[Talk-us] NAIP Imagery Servers -- Need Assistance Setting Up in JOSM
(cross-listed with JOSM-Dev Talk-US) Morning, The other week, I came across the directory of USDA's WMS NAIP Image Services (by state). QGIS renders the images with no problem, but it appears to fail in JOSM. I mentioned my difficulty to a fellow OSMer and he suspects JOSM cannot support these WMS services. That said I was wondering if anyone could shed some light on why I cannot get images to render in JOSM (me not configuring right or no support in JOSM?!). List of Image Servers -- http://gis.apfo.usda.gov/arcgis/rest/services/NAIP Thanks, Kristen --- Kristen Kam OSM Profile → http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/KristenK ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Another plug for OSM by Adventure Cycling Association
Yes! Kristen --- Kristen Kam OSM Profile → http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/KristenK -Original Message- From: stevea [mailto:stevea...@softworkers.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 4:25 PM To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org Cc: Andy Allan Subject: [Talk-us] Another plug for OSM by Adventure Cycling Association A nice announcement recently went out by Adventure Cycling Association (ACA) that they are partnering with OSM to display us on their web page. Well, Andy Allan's Cycle Map layer, really. Please see: http://www.adventurecycling.org/routes-and-maps/us-bicycle-route-system/use-a-us-bike-route ACA appears to be much more actively (and loudly!) promulgating the United States Bicycle Route System (USBRS) in a stronger way recently, as the USBRS has enjoyed a real growth spurt in the last few years and will likely continue to do so in the future. OSM's Cycle Map layer (OpenCycleMap, or OCM) spent the last year fervently catching up to more accurately reflect this, and we now have an active, vibrant project (see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_U.S._Bicycle_Route_System#Proposed_USBRs_in_OSM ) that is clearly synergetic for both organizations (ACA and OSM). ACA is the premier nationwide bicycling organization in the USA, and is spearheading efforts to develop the USBRS among states and state departments of transportation. SteveA California ___ 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] Local user groups
Why can't you use Meetup for existing groups and also use Facebook as a mechanism organize members for new groups and associated events? Kristen --- OSM Profile -- http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/KristenK From: Paul Johnson [mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:03 PM To: Clifford Snow Cc: Martijn van Exel; OpenStreetMap talk-us list Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Local user groups What's wrong with using Google+'s events functionality? Almost everyone with an Android and everyone with hosting through Google, is on YouTube or a gmail account has this. On Jan 14, 2014 5:26 PM, Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.usmailto:cliff...@snowandsnow.us wrote: Meetup is a nice tool to organize local groups. However the cost is expensive for individuals to start a Meetup group. I'm wondering if we can get some corporate sponsor to help offset the cost of establishing local communities. This is a not so subtle hint for all the corporations that make money off OSM! -- Clifford OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.orgmailto: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] Proposal to Remove Two Duplicate Route Relations in Texas
Hello, I am writing in regards to the highway route relations representing US 59 and US 281 in the state of Texas. For US Highway 59, I edited route relation 71232 (http://osm.org/relation/71232). After editing said relation (1475243;http://www.osm.org/relation/1475243), I noticed there is a relation that has members that are also members to 71232. Relation 1475243 is essentially a duplicate of 71232 and I would like to delete this relation from the database. I contacted a user (Cam4rd98) who previously edited 1475243 and mentioned the action the subject to him/her. To date, I have not received a response. Instead of following up with the user it was suggested to me that I ought to message the list. Therefore I am proposing to you all the removal of relation 1475243. In addition, I would like to remove relation 1475274 (http://www.osm.org/relation/1475274) because its members are also members of relation 1628532 (http://www.osm.org/relation/ 1628532) and thus is a duplicate. Does anyone object to my proposal to remove both relations? Best, Kristen --- OSM Profile -- http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/KristenK From: Sebastian Arcus [mailto:s.ar...@open-t.co.uk] Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 1:07 PM To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Help with non-existent school in Big Sur, CA area Thanks Volker. It's interesting that there is at least one source that suggests the existence of that school at some point in time, at least. On 06/01/14 13:39, Volker Schmidt wrote: According to the USGS Scanned Topographic Maps Layer (in JOSM) there was a Sur School (abandoned) exactly on the other side of the road from where the actual node is in OSM (I suppose where the stand of trees is on the areal photograph). I mapped in that area in 2011 and was also looking for it, but did not find anything on the ground, but I did not look on the other side of the road (I did not use the scanned maps layer at the time). I suggest you move the node across the street, add a source USGS Sacnned Topographic Maps and mark it as abandoned. There is certainly no building there any more. Volker (Padova, Italy) On 6 January 2014 13:00, talk-us-requ...@openstreetmap.orgmailto:talk-us-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: Send Talk-us mailing list submissions to talk-us@openstreetmap.orgmailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to talk-us-requ...@openstreetmap.orgmailto:talk-us-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at talk-us-ow...@openstreetmap.orgmailto:talk-us-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than Re: Contents of Talk-us digest... Today's Topics: 1. Help with non-existent school in Big Sur, CA area (Sebastian Arcus) 2. Re: Help with non-existent school in Big Sur, CA area (Richard Welty) 3. Mappy New Year (Richard Weait) -- Message: 1 Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2014 20:21:43 + From: Sebastian Arcus s.ar...@open-t.co.ukmailto:s.ar...@open-t.co.uk To: talk-us@openstreetmap.orgmailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Talk-us] Help with non-existent school in Big Sur, CA area Message-ID: 52c9bed7.9060...@open-t.co.ukmailto:52c9bed7.9060...@open-t.co.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed I'm doing a bit of mapping south of Monterey based on some notes I've taken two months ago, and I've stumbled over this school on the map: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/36.31044/-121.88636 A search on the Internet doesn't reveal anything called Sur School. A search for schools in the area reveals some schools further south - but nothing close to where this school is on the map and nothing similar sounding. Also, looking at the satellite imagery, there is nothing close to this point on the map that looks like either a building or some remnants of one. There are the disused Point Sur Naval Facility buildings on the other side of the road, but we know what those are and they are not a school. I think the best thing to do is to delete this object. However, could someone who either lives in the area or has local knowledge confirm that this school really doesn't exist. All the evidence so far points to it being the case, but it would be nice if we could have on the ground confirmation before I delete it. Thanks -- Message: 2 Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2014 18:04:49 -0500 From: Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.netmailto:rwe...@averillpark.net To: talk-us@openstreetmap.orgmailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Help with non-existent school in Big Sur, CA area Message-ID: 52c9e511.9060...@averillpark.netmailto:52c9e511.9060...@averillpark.net Content-Type: text/plain;
Re: [Talk-us] A new tracing layer for TIGER 2013
Eric, I think that could work. I think as long as the stroke color isn't similar to the existing set of colors used to render ways in JOSM. Maybe purple or something. Just a thought. Best, Kristen --- OSM Profile -- http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/KristenK From: enf1234567...@gmail.com [mailto:enf1234567...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Eric Fischer Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 7:05 AM To: Dale Puch Cc: Kam, Kristen -(p); t...@openstreetmap.org; Paul Johnson; OpenStreetMap talk-us list Subject: Re: [Talk-us] A new tracing layer for TIGER 2013 Thanks for the feedback about colors in JOSM. I can clearly see now that what made for good contrast in iD is hard to use in JOSM. I'll try some new styles today and make sure they stand out in both editors. I think maybe the answer is to put a casing around the line so that it has a different look even if the color is similar. Eric ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US State highways.
Thanks for the reply Martijn. There is a lot of talk about capture unsigned/signed information in the relation. And I've read some proposals of adding to the role field--delimiting values by a pipe or semi-colon. I think that if there is interest to capture information about a way/node's relationship (i.e., signed or unsigned, direction, etc ) to the relation it is a member of, then why not either modify the role data type to capture tags (hstore) or add another field to the table of a relations' members to capture such information (hstore, again)? I acknowledge that many applications depend on the existing OSM data model. Changing the data type of existing fields would cause issues in existing applications. That said, I think it may be worth exploring *adding* a field to the existing data model. After all we are talking about adding information to existing relations about highway direction and whether or not they are signed. Something I've been thinking about while following these conversations. Best, Kristen --- OSM Profile → http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/KristenK -Original Message- From: mve...@gmail.com [mailto:mve...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Martijn van Exel Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:04 PM To: Kam, Kristen -(p) Cc: James Mast; talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US State highways. Ways are objects in their own right, so they can have tags, but members only exist as a reference on a relation, so there is not really a model for tags on members. On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Kam, Kristen -(p) krist...@telenav.com wrote: Hi All: I have a question: Why can’t there be member tag values? There are tag values for ways, so why not members? Just a thought. Best, Kristen --- OSM Profile à http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/KristenK From: James Mast [mailto:rickmastfa...@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 5:18 PM To: Martijn van Exel Cc: talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US State highways. Martijn, How would you suggest using the role:signed = yes/no (or is this just for completely unsigned highways like I-124 in TN where we can add this info into the main tags of the relation)? We would still need a way to keep the direction for the unsigned segment of the route in the role so that the relation editor in JOSM (and other analyzers) would be able to know that the route is still going North/East or South/West, especially on a dual-carriageway (like what happens with US-52 on I-94 in MN and US-19 Trunk on I-279/I-376 here in Pittsburgh, PA) and would let you know it's still in one piece. If you don't like the | separating the role = north|unsigned, maybe use the ; or , instead? I could see the ; working just as good as the |. I just want to find a solution to keep the route all in one piece instead of having to have two separate relations for it's signed segment and one covering the entire route with the unsigned_ref tag. Annoying and easily broken by new users who don't know why there are two relations for the exact same route on some segments. -James From: m...@rtijn.org Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 09:25:11 -0700 To: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com CC: talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US State highways. Hi James, I had not thought of the Case of the Hidden Segments. It makes sense to tag them, but would it not be more in line with general OSM tagging practice to use role:signed = yes/no? I think it's a valuable extension on the role discussion, perhaps you can add a paragraph to the wiki page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_Directions_In_The_United_S tates with an example? I found this photo (not ideal and I'm not sure if we could use it on the wiki, but it's something ;) http://www.ajfroggie.com/roadpics/mn/us052/nb-i94e.jpg Best Martijn On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 3:43 PM, James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com wrote: We also have to come up with a way to designate hidden segments of a route so we don't have to have two separate relations for highways that have segments that are hidden. Some of the examples I'm thinking of are like US-52 in MN when it's on I-94 and US-19 Trunk here in Pittsburgh, PA while it's on I-279/I-376. Both states have signs for theses routes telling people to follow said Interstates for those routes and then no more reference to them till when they leave the Interstates. I'm thinking that we could possibly tag the roles for them in the relations this way: role=north|unsigned. This would also help for the renders that use the relations to add the shields. They would be able to use the |unsigned part to know not to add the shields along that way. As for the highways that are completely hidden, the unsigned_ref
Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US State highways.
Hi All: I have a question: Why can't there be member tag values? There are tag values for ways, so why not members? Just a thought. Best, Kristen --- OSM Profile -- http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/KristenK From: James Mast [mailto:rickmastfa...@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 5:18 PM To: Martijn van Exel Cc: talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US State highways. Martijn, How would you suggest using the role:signed = yes/no (or is this just for completely unsigned highways like I-124 in TN where we can add this info into the main tags of the relation)? We would still need a way to keep the direction for the unsigned segment of the route in the role so that the relation editor in JOSM (and other analyzers) would be able to know that the route is still going North/East or South/West, especially on a dual-carriageway (like what happens with US-52 on I-94 in MN and US-19 Trunk on I-279/I-376 here in Pittsburgh, PA) and would let you know it's still in one piece. If you don't like the | separating the role = north|unsigned, maybe use the ; or , instead? I could see the ; working just as good as the |. I just want to find a solution to keep the route all in one piece instead of having to have two separate relations for it's signed segment and one covering the entire route with the unsigned_ref tag. Annoying and easily broken by new users who don't know why there are two relations for the exact same route on some segments. -James From: m...@rtijn.orgmailto:m...@rtijn.org Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 09:25:11 -0700 To: rickmastfa...@hotmail.commailto:rickmastfa...@hotmail.com CC: talk-us@openstreetmap.orgmailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US State highways. Hi James, I had not thought of the Case of the Hidden Segments. It makes sense to tag them, but would it not be more in line with general OSM tagging practice to use role:signed = yes/no? I think it's a valuable extension on the role discussion, perhaps you can add a paragraph to the wiki page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_Directions_In_The_United_States with an example? I found this photo (not ideal and I'm not sure if we could use it on the wiki, but it's something ;) http://www.ajfroggie.com/roadpics/mn/us052/nb-i94e.jpg Best Martijn On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 3:43 PM, James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.commailto:rickmastfa...@hotmail.com wrote: We also have to come up with a way to designate hidden segments of a route so we don't have to have two separate relations for highways that have segments that are hidden. Some of the examples I'm thinking of are like US-52 in MN when it's on I-94 and US-19 Trunk here in Pittsburgh, PA while it's on I-279/I-376. Both states have signs for theses routes telling people to follow said Interstates for those routes and then no more reference to them till when they leave the Interstates. I'm thinking that we could possibly tag the roles for them in the relations this way: role=north|unsigned. This would also help for the renders that use the relations to add the shields. They would be able to use the |unsigned part to know not to add the shields along that way. As for the highways that are completely hidden, the unsigned_ref tag in the relation will work perfectly for them still (US-85 in NM as an example). Anybody else agree with me that this might work better than the two relations for the highways that have segments that are hidden? -James ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.orgmailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us -- Martijn van Exel http://oegeo.wordpress.com/ http://openstreetmap.us/ ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.orgmailto: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] Bing imagery update
James, I located NAIP imagery for the state of North Carolina. http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/gis/naip.html http://www.ncmhtd.com/ge_wms.aspx I used the NAIP 2012 GE WMS to aid in some mapping. Maybe this will help? Best, Kristen --- OSM Profile -- http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/KristenK From: James Mast [mailto:rickmastfa...@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 5:08 PM To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Bing imagery update I just wish Bing would update the imagery around Charlotte, NC. Especially because of the building of the missing link of I-485. And I can't forget to mention I-85 as well since it's being widened from 2 to 4 lanes going North from I-485. I so want to clean that major turbine interchange of I-85/I-485 up since we still have the old pre-construction configuration in OSM. -James ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Completing the Appalachian Trail relation
test ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
