Re: [Talk-us] Updating opening_hours for COVID-19.
On 19.03.20 15:49, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: > On 3/13/20 15:36, Eric Christensen via Talk-us wrote: >> I've been updating the opening_hours for businesses and services as I >> hear about them closing or changing their hours of operation for >> COVID-19. I'm also adding a note in the description with any >> information the source is providing. >> >> Seems like a good idea to keep people updated to what's open and what's not. >> >> I wonder if anyone else is also doing this as well? > > Bad idea since these are emergency changes and unlikely to be permanent. > I am putting in the "normal" hours where they are known, with the > understanding that people should know locations will be changing their > hours because of the situation and OSM's data will by necessity be out > of date for this item. I decided not to do that pretty quickly - we will have a huge number of changes later, as I expect many places to not just change their permanent hours, but close. -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] TIGER-completeness visualizer?
On 21.12.19 23:02, stevea wrote: > As the ITOworld TIGER-completeness visualizer at > > https://product.itoworld.com/map/162?lon=-121.88=37.04=12=true_sidebar=map_key > > is no longer supported, does anybody know of a similar "product" that we can > use to visualize how well we have reviewed TIGER roads (and rail?) in a given > area? Maybe authors of http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/map are interested in adding that. > I REALLY miss that visualizer! It showed whether highway=* ways were > "touched in the last three years," whether the tiger:reviewed=no tag was > removed and so on. It was very well done and quite informative. > > I suppose a dedicated renderer could be built, that's pretty ambitious, > though it is a worthy project, imo. > > Bonus points for your best guess at when OSM will eventually complete a full > TIGER data review. I'll start: at the rate we're going now, 2045? > > SteveA > California -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Historic 66 as highway=trunk in OK
On 29.08.19 05:05, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > I don't have any local knowledge about old route 66 in OK, but I'd > like to address the use of highway=trunk in general. > > I'm in favor of using a secondary tags like motorroad=yes and > expressway=yes, along with other details like lanes=, surface=, > maxspeed=, etc, to specify expressways, rather than using > highway=trunk for this. > > Like the distinctions between primary/secondary/tertiary, trunk was > originally intended to describe the role of a road in the network. > While most trunk highways are divided and have more than 1 lane in > each direction in densely-populated areas, it's quite normal for to > have narrower roads as the main route between 2 cities, in > sparsely-populated parts of the country. Or see "Route 1" in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Is:Map_Features#Ways. "Route 1 ... is tagged as highway=trunk due to its significance as a trunk road covering the entire country." Quoting from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Route_1_(Iceland) : "Many smaller bridges are single lane, especially in eastern Iceland, and are constructed of wood or steel. The road is paved with asphalt for almost all of its length, but there is still a short stretch in eastern Iceland with unpaved gravel surface." ... -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Careful, "st" can mean "stone" in some places | Re: Typical maxweight signs in USA? (editor developmnent question)
On 27.06.19 09:59, Rory McCann wrote: > On 25/06/2019 20:01, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: >> 25 Jun 2019, 17:47 by pe...@dobratz.us: >>> Reading this page, I see the potential ambiguity extends deeper than >>> I realized (short ton, metric ton, long ton) >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonne >> >> AFAIK all cases of "t" in USA on max weight signs means "short ton". >> >> Taggable by adding "st" unit or by converting to pounds, and adding >> "lbs" unit. >> First seems to be superior as puts lower burden on mappers and it >> allows to directly map what is signed. >> See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxweight#Usage > > FYI "st" is used in Britain & Ireland to mean a "stone" ( 14 pounds i.e. > 6.35029318 kg ). People in UK & Ireland can refer to their weight as "X > stone", or "I've lost half a stone on my diet" (but kg is common too). > > If you use "st" in an OSM tag value for weight, a not very bright data > consumer might interpret that as stone. Maybe we can side-step that > problem by picking a better suffix? > > What about "uston" (maxweight=8 uston)? > > Are there other regions which use “ton/tonne/...” on signs which > *aren't* the US ton? If so, we could just say “t” means “us short ton”. That will get ugly very quickly. Search for "weight" in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_European_road_signs , see the letter used. > “Gallons” is also different in US units & imperial units, so "usgal" or > "impgal" are better choices than "gal". (Relevant when mapping fire > hydrant flow rates). > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_(unit)-- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Need someone in the south to review an edit
On 14.06.19 17:59, Micah Cochran wrote: > > One of the following changeset comments suggests the deletions in this > changeset are to remove duplicates added by mistake previously. > > > I checked the a few local locations of the business (Athens, Alabama). > There are still nodes/ways for the "Express Oil Change" locations, which > would seem to suggest that it was just correcting duplicates (as Shawn > pointed out). I zoomed in on one location, and the node was, judging by the imagery, on a street (literally). I hope Brandify does not set locations from Google address searches. > The business is still in business, I think I drove by one this week. > > Micah Cochran-- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] What's protecting the map?
On 09.06.19 22:36, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 1:23 PM Nuno Caldeira > mailto:nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> But what happens if the Foundation is taken over by people with >> commercial interests? >> >> * You still own the rights to any data you contribute, not the >> Foundation. In the new Contributor Terms, you license the >> Foundation to publish the data for others to use and ONLY >> under a free and open license > > This got me thinking, particularly considering the license change a few > years ago and what a fiasco that was. What's protecting the map here? > What's to stop a prolific contributor from taking their ball and going > home, to the overall detriment of the map? I wouldn't call the licence change a fiasco. It was a painful and intense process, but it was almost surprisingly successful - at least that was my personal impression. Even more, the licence change and the new contributor terms sought to avoid the problem where any individual contributor could decide to hold the project hostage, or harm it - intentionally or not. From https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Contributor_Terms : "You hereby grant to OSMF a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable licence to do any act that is restricted by copyright, database right or any related right over anything within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any other. These rights explicitly include commercial use, and do not exclude any field of endeavour." (there's much more on the page) > To be clear, this /is not something I am going to to/. For the sake of > playing Devil's advocate, what is to stop me from, after nearly a > decade, taking my data and going home? This would leave a roughly 400 > kilometer wide hole centered in Tulsa, some serious breakage in metro > Portland and thousands of pockmarks around the world. If I were to pull > out and take my data with me, it would swiss cheese the map.-- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] trail tagging
On 19.04.19 19:34, Kevin Kenny wrote: ... > the surface. (There's also a law that snowshoes or skis are required > once the snow is 20 cm deep, but I follow "don't tag the local > legislation". There's nothing in that law regarding crampons, but any > time I've been using crampons and met a ranger, the ranger was also > using them and said nothing about it.) This seems a bit uncommon (the law, not you meeting the rangers). Got any reference or more detail on it? ... -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Footway tagging
On 21.04.19 23:18, Michael Sidoric via Talk-us wrote: > > Another consideration is accessibility. > Not taking sides but besides aesthetics and nomenclature seems there needs to > be some way for routing and tags to reflect whether a route is ‘safe’ or > accessible. > > I map for several blind friends and many paths have unexpected (and > dangerous) overhead hazards that a cane cannot detect. A very interesting challenge that many mappers would not think of. I don't have a suggestion on how to solve it, but please consider adding it in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_for_the_blind#How_to_map_for_the_blind so the rest of us can add such detail to the map. > Thoughts? > > Michael Sidoric > GeoGO Project > www.geogo.world-- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] trail tagging
On 19.04.19 17:59, Martijn van Exel wrote: > I hadn’t looked at that page in a while, but I’ve been using > highway=path in the same way as you describe. Hiking trails, singletrack > MTB. Footway I only tag in built up areas. > What do other places in the world do? UK terminology has a well-established "footway" definition, which also includes minor, barely visible trails across fields and so on. With OSM originating in the UK and using (mostly) British English for tagging and related things, the highway=footway was initially used for all kinds of pedestrian trails - across fields, very well paved trails etc. The the rest of the Europe (generalising) jumped in, and split this into highway=footway for designed, well visible and mostly paved ways - and highway=path, which got used more for paths in forests, across grassy areas in cities etc. Very roughly how I tag these things, having surveyed and mapped in quite a few countries: * unpaved pedestrian trails - highway=path (but I wouldn't change such a trail from footway in the UK) * paved (or at least obviously designated and well maintained) pedestrian ways - highway=footway * unpaved track, suitable for a 4-wheeled vehicles - highway=track (with tracktype, when possible) * paved, small road - highway=service (but an unpaved driveway would still get highway=service + service=driveway) I try to add surface tags, but there are cases when I'm afraid to do so - for example, if there's a long way and I know its surface for some segment, I don't want to guess on the remainder, or split it. And a very, very big request to everybody who got this far... Please do not invent anything country-specific for these (we already have footways in the UK, and mostly Germans would use highway=track for paved ways I'd still consider highway=service). Not only it makes things hard for mapping abroad, it also makes map data hard to consume. I take it for granted that highway=service will be always passable in a low city car, but a track could get me stuck. > Martijn > >> On Apr 19, 2019, at 8:28 AM, brad > <mailto:bradha...@fastmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Everywhere I've been in the US or Canada a dirt 'way' too narrow for a >> 4 wheel vehicle is called a trail, path, or single track. For the >> most part they are appropriately (IMO) tagged as path. Unfortunately >> the wiki says this for highway:path (the highlighting is mine): >> >> /A non-specific path. //*Use **highway=footway >> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway>**for paths >> mainly for walkers, **highway=cycleway >> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway>**for one >> also usable by cyclists, **highway=bridleway >> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbridleway>**for >> ones available to horse riders as well as walkers *//and >> //highway=track >> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack>//for ones >> which is passable by agriculture or similar vehicles./ >> >> I think it makes no sense to call a dirt path, open to more than 1 >> user group, anything other than a path. Since about 98% of the >> trail tagging that I've seen seems to agree, Is there consensus on >> this? Perhaps if the international group likes the description as >> is, a clarification on the US road tagging wiki page? >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging >> ___ >> Talk-us mailing list >> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Proposed mechanical edit - remove is_in:continent in USA
On 20.03.19 12:14, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
> Mar 20, 2019, 9:21 AM by frede...@remote.org:
>
> Mateusz,
>
> as far as I am concerned, *all* is_in tags are unnecessary at best and
> potentially misleading, and could be removed. I'd prefer adding these
> tags to the auto remove list in editors though, rather than running
> mechanical edits to remove them.
>
> Unfortunately there are some people that see value in keeping some
> of them, that is also reason why this edit is proposed only for
> one that is utterly broken.
What use do they see?
> I was not considering auto remove list before, I will think about it
> and maybe I will propose adding it to a delete list of JOSM and iD
> (maybe also Vespucci if it has one).
>
> For "prefer" - is it "against automated edit" or "against automated
> edit if auto remove list would be rejected" or "some other solution
> would be better but automated edit is acceptable"?
>
>
> I strongly object to doing this in a *recurring* fashion for two
> reasons:
>
> OK, I will drop recurring part. Documented:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Mechanical_Edits/Mateusz_Konieczny_-_bot_account/remove_is_in:continent_in_USA=1823334=1823287
>
> If you intend to run a bot like that in regular intervals
> (which I would recommend not to do), then you need to provide a
> mechanism for individual mappers to ask the bot to keep its hands off
> something ("matkoniecz:bot=no" or so).
>
> So far nobody requested it (there is opt-out section in documentation on
> wiki
> that explicitly mentions it as a possibility), but I would implement it
> probably by
> skipping objects ever edited by specific user (would require making
> one more call before editing each object).
>
> Certainly I would not require adding pointless tags to OSM database
> (this would be ridiculous especially as most my bot edits are "this tag
> should be
> gone as it is pointless/confusing").
--
Rihards
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] NC sidewalk data import
On 27.01.19 21:41, Melanie Mazanec wrote: > Hello, > > I'm a front end dev for a city government working on a side project to > fork and add to AccessMap <https://www.accessmap.io/> for North Carolina > cities. > > In order to make this happen, I want to import North Carolina city > sidewalk data into OSM. I have no prior OSM experience, so I'm > following the suggested wiki protocol and reaching out here before > attempting an import. > > Does anyone have advice about tutorials or where to start? Are there > any NC OSM communities or enthusiasts I can connect with? Also, it > seems like there are two competing sidewalk data formats. Is there a > preferred standard now? Hi, that's really great news - welcome to OSM. It would be useful if you would try some basic mapping first to get familiar with OSM data structure. Try to map something near your workplace or home. That doesn't stop you from working on the import, of course. Any questions on OSM are welcome on the IRC channel #osm ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/IRC ), or any other OSM communication channel. > Thanks, > Melanie Mazanec-- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Address data for Miami Florida United States
On 2018.09.11. 19:13, mangokm40 wrote: > This is my first post. Be gentle, if I fail some etiquette test. :) > > I was testing the "maps.me" application and noticed address search > didn't work. It turns out it was a data problem. OSM doesn't have all > the addresses for Miami (Dade county), Florida. This surprised me > because our county makes this information available to the public. > > The main dataset I thought would be useful can be found here: > https://gis-mdc.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/address-with-condo > As a point feature class, I figure it could be lightweight and allow > search for ANY address in the county. The data can be downloaded in KML > or SHP format. The license link displays this: > > "Miami-Dade County provides this data for use "as is". The areas > depicted by this map/data are approximate, and are not accurate to > surveying or engineering standards. The maps/data shown here are for > illustration purposes only and are not suitable for site-specific > decision making. Information found here should not be used for making > financial or any other commitments. Miami-Dade County provides this > information with the understanding that it is not guaranteed to be > accurate, correct or complete and conclusions drawn from such > information are the sole responsibility of the user. While every effort > has been made to ensure the accuracy, correctness and timeliness of > materials presented, Miami-Dade County assumes no responsibility for > errors or omissions, even if Miami-Dade County is advised of the > possibility of such damage." > > Since we think of Miami as a "global" destination, I thought search > address would be valuable to OSM. Is this something that has > been explored? Am I wasting my time? Hi and thank you for such a thoughtful email - and for your attention to detail. It looks like what you have quoted is more like a liability clause than a full licence. Do they have more on the licence? Or is it PD because of higher regulation? > If this is useful, I'll be happy to help. If I posted to the wrong > place, please point to the right place. > > > Mango, in rainy Miami (_8'() -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Possible roundabouts?
On 2018.09.07. 23:12, Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 3:32 PM Rihards wrote: >> Note that roundabouts don't have implicit yielding rules - actually, by >> default the entering traffic has the right of way, which is why you'll >> see yield signs in about 99% of them. > > Maybe in your state, not in mine! On a circle in New York, > circulating traffic has right of way over entering traffic. > The YIELD sign is there to remind drivers of the fact, > and yes, most roundabouts have YIELD signs. > https://dmv.ny.gov/about-dmv/chapter-5-intersections-and-turns Very interesting, thank you for the info. Is there a clear signage for all roundabouts? > The state DOT does warn that other jurisdictions have different > rules, granting the right-of-way to entering vehicles over circulating > ones. > https://www.dot.ny.gov/main/roundabouts/background > That's usually because there's a general rule that traffic on > the right at at an uncontrolled intersection has priority, and > the jurisdiction in question hasn't introduced a special > case for roundabouts at all. (Some actually also ignore > freeway entrances, so that traffic entering has the right > of way over traffic already on the freeway! In such a case, > the laws of physics trump the traffic laws: the right of > way belongs to the greater kinetic energy.) -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Possible roundabouts?
On 2018.09.07. 21:52, Albert Pundt wrote: > Roundabouts are somewhat common nowadays in the US and follow the same > rules as European roundabouts: entering traffic yields to circle > traffic. Many intersections, such as the rotaries in Massachusetts, > follow these rules despite not being signed as "roundabouts." > > We do, however, still have many oldschool traffic circles with odd > yielding rules, or just nothing signed at all. These are typically > tagged with junction=circular. Note that roundabouts don't have implicit yielding rules - actually, by default the entering traffic has the right of way, which is why you'll see yield signs in about 99% of them. A roundabout would be a place with one-way traffic (if there's a roundabout sign, that's even better - easier for us). Two-way traffic would not be a roundabout. I haven't seen/tagged junction=circular, it might be appropriate in such cases. If it's a small one with a (streetcar) passable central section, that would be mini_roundabout - but only if there's nothing obstructing straight-through traffic. > On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 2:37 PM Marian Poara <mailto:marian.po...@telenav.com>> wrote: > > Hi all, > > We have a short but important question: should we tag with > “junction=roundabout” the circular intersections in US where there > is a physical center you can’t drive over and there is more than one > way entering, based on satellite imagery? (some examples here: > 40.5234202, -111.8762446, 35.8497728, -86.4547473, 42.6811136, > -73.6987507, 40.22109, -76.874981). And if we have OSC or Mapillary > street level images and it is confirmed that they don’t have any > roundabout sign? In many residential areas (but not only), there > isn’t any one way sign inside the small “roundabouts” and it seems > that both directions are used. > > __ __ > > Thanks and regards! > > Marian Poara > > __ __ > > Marian Poară > > Map Analyst > > > > www.telenav.com <http://www.telenav.com> > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > > > -- > —Albert Pundt > > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Evacuation Routes
On 2018.09.06. 02:06, Eric H. Christensen wrote: > I recently finished an update to the evacuation routes feature[0], turning it > into a relation (route). I'll be working on adding hurricane evacuation > routes to areas I'm familiar with (Maryland, Hampton Roads area of Virginia, > and Northeast North Carolina) but I encourage others to add evacuation routes > to their local areas as well. That page says "Cycle routes or bicycle route are named or numbered or otherwise signed routes. May go along roads, trails or dedicated cycle paths." Is that correct? > Currently, JOSM doesn't recognize this route type and I don't think they're > being rendered on any third-party software but I'm hoping once enough data is > in the system we'll be able to show a reason for rendering such information. > > Thanks, > Sparks > > [0] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Devacuation -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] NYC Name Vandalism
On 2018.08.30. 23:20, Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 10:39 AM Ian Dees wrote: >> >> Yes, the original harmful edit was made by user "MedwedianPresident" in >> changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/61555047 20 days ago. It >> was then reverted by naoliv a day later: >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/61556585. >> >> naoliv also blocked the user: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2141 > > Many thanks to the hopelessly overloaded DWG for handling this. > > A problem here is that it gives us a tremendous black eye in the > press. I wonder how, moving forward, we can lessen the chances of > this sort of hate speech propagating off the project. Other projects > have found that having a mandatory review and moderation process for > new users is helpful, because the sort of person who leaves this sort > of mess is usually creating a one-time account to do it, rather than > having made earlier sound contributions. It gives us the same press as some vandals messing with wikipedia - let's not see it as a worse thing than it is. As a sidenote, this was detected and revert in OSM in a day. If data consumers would update the data more frequently, the impact would be much, much smaller (in this specific case, probably nobody would have noticed). > If my experience with other open-source and crowdsourced projects is > any guide, it only takes a incident or two like this for The Powers > That Be in many organizations to start forbidding the use of > open-source material "because there's no quality control and too much > legal risk."-- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Slack: Do we need an Alternative (was Planning an import in Price George...)
On 2018.06.12. 11:08, Greg Morgan wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 9:42 AM, Martijn van Exel <mailto:m...@rtijn.org>> wrote: > > I would argue that it is a good thing that people converge on one > platform to talk about OSM. Whether Slack remains the right choice > is something we can debate. It was really the only feasible choice > that was available to us at the time we (OSM US) felt the need for a > better platform for conversations. Slack has done its job as a > for-profit non-open company well in the sense that we're somewhat > locked in now. I dislike the fact that it is a walled garden, and > becoming more so, as much as anyone who values free and open data > and software. If there is a practical way to improve that situation, > we should pursue it. > > Finally, please stop your unpleasant trolling, it has no place in OSM. > > Martijn > > I am thinking of something that happened _even before Slack was > around_. I found out late that, let's say it was, USSOTUM was already a > go and that planning in high gear. Come to find out that I guess that I > should be reading the US Chapter's blog every day. I don't recall > seeing the information in an email. Well with the job that I have now, > I have only so much time to divide between mapping and other activities. > Sometimes all I have time for is a quick scan of email and adding a > single node. My older phone was only 8G. I had no room for anther app > like slack. What is nice about email is that I can watch various OSM > messages along with various github notifications with just one app. I > just don't have time for all the social media channels out there. > > If part of the mission of the US chapter is to "spread the word", then > the chapter is not succeeding by selecting just one channel. Not > everyone has a nice phone to load apps, or would care about slack, > facebook, or Twitter. I think that the board needs to use all of the > systems to get the word out. First, kudos to everybody who contributed to building the community - that is a very valuable work, and I can see how it is tempting to choose something already used at work to kickstart things. But I'm also not using Slack because of their terrible terms and the completely closed ecosystem. Building on top of existing open solutions would have been much more preferred - whether it's a better mobile client and gateway for IRC or some other solution. Using open solutions is close to eating our own dogfood. While not using OSM while advocating it would seem silly, I can imagine a conversation like this: - this is OSM, an open map - oh, I love open things, let me map something - and where's the community? - it's in this proprietary chat app that does not interact with anything else - oh There are parallels with the use of the closed BitKeeper for Linux development, which gave rise to the development of git. Open communities do conflict with closed ecosystems eventually. > https://www.openstreetmap.us/ > We support OpenStreetMap by holding annual conferences, providing > community resources, building partnerships, and by spreading the word. > > Regards, > Greg-- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] What is a sockpuppet (sock puppet?)
On 2018.04.23. 19:58, Charlotte Wolter wrote: > Hello, > > Sorry I'm not up on the latest OSM slang, but > what is a sockpuppet (sock puppet?)? That's a bit older than OSM. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet) is a good overview. > Charlotte > > > > Charlotte Wolter > 927 18th Street Suite A > Santa Monica, California > 90403 > +1-310-597-4040 > Mobile: 310-663-3699 > techl...@techlady.com > Skype: thetechlady > > > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Gravel roads and surface tags in the US
On 2018.04.20. 01:12, Dave Swarthout wrote: > "I'm totally open to suggestions for alternatives. Gravel certainly > doesn't describe that kind of coarse crushed rock to most people, but > what do you call that concisely?" > > The roadway in the OP's opening post has what I would definitely tag as > a gravel surface but it has obviously been groomed to carry heavier > traffic than many similar roads. Thus surface=gravel or surface=unpaved > along with tracktype=grade1 (wiki: grade1 = Usually a paved or heavily > compacted hardcore surface). Whether such roads have actually been > mechanically compacted isn't obvious from their appearance. Perhaps some > sort of final step was employed to prepare them for use. It might be worth avoiding paved/unpaved. Usually, if you are tagging surface, you can make at least a good guess on what is it. While paved/unpaved provides some information, it is still highly desirable to expand on it later (gravel, compacted, sand, ground etc ? - big difference). > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 2:48 PM, Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org > <mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org>> wrote:... -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Gravel roads and surface tags in the US
On 2018.04.19. 17:53, Max Erickson wrote: >> I grew up in an area with these kinds of roads and I don't think >> they're technically compacted. The gravel, which is crushed >> limerstone, is laid down and due to its chemical properties creates a >> smooth surface after several months of traffic. > > Having read about this some since Tobey mentioned it on Slack, the > compaction is often meant to come from traffic. > > In the Midwest the material is often from local "gravel pits" which > are glacial material, so a mix of sand and rounded stone. I think they > do some sorting and remixing of the material before using it for road > surface construction, and they definitely add clay as a binder. > > I think the use of clean stone (the wiki gravel) is more common for > ornamental driveways than for any road meant to bear much traffic. > Apparently part of the issue is that there aren't many built roads in > the UK (and Europe in general) that aren't sealed. While possibly correct for western Europe, more eastwards that is not correct. A lot of compacted roads. By distance, probably more than paved. Pure gravel usually is reserved for smaller segments where very low travel speed is expected - like service roads for new residential development, driveways etc. > Max -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Gravel roads and surface tags in the US
On 2018.04.19. 02:36, Jack Burke wrote: > I've been tagging roads like that as compacted, once I learned more > about the surfacing tech. Same here - was tagging roads like that as gravel until I found out it's compacted. Editor topic - perhaps editors should be extended to offer both compacted & gravel for the UI choice of "gravel", with compacted being default even ? > -jack > > -- > Typos courtesy of fancy auto spell technology > > On April 18, 2018 6:19:07 PM EDT, Toby Murray <toby.mur...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I recently bought a gravel bicycle to ride on the many gravel roads in > Kansas. Like this one: > https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=nYO4JI46L0SWzNAQlLT4kA=photo > > First question: What would you call this road? Obviously I am calling > it a "gravel road" but a couple of people have said they would call it > a "dirt road" so I'm curious if there are any other common terms to > describe this type of road in different regions of the US. > > Second question: How would you tag this road? There is a > surface=gravel tag that is in pretty common usage in Kansas and > neighboring states. However looking at the wiki page for the surface > tag[1], this is not wiki-correct. According to that page > surface=gravel is to be used for large rocks (4-8cm) that are laid > down loosely like those typically used as ballast on railroad beds. I > believe The Mapillary picture I linked to would be considered > surface=compacted according to the wiki because the rocks are much > smaller and the surface is stabilized with a binding agent. There is a > big difference between the two when it comes to bicycle riding. > Railroad ballast is bone jarring and flat tire inducing whereas gravel > roads are pretty manageable on the right kind of bike. > > But If you call something a "gravel road" and there is a "gravel" > option in the editor preset for the surface tag, people are going to > choose the gravel option and not look for "compacted" since that is > not a common term here. I assume it is a more common term in the UK > and that is why it is used in OSM. > > And lastly there are trails that are surfaced with a similar material > but crushed to a smaller size like here: > https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=iQNqP-dfQ-Rm6AD9REMsgQ=photo > > I'm trying to decide if that is better as surface=compacted or > surface=fine_gravel although fine_gravel seems to be a slightly > different process from what I see on the wiki. > > Maybe this should be directed at the tagging list but I thought I > would get thoughts from the US community since we seem to be the ones > using the tag incorrectly (according to the wiki) > > [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface > > Toby -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways
On 2018.02.19. 15:28, Richard Fairhurst wrote: ... > Having good paved/unpaved information will be a massive boost for OSM in > comparison to other map providers. We're already partway there. As an definitely. if somebody with the skills reads this, having that reflected on the osm.org default render would be a huge help. i'd map more surface status if it was more obvious. > example, try asking Google Maps for bike directions from SF to NYC. It sends > you down some really, really unsuitable tracks and I'm not entirely > convinced you'd survive the journey. By contrast, cycle.travel (using OSM > data) gets it pretty much right: occasionally it takes a gravel road > unnecessarily but it's pretty much always rideable. > > It would be great if we could become the best map of the rural US just as we > are for much of the rest of the world. > > cheers > Richard-- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways
On 2018.02.19. 00:07, Clifford Snow wrote: > > > I've done a fair amount of TIGER touch-up in Michigan, but there's > still a lot of work left to be done, and this looks like a great way > to get a handle on it. One issue: Due to the automated name > expansion that was done on untouched TIGER ways a few years ago > (which I think only affected roads in the eastern US?) a lot of > these ways have bot-mode as their most recent user, rather than > DaveHansenTiger. (1) > > The catch is that sometimes the name expansion changed the name > after a human mapper had edited the way, so it wouldn't always be > valid right to include ways where bot-mode is the most recent > editor. (2) I think if bot-mode is the most recent editor and the > way has only two versions, then it should be in effect an untouched > TIGER way, but I'm not sure how to get Overpass-turbo to pull that > info out. > > Any suggestions? > > > Running the overpass query looking for user DaveHansenTiger produced > around 30mb of data. That's more than enough to keep everyone busy for a > while. Overpass-turbo query looking for user bot-mode produced over > 100mb of data. It would need to be refined some. As you suggest, looking > only at version 2 might help but I'm not sure you can do that in overpass. > > There is another way to tackle the problem, one that I've used as well. > Work on one county at a time. With 83 counties in Michigan the size of > each county should be reasonable for one or two people to tackle. You > could either break the county into small chucks using a Tasking Manager > or just work on one county by your self. JOSM search capabilities mirror > overpass so you can search for user and version. recent josm versions also have built-in overpass download support - that might save a bit of time when downloading with further refinements with josm search. > Clifford > > -- > @osm_seattle > osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us <http://osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us> > OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch-- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Old Bing/ESRI satellite imagery?
On 2018.01.31. 03:16, Albert Pundt wrote: > Yeah, that wasn't right of me... I've been using the other sources for a > bit now and it's really not as bad as I thought it was, plus there's > more of the old imagery still available than I thought through > Mapbox/Digitalglobe Standard all over Pennsylvania, just not where I'm > currently working on. I guess the relatively high quality (albeit very > outdated by the time it was updated) imagery for the whole country > spoiled me a little too much. :P > > Ignore my previous post, it was dumb. your original post did not seem dumb or impolite to me, but that must be the cultural differences all over again :) the suggestion about more local imagery is good, albeit requires more manual work to find and use those. texas has published very good ortophoto data, not sure whether this will be picked up by any of the providers we have available now. https://josm.openstreetmap.de/mapsview?entry=Texas%20Orthophoto i recall it being mentioned that this imagery is published under an osm-good licence, but cannot find any sources right now. > On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 7:55 PM, Ian Dees <ian.d...@gmail.com > <mailto:ian.d...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Hi Albert, > > Please keep in mind that all of this data you're complaining about > is donated to the OSM community and it's a privilege to have access > to it. Please don't take your frustrations out on the providers that > are letting us use their service for free. > > All of the providers that donate their imagery are constantly adding > or improving imagery. Since it takes a lot of work to make these > imagery layers, the "previous iteration" is probably not out there > in any way. The best you can do is go to the provider and ask them > to improve the imagery so that the next imagery update can have > better imagery. > > Also, keep an eye out for local imagery from the state (through > NAIP, for example), your county, or city. Governments in the US > frequently post their imagery online for you to use. > > -Ian > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 6:46 PM, Albert Pundt <roadsgu...@gmail.com > <mailto:roadsgu...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > With the exception of the higher-resolution imagery in cities, > the current Bing/ESRI World Imagery is worse than the previous > iteration in every way except for being newer. It's blurry, > often distorted, and frequently has clouds covering it. The > previous imagery was crisper and rarely if ever had clouds, and > what little distortion there was was obvious and avoidable. > > Is there any way to still access this imagery, or at least a > better alternative to the current Bing/ESRI imagery? If the > former, then the outdatedness of it could be easily worked > around by comparing to the other imagery available. It must > exist "out there" in some capacity, since the > Mapbox/Digitalglobe Standard imagery still uses it in western > Pennsylvania, and even in some low zoom levels on Bing. > > I would use some of the other nationwide imagery options > available in JOSM, but most of them are either low-resolution > or with color so bright and washed out it's often difficult to > map with. > > —Albert > -- > —Albert-- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Leonia, NJ doesn't want you to navigate through
On 2018.01.08. 21:42, Andrew Matheny wrote: >>are there matching street signs ? > > I'm not sure. But if we know a street has legally-restricted access, I > think our tagging should match that access regardless of whether there's > a sign or not. yeah, my question was exactly about this - how is this legally codified ? if they intend to rely on stopping random people and asking "WHAT BUSINESS YOU HAVE HERE", it will stop soon. > Example: Service roads inside an apartment complex (usually tagged > "access=private") are an example of tagging access without a sign. these are public streets, though > If anything, I'm betting they'll have signs posted on the unaffected > major streets at city limits, which is where you'll often see signs > about cell phone usage while driving or red light cameras. sorry, did you mean "affected" ? >>of course, a better approach would be adding traffic calming features or > making roads one-way so that cut-through would not be beneficial much. > > Respectfully, I don't think mapping features that don't actually exist > is a good practice in the long-run. should have been more specific. i believe the city should have rearranged the traffic flow that would still be useful to the locals, but make it less attractive for shortcuts, not that we should introduce fake data :) > I think a conditional access tag is the best way to go here, since it's > the only one that will restrict access according to the city's ordinance. > > Thanks, > > Andrew > > On Jan 8, 2018 1:28 PM, "Rihards" <ric...@nakts.net > <mailto:ric...@nakts.net>> wrote: > > On 2018.01.08. 21 <tel:2018.01.08.%2021>:07, Andrew Matheny wrote: > > I believe the affected streets would just need a conditional > access tag, no? > > > > Something like: > > > > access:conditional=destination @ (06:00-10:00; 16:00-21:00) > > are there matching street signs ? > of course, a better approach would be adding traffic calming features or > making roads one-way so that cut-through would not be beneficial much. > the reporting segment did not portray the local govt as being very > competent. > > > Thanks, > > > > Andrew > > > > On Jan 8, 2018 12:55 PM, "Jack Burke" <burke...@gmail.com > <mailto:burke...@gmail.com> > > <mailto:burke...@gmail.com <mailto:burke...@gmail.com>>> wrote: > > > > I'll leave it to others to decide what, if anything, we should do > > about this. > > > > > > http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2018/01/05/leonia-streets-off-navigational-apps/ > > <http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2018/01/05/leonia-streets-off-navigational-apps/> > > > > <http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2018/01/05/leonia-streets-off-navigational-apps/ > > <http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2018/01/05/leonia-streets-off-navigational-apps/>> > > > > --jack > > > > -- > > Typos courtesy of fancy auto spell technology > ... > -- > Rihards-- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Leonia, NJ doesn't want you to navigate through
On 2018.01.08. 21:07, Andrew Matheny wrote: > I believe the affected streets would just need a conditional access tag, no? > > Something like: > > access:conditional=destination @ (06:00-10:00; 16:00-21:00) are there matching street signs ? of course, a better approach would be adding traffic calming features or making roads one-way so that cut-through would not be beneficial much. the reporting segment did not portray the local govt as being very competent. > Thanks, > > Andrew > > On Jan 8, 2018 12:55 PM, "Jack Burke" <burke...@gmail.com > <mailto:burke...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > I'll leave it to others to decide what, if anything, we should do > about this. > > > http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2018/01/05/leonia-streets-off-navigational-apps/ > > <http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2018/01/05/leonia-streets-off-navigational-apps/> > > --jack > > -- > Typos courtesy of fancy auto spell technology ... -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] pokemon go related vandalism in asheville, north carolina
On 2017.12.16. 01:00, Clifford Snow wrote: > They were definitely vandalism. I removed them. thank you for the quick help. the user is somewhat likely to continue in this style, possibly by creating more accounts. not sure whether there is an easy way to monitor for suspicious edits in that area, although i've heard that osmcha pokemon go filter is helpful. > On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Rihards <ric...@nakts.net > <mailto:ric...@nakts.net>> wrote: > > here's some pokemon go related vandalism in asheville, north carolina. > compare the mapped park/water features with the available imagery. > > could somebody more or less local check this please ? > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/35.46124/-82.57407 > <http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/35.46124/-82.57407> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/35.46449/-82.57485 > <http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/35.46449/-82.57485> > -- > Rihards-- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] pokemon go related vandalism in asheville, north carolina
here's some pokemon go related vandalism in asheville, north carolina. compare the mapped park/water features with the available imagery. could somebody more or less local check this please ? http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/35.46124/-82.57407 http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/35.46449/-82.57485 -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Pokémon Go no officially using OpenStreetMap
On 2017.12.05. 00:25, Toby Murray wrote: > On the flip side, this seems to be driving a second wave of pokemon > players coming to OSM and mapping parks over their homes, changing > things to footways and such nonsense. It is also driving beneficial > edits though. Hopefully the helpful users will stick around longer > than the trolls. Just keep an eye out for random parks appearing on > the map for a while. some coverage on this : https://www.polygon.com/2017/12/4/16725748/pokemon-go-map-changes-openstreetmap (and they got the name right). good thing they also linked to https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2016/12/30/tips-pokemon-go/ . > Toby > > On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 7:22 PM, Bill Ricker <bill.n1...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 2:27 PM, Peter Dobratz <pe...@dobratz.us> wrote: >>> I'm not sure how many active OSM contributors also play Pokémon Go, but the >>> game is now officially using OSM for the basemap that players see in the >>> game (previously was using Google Maps data for the base map). The in-game >>> about screen has text in the bottom of the License section correctly >>> attributing OSM. >> >> >> Thank you for sharing this. >> >> I was guessing so, when my daughter said a couple of the walking paths >> in our neighborhood had shown up in the game. ( I haven't added them >> to GoogleMaps so was pretty sure what map it was :-).) >> >> Glad to hear it's properly attributed.-- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Multipolygonizing
ing overlaps, gores and broken > multipolygons. (SOME multipolygons are unavoidable because areas have > enclaves or exclaves!) Moreover, part of the newcomer-unfriendliness > comes from the fact that examples of shared ways are sparse, and tend > to be on stable things like administrative regions, the shorelines of > large waterbodies, and similar features that newcomers are > (rightfully) a little afraid to edit in the first place. Heck, how > many newcomers will even recognize that topology is important? > > I may have a somewhat warped view of things. I got into using shared > ways when tidying conflicting imports of various public lands in New > York State, where there were many gores among county and township > lines, shorelines, and the boundaries of various sorts of protected > area. The boundaries are topologically complex, and being constrained > to deal with them by retracing partial ways would be a nightmare. > Shared ways was really the only approach that worked, and from what I > hear, for complex cases, it's still considered acceptable. That's a > relief! > > Once I became fluent with the approach of using shared ways, I've come > to use it when, for instance, adding landcover or land use polygons > even in my own neighbourhood. Even there, it could be that the use is > noncontroversial, since I live in a hilly area and as a consequence, > most of the polygons have edges that twist and turn. Nevertheless, I > freely concede that I may have overused the approach. > > I surely don't see a compelling reason to adopt any proposal to use > mechanical edits to replace polygons that share two or more nodes with > a multipolygon mesh. I'll presume that the mappers who entered the > polygons had their own reasons for entering the data as they did. But > I do feel free to introduce shared ways when editing such a beast, > because I struggle with keeping the topology consistent otherwise. > > As long as people don't start to claim that the approach of using > shared ways is invalid, or that I'm committing vandalism by adopting > them when I'm either entering new data or editing adjacent polygons > for other reasons, I'm content. > > And I do consider it unacceptable when someone removes a shared border > for which I've carefully curated a consensus solution from multiple > conflicting data sources, and replaces it with a simple polygon that > fails to align with anything along its margins. (I've recently sent > rather a long laundry list of problems to a mapper who did just that. > No response yet.) Introducing incorrect data in order to make the > format more friendly to newcomers is not the way to move forward. > > We should strive to make simple things easy. But perhaps more > importantly, we need to continue making difficult things possible.-- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Pokémon Go no officially using OpenStreetMap
On 2017.12.03. 21:34, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Peter Dobratz <pe...@dobratz.us > <mailto:pe...@dobratz.us>> wrote: > > I'm not sure how many active OSM contributors also play Pokémon Go, > but the game is now officially using OSM for the basemap that > players see in the game (previously was using Google Maps data for > the base map). The in-game about screen has text in the bottom of > the License section correctly attributing OSM. wow, it indeed does. the previously empty map now has so much detail. thank you for the notice. > Ingress and the upcoming Ingress Prime and Harry Potter games are/will > be using OSM as well.-- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Multipolygonizing
On 2017.11.20. 00:48, Douglas Hembry wrote: > Greetings everyone, > I've just had a short changeset discussion with mapper glebius prompted > by changeset 46612750 "Properly multipolygonize Monterey coast line". My > understanding is that the map of this stretch of coastline has been > restructured to avoid adjacent ways that share nodes. Accordingly, only > a single way ever connects any set of nodes, and the single way > participates, if necessary, in multiple relations. A result of this is > that in a high density area like downtown Monterey Bay many small areas > like building footprints or pedestrian areas are defined as distinct > multipolygons, with several ways (outers) making up the outline. An > example at: > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/36.61726/-121.90045 > > (look at Hovden Way near the top, or the outline of 700 Cannery Row, > further down near Bubba Gump, comprised of seven outer ways) > > glebius believes that this approach (with the help of the reltoolbox > JOSM plugin) is easier and less error-prone than having multiple simple > closed ways (eg, a building footprint and an adjacent pedestrian area) > sharing a set of nodes on their adjacent boundary. . (I hope I'm > representing this accurately, glebius will correct me if I'm getting it > wrong). > > In my limited experience I've never encountered this before, and at > first sight I'm not convinced, particularly when considering future > maintenance. I told glebius that I wanted to find out what the > community thought. Is this just one more valid optional way of mapping? > To be recommended for adoption if possible? Or to be avoided? Thoughts? not an authoritative opinion : it's terrible. mapping contiguous areas as multipolygons results in data that is extremely hard to modify (think splitting landuse from a building) and is more than a minefield for newbies. personally, i either redo these as separate ways when i have the time (original authors do not object as they have went either mad or out of energy after working with multipolygons too much), or give up and leave the area outdated - i don't have the skills to maintain that. -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] Integrating our open source data into OSM
On 2017.11.10. 00:11, Sean Lindsey wrote: > It seems that it's going to be hard to come up with a mass import > solution that every one can agree on. I would suggest that you take > name, address, phone number, website and category then try and > re-geocode the data, but it seems there is opposition to this method as > well. > > Another approach - as a way of keeping OSM and this data separate - is > having this POI data be a "secondary resource" that OSM users could "opt > in" to adding into their mapping set, but not be inherently owned or in > OSM's primary data set. For example, by loading up an OSM database you > could be linked to us or someone who creates a derivative of our data > suitable for importing into OSM maps. Thereby OSM does not feel > responsible for this resource but it still becomes available for people > to import and use via us or someone else. In this case we would want to > work with someone in order to create an OSM import-friendly version of > this data. We have a ton of indicators that tell us the quality and > freshness of this data and potentially we can rework in into something > more usable. as opposed to some other data (public transportation timetables and similar), this information belongs in osm - the concern is not about it being there, the concern is about licensing and accuracy, both being discussed and clarified. accuracy issue can be handled by a layer that looks for features in this dataset that cannot be matched to existing osm features. sort of map notes, although flooding notes with this might not be feasible. osm community response, after a survey, could be to add the entity, add it with corrections (location etc) or reject it as not existing on the ground - it might be useful to get a feedback loop for those. feedback amount will vary a lot. i'd expect smaller towns and the like not to get much feedback at all. suggesting a layer like this to be used. any pois without any feedback in 6 months to be imported (split in smaller sections and all other usual precautions). this would not be a blanked import and would be expected to be "better than before". > Thoughts? > > On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 1:09 AM, Rory McCann <r...@technomancy.org > <mailto:r...@technomancy.org>> wrote: > > Hi Sean, > > On 09/11/17 07:14, Sean Lindsey wrote: > > Thanks for all the feedback, we have put together some blogs to help > > people figure out how to play with the data, to give people an idea of > > what it is and how it was put together. > > > > https://blog.cybo.com/ > > So that website says: > > OmniPlaces is formed from billions of records (literally), from > tens of thousands of sources (literally) > > > Trying to figure out the licence for tens of thousands of datasets is > practically impossible Licence issues are often a problem with > imports, and I think this could be a show-stopper for this. > > On 09/11/17 05:54, Jo wrote: > > If the addresses are in the data as well, we don't really need > to use > the lat/lon coordinates. > > > Not necessarily, depends where the addresses came from. If you had > lots of lat/longs, and geocoded the, and threw away the lat/longs > then you don't have a clean dataset. > > -- > Rory > > > > ___ > Imports mailing list > impo...@openstreetmap.org <mailto:impo...@openstreetmap.org> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports > <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports> > > > > > -- > Sean Lindsey > Cybo Company > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/sean-lindsey/> > 541-912-2505 <tel:(541)%20912-2505> > > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Texas - redacted roads.
On 2017.10.13. 05:06, Nick Hocking wrote: > AAAH - all my questions are answered. > > The City of Austin's use of google base map has "fooled" me into > thinking that the map data was theirs rather than googles. If I click on > the "blue line" then I see the actual City of Austin data and indeed it > is "REED WILL DRIVE". > > Damm - So I have actually just gone and put in a google mistake into > OSM. Easily fixed tonight and I will check any other roads that I have > "fixed" in the last two days. > > Ok - so after all this, the only error was in the google data, which is > no great surprise. while not too likely, could have been a lye street[1], too. this is a good example why even only taking a street name from google maps is not a good idea. thank you for finding and fixing it :) [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Copyright_Easter_Eggs -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Texas - redacted roads.
On 2017.10.13. 01:15, Nick Hocking wrote: > Nathan wrote > "Best to stay well on the correct side of the line "**//___^ > **//___^ > Ok - point taken. yes, google so far has not flat out denied permission, but their terms of service would make data not usable in some countries. it's safer to do a bit of an extra effort now to avoid data removal later. > Did I mention that at the location I posted (using OSM) the CAPCOG > website (roads dataset) > > http://regional-open-data-capcog.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/roads-2015 > > has the road listed as REED WILL and with a type of DR. I've been told > that this is an acceptable source or road names, it might be, cannot comment > Maybe somebody could drive past this road and report back what the > actual street signs do say. If they do say "Reed Will" then I will try > to contact the Austin authorities to clarify the situation. they could also consider taking mapillary and/or osv images - if we had them, this would be easily resolved ;) as far as i know, austin has published quite a lot of data and is fairly open. it might be possible to reach somebody there who would appreciate feedback. definitely worth trying. -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Texas - redacted roads.
On 2017.10.11. 13:37, Nick Hocking wrote: > Andrew wrote "I would check out the City of Austin's OpenData portal: > https://data.austintexas.gov/Locations-and-Maps/Street-Segment/t4fe-kr8c > > The license is the same (PD) as when the initial building import was > completed, so you are good to go." > > Thanks Andrew, I'm now replacing some names adding new roads and > neighbourhoods etc. > > One interesting road is Redwil Drive. > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/30.23189/-97.59361 > > Tiger has no name, Google maps and Austin-gov have Redwill Drive but > google street view shows both street signs as Reed Will Drive. just a quick reminder that we should try not to use google maps or streetview, the legal status of "just looking" is also fuzzy :) -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Dakota County, MN
On 2017.10.10. 20:47, Rihards wrote: > On 2017.10.10. 20:41, Brian May wrote: >> Joe, >> >> Try whodidit. http://simon04.dev.openstreetmap.org/whodidit/ >> >> It shows who edited areas by tile and when. Default is a week, but you >> can set different times, filter users, etc. >> >> I have a bookmark set to start at my home town location like: >> http://simon04.dev.openstreetmap.org/whodidit/?zoom=12=27.20942=-80.28027=BTT > > you can also see new users in your area : > http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/newestosm.php > it is possible to subscribe to a feed and get notified of all new users > : https://neis-one.org/2012/07/new-contributor-feed/ > > for a smaller region & time (limited to one week), check out > https://tyrasd.github.io/latest-changes > > data - you can use raw openstreetmap data and get all the changes with > it, although it might be a bit too much work. hmm, looks like one user there is using their personal account for imports (see changesets two days ago) : https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Omnific it might be worth notifying them :) >> Brian >> >> On 10/10/2017 12:47 PM, Joe Sapletal wrote: >>> >>> At work, my manager wants to explore using and contributing to OSM in >>> a more official capacity beyond my personal Building Import project. >>> He has a few questions that I can handle, but there is one that is >>> actually something that I’ve been thinking about too. How much >>> activity is happening in Dakota County, Minnesota? And Where? Is >>> there a data or web map resource that one can map change by date? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Joe Sapletal-- > Rihards-- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Dakota County, MN
On 2017.10.10. 20:41, Brian May wrote: > Joe, > > Try whodidit. http://simon04.dev.openstreetmap.org/whodidit/ > > It shows who edited areas by tile and when. Default is a week, but you > can set different times, filter users, etc. > > I have a bookmark set to start at my home town location like: > http://simon04.dev.openstreetmap.org/whodidit/?zoom=12=27.20942=-80.28027=BTT you can also see new users in your area : http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/newestosm.php it is possible to subscribe to a feed and get notified of all new users : https://neis-one.org/2012/07/new-contributor-feed/ for a smaller region & time (limited to one week), check out https://tyrasd.github.io/latest-changes data - you can use raw openstreetmap data and get all the changes with it, although it might be a bit too much work. > Brian > > On 10/10/2017 12:47 PM, Joe Sapletal wrote: >> >> At work, my manager wants to explore using and contributing to OSM in >> a more official capacity beyond my personal Building Import project. >> He has a few questions that I can handle, but there is one that is >> actually something that I’ve been thinking about too. How much >> activity is happening in Dakota County, Minnesota? And Where? Is >> there a data or web map resource that one can map change by date? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Joe Sapletal-- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Someone copying from other maps
On 2017.10.05. 02:25, GeoKitten wrote: > Hello everyone. A few days ago, an OSM user in my ares (Pittsburgh, PA) > sent me > a private message in which they admitted to copying from two sources. First > they said they were copying from a map of the CSX intermodal facility in > Pittsburgh: > "The challenging part was the CSX Intermodal facility. I took the PDF from > their public documents on their website and extracted the engineering plan > image, then used the PicLayers plugin to scale and orient that image > accurately, then traced from that. I'm a little proud of that one." > > Presumably this map is copyrighted so it's a serious issue. > > They also said they were copying from the county address data: > > "It's also a lot faster with the address points from the county overlaid > (remangled through osmfilter, pull it out per municipality, and then rewrite > the tags and values into OSM-appropriate format), and with some of the JOSM > alignment tricks." > > This is a government dataset that is probably public domain but whose > copyright > status hasn't been verified. It might be considered an unauthorized import > though. > > I'm not sure how to handle this. First of all, this was via PM so I'm > not sure > if I should reveal their identiy. Should I? > > Second, I want to clarify that they don't appear malicious, just uninformed > of the rules. They mentioned their copying in a positive context as if they > didn't know it was forbidden. I don't want to be a snitch but I know the OSM > community takes copyright issues very seriously. it might make sense to clarify the copyright status of these sources to see what data can be kept. in parallel, inform the user about the problem, and email dwg. -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Recent Aerial Photo Imagery Changes
On 2017.09.26. 03:09, David Wisbey wrote: > Fellow mappers, > > So what's up with the recent changes in our aerial photo imagery? > > It used to be so simple and I followed the rule(?) of making sure features > line up with Bing imagery. I'm wondering about that now - big time. > I have been mapping in a variety of locations lately and the situation is > different in each location. In Minnesota, for instance, I really don't want > to use Bing imagery unless at some zoom level it shows me the most > current images (especially in high growth areas like northwest Rochester). > And when recently updating an intersection in southwest Minnesota to a > new roundabout, I was aghast at what Bing was giving me and so only used > it where the quality/resolution "wasn't TOO bad". Sad. Mapbox, ESRI and > other imagery were all much better choices, especially between Blomkest > and Hutchinson, MN. > > So the main question now is: Does the "line up with Bing" rule still stand? > In recent work around the city of Virginia, Minnesota (re-routing of US 53) > I felt I had to use Mapbox imagery and so lined up what I could with it > rather > than Bing. In most cases, they matched or were off by only 2 meters or so. there has never been a rule to "line up with Bing", quite the opposite - you should not unconditionally line up with any imagery layer, unless you know for sure it's extremely precise. regarding imagery layers like sat/ortophoto, it has always been suggested to check and align them to gps traces from the area (while keeping in mind that one or few traces might be all wrong, the centre line of many traces being the best). > I would provide a link to show you the worst area I found (along MN 7 > several > miles east of Blomkest) but Openstreetmap.org seems to be down right now. > > David > Your Village Maps > > > > _______ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] guidelines regarding roads access
On 2017.09.13. 16:13, Andrew Matheny wrote: > I agree with everything Greg has said. > > In the US, whether you tag a highway residential or service should > generally be determined by its function, not its access. > > In the case of a gated community of single family homes, the named > streets serve the same function as named streets in other non-gated > single family neighborhoods. Hence I would tag those highway=residential > and then access=private. Then service for any driveways or alleys. > > In the cases of other residential uses it would depend on the context. > > For townhome or other single-family attached dwellings with named roads > that resemble detached single-family neighborhoods, I'd still tag as > residential. > > On Trailer parks, I could be convinced to go with either residential or > service depending on the trailer park. Some are built like high density > single family neighborhoods and have named streets, in which case I > would use a residential tag. When I've seen some (usually smaller) > trailer parks where the highways resemble driveways more than they do > streets, I've given those service tags. if those roads/streets are indeed rather big, residential is a good tag. if they are a bit smaller/windy, i'd go for "service" on all of them - for example, the areas here : http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/30.40357/-97.70845=N > I could also go either way on multi-family developments (like > garden-style apartment complexes), but usually I go with highway=service > because they function more like the interior roads of a shopping center > or business park even though they are technically residential uses. > Access tags are added when appropriate. > > -Andrew > > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Open survey on participation biases in OSM
On 2017.09.05. 12:53, Nick Hocking wrote: > We are ,mostly, volunteers. Therefore I think we should map whatever > takes our fancy and should not feel obliged to spend our time/money on > mapping that we do not want to do willingly. > > If the location based service providers find that certain info is > missing that they would like to have then maybe they could pay someone > to collect the data, or even better, do it themselves. > > If you can convince mappers to alter their mapping habits, well and > good, but trying to shame or threaten them into doing so will just > destroy whatever community there is. > > Your statement (highly paraphrased) of "If you don't map what I want you > to map, then nobody is going to want to use your data" may not be the > best way to win people over to your cause. wtf, man. the analysis that Frederik showed to be deeply flawed before is one thing, but this reaction is just wtf. -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] natural=* and landuse=* multipolygons at the urban interface
On 2017.08.13. 23:11, David Kewley wrote: > Development in Orange County, California pushes into areas currently > covered by polygons (often large multipolygons) tagged as natural=scrub, > landuse=meadow, or landuse=[farm|farmland]. These were part of the FMMP > import http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/California_Farms. > > Mostly I try to leave those large multipologons alone, because I don't > feel confident I can handle them properly, and because I'm using iD (due > to using a Chromebook), where relation handling is rudimentary. > > But I'd like to update the urban-wildland boundary, where new suburban > developments are pushing into former wildland, farmland, or > (historical?) "grazing land". See for example the new development (with > 2017 imagery recently added to Bing) at > http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=id#map=16/33.5352/-117.6034. > > Editing these huge multipolygons, and reviewing others' edits to them, > becomes very cumbersome, at least to me. It seems to me probably > sensible and reasonable at the urban edge to split off small parts of > these multipolygons, e.g. at roads, to make the smaller bits easier to > edit and review in the context of the expanding urban edge. > > > As one test / demonstration edit > (http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/51090963), I carved off a bit of > natural=scrub from a large outer role of a multipolygon, into its own > polygon. I manually added new boundary way segments, stitched them > together into the existing ways, copied tags, and made the split-off > piece its own polygon, independent of its original parent multipolygon. > I did the split at an existing highway=residential object (Golden Ridge > Lane). > > I know, I should find a way to use JOSM, which I expect makes this much > easier. :) > > Meanwhile, does this seem a reasonable approach to making the urban > interface a bit more manageable in the future? I.e. splitting off parts > of large multipolygons (so long as they don't have names or other unique > identifiers that matter, just generic tags things like natural=scrub), > to make future editing easier? > > I know for the above example of a new residential area, I could make a > landuse=residential island, and make it an inner role in the surrounding > landuse=meadow multipolygon. But at some point as the urban sprawl > expands, it seems to me it makes more sense to stop pretending the area > is dominated by the natural features, and make it clear it's dominated > by e.g. landuse=residential, with possibly interspersed natural features > like scrub. > > > What would the group suggest? > > Is my test edit reasonable, or should it be reverted? looks very reasonable. you have added the split-off piece as a separate way, not multipolygon, which makes it easier to handle. nitpicking - i would disconnect it from the road here :) http://osm.org/go/TPVmeC512?m= > Thanks, > David > > > P.S. As an aside (not my main point today), the FMMP-based distinction > in this area between scrub and meadow seems awfully arbitrary. I could > be mistaken, but I don't believe the "meadow" is actually used today for > grazing nor feed harvesting, and in the aerial photography, it appears > indistinguishable from the adjacent "scrub". It appears (and I'm nearly > certain from driving by) that there's both substantial grass and > substantial woody plant cover, in similar ratios in both "meadow" and > "scrub". > > I don't believe there's any current agricultural use of that land, at > least not near where I'm giving examples today. There might be some > large-acreage, semi-wildland grazing or feed harvesting activity > remaining in Orange County, but I've not noticed any. > > As documented in the FMMP wiki > page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/California_Farms, the FMMP > designation "Grazing Land" was mapped to landuse=meadow. > > But the FMMP designation of "Grazing Land" explicitly does not mean that > there *is* grazing activity there, just that it is "...land on which the > existing vegetation, whether grown naturally or through management, is > suitable for grazing or browsing of livestock." (See for example > http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Documents/soil_criteria.pdf.) > So wildlands that will never again see livestock, or harvesting for > livestock feed, can still be designated Grazing Land by FMMP. Those > areas map better to natural=grassland or natural=scrub, I think. > > So landuse=meadow seems less useful than natural=scrub or > natural=grassland for many of these areas. Even though this is a > secondary point today, I'd welcome comments on this as well.-- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] anyone know what software is generating these Q/A Notes?
On 2017.08.12. 00:11, Max Erickson wrote: > It's StreetComplete. Newer versions include the app name in the note: > > https://github.com/westnordost/StreetComplete/issues/308 a bit of a sidenote - looks like this email sat in shenron for more than 2 hours. Received: from localhost ([::1]:51926 helo=shenron.openstreetmap.org) by shenron.openstreetmap.org with esmtp (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <talk-us-boun...@openstreetmap.org>) id 1dgJbu-Su-9H; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 23:45:08 + Received: from mail-qt0-x22f.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22f]:36137) by shenron.openstreetmap.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <maxerick...@gmail.com>) id 1dgHIS-00038M-Ez for talk-us@openstreetmap.org; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 21:17:02 +0000 > Max -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] anyone know what software is generating these Q/A Notes?
On 2017.08.11. 23:40, Peter Dobratz wrote: > I'm seeing a pattern of OSM Notes being added where a specific question > is being asked about missing information in OSM and I was wondering if > anyone knows what software is being used to generate these notes. See > for example: > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1054474 seems to be streetcomplete, although i thought it edited osm data directly instead of adding notes. https://github.com/westnordost/StreetComplete/blob/master/app/src/main/res/values/strings.xml https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/StreetComplete > Thanks, > Peter-- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Tiger Zip Data Removal Project (Update)
On 2017.07.17. 06:16, Marc Gemis wrote: > I wonder whether it is interesting to know the difference between > concrete, asphalt and pervious concrete. All three have different > characteristics whether it be comfort for the cyclist or being > dangerous under icy conditions or durability under heavy loaded > trucks. What do you think ? Is it worth recording those differences > for paved roads ? concrete/asphalt definitely worth mapping separately. concrete types might be the next level of detail, but harder to figure out from street imagery. > m. > > On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 10:09 PM, Richard Fairhurst > <rich...@systemed.net> wrote: >> Kevin Kenny wrote: >>> Fair enough. I will confess that I'm a little lackadaisical about >>> tagging the surface on hard-surfaced roads. It appears that >>> some sort of hard surface is more or less assumed by default. >>> I do tag 'gravel', 'compacted', 'shale', 'sand', 'ground' >>> assiduously, and usually add some sort of assessment of >>> 'smoothness' on those. >> >> In that case you are absolutely on the side of the angels. >> >> Yes, if you clear the tiger:reviewed tag after reviewing that a residential >> (or unclassified, or tertiary, or greater) road genuinely does have a paved >> surface, that's AOK in my book - that's the assumed default for those >> highway values in developed countries. I generally wouldn't add >> surface=paved in such cases either. >> >> cheers >> Richard >> >> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tiger-Zip-Data-Removal-Project-Update-tp5898958p5899343.html >> Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> ___ >> Talk-us mailing list >> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] SEO Damage to OSM
On 2017.07.05. 18:40, Andy Townsend wrote: > On 05/07/2017 16:27, Greg Morgan wrote: >> I've seen the DWG go after real newbies because they are exited and >> want to make a difference but make a few mistakes. > > Have you got an example of that (offlist if it would be preferable)? > > A significant amount of my DWG time is spent trying to persuade mappers > around the world to allow new users to make mistakes, which they > inevitably will before they get the hang of things. I've certainly not > seen "the DWG go after real newbies". i would like to express great gratitude and admiration at how dwg has been handling things for the last few years. you guys are awesome in patience, attention to detail and overall quality. thank you. > Best Regards, > > Andy-- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] FBI using OSM on website... without attribution
On 2017.06.30. 22:37, Dale Puch wrote:
> A better route is to contact http://leafletjs.com/ since they are
> providing the actual map data thru their script. Also they probably do
> so for lots of other sites.
> Leaflet does attribute Openstreetmap at the bottom of their main page
> page though.
leaflet is a library anybody can use - i assume they won't be happy
about people bothering them same as apache httpd project wouldn't be.
> Dale Puch
>
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 2:36 PM, David Kewley <david.t.kew...@gmail.com
> <mailto:david.t.kew...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> It looks like all the FBI field office sites are essentially part of
> the national site, so they're all probably managed centrally. They
> all credit Leaflet in the map widget, and use OSM tiles without
> crediting OSM.
>
> It's been years since I've noticed webmaster links, like we used to
> have in the early days of the Web. Poking around, I couldn't find
> any technical feedback links at all on fbi.gov <http://fbi.gov>.
> Ideas for contacting someone who might be able to help with this issue:
>
> * Call the national FBI number: (202) 324-3000
> <tel:(202)%20324-3000> from
> https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/fbi-headquarters
> <https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/fbi-headquarters>.
> * Email one of the Community Outreach addresses available at
> various field offices ("Community Outreach" link near the top of
> each field office's page). E.g. for the San Francisco office,
> it's outreach...@ic.fbi.gov <mailto:outreach...@ic.fbi.gov>
> from
> https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/sanfrancisco/community-outreach-1
>
> <https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/sanfrancisco/community-outreach-1>.
> Some other field offices also have outreach email addresses.
> * On their "Businesses"
> page https://www.fbi.gov/resources/businesses
> <https://www.fbi.gov/resources/businesses>, they have a link for
> "Intellectual Property Theft/Piracy"
> at https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/white-collar-crime/piracy-ip-theft
> <https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/white-collar-crime/piracy-ip-theft>.
> While this issue seems economically tiny compared to the IP
> theft issues they tend to spend time on, it might be possible to
> get someone's help this way, since it's their own website.
> (Although the reporting methods I found went to other offices,
> not obviously directly to the FBI.)
>
> I won't be following up on these in the foreseeable future, but if
> someone else does follow up, please let us all know what happens.
>
> David
>
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Joseph R. Justice
> <jayare...@gmail.com <mailto:jayare...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Mike Thompson
> <miketh...@gmail.com <mailto:miketh...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/denver
> <https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/denver>
>
> See map in upper right part of page
>
>
> Does either the page for the Denver field office, and/or the
> nation-wide field office locator referred to in a separate post
> in this thread, include a "Contact the Webmaster" sort of link?
> Or even just a "Contact Us" link? Those would be a first
> obvious point of contact, I'd think...
>
>
>
> Joseph
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us>
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
--
Rihards
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing
On 2017.04.25. 12:19, Horea Meleg wrote: > Hy guys, thanks for your responses. > Do you think that is better to move motorway_junction where continuous line > begins? In real life you can't cross a continuous line, so I think it should > be the same in OSM. What do you think? i'd probably go for "between where you may and may not enter the lane", maybe even leaning more towards the beginning of the allowed move. if you are mapping individual turning lanes, then "between" wouldn't work that well - for these, i'd err on starting them where one may enter the lane at the beginning. > Thanks, > Horea > > -Original Message- > From: Rihards [mailto:ric...@nakts.net] > Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 11:05 AM > To: Hans De Kryger <hans.dekryge...@gmail.com>; Horea Meleg > <horea.me...@telenav.com> > Cc: talk-US@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing > > On 2017.04.25. 09:50, Hans De Kryger wrote: >> The motorway link should be dropped down to 2 where the lane actually >> starts > > between 1 & 2 for sure. > >> *Regards,** >> * >> >> *Hans* >> >> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:45 PM, Horea Meleg <horea.me...@telenav.com >> <mailto:horea.me...@telenav.com>> wrote: >> >> Hello all, >> >> Me and my Telenav colleagues started to edit lane numbers in Detroit >> area. We met lots of cases where highway_link starts exactly at the >> junction of roads. For example, this case here: 42.474427, >> -83.155894. >> >> >> >> Do you think it is ok to leave motorway_junction as it is already >> mapped and add lanes=5 between 1 and motorway_junction, or you >> consider it’s better to move it in position 1 or 2 and add lane >> number on motorway and motorway_link accordingly. >> >> __ __ >> >> Thank you, >> >> Horea Meleg >> >> __ __ >> >> __ __ >> >> >> ___ >> Talk-us mailing list >> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us >> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us> >> >> >> >> >> ___ >> Talk-us mailing list >> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us >> > > > -- > Rihards > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Best practice in Lane Editing
On 2017.04.25. 09:50, Hans De Kryger wrote: > The motorway link should be dropped down to 2 where the lane actually starts between 1 & 2 for sure. > *Regards,** > * > > *Hans* > > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:45 PM, Horea Meleg <horea.me...@telenav.com > <mailto:horea.me...@telenav.com>> wrote: > > Hello all, > > Me and my Telenav colleagues started to edit lane numbers in Detroit > area. We met lots of cases where highway_link starts exactly at the > junction of roads. For example, this case here: 42.474427, > -83.155894. > > > > Do you think it is ok to leave motorway_junction as it is already > mapped and add lanes=5 between 1 and motorway_junction, or you > consider it’s better to move it in position 1 or 2 and add lane > number on motorway and motorway_link accordingly. > > __ __ > > Thank you, > > Horea Meleg > > __ __ > > __ __ > > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us> > > > > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Sabotage or a really bad bot?
On 2017.04.04. 01:35, Charlotte Wolter wrote: > > Yes, Rihards, I've been doing this since 2009, so I know what a > driveway is. > Maybe you should check my woerk to make sure I'm doing it right > ... NOT! hmm... that might have come across wrong - did not mean to imply you doing anything wrong, just mentioned an approach seen before with other mappers, and it seemed like a simple thing to check - maybe even meant more for a casual list-reader who might get an impression that driveways are not welcome in osm. sorry if the sparse message did not transfer that well between our cultures - i'll put the blame about the short content without smalltalk on the lack of time ;) > Charlotte Wolter > > > At 01:54 AM 4/3/2017, you wrote: >> On 2017.04.03. 04:26, Charlotte Wolter wrote: > Hello, > > I >> came across a really weird situation while doing a Maproulette > >> change. > In Rustberg, a small town in rural Virginia > >> (http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=id#map=16/37.2772/-79.1011), > >> almost every driveway has been named after the street it intersects. >> In > addition, numerous very short "driveways" have been created, some >> of > which go nowhere. > The edits all were done four years >> ago, it seems. Here is the > message about the edits: "Edited almost 4 >> years ago by bot-mode > Version #2 · Changeset #15805152." > >> I removed most of the names and the "driveways" in town, but > they >> continued well out of town, and finally I gave up. Could someone > >> take a look at this and, perhaps, reverse the change set? > >> Thanks the driveways, did you check with sat imagery ? were they at >> least near what looked like roads or not ? > Charlotte > > > Charlotte >> Wolter > 927 18th Street Suite A > Santa Monica, California > 90403 > >> +1-310-597-4040 > techl...@techlady.com > Skype: thetechlady > > > > >> ___ > Talk-us mailing >> list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us -- Rihards >> _______ Talk-us mailing list >> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > Charlotte Wolter > 927 18th Street Suite A > Santa Monica, California > 90403 > +1-310-597-4040 > techl...@techlady.com > Skype: thetechlady > > -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Sabotage or a really bad bot?
On 2017.04.03. 04:26, Charlotte Wolter wrote: > Hello, > > I came across a really weird situation while doing a Maproulette > change. > In Rustberg, a small town in rural Virginia > (http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=id#map=16/37.2772/-79.1011), > almost every driveway has been named after the street it intersects. In > addition, numerous very short "driveways" have been created, some of > which go nowhere. > The edits all were done four years ago, it seems. Here is the > message about the edits: "Edited almost 4 years ago by bot-mode > Version #2 · Changeset #15805152." > I removed most of the names and the "driveways" in town, but > they continued well out of town, and finally I gave up. Could someone > take a look at this and, perhaps, reverse the change set? > Thanks the driveways, did you check with sat imagery ? were they at least near what looked like roads or not ? > Charlotte > > > Charlotte Wolter > 927 18th Street Suite A > Santa Monica, California > 90403 > +1-310-597-4040 > techl...@techlady.com > Skype: thetechlady > > > > _______ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Is this a bad import or an experiment?
On 2017.03.23. 18:19, Eric Ladner wrote: > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 9:25 AM andrzej zaborowski <balr...@gmail.com > <mailto:balr...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Hi, > > Unfortunately it looks like someone has started deleting the areas you > found, I looked at a random neighborhood and they were still visible > in the tiles but the map data shows only the small ones, now > unconnected to anything as the bigger ones are missing. Haven't > looked at the edits history. > > Nobody objected so I'm going through the area and removing the small > driveway areas and replacing larger ones with service roads and/or > parking areas as appropriate. if possible, replacing the smaller areas with ways as well would be great. detailed map can be useful to determine from which side to approach some property, and also for marketing reasons - the better osm looks, the more people will be likely to use it :) -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Available Building Footprints
On 2017.03.22. 18:37, Clifford Snow wrote: > I am happy to announce that Microsoft has made available approximately > 9.8 million building footprints including building heights in key > metropolitan areas. These footprints are licensed ODbL to allow > importing into OSM. These footprints where manually created using high > resolution imagery. The data contains no funny field names such as > tiger:cfcc or gnis:featureid or fcode=46003, just building height. > > > Please remember to follow the import guidelines. > > The wiki [1] has more information on these footprints as well as links > to download. the link seems to be a copypaste mistake :) > [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/dieterdreist/diary/40727 > > Enjoy, > Clifford Snow > > > -- > @osm_seattle > osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us <http://osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us> > OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch > > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Samsung"s Find My Mobile
On 2017.02.25. 21:23, Jack Burke wrote: > Maybe I'm the last to know this, but Samsung"s Find My Mobile service > lets you switch between HERE and OSM maps. (And yes, they do correctly > note "(c) OpenStreetMap contributors".) you cannot be the last, i did not know that :) is there any article on that or at least a picture ? > -jack > -- > Typos courtesy of fancy auto spell technology -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] reporting Pokemon Go related vandalism
On 2017.01.30. 21:16, Andy Townsend wrote: > On 27/01/2017 22:49, ajt1...@gmail.com wrote: >> On 27/01/2017 06:20, Will Senechal wrote: >>> I'll try to keep an eye on activity around here, and will try to >>> continue updating my area. >> >> They've just "edited" again, and I've blocked in >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/1169 , so I'd be grateful if >> people could keep an eye out for other problematical edits in the area >> from other names too... > > The Data Working Group have just had a mail from the mapper saying that > although the _previous_ ones were fake, their _last_ edit > http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/45573753 was actually valid (and > said "If there needs to be photographs taken I will gladly"). I replied > suggesting that they might want to post here to explain what happened, > and accepted their offer of photgraphic evidence. I have to say I'm > still somewhat sceptical - the features in > http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/45573753 were remarkably > Pokemon-friendly, and the "cars parked in something now mapped as a duck > pond" made it seem even more unlikely. i commented on the changeset, asking for mapillary images. plain photos might be taken who-knows-where, but faking the location for mapillary would likely be too much effort :) > I'd be delighted to be wrong of course - it'd be great if this really > was someone trying to map real things (but perhaps not making a very > good job of it as this is their first non-fake edit). If anyone's in a > position to check the validity or otherwise of it please do (you can > visualise the change in > https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=45573753 - some things should > be easy to spot like the stream > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/469546360/history "Glen Meadows > Subterrain Spring"). > > Best Regards, > > Andy -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Beware Pokemon users
On 2017.01.05. 22:34, Bill Ricker wrote: > I have a possible confirmation that PokeGo is using OSM Points of > Interest to populate features, but not of edit vandalism. > > We went onto local hiking trails to document some local science history, > taking my daughter along for company and having someone under 50 to keep > an eye on us oldsters. She brought her iPhone and PokeGo of course. (I'd > expected her to be my photographic "2nd shooter", oh well.) She > reported that our destination included both a PokeGo Gym and a PokeStop. > > The PokeStop was at our exact target, "1899 MIT Observatory site" which > is moderately well known (on the park map, in FourSquare). [1] > > But the Gym was a horizontal control benchmark "BLOOM 1934" which is NOT > in published catalogs (USGS, MASSDOT, Geocache.com) of benchmarks. It > appears to be part of the MAGS 1934 survey, does not appear to have > elevation stamped, consistent with other MAGS 1934 disks. Is it not > cataloged because not required in final control mesh? [2] > (I have added the disk name "BLOOM 1934" to the OSM node today.) reportedly gyms have been populated from their previous game, ingress. in ingress they got in by people taking photos of objects and sending those in. > Both were added in a 6 year old trail-improvement changeset based on GPS > hiking track. [3] > (Which was more uptodate than the published park map and was very > helpful for old guys taking the gradual slope trail! ) > > This six year old OSM "man made/man mad/Survey point" is the only online > reference to this point i've found ... aside from the PokeGo Gym ... for > this disk. > > Alas I did not have her take screen-captures to determine if the > spelling of feature names is exactly OSM's. > > (There's another point in that change set i need to discuss with > OceanVortex ... will DM on OSM.org ...) > > [1] > http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/944663159#map=19/42.44109/-71.08359=D > > [2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/944663076 > [3] > http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/6007454#map=16/42.4433/-71.0844=D > > > > -- > Bill Ricker > bill.n1...@gmail.com <mailto:bill.n1...@gmail.com> > https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux > > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Beware Pokemon users
On 2016.12.30. 21:19, Bill Ricker wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org > <mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org>> wrote: > > I wonder how we would politely license-check Niantic... > > > Traditional map copyright violation proof would be adding a Trap Close > ... do the have a map that shows name of feature that spawns critters? > Adding a nonsense footpath to no-where (shaped like a P ? ) in a > non-existent park and checking if it shows up in the PoGo in a few days > would do. the reports on this seem to indicate that they do not use anything close to realtime data - more like a year or more old, according to some anecdotal evidence. also, this is not about the visible map data (that still seems to be the assumption here and there). map data is clearly from google maps. what the pokemon go community is suggesting - that some of the osm data is used to make pokemon spawn there more often - or to make specific types appear. that's vague enough to require a pretty large dataset to prove to a reasonable degree. besides the potential lack of attribution, we should concentrate on attracting pokemon go players as mappers and advertise this potential connection as a reason to improve the map. even if there turns out to be no connection, we are better off publicity wise already. > -- > Bill Ricker > bill.n1...@gmail.com <mailto:bill.n1...@gmail.com> > https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: Beware Pokemon users
On 2016.12.27. 10:15, David Kewley wrote: > I thought this might be a big problem at first, but now I think it's > probably a net good thing. > > In Southern California, I saw about 40 users join in the first 24-48 > hours after the video was posted (Dec 22), who immediately started > mapping footways and similar. A few were bad, most improved the map > incrementally, if not with great skill, completeness, or accuracy. The > rate of new people joining and adding footways and similar has gone way > down since the first 24 hours. > > I just now used Overpass-Turbo to check for new footways in the past ~2 > days in all the western U.S. (to just west of San Antonio, not including > Alaska and Hawaii), zoomed in briefly on each locality in turn, and > found with this quick ad hoc eyeball survey only two users who were > obviously gaming OSM for Pokemon Go in an unhelpful way. I'll address > them or send them to DWG. All the others looked reasonable upon a first > pass, although I might have missed a few. Some I didn't see may already > have been cleaned up, of course. > > So the potential problem is big, but I think the actual problem is not > too big, and can probably be contained with our current level of effort. > Meanwhile there are tons of incremental additions that are probably net > improvements to the map, and a few of these folks will continue to > improve the map over time. I've already seen a few of these new users > branch out into non-Pokemon-related improvements. Plus it gives OSM > wider awareness. > > One other thing to look out for, which most people are doing well, but a > few are doing inappropriately, is changing school grounds from > amenity=school to =college or =university. > See > https://www.reddit.com/r/TheSilphRoad/comments/5jv1c4/i_think_i_figured_out_why_pokemon_never_spawned/. > I had to change one secondary school back to =school after an apparent > Pokemon user changed it to =college. I also changed one community > college from =school to =college when I noticed it was mistagged while > looking at new footways drawn there. Hope it helps them have fun with > their game. :) > > I've also seen fake parks, piers, lakes, and similar area objects get > added in an apparent attempt to help Pokemon. Footways may be the most > common manifestation of this wave of activity, but not the only one. could you please share the overpass query you used ? i'd like to review such additions around here as well. i am following the edits of new users, and so far contributions of 2 or 3 have been worthy a revert. it would be also useful to have a list of tags/changes the pokemon go players make. footways are the most obvious, but i've also seen (incorrect_ recreational_grounds added. several users have also changed existing residentials, pedestrian streets and tracks to footways - incorrectly in all the cases. > Fun fact: On 12/22 I actually stumbled across a deletion of the footway > added in the video, before I was aware of the existence of the video and > the Pokemon-related editing. That issue is since resolved. The > videographer is pretty local to me, and in the video he hikes in hills I > know. A brush with a weird kind of notoriety, I guess. > > David ... -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] An actual mini roundabout!
On 2016.12.09. 08:21, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 7:12 PM, Clifford Snow <cliff...@snowandsnow.us > <mailto:cliff...@snowandsnow.us>> wrote: > > Elliott, > Here is a mini-roundabout [1] in my town along with an article [2] > that talks about how much less it costs to install a mini-roundabout. > > [1] https://www.dropbox.com/s/1k2usg6abxi8kal/mini-roundabout.png?dl=0 > <https://www.dropbox.com/s/1k2usg6abxi8kal/mini-roundabout.png?dl=0> > > [2] http://www.djc.com/news/co/12069069.html > <http://www.djc.com/news/co/12069069.html> > > > That's got a curbed truck apron in the middle, I wouldn't call that a mini. definitely. please only tag as miniroundabouts places that you would pass straight in a normal car :) similarly, if there is an island, it is better to map a circle way, not just a node with turning_circle - the latter should be used only for "full" circles without any objects in the middle. -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] An actual mini roundabout!
On 2016.12.09. 00:44, Elliott Plack wrote: > You mean these things aren't?pasted1 no. here the road is physically making a circle, and you cannot cross the middle section - it should be mapped as a separate way, not a single node. Paul, i believe there are a few more, but i can't remember where exactly ;) > On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 4:44 PM Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org > <mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org>> wrote: > > Palm hit the touchpad... > http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/42.64745/-84.64277 > > On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org > <mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org>> wrote: > > As far as I can tell from FHWA documents, I finally stumbled on > the one intersection in the US that actually qualifies as a > mini_roundabout. > > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > -- > Elliott Plack > http://elliottplack.me > > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Bar vs Pub vs Restaurant in the US?
On 2016.09.30. 11:54, Andrew Wiseman wrote: ... > I think that you're all overthinking it, and trying to fit a > European square into a US circle. First of all, the US doesn't have > pubs, unless the owner is specifically trying to recreate the > atmosphere of a European pub (or at least what an Americans think a > European pub is). Doesn't matter if a European visiting the US would > think of the establishment as such, they just don't really exist > around here. > > If that's the case then the majority of places we call bars in the US > should actually be tagged as "restaurant", no? Because a "bar" in OSM is > a place without food. But I don't think that's right. i've usually reasoned it like this : * if it's a place you go to eat, it's either fast_food or restaurant, choose one. * if it's a place where you could get beer and food - with emphasis being on beer - it's a pub * if it's a place where you can get alcohol, with emphasis on non-beer, and food being secondary, it's a bar restaurant vs pub/bar - you wouldn't go to a restaurant just for the drinks, usually. > Andrew ... -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Municipal Tree Survey
On 2016.09.19. 18:13, Adam Old wrote: Hello all, I am a fairly novice mapper, although I am learning quickly. This is my first post to talk-us, so let me know if this is the wrong place to ask these questions. I am currently sitting on a "Tree Board" in a small city in South Florida. One mandate of the board is to survey the existing tree canopy in an ongoing fashion and to provide recommendations for trimming, removal, or new plantings, to note diseases and damage, and to collect species information. I am a proponent of OpenStreetMap and crowdsourcing as much of the data collection as possible, as we are without much of a budget or staff. But I wonder whether this is an appropriate use for OSM, and if so, whether there are caveats or special things we should be thinking of. One of the other members of the board is an experienced GIS user, and he also likes the idea of using OSM. For the most part we would like to send people out using their mobile devices and an app like Go Map!! https://itunes.apple.com/au/app/go-map!!/id592990211?mt=8 or a paper survey form that we could then update OSM with. Hopefully this would introduce a good number of new people to OSM as mappers and/or users. We also were hoping to add some datapoints for the diameter_crown and height using LiDAR and aerial data. Any suggestions on this? There is some information that isn't standard for Tag:natural=tree that would be useful for us in this pursuit, for example whether the trees are damaged, need trimming, date of last trimming, etc. Maybe that is too specific to map and we shouldn't add that kind of data? If I were to add it, would I simply add my own tags? I would like to do this right. that information is a bit specific, as you mentioned - but if you would properly document how you are doing it, i think it would be an interesting proof of concept project, and there would be no significant harm with placing that data in osm. in the worst case (hopefully never happening :) ), if the data is abandoned, it should be easy to remove those tags for one city as being outdated and becoming useless. Also, is there a map view with diameter_crown displayed as the actual size? Also also, is there any thinking on differentiating between palm trees and other broadleaved trees? Seems like a worthwhile distinction, here in the tropics. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dtree suggests tags like 'genus' and 'species' - those seem to cover your need well :) Thanks! -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging
On 2016.08.26. 00:15, Jack Burke wrote:
Freeway exit tagging
I am totally confused.
What is the proper method to use turn:lanes to tag freeway lanes
approaching an exit, where the exit branches directly from an edge lane
without being part of the freeway itself, but the freeway lanes are not
signed with an arrow, such as this one?
http://mapillary.com/map/im/7igAGXSa6EsUYlTIujXchw
Through examples[1], the wiki shows that when the freeway lanes *are*
signed, then "through;slight_right" appears to be the correct value.
The wiki examples also appear to indicate that "through" is *only*
appropriate when there is corresponding signage. The wiki is also very
referencing the previous topic in talk-us about how lane tagging should
follow lane _markings_, i'd like to suggest to only map the legally
allowed driving directions, no matter how we arrive at them.
mapping the road markings seems extremely strange - what if they are
very faded, when do we map them ? is there a threshold of % of the paint
left ?
what is there are no road markings but there are signs ?
do we remove those tags during the winter in some regions ?
mapping of markings separately also seems to have no functional benefit.
the information should be useful for navigation software - or, more
importantly, for the end user (no matter which software delivers useful
service to them). they don't really care how exactly the allowed
directions are marked, as long as they get through it all without
crashes and fines.
clear what to do when an edge lane is an exit-only lane
("slight_right"), and what to do when a lane is signed for both through
and right turn ("through;right"). So what's the right thing to use when
there is no "through" indicator, yet there is an upcoming branching
exit? By inference from what's contained in the wiki,
"none;slight_right" appears to be the appropriate value, but it looks
like a lot of people are disagreeing with that[2], even though it
appears to be the only logical conclusion. Others think that
"through;slight_right" should be used because it's the reality on the
ground[2] despite the lack of paint/signs.
I'm bringing this up because I'm trying to get exits on I 75 in Georgia
and Florida tagged with destination and lane guidance (though only one
navigation app processes lane guidance AFAIK, but I hope that by adding
the data, others will take it up, too), and don't want to waste my time
tagging it incorrectly. One helpful group trying to fix what they
consider incorrect lane counts & tags, turned a bunch of my
continue-or-exit lanes tagged with "none;slight_right" into exit-only
lanes[3] with just "slight_right". I'm worried about switching to
"through;slight_right" because I don't want some *other* do-gooder
coming along later and similarly breaking lane guidance because there's
no arrow on the ground or on a sign. Thus, I am now at a standstill
because there doesn't appear to be any correct tagging scheme for this
incredibly common situation.
Note: I am intentionally leaving the proposal for "transit:lanes" out
of this, both because it hasn't been voted on, as well as it doesn't
appear to cover this situation any better than turn:lanes does.
--jack
References:
[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:turn
[2] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2016-June/029335.html
[3]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2016-August/016643.html
_______
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
--
Rihards
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Join us for another import party at the L.A. Times June 25
On 2016.06.30. 17:58, Michael Reichert wrote: Hi, Am Fri, 17 Jun 2016 22:20:46 + schrieb Jonathan Schleuss: The Los Angeles Times will host another import party to push the "Great L.A. County Import" forward. We've imported more than half a million buildings with the great help of locals and the folks from Mapbox. Did each participant use a separate account for this import? My focus is to use this import strengthen the Southern California OSM community. But, the project is open to all. If you're in the area, please join us. Do you really believe that this helps the local community? A healthy map has a strong community and a strong community consists out of people who look after their neighbourhood on the map (i.e. keep data up to date). a good import motivates local mappers. when they see that the map is kinda there but a pub, shop or housenumber is missing, it easier for them to start. if they see blank area, they go "why bother". building outlines are very hard to collect for amateur mappers, and it is a large amount of work even with good sources. i'd like to say thank you to everybody who has done a proper, careful building import (no overlaps with existing buildings, no nodes on straight sections, orthogonalised etc :) ) - i know it was a lot of work. ... -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] problematic import in san francisco state university
see https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/338699618/history and other things around there. looks like a ~ 1 year old import. doesn't seem to have followed the guidelines at all, has things like Shape_Area, Shape_Leng, landcover=Forest, a lot of excess nodes in straight segments. irc is suggesting a revert, but i'm afraid to make an even bigger mess - would be nice if some locals could pick that one up. (granted, it looks nice in the renderer... but that's about it :/ ) -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] highway=service + landuse=residential
On 2016.06.15. 09:39, Paul Johnson wrote: On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 5:34 PM, Clifford Snow <cliff...@snowandsnow.us <mailto:cliff...@snowandsnow.us>> wrote: Interesting - mapping curb to curb. I doubt it could be used for routing but it sure renders [1] nice. Not that I've done this much (usually on freeform parking lots with no established lines, whoever gets there first sets the order of the day), though shouldn't a routing engine be capable of dealing with something like highway=service area=yes? last i heard, most (all ?) do not. if the area is connected to an incoming serviceway, routing will guide you along the border of the area... which in most cases would even be enough. lately i have seen (and use myself) an approach where the area is mapped, and serviceways are also mapped through it for the main directions of travel. these "guidance" ways are also connected to the area at all the places where they cross. it's somewhat similar to riverbank area & waterway=river through it :) -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] New MapRoulette now in early public beta
On 2016.05.25. 22:01, Martijn van Exel wrote: Hi all, MapRoulette has been completely redone, hopefully keeping the good parts and improving on some things that were not so great. I’m pretty excited to announce that I have a public beta up now at http://maproulette.org:8080. I am very much looking forward to your feedback. Old MapRoulette will be around for a month or so more, then we will switch over. Some more details below. Let me know what you think, or if you want to help out! a really minor thing, but you might want to change "why not add hangers" to "hangars" ;) Map on, Martijn Some resources Mailing List: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/maproulette/ (low volume) Slack: maproulette.slack.com <http://maproulette.slack.com> Code: https://github.com/maproulette/ API: https://github.com/maproulette/maproulette2/blob/master/docs/api.md Major changes / improvements are * Much improved metrics (this part particularly under heavy development and feedback welcome) * Challenges now grouped in Projects that can be managed by multiple users * Project / Challenge administration now fully integrated in the user interface * Survey challenges let you ask questions about things with multiple choice answers * Tasks can have tags for another layer of organization * Challenge search and discovery through a one box search (still very early, more to come here and feedback welcome) * API is more consistent and more RESTful * Due to new challenge model, there is no backward compatibility with the old API * Switching to API keys, no more tunneling / ease * Back end now completely written in Scala * Deployment fully automated through Docker ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Odd road / odd structure
On 2016.05.25. 06:19, Bill Ricker wrote: On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org <mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org>> wrote: In the American context, this is an edge case, big time. What is old is new again. Officer housing at old Fort Hamilton (Brooklyn, the Narrows) were laid out with a Livable Street design before that was a name. (They had service alley or mews in the rear and grassy forecourts. The officers were expected to walk to work on-base in the 1880's - 1910's.) I am familiar with this because my favorite (maternal) uncle's favorite (maternal) uncle lived off-post/on-post in old Officers Quarters after the base perimeter had contracted but it was still Officer country (1928-1930) ... he lived on the eponymous Hamilton Way [1] which is coded highway=footway [2] , which page on our wiki suggests highway=pedestrian [3] if wider, and cross-references [4] Path Controversy. (Per OSM, the house still stands.) I would lean towards livable_street, since there's no separate sidewalk, no reasonable expectation you're going to go more than cycleway speed, and the main entries to buildings are on it While 'livable street' is an Urban Design term of at for the concept in some areas, I don't see it in OSM wiki or taginfo ? [5] . OSM seems to use the similar highway=living_street [6] for low speed limits, pedestrian as primary but not exclusive, which doesn't seem to be the case in the grassy-and-walk shared front yards shown by the original question on thread here (but without Mews/alley in rear). The living_street examples in OSM wiki appear to be extreme traffic calming to restore in-street playability to 1950s suburban, 1930s urban level but still tolerate commuter cars returning home and a UPS delivery through the street-ball play, which is not the feature exhibited by original post. to give a different perspective, that looks like a highway=service from both sides, with a footway potentially connecting them. if desired, service=driveway could be added. living_street in most european countries is an officially designated area with a sign like this : http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/QNfHdIXQdxCA8Cy1eSphxw/photo it usually means maxspeed=20 km/h and giving way to pedestrians/cyclists (everywhere) [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/5677149 [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=footway?uselang=en-US [3] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpedestrian [4] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Path_controversy [5a] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=livable#values [5b] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=livable_street#values [5c] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=pedestrian#values [6a] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=living_street [6b] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:living_street%3Dyes ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Slack
On 2016.03.30. 10:40, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: On Wed, 2016-03-30 at 10:36 +0300, Rihards wrote: this might be a bit of a clash of "why are we mapping" reasons. for some people means are not important. for others, osm is one bit in a more open, collaborating world. osm using slack is like wikipedia using google maps. because they are more shiny, you know. and probably work better on iphones. Last I checked, Wikipedia is usually linking coordinates to Geohack which in turn allows the user to select the mapping service of his/her choice. One of which, not surprisingly, happens to be OSM. yes, but the in-page map popup uses osm data - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiMiniAtlas (see the small globe with the downward arrow next to the coordinates in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin ) -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Slack
On 2016.03.30. 10:31, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: On Sun, 2016-03-27 at 00:07 -0700, Steve Coast wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slack_(software) And on this page: License Proprietary Until and unless there is an alternative client that is free software (ideally GPL licensed, but BSD/MIT licensed would also be okay), I would prefer to stick with IRC or its successor. I feel it is contrary to the mission of OSM to directly support proprietary licensed software. (Why do you think I'm mapping on OSM and not fixing problems on Google Maps?) this might be a bit of a clash of "why are we mapping" reasons. for some people means are not important. for others, osm is one bit in a more open, collaborating world. osm using slack is like wikipedia using google maps. because they are more shiny, you know. and probably work better on iphones. -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Slack
On 2016.03.26. 21:59, Steve Coast wrote: Ok so look, Slack took over the world. And it turns out it’s pretty good and useful. Let’s have an official OSM slack. ... I realize that I’m inviting a discussion about how slack is an evil company or that we should all just use IRC, and those are fine arguments I don’t have the energy for. what if others don't have the energy to look into yet another shiny, fancy tool somebody has brought up this week ? what if irc works just fine ? and if "we all should use IRC" is a fine argument, let's just keep doing that, mkay. because we don't have the energy to debate what took over whose world. -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?
On 2016.03.26. 01:10, Alan McConchie wrote: ... Thanks everyone for your strong but sincere criticism so far. In the thread here on talk-us, I explained _what_ we were trying to do, but I didn't explain very much about our rationale: _why_ we think this is an important idea. The wiki proposal explains that a little bit better, as does my email to the tagging list. and please don't get put off by the reaction - this being the internet and such an open project, people tend to have strong opinions and express them in much harsher ways than they would in real life. before i get back to bashing the new tag, i'd like to say a huge thank you for getting park people (would be a great band name in the 80ies) involved. offtopic, but i'd be interested in reading some honest blog entry on why they were dismissing osm at first/still. -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?
On 2016.03.24. 14:50, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 03/24/2016 11:26 AM, Marc Gemis wrote: They tagged them as "social_path", according to their blog entry [1] Thank you for the link. This is what I feared. highway=social_path is certainly unacceptable - a self-made tag that essentially deletes the data for all other consumers. There would have been numerous other options that would have allowed them to single out the tracks they want - for example, tagging the official ones with an "operator" tag, or putting them into suitable relations or so. Had any of the players involved taken the time to ask on this list, I'm sure these options would have been pointed out to them. As it stands, removing a proper, established highway tag and replacing it with something that nobody knows is just a little bit better than removing the way altogether. To make matters worse, it seems that the issue has been pointed out almost half a year ago, and has not led to the issue being fixed: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/34599982 It is obvious to me that all occurrences of highway=social_path need to be replaced with whatever they were before. I'd normally say let's give them some time to come up with a better idea but seeing that the problem has been highlighted to them pretty much at the time they made the edits 5 months ago, and they haven't come up with a better idea, I'd say the time is up now. supporting this. if they don't want people to use those trails during normal circumstances[1], don't render them on your own map, tag them as access=no or whatever. deleting something real that somebody has spent time mapping is plain evil. [1] in an emergency i would appreciate any trail on my map, no matter how "official" Bye Frederik -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] curve_geometry tag
there's this weird curve_geometry=yes tag added to 600+ nodes - for example, https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/739119123/history it does not seem to add much value, and is completely undocumented in the wiki. what is that, should it be removed, maybe ? -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Map Your Train Ride!
On 2016.02.25. 03:41, stevea wrote: Thank you to Rihards <ric...@nakts.net> who clarified that adding highway=footway to a public_transport=platform only makes sense when it is connected to another way containing a highway=* tag. Otherwise, this doesn't make sense, as the platform acting as a footway "floats" and can break some GPS routers. (I have modified our public_transport:platform wiki to clarify this, too). huge thank you for changing the wiki - it should result in a much better data :) i heard some rumour that this is a "thank you wednesday" or something, so - THANK YOU :) So, tag platforms with: public_transport=platform and railway=platform and other tags that might apply, like rail=yes or light_rail=yes or subway=yes or tram=yes depending on what sort of rail infrastructure underlies the route relation. But please DON'T add highway=footway to the platform node/polygon, UNLESS it is connected to another way containing a highway=* tag. Thanks, SteveA California -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Map Your Train Ride!
On 2016.02.24. 23:52, stevea wrote: I don't know how to promote this any better than to say this here and hope it makes its way into local chapters' mind-space. I'd like to begin a campaign to encourage OSM volunteers to: Map Your Train Ride! Add public_transport=platforms to the map and/or route=train relation of your commute. It's easy: add a node or draw a small polygon representing the location of the platform, tag with public_transport=platform, railway=platform and highway=footway. You might also add it to the proper route=train relation(s) which should be found around that railway=station. For further guidance, see the diagram of a "simple railway station" at http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dstation#A_Simple_Railway_Station . are you sure about the highway=footway tag ? the wiki page does not seem to mention it, and having unconnected highway segments tends to break routing both for online routers and on gps devices. -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] users cam98 and cameronk1998 causing issues around austin
On 2016.01.24. 08:08, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: On Sun, 2016-01-24 at 07:34 +0200, Rihards wrote: these two new useraccounts seem to be used by the same person : https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/cam98 https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/cameronk1998 This may well be the same user as an account named Cam4rd98, which I remember causing trouble in the past as well. ah, yes, seeing such username in the history. looks like they also used "Cameron918" looks like this has been going on for quite a few years. has that person ever responded to anybody ? -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] potentially incorrect addresses in austin import
data from http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Austin,_TX/Buildings_Import might be slightly incorrect - see the buildings on both sides of http://osm.org/go/Ts0vgp2HQ?layers=N= one had no housenumber, and one seemingly had incorrect housenumber. didn't spot information on where to report potential errors in the city dataset, so if anybody would like to report that, please go ahead :) -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] osm meetup in austin ?
On 2016.01.23. 19:39, Andy Wilson wrote: Hey there Rihards. Welcome to Austin! We have a small (but growing) group of OSMers and can definitely make a mapping party happen. We've not been posting to that wiki page out of ignorance to its existence, but there have been a few OSM events and meetups in the past year or so. If you already in town, some of us will be at a coffeeshop/pub on Monday morning, so that would be a good place to meet and start planning things. Details are at http://www.meetup.com/atx-osg/events/228153534/ - if not, we can figure things out some other way. thanks for the info. won't be able to make it to the city at that time, staying & working at the arboretum area. is a meetup on a thursday or friday night a good idea ? -andy On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 10:36 AM Rihards <ric...@nakts.net <mailto:ric...@nakts.net>> wrote: heya. coming from europe and staying in austin (texas capital) until the end of february, i was wondering whether some osm mapping party or meetup could be arranged. the austin wiki page seems to indicate that the last event was back in 2010, which is slightly sad - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Austin,_Texas -- Rihards -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] users cam98 and cameronk1998 causing issues around austin
these two new useraccounts seem to be used by the same person : https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/cam98 https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/cameronk1998 unfortunately, their edits completely mess up the map - they seem to delete valid data, in some cases replace it with rough replacements that are not connected to other roads etc. i started to clean up some of that, but the damage seems to be quite extensive. as an example, see the history of this way here : https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/390433839/history#map=18/30.27550/-97.91306 also see other ways in the area - but note that the changes are not limited to a small area. i sent a message to both accounts, asking whether they are aware of the damage they are causing. unfortunately, at this point i have to ask dwg for a full revert of all changesets from these accounts at least near austin. normally i'd do that myself, but here the affected amount of data is too large for me. these user accounts also have made changes near chicago & houston - i did not investigate those changes. -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
