[Talk-us] Why OpenStreetMap US elections should use Single Transferable Vote (STV)

[Alan McConchie]

The 2016 OSM US elections aren't even over yet, but it's never too soon to 
start thinking about 2017. :) 

To that end, I wrote a diary post about why OSM US should switch to using 
Single Transferable Vote for its elections, like OSMF does. All of the current 
OSM US candidates support STV to various degrees: some enthusiastically, others 
cautiously (those who hadn't heard of it before) but none were strongly against 
it when I asked their opinions. With that kind of consensus, I hope that OSM US 
can switch to using STV before our next elections in 2017.

Read more on my diary: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Alan/diary/40094 



Alan___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Why do city names display in the local language at osm.org?

[Marc Gemis]

Jochen Topf has an experimental site where you can pick the language
for the tags, see http://mlm.jochentopf.com/


regards


m

On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Toby Murray  wrote:
> Yeah, the tiles on osm.org just straight up render the name=* tag
> which is supposed to contain the name of an object in the primary
> language of the area that it is in.
>
> I know Wikipedia has done some work on localizing maps. I believe the
> way they do it is to render a map without any labels and then have
> language-specific layers that have nothing but the names on them. The
> client chooses which name layer to load on top of the label-less base
> layer.
>
> I'm guessing there are better ways to handle this if you go the route
> of using vector tiles instead of bitmaps...
>
> Toby
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Steve Friedl  wrote:
>> Mapping tiles are not generated on a per-user basis; they are generated for
>> all users and shared.  The rendering software has to make intelligent
>> decisions about how to make the maps look reasonable for everybody, and my
>> suspicion is that things like city names are chosen from the local language
>> of the country that the city is within, on the grounds that most people
>> looking at a city live in the country.
>>
>>
>>
>> It would be great if tiles were rendered customly for everybody (I’d be able
>> to see elevations in feet instead of meters), but that’s not how this one
>> works.
>>
>>
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Alan Bragg [mailto:alan.d.br...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Monday, December 21, 2015 7:32 AM
>> To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org Openstreetmap 
>> Subject: [Talk-us] Why do city names display in the local language at
>> osm.org?
>>
>>
>>
>> My preferred language is set to "en"
>>
>> For example Florence Italy displays as Firenze even though it's tagged with
>> many languages including en:Florence
>>
>> I get the same display in both the  chrome and internet explorer browsers.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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

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

Re: [Talk-us] Why do city names display in the local language at osm.org?

[Toby Murray]

Yeah, the tiles on osm.org just straight up render the name=* tag
which is supposed to contain the name of an object in the primary
language of the area that it is in.

I know Wikipedia has done some work on localizing maps. I believe the
way they do it is to render a map without any labels and then have
language-specific layers that have nothing but the names on them. The
client chooses which name layer to load on top of the label-less base
layer.

I'm guessing there are better ways to handle this if you go the route
of using vector tiles instead of bitmaps...

Toby


On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Steve Friedl  wrote:
> Mapping tiles are not generated on a per-user basis; they are generated for
> all users and shared.  The rendering software has to make intelligent
> decisions about how to make the maps look reasonable for everybody, and my
> suspicion is that things like city names are chosen from the local language
> of the country that the city is within, on the grounds that most people
> looking at a city live in the country.
>
>
>
> It would be great if tiles were rendered customly for everybody (I’d be able
> to see elevations in feet instead of meters), but that’s not how this one
> works.
>
>
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> From: Alan Bragg [mailto:alan.d.br...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 21, 2015 7:32 AM
> To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org Openstreetmap 
> Subject: [Talk-us] Why do city names display in the local language at
> osm.org?
>
>
>
> My preferred language is set to "en"
>
> For example Florence Italy displays as Firenze even though it's tagged with
> many languages including en:Florence
>
> I get the same display in both the  chrome and internet explorer browsers.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Why do city names display in the local language at osm.org?

[Steve Friedl]

Mapping tiles are not generated on a per-user basis; they are generated for all 
users and shared.  The rendering software has to make intelligent decisions 
about how to make the maps look reasonable for everybody, and my suspicion is 
that things like city names are chosen from the local language of the country 
that the city is within, on the grounds that most people looking at a city live 
in the country.

 

It would be great if tiles were rendered customly for everybody (I’d be able to 
see elevations in feet instead of meters), but that’s not how this one works.

 

Steve

 

From: Alan Bragg [mailto:alan.d.br...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2015 7:32 AM
To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org Openstreetmap 
Subject: [Talk-us] Why do city names display in the local language at osm.org?

 

​My preferred language is set to "en"

For example Florence Italy displays as Firenze even though it's tagged with 
many languages including en:Florence

I get the same display in both the  chrome and internet explorer browsers.

 

 

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

[Talk-us] Why do city names display in the local language at osm.org?

[Alan Bragg]

​My preferred language is set to "en"
For example Florence Italy displays as Firenze even though it's tagged with
many languages including en:Florence
I get the same display in both the  chrome and internet explorer browsers.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Why?

[SomeoneElse]

On 05/03/2015 21:47, stevea wrote:
I add that another, vital, and even preferred approach towards 
mediocre or crude data is to contact the editor and offer help 
(instruction) in improving them.  This really grows the project, too, 
when and as it "takes."  Fixing something myself (and/or with others, 
too) can remain as a last resort.


SteveA
California


Amen to that!

It's more work in the short term but encouraging new mappers is the only 
way OSM will grow in the longer term.


Cheers,

Andy


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

Re: [Talk-us] Why?

[stevea]

I add that another, vital, and even preferred approach towards 
mediocre or crude data is to contact the editor and offer help 
(instruction) in improving them.  This really grows the project, too, 
when and as it "takes."  Fixing something myself (and/or with others, 
too) can remain as a last resort.


SteveA
California

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

Re: [Talk-us] Why?

[stevea]

Martin Koppenhoefer writes:
Yes, I'm saying the same things. In particular, if you ask me about 
these huge landuse polygons in Escondido, I don't particularily like 
them. I like detailed mapping, and I believe as soon as someone 
starts to map the details he'll have to split these polygons into 
smaller ones in order to keep maintainability. I don't suggest to 
make them multipolygons and to exclude stuff, this would become a 
nightmare very soon.


I appreciate the feedback, Martin.  Your "don't particularly like 
them" is duly and respectfully noted by me and others here.


I like detailed mapping, too.  I also accept correct mapping, even if 
it might only be mediocre or even crude, though it must be correct, 
where that is a little bit fuzzy (yes, it is, in a project with 
consensus).  I accept mediocre as a "good first draft" or "acceptable 
early version."  Others, less so.  I have found satisfaction (perhaps 
"an approach") to this is to improve such data myself, especially 
with wider discussion.  I have fixed messy map from "no, quality is 
much too low, I must do something about it" (and do) to "excellent 
map."  So, here we are again, perhaps.


We (in the USA) also see significant areas of our map remain 
"desert," (sparsely mapped) perhaps (and only partly, among vast 
other reasons) because of how much effort it is to map in a detailed 
manner.  I don't wish deserts to remain if someone can make them 
bloom.  However, this doesn't mean spilling buckets of paint in 
sloppy mechanical fashion because a "kiddie" (novice editor, 
especially w.r.t. OSM community standards) wants to "run a script." 
We have seen this and it is not pretty.  Teachable moments occur here 
if we insist upon high quality and make instruction accessible and 
workable -- tenets of OSM.


This can be as big an OSM topic as we might like.  We can and should 
keep open ears as to good, better and best methods of "we have only 
rough data now, here are steps to improve them."  Done clearly, this 
is proven to be a helpful approach to a better map.


High quality data are often an artful edge between "as simply as is 
needed to describe them" and "as detailed as we might like them to 
be."  High quality is to be strived for, and when not achieved, an 
opportunity to improve.  We can grease the skids of mediocre data 
being improved with some effort.  Nobody wants "nightmare" data, but 
even if you shudder at mediocre data, it is opportunity.  First 
somebody comes along and plows the field, then somebody comes along 
and plants some seeds and then somebody comes along and tends the 
garden.  It doesn't always work like that everywhere, but it does 
work like that.  Detailed mapping truly is "longer" work, and we 
shouldn't discourage "early" work if quick and crude, though 
accurate.  Or should we?  What have we learned from TIGER?


In the case of landuse= (residential) polygons, we might agree that a 
novice volunteer using a more entry level editor like iD who draws 
such a polygon around her neighborhood in a crude but accurate 
fashion is acceptable.  We might also importantly add, going forward 
(as areas get peer-reviewed -- what happens) "helpful hints" that 
nodes of this polygon shouldn't be merged in with highways, that if 
an edge "goes along a road" to exclude the road and other such good 
OSM data entry practice as makes sense in the overlap of folks doing 
this sort of editing.  There could be more of that, but it can be 
difficult to make that magically appear in the mind of a novice 
editor as it might be presented.


There could be a lot more of such magic in OSM, yet OSM works right 
now.  I look forward to more, good design coming to fruition.  I like 
to think that some discussion of how happens here, at least in a 
cursory way.


I've seen truly detailed residential mapping where each edge of each 
outer parcel boundary stops exactly at the polygon tagged 
landuse=residential -- right down to highly accurate beautiful 
geometry around a cul-de-sac (for example).  Welcome in OSM with open 
arms!  Let's ask ourselves:  do we want to encourage Vicki Volunteer 
to draw a landuse=residential polygon around her neighborhood, if she 
has good knowledge of it (and imagery, and editing facility and hints 
whispered in her ear where it makes sense...) to enter it?  I do, 
even if results are mediocre or even crude (I wince, I accept). 
Only, however, if we agree they are correct.


I don't want to miss capturing that because she is daunted by 
perfection of detail.  OSM is stepwise.


These can be difficult:  to discuss, to agree, to disagree, to reach 
consensus, to improve the map, to judge quality, to build good 
context-sensitive editor tools... but we must do them anyway.


Let's make more paths for curious novices to become intermediates 
(and intermediates experts -- even harder!), emphasizing quality data 
entry:  skills and knowledge required.  We do so now, certainly.  And 
we grow the map as we build 

Re: [Talk-us] Why?

[Stellan Lagerström]

A related problem with Escondido is that the landuse areas boundaries 
are attached to road centerlines. This vastly increases the editing 
effort needed to improve on them later.


/Stellan

On 2015-03-05 13:30, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


2015-03-05 1:14 GMT+01:00 stevea >:


What I understand Martin Koppenhoefer to say are essentially the
same things, but I'm not sure if he understands (or agrees) with
Escondido having large areas marked as landuse=residential.  These
are not simply zoned residential (they are), they ARE
(on-the-ground verifiable) residential.  So it is OK for them to
be tagged as they are. 




Yes, I'm saying the same things. In particular, if you ask me about 
these huge landuse polygons in Escondido, I don't particularily like 
them. I like detailed mapping, and I believe as soon as someone starts 
to map the details he'll have to split these polygons into smaller 
ones in order to keep maintainability. I don't suggest to make them 
multipolygons and to exclude stuff, this would become a nightmare very 
soon.


I would exclude (at least) the main arterial roads from the 
residential landuse and also stuff like this:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/65592897

And when you did this, you'd already have it all split into much 
smaller landuse areas.


Cheers,
Martin


___
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] Why?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-03-05 1:14 GMT+01:00 stevea :

> What I understand Martin Koppenhoefer to say are essentially the same
> things, but I'm not sure if he understands (or agrees) with Escondido
> having large areas marked as landuse=residential.  These are not simply
> zoned residential (they are), they ARE (on-the-ground verifiable)
> residential.  So it is OK for them to be tagged as they are.



Yes, I'm saying the same things. In particular, if you ask me about these
huge landuse polygons in Escondido, I don't particularily like them. I like
detailed mapping, and I believe as soon as someone starts to map the
details he'll have to split these polygons into smaller ones in order to
keep maintainability. I don't suggest to make them multipolygons and to
exclude stuff, this would become a nightmare very soon.

I would exclude (at least) the main arterial roads from the residential
landuse and also stuff like this:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/65592897

And when you did this, you'd already have it all split into much smaller
landuse areas.

Cheers,
Martin
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Why?

[stevea]

Paul Norman quotes my previous post in this thread and writes:

 This is describing the actual landuse, not the legally permitted landuse.

 An example of describing the zoning instead of the actual landuse is
 marking areas of the desert with no development as landuse=residential
 because the government has at some point in the past zoned them as
 residential.


Paul, I agree; I understand this distinction.  For example, there was 
a tiff in Scotts Valley, California (not far from me) circa 2009 
where one OSM user entered landuse polygons directly from the 
published zoning map from the Scotts Valley City Council.  I began to 
correct these where actual on-the-ground data disagreed with the 
zoning map.  For example, many areas listed as zoned commercial are 
more like "intended to become commercial someday" but are truly 
residential in real life/on-the-ground, so I corrected them to be 
landuse=residential.


I take it as widely accepted that on-the-ground landuse is much 
preferred to be entered into OSM than is "zoned by the government" 
landuse.  The former is correct, the latter is not and should be 
removed or corrected.  Especially when the zoning represents an 
intention rather than reality.


What I understand Martin Koppenhoefer to say are essentially the same 
things, but I'm not sure if he understands (or agrees) with Escondido 
having large areas marked as landuse=residential.  These are not 
simply zoned residential (they are), they ARE (on-the-ground 
verifiable) residential.  So it is OK for them to be tagged as they 
are.  They might also receive more detailed tagging in addition to 
this simple landuse polygon, a highway=residential street running 
through them, and not much else.  These "skeletal" data are largely 
what are in OSM now across much of the USA, yes, I and many others 
know.  However, buildings, address data, and other micro-mapping 
detail are being added.  BOTH flavors of data are correct.  While 
skeletal data aren't exactly preferred to "largely complete" data, 
they are not incorrect, they are just not as complete as they might 
be.


Landuse data should show what actually IS, not "simply" what is zoned 
and especially not what is intended.  Yes, zoning data are a bit raw, 
and may be considered "early" or "a first step" for OSM.  They need 
updating, they change over time.  They may be "too broad" as where 40 
acres are tagged as landuse=farmland where only 39 of them actually 
are landuse=farmland, but one acre is a house (landuse=residential) 
and perhaps landuse=farmyard where the barn and tractor and 
irrigation supplies are.  Would I rather see this perfectly mapped in 
OSM, exactly as I describe such micro-mapped details?  Yes, 
absolutely.  Will I say that tagging all 40 acres as landuse=farmland 
is "totally incorrect?"  No, though if I or somebody else has the 
time to tag with those better details, OSM sure will appreciate it. 
Should OSM show landuse=commercial because the County Supervisors 
just approved a shopping center be built on this farmland in the 
future?  Absolutely not, especially if it is still a working farm and 
no construction has yet started.


Are we all agreed?  Thanks for good, productive discussion.

SteveA
California

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

Re: [Talk-us] Why?

[Paul Norman]

On 3/4/2015 3:38 PM, stevea wrote:
landuse in OSM should be the actual landuse, not the legally 
permitted / designed landuse (zoning).


I do not disagree (meaning "I agree"), however:  if my quarter-hectare 
property of low density residential zoning has a house, fences, a 
garage, lawns, a creek running along the backside of it and so is 
largely a riparian corridor, a garden and so on, are you saying that 
it is incorrect for me to have included my parcel in a larger 
"neighborhood" of landuse=residential (along with my neighbors), even 
though I don't include all of these specific "micro-mapping" 
elements?  Where do you draw the lines of where appropriate 
landuse=residential tagging begin and end?


And again, as large areas (called "neighborhoods" or "quarters" or 
"districts" in any given local parlance) truly are exclusively 
residential, I still maintain that drawing an appropriate polygon 
around them and tagging landuse=residential is correct.  This (again) 
is NOT the same as saying that they cannot be made MORE correct, 
rather that such tagging is "a good first step" and not entirely 
incorrect. 

This is describing the actual landuse, not the legally permitted landuse.

An example of describing the zoning instead of the actual landuse is 
marking areas of the desert with no development as landuse=residential 
because the government has at some point in the past zoned them as 
residential.


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

Re: [Talk-us] Why?

[stevea]

Martin Koppenhoefer writes:
landuse in OSM should be the actual landuse, not the legally 
permitted / designed landuse (zoning).


I do not disagree (meaning "I agree"), however:  if my 
quarter-hectare property of low density residential zoning has a 
house, fences, a garage, lawns, a creek running along the backside of 
it and so is largely a riparian corridor, a garden and so on, are you 
saying that it is incorrect for me to have included my parcel in a 
larger "neighborhood" of landuse=residential (along with my 
neighbors), even though I don't include all of these specific 
"micro-mapping" elements?  Where do you draw the lines of where 
appropriate landuse=residential tagging begin and end?


And again, as large areas (called "neighborhoods" or "quarters" or 
"districts" in any given local parlance) truly are exclusively 
residential, I still maintain that drawing an appropriate polygon 
around them and tagging landuse=residential is correct.  This (again) 
is NOT the same as saying that they cannot be made MORE correct, 
rather that such tagging is "a good first step" and not entirely 
incorrect.


Perhaps a superior/outstanding example of what you consider to be 
GOOD landuse tagging is now in order.  Thank you in advance for a 
link to such data.  It is easy to point someplace and say it is 
wrong, or bad, or needs further explanation (OSM has plenty of 
those).  It is a bit more difficult (though possible) to point to 
areas (such as Escondido) and say "they are on the right path to 
completion, but are not yet done."  It is yet more difficult to point 
to excellent examples of landuse= tagging, so I now politely ask you 
to do so.


Let's not let perfection be the enemy of the good.  If everything 
entered into OSM had to be perfect upon its initial upload, we'd 
still be back in the Stone Age of data entry.  OSM is a work in 
progress, and likely always will be.  We can strive for excellence 
without demanding perfection.


SteveA
California

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

Re: [Talk-us] Why?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-03-03 18:55 GMT+01:00 stevea :

> What Hans calls a "mega residential area" is actually local zoning which
> says that all properties (parcels) in a given area are zoned residential.
> While not strictly true that each square meter of this area has residential
> buildings upon it where people live, it is true that each square meter of
> this area is ZONED residential.  In my opinion, this is a "loosely correct"
> way that OSM might represent a particular area,



landuse in OSM should be the actual landuse, not the legally permitted /
designed landuse (zoning).

cheers,
Martin
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Why?

[stevea]

Being familiar with the SANDAG data (and less so, its import into 
OSM), the importation of landuse polygons into OSM (having done a 
number of these myself in California), Escondido proper (been there 
many times) and the various ways that California cities grow (often 
with low density, urban sprawl and heavy dependence on 
automobiles...), Escondido doesn't look all that "bad" to me in OSM. 
In fact, especially in its commercial areas, it is one of 
California's better-looking cities in OSM (in my opinion).


What Hans calls a "mega residential area" is actually local zoning 
which says that all properties (parcels) in a given area are zoned 
residential.  While not strictly true that each square meter of this 
area has residential buildings upon it where people live, it is true 
that each square meter of this area is ZONED residential.  In my 
opinion, this is a "loosely correct" way that OSM might represent a 
particular area, though I am quick to add that "capturing zoning with 
landuse= is a good first step to avoid large blank areas, but actual 
on-the-ground data are preferred to simple zoning (landuse=) when 
on-the-ground data are also known."  (I have said exactly this for 
many years in our Santa Cruz County wiki).


So, while we might leave these polygon data alone, we might also 
agree (somewhat strenuously) that a better job of adding actual 
building polygons that represent dwellings (houses, apartments, 
condominiums, dormitories...) is an excellent next step as welcome 
additions to OSM.  Especially as they might contain building:levels 
tags, these can provide a visual representation of the density of 
urban areas which distinctly are "landuse=residential" much better 
than can Escondido's current representation of simply "gray coloring 
punctuated by streets."  In fact, it can be seen that some buildings 
have been added, and some have not.


Call it a work in progress.  OSM, Escondido and Escondido-in-OSM, 
that is.  One brick (building, train station, bike route, pub, park 
bench...) at a time.


SteveA
California

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

Re: [Talk-us] Why?

[Hans De Kryger]

Thanks paul!

*Regards,*

*Hans*


*http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheDutchMan13
*


On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 7:04 AM, Paul Norman  wrote:

>  On 2/28/2015 4:07 AM, Hans De Kryger wrote:
>
> The city of Escondido has this mega residential area. Just wondering why?
>
>  http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/33.1035/-117.0940
>
> There's a few things going on here
>
> One is that there has been an import or tracing from an official landuse
> plan (e.g. http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/125990327). There is no
> documentation of this on the lists or wiki, and the link in the source_ref
> tag has stopped working. There is also a potentially related import (e.g.
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/597144689), also without documentation.
>
> The second is that Escondido really does appear to be residential outside
> the core. Even if there are problems with the imported or official landuse
> data, you still have a core of commercial, retail and industrial surrounded
> by residential.
>
> ___
> 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] Why?

[Paul Norman]

On 2/28/2015 4:07 AM, Hans De Kryger wrote:

The city of Escondido has this mega residential area. Just wondering why?

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/33.1035/-117.0940

There's a few things going on here

One is that there has been an import or tracing from an official landuse 
plan (e.g. http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/125990327). There is no 
documentation of this on the lists or wiki, and the link in the 
source_ref tag has stopped working. There is also a potentially related 
import (e.g. http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/597144689), also without 
documentation.


The second is that Escondido really does appear to be residential 
outside the core. Even if there are problems with the imported or 
official landuse data, you still have a core of commercial, retail and 
industrial surrounded by residential.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Why?

[Hans De Kryger]

The city of Escondido has this mega residential area. Just wondering why?

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/33.1035/-117.0940


*Regards,*

*Hans*


*http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheDutchMan13
*
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Why does the USA currently lag in OSM map quality?

[Bryce Nesbitt]

Here's an example of a specific feature type bringing a new mapper to OSM:
https://bicycletrax.wordpress.com/2014/06/20/campuses-with-the-most-bike-repair-stations/


>> A modicum of guerrilla mapping can have a huge effect. A few athletic
>> fields and building outlines can quickly snowball into almost every
building
>> and driveway in town. [2]
>
> Try this:
> In the course of your everyday life, when you describe a meeting place to
> someone via email, send them a link the OSM node.
> Hey Fred,
> Lets meet at the Courthouse (see http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/35176305
 )
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Why does the USA currently lag in OSM map quality?

[Bryce Nesbitt]

Here are two examples of mapping communities NOT in OSM:

http://labyrinthlocator.com/
http://www.sanidumps.com/



To help find USA  mappers:
I've resolved to start including links to OSM in any location related email
I send :-).
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Why does the USA currently lag in OSM map quality?

[Bryce Nesbitt]

>
> A modicum of guerrilla mapping can have a huge effect. A few athletic
> fields and building outlines can quickly snowball into almost every
> building and driveway in town. [2]


Try this:

In the course of your everyday life, when you describe a meeting place to
someone via email, send them a link the OSM node.

Hey Fred,
Lets meet at the Courthouse (see http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/35176305
).
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Why does the USA currently lag in OSM map quality?

[Minh Nguyen]

On 2015-02-17 12:30, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:

Mapilariy is fun... but collecting more data is not necessarily the
avenue to a better map.

Instead, consider how many people use the map.
Consider how many people "garden" a particular area of the map.
Consider how many people enthusiastically map a given feature (e.g. RV
Dump Stations, Dog Parks, Smoking Zones, Bike Repair Stations, Bear Boxes).

A pile of automatically imported or collected data is really not all
that interesting or complete.
I think in the USA the way forward involves finding user communities not
served by other maps (e.g. Bear Boxes, above).


Reaching out to these communities is right up there with welcoming new mappers. As 
someone who largely "gardens" a limited region, I was disappointed that some 
local cycling enthusiasts couldn't be persuaded to contribute to OSM instead of or in 
addition to Map Maker. But along come enthusiasts for things I'd never thought would have 
enthusiasts. Add a few city-maintained stairways and someone draws the other 390. Add 
pylons to a power line and someone quickly adds the voltage. Wheelchair access. Bike polo 
courts.

Topical mapping can spur local mapping too. I loved the baseball field mapping 
contest we did a few years ago. [1] It was fun and very easy to hop around the 
countryside scavenging for baseball fields, and the resulting green diamonds in 
the middle of nowhere broadcast OSM's micromapping ambition. If a mapper added 
baseball fields but neglected to improve the surrounding map, the lonely fields 
sometimes tickled locals into mapping the rest of the park or school.

A modicum of guerrilla mapping can have a huge effect. A few athletic fields 
and building outlines can quickly snowball into almost every building and 
driveway in town. [2]

[1] http://bit.ly/OSMbaseball
[2] http://osm.org/go/ZUruk1AO

--
m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us


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

Re: [Talk-us] Why does the USA currently lag in OSM map quality?

[Clifford Snow]

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Ian Dees  wrote:

> It's easy and fun to hypothesize about why OSM is crummy in the US, but
> it's vastly more useful to think of ways to improve it.
>
> Increasing awareness through mapping parties/events seems to help a lot in
> urbanized areas, but we still haven't figured out how to apply that to the
> rest of the country. Tools like MapRoulette and fixme can guide existing
> mappers to areas that are probably in need of help. Are there methods of
> remote sensing (street-level imagery, data from other places on the
> internet) that could help us with the locality problem?
>
> Any other ideas for how to make the rural US better?
>

Ian,
Thanks for suggesting we look at what we can do to improve rural US rather
than focus on how "bad" it appears.

One of the goals our Seattle Meetup Group is to "build community." We
believe that many more mappers are needed. As one of our team says, it's
all about mapping what you know. We want people that take an interest in
their neighborhood, by watching edits in their area and encourage new
mappers. That's seems to be working for us, although slowly, in the city.
But it doesn't help much for rural areas. I like the suggestion of State
Fairs. Other organizations we might want to look at are the Boy Scouts,
Girl Scouts and 4F. I've been wanting to hold a meetup in rural Western
Washington State. But haven't figured out a good way to get publicity to
attract new mappers.

Publicity of what OSM is accomplishing would be good. I wonder how we make
that happen? Do we have writers in our midst that would like to take on
that challenge? If so what story do we want to tell?

Clifford

-- 
@osm_seattle
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

Re: [Talk-us] Why does the USA currently lag in OSM map quality?

[Paul Johnson]

Could we make this a bit more mobile friendly?  It'd be a great timesink
when I'm on a bus I've already collected as much data as I can flying past
everything in the dark on.

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Harald Kliems  wrote:

>
>
> On Tue Feb 17 2015 at 2:53:44 PM Paul Johnson
>>
>> Could use a bit of work.  It appears to be detecting "Share the Road"
>> signs as "Cycleway Slippery When Wet/Icy" signs.
>>
> Feel free to help make it better:
> http://www.mapillary.com/map/games/traffic
>
>   Harald.
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Why does the USA currently lag in OSM map quality?

[Mike N]

On 2/17/2015 3:30 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:

A pile of automatically imported or collected data is really not all
that interesting or complete.
I think in the USA the way forward involves finding user communities not
served by other maps (e.g. Bear Boxes, above).


  I've found that after a quorum of parks has the typical level of OSM 
detail added, they become quite interesting to community recreational 
planners because no other map: government or Google matches it.  But 
this is only a microscopic slice of users in comparison to consumers of 
trip routing data.



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

Re: [Talk-us] Why does the USA currently lag in OSM map quality?

[Paul Johnson]

That's a very good question, and could be interesting in a number of ways.
  Oregon would be easier for a few reasons, namely that the state fair is
centralized in one reasonably well connected city with a lot of indoor
space with electricity (because it tends to be fairly predictably wet year
round), with folks from rural areas traveling great lengths from the desert
rangelands and wine regions to get their goods to fair to promote
themselves and learn what else is going on in the state.  Industry also
makes use of this time, you can rest assured every corner of agribusiness
has a booth up someplace to show off the latest, largest and greatest tech
in ag.  OSM could be a game changer if a tech minded farmer could leverage
it and contribute.

Oklahoma hits the opposite extreme, there's multiple state fairs differing
weeks, largely outdoors, and with the exception of the Oklahoma City State
Fair and the Tulsa State Fair, in fairly disconnected places.  And given
that these are predictably held during the hottest time of the year and
draw broadly from the public, it's hard to have a thought much more intense
than "it's hot, I'm hot, and maybe I shouldn't have gone to the cattle show
right after having three corndogs and riding the Tilt a Hurl".  Thinking at
least for this region, the Boat Show or the RV show (which are winter
indoor events) are more likely candidates (owing largely to Oklahoma
seeming to be a huge draw for RV touring and a number of lakes rivaling
Minnesota).  Could be interesting to see if it's possible to gamify this a
bit with something along the lines of walking papers and/or a scavenger
hunt for our state fair system.  Or just any of the tourist areas in
general, since they tend to be somewhat counterintuitive to navigate, under
dense tree cover rendering aerial imagery useless, and have very small
permanent population.

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Eleanor Tutt 
wrote:

> +1 to Bryce's comments about reaching out to existing communities with
> shared interests who may be using other tools/methods currently.
>
> This conversation reminds me a of a presentation I saw on Missouri's
> recent attempts to survey people about internet access and map broadband
> coverage, including in rural areas.  They had luck with outreach by setting
> up booths at State and County Fairs - that seemed to be where enough people
> gathered at once to make the outreach worth the time & effort (although
> they often used pins and paper maps to gather their data given spotty
> coverage).  I wonder if anyone has ever had an OSM State Fair mapping party?
>
> Eleanor
>
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Ian Dees  wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Paul Johnson 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I'm thinking if they wanted broader input, they'd use the mailing list
 and not the forum.

 But I think a big part of it is the US is very large, and very empty.
 Plot out a wall size map of the US, now pin the tail on the map.  Unless
 you bumped a wall on the way there or have an acute sense of space with
 your eyes closed and managed to stab somewhere in the Coruscant-like DFW
 megaplex (seriously, drive US 75 south into DFW at night and you'll go over
 a rise near Anna, TX from which DFW appears to roll from where you are all
 the way to the horizon ahead of you; it's probably geographically larger
 than several of the smallest states by area, possibly even combined), you
 probably just pinned the tail to a part of the country that is just as
 empty now as before Manifest Destiny.  Possibly even emptier given The
 Removal and two waves of urbanization.

 People map where they know.  People know where they are.  Where are the
 people in the US?  Well, if you take the top ten most populated
 metropolitan statistical areas in the US,  you account for 97% of the US
 population, and with the exception of Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas, they're all
 within a day's bicycle ride or less of an ocean (I'm including places as
 far in as Portland given I've made that ride to the ocean by bicycle
 before, and I'm not even horribly fit or in great shape).  Extend it out to
 the top 100 metropolitan statistical areas, and you leave a very small
 fraction of 1% of the US population to account for the remaining 281
 metropolitan statistical areas and 536 micropolitan statistical areas.

 TL;DR, Hitchhiker's Guide validated version:  When randomly sampled by
 township and range, averaged out and rounded to the nearest integer, the
 population of the US is 0.

>>>
>>> It's easy and fun to hypothesize about why OSM is crummy in the US, but
>>> it's vastly more useful to think of ways to improve it.
>>>
>>
>> I don't think I'm speaking in the hypothetical here.
>>
>> Increasing awareness through mapping parties/events seems to help a lot
>>> in urbanized areas, but we stil

Re: [Talk-us] Why does the USA currently lag in OSM map quality?

[stevea]

Ian Dees writes:
Increasing awareness through mapping parties/events seems to help a 
lot in urbanized areas, but we still haven't figured out how to 
apply that to the rest of the country. Tools like MapRoulette and 
fixme can guide existing mappers to areas that are probably in need 
of help. Are there methods of remote sensing (street-level imagery, 
data from other places on the internet) that could help us with the 
locality problem?


Any other ideas for how to make the rural US better?


I agree, I feel this pain of "the US is often an OSM desert" and I 
have for many years -- most of the history of this project. 
Concomitantly, I do what I can to promote "wider area" contributions 
to our data (as opposed to "more local" efforts like Mapping 
Parties).  This includes national bicycle networks, large-scale 
(statewide and larger) rail improvements, better/newer national 
forest data, and other, similar wide area campaigns.


These are not always deeply successful (though they are frequently), 
and I and we have learned much along the way:  wikis can help, follow 
Import Guidelines if importing, coordinate with a "divide and 
conquer" strategy -- usually state-at-a-time, do everything possible 
to keep quality high... and I'm sure there are many more.  Key is to 
extend effort towards BOTH local (Mapping Parties...) and wider-area 
(statewide, regional, federal/national level) improvements.  There 
really is an urban/rural divide in the USA (for purposes of this 
discussion) and once you "fall off the cliff" (of urban areas and 
mappers), we see a steep decline in data and participation.  There 
ARE "things" which fill in these holes (like long-distance bicycling, 
state-to-state rail...) in more rural areas, and I believe it is both 
cool and a neat challenge to do them, and do them well.  Especially 
when we ignite the passions of wider participation via a well-run, 
well-coordinated "project."


But often, (and I've gotten a number of "+1!" comments about this), 
when there are "projects on a shelf" that somebody who has a yen to 
map can just "reach up and grab a state's worth of work," we do see 
the checkerboard effect filling in blank spots.  Yes, the USA is big, 
even huge, BUT:  keep that up, (relentlessly, with coordination, over 
time...) and we'll simply improve our map as we need to.  I know I'm 
saying obvious things here.  Elephants are best eaten one fork at a 
time, and while it can seem overwhelming, we simply must keep 
chipping away at adding good quality data (as this sub-project, that 
sub-project...) with growing numbers of dedicated volunteers, over 
the medium- and longer-term -- ESPECIALLY in rural areas that "link" 
us.  That's a vital method it will take as we get there.


I'm not just cheer-leading, I want to see better coordination of 
these ideas:  efforts by OSM-US to take them to heart and leadership 
to get more people acting like this.  There are dedicated, smart 
people who WANT to throw more shoulder (or two!) into OSM.  Let's 
offer well-structured "projects" (for lack of a better word) for them 
to be a part of.  This works, I can say from actual personal 
experience.  It is part of a good future upon which to continue 
building our map.


SteveA
California

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

Re: [Talk-us] Why does the USA currently lag in OSM map quality?

[Harald Kliems]

On Tue Feb 17 2015 at 2:53:44 PM Paul Johnson
>
> Could use a bit of work.  It appears to be detecting "Share the Road"
> signs as "Cycleway Slippery When Wet/Icy" signs.
>
Feel free to help make it better: http://www.mapillary.com/map/games/traffic

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

Re: [Talk-us] Why does the USA currently lag in OSM map quality?

[Eleanor Tutt]

+1 to Bryce's comments about reaching out to existing communities with
shared interests who may be using other tools/methods currently.

This conversation reminds me a of a presentation I saw on Missouri's recent
attempts to survey people about internet access and map broadband coverage,
including in rural areas.  They had luck with outreach by setting up booths
at State and County Fairs - that seemed to be where enough people gathered
at once to make the outreach worth the time & effort (although they often
used pins and paper maps to gather their data given spotty coverage).  I
wonder if anyone has ever had an OSM State Fair mapping party?

Eleanor

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Ian Dees  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Paul Johnson 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm thinking if they wanted broader input, they'd use the mailing list
>>> and not the forum.
>>>
>>> But I think a big part of it is the US is very large, and very empty.
>>> Plot out a wall size map of the US, now pin the tail on the map.  Unless
>>> you bumped a wall on the way there or have an acute sense of space with
>>> your eyes closed and managed to stab somewhere in the Coruscant-like DFW
>>> megaplex (seriously, drive US 75 south into DFW at night and you'll go over
>>> a rise near Anna, TX from which DFW appears to roll from where you are all
>>> the way to the horizon ahead of you; it's probably geographically larger
>>> than several of the smallest states by area, possibly even combined), you
>>> probably just pinned the tail to a part of the country that is just as
>>> empty now as before Manifest Destiny.  Possibly even emptier given The
>>> Removal and two waves of urbanization.
>>>
>>> People map where they know.  People know where they are.  Where are the
>>> people in the US?  Well, if you take the top ten most populated
>>> metropolitan statistical areas in the US,  you account for 97% of the US
>>> population, and with the exception of Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas, they're all
>>> within a day's bicycle ride or less of an ocean (I'm including places as
>>> far in as Portland given I've made that ride to the ocean by bicycle
>>> before, and I'm not even horribly fit or in great shape).  Extend it out to
>>> the top 100 metropolitan statistical areas, and you leave a very small
>>> fraction of 1% of the US population to account for the remaining 281
>>> metropolitan statistical areas and 536 micropolitan statistical areas.
>>>
>>> TL;DR, Hitchhiker's Guide validated version:  When randomly sampled by
>>> township and range, averaged out and rounded to the nearest integer, the
>>> population of the US is 0.
>>>
>>
>> It's easy and fun to hypothesize about why OSM is crummy in the US, but
>> it's vastly more useful to think of ways to improve it.
>>
>
> I don't think I'm speaking in the hypothetical here.
>
> Increasing awareness through mapping parties/events seems to help a lot in
>> urbanized areas, but we still haven't figured out how to apply that to the
>> rest of the country. Tools like MapRoulette and fixme can guide existing
>> mappers to areas that are probably in need of help. Are there methods of
>> remote sensing (street-level imagery, data from other places on the
>> internet) that could help us with the locality problem?
>>
>
> TL;DR for the next two paragraphs:  OSM tends to fall somewhere on or
> between esteem and self-transcendence on Maslow's hierarchy.  The rural
> extreme struggles with the physiological and can't take safety for granted,
> and it's going to take something on the order of a New Deal that directly
> benefits with improving access to sanitation, food, water, electricity, and
> internet to less than 1% of the population that is going dozens of miles
> for food and water (or collecting both in situ), generating what limited
> electricity they have access to themselves, and whose trip to the toilet
> still involves shoes and a shovel, to do much of anything to change this
> within my lifetime.  Given the political climate of the country, I think it
> goes without saying that this isn't going to happen.
>
> Speaking from experience, OSM is a bandwidth intensive project,
> particularly when working with geography so freaking huge as the US.  And
> for the sake of this conversation, I'm lumping in the likes of Kellyville,
> Oklahoma, with all of it's 500 acres and 1100 people simply because that's
> large enough to have electricity, indoor plumbing and store, and some hope
> of getting anything viable in terms of internet access (even if only
> through a limited bandwidth library/cafe wifi hotspot) as "urban."  That's
> relatively easy to "spark" the same way as it is in larger places:  Just
> find the like-minded individuals, spark the interest and you'll get crazy
> detailed maps for their part of the world, and some interesting
> applications come out of it.  I've seen it happen in Portland (where it
> gripped the imagination of my hometow

Re: [Talk-us] Why does the USA currently lag in OSM map quality?

[Paul Johnson]

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Harald Kliems  wrote:

>
>
> On Tue Feb 17 2015 at 1:16:55 PM Ian Dees  wrote:
>
>> Are there methods of remote sensing (street-level imagery, data from
>> other places on the internet) that could help us with the locality problem?
>>
> Mapillary[1] seems to have tremendous potential there. They've recently
> introduced automatic traffic sign recognition [2] -- no speed limit signs
> yet, unfortunately.
>

Could use a bit of work.  It appears to be detecting "Share the Road" signs
as "Cycleway Slippery When Wet/Icy" signs.  Ideally, it would be able to
properly identify and differentiate the 200-or-so unique but nationally
accepted signs in the current edition of the US MUTCD's Standard Highway
Signs supplement with a reasonably high degree of accuracy given a clear
photo, including the ones that have regional variation baked in to the
standard (ETC logo signs for toll lanes, so signs indicating Oklahoma
PIKEPASS, Texas TxTAG and the east coast's EZPASS are treated the same, for
example, and it's not thrown off by bus stop signs that have the operator's
logo on 'em if the sign's otherwise compliant).  Extra miles if it can
handle signs that are notoriously noncompliant to the national standards,
like Park & Ride and major city bus stop signs.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Why does the USA currently lag in OSM map quality?

[Paul Johnson]

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Ian Dees  wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
>
>> I'm thinking if they wanted broader input, they'd use the mailing list
>> and not the forum.
>>
>> But I think a big part of it is the US is very large, and very empty.
>> Plot out a wall size map of the US, now pin the tail on the map.  Unless
>> you bumped a wall on the way there or have an acute sense of space with
>> your eyes closed and managed to stab somewhere in the Coruscant-like DFW
>> megaplex (seriously, drive US 75 south into DFW at night and you'll go over
>> a rise near Anna, TX from which DFW appears to roll from where you are all
>> the way to the horizon ahead of you; it's probably geographically larger
>> than several of the smallest states by area, possibly even combined), you
>> probably just pinned the tail to a part of the country that is just as
>> empty now as before Manifest Destiny.  Possibly even emptier given The
>> Removal and two waves of urbanization.
>>
>> People map where they know.  People know where they are.  Where are the
>> people in the US?  Well, if you take the top ten most populated
>> metropolitan statistical areas in the US,  you account for 97% of the US
>> population, and with the exception of Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas, they're all
>> within a day's bicycle ride or less of an ocean (I'm including places as
>> far in as Portland given I've made that ride to the ocean by bicycle
>> before, and I'm not even horribly fit or in great shape).  Extend it out to
>> the top 100 metropolitan statistical areas, and you leave a very small
>> fraction of 1% of the US population to account for the remaining 281
>> metropolitan statistical areas and 536 micropolitan statistical areas.
>>
>> TL;DR, Hitchhiker's Guide validated version:  When randomly sampled by
>> township and range, averaged out and rounded to the nearest integer, the
>> population of the US is 0.
>>
>
> It's easy and fun to hypothesize about why OSM is crummy in the US, but
> it's vastly more useful to think of ways to improve it.
>

I don't think I'm speaking in the hypothetical here.

Increasing awareness through mapping parties/events seems to help a lot in
> urbanized areas, but we still haven't figured out how to apply that to the
> rest of the country. Tools like MapRoulette and fixme can guide existing
> mappers to areas that are probably in need of help. Are there methods of
> remote sensing (street-level imagery, data from other places on the
> internet) that could help us with the locality problem?
>

TL;DR for the next two paragraphs:  OSM tends to fall somewhere on or
between esteem and self-transcendence on Maslow's hierarchy.  The rural
extreme struggles with the physiological and can't take safety for granted,
and it's going to take something on the order of a New Deal that directly
benefits with improving access to sanitation, food, water, electricity, and
internet to less than 1% of the population that is going dozens of miles
for food and water (or collecting both in situ), generating what limited
electricity they have access to themselves, and whose trip to the toilet
still involves shoes and a shovel, to do much of anything to change this
within my lifetime.  Given the political climate of the country, I think it
goes without saying that this isn't going to happen.

Speaking from experience, OSM is a bandwidth intensive project,
particularly when working with geography so freaking huge as the US.  And
for the sake of this conversation, I'm lumping in the likes of Kellyville,
Oklahoma, with all of it's 500 acres and 1100 people simply because that's
large enough to have electricity, indoor plumbing and store, and some hope
of getting anything viable in terms of internet access (even if only
through a limited bandwidth library/cafe wifi hotspot) as "urban."  That's
relatively easy to "spark" the same way as it is in larger places:  Just
find the like-minded individuals, spark the interest and you'll get crazy
detailed maps for their part of the world, and some interesting
applications come out of it.  I've seen it happen in Portland (where it
gripped the imagination of my hometown a bit more tightly than I expected),
I'm watching it start to happen again in Tulsa now.  Heck, mapping parties
might be more natural given this context simply because a cafe or the
library might be the only reasonably passable internet connection in town
that can fetch a mapping party weekend's worth of data and upload it back
again in under half a day (literally).


> Any other ideas for how to make the rural US better?
>

Start looking for the modern day explorers and get ready to shell out just
like last time this country had a cartography problem.  I can't really see
this as even being something we could buy eleventybillion HITs on
Mechanical Turk to solve.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Why does the USA currently lag in OSM map quality?

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Ian Dees  wrote:

>
> Indeed, Mapillary is great. I wonder if there's room to get
> GoPro+Mapillary to donate a few units to put together a rig that we could
> ship around to people in the US that could collect data for the US
> community...
>

Mapilariy is fun... but collecting more data is not necessarily the avenue
to a better map.

Instead, consider how many people use the map.
Consider how many people "garden" a particular area of the map.
Consider how many people enthusiastically map a given feature (e.g. RV Dump
Stations, Dog Parks, Smoking Zones, Bike Repair Stations, Bear Boxes).

A pile of automatically imported or collected data is really not all that
interesting or complete.
I think in the USA the way forward involves finding user communities not
served by other maps (e.g. Bear Boxes, above).
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Why does the USA currently lag in OSM map quality?

[Paul Johnson]

I'm thinking if they wanted broader input, they'd use the mailing list and
not the forum.

But I think a big part of it is the US is very large, and very empty.  Plot
out a wall size map of the US, now pin the tail on the map.  Unless you
bumped a wall on the way there or have an acute sense of space with your
eyes closed and managed to stab somewhere in the Coruscant-like DFW
megaplex (seriously, drive US 75 south into DFW at night and you'll go over
a rise near Anna, TX from which DFW appears to roll from where you are all
the way to the horizon ahead of you; it's probably geographically larger
than several of the smallest states by area, possibly even combined), you
probably just pinned the tail to a part of the country that is just as
empty now as before Manifest Destiny.  Possibly even emptier given The
Removal and two waves of urbanization.

People map where they know.  People know where they are.  Where are the
people in the US?  Well, if you take the top ten most populated
metropolitan statistical areas in the US,  you account for 97% of the US
population, and with the exception of Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas, they're all
within a day's bicycle ride or less of an ocean (I'm including places as
far in as Portland given I've made that ride to the ocean by bicycle
before, and I'm not even horribly fit or in great shape).  Extend it out to
the top 100 metropolitan statistical areas, and you leave a very small
fraction of 1% of the US population to account for the remaining 281
metropolitan statistical areas and 536 micropolitan statistical areas.

TL;DR, Hitchhiker's Guide validated version:  When randomly sampled by
township and range, averaged out and rounded to the nearest integer, the
population of the US is 0.

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Mike N  wrote:

> FYI - there's a general discussion on "Why does the USA currently lag in
> OSM map quality?" over on a web forum:
>
> http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=30121
>
> ___
> 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] Why does the USA currently lag in OSM map quality?

[Ian Dees]

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:

> I'm thinking if they wanted broader input, they'd use the mailing list and
> not the forum.
>
> But I think a big part of it is the US is very large, and very empty.
> Plot out a wall size map of the US, now pin the tail on the map.  Unless
> you bumped a wall on the way there or have an acute sense of space with
> your eyes closed and managed to stab somewhere in the Coruscant-like DFW
> megaplex (seriously, drive US 75 south into DFW at night and you'll go over
> a rise near Anna, TX from which DFW appears to roll from where you are all
> the way to the horizon ahead of you; it's probably geographically larger
> than several of the smallest states by area, possibly even combined), you
> probably just pinned the tail to a part of the country that is just as
> empty now as before Manifest Destiny.  Possibly even emptier given The
> Removal and two waves of urbanization.
>
> People map where they know.  People know where they are.  Where are the
> people in the US?  Well, if you take the top ten most populated
> metropolitan statistical areas in the US,  you account for 97% of the US
> population, and with the exception of Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas, they're all
> within a day's bicycle ride or less of an ocean (I'm including places as
> far in as Portland given I've made that ride to the ocean by bicycle
> before, and I'm not even horribly fit or in great shape).  Extend it out to
> the top 100 metropolitan statistical areas, and you leave a very small
> fraction of 1% of the US population to account for the remaining 281
> metropolitan statistical areas and 536 micropolitan statistical areas.
>
> TL;DR, Hitchhiker's Guide validated version:  When randomly sampled by
> township and range, averaged out and rounded to the nearest integer, the
> population of the US is 0.
>

It's easy and fun to hypothesize about why OSM is crummy in the US, but
it's vastly more useful to think of ways to improve it.

Increasing awareness through mapping parties/events seems to help a lot in
urbanized areas, but we still haven't figured out how to apply that to the
rest of the country. Tools like MapRoulette and fixme can guide existing
mappers to areas that are probably in need of help. Are there methods of
remote sensing (street-level imagery, data from other places on the
internet) that could help us with the locality problem?

Any other ideas for how to make the rural US better?
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Why does the USA currently lag in OSM map quality?

[Ian Dees]

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Harald Kliems  wrote:

>
>
> On Tue Feb 17 2015 at 1:16:55 PM Ian Dees  wrote:
>
>> Are there methods of remote sensing (street-level imagery, data from
>> other places on the internet) that could help us with the locality problem?
>>
> Mapillary[1] seems to have tremendous potential there. They've recently
> introduced automatic traffic sign recognition [2] -- no speed limit signs
> yet, unfortunately.
>

Indeed, Mapillary is great. I wonder if there's room to get GoPro+Mapillary
to donate a few units to put together a rig that we could ship around to
people in the US that could collect data for the US community...
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Why does the USA currently lag in OSM map quality?

[Tod Fitch]

On Feb 17, 2015, at 11:06 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:

> I'm thinking if they wanted broader input, they'd use the mailing list and 
> not the forum.  
> . . .

For what it is worth, the person starting the thread is a new mapper and may 
not know about the talk-us mail list. Or any other mail list for that matter.
-Tod


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

Re: [Talk-us] Why does the USA currently lag in OSM map quality?

[Harald Kliems]

On Tue Feb 17 2015 at 1:16:55 PM Ian Dees  wrote:

> Are there methods of remote sensing (street-level imagery, data from other
> places on the internet) that could help us with the locality problem?
>
Mapillary[1] seems to have tremendous potential there. They've recently
introduced automatic traffic sign recognition [2] -- no speed limit signs
yet, unfortunately.

 Harald.

[1] http://www.mapillary.com/map
[2] http://blog.mapillary.com/update/2015/01/27/traffic-signs.html
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Why does the USA currently lag in OSM map quality?

[Mike N]

FYI - there's a general discussion on "Why does the USA currently lag in 
OSM map quality?" over on a web forum:


http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=30121

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

Re: [Talk-us] Why we really don't get new users

[Martijn van Exel]

The fact of the matter is that we don't have any numbers to back any
of these claims up. Perhaps out ontology puts people off - perhaps
not. Perhaps the launch of iD has led to more new sign-ups becoming
recurring mappers - perhaps not. Maybe the increased visibility of OSM
is a factor? Maybe the edit-a-thons have something to do with it?

We just don't know.

That does not mean we should stop trying. All the things people have
pointed out that may put new mappers off need attention. I don't think
there is any one secret recipe to attracting and retaining new
mappers. There are simple things everyone can do today and that do not
require months of discussion and building new tools: offer a warm
welcome to new mappers: be courteous, friendly and reach out a helping
hand. Subscribe to an RSS feed for local new mappers[1] and send them
a welcome email[2]. Start or become active in a local group.

Best
Martijn

[1] map here: http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/newestosm.php - you can
create your own RSS feed there - here's a recipe to send notifications
to your smartphone: https://ifttt.com/myrecipes/personal/1634033
[2] some examples here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Mvexel/Welcome_Working_Group#New_mapper_messages

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:59 AM, Richard Weait  wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 2:17 PM,   wrote:
>>
>> I'm going to just point out the elephant in the room here. I don't think any
>> normal user cares about the license at all. I think the actual reason its 
>> hard
>> to get new mappers, especially those that are not nerdy and obsessive like
>> myself is that *the ontology sucks*. There, I said it, so you don't have to.
>
> I think that you are combining two separate issues.  Perhaps there is
> no causation from sucky ontology to  "hard to get new mappers".
>
> On the matter of getting new mappers.  Perhaps we'll just won't be
> satisfied until everybody on the planet is also an OpenStreetMap
> contributor.  That would be awesome.  I've written about mapper
> motivation and outreach before.  I'll leave that one alone for now.
>
> You aren't the first to suggest that "the ontology sucks".  There have
> been previous similar declarations.  I recall a presentation at State
> of the Map 2010 in Girona, Spain.  Have a look at the slides and video
> by David Earl and see if things have changed at all.
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/SotM_2010_session:_Tag_Central:_a_Schema_for_OSM
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us



-- 
Martijn van Exel
President, US Chapter
OpenStreetMap
http://openstreetmap.us/
http://osm.org/

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

Re: [Talk-us] Why we really don't get new users

[Richard Weait]

On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 2:17 PM,   wrote:
>
> I'm going to just point out the elephant in the room here. I don't think any
> normal user cares about the license at all. I think the actual reason its hard
> to get new mappers, especially those that are not nerdy and obsessive like
> myself is that *the ontology sucks*. There, I said it, so you don't have to.

I think that you are combining two separate issues.  Perhaps there is
no causation from sucky ontology to  "hard to get new mappers".

On the matter of getting new mappers.  Perhaps we'll just won't be
satisfied until everybody on the planet is also an OpenStreetMap
contributor.  That would be awesome.  I've written about mapper
motivation and outreach before.  I'll leave that one alone for now.

You aren't the first to suggest that "the ontology sucks".  There have
been previous similar declarations.  I recall a presentation at State
of the Map 2010 in Girona, Spain.  Have a look at the slides and video
by David Earl and see if things have changed at all.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/SotM_2010_session:_Tag_Central:_a_Schema_for_OSM

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

Re: [Talk-us] Why we really don't get new users

[Paul Johnson]

On Mar 17, 2014 9:02 PM, "Shawn K. Quinn"  wrote:

> a. The pot shops need to be standardized, one way or another. I can see
> different tagging for recreational versus medical but either way, I'd
> like to see us standardize on something for each and be done with it.

I definitely agree.  My general bounding box of focus these days is bound
to the north by Gunnison, Colorado; west by Lake City, Colorado; and
southeast by Little Rock.  This puts already legal Colorado, soon to be
legal Missouri, and soon to be no longer enforcing prohibition Tulsa
County, Oklahoma in my home range.  And even where it's not legal, how do
you handle shops that specializes in selling supplies, ostensibly calling
them "tobacco supplies", but everyone knows it's a head shop?

> > 4. The wiki is a terrible platform for documenting the ontology because
> > it's not machine readable and it's just a slow way to get information.
>
> What do you propose we replace it with?

I think the complaint is valid, but standardizing the layout a bit more
(think like man pages or the DOS 3.33 manuals) may help in making something
that's still human friendly while making machine parsing easier.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Why we really don't get new users

[Russell Deffner]

Oh, thanks for mentioning - I'm looking for someone to take over this
proposal:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/shop%3Dmarijuana 

 

Don't need to let me know, if you know how, but ask if not:
russdeff...@gmail.com

 

From: Paul Johnson [mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 1:04 PM
To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Why we really don't get new users

 


On Mar 17, 2014 9:02 PM, "Shawn K. Quinn"  wrote:

> a. The pot shops need to be standardized, one way or another. I can see
> different tagging for recreational versus medical but either way, I'd
> like to see us standardize on something for each and be done with it.

I definitely agree.  My general bounding box of focus these days is bound to
the north by Gunnison, Colorado; west by Lake City, Colorado; and southeast
by Little Rock.  This puts already legal Colorado, soon to be legal
Missouri, and soon to be no longer enforcing prohibition Tulsa County,
Oklahoma in my home range.  And even where it's not legal, how do you handle
shops that specializes in selling supplies, ostensibly calling them "tobacco
supplies", but everyone knows it's a head shop?

> > 4. The wiki is a terrible platform for documenting the ontology because
> > it's not machine readable and it's just a slow way to get information.
>
> What do you propose we replace it with?

I think the complaint is valid, but standardizing the layout a bit more
(think like man pages or the DOS 3.33 manuals) may help in making something
that's still human friendly while making machine parsing easier. 

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

Re: [Talk-us] Why we really don't get new users

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On Mon, Mar 17, 2014, at 01:17 PM, o...@charles.derkarl.org wrote:
> 
> I'm going to just point out the elephant in the room here. I don't think
> any normal user cares about the license at all. I think the actual reason its
> hard to get new mappers, especially those that are not nerdy and obsessive
> like myself is that *the ontology sucks*. There, I said it, so you don't have
> to.
> 
> It's actually a few things related to how the ontology sucks:
> 
> 1. The tagging of things bears little resemblance to things in the real
> world:
>   a. A lot of common things just don't have standard tags: examples: tax 
> preparers like H&R Block, investment brokers like Charles Schwab, medical 
> marijuana despensers here in California, recreational MJ shops in
> Colorado. I 
> could go on. 
>   b. the whole shop/amenity debate
>   c. common things that have really stupid tags, like barber shops

a. The pot shops need to be standardized, one way or another. I can see
different tagging for recreational versus medical but either way, I'd
like to see us standardize on something for each and be done with it.
b. Not well versed on this one...
c. If they are really stupid, we should either find something better, or
if there is nothing better just stick with what we have with a note to
the effect of "we know this is stupid."

> 2. To be a useful mapper, one needs to memorize these arbitrary tags. It 
> wouldn't be so hard if it weren't arbitrary (a salon is a shop? and it's 
> called a hairdresser‽). But even if it weren't arbitrary, it'd still be
> hard to remember because things have synonyms, and no shop is called a chemist
> in the US.

That's where editors like iD come in that remember the idiosyncratic
cases for you. Or at least, that's what I thought that feature of iD was
for. I find the UK-centric terminology a bit annoying as well but I've
learned to deal with it.

> Corrolary: A bagel shop is a bagel shop, no muggle cares that a bagel
> shop is fast_food amenity that sells the bagel cuisine.

shop=bagel you mean?

I don't really like this one, I would prefer amenity=cafe (or
amenity=fast_food) and cuisine=bagel myself.

> 3. I went to a shop recently that sells espresso drinks, and gelato, but 
> markets itself as a chocolate maker. (Specifically: Snake & Butterfly,
> Campbell, CA). There is absolutely no sane way to tag this in OSM today.

amenity=cafe
cuisine=coffee_shop;ice_cream
shop=chocolate

That's the best I can think of. Yes, it's a bit ugly.

> 4. The wiki is a terrible platform for documenting the ontology because
> it's not machine readable and it's just a slow way to get information.

What do you propose we replace it with?

-- 
  Shawn K. Quinn
  skqu...@rushpost.com

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

Re: [Talk-us] Why we really don't get new users

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-03-18 1:32 GMT+01:00 Mike Dupont :

> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 1:17 PM,  wrote:
>
>> The tagging of things bears little resemblance to things in the real
>> world:
>
>
> I agree, first of all, i tried to explain to someone how to tag a cafe/bar
> and he was confused and so was I.
>


amenity=cafe, is this really so difficult?



> why would americans want to learn british names for things?
>


actually they should learn "tags" (or use some abstraction layer like
presets) not "British names". If we all used tags in our native languages
it would maybe complicate stuff? Would be interesting to see what you wrote
if americans had to deal with German or Russian tags ;-)
You can translate this to a certain point, but you'll get more blur about
the meaning of a tag I guess, maybe up to the point where it gets useless,
but at least you'll loose the details. Ever read an automatically
translated appliance manual?

cheers,
Martin
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Why we really don't get new users

[Darrell Fuhriman]

I made exactly this point a while back on the diversity-talk list.

The consequence of this is that by self-limiting *who* the mappers are, we also 
limit the types of things that will ever appear on the map.

It’s even evident in your statement "This map geek and his son?” — a point that 
well made by Alyssa Wright in her discussion at SotM of the gendered nature of 
OSM data.

Plus, most (all?) of the tools assume you might want to edit anything and 
everything on the map. Most people probably don’t, and seeing streets and ways 
and relations when all you really wanted to do was add your child’s school, or 
the new bike path for them to get school is going to be an immediate turn off.

That being said, things like PushPin and iD have gone a long way to lowering 
the barrier to entry, but it’s still pretty damn substantial.

Darrell


On Mar 17, 2014, at 5:13 PM, Bryce Nesbitt  wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 11:17 AM,  wrote:
> 
> I'm going to just point out the elephant in the room here. I don't think any
> normal user cares about the license at all. I think the actual reason its hard
> to get new mappers, especially those that are not nerdy and obsessive like
> myself is that *the ontology sucks*. There, I said it, so you don't have to.
> 
> I think the real reason is that there's just one model: mapping as an end to 
> itself.
> Just look at the outreach material: it talks about mapping as an end, and 
> encourages
> people to get involved in this nebulous thing called mapping, as if that was 
> enough.
> 
> Map geeks?  Check.
> This map geek and his son? Check.
> Other people?  Hmm.
> 
> How about "map all the pubs in your area"?  Or "Find the world's best map of 
> hiking trails
> and help keep the map strong by editing if needed"?  Or "contribute to the 
> world's
> best map of speed cameras"?  Or "Map free library locations (e.g. 
> http://littlefreelibrary.org/ and clones)?
> 
> Maybe the pool of obsessive mappers is drawing thin.
> The pool of pub enthusiasts, however, is as strong as ever.
> ___
> 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] Why we really don't get new users

[Mike Dupont]

On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 1:17 PM,  wrote:

> The tagging of things bears little resemblance to things in the real world:


I agree, first of all, i tried to explain to someone how to tag a cafe/bar
and he was confused and so was I.
why would americans want to learn british names for things?
why is there such european influence on the local us groups? what about
localization? that would make people here more comfortable.
mike


-- 
James Michael DuPont
Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://www.flossk.org
Saving Wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com
Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Why we really don't get new users

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 11:17 AM,  wrote:

>
> I'm going to just point out the elephant in the room here. I don't think
> any
> normal user cares about the license at all. I think the actual reason its
> hard
> to get new mappers, especially those that are not nerdy and obsessive like
> myself is that *the ontology sucks*. There, I said it, so you don't have
> to.
>

I think the real reason is that there's just one model: *mapping as an end
to itself.*
Just look at the outreach material: it talks about mapping as an end, and
encourages
people to get involved in this nebulous thing called mapping, as if that
was enough.

Map geeks?  Check.
This map geek and his son? Check.
Other people?  Hmm.



*How about "map all the pubs in your area"?  Or "Find the world's best map
of hiking trailsand help keep the map strong by editing if needed"?  Or
"contribute to the world's best map of speed cameras"?  Or "Map free
library locations (e.g. *
*http://littlefreelibrary.org/  and clones)?*
Maybe the pool of obsessive mappers is drawing thin.
The pool of pub enthusiasts, however, is as strong as ever.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Why we really don't get new users

[Saikrishna Arcot]

JOSM also has a plugin that provides a UI for entering opening_hours.

That being said, this UI is in JOSM, but new users are probably going to use iD 
since it's easy to use and is right there (quick availability).

-- 
Saikrishna Arcot
On Monday, March 17, 2014 01:20:12 PM Ian Dees wrote:


Such a thing already mostly exists in the preset system. iD has a fairly 
extensive and growing set of presets that I encourage you to try (it follows 
the example you give).


JOSM also has a preset system, but it's not nearly as obvious or as complete 
(at least for the mapping I do). You access it by hitting F3 on your keyboard 
when mapping. 


On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 1:17 PM,  wrote:



Talk-us@openstreetmap.org[2]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us[3]







[1] mailto:o...@charles.derkarl.org
[2] mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
[3] 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] Why we really don't get new users

[John Firebaugh]

Hi Charles,

Have you looked at iD's preset-based feature editing UI? It's very close to
what you describe:

- Machine readable
ontology
- Search-based UI
- No detailed knowledge of tagging schemes necessary
- Customized UI for specific fields

We haven't yet gotten to the level of detail necessary to support query
terms as specific as "bagel", nor to cover the immense complexity of the
opening_hours format, but contributions are welcome.

A related project is the Name Suggestion
Index,
which provides automatic tags for search terms like "Walmart" or
"Raiffeisenbank".

John


On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 11:17 AM,  wrote:

>
> I'm going to just point out the elephant in the room here. I don't think
> any
> normal user cares about the license at all. I think the actual reason its
> hard
> to get new mappers, especially those that are not nerdy and obsessive like
> myself is that *the ontology sucks*. There, I said it, so you don't have
> to.
>
> It's actually a few things related to how the ontology sucks:
>
> 1. The tagging of things bears little resemblance to things in the real
> world:
> a. A lot of common things just don't have standard tags: examples:
> tax
> preparers like H&R Block, investment brokers like Charles Schwab, medical
> marijuana despensers here in California, recreational MJ shops in
> Colorado. I
> could go on.
> b. the whole shop/amenity debate
> c. common things that have really stupid tags, like barber shops
>
> 2. To be a useful mapper, one needs to memorize these arbitrary tags. It
> wouldn't be so hard if it weren't arbitrary (a salon is a shop? and it's
> called a hairdresser‽). But even if it weren't arbitrary, it'd still be
> hard
> to remember because things have synonyms, and no shop is called a chemist
> in
> the US.
>
> Corrolary: A bagel shop is a bagel shop, no muggle cares that a bagel shop
> is
> fast_food amenity that sells the bagel cuisine.
>
> 3. I went to a shop recently that sells espresso drinks, and gelato, but
> markets itself as a chocolate maker. (Specifically: Snake & Butterfly,
> Campbell,
> CA). There is absolutely no sane way to tag this in OSM today.
>
> 4. The wiki is a terrible platform for documenting the ontology because
> it's
> not machine readable and it's just a slow way to get information.
>
> I don't just mean to moan, though. What I'd like to do is propose a
> machine-
> readable ontology that we could provide to JOSM, Vespucci, etc, that would
> allow newbies to edit the map. I imagine a dictionary and associated tags.
> A
> user could type in "bagel" and all the reasonable properties show up, along
> with a description of what they're entering:
>
> (A shop that sells primarily bagels, baked goods and breakfast
> foods)
> (not what you're looking for? try  or )
> name: [ textbox ]
> opening hours: (a *UI* to enter times of week)
> vegetarian ( ) friendly ( ) unfriendly ( ) exclusively
> house number: [ textbox]
> etc
>
> And by filling these properties in, the software would automatically
> convert it
> to the OSM ontology. All the client software would need to do is be able to
> parse our ontology file to provide all of this. And provide a sane UI, at
> last,
> for entering opening_hours.
>
> Charles
>
> ___
> 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] Why we really don't get new users

[Ian Dees]

Such a thing already mostly exists in the preset system. iD has a fairly
extensive and growing set of presets that I encourage you to try (it
follows the example you give).

JOSM also has a preset system, but it's not nearly as obvious or as
complete (at least for the mapping I do). You access it by hitting F3 on
your keyboard when mapping.


On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 1:17 PM,  wrote:

>
> I'm going to just point out the elephant in the room here. I don't think
> any
> normal user cares about the license at all. I think the actual reason its
> hard
> to get new mappers, especially those that are not nerdy and obsessive like
> myself is that *the ontology sucks*. There, I said it, so you don't have
> to.
>
> It's actually a few things related to how the ontology sucks:
>
> 1. The tagging of things bears little resemblance to things in the real
> world:
> a. A lot of common things just don't have standard tags: examples:
> tax
> preparers like H&R Block, investment brokers like Charles Schwab, medical
> marijuana despensers here in California, recreational MJ shops in
> Colorado. I
> could go on.
> b. the whole shop/amenity debate
> c. common things that have really stupid tags, like barber shops
>
> 2. To be a useful mapper, one needs to memorize these arbitrary tags. It
> wouldn't be so hard if it weren't arbitrary (a salon is a shop? and it's
> called a hairdresser‽). But even if it weren't arbitrary, it'd still be
> hard
> to remember because things have synonyms, and no shop is called a chemist
> in
> the US.
>
> Corrolary: A bagel shop is a bagel shop, no muggle cares that a bagel shop
> is
> fast_food amenity that sells the bagel cuisine.
>
> 3. I went to a shop recently that sells espresso drinks, and gelato, but
> markets itself as a chocolate maker. (Specifically: Snake & Butterfly,
> Campbell,
> CA). There is absolutely no sane way to tag this in OSM today.
>
> 4. The wiki is a terrible platform for documenting the ontology because
> it's
> not machine readable and it's just a slow way to get information.
>
> I don't just mean to moan, though. What I'd like to do is propose a
> machine-
> readable ontology that we could provide to JOSM, Vespucci, etc, that would
> allow newbies to edit the map. I imagine a dictionary and associated tags.
> A
> user could type in "bagel" and all the reasonable properties show up, along
> with a description of what they're entering:
>
> (A shop that sells primarily bagels, baked goods and breakfast
> foods)
> (not what you're looking for? try  or )
> name: [ textbox ]
> opening hours: (a *UI* to enter times of week)
> vegetarian ( ) friendly ( ) unfriendly ( ) exclusively
> house number: [ textbox]
> etc
>
> And by filling these properties in, the software would automatically
> convert it
> to the OSM ontology. All the client software would need to do is be able to
> parse our ontology file to provide all of this. And provide a sane UI, at
> last,
> for entering opening_hours.
>
> Charles
>
> ___
> 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

[Talk-us] Why we really don't get new users

[osm]

I'm going to just point out the elephant in the room here. I don't think any 
normal user cares about the license at all. I think the actual reason its hard 
to get new mappers, especially those that are not nerdy and obsessive like 
myself is that *the ontology sucks*. There, I said it, so you don't have to.

It's actually a few things related to how the ontology sucks:

1. The tagging of things bears little resemblance to things in the real world:
a. A lot of common things just don't have standard tags: examples: tax 
preparers like H&R Block, investment brokers like Charles Schwab, medical 
marijuana despensers here in California, recreational MJ shops in Colorado. I 
could go on. 
b. the whole shop/amenity debate
c. common things that have really stupid tags, like barber shops

2. To be a useful mapper, one needs to memorize these arbitrary tags. It 
wouldn't be so hard if it weren't arbitrary (a salon is a shop? and it's 
called a hairdresser‽). But even if it weren't arbitrary, it'd still be hard 
to remember because things have synonyms, and no shop is called a chemist in 
the US.

Corrolary: A bagel shop is a bagel shop, no muggle cares that a bagel shop is  
fast_food amenity that sells the bagel cuisine.

3. I went to a shop recently that sells espresso drinks, and gelato, but 
markets itself as a chocolate maker. (Specifically: Snake & Butterfly, 
Campbell, 
CA). There is absolutely no sane way to tag this in OSM today.

4. The wiki is a terrible platform for documenting the ontology because it's 
not machine readable and it's just a slow way to get information.

I don't just mean to moan, though. What I'd like to do is propose a machine-
readable ontology that we could provide to JOSM, Vespucci, etc, that would 
allow newbies to edit the map. I imagine a dictionary and associated tags. A 
user could type in "bagel" and all the reasonable properties show up, along 
with a description of what they're entering:

(A shop that sells primarily bagels, baked goods and breakfast foods)
(not what you're looking for? try  or )
name: [ textbox ]
opening hours: (a *UI* to enter times of week)
vegetarian ( ) friendly ( ) unfriendly ( ) exclusively
house number: [ textbox]
etc

And by filling these properties in, the software would automatically convert it 
to the OSM ontology. All the client software would need to do is be able to 
parse our ontology file to provide all of this. And provide a sane UI, at last, 
for entering opening_hours.

Charles

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

[Talk-us] Why you should attend a hack weekend

[Serge Wroclawski]

Folks,

This is a very large project, with over a million user accounts, and
tens of thousand of active mappers around the world, but we have a
relatively small developer community for such a large project.

If you've worked on some OSM related code, or are interested in
contributing code to OpenStreetMap, you should attend an OSM Hack
weekend. These events are unique in that they bring together other
developers in the same room. They provide an amazing energy and
opportunity that you just don't get online.

Last week, I was at the OSM Hack Weekend in London, and I learned
about several new projects, including one to help Humanitarian
Mapping, one to help with bicycle routing, one to help with data
conflation in Potlatch, and an amazing OSM router developed in C# used
 to help delivery people find the most efficient route to deliver
packages (ie to solve the traveling salesman problem).

In just one month, there will be another OSM Hack weekend in Toronto:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Toronto_Hack_Weekend_March_2013

I realize not everyone from the US can take the time/spend the money
to go to London, but Toronto is practically right at our doorstep, and
I'd like to encourage folks to attend.

- Serge

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

Re: [Talk-us] Why are you missing out on this fun?

[Bill R. WASHBURN]

The OSM Georgia meetup group is today, Feb 5, from noon to 3 PM at Raging
Burrito in Decatur, Georgia, USA.

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=143384779054605

Bill R. WASHBURN


On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 04:02, Bill R. WASHBURN wrote:

> OK, I'll bite.
>
> Anyone in the Atlanta area willing to meet up (or north of the fall line in
> Georgia who can come in to the MARTA service area), please send me a message
> and we'll see if we can work out the timing off-list. I know there are a
> bunch of mappers in the Decatur area so I'll propose that we meet up near
> Decatur, Emory, or some place downtown.
>
> Bill R. WASHBURN
> aka, dygituljunky
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 02:09, Richard Weait  wrote:
>
>> Why aren't you getting more fun out of OpenStreetMap?
>>
>> Because you don't know the right people.
>>
>> That's right.  You'll enjoy OSM even more than you do now, once you
>> meet some additional local mappers.  But to do that you have to
>> actually meet them.  Yes, email is nice, IRC is fine, but you have to
>> meet them in person.  And you won't know how much more fun that is
>> until you do it.
>>
>> Do you have an OSM group that meets in your town?  You should.  There
>> are regular OSM meetings in every town in Germany with more than two
>> traffic signals.[1]  But there are only three OpenStreetMap groups
>> that meet regularly in the US.  That means that there are only six
>> traffic lights in the USA![2]  That is wrong!
>>
>> You need to start a local OSM group in your town.  Other mappers are
>> waiting for you to pluck up your nerve, pick a location and a date,
>> AND DO IT!  Book it.  Add your local group to the OSM calendar[3],
>> announce it on talk-us@ and IRC.  Invite the local cycling group, Open
>> Data group and Linux user group.  They are all waiting to hear from
>> you.  That's all the planning you have to do.  The toughest part is
>> just setting the first date and that doesn't sound hard at all.  Now
>> do it.
>>
>> You'll meet the right people. And have more fun.
>>
>> [1] 17% of statistics in this email are fabricated
>> [2] Some of the logic is stretched too
>> [3] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Current_events
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Why are you missing out on this fun?

[Sarah Manley]

Reminder: The Bay Area OSM meetup group is still alive and has monthly
events: http://www.meetup.com/Bay-Area-OpenStreetMappers/

Most of them are run in the South Bay/Peninsula and organized by Shawn
Britton. If you want to host events via meetup, just get in touch with me
and I can make you can admin on the group (there are about 150 people in the
group currently). It would be great to see more events in SF, the east bay
and Marin. (I don't have much time to organize anymore).

Cheers,
Sarah


Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 02:09:52 -0500
> From: Richard Weait 
> To: "talk-us@openstreetmap.org Openstreetmap"
>        
> Subject: [Talk-us] Why are you missing out on this fun?
> Message-ID:
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Why aren't you getting more fun out of OpenStreetMap?
>
> Because you don't know the right people.
>
> That's right.  You'll enjoy OSM even more than you do now, once you
> meet some additional local mappers.  But to do that you have to
> actually meet them.  Yes, email is nice, IRC is fine, but you have to
> meet them in person.  And you won't know how much more fun that is
> until you do it.
>
> Do you have an OSM group that meets in your town?  You should.  There
> are regular OSM meetings in every town in Germany with more than two
> traffic signals.[1]  But there are only three OpenStreetMap groups
> that meet regularly in the US.  That means that there are only six
> traffic lights in the USA![2]  That is wrong!
>
> You need to start a local OSM group in your town.  Other mappers are
> waiting for you to pluck up your nerve, pick a location and a date,
> AND DO IT!  Book it.  Add your local group to the OSM calendar[3],
> announce it on talk-us@ and IRC.  Invite the local cycling group, Open
> Data group and Linux user group.  They are all waiting to hear from
> you.  That's all the planning you have to do.  The toughest part is
> just setting the first date and that doesn't sound hard at all.  Now
> do it.
>
> You'll meet the right people. And have more fun.
>
> [1] 17% of statistics in this email are fabricated
> [2] Some of the logic is stretched too
> [3] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Current_events
>
>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] why are you missing out on the this fun?

[Coast, Hurricane]

Hi Richard!

You are so right about having fun with mapping and getting social!

Along with posting events to the OSM calendar, talk lists, and IRC,
I also use meetup.com to help outreach to new mappers. [1]
It's free and you can capture people already interested in open source,
GIS, mapping, spatial fun, hiking, biking, etc.
This link here: http://www.meetup.com/everywhere/openstreetmap
will help anyone set up a meetup anywhere in the world.
So in a way, this method helps with the "just pick a date and place and do
it!" that you mention.


I've also seen other local groups use google groups.

Also, the folks at MapQuest have open forums to help people create mapping
parties, questions with Potlatch2 and many other subjects. Check it out:
http://developer.mapquest.com/web/products/open/forums

Go out and have fun! :)

Hurricane 
[1] I also like using twitter to spread the word with hash tags and links
to events





On 1/28/11 4:00 AM, "talk-us-requ...@openstreetmap.org"
 wrote:

>Message: 2
>Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 02:09:52 -0500
>From: Richard Weait 
>To: "talk-us@openstreetmap.org Openstreetmap"
>
>Subject: [Talk-us] Why are you missing out on this fun?
>Message-ID:
>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>Why aren't you getting more fun out of OpenStreetMap?
>
>Because you don't know the right people.
>
>That's right.  You'll enjoy OSM even more than you do now, once you
>meet some additional local mappers.  But to do that you have to
>actually meet them.  Yes, email is nice, IRC is fine, but you have to
>meet them in person.  And you won't know how much more fun that is
>until you do it.
>
>Do you have an OSM group that meets in your town?  You should.  There
>are regular OSM meetings in every town in Germany with more than two
>traffic signals.[1]  But there are only three OpenStreetMap groups
>that meet regularly in the US.  That means that there are only six
>traffic lights in the USA![2]  That is wrong!
>
>You need to start a local OSM group in your town.  Other mappers are
>waiting for you to pluck up your nerve, pick a location and a date,
>AND DO IT!  Book it.  Add your local group to the OSM calendar[3],
>announce it on talk-us@ and IRC.  Invite the local cycling group, Open
>Data group and Linux user group.  They are all waiting to hear from
>you.  That's all the planning you have to do.  The toughest part is
>just setting the first date and that doesn't sound hard at all.  Now
>do it.
>
>You'll meet the right people. And have more fun.
>
>[1] 17% of statistics in this email are fabricated
>[2] Some of the logic is stretched too
>[3] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Current_events
>
>


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

Re: [Talk-us] Why are you missing out on this fun?

[Leroy E Leonard]

The Metro Atlanta Geospatial Social group is a terrific crowd that hits a
different bar usually on the 3rd Thursday of the month. Unfortunately, for
new folks joining us, that means you missed a fun but noisy evening at Fado
just last night. The group is a good mix coming from local governments, GIS
firms and local universities. That makes for a good balance of grad
students, technical and marketing & sales folk so the conversation is
intelligent and lively. There is a lot of overlap with OSM -- I would guess
a quarter of the group has been involved with OSM mapping at one time of
another.

Lisa Jackson, Jack Kittle and I have organized mappy hours for local OSMers
over the last year but haven't been pulling them off regularly. New blood is
always welcome. If someone would act as a coordinator, there is the
enthusiasm and the numbers locally to support monthly get-togethers.


Lee Leonard
leeoncand...@gmail.com


On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 8:18 AM, Richard Weait  wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 4:02 AM, Bill R. WASHBURN
>  wrote:
> > OK, I'll bite.
> >
> > Anyone in the Atlanta area willing to meet up (or north of the fall line
> in
> > Georgia who can come in to the MARTA service area), please send me a
> message
> > and we'll see if we can work out the timing off-list. I know there are a
> > bunch of mappers in the Decatur area so I'll propose that we meet up near
> > Decatur, Emory, or some place downtown.
> >
> > Bill R. WASHBURN
> > aka, dygituljunky
>
> Dear Bill,
>
> Excellent.
>
> Meetup.com shows three people in Georgia (2 in Metro Atlanta) on a
> waiting list for an OSM meetup.  There is also a new "geospatial"
> group that looks like it could  use your help starting up.
>
> http://www.meetup.com/geospatial/
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Why are you missing out on this fun?

[Richard Weait]

On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 4:02 AM, Bill R. WASHBURN
 wrote:
> OK, I'll bite.
>
> Anyone in the Atlanta area willing to meet up (or north of the fall line in
> Georgia who can come in to the MARTA service area), please send me a message
> and we'll see if we can work out the timing off-list. I know there are a
> bunch of mappers in the Decatur area so I'll propose that we meet up near
> Decatur, Emory, or some place downtown.
>
> Bill R. WASHBURN
> aka, dygituljunky

Dear Bill,

Excellent.

Meetup.com shows three people in Georgia (2 in Metro Atlanta) on a
waiting list for an OSM meetup.  There is also a new "geospatial"
group that looks like it could  use your help starting up.

http://www.meetup.com/geospatial/

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

Re: [Talk-us] Why are you missing out on this fun?

[Bill R. WASHBURN]

OK, I'll bite.

Anyone in the Atlanta area willing to meet up (or north of the fall line in
Georgia who can come in to the MARTA service area), please send me a message
and we'll see if we can work out the timing off-list. I know there are a
bunch of mappers in the Decatur area so I'll propose that we meet up near
Decatur, Emory, or some place downtown.

Bill R. WASHBURN
aka, dygituljunky


On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 02:09, Richard Weait  wrote:

> Why aren't you getting more fun out of OpenStreetMap?
>
> Because you don't know the right people.
>
> That's right.  You'll enjoy OSM even more than you do now, once you
> meet some additional local mappers.  But to do that you have to
> actually meet them.  Yes, email is nice, IRC is fine, but you have to
> meet them in person.  And you won't know how much more fun that is
> until you do it.
>
> Do you have an OSM group that meets in your town?  You should.  There
> are regular OSM meetings in every town in Germany with more than two
> traffic signals.[1]  But there are only three OpenStreetMap groups
> that meet regularly in the US.  That means that there are only six
> traffic lights in the USA![2]  That is wrong!
>
> You need to start a local OSM group in your town.  Other mappers are
> waiting for you to pluck up your nerve, pick a location and a date,
> AND DO IT!  Book it.  Add your local group to the OSM calendar[3],
> announce it on talk-us@ and IRC.  Invite the local cycling group, Open
> Data group and Linux user group.  They are all waiting to hear from
> you.  That's all the planning you have to do.  The toughest part is
> just setting the first date and that doesn't sound hard at all.  Now
> do it.
>
> You'll meet the right people. And have more fun.
>
> [1] 17% of statistics in this email are fabricated
> [2] Some of the logic is stretched too
> [3] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Current_events
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Why are you missing out on this fun?

[Richard Weait]

Why aren't you getting more fun out of OpenStreetMap?

Because you don't know the right people.

That's right.  You'll enjoy OSM even more than you do now, once you
meet some additional local mappers.  But to do that you have to
actually meet them.  Yes, email is nice, IRC is fine, but you have to
meet them in person.  And you won't know how much more fun that is
until you do it.

Do you have an OSM group that meets in your town?  You should.  There
are regular OSM meetings in every town in Germany with more than two
traffic signals.[1]  But there are only three OpenStreetMap groups
that meet regularly in the US.  That means that there are only six
traffic lights in the USA![2]  That is wrong!

You need to start a local OSM group in your town.  Other mappers are
waiting for you to pluck up your nerve, pick a location and a date,
AND DO IT!  Book it.  Add your local group to the OSM calendar[3],
announce it on talk-us@ and IRC.  Invite the local cycling group, Open
Data group and Linux user group.  They are all waiting to hear from
you.  That's all the planning you have to do.  The toughest part is
just setting the first date and that doesn't sound hard at all.  Now
do it.

You'll meet the right people. And have more fun.

[1] 17% of statistics in this email are fabricated
[2] Some of the logic is stretched too
[3] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Current_events

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

Re: [Talk-us] Why addr:state rather than is_in:state?

[Nathan Edgars II]

On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Alan Mintz
 wrote:
> At 2010-12-31 14:22, Toby Murray wrote:
>>
>> ... Also, is there much value in
>> adding these tags on multi-state relations? For example:
>> addr:state=TN;KY;OH;IN on this relation:
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/444136
>
> [ US-27 ]
>
> Not IMO for US-* routes. No more than tagging everything other feature with
> the state in which it lies, that is. In that absurd case, is_in:state would
> be more appropriate, IMO.

It's part of the main US 27 relation:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/444137

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

Re: [Talk-us] Why addr:state rather than is_in:state?

[Alan Mintz]

At 2010-12-31 14:22, Toby Murray wrote:

... Also, is there much value in
adding these tags on multi-state relations? For example:
addr:state=TN;KY;OH;IN on this relation:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/444136


[ US-27 ]

Not IMO for US-* routes. No more than tagging everything other feature with 
the state in which it lies, that is. In that absurd case, is_in:state would 
be more appropriate, IMO.


--
Alan Mintz 


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

Re: [Talk-us] Why addr:state rather than is_in:state?

[Toby Murray]

On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 5:23 AM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> Having said that - this is what he had in mind when we invented addr:*,
> but of course if the wider community wants to use addr:* for different
> stuff then I guess we cannot keep them from it...


It looks like the addr:state tags were just added recently in a mass
edit by rickmastfan67:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/rickmastfan67/edits

So I wouldn't say this is a "wider community" thing at all. I would
tend to agree that is_in would be better. Also, is there much value in
adding these tags on multi-state relations? For example:
addr:state=TN;KY;OH;IN on this relation:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/444136

Toby

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

Re: [Talk-us] Why addr:state rather than is_in:state?

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

> Many route relations use addr:state to describe what state the route
> is in. Should a tag intended for addresses be used this way, or is
> is_in:state a better tag to use?

The addr:* family of tags was created exclusively with addressing in
mind. Only objects that have a postal address should carry addr:* tags.
Routes do not receive mail so addr:* is misplaced on them.

Having said that - this is what he had in mind when we invented addr:*,
but of course if the wider community wants to use addr:* for different
stuff then I guess we cannot keep them from it...

Bye
Frederik


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

[Talk-us] Why addr:state rather than is_in:state?

[Nathan Edgars II]

Many route relations use addr:state to describe what state the route
is in. Should a tag intended for addresses be used this way, or is
is_in:state a better tag to use?

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