Re: [Talk-us] Recent Trunk road edits
On 28/09/2020 12.27, Paul Johnson wrote: On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 11:07 AM Matthew Woehlke wrote: On 28/09/2020 11.42, Jack Burke wrote: I'm willing to bet that most OSM editors who drive on either of those two will think "this is a great freeway, just with occasional traffic signals." That's an oxymoron. Freeways are, by definition, limited access (no crossing intersections, period) and do not have (permanent¹) signs or signals to halt traffic. IMNSHO, if it has traffic lights, stop signs, or the possibility of vehicles suddenly driving *across* the way, it isn't a freeway. True, but highway=trunk can mean either expressways (think like freeways that have some or all at-grade intersections; note that having freeway-style ramps in between junctions doesn't make it a highway=motorway), or single-carriageway freeways. In both cases, they tend to get built as an incremental case to building a full motorway, but are not yet motorways. We're getting dangerously into the territory of words with ambiguous meanings. Note https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/freeway, especially the first definition. Note also my point was about "freeways", not highway=trunk. Many in the US would consider "freeway" and highway=motorway to be nearly synonymous. (The "nearly" is when we start talking about non-interstate limited access.) I did later state that limited access is *not* a requirement for highway=trunk. Also, Jack has clarified his usage as "artistic"... That's not to say there aren't non-interstate highways that meet these definitions. But... is it a highway=trunk? *I* don't see where the wiki excludes the possibility. (It does, however, seem to me that only *actual* interstate freeways should be highway=motorway in the US.) That's not true at all... Citation needed. I don't think that's been established (although we're getting pretty off-topic...). The *converse*, sure (interstate =/> motorway), I'll concede that. [...] the transitions to where an interstate ends and it continues as another kind of highway past the last exit before a junction, I would question whether those should be highway=motorway. (Yes, I'm looking at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/98245488 and surrounding, possibly as far north as https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/41485037.) -- Matthew ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Recent Trunk road edits
On 28/09/2020 11.42, Jack Burke wrote: I'm willing to bet that most OSM editors who drive on either of those two will think "this is a great freeway, just with occasional traffic signals." That's an oxymoron. Freeways are, by definition, limited access (no crossing intersections, period) and do not have (permanent¹) signs or signals to halt traffic. IMNSHO, if it has traffic lights, stop signs, or the possibility of vehicles suddenly driving *across* the way, it isn't a freeway. That's not to say there aren't non-interstate highways that meet these definitions. But... is it a highway=trunk? *I* don't see where the wiki excludes the possibility. (It does, however, seem to me that only *actual* interstate freeways should be highway=motorway in the US.) Related: if it's I-## or I-###, shouldn't it be a highway=motorway, period? (Unless those, for some reason, are ever *not* freeways?) (¹ In case of active construction or accidents, all bets are off.) -- Matthew ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] place=neighborhood on subdivisions?
On 23/09/2020 00.52, 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. I admit this threw me at first also, but read https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Dsuburb. To wit: "OSM's usage of 'suburb' is different than that used by North American English, where a suburb is 'an area, often residential, outside of a central city'." In the US, we're used to a "suburb" being a separate town, village, or even city that is associated with a large city (New York City, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, Seattle, etc.), but that's not the definition that OSM uses. As I understand the wiki, the Seattle usage is correct. -- Matthew ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Potential Mechanical Edit to remove access=private from Amazon Logistics driveways in NH
On 31/08/2020 15.56, Kevin Broderick wrote: First, I'd like to point out that this discussion started off with the question of removing "access=private" from Amazon-logistics-mapped driveways. I still maintain that the mechanical edit would be a good thing, because the tagging as added is based on an assumption that service=driveway implies access=private, which (a) isn't 100% accurate, and (b) adds the appearance of more detail in the database without actually adding any value (i.e. if it is a safe assumption, then adding the tag is superfluous; if it isn't, then adding it is potentially misleading). Second, I'd like to point out that there *are* driveways in New England that are actually public right-of-ways. On a related note: I use service=driveway (for lack of anything better) for access ways to parking lots that don't have parking spaces (hence, not service=parking_aisle). These are likely *not* public right-of-ways (the lots themselves are usually "private"), but they are also certainly not access=private. So, no, service=driveway should *not* imply access=private. If anything, lacking other information, it should imply access=yes just like it does on any other way, and I suspect routing engines route accordingly. This, BTW, is a large part of why we're having this conversation in the first place. The problem with overusing access=private is that we're effectively teaching routing engines to ignore that, which makes such tagging much less useful. -- Matthew ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Potential Mechanical Edit to remove access=private from Amazon Logistics driveways in NH
On 31/08/2020 11.19, Greg Troxel wrote: What I objected to was not "that is your opinion; many others disagree" but "that is your opinion but *no one else* sees it that way". If you didn't really mean that, sorry for overreacting. Fair enough. I probably should have said something like "my understanding is that this is contrary to the community consensus". It's always possible that what appears *to me* to be the community consensus looks different to others. -- Matthew ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Potential Mechanical Edit to remove access=private from Amazon Logistics driveways in NH
On 31/08/2020 10.54, Greg Troxel wrote: Matthew Woehlke writes: *You* may see it this way. The rest of the community does not. A declaration that every other member of the community disagrees is unreasonable. I'm not sure if this is directed at me or at Mike. If at me, I'll point out that the fact we're having this conversation in the first place is because someone strongly disagrees with residential driveways being access=private "by default". Nor is it the first time I've encountered that opinion. Honestly, my initial opinion on the matter was closer to Mike's, but others told me I was wrong. B) private shopping centers where the public is welcome, to shop. (access=customers, mostly) C) private land where use is known acceptable (access=permissive) Even this is not clear. *My* understanding is that most businesses are closer to access=permissive, with access=customers referring more to places that are explicitly signed as "customers only". In most shopping centers, for example, it seems acceptable to go there just to walk around even with no intention of purchasing anything. (At least, I know that people do so...) -- Matthew ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Potential Mechanical Edit to remove access=private from Amazon Logistics driveways in NH
On 31/08/2020 10.18, Mike Thompson wrote: On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 7:46 AM Matthew Woehlke wrote: The objection is that access=private currently *has* an understood meaning, and that meaning is *no* access without permission, not what you described above. Sounds like my driveway. If you are using my driveway without my permission, either implicit (e.g. delivering a package) or explicit, I am going to ask you to leave. I think you are conflating whether something is "not allowed" with "can be prosecuted as a crime." I think *you* are conflating implicit permission and explicit permission. access=private as I understand the general community consensus to be means no access without *explicit* permission. No access without *implicit* permission is closer to access=destination... but note I said "closer to". We don't seem to have something that exactly means "no access except by *implied* permission". -- Matthew ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Potential Mechanical Edit to remove access=private from Amazon Logistics driveways in NH
On 30/08/2020 10.00, Greg Troxel wrote: "Alex Weech" writes: Another thing I just thought of over breakfast, in New Hampshire by default private land has public access, and landowners have to post that trespassing is not allowed. It could be that that's a quirk of this part of the world, and other places don't have a posting requirement, which is why there's some cultural disconnect. It is likely the same law has Mass, but I think you have the details of "public access" subtly wrong. I think the law says: Being on someone's land without permission is trespassing, but this is not a crime. If it is posted, or you have been told, then it is a crime. From that, one can not conclude that "by default private land has public access" in the OSM sense. You can only conclude that "if you walk on it you are not committing a crime". In OSM, access=yes means "the public has a legally-enshrined right of access", so not only can you go there, but other people cannot tell you not to go there. This notion of a right is foundational to access=yes. I agree we need a new tag. As I see it access=yes legally-enshrined right of access, like a public street. (Also used for private conservation land where the landowner invites the public, even though technically they could change the rules.) Perhaps shopping centers, even though not a right, it's close in practice. Essentially always in truly public places. access=permissive no *right* of access, but generally understood that the landowner does not object to typical use. Often on trails not near houses that cross private land, but without an easement. Basically can only be added by a local because it is essentially never signed. access=private There is no right of access for random people. There is no social expectation that it is reasonable for people to go there for for arbitrary purposes. (For example, an actual neighbor coming to introduce themself, etc. is ok.) This is the default assumption for driveways in New England - basically actual neighbors behaving in an actual neighborly way that they wouldn't mind someone else doing at their house is ok, deliveries ok, maybe gathering signatures for ballot access ok, and pretty much anything else not ok. *You* may see it this way. The rest of the community does not. access=private sign:no_trespassing=yes Further means there is a no trespassing sign. (we already have a way to map gates.) What is the actual problem with other people's driveways being marked access=private on the map? yes, driving on is usually technically not illegal, but unless you are going there because you were invited for have a reason they'd approve of, it's basically not ok. The objection is that access=private currently *has* an understood meaning, and that meaning is *no* access without permission, not what you described above. I don't think it's reasonable to change that definition, as it would invalidate huge amounts of the map. If access=destination is not acceptable, perhaps we need a new category. -- Matthew ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Labeling forestry service roads/tracks
On 19/07/2020 18.47, tj-osmw...@lowsnr.net wrote: Editing in Boundary County, Idaho in the Panhandle, I've been extending the forest landuse area around Bonners Ferry and have come across a difficulty in classifying forest roads. It seems that many have been automatically imported and have highway=residential, which is just plain wrong. FWIW, this seems to be endemic in TIGER data. I often suspect that everything that isn't a primary or secondary gets marked "residential". For roads that appear metalled (paved) and/or access mines, quarries, communication towers etc. I label highway=service, for roads that are unpaved or sometimes seem to almost fade out I label highway=track. For roads that appear to be public access (e.g. to go to a lake) but are obviously even more minor than tertiary roads I label highway=unclassified. Sounds about right, at least for the first and last. I'm less certain about "highway=track". (Not saying it's *wrong*, just that I don't know, vs. the others which sound correct to me.) Well, modulo Mike's comment; where I've been using "highway=unclassified" is for things that really don't look like service roads (e.g. that connect to other road networks) but likewise are clearly not residential. For example, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/20453748. TIGER seems to be at best very coarse, at worst fictional. Yup, that is known to be the case. As I understand it, TIGER was created mainly for census-taking, and so as long as someone on the ground could look at the map and figure out more or less how to get to the houses on a particular road, that is "good enough". Positional accuracy in that respect isn't nearly as important as *connectivity* accuracy, which partly explains the quality, but even connectivity can be dodgy. (As you noted, it's not unusual to be missing entire roads, or to have roads that don't really exist, and that's *before* we start worrying about changes that have happened since.) -- Matthew ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] private or not, USA ?
On 16/07/2020 21.06, Steve Friedl wrote: On 16/07/2020 20.58, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us wrote: Are wi-fi passwords and the IP number of a hot spot, located in MC Donald, burger-king, Starbucks, Answering a different question than what you asked: they don’t belong in OSM, so any other answer is off topic. ...and in addition, yes, they are private. Such AP's are usually for customers only; said establishments will likely be very annoyed if you go around publishing their passwords. It may even be illegal to do so. **DO NOT** add such information to OSM. -- Matthew ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [Imports-us] Interested in importing address points in New York State
On 16/07/2020 00.44, Skyler Hawthorne wrote: Reading up on the import guidelines, I can see that the license is important. However, I am not able to see anything that explicitly states one way or another what kind of license the data sets are distributed under, and this whether or not it is compatible with the ODBL. Hello again! Great to see someone else working in my neck of the woods! If the site doesn't state clearly (an issue I had with Prince William County, VA, which I have been working on for job-related reasons), I would recommend contacting the data issuing agency. I see it's a .ny.gov site, so it's almost surely legitimate (plus it's hard to imagine someone making the effort to set up a scam site with enough content to not be obvious). There are some form letters you can use to ask if the data is available under a compatible license, or you can just ask them to clearly indicate the license *or if the data is Public Domain*. In my experience, it may be helpful to ask up front for the contact to clearly state if the data is or is not PD. As a disclaimer, I do this in my free time, which is in short supply, so progress on this would likely be slow. However, I would love if everyone could just search for any address and find it. As someone who recently went looking and discovered that his former residence "doesn't exist" in OSM, I for one will be most gratified to see any improvements in the area :-). -- Matthew ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Importing data for Prince William County, VA
On 13/07/2020 17.46, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us wrote: Jul 13, 2020, 20:29 by mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com: It is still required to use a separate account for manually audited changes? Is it going to be "by comparing dataset X and OSM I found places to map roads that I added using aerial images"? Or more of "manually copied and verified geometries from external dataset"? So far, I've done a bunch of stuff (on my own account) using the GIS data more as a supplemental reference layer, i.e. I haven't *technically* imported anything (but *have* hand-added some roads and other features and hand-edited others). At some point, I am likely going to need to do a mass import of buildings, and that almost certainly *will* be an import. -- Matthew ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] access=private on driveways
On 14/07/2020 09.44, Alex Hennings wrote: 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?) That's how iD represents it. There is, of course, a solution to this... propose a new value with the appropriate semantics. The (possible) problem with having access implied by service=driveway is that a lot of access roads to stores/businesses/offices are also service=driveway... although I suppose you could argue these have the same semantics; you shouldn't be using them unless you're actually going to the location to which they provide access. (Which isn't to say that no one ever violates this...) -- Matthew ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] access=private on driveways (was: Deleting tiger:reviewed=no/addr:street for routes)
On 13/07/2020 15.16, Kevin Kenny wrote: I'll confess to having perpetrated a fair number - at a time when I didn't know better. Likewise. That said... A few things, though: The immediate curtilage of a house is presumed to be private; at least in the US, one does not drive or walk directly up to someone's house without having business there. (Someone making a delivery, obviously, has business there.) ...this seems to be the definition of access=destination? Is that the recommended way to tag residential driveways? I haven't had any trouble getting OSMand to navigate to a house on a road marked `access=private`. It pops up a warning that my destination is on a private road, and asks whether it's OK to route over it - and then does so happily. My car does this, and doesn't even ask. It just warns me that "this route uses private roads". I generally assume that's talking about the final leg and ignore it. I'm perfectly willing to believe that overzealous application of 'private' breaks _some_ routing engines, but 'breaks routing for everyone' is a bit hyperbolic. Yup. That said, it does seem like access=destination is more correct for ways that aren't explicitly access-restricted? -- Matthew ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Importing data for Prince William County, VA
On 13/07/2020 14.22, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: If you are staying from manually reviewing and editing based on this new data, aerials and current data it should be perfectly fine as long as you actually review what you add. For now, yes. For buildings (later, and I'll probably ping y'all again), I expect that to be more automated, but probably still manually reviewed. It is still required to use a separate account for manually audited changes? -- Matthew ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Importing data for Prince William County, VA
On 13/07/2020 13.44, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us wrote: Are you sure that it is in public domain? It is according to the government POC. https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports-us/2020-July/000954.html -- Matthew ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Importing data for Prince William County, VA
(Repost to talk-us also.) On 13/07/2020 10.44, Matthew Woehlke wrote: I am working on a project that wishes to tentatively use OSM data from Quantico and possibly surrounding areas. Unfortunately, OSM is somewhat lacking in this area, especially within Quantico itself. I would like to import data from information provided by the county¹. To start with, I would like to use the country-provided roads to improve road shapes and fill in missing roads (for now, manually, probably using Merkaartor, and checked against available aerial imagery). Eventually, I want to add buildings and maybe anything else that seems useful. Being data generated by an agency of the US government, the source data is Public Domain (verified via the contact information provided on the site). Comments/concerns/objections/suggestions? (¹ https://gisdata-pwcgov.opendata.arcgis.com/) -- Matthew ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
