
Brian


On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 7:55 PM stevea  wrote:

> Joseph asks good, relevant questions regarding whether the access tag
> should be private vs. no.  But, yes, I agree Frederik, there absolutely
> should be one of these two tags with that sign you displayed.  (I've seen
> it many times driving past here before the tunnel was built, it's a bit
> more out-of-the-way now).  And if it was historically a bunker, OSM should
> strive to tag this, I'm not exactly sure of the right mix of
> military=bunker and historic=yes flavors that might be absolutely correct,
> but something like those if not exactly those.  Though historic=ruins seems
> correct, too, so perhaps better than "yes."
>
> I slightly disagree with Frederik about a viewpoint necessarily being
> signposted or "called a viewpoint."  I've tagged tourism=viewpoint on many
> such places, where they are absolutely a viewpoint in my opinion (and I've
> hiked a LOT) but are neither so noted via signpost on site, nor on a map.
> Many that I have so entered into OSM have a bench nearby (and so I'll tag
> amenity=bench on a node, too) so I'm not the only one who thinks the spot
> has a nice view worthy of a short sit and "take it all in."  I mean, hiking
> trails and viewpoints go together like peas and carrots, otherwise, what's
> the point?  (Exercise, sure — but, but the VIEWS!)  What I'm saying is that
> I believe it's OK for an OSM mapper who enters a tourism=viewpoint tag to
> say "I'm asserting this to be a bona fide viewpoint here."  Of course, if
> it is signed, benched or otherwise mapped or widely acknowledged as a
> viewpoint, all the better.
>
> I tire of self-declared "concerned citizens" who think they should tell us
> mappers what is in the world and how to tag it.  What must be immediately
> dispensed with is that "maps make people do things."  (Hike closed trails,
> trespass...)  Nonsense:  maps show the world as it is (to the extent they
> can).  PEOPLE do things with maps.  When you start there, all the right
> things to do follow.  Let's get an access tag here, tune up "historic" and
> let the renderers do their magic.  (As usual, but it's a good question,
> thank you for that familiar sign and I'm glad there is such lively
> participation in suggestions).
>
> SteveA
> ___
> 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] When is your doctor a clinic?

[Brian Stromberg]

I think the same rule about MD oversight applies where I live, but I have
never seen an MD at a clinic. PAs and RNs are more than enough for me. I
don't need credentials as long as there is competence =)

For sure, we have those clusters of health services, although I've always
seen that as a separate type of thing; an expression of location efficiency
rather than a type of service. Clinics are more of a middle ground between
a traditional practice and an emergency room. I've gone to them for a
fever, a broken hand, an injured mother, and a few other reasons. My
impression is that they are also more accessible for low-income or other
marginalized members of the community, so I think they play an important
role (which makes them worthy of being properly mapped).

--
Brian


On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 9:10 AM Kevin Kenny  wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 8:33 AM Brian Stromberg
>  wrote:
> > When I hear “clinic” in reference to a healthcare facility, I think of
> “urgent care” clinics, and I think there are about six urgent care clinics
> within a 20 minute drive of my local hospital. These are usually staffed
> with nurses and Physicians Assistants rather than MDs.
>
> In my state, a nurse-practitioner or a physician's assistant has to
> work under the supervision of an MD, so there's generally at least one
> doc at an urgent care clinic. Still, you're right that for routine
> matters a patient probably won't need to see the MD.  I know that I've
> seen NP's at my doc's office, and they've ordered radiology and lab
> work, and prescribed. (If the radiology or labs had shown anything out
> of the ordinary, they'd have bucked it up to a doc.)
>
> Your area doesn't also have numerous multi-specialty 'health centres?'
> Places where they consolidate radiology, lab, endoscopy, outpatient
> surgery, orthopaedics, ...?
>
> --
> 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] When is your doctor a clinic?

[Brian Stromberg]

Sorry for the flurry of emails. This is all to say that I agree with
Jmapb's description.

--
Brian


On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 9:35 AM Brian Stromberg 
wrote:

> I think the same rule about MD oversight applies where I live, but I have
> never seen an MD at a clinic. PAs and RNs are more than enough for me. I
> don't need credentials as long as there is competence =)
>
> For sure, we have those clusters of health services, although I've always
> seen that as a separate type of thing; an expression of location efficiency
> rather than a type of service. Clinics are more of a middle ground between
> a traditional practice and an emergency room. I've gone to them for a
> fever, a broken hand, an injured mother, and a few other reasons. My
> impression is that they are also more accessible for low-income or other
> marginalized members of the community, so I think they play an important
> role (which makes them worthy of being properly mapped).
>
> --
> Brian
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 9:10 AM Kevin Kenny 
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 8:33 AM Brian Stromberg
>>  wrote:
>> > When I hear “clinic” in reference to a healthcare facility, I think of
>> “urgent care” clinics, and I think there are about six urgent care clinics
>> within a 20 minute drive of my local hospital. These are usually staffed
>> with nurses and Physicians Assistants rather than MDs.
>>
>> In my state, a nurse-practitioner or a physician's assistant has to
>> work under the supervision of an MD, so there's generally at least one
>> doc at an urgent care clinic. Still, you're right that for routine
>> matters a patient probably won't need to see the MD.  I know that I've
>> seen NP's at my doc's office, and they've ordered radiology and lab
>> work, and prescribed. (If the radiology or labs had shown anything out
>> of the ordinary, they'd have bucked it up to a doc.)
>>
>> Your area doesn't also have numerous multi-specialty 'health centres?'
>> Places where they consolidate radiology, lab, endoscopy, outpatient
>> surgery, orthopaedics, ...?
>>
>> --
>> 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
>>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] When is your doctor a clinic?

[Brian Stromberg]

When I hear “clinic” in reference to a healthcare facility, I think of
“urgent care” clinics, and I think there are about six urgent care clinics
within a 20 minute drive of my local hospital. These are usually staffed
with nurses and Physicians Assistants rather than MDs. It’s pretty common
in the US for people to use these rather than the local emergency room, or
even in lieu of a primary care doctor. Having them on OSM seems important
if people need immediate care that doesn’t rise to the level of a hospital
visit. For example, I took my mother to one near me when she had a fall (at
her request, I might have preferred an actual hospital, but it wasn’t a
great time to argue...). They often serve you faster and there is less
administrative processing involved.

Just wanted to share an American perspective.

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 7:56 AM Philip Barnes  wrote:

> On Fri, 2020-01-24 at 00:51 +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 1/23/20 22:42, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > > There may be a disconnect with what the US (or that spammer)
> > > means.
> > > Could I get a clarification on the difference between "doctors" and
> > > "clinic" as you understand it?
> >
> > Personally (and in my country - Germany) there's precious little I
> > would
> > tag as a clinic; in everyday language we use the (german version of)
> > the
> > word clinic more or less synonymous with "hospital", with the
> > possible
> > exception that we'd also apply clinic to something that deals
> > exclusively with non-illness-related things like e.g. a beauty clinic
> > or
> > a drug rehab clinic. In my language, a clinic would always be
> > something
> > where you can (and usually do) have a bed and stay for longer until
> > the
> > treatment is over. A building with a couple of different medical
> > practitioners might be a "Gemeinschaftspraxis" ("shared practice") or
> > perhaps an "Ärztehaus" (doctors' house) but not a "Klinik". Then
> > again
> > these would hardly ever be open 24/7...
> >
> > I'm not trying to apply my understanding of medical establishments to
> > the US - just asking what the general understanding is on your side
> > of
> > the pond. Does Jmapb's distinction sound more or less ok for others
> > too?
> > He wrote:
> >
> Even in the UK, where OSM originated, clinics are quite rare.
>
> A clinic is where outpatients go, usually referred by their doctor to
> see a specialist.
>
> The on the ground reality is that most clinics take place within
> hospitals.
>
> Standalone clinics do exist, there is one in my town, but will tend not
> to exist in larger towns or cities which have hospitals.
>
> HTH
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
-- 
--
Brian
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] motel vs. hotel

[Brian Stromberg]

The only clear definition that has come across this list is whether the
rooms open to the outdoors or to a hallway. All of the others are way too
subjective to be useful to anyone trying to decide how to tag it.

--
Brian


> ___
> 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] Satus CDP

[Brian Stromberg]

As someone who does research with Census data, it would be helpful to keep
all Census geographies in place (at least until Census decides to get rid
of them). Someone will use them at some point. Additionally, they're an
official component of Census geographies, as bureaucratic as that might be.
That alone seems to make them significant enough to keep. Deleting them
because they appear useless seems short sighted. It's not like roads are
deleted from OSM just because nobody uses them.

--
Brian

On Feb 27, 2018 2:30 AM, "Wolfgang Zenker" 
wrote:

* Clifford Snow  [180227 01:59]:
> In the middle of the Yakama Nation Indian Reservation sits Satus [1] that
> as far as I know only exists in some Census bureaucrat world. Asking
around
> here I haven't found anyone familiar with the area. Wikipedia [2] doesn't
> help much either.

> I'd like to remove it from OSM. What reasonable checks do I need to do
> before deleting it. Or do they belong in OSM and I should leave it alone.

> I should add that the reason I want to delete it is because currently
> shares a boundary with the Yakama Nation. The boundary needs updating.

I would delete it, the boundary is useless. The name is still on the
place node next to what I guess used to be the railway station.

Wolfgang
(lyx @ osm)

___
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] Key:man_made... Outdated language?

[Brian Stromberg]

Wow.

I think it at least merits a discussion. Yes, it's a political decision but
not so ridiculous as to dismiss it as part of a feminist plot.

I would also point out that using a gender-specific term like "man" does
more to maintain division than anything else.

--
Brian

On Mar 10, 2017 4:38 PM, "Joel Holdsworth"  wrote:

No.

"Man" has been a general term for humanity in the English language since
time immemorial.

It is only feminists who wish to divide humanity along gender lines who
have a problem with "man" as a term of reference. Such argumentation is
deliberately divisive, and serves no purpose.

There is no need for the change, or a pointless discussion about such a
change.

Please lets get on with making an awesome map.

Best Regards
Joel Holdsworth



On 10/03/17 14:27, Joshua Houston wrote:

> Hi,
>
> It occurred to me that "man_made" is an outdated term that should be
> phased out from OpenStreetMap language. The philosophy of OpenStreetMap
> is very inclusive and that should be represented even in the way data is
> tagged. I'd like to propose to change the key from "man_made" to
> "human_made" and start a discussion on it. Many parts of society are
> trying to implement a more inclusive language, NASA for instance has
> changed "manned missions" to "crewed missions". I think it is an
> important goal to make OSM inclusive whenever there is a choice.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Joshua Houston
>
>
> ___
> 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] Deleting / Closing / Renaming all places in a chain

[Brian Stromberg]

Thank you! I am trying to get more engaged with some aspects of OSM and
this list has been very interesting to read.

I agree with Elliott that it is wrong-headed to leave mislabeled POIs in
place in order to encourage participation. My point was only that applying
an automated process nationwide without any consideration for on-the-ground
verification seems likely to make a less accurate map. I'm fairly new to
the scene, so maybe there is a policy in place that deals with automated
batch relabeling/deleting that I'm not aware of? If not, then this might be
a good opportunity to start that discussion.

--
Brian

On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Mike N <nice...@att.net> wrote:

> On 9/7/2016 10:13 AM, Brian Stromberg wrote:
>
>> Automated nationwide mapping seems like it would introduce more problems
>> than it would solve. If maps are intended to represent the truth on the
>> ground, then the only way to create a useful map is by reporting what is
>> actually there rather than making assumptions. A map that is inaccurate
>> because it is outdated is better than a map that is inaccurate because
>> of a flawed process.
>>
>
>   Welcome to the list!   I've been surprised by both what OSM data is
> applied to, as well as what it is not.  Where it was used, having the
> maximum amount of current information made it the most useful.
>
> You are correct that using a flawed process will lead to inaccurate
> results - there was the famous worldwide edit "Fix and unify all
> MacDonald's restaurant names" which led to wrong results.   The ITT closing
> case is both small enough and well defined that I expect a very high
> quality result.
>
>
>
> ___
> 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 / Closing / Renaming all places in a chain

[Brian Stromberg]

Automated nationwide mapping seems like it would introduce more problems
than it would solve. If maps are intended to represent the truth on the
ground, then the only way to create a useful map is by reporting what is
actually there rather than making assumptions. A map that is inaccurate
because it is outdated is better than a map that is inaccurate because of a
flawed process.

Also, first time participating in these conversations, so I am pressing
"send" with great trepidation...

--
Brian

On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Greg Morgan  wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 2:36 PM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 09/06/2016 11:01 PM, Elliott Plack wrote:
>> > Should we launch an automated edit, or some kind of batch process on OSM
>> > to clear the database `name=ITT Tech` (or similar) worldwide?
>>
>
> For one I had to go looking for the story. http://www.
> fox10phoenix.com/news/us-world-news/202562451-story
> The for-profit college chain ITT Technical Institute is shutting down all
> 130 of its U.S. campuses, saying Tuesday it can't survive recent sanctions
> by the U.S. Department of Education...
>
>
>>
>> This is a discussion that has happened in the past when Domino's Pizza
>> has rebranded, or when the "Schlecker" drug store chain closed in Germany.
>>
>> I think automated edits are not a good solution mainly for two reasons:
>>
>> 1. In many cases, the world doesn't change instantly at the behest of
>> some guy in marketing or legal. Individual locations might retain their
>> signage for various reasons and we map what's on the ground,
>>
>
> Not around here.  They pop out the plastic and replace it with the new
> company's name.  If it takes awhile for a new company to replace the old
> company, then they flip the plastic over to save costs.  This isn't like
> the days when bespoke signs were created for every business.
> http://mapillary.com/map/im/LCodN7YJMEPKKlRnf2eLxw
>
>
>>
>> 2. If a chain is renamed or closed country-wide, and this change is not
>> reflected on OSM in one area, then this can be a valuable sign for lack
>> of mapper attention. A sign that has the best user interface of all:
>> Because for any map user, dealing with an outdated map is normal, and
>> the way you identify just *how* outdated something is is exactly by
>> looking at such things: "Ah, this map seems to be from a time then
>> Domino's was still called Domino's Pizza!" - Leaving these valuable
>> markers of outdated-ness in place tells the map user that this area
>> hasn't been touched for a while and that the other POIs in the vicinity
>> are likely also a bit aged. When a local mapper touches up the area they
>> will likely also update other things than just the closed-down shop, and
>> then the map will be current again. Automatically editing away something
>> country-wide hides the fact that the map lacks attention in an area.
>
>
> Frederik you are thinking about this from a dense mapper perspective.
> Germany has 89 million people in the same are as Montana that only has one
> million people.  You are talking about one way to map if you have that
> kind-of population that you can create a large mapper population from.  I
> already know much of my area needs updating.  The problem is that I cannot
> get to it and the transient nature of the area doesn't mean that I can go
> out and build an OSM community here.  Automated edits like this by another
> mapper would be a great addition to the work I already do in an area.  As
> another perspective, I typically don't put in POIs like this unless I visit
> them.  My area was one of the ground zeros for the sub-prime rate debacle.
> I'll put in an address on a building before I will put in a POI.  Business
> just don't stay around like they used to. I laugh snort when I read that
> wiki page about armchair mapping.  I am in the top 50 worldwide Mapillary
> submissions.  You think I can go out there and survey every node before I
> put it in OSM. That's jsut not going to happen. You think that I even know
> about changes like the ITT story. https://www.mapillary.com/app/
> ?lat=33.263809986326706=-111.81125590160123=8.272711628984965
>  Woot! Woot!
>
> Elliot, I'd say go for the change.  You are only going to __potentially__
> remove 130 names from OSM objects.  Better yet, rename the name to a note
> tag, with an explanation that the place was shutdown because of sanctions.
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
>
>
> ___
> 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