Re: [Talk-us] Redaction bot is heading our way!

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 7/18/2012 2:19 PM, Richard Weait wrote:

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:


http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=33.9958&lon=-81.1074&zoom=13&layers=M
Thanks, OSMF. We appreciate all the hard work you did in damaging our data.


Some mappers in some areas have elected to wait until after the
redaction to remap.

How do you know there are any mappers here?

> Why do you criticise them?
I don't. I criticize OSMF for doing this.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Redaction bot is heading our way!

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 7/18/2012 7:34 AM, James Mast wrote:

I just happened to load up the progress page for the bot, and it's
entered Mexico overnight.  Just thought I would give all of you fellow
North America mappers a heads up. ;)
http://harrywood.dev.openstreetmap.org/license-change/botprocessing.php


http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=33.9958&lon=-81.1074&zoom=13&layers=M
Thanks, OSMF. We appreciate all the hard work you did in damaging our data.



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

[Talk-us] accidental aligning nodes in line needs reverting

[Nathan Edgars II]

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/72505631 was accidentally 
aligned in a line, causing major damage to the geometry of intersecting 
ways. A recent API change to facilitate the license change broke JOSM's 
reverter plugin, so I can't fix it.


This user's other changesets should probably also be reverted: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/12131423 deleted part of 
northbound IL 43 and 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/12131326 doesn't seem to 
have done anything but create a way that was later deleted.


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

Re: [Talk-us] railway=abandoned and mapping things that are not there any more?

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 7/13/2012 11:56 PM, Peter Dobratz wrote:

I guess the main thing that is problematic about former railways is
their verifiability.

Between TIGER and GNIS and other imports, when I come across a road or
church that no longer exists (or in some cases never existed), I just
delete them.  But before I delete the objects, I try to make some effort
to move them to their correct location where applicable.  How am I
supposed to tell if these railways are in the right spot?  In this
specific case, I was able to make an argument that the railway was in
the wrong spot and you managed to dig up a map that's more than 100
years old to help find the correct former railroad location.


Old USGS topos are a good source for most abandoned railways, and 
they're now mostly online: http://nationalmap.gov/historical/ Even 
modern topos (available in JOSM - "MSR Maps Topo" in the imagery 
preferences) show many that are not obvious on aerials.



Where does the information about the geometry of these former railways
come from?  What steps did you take to verify the data before putting it
in the OSM database?  How are you going to document this information for
future mappers?  It would seem to make sense to add additional
information to a source= or a note= tag indicating where the information
about the previous existence of the railway came from.  Or maybe there
can be more verbose information added to the wiki somewhere.


Given that most roads added by mappers are at most tagged source=Yahoo 
or Bing, despite these only being used for location and not name or 
other characteristics, sourcing is not in practice a major concern for 
most mappers. However, I understand the point about being difficult to 
verify, and will try to provide better source tags where applicable.


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

Re: [Talk-us] railway=abandoned and mapping things that are not there any more?

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 7/13/2012 4:43 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

If you want to change portions to railway=dismantled, I won't complain.
But note that there are definite traces in places, at least across the
Merrimack.


In fact I've just done this. Enjoy.

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

Re: [Talk-us] railway=abandoned and mapping things that are not there any more

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 7/13/2012 11:28 AM, william skora wrote:

Although historical features such as abandoned railways can be
valuable information and interesting, OSM is a consists of physical
features that currently exist, as Shawn succinctly stated,
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2012-July/008563.html


That's simply not true; OSM has included abandoned railways, even where 
no traces remain, since before I joined. (I'm not talking about the 
TIGER import, but actual railways mapped by people.)


Historical items that no longer have a physical presence (like railway
lines) would be better suited to a separate entity that focuses on
historical ways.


This would be a great duplication of work, since at least 80-90% of 
former railways still do have traces.


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

Re: [Talk-us] railway=abandoned and mapping things that are not there any more?

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 7/13/2012 9:31 AM, Richard Weait wrote:

And it seems like there is broad
agreement that such an object with no such visible hints is currently
not appropriate for the OSM db.  Right?


Not right. There has been a good deal of mapping former railways by a 
number of users over several years.


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

Re: [Talk-us] railway=abandoned and mapping things that are not there any more?

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 7/13/2012 8:45 AM, Peter Dobratz wrote:

On 7/13/12, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:

On 7/12/2012 11:43 PM, Peter Dobratz wrote:

NE2,

So after I bring up that I don't think railways should be drawn through
buildings, and most people agree with me on that, you decide to do this:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.762886&lon=-71.430509&zoom=18&layers=M

Does 86 Central Street, Hudson, NH have remnants of a railroad running
through their living room?  No, because that's ridiculous.


Is it on the former route of a railway? Of course. And that's what
railway=abandoned has meant since I joined OSM.


That is the exact point being discussed.  Why are we singling out
railways as a feature that essentially never goes away entirely even
though areas have been completely redeveloped?

In the case of the houses on Central Street in Hudson, these aren't
exactly new construction.  Here are the dates of construction
according to the town of Hudson's property tax assessor:


Sorry about that, and thanks. I did in fact have it on the wrong side of 
the street: 
http://historical.mytopo.com/getImage.asp?fname=mnch41sw.jpg&state=NH

http://www.wardmaps.com/viewasset.php?aid=5127

If you want to change portions to railway=dismantled, I won't complain. 
But note that there are definite traces in places, at least across the 
Merrimack.


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

Re: [Talk-us] railway=abandoned and mapping things that are not there any more?

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 7/12/2012 10:45 PM, Mike N wrote:

On 7/12/2012 4:21 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

This is a strawman, since there will rarely be more than one former line
across a small area. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone
wants to map all the former second tracks, sidings, and such, especially
where they've changed over the years.


   That's just what the local mapper was doing.  I ended up deleting a
bunch of old spurs that wound through the city and passed through
buildings.


I can buy former spurs, though I'll usually only map them if they're 
significant in length or history or there are still remnants. Was this 
mapper adding multiple tracks on the same right-of-way?


   A single abandoned track would be no more of a problem than a power
line.


Or an underground sewer line. Or an administrative boundary.

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

Re: [Talk-us] railway=abandoned and mapping things that are not there any more?

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 7/12/2012 11:43 PM, Peter Dobratz wrote:

NE2,

So after I bring up that I don't think railways should be drawn through
buildings, and most people agree with me on that, you decide to do this:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.762886&lon=-71.430509&zoom=18&layers=M

Does 86 Central Street, Hudson, NH have remnants of a railroad running
through their living room?  No, because that's ridiculous.


Is it on the former route of a railway? Of course. And that's what 
railway=abandoned has meant since I joined OSM.


Maybe you could hold off dumping stuff on top of work that I've done
while we continue to discuss the matter.


Back at ya. Don't delete something that doesn't interest you.


Does anyone have any objection to reverting the following changesets?:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/12202043
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/12186087
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/12191431


For the record, I do object. And the fact that you would consider 
killing a fly with a sledgehammer is disturbing.


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

Re: [Talk-us] TIGER fixup and mapping "more"

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 7/12/2012 11:27 AM, Clay Smalley wrote:

I like this idea. That would encourage more people to TIGER-review
streets, as highway=road shows up pretty ugly on Mapnik, and people like
getting rid of ugly. What would be the drawbacks of doing this? It seems
like there would be some but I can't think of any.


The problem is that you can easily see that any old subdivision street 
is residential on an aerial, but you shouldn't remove tiger:reviewed 
unless you've verified the name.


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

Re: [Talk-us] railway=abandoned and mapping things that are not there any more?

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 7/12/2012 3:15 PM, Mike N wrote:

On 7/12/2012 3:10 PM, Greg Troxel wrote:

So let's spiff up the render, not lose the info from the db.


   At some point, historical railways are just like general historical
items in OSM: after years of buildings are built, demolished, and roads
rerouted, editing becomes impossible due to clutter.

   Try to explain to a newbie who is mapping a new park or shopping
center that he must carefully work around and not disturb all those
abandoned railway lines that no longer exist.


This is a strawman, since there will rarely be more than one former line 
across a small area. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone 
wants to map all the former second tracks, sidings, and such, especially 
where they've changed over the years.


I am of course one mapper who's been mapping former railways. (Russ 
Nelson is another.) There is certainly value in seeing how the current 
disconnected bits of railway infrastructure used to connect. I've also 
mapped the occasional highway=abandoned, e.g. where the old road was cut 
off by the Interstate.


I have no major objection to using the dismantled tag, and will only 
change it to abandoned if there clearly are traces remaining. But I 
personally won't use it, since the line is too subjective. For example, 
is this abandoned or dismantled: 
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=28.464919,-81.508298&spn=0.016789,0.033023&gl=us&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=28.464836,-81.50835&panoid=DpHe3zsk3ODkP85Nu5w_8A&cbp=12,93.74,,0,20
Note the switch stand being used as a mailbox. But the actual grade 
isn't much more than a typical property line.


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

Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: [OSM-dev] Licence redaction ready to begin

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 7/11/2012 9:31 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Hi,

On 07/11/12 15:20, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

   The state capital region of Columbia, South Carolina will be a prime
test of the "Do empty areas attract contributors?" theory for some time
to come.


Why, is someone planning to remove the TIGER import in that area?


Yes, wherever those TIGER ways were either outright deleted or combined
with other ways.


Obviously my comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek; I am personally
convinced that the unedited TIGER landscape - i.e. a map of which
virtually nothing is correct

Nope.


and once you start to work somewhere you
have to touch almost every single object if you want an acceptable
result - is the worst situation for attracting mappers. Therefore,
returning an area to how it was after TIGER (and deleting selected
objects for good measure) is certainly not creating an "empty area" in
the sense of the "do empty areas attract contributors" theory.


My comment was serious. Where an ungood user has done a lot of editing 
to TIGER ways, the OSMF will not return it to the TIGER state, but will 
leave a horrible mess of half-deleted TIGER.


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

Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: [OSM-dev] Licence redaction ready to begin

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 7/11/2012 8:38 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Hi,

On 07/11/12 13:59, Mike N wrote:

   The state capital region of Columbia, South Carolina will be a prime
test of the "Do empty areas attract contributors?" theory for some time
to come.


Why, is someone planning to remove the TIGER import in that area?


Yes, wherever those TIGER ways were either outright deleted or combined 
with other ways.


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

Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: [OSM-dev] Licence redaction ready to begin

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 7/10/2012 6:15 PM, Charlotte Wolter wrote:> Nathan,
>
> How did you ensure that the railroads will be damaged minimally

Using JOSM's license change plugin. If the OSMF uses a different 
algorithm, we're all screwed.


> (and why is poor old LA excluded)?
Because there's a lot of work and I can only take so much of digging 
holes and filling them back in.


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

Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: [OSM-dev] Licence redaction ready to begin

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 7/10/2012 5:40 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

I've just ensured that the OSMF will do minimal damage to the U.S.
railway network outside the Los Angeles area.


Oh, and South Carolina. Not going to touch that.

> Most of the damage will be

moving nodes, meaning that geometry may be totally borked but topology
will be fine.




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

Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: [OSM-dev] Licence redaction ready to begin

[Nathan Edgars II]

I've just ensured that the OSMF will do minimal damage to the U.S. 
railway network outside the Los Angeles area. Most of the damage will be 
moving nodes, meaning that geometry may be totally borked but topology 
will be fine.


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

Re: [Talk-us] US Road route relation conventions

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 7/9/2012 6:23 PM, Mike N wrote:

Is there a Wiki page that describes the best current highway tagging
scheme to document use of route relations and refs to support Mapnik
with shields and other data consumers?


No, because there is no current tagging scheme :)

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

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Licence redaction ready to begin

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 7/9/2012 4:46 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

Hello all,

I'm pleased to announce that the licence change bot is ready to get
underway.

Starting this week, we will be 'redacting' the contributions (less than
1%) from the live database that are not compatible with the new
Contributor Terms and Open Database Licence (ODbL) - in other words,
they will no longer be accessible. We are expecting to begin on
_Wednesday_ (11th July) assuming a couple of final setup details are
completed by then.


I understand that deletions by ungood users will *not* be reverted. Will 
changesets by these users still be available, so one can go through and 
fix the damage? (Or, even better, will there be lists of objects deleted 
by users?)


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

Re: [Talk-us] Scenic/Historic byways

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 7/8/2012 3:20 PM, Toby Murray wrote:

Just came across this while processing pictures from my bike across Kansas:
http://i.imgur.com/bmiV2.jpg

This is a sign for the "Western Vistas" historic byway. It even has a website:
http://www.westernvistashistoricbyway.com/

Closer to home I have also seen a "Scenic Byway" sign. This seems to
be an official designation by the US DOT as discussed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Scenic_Byway

I'm not seeing nearly as much information on historic byways. Are
these designated by the DOT as well or are they just tourist
attractions?

They're at least approved by the DOT if they run along state highways.

I've used scenic=yes for some in Florida. For example: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1239925


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

[Talk-us] How can I contact the tagging list moderators?

[Nathan Edgars II]

Some time ago my messages to the tagging list were supposedly placed on 
moderation. But it's instead been cold turkey; despite the automated 
message saying that "Either the message will get posted to the list, or 
you will receive notification of the moderator's decision", neither has 
happened.


The only name listed on http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging 
is Richard. I emailed him and was directed to Mikel Maron as the actual 
moderator of the list. But he has not replied.


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

Re: [Talk-us] Rails with trails

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 7/3/2012 4:11 PM, Anthony wrote:

What if it's an abandoned railway which is adjacent to a not-abandoned
railway?


Then it's already tagged as a rail trail.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Shorelines of highly variable lakes

[Nathan Edgars II]

Note that if you have the desired surface level, you can use USGS topos 
to place the shoreline on the correct contour.


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

[Talk-us] An amusing story of a GNIS entry

[Nathan Edgars II]

http://www.fuzzyworld3.com/3um/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=3183

I suppose the question is whether OSM should have this place (assuming 
someone verifies that the sign is gone). Currently it does as part of 
the GNIS import: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/153418203/history


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

Re: [Talk-us] Rails with trails

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 6/27/2012 10:46 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:

Ideally a map of rail trails
should include them (e.g. the one in Trains magazine's May 2011
issue), but there's no easy way to determine if a trail is one.


I would map the ways independently when the trail is adjacent to the rails.


Duh? The question is what *additional* tags to put on the trail.

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

[Talk-us] Rails with trails

[Nathan Edgars II]

Currently it's simple enough to find most (correctly-tagged) rail trails 
in the database: find anything tagged railway=abandoned and highway=[one 
of the trail values]. These trails are usually flatter than roads, and 
are therefore well-suited for long-distance cycling.


But another popular kind of rail trail, a "rail with trail", cannot be 
found in this manner. Generally the railway company will lease part of 
its right-of-way to the trail organization, with a fence separating the 
rail from the trail. (This is possible because a large number of main 
lines had at least two tracks in railroading's heyday.) This may be a 
self-contained trail, or a portion of a longer 'standard' rail trail 
that shifts to the side where a short piece of the rail is still in use. 
These trails have the same features as rail trails, with the possible 
bonus of being able to watch trains on an active railroad. Ideally a map 
of rail trails should include them (e.g. the one in Trains magazine's 
May 2011 issue), but there's no easy way to determine if a trail is one.


Does anyone have any ideas for tagging? The simplest would be something 
like rail_with_trail=yes or maybe railway=adjacent.


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

Re: [Talk-us] Work on Arizona rail lines deleted

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 6/19/2012 1:27 PM, Charlotte Wolter wrote:

Dear US folks,

I did a lot of work on the railroad that parallels I-40 across Arizona,
from Gallup, N.M., to Flagstaff, Ariz. There are two parallel tracks
with different names,
Not sure what you mean by this. The Gallup Subdivision (Belen-East 
Winslow) and Seligman Subdivision (East Winslow-Needles) both operate 
(at least east of Seligman) using centralized traffic control on 2+ main 
tracks.


> but OSM had only one of those tracks. I added the

second rail way and numerous side tracks, following the Bing imagery. It
was hours and hours of work.
Now someone has deleted most of the second line without contacting me or
discussing the issue on the mail list. Anyone know anything about this?


I assume you're talking about east of Holbrook. It's hard to tell, but 
looking at http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/137620560/history in 
JOSM before and after changeset 10173363, I see that it's now on the 
south track but had been on the north track.


In that changeset, you deleted one of the ways (a two-node crossover) 
you had previously added: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/137364047/history
and you deleted a node where the siding had joined the north main track: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1506904532/history


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

Re: [Talk-us] Los Angeles area status

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 6/14/2012 9:31 PM, Alan Mintz wrote:

I'm not sure I blame him, in theory, for not
agreeing to something unseen, being solely at the mercy of the masses -
the same ones that approved this change to begin with.


Actually there wasn't even that level of approval. The current license 
change never went to a vote (all the votes people will cite are to "move 
forward with the process" of planning for a possible license change).


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

Re: [Talk-us] Bing Imagery link changed for JOSM?

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 6/13/2012 5:22 AM, James Mast wrote:

I've also noticed this in the happening in St. Louis along I-64. JOSM is
still loading the old imagery, while Potlatch 2 is getting the newer
imagery.


Perhaps you're zoomed in too far. PL2 also gives the old imagery at zoom 
20: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=potlatch2&lat=38.6311&lon=-90.2653&zoom=20


In JOSM you can right click and uncheck auto zoom once you get to the 
highest new zoom.


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

Re: [Talk-us] Special issues in LA remap

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 6/12/2012 4:21 PM, Alan Mintz wrote:

It seems that the easiest way to quickly clean a way that is clean
itself, but contains a bunch of orange nodes, is to select the way and
then nudge it very slightly (i.e. in JOSM, zoom way in so that a
shift-arrow movement is a small fraction of a meter, but more than the
resolution of the coordinates, which is how much?). If you are OK with
the alignment of the road as you see it against the imagery, this would
seem to be within the spirit of the re-licensing, and quite easier and
smaller (data-wise) than branding everything odbl=clean or reducing the
way to a stub and re-drawing it, which is what I've been doing for ways
that are mostly orange nodes.


This is cheating, since if the locations of nodes are copyrightable, so 
are the locations relative to each other. Of course, so would be adding 
a node between two bad nodes (since its position is defined in part by 
being on a bad line) but most remappers have probably done this.


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

Re: [Talk-us] holes in Columbus OH?

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 6/12/2012 12:45 AM, Peter Dobratz wrote:

I currently have the opportunity to do some mapping in Columbus, Ohio.
  The admin boundary for the city seems a bit odd:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/182706

There seem to be a lot of holes in the multipolygon relation, and it
seems strange to me that there are so many places within the city that
are not part of the city.  Is anyone more familiar with this area that
give an explanation for this?


Cities generally annex properties one-by-one. This can create enclaves 
where the city or owners didn't want annexation.


http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=28.51325&lon=-81.36011&zoom=17&layers=M

Here's an official source that shows the holes in Columbus: 
http://gis.columbus.gov/oss/


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

Re: [Talk-us] Seeing things you don't care about in the database

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 6/11/2012 7:17 PM, Mark Gray wrote:

On one hand, I share the frustration of having lots of new data in
an area making some of our tools slower and more difficult to use.
In my area a building footprint import slowed down most of the
mapping tools and land use polygons can get in the way of editing
roads.


I agree with this. But I'm not sure that there is a solution. You can 
use XAPI/Overpass API to download only roads in an area, but you get 
conflicts (or worse, you move a node and screw up something else without 
realizing it) when nodes are shared with other non-downloaded features. 
This can happen directly (road passing through a building or the IMO bad 
practice of using roads as landuse borders) or indirectly (e.g. road - 
parking lot - building - landuse).


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

Re: [Talk-us] Menlo Park Admin Boundary

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 6/9/2012 6:03 PM, the Old Topo Depot wrote:

Hi Steve,

Does the border reappear if your revert your changes ?  If not, perhaps
a style sheet change happened around the same time as your change.  It
may be fruitful to minimize the tags on the way; get it rendering
properly, then re-add tags and see if rendering breaks.


Also change it to a relation to avoid the overlap with adjacent 
municipalities.


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

Re: [Talk-us] Menlo Park Admin Boundary

[Nathan Edgars II]

I forgot to mention that you can also use Potlatch 1. Hit U to view 
deleted ways, select the way, and unlock. This is probably the easiest 
for a simple undeletion like this.


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

Re: [Talk-us] Menlo Park Admin Boundary

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 6/8/2012 12:16 AM, the Old Topo Depot wrote:

It appears that changeset 11339421
 deleted way id
108849539, which was a part of the Menlo Park admin boundary.  As the
changeset is rather large (2,304 nodes; 160 ways) a full revert seems
undesirable.
What might be the best way to recover the deleted way and restore the
associated relation without attempting a full revert ?


Download and select relation 1544957 in JOSM, then run the JOSM revert 
plugin and revert selection only. This doesn't undelete the way, but you 
can then download incomplete members of the relation and select the way 
(which now has 0 nodes), then revert again. And done: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/11831691


(There's also an undelete plugin, but it doesn't always work properly 
for me, especially on a thousand-node way.)


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

Re: [Talk-us] Special issues in LA remap

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 6/6/2012 3:07 AM, Steve All wrote:

I have used the JOSM revert changeset to good effect before, I know that
users like NE2 and others have the skill to write/wield/deploy powerful
scripts that "do" high-level crafted semantically-laser beam effects.


Nope - I use JOSM for my magic.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Special issues in LA remap

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 6/5/2012 3:42 PM, Mike N wrote:

On 6/5/2012 2:56 PM, stevea wrote:

But "socially," or more properly stated, in the context of "reaching OSM
consensus," what does our community think of (rather wholesale) reverts
of a contributor who has not agreed to the CT? Are we OK with that?


This nearly describes what the redaction bot will do, once it is
complete.


With one big difference: the bot will not undelete objects that an 
ungood mapper deleted. (So any joining of ways by such a mapper will be 
handled improperly.)


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

Re: [Talk-us] User cleared out a chunk of streets

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 5/31/2012 11:33 AM, Brian May wrote:

Hi All,

I just noticed in Gainesville, FL user AMPINTERMEDIA
 recently deleted a
chunk of streets from one section of town. Doesn't look sinister - they
are a new user and probably didn't realize what they were doing. The
account name matches a local SEO company in Gainesville. I'm not sure
what to do about it, i.e. I'm not sure what the protocol is for this
type of situation and I've never attempted a revert before. Can someone
review this and revert it?

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/11624008


Reverted (the only creation rather than deletion was a misspelling of a 
school that was already there). If you haven't messaged him yet, you 
should probably let him know.


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

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] proposed automated edit: forested wetlands

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 5/30/2012 6:19 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:

There's absolutely no reason to rush. Data that's been sitting in OSM
for *years* without even being noticed as a problem


I noticed it as a problem about a year ago.

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

Re: [Talk-us] proposed automated edit: forested wetlands

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 5/29/2012 6:04 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

The landuse import for Georgia (which IMO is poor-quality and should be
deleted, but that's not going to happen) has a bunch of areas tagged as
note = Forested Wetland with no useful natural=* tags (since
natural=wood and natural=wetland both apply). Example:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/31457349

I propose to fix these.

But what would be the best tags to use? Would natural=wetland
wetland=swamp ("An area of waterlogged forest, with dense vegetation.")
be correct?


If there are no objections, I'm going to do this sometime today.

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

Re: [Talk-us] UK assumptions that don't hold in the U.S.

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 5/29/2012 10:00 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Hi,

On 05/29/12 11:57, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

*Most railways have passenger service. Thus OCM (and the transport map)
show all rail lines.


But isn't a railway an obstacle for cyclists no matter what services
they support?


Sure. But that would support their being shown at close zooms, not all 
the way out at 7.


On 5/29/2012 10:16 AM, James Umbanhowar wrote:
> Many tracks are quite usable by bikes with big tires, e.g. mountain 
bikes.


Agreed. But so is every paved road. What OCM does is give more 
prominence to a track (even one marked access=private!) than a 
residential street, for example right in the middle of here: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=28.3866&lon=-81.2697&zoom=13&layers=C


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

[Talk-us] proposed automated edit: forested wetlands

[Nathan Edgars II]

The landuse import for Georgia (which IMO is poor-quality and should be 
deleted, but that's not going to happen) has a bunch of areas tagged as 
note = Forested Wetland with no useful natural=* tags (since 
natural=wood and natural=wetland both apply). Example: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/31457349


I propose to fix these.

But what would be the best tags to use? Would natural=wetland 
wetland=swamp ("An area of waterlogged forest, with dense vegetation.") 
be correct? Or is it better to choose natural=* tag and add a 
multipolygon for the other?


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

[Talk-us] UK assumptions that don't hold in the U.S.

[Nathan Edgars II]

I've noticed some odd things on OpenCycleMap and other renderings, and I 
think it's due to a difference in how things are in the UK vs. here.


*Most railways have passenger service. Thus OCM (and the transport map) 
show all rail lines.
*Tracks are useful for cycling. When you zoom in on OCM, tracks are 
highlighted the same as footways. But a track is just a narrow (usually) 
unpaved road, and is worse for cycling than a low-traffic paved road. 
This also shows up on renderings such as http://www.itoworld.com/map/26 
where tracks are included in "path/cycle-path etc" rather than "road".


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

Re: [Talk-us] Topo map source?

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 5/28/2012 1:58 AM, Russ Nelson wrote:

Do we have a new source for WMS topo maps now that Terraserver
(msrmaps.com) has been shut down? Can I get a working URL from
somebody?


wms:http://raster.nationalmap.gov/arcgis/services/DRG/TNM_Digital_Raster_Graphics/MapServer/WMSServer?FORMAT=image/jpeg&VERSION=1.1.1&SERVICE=WMS&REQUEST=GetMap&Layers=1,24,10,16,7,21,23,4,9,20,11,18,13,3,0,17,22,19,2,5,14,8,15,12&SRS={proj}&WIDTH={width}&HEIGHT={height}&BBOX={bbox}&styles=
It's not perfect (some topos are misaligned and some are missing).

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

Re: [Talk-us] Railway start and end dates?

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 5/27/2012 1:51 PM, Russ Nelson wrote:

Nathan Edgars II writes:
  >  I'm considering using http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:start_date
  >  and end_date for some railways, but there seems to be too much
  >  ambiguity. First, if it's now a highway=*, I'd use start_date:railway
  >  for when the line opened. But on a railway=disused, wouldn't this be
  >  when it started to be disused? And on a railway=preserved, you'd
  >  definitely want to know both when the line first opened and when the
  >  current tourist operation began. With end_date, there's also ambiguity
  >  for an abandoned line - should it be when the line last saw service (if
  >  known)?

You're over-thinking this, Nathan. Think about it from a mapper's
perspective. start_date should be the date it first became a
railway. end_date should be the date it ceased to be a railway (that
is, the tracks were removed).


Why when the tracks were removed? What if a bridge was washed out and 
the tracks beyond were left to rust?


And you don't need start_date:railway, because you've already created
a relation for most every railway, so put start_date on the relation.

This only works if the entire line opened at once, which is only true 
about half the time.


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

[Talk-us] Railway start and end dates?

[Nathan Edgars II]

I'm considering using http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:start_date 
and end_date for some railways, but there seems to be too much 
ambiguity. First, if it's now a highway=*, I'd use start_date:railway 
for when the line opened. But on a railway=disused, wouldn't this be 
when it started to be disused? And on a railway=preserved, you'd 
definitely want to know both when the line first opened and when the 
current tourist operation began. With end_date, there's also ambiguity 
for an abandoned line - should it be when the line last saw service (if 
known)? Or when it was legally abandoned, meaning a shipper can no 
longer take steps to request service (which is closer to OSM's disused, 
though a railbanked trail is technically not actually abandoned)? Or 
when the tracks were removed?


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

Re: [Talk-us] Federally Funded Research R&D Centers: landuse=military?

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 5/27/2012 7:15 AM, Greg Troxel wrote:

That raises an interesting question, which is the presumption that
landuse= is nonoverlapping and tiles the world.  Besides the issue with
confusion between landuse and landcover, that single-tiling view seems
like an unreasonable oversimplificiation of a lot of reality.


If landuses couldn't overlap, how would you tag military housing?

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

Re: [Talk-us] Federally Funded Research R&D Centers: landuse=military?

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 5/25/2012 5:41 PM, stevea wrote:

I muse whether "Federally Funded Research and Development Centers"
(FFRDCs) are amenable to either "landuse=military" or something like it.
I'm not proposing a vote because this may be peculiarly USA-centric.
(Then again, maybe it isn't, as there may very well be similar entities
in other countries).


Sounds like an office (landuse=commercial), no matter who funds it. CERN 
is landuse=industrial amenity=science_park: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/151918731


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

Re: [Talk-us] How do I fix dupe nodes in waterways?

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 5/20/2012 9:02 PM, the Old Topo Depot wrote:

It looks like many of these are at the ends of ways; perhaps whip up a
quick JOSM plugin that'll look for thee conditions on ways with NHD
tags; perhaps intersected with what the current validator returns; and
just fix em

The "just fix em" is where I'm stuck. The Fix button is grayed out.

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

Re: [Talk-us] How do I fix dupe nodes in waterways?

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 5/20/2012 8:22 PM, James Umbanhowar wrote:

I'm guessing that if you remove all the (superfluous) NHD:xxx tags, they
will then become duplicate nodes in waterways, which I think can still
be fixed in JOSM.


Nope - removed all but waterway=* and I have the same problem. I've 
noticed "boundary duplicated nodes" showing up in errors and being 
fixable, but even removing all tags and adding boundary=administrative 
doesn't help in this case.


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

[Talk-us] How do I fix dupe nodes in waterways?

[Nathan Edgars II]

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/136738748
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/136765496

I'm creating waterway relations for major rivers and came across this 
import, which has a whole bunch of dupes. I run the JOSM validator and 
all it gives is "Duplicate nodes in two un-closed ways - Duplicated 
nodes" with a grayed-out Fix button. Manually selecting each one and 
hitting M is an option, but there are 648 on just this one river.


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

Re: [Talk-us] Roundabout changes on the wiki

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 5/17/2012 7:27 PM, Chris Lawrence wrote:

Besides which, the current edit of
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:junction%3Droundabout is yours,
so obviously you haven't been banned from editing the wiki and Imagic
hasn't imposed his will on that page.


Huh? 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:junction%3Droundabout&action=history


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

[Talk-us] Roundabout changes on the wiki

[Nathan Edgars II]

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:junction%3Droundabout
User Imagic has pushed through changes despite disagreement, and another 
editor blocked me from the wiki for making fixes to better match 
existing tagging.


Imagic is trying to enforce conflating junction=roundabout with the 
"modern roundabout", when it formerly included other traffic circles and 
rotaries. This means the wiki does not agree with existing tags on many 
circles. Instead of telling you to take the nth exit from the circle, a 
router will give you the bloody useless "bear left, bear left, bear 
left, bear right" if the junction=roundabout is removed.


I will ignore this garbage and continue to tag circles as 
junction=roundabout, just as I still use highway=mini_roundabout for 
circles mapped as nodes. I'll also use highway=motorway for freeways 
that allow bikes and peds and highway=motorway_junction for exits from 
non-motorways, even if some crusader decides to change the wiki definitions.


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

Re: [Talk-us] U.S. inland waterways

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 5/17/2012 7:44 AM, Malcolm Herring wrote:
> On 17/05/2012 03:44, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>> On 5/16/2012 10:42 PM, Dale Puch wrote:
>>> You might check with the OpenSeaMap guys
>>
>> Surely at one of them is paying attention to tagging@?
>
> Nathan,
>
> Yes, we are paying attention!
>
> What is it that you wish to map? If it is for inclusion in the
> OpenSeaMap map, then the tagging needs to be in accordance with:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenSeaMap/Seamark_Tag_Values
>
> If it is information of a more general nature, then use whatever OSM
> conventions are commonly used in USA.

Basically I'm tagging general characteristics of waterways. It seems the 
categories will be:

*maintained for deep draft ocean vessels
*maintained for shallow draft barges and pleasure boats
*not maintained, possibly open to pleasure boats

I don't see any such values in the Seamark Tag Values table. The closest 
is depth_max (shouldn't this be maxdepth, to match such tags as 
maxheight?), but there don't seem to be legal depth restrictions on most 
waterways here.


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

Re: [Talk-us] U.S. inland waterways

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 5/16/2012 10:42 PM, Dale Puch wrote:

You might check with the OpenSeaMap guys


Surely at one of them is paying attention to tagging@?

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

Re: [Talk-us] U.S. inland waterways

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 5/16/2012 6:48 PM, Dale Puch wrote:

I found this at http://www.ndc.iwr.usace.army.mil/data/dictionary/ddnwn.htm
Data is here http://www.ndc.iwr.usace.army.mil//db/waternet/data/ but
not in shp format so someone would need to do some format translation.
There are lots of other sets of data and perhaps one of those has
something even more along the lines you want.


Thanks for the link. I found it in shapefile format: 
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_atlas_database/2011/


So far the depths seem to jibe with other sources, and the "functional 
class" looks like a good way to classify waterways, absent more specific 
local regulations.



Any objections to continuing to use ship=yes for navigable waterways, 
and a new deep_draft=* tag for ocean vessels?


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

Re: [Talk-us] U.S. inland waterways

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 5/16/2012 1:06 AM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:

I guess that depends on what you're trying to do...  If you are trying
to tag the largest possible vessel that can navigate a waterway (under
"normal" conditions at least) you could probably come up with a
reasonable set of tags.  Inland waterways are highly dynamic though...


The Army Corps has well-defined channels that they regularly dredge to a 
specified depth and width. Can this be matched to some sort of barge 
classification?


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

Re: [Talk-us] U.S. inland waterways

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 5/16/2012 1:06 AM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:

In either case, any idea what the suitable tags might look
like (other than the generic boat=yes ship=yes)?


I guess that depends on what you're trying to do...  If you are trying
to tag the largest possible vessel that can navigate a waterway (under
"normal" conditions at least) you could probably come up with a
reasonable set of tags.  Inland waterways are highly dynamic though...


I'm trying to do something like the European tagging: 
http://www.itoworld.com/map/24
But there they have some sort of international treaty that defines 
configurations.


Do you know of any reasonable way to define large vs. small? I know 
there's "deep-draft" shipping, but most inland waterways don't support 
that (since barges are apparently shallow-draft).


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

[Talk-us] U.S. inland waterways

[Nathan Edgars II]

Is anyone familiar with the regulations governing the U.S. inland 
waterways (such as the Mississippi River and the Intracoastal Waterway)? 
From my brief look, it seems to be less "these barge configurations are 
allowed" and more "you can go anywhere but don't crash". Is this 
correct, or are there defined maximum sizes? In either case, any idea 
what the suitable tags might look like (other than the generic boat=yes 
ship=yes)?


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

[Talk-us] Vandalism by ZeGermanata needs sorting out

[Nathan Edgars II]

http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/ZeGermanata/edits

Vandalism includes the following:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/21523281/history changing ref=US 
41 to US 241
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/163035927/history fake motorway 
bypass

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/162757131/history fake subway


woodpeck_repair reverted some *but not all* of the vandalism (for 
example, US 241 is still tagged as such). Subsequent edits have also 
been made by Tom Layo e.g. here: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/17892247/history

So reverting is complicated.

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

Re: [Talk-us] tagging cul-de-sacs

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 5/15/2012 2:23 PM, Alan Mintz wrote:

At 2012-05-15 11:19, Clifford Snow wrote:

I tag culs-de-sac as turning_circles and only draw a circular way when
there is an island in the middle. But I have a question. Where should
the turning_circle node be placed? In the middle of the culs-de-sac or
where the street enters the culs-de-sac?


The center of the circle, like any other node meant to represent an area.


If the street is straight leading into a turning circle that's on one 
side of the road, I'll usually keep it straight and put the node on the 
edge of the circle.


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

Re: [Talk-us] Fixing TIGER street name abbreviations

[Nathan Edgars II]

The process seems obvious to me: check that the name is still what it 
originally was (from the tiger:name_base etc. tags), and if so, use 
those tags to expand abbreviations. (Ignore any with semicolons/colons 
from joining.) If not, set it aside for semi-manual checking. The only 
false positives that are not errors in the TIGER data will be caused by 
someone changing the tiger tags, and if both these and the name were 
changed consistently, the editor probably knew what they were doing.


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

Re: [Talk-us] TIGER road expansion code

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 5/12/2012 12:41 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:

What error rate is acceptable?


"As low as possible", but I've been generally able to handle the edge
cases I've seen, either by doing the right thing, or by punting and
doing nothing at all.


It's worth noting that any errors are already there as errors in the 
TIGER tags. So, had the TIGER import been done properly in the first 
place, these errors would be in the name tags as well.


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

Re: [Talk-us] Fixing TIGER street name abbreviations

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 5/12/2012 2:16 AM, Dale Puch wrote:

way id="11013343" "name" v="N F S 595-2"


National Forest Service Road 595-2. There are so many different ways of 
abbreviating this, and I'm not sure which expansion is most correct, so 
I'd leave these alone.


One thing you won't find much of in Florida (since I've fixed most) is 
abbreviations of County Road/Route/Highway. Stranger ones include Creek 
(bad expansion of Cr, abbreviation for County Road) and Cord (typo for 
Co Rd). Both of these originate with TIGER, not subsequent expansions:


http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/11071477/history name="SE Creek 255"
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/11071726/history name="NE Cord255"

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

Re: [Talk-us] Fixing TIGER street name abbreviations

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 5/11/2012 9:45 AM, Anthony wrote:

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:45 PM, Dale Puch  wrote:

Clarity!  The abbreviations are just that, they mean the full word, and are
spoken that way, but written and displayed as the abbreviation.  I also
disagree I have never know anyone that said "whatever A V E"  they do not
spell it out, they say the word the abbreviation stands for.  Same for St,
Dr ect.


What are you disagreeing with?  I've known streets that were called
"Whatever Ave" (Rhymes with "Whatever Have").  Not "Whatever Avenue".
And certainly not "Whatever A V E".


Ave is a bad example, since it is common to say 'Ave' rather than 
'Avenue'. But I can't think of any other suffixes that are commonly 
abbreviated in speech. Maybe Cir?


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

Re: [Talk-us] Fixing TIGER street name abbreviations

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 5/10/2012 4:08 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:

I've been testing a script to do this.

Here it is:

http://www.emacsen.net/tiger.py

It needs to be fed a file. I've been using the state files from geofabrik.

the resulting files in expansions can then be fed to a script for upload.

I welcome feedback on the script and the resulting output.


You could try running it on Orange County, FL, where I've expanded 
suffixes with a combination of Overpass API, JOSM, and Textpad. Any 
changes are either prefixes, ones I missed, or false positives.


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

Re: [Talk-us] Abbreviation expansion - USS to United States Ship?

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 5/10/2012 12:47 PM, Peter Dobratz wrote:

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:

Is this a good idea? It looks really odd to me:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/9061339


I bet that no one actually says United States Ship in conversation,
but rather U.S.S.


Would the same reasoning apply to Doctor Martin Luther King, Junior 
Boulevard (though here the common name might vary, perhaps King, or MLK)?


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

[Talk-us] Abbreviation expansion - USS to United States Ship?

[Nathan Edgars II]

Is this a good idea? It looks really odd to me: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/9061339


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

[Talk-us] WTF happened to Bing's imagery of Mackinaw City, MI?

[Nathan Edgars II]

http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=potlatch2&lat=45.78&lon=-84.73&zoom=16

For some reason, the city is blacked out, but the black only extends to 
the shoreline.


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

Re: [Talk-us] First bona fide mini-roundabout spotted

[Nathan Edgars II]

The problem seems to be that mappers needed a tag for a small roundabout 
on a node. Since all that was available was mini_roundabout, that's what 
we used. Had there been another tag, e.g. highway=roundabout, we 
wouldn't have this discussion. But mini_roundabout is now in use for a 
large number of miniature roundabouts that may not be strictly 
mini-roundabouts.


There's been a similar case recently with surface=cobblestone apparently 
not being "real" cobblestone but something called 'sett'. Someone tried 
to change the tag definitions, but it was way too late.


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

Re: [Talk-us] First bona fide mini-roundabout spotted

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 5/7/2012 4:28 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:

So this is not/should not be a mini_roundabout? It seems a little silly
to call it anything else, since the city just dug a hole in the center
of the existing intersection, built a circular curb, and planted a tree:

http://g.co/maps/e2gsv


Even sillier: according to the wiki, 
http://jemappellewendyi.wordpress.com/2010/10/28/imagen/portable-roundabout/ 
must be mapped as a circular way.


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

Re: [Talk-us] First bona fide mini-roundabout spotted

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 5/7/2012 1:16 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:

On 5/7/2012 1:02 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:


Still, the diverging use overlaps improperly with the actual
roundabout correctly as a ring using junction=roundabout. ;o)



You're assuming that each real-world situation has only one correct way of
mapping.


So, you're suggesting we stop mapping nontraversable, hard medians?
Because that's what it sounds like.


Get your ears checked.

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

Re: [Talk-us] First bona fide mini-roundabout spotted

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 5/7/2012 1:02 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:

Still, the diverging use overlaps improperly with the actual
roundabout correctly as a ring using junction=roundabout. ;o)


You're assuming that each real-world situation has only one correct way 
of mapping.


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

Re: [Talk-us] First bona fide mini-roundabout spotted

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 5/7/2012 12:41 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:


It vaults right over any supposed definition of mini-roundabout.


I suppose if you ignored the whole traversability or vertical
clearance requirements the wiki's had since the tag was created in the
wiki, sure.


I ignore that in favor of how the tag actually gets used in the data. A 
couple watchdogs can keep the wiki saying one thing, but they can't keep 
usage from diverging.


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

Re: [Talk-us] First bona fide mini-roundabout spotted

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 5/7/2012 11:02 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:


On May 7, 2012 7:06 AM, "Nathan Edgars II" mailto:nerou...@gmail.com>> wrote:
 >
 > On 5/7/2012 9:59 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
 >>
 >> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 6:51 AM, Ian Deesmailto:ian.d...@gmail.com>>  wrote:
 >>>
 >>> I've mapped dozens of these as miniroundabouts in the midwest:
 >>> http://g.co/maps/w7mnr
 >>
 >>
 >> That's not a mini, though, since you can't just drive over the island.
 >
 >
 > And highway=motorways aren't restricted to motorized traffic only,
and not all highway=trunk are trunk roads (even in the UK).

That doesn't seem to address the fact that mini roundabouts are mini in
terms of height, not diameter.


It vaults right over any supposed definition of mini-roundabout.

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

Re: [Talk-us] First bona fide mini-roundabout spotted

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 5/7/2012 10:03 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:


Same here. I'm ignoring this "wiki-fiddling":
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:highway%3Dmini_roundabout&diff=747981&oldid=689543


Both edits you mention seem to agree that the island is traversable in
a mini roundabout.


It had said "usually does not have a physical island". This was changed 
to an absolute. And actually this was the start of it: 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:highway%3Dmini_roundabout&diff=605002&oldid=515047


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

Re: [Talk-us] First bona fide mini-roundabout spotted

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 5/7/2012 9:59 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 6:51 AM, Ian Dees  wrote:

I've mapped dozens of these as miniroundabouts in the midwest:
http://g.co/maps/w7mnr


That's not a mini, though, since you can't just drive over the island.


And highway=motorways aren't restricted to motorized traffic only, and 
not all highway=trunk are trunk roads (even in the UK).


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

Re: [Talk-us] First bona fide mini-roundabout spotted

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 5/7/2012 9:51 AM, Ian Dees wrote:

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Paul Johnson mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org>> wrote:

This one surprised me, was pretty sure that the US didn't have real
mini roundabouts, but I just spotted one in Burien, WA.
http://g.co/maps/afh8m


I've mapped dozens of these as miniroundabouts in the midwest:
http://g.co/maps/w7mnr


Same here. I'm ignoring this "wiki-fiddling": 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:highway%3Dmini_roundabout&diff=747981&oldid=689543


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

Re: [Talk-us] Proposed Fresno fixes

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 5/6/2012 1:39 PM, Nathan Mixter wrote:

2. Align the shapes to match what is on the ground. I plan to either get
rid of or modify them so they match what is on the ground.


I'm not sure how you plan on doing this. Many times a fence will be on 
one side of the property line, to avoid dealing with a neighbor.


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

Re: [Talk-us] Fresno castradal imports

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 5/4/2012 2:42 PM, Apollinaris Schöll wrote:

any import should be treated like this. if it's not edited and the data
isn't used then it should be removed after some time.


That's a silly statement. If something isolated gets imported, e.g. a 
water political boundary, it probably won't be edited.


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

Re: [Talk-us] Fixing TIGER street name abbreviations

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 5/1/2012 1:23 PM, Anthony wrote:

On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:

On 5/1/2012 12:59 PM, Anthony wrote:


Automatically expanding abbreviations is a terrible idea.  If an
abbreviation is unambiguous, then it can be expanded during the
preprocessing step.  If, on the other hand, it is ambiguous, then you
are turning ambiguous data into incorrect data, which certainly
diminishes the data.



Not quite. We have various TIGER tags that break the name into pieces, and
allow automated expansion where the name field may be ambiguous. (Though
occasionally these tags are wrong.)


I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with.  Either it is unambiguous
(due to TIGER tags or whatever), and therefore can be done during the
preprocessing step.  Or it is ambiguous, and needs human
intervention/review.

The TIGER tags are not exactly standard OSM tags that belong in the 
database. Better that we get rid of them at the same time as we expand 
abbreviations.


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

Re: [Talk-us] Fixing TIGER street name abbreviations

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 5/1/2012 12:59 PM, Anthony wrote:

Automatically expanding abbreviations is a terrible idea.  If an
abbreviation is unambiguous, then it can be expanded during the
preprocessing step.  If, on the other hand, it is ambiguous, then you
are turning ambiguous data into incorrect data, which certainly
diminishes the data.


Not quite. We have various TIGER tags that break the name into pieces, 
and allow automated expansion where the name field may be ambiguous. 
(Though occasionally these tags are wrong.)


Not that it's that hard to do a small area (county-sized) using Overpass 
API, JOSM, and Textpad.


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

[Talk-us] Waterway directionality in drainage canals

[Nathan Edgars II]

It's the standard to draw a waterway in the direction of flow. I've 
questioned this several times, but it's an ingrained default.


My question is more specific: what happens to a drainage canal that 
reverses direction? I offer the Everglades and surrounding agricultural 
land as an example. There are huge "water conservation areas" that store 
water. When it rains, gates are closed and opened to direct water into 
these. During a drought, gates send water back out into the canals for 
local use. When there's a big storm, water will instead go directly out 
to sea.


So there are a lot of major canals that have no fixed direction. How 
should these be mapped? Is there any existing scheme that can show how 
water flows under different conditions?


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

Re: [Talk-us] Fresno castradal imports

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 4/26/2012 2:54 AM, Paul Norman wrote:

I happened across an import of Fresno castradal data from mid-2010 in the
Fresno area. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=36.77&lon=-119.81&zoom=15 is
the general area but I haven't fully explored the extents. For a view of the
data, see http://maps.paulnorman.ca/imports/review/fresno.png


The biggest problem with this import is that it's impossible to download 
any reasonably-sized area of Fresno for editing, because of how the 
landuse polygons end at every street and alley. It's even worse in the 
suburbs where the streets curve, adding many nodes to each way.


(By the way, the word is cadastral, not castadral. And I see nothing 
wrong with using such data as part of a semi-manual process of creating 
larger landuse polygons for neighborhoods, and commercial strips 
surrounding highways. See Orlando, FL for a (mostly fully-manual) 
example of how this works.)


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

Re: [Talk-us] 25or6to4 NHD imports

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 4/25/2012 7:25 PM, Paul Norman wrote:

The users 25or6to4 and 25or6to4_upload have been importing NHD data in
Louisiana without the required consultation and with a few other problems
with the import guidelines. Among other things, I asked them to talk to the
community to figure out what should be done with the data they have already
imported. Since they haven't responded, I'm asking the community for them.


Keep it. Who cares if they haven't jumped through the hoops?

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

Re: [Talk-us] Parks, etc. Points or outlines

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 4/24/2012 10:21 PM, Toby Murray wrote:

I think the reason they exist is the same reason why cities always
have a node in addition to their administrative boundaries. And
states/countries too far that matter. Most renderers render the name
from the nodes, not the admin boundaries.


This makes sense for a city, where the center/downtown is not the 
centroid. But for a county or larger, you usually want the label at the 
centroid of the polygon, so the node is redundant.


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

Re: [Talk-us] Parks, etc. Points or outlines

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 4/24/2012 2:38 PM, Josh Doe wrote:

Yes, there should be only one feature for each real world object, and
the way/multipolygon has more spatial information, however the nodes
might have other useful information like the GNIS feature ID.


For this matter, why are there county nodes all over the U.S.? They 
don't seem to have come from GNIS: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/316947053/history


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

Re: [Talk-us] Naming of route relations

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 4/19/2012 10:04 AM, Alexander Jones wrote:

The issues of the network=* tag notwithstanding, what should the route
relations be named?

For example, for, say, Texas State Highway 20 near El Paso, should the name
tag say:

"Texas State Highway 20"
"TX 20"
None (defaults to ref=20)
Something else?

Hopefully we can at least get consensus on this...


If JOSM was able to put the network in front of the ref in the relation 
list there wouldn't be a problem here.


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

Re: [Talk-us] Here's a weird one

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 4/18/2012 5:46 PM, Charlotte Wolter wrote:


Great! Thanks.
But, why do I have to mark tiles as dirty, and how does one do that?


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Slippy_Map#Mapnik_tile_rendering

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

Re: [Talk-us] Here's a weird one

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 4/18/2012 3:38 PM, Charlotte Wolter wrote:

Hello all,

Right in the middle of Beverly Hills, on the southeast corner of
Carmelita and Arden (north of Santa Monica Boulevard and south of Sunset
Bl.) appear the words "Pacific Coast Highway." Now, PCH is at least five
miles away. And, an examination of the corner with Potlatch 2 produced
nothing that would make a point saying "Pacific Coast Highway." I don't
use JOSM, so maybe there is something there that I can't find with my
primitive Potlatch 2. :-)
Can anyone solve this mystery? Many thanks in advance.


It's because someone added 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/29234226 to this multipolygon: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/112106


I'm not sure what the multipolygon is supposed to be (probably a CDP, 
though it only has inner ways), but it then got its name from the only 
member with a name tag. I've fixed it; you'll probably have to mark 
tiles as dirty.


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

Re: [Talk-us] tiff, dwg and nad83

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 4/18/2012 4:02 PM, Ian Dees wrote:

It's interesting if you look these up on the GNIS site. What's the
source for them? Well, they got a local phone book and looked up
schools and churches :)


Most of these came from scanned USGS maps. In some cases they were OCR'd
and in other cases they were typed in by a human. I believe those maps
had similar symbology for a "historical" POI and "current" POI, thus all
the old/out of date information.


USGS topos don't have church names, in my experience. When I look up 
local churches I see the following two sources:
Citation:	White Pages Telephone Directory. www.whitepages.com. Use Form 
FL-T74/City/Date Orlando/2006
Citation:	Southern Bell, Greater Orlando Yellow Pages, including Apopka, 
East Orange, Lake Buena Vista, Montverde, Oviedo, Reedy Creek, 
Windermere, Winter Garden, Winter Park and other nearby communities, 
Bell South Advertising and Publishing Corporation, 1986, 1476 pp. 
Contains listings of churches. p291


Presumably they used TIGER to geocode the addresses. I've seen some that 
are in the right position for the address number but on the wrong side 
of the zero line.


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

Re: [Talk-us] tiff, dwg and nad83

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 4/18/2012 3:31 PM, Charlotte Wolter wrote:


Whew! You deleted 43 churches! Well, I know it's frustrating when they
all are piled on top of each other, but there must be another way.
I've done smaller towns in the Southwest (NOT Abuquerque) with 10 to 15
churches on top of each other. I just separate them out, and look them
up on Google or Bing, and try to move them to their correct locations.
Sometimes, if they are small or newer churches--you know, the kind that
meet in a storefront--I can't find the address, but most of the time I
can. If I can't find the address I leave them in some public place, like
a park, but they could be deleted, I guess.
If I can't find the correct location I'll add FIXME=not here and change 
amenity=* to FIXME:amenity=*. Or I'll just delete it.



Yes, imported data can create issues like that. The same thing happens
with schools. Yes, it takes some effort to separate them and move them
to their correct locations, but I think it's worth it. It's better to
have the data than not.
What do other people think?


I think that, given the large number of errors, schools and churches 
should not have been imported from GNIS.


It's interesting if you look these up on the GNIS site. What's the 
source for them? Well, they got a local phone book and looked up schools 
and churches :)


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

Re: [Talk-us] [Tagging] Smooth shoulder intended for cycling

[Nathan Edgars II]

Hmmm. Apparently Thunderbird's 'reply to list' fails when there are 
multiple lists. Sending again:


On 4/17/2012 11:47 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:

I quite like "cycleway=shoulder". It describes exactly what's going
on: the cycling infrastructure at this point isn't a marked lane
(cycleway=lane), nor a segregated lane (cycleway=track), it's a sealed
road shoulder.

Could you elaborate on your objections?


It implies that the shoulder is an official cycleway, when in reality it 
may be full of debris (or worse: 
http://flbikelaw.org/2012/03/paved-shoulder/ ). Would you use a cycleway 
tag on any sidewalk that one can ride on (here that would be any outside 
city limits), or just those that have been specially designated as such?


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

Re: [Talk-us] [Tagging] Smooth shoulder intended for cycling

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 4/17/2012 11:47 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:

I quite like "cycleway=shoulder". It describes exactly what's going
on: the cycling infrastructure at this point isn't a marked lane
(cycleway=lane), nor a segregated lane (cycleway=track), it's a sealed
road shoulder.

Could you elaborate on your objections?


It implies that the shoulder is an official cycleway, when in reality it 
may be full of debris (or worse: 
http://flbikelaw.org/2012/03/paved-shoulder/ ). Would you use a cycleway 
tag on any sidewalk that one can ride on (here that would be any outside 
city limits), or just those that have been specially designated as such?


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

Re: [Talk-us] Smooth shoulder intended for cycling

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 4/17/2012 9:43 PM, Kristian M Zoerhoff wrote:

Alternatively, maybe cycleway needs an "unmarked lane" setting for these
situations, though that would imply the local authorities are intending for
cyclists to use the shoulder, rather than just tolerating their presence
(the usual situation).


I use cycleway=unmarked_lane for FDOT's "undesignated bike lane", which 
has a white line on the right side but no bike markings.


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

Re: [Talk-us] tiff, dwg and nad83

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 4/17/2012 9:23 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:

On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 8:52 PM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:


When I joined OSM I went through photos and notes I had taken since the late
1990s. There's no guarantee of timeliness here either. Certainly not as much
as an import of city boundary data that has each annexation marked through
the current year.


Don't worry, I wasn't counting you NE2- according to your own profile,
you use a made up name, and according to your editing patterns, you're
a bot, so you're more of an import than a user.


Ah, the old ad hominem. When you can't reply, be a dick.

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

[Talk-us] Smooth shoulder intended for cycling

[Nathan Edgars II]

I'm wondering what the best way would be to tag a good-quality shoulder 
that acts essentially as an undesignated bike lane, in that you can use 
it but it is not required. Current Florida DOT policy is to use these on 
rural roads, with marked bike lanes only when there is a lane to the 
right. For example here: 
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=30.605358,-86.950672&spn=0.008255,0.016512&gl=us&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=30.605241,-86.950558&panoid=X4-X3CdhvVO_ptMWbvB8SA&cbp=12,330.83,,0,9.24
One can choose to ride either in the right lane or on the shoulder 
beyond the intersection.


One regional mapper uses cycleway=shoulder for this, but I see that as 
sub-optimal, since it's primarily a shoulder, not a cycleway. It would 
be like putting cycleway=sidewalk whenever there's a smooth paved sidewalk.


On the other hand, shoulder=yes or shoulder=paved says nothing about the 
quality of the shoulder. Should there be a minimum width for a shoulder 
(FDOT's standard is 4 feet)?


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

Re: [Talk-us] tiff, dwg and nad83

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 4/17/2012 8:18 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:

If a user manually surveys data, there is an assumption of timeliness
and accuracy of that survey. That's not the case with imported data,
despite oftentimes being stamped "official".


When I joined OSM I went through photos and notes I had taken since the 
late 1990s. There's no guarantee of timeliness here either. Certainly 
not as much as an import of city boundary data that has each annexation 
marked through the current year.


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

Re: [Talk-us] tiff, dwg and nad83

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 4/17/2012 4:26 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:

And now assume there's a third city
of equal size where *nothing* has been mapped at all... maybe I
shouldn't speak for everyone but for me (and virtually every mapper I
know) surely the city with data-but-no-mappers would be least appealing,
far below that with no data.


You definitely shouldn't speak for other people. I would much prefer 
imported street data to nothing at all, and James indicated that he 
would too.


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

Re: [Talk-us] tiff, dwg and nad83

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 4/17/2012 3:29 AM, Werner Poppele wrote:

I totally agree with Frederik. Yes - imported data turns down new
mappers. Have you ever seen those monster
multipolygons ? I am sure a new mapper says: Forget that
I personally tend to stop my contribution to OSM because of the very bad
stuff I see when mapping:
Triple contours at the same position, double / triple nodes,
unconnected, tiny streams / rivers with a bunch tags.


You seem to be arguing against *bad* imports, not imports in general.

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