AT
unusual, even if some wiki pages are explicit about it and others are less so
or not.
A subset of these are something we used to call "WikiProjects" but somehow that
moniker seems to have dissolved.
SteveA
> On Aug 21, 2020, at 6:38 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> I feel like now i
ined through a certain kind of use, because we
talked about it some more here. That's a good conversation we might have here.
Or on the tagging list.
Let's talk about it; we're here on talk and doing so and it's not crystal clear
and does seem to blend into access=destination.
SteveA
_
remains MY turn to ask YOU, pangoSE): What do YOU think?" (about my
longer-term approach and four-point post). Can we get YOUR feedback to THAT
reply?
Let's not talk "past" each other, let's talk "to" each other.
SteveA
California
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
ne, others in OSM) data.
Yea: let's get this ball rolling and a proper OSM attribution!
SteveA
California
> On Aug 19, 2020, at 2:44 PM, Clifford Snow wrote:
> Hey Mike,
> They definitely mention OSM, even call us a partner [1] but like you found
> their basemap is definitely OSM.
m for
> driveway access (which, IMO, is already implied by service=driveway)
Thank you Kevin: when you word it like that, I fully agree with you — this is
a very workable solution.
SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists
s some more discussion and
consensus and may vary by region to conform with law and/or custom. We'll get
there.
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
ediately realize benefits.
There: I think I've tilled the soil a bit, and if pangoSE or somebody wants to
plant seeds (again), I'd read #2 above and think much longer-term. OSM could
do this, but it's going to take more than a thread on Talk and a wad tossed
against a wall. And maybe a decade or two.
St
confusing, it seems to be more trouble than it is
worth and I feel it would chase away novice volunteers as "too complex." The
consensus, with the exception of the proposer, seems 100% in line with my
opinions. I do welcome more discussion, that's why we type here.
SteveA
> On
uot;No." I don't see the merit (again echoing Frederick). While
I'm only one person and one vote and perhaps a bit more vocal than most, I feel
it important to express the opinion of "very strongly against."
SteveA
___
talk maili
Please click on the "View History" link of the wiki page (upper right) to see
the contributors to this wiki (there are ten).
You can click on their username links to contact them.
SteveA
> On Aug 2, 2020, at 8:25 AM, 80hnhtv4agou--- via talk
> wrote:
> Did someone on th
Please click on the "View History" link of the wiki page (upper right) to see
the contributors to this wiki (there are ten).
You can click on their username links to contact them.
SteveA
> On Aug 2, 2020, at 8:25 AM, 80hnhtv4agou--- via talk
> wrote:
> Did someone on th
On Jul 26, 2020, at 12:12 PM, Skyler Hawthorne wrote:
> On July 26, 2020 14:56:39 stevea wrote:
>> I speculate (a bit, though I am a seasoned software quality assurance
>> analyst), but I lean heavily towards Skyler's specific environment of a
>> OnePlus mobile devic
r you were running with
this screen shot?
Thanks,
SteveA
> On Jul 26, 2020, at 11:46 AM, Mateusz Konieczny via talk
> wrote:
>
> Can you try viewing it in the desktop
> mode or on a laptop/other full sized screen?
>
> Maybe mobile version is broken.
>
>
> 26
. If, on the
other hand, you are certain that _individual_ tracks are clearly wrong, I'd say
go ahead and change those one-at-a-time, but a wholesale revert, no, that seems
like overkill.
SteveA
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https
assing. Ridiculous. Maps don't
make people choose to break the law, people do. I set him straight and we get
along fine.
SteveA
California
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
thank Taylor for his quick reply
to my request for state-issued county boundary data: I appreciate the pointer.
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
rstanding.
As the issue seems to be "at the highest zoom levels" (where I assume it wasn't
before), I defer to the authors of the renderer code to determine what the root
cause may be.
SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
If any Colorado or Rocky Mountain area mappers know where data may be acquired
to fix some missing segments in the boundary of Clear Creek County
(relation/442310), I ask that they either be pointed to or that those data
please be repaired.
SteveA
ow it was previously though
incorrectly tagged."
SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
as rendering support, or lack
thereof, for various values of protect_class), it is possible I lack full
clarity into either the present exception of or intended effects of these tags
and the Carto renderer. Here, I only offer my best explanation of present
tag
.
This is a difficult and contentious (less so, but still) topic in OSM in the
USA, so tag your best, map your best. OSM can keep kicking this can down the
road, but eventually will need to harmonize parks / public lands tagging with
better rendering.
SteveA
___
Let's all be careful growing these wonderful map data. They are wonderful,
often beautiful.
SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
(I
think!) and take responsibility for our actions. Sometimes, we are not aware
that our actions are like pulling a machine gun trigger or tipping over an
entire bucket of paint: relatively minor actions on our part but which have a
profound effect on the map's data.
Be aware, the map
se data
before you remove "no" tags. Individually during a review that might go pretty
quickly, but not all at once with an assumption that sounds a lot like a lark
or a wish. Be careful!
Cautious sometimes (including here), rather than bold (but bold on occasion),
SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
On Jul 7, 2020, at 4:37 PM, Bob Gambrel wrote:
> A very good answer stevea. I suspect the changes I have been making would be
> appropriate enough for removing tiger_reviewed=no.
>
> 1) almost always have driven the road as passenger taking notes in OSMAND+
> about pavement
odeArea to a (unique) county,
rather than a whole state-at-a-time. Good luck, have fun, share with your OSM
friends how this can be a fun activity in your local area and let's slay the
TIGER dragon!
SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
ey begin to go awry. I don't need
to say it, but Kevin is correct: let TIGER be a lesson to OSM about imports,
especially those done at very wide (national) scales in large geographic areas
like Canada or USA. They are challenging to do well, but shouldn't be
completely prohibited, but rathe
You never know!
Thank you for offering your "streaming JOSM" session, it's a great idea,
SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Chuck contacted me, Nathan and Clay are included in the emails, we'll see how
many of us might make it tomorrow.
Thank you for organizing the discussion, Michael.
SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https
relation and I'd be happy to be wrong on this
> point.
It's rich, deep and almost beyond my ken. I think I can understand it, I think
many who are reading this can, too. Speaking for myself, we're out on the
hairy edge of my understanding of MPs, super-rela
ght take some work on the part of
an intrepid OSM mapper to do this, as I'm not sure the way the USFS publishes
the geo data of the NFs these are quite delineated "by Ranger District," but it
could be done. And maybe it should be, I think it would be a nice thing to map.
Hey, it's a TAL
uters, one-to-many inners (inholdings) and both tags on the multipolygon
itself (protect_class=6, operator=USFS, protection_title=National Forest...)
AND tags on the individual inner members which are different (operator=BLM, for
example). I've understood this and tagged like this for many years (an
s blend ZIP codes and census boundaries, you'd muddy a lot of water by
using ZCTAs, especially as you use OSM data.
I, too, (like Clifford) wish you good luck and hope you have fruitful results
you might share with us here at the completion of your project.
SteveA
___
USFS may or might "have influence to someday manage."
If we ignore 3) as "not real, but rather aspirational or in the future rather
than the present, and certainly not on-the-ground" then an OSM multipolygon
consists of simply 1) plus 2).
Yes?
SteveA
"owned by USFS" (when the
government owns land, the People own the land; the government agency is
operator FOR the People) which I seem to confuse with 3). Am I doing that? Is
Bradley? Is Congress? Is it about ownership and operator status being
confused in my mind?
I'm not stupid,
at least how these
should best logically be expressed by OSM relations. The discussion is good, I
simply reiterate my "I still don't quite understand all of this very well" here
and now. Brian seems to agree with me and I don't think I'm alone. Let's keep
the momentum rolling until
nd owned by the People, and managed for us properly, under
law, BY our federal employees, the USFS."
I retreat to more of a "watching mode" to see if more discussion shakes out of
this. Again, it is fascinating.
SteveA
___
Ta
ould map it as protected. That doesn't
seem weird to me, although "half of Reno in a NF" does. Most importantly how
would we / who declares where is this "other" boundary? (not the Congressional
one, the one which says "the USFS actually owns and manages this") Very
confusing as stated; I think we can state this more clearly.
SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
On Jun 21, 2020, at 5:58 PM, Mike Thompson wrote:
> 1) Not all "inholdings" are completely surrounded by the National Forest,
> they are "bites" off the edge in some cases. I don't think one can have an
> inner ring and an outer ring which are at all coincident (they can't share an
> edge)
s a member tagged "inner." Voilà, double-duty and done.
SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
structures when we already achieve this with one data structure (and possibly
others, by that I mean "one multipolygon representing the forest, which might
have inner members," while noting that ADDITIONAL polygons can describe what
the i
olygon memberships need to be added to this relation." And that's
OK, but if / as we do so, let's make note of it (perhaps a FIXME tag in the
relation with value "Incomplete; needs more inner members to describe the full
gamut of all inholdings in this forest.")
SteveA
___
ageable. I am not an attorney.
It's OK to have similar conversations over and over again. We get a bit
smarter and sharper as we do, as long as we don't lose patience or civility. I
think we're fine in that department.
SteveA
___
Talk-us mail
Mike, I hadn't considered that, it distinctly deepens the discussion. Stroking
my chin and saying "hm" now.
SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
elations representing national forests." With "perfect,
rich structure?" Every single first draft? Let's talk in a week or month,
these might take some work and discussion and work and discussion to do them.
That's OK. Earth wasn't built in a day.
SteveA
offer "status reporting"
with color-coded tables.
I am bowled over that Nathan Proudfoot says "Researchers utilize OSM as we have
the most up to date railway map in the country of any data source...". Wow!
Go OSM,
SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
It is absolutely fascinating (to me, anyway) to watch this conversation!
I thanked Russ Nelson on wiki for his comments at New York/Railroads. (And we
still have a ways to go there).
SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https
is in both our tagging and in
our wiki, and again, quite extensively.
SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
tion / standardization can happen later. This
seems a workable approach, though I'd like to hear from others who might posit
that a "no, let's globalize such tagging immediately" approach is better.
SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
I am finding quite a few of these with
quite-poorly tagged boundaries. Surely, OSM can do better than this, but Tod
asks an excellent question: "with what tags, please?"
SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
My apologies (it was my error): the correct link to Chuck's post is
https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Talk:OpenRailwayMap/Tagging_in_North_America
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
My apologies: the correct link is:
https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Talk:OpenRailwayMap/Tagging_in_North_America
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
hime in to the
Talk page if this matters to you. Thanks!
SteveA
California
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
nversation. But what else would we call "the
remainder of land which is used for residential purposes which does not
strictly contain the footprint of a building (hut, apartment, tent, hogan, mud
daub dwelling)?" Something other than residential? It is residential!
SteveA
___
now map and perhaps might map with tags we
agree are more accurate (or not). The topics are rich and complex, indeed.
SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
two sides
and I'm not sure which is more important: convenience or accuracy. I lean
towards accuracy, that is simply me (and my nature). Others are welcome to
disagree, which means some discussion must continue. Honestly, I think the
discussion is productive, provided we remain civil, and w
treetMap is valueable because it
> provides local knowledge of what is really there.
The "land, as it is being used, residentially" (denoted in OSM as
landuse=residential) is really there, so I do.
SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
ot; vs. "potential landuse," (does
take place vs. can or might take place) where some say to "tag only what is
actual." Others see this approach as a removal of land rights, further
muddying what OSM means by landuse.
These issues truly are complicated,
sagreement about these topics to
anybody, now seems to be a good time and place to express it.
SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
On Jun 2, 2020, at 4:11 AM, Greg Troxel wrote:
> stevea writes:
>> ...we ask the wider community "what do you think?" and "What are best
>> practices here?"
>
> Agreed this is really hard.
I'm heartened to hear others share not necessarily on
It sounds like we are all on a "broad mind" of "channel what is known locally
about land-use, deeply." That is many different things around the world. Let
us keep a very open mind about how we characterize and categorize. These are
deep and diffi
Mateusz Konieczny writes:
> (quoting stevea)
"treed farmland" or "heavily wooded residential" prove slightly problematic to
OSM tagging.
Then, Mateusz Konieczny answers:
> Map tree-covered area (landuse=forest) and map farmland (landuse=farmland) or
> residentia
ne and build polygons to describe an area and tag them accurately, though
many combinations render differently.
This is being sent to both talk-us and the tagging list, where I think the
latter may be a better place, but this was noticed by a couple of Cal
Due to some discussion between Minh, Martin and I on the Talk page of United
States admin_level, we seemed to agree that restoring admin_level=6 to
Connecticut counties is reasonable. I did so, and made minor changes to the
wiki to outline why.
SteveA
mind talking about them again, though because
renderers change, laws change, better/newer tagging schemes sometimes emerge,
they almost MUST be talked about every so often. We're simply discussing. I
strive mightily to keep my mind open and not seem autocratic and having an
attitude o
t look like 5, in a certain way, in Connecticut, because of x, y and z.
But nobody is hearing that and nobody but user:Mashin is saying so. (At least
in wiki and talk-us. Slack? That's proprietary. I avoid secret-sauce
walkie-talkies in an open data project, but that's me. I do hear that people
use it to communicate, I wouldn't know what's on it).
SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Thank you, Kevin. And so it goes.
I'll be an observer for a while.
SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
government agree on
these things. Sometimes, not quite. That's OK, especially as we recognize
this, point it out and explain why. I think we do OK here. The distinctions
can be subtle, but they are explainable, so we do.
Wow, people still have patience to discuss this!
SteveA
quot; Mashin has (only begun, in my opinion) to make
it and it needs to be FURTHERED by addressing the "limited powers" aspects of
these RCOGs. That is a wholly unspoken conversation, and so, (to quote the
Soup Nazi): "no admin_level for you." Maybe in the future with (currently,
unmade) supporting arguments, but "not today."
If you've read this far, I deeply thank your patience with this topic.
SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
y=COG). Maybe that's OK, maybe
admin_level wasn't meant to be "beaten up" like that. I don't look forward to
participating in those discussions, that's for sure.
It's manageable, it takes some words and time to slog through. Let's keep that
trimmed well.
SteveA
> On May 7, 2020,
ple involved.
>
> Good luck,
> Clifford
I appreciate the Slack post, I appreciate your wish for good luck, I appreciate
you reminding us that patience can quickly wear thin regarding OSM admin_level
discussions. Indeed, they can frequently use good luck.
SteveA
___
." Please help this Discussion if you have this sort of knowledge / wisdom
to contribute.
Thank you,
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
want to tag "more correctly." (And
hasn't this been true for all of us, to some extent?!)
Thanks for reading,
SteveA
California
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
of the park is as good a place as any to enter this node,
along with a name=Park Name tag on that node.
SteveA
> On Apr 24, 2020, at 5:01 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 25/4/20 2:01 am, 80hnhtv4agou--- via talk wrote:
>> if in the ID editor there are po
re is also
information=guidepost, information=map and information=route_marker; please see
https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dinformation .
SteveA
California
> On Apr 24, 2020, at 9:01 AM, 80hnhtv4a...@bk.ru wrote:
>
> if in the ID editor there are points for picnic tables, what ab
; in OSM. This, too. An interesting register, this.
SteveA
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
emove my sense of belonging to this mapping community, so,
the growing chant from the masses should be clear: don't do that. Changing
the rules (licensing, recognition, rights...) in the middle of the journey is
the quickest way to discourage more of us to drop o
any others who endeavor to
bring these routes and this system to OSM and the world. AASHTO may approve
these, in which case OSM removes the state=proposed tag. It all works!
SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
ht
SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Sarah, thank you! You are really "on it!"
SteveA
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
lead you to places where you
might find what you're looking for.
Good luck, have fun mapping, be as gentle as you can be on OSM's servers,
SteveA
California
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
I just finished entering the last 15% - 20% of USBR 50 in California as a
"first draft" into OSM. Thanks for entering the first 80% or so, Bradley:
teamwork!
SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstr
n a crowdsourced map, especially),
SteveA
> On Apr 15, 2020, at 6:47 AM, Harald Kliems wrote:
>
> I'm happy to report that the proposed WI segment of USBR 30 is complete now.
> My route relation skills are a little rusty, and so it's possible that some
> of the forward/b
the Approved section. Just dotting my is
and crossing my ts.
And thank you both Harald (for asking around) and Bradley for terrific progress
on USBR 50 in California!
SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
ing to build Earth's largest
official cycling route network, check out our wiki, follow the links to the
turn-by-turn and map data and have fun!
SteveA
California
USBRS-in-OSM guy (among other hats I wear)
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@ope
/most/all
submissions, a link to those on Frederik's user-space page is as good a place
as any to submit these.
SteveA
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
ven't looked).
Guidelines (as to length) or templates (like a themed border-slide that has the
SotM 2020 logo, for example) are helpful things to add which promote
consistency, but these are not absolutely required.
Doing my best to help,
SteveA
California
> On Apr 5, 2020, at 12:
lly useful, especially as wiki can (and does) give a "live status update
report" when / as one might click on such a link to see a snapshot of the
current scope of the query and the work done so far on it.
"Rule #2" on OSM's wiki page:
Have fun!
SteveA
__
lly as the OT code promulgates through
mailers and layers of 'net traffic.
For example, here is the link for David's recent OT code:
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/S3A
It works.
SteveA
California
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
ht
ort that gets done
"formally."
> I've added status=import and tagged a few keys which are documented:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Key_descriptions_with_status_%22import%22
> Also see update of https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Approval_
to "fix" (modify) data
may likely be higher-cost than the benefit of what might be determinable
directly from the data (anyway, presently).
SteveA
> On Mar 18, 2020, at 10:52 PM, stevea wrote:
>
> Even the "let's not misunderstand" posts might even contain slight
rojects) aren't good
ideas, just that we MUST look at the whole iceberg rather than only its tip.
Usually, what appears to be is only the tip and the iceberg is bigger than one
might realize.
SteveA
> On Mar 18, 2020, at 10:37 PM, Roland Olbricht wrote:
> ..."stale": Tags that c
/tagging schemes that
might truly improve what you attempt to improve. Doing this is complex and
deserves complex treatment, not a gloss-over and quick action.
SteveA
> On Mar 17, 2020, at 4:38 PM, stevea wrote:
>
> I would like to stress once again how easily it is for intended
forgetting to mention... and we MIGHT be
able to better solve these issues. We can solve them, we have to be smart,
patient and knowledgable about our past, looking to the future and aware of how
things drift and evolve. That's tough, but doable.
Whew!
SteveA
> On Mar 17, 2020, at 4
and improve
what you can. Then, our map continues to grow better (in both data and data
quality). Yes, this is a version of "perfection is the enemy of the good."
I know I walk right up to a line here of "don't put junk into our map, or stuff
that'll get crufty over time" an
munity
expects and can participate in improving, the volume knob here can be turned
down as these discussions don't have to be quite so public).
SteveA
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
mprovement" is itself correctly a near-constant process.
Whether at the level of individual contributor or corporate behemoth, such
wider scrutiny in a project like OSM should be par for the course (expected,
"business as usual").
SteveA
California
reporting and I'm sure
widely appreciated (not only me).
SteveA
California
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
I believe I speak for many, most, or even all of us here (except Tomek) that
"this is a settled matter."
SteveA
> On Feb 25, 2020, at 12:44 PM, Tomek wrote:
>
> W dniu 20-02-25 o 19:57, Maarten Deen pisze:
>> You are forcing (or are trying to) me and a lot of othe
On Feb 25, 2020, at 11:43 AM, Mario Frasca wrote:
>
> On 25/02/2020 14:22, stevea wrote:
>> as an emerging (emerged?) consensus we seem to be leaving the names of
>> international objects in English
>
> I wish to express my disagreement.
>
> and I
201 - 300 of 963 matches
Mail list logo
