Re: [Talk-us] Beaver dam? Wrecked bridge? Hallucinatory roads in TIGER?
I've frequently wanted to map the trails that peter out for exactly the reason you state. The choices as a mapper seem wrong: 1) Map the trail : thus encouraging use of a flawed route. 2) Don't map the trail. The casual map reader thinks OSM is missing something. Possible solutions include a node type of becomes indistinct, or dead end. How to mark the way is trickier. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Beaver dam? Wrecked bridge? Hallucinatory roads in TIGER?
On 12/22/14 3:27 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: I've frequently wanted to map the trails that peter out for exactly the reason you state. The choices as a mapper seem wrong: 1) Map the trail : thus encouraging use of a flawed route. 2) Don't map the trail. The casual map reader thinks OSM is missing something. Possible solutions include a node type of becomes indistinct, or dead end. How to mark the way is trickier. perhaps a new access tag.. access=deprecated access=not_recommended something else? richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Beaver dam? Wrecked bridge? Hallucinatory roads in TIGER?
access=use_at_your_own_risk access=two_paths_diverged_in_a_yellow_wood access=choose_wisely access=plugh access=xyzzy ? -jack On December 22, 2014 10:06:15 AM EST, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: On 12/22/14 3:27 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: I've frequently wanted to map the trails that peter out for exactly the reason you state. The choices as a mapper seem wrong: 1) Map the trail : thus encouraging use of a flawed route. 2) Don't map the trail. The casual map reader thinks OSM is missing something. Possible solutions include a node type of becomes indistinct, or dead end. How to mark the way is trickier. perhaps a new access tag.. access=deprecated access=not_recommended something else? richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us -- Typos courtesy of fancy auto-spell technology. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Beaver dam? Wrecked bridge? Hallucinatory roads in TIGER?
Access tags seem inappropriate to me in this case. I would only tag the last node as noexit=yes (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:noexit) as a way of making clear that the trail does indeed end and hasn't just not been mapped. Leave the rest to the users of the map -- maybe there is actually a great spot for hunting/geocaching/sunbathing/beaver watching/ mushroom foraging at the end of the trail that you just don't know about. Harald. On Mon Dec 22 2014 at 11:54:58 AM Jack Burke burke...@gmail.com wrote: access=use_at_your_own_risk access=two_paths_diverged_in_a_yellow_wood access=choose_wisely access=plugh access=xyzzy ? -jack On December 22, 2014 10:06:15 AM EST, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: On 12/22/14 3:27 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: I've frequently wanted to map the trails that peter out for exactly the reason you state. The choices as a mapper seem wrong: 1) Map the trail : thus encouraging use of a flawed route. 2) Don't map the trail. The casual map reader thinks OSM is missing something. Possible solutions include a node type of becomes indistinct, or dead end. How to mark the way is trickier. perhaps a new access tag.. access=deprecated access=not_recommended something else? richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us -- Typos courtesy of fancy auto-spell technology. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Beaver dam? Wrecked bridge? Hallucinatory roads in TIGER?
Bryce writes: I've frequently wanted to map the trails that peter out for exactly the reason you state. The choices as a mapper seem wrong: 1) Map the trail : thus encouraging use of a flawed route. 2) Don't map the trail. The casual map reader thinks OSM is missing something. Possible solutions include a node type of becomes indistinct, or dead end. I have seen mapped (and done so myself) to good effect the tag noexit=yes at the end of such a path. This might or might not render (depends) similar to the German Dead End sign. How to mark the way is trickier. I have used tag trail_visibility [excellent, good, intermediate, bad, horrible, no] in decreasing quality to denote paths which eventually disappear. I appreciate that our wiki characterizes no as mostly pathless and that excellent orientational skills are required. This allows either a turn-back or bushwhacking, as the hiker desires. SteveA California ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Beaver dam? Wrecked bridge? Hallucinatory roads in TIGER?
I have what may be a seriously weird question. I've been trying to clean up my GPS tracks and enter data for the Northville-Placid Trail in the Adirondacks. In the rare places that the trail does appear in TIGER, the data are wildly wrong, so I'm rerouting and retagging as I go. I'm also trying to create a route relation for the trail, since it has roadwalk sections. The trail, being a wilderness trail (there are spots on it that are a good twenty miles from the nearest drivable road), has some interesting features. In at least one place (44.07447,-74.28335, says GPS) the trail crosses an unnamed tributary of Pine Brook on a beaver dam that is visible in aerial images. https://flic.kr/p/pFf3TV Hikers who don't quite believe that the trail would do such a thing have created a use path extending up- and downstream that peters out in both directions. So - What's appropriate tagging for a way that uses a beaver dam? In several other places, destroyed bridges either serve as landmarks https://flic.kr/p/oJrAXF or even have had the stone of their footings repurposed to create a ford https://flic.kr/p/poN2vf . Is there tagging that makes sense for this situation? Is it considered acceptable to delete ways that came in from TIGER and appear never to have existed? In this case, I speak of roads shown in TIGER where I've hiked across the routes and seen no sign of even an abandoned road - and I use century-old abandoned grades for off-trail hiking fairly often. I know what to look for even when the roadbed is grown to trees. For instance, to my eye, it's obvious that https://flic.kr/p/nouCUC was once a road. In some cases, I can't imagine what the TIGER people were smoking (and wish they'd share!). -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Beaver dam? Wrecked bridge? Hallucinatory roads in TIGER?
On Dec 20, 2014, at 11:09 AM, Kevin Kenny kken...@nycap.rr.com wrote: In at least one place (44.07447,-74.28335, says GPS) the trail crosses an unnamed tributary of Pine Brook on a beaver dam that is visible in aerial images. https://flic.kr/p/pFf3TV Hikers who don't quite believe that the trail would do such a thing have created a use path extending up- and downstream that peters out in both directions. So - What's appropriate tagging for a way that uses a beaver dam? I’d just mark that section `ford=yes`.. or I guess `ford=beaver_dam` if you want to be clever. (The `ford` tag works like `bridge`) In several other places, destroyed bridges either serve as landmarks https://flic.kr/p/oJrAXF or even have had the stone of their footings repurposed to create a ford https://flic.kr/p/poN2vf . Is there tagging that makes sense for this situation? Again, `ford=*` Is it considered acceptable to delete ways that came in from TIGER and appear never to have existed? In this case, I speak of roads shown in TIGER where I've hiked across the routes and seen no sign of even an abandoned road - and I use century-old abandoned grades for off-trail hiking fairly often. I know what to look for even when the roadbed is grown to trees. For instance, to my eye, it's obvious that https://flic.kr/p/nouCUC was once a road. In some cases, I can't imagine what the TIGER people were smoking (and wish they'd share!). Sure, I remove TIGER ways all the time. If you have local knowledge of the area, feel free to change the map to match reality. Thanks, Bryan ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Beaver dam? Wrecked bridge? Hallucinatory roads in TIGER?
On 12/20/2014 11:36 AM, Harald Kliems wrote: highway=service;service=beaver;pedestrian=permissive (assuming that it's nice beavers) I didn't meet the beavers. They were busy. You know beavers. One dam project after another. :) More seriously: Does it really matter that the way leads over a beaver dam? On the linked picture it looks like a regular trail to me (no wet feet or anything) and I'd just tag it as such. I guess in addition you could tag the beaver dam itself. I think that the cutesy 'ford=beaver_dam' might actually be appropriate. What I'm trying to convey by tagging it is that the trail actually does cross the dam. The picture doesn't convey the situation well, sorry! The way the area is trodden suggests that almost everyone tries up- and downstream first before realizing that the trail really does cross. As far as wet feet go, on that trail, by the time you're that far in, you have wet feel already. Guaranteed. You'll be walking along what looks like an ordinary trail and all of a sudden sink into peat above your boot tops. I fell in whitewater once and bogwater twice getting my GPS tracks, which span only half the trail. http://kbk.is-a-geek.net/catskills/test2.html?la=44.0756lo=-74.2810z=13 gives a feel for how soggy that general area is. It includes several data layers that are not OSM: NHD, NED, and several layers from the Adirondack Park Agency. And probably a few layers that I'm failing to remember. Where two shorelines are shown, they represent typical limits of seasonal inundation. Dashed blue boundaries around wetlands represent ephemerally inundated emergent marsh. I considered at one point embarking on an import of APA's wetland and waterway polygons, to fill in the largely blank map of the park, but decided against it for a number of reasons: (a) I didn't have a strategy for reconflation to maintain the data moving forward. (b) I wasn't entirely comfortable with even the generous license terms. (To wit: These data may not be used for legal determinations. Please credit use of this data set to the New York State Adirondack Park Agency, Ray Brook, New York 12977. Please send a copy of any reports or papers in which these data were used or referenced to the above address, Attention: Nancy Heath Librarian.) (c) I was thinking about it at a time when a lot of discussion on the imports mailing list was about how all imports are bad, because they discourage the recruitment of new mappers. (d) I decided I really didn't have time even to manage conflating the data with even the sketchy stuff that's already in OSM. (e) Detailed hydrographic data is probably outside OSM's ambit anyway. I don't want to be accused of cluttering the map. -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
