(I'll try that again, without the link syntax that got scrubbed).
Apologies for length, yet this is long and requires words.
> brad wrote:
> I like this
> (what Joseph Eisenberg wrote)
> better than calling a state park a national park. Tagging them state parks
> with the national park tag is
Apologies for length, yet this is long and requires words.brad wrote:I like this(what Joseph Eisenberg wrote)better than calling a state park a national park. Tagging them state parks with the national park tag is an abstract concept that will just result in confusion.Brad, I "like it," too
Thanks, Kevin. I believe it will be sorted in a month, but you never know.
Great to have a dedicated mapper like you so willing to help, I will mention it
if isn't sorted by then. Kerry Irons (ACA volunteer) believes the AASHTO
ballot process will be around "month's end" so that sketches a
I appreciate it! I'm now/soon scouring more aerial/satellite imagery before I
MIGHT (with trepidation) enter this. I do think it would be better if locals
who are more certain about this were to enter it. Though if MassDOT asserts a
USBR 7 re-route through here, "it must exist."
SteveA
Oops, USBR 7 (not 1) through the area.
SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Apologies if I've already answered these.
On Apr 24, 2019, at 4:34 PM, Greg Troxel wrote:
> I think Kevin has it right that we should tag primarily by something
> about land use, not by owne/operator, although it's fine to tag
> operator.
I 100% agree. Yet I peruse landuse key values (except
The linguist in me feels compelled to be a bit pedantic: terms like "plain
language" and "human language" used to distinguish between data/code/machine
kinds of "language," including what we mean by "tagging" or "codepoint" are, I
believe, well-expressed with the (linguistic community) phrase
At today's creation of https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Talk:Key:park:type , I
introduce a proposal to reduce usage of the park:type tag (initially, in the
USA) with the goal of better clarifying USA park tagging. There are a couple
of "low hanging fruit" tasks we might do as a pilot run, though past
I do think it important we hear about distinctions between British English (and
how it had a defining influence on much tagging in OSM), and American English,
which I often say distinctly affected the way Americans have used the
leisure=park tag. "Park" in American English is much more
How much consensus IS there for tagging national_park on "large, (important?)
state parks" which roughly (or not) meet the national_park definition in our
wiki?
We have two in New York, quite a few in California, some in other states. Do
we wish to keep these as they are? Do we rough out
Oops, I meant landuse=recreation_ground. (Not landuse=recreation_area). My
apologies.
SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
James Umbanhowar wrote:
> Just to throw another curveball in here, there is also
> leisure=nature_reserve which is frequently (occasionally?) used for the
> city/county parks that are less structured and used for hiking and
> nature appreciation.
Thanks, James. Reiterating, when I say "Existing
On Apr 28, 2019, at 9:27 AM, Josh Lee wrote:
> Where is the consensus or vote? The wiki page says "Status: de facto"
> which implies that the wiki page should document *actual usage* and
> not some sort of idealist, narrow viewpoint.
Perhaps this is where I throw up my hands in exasperation.
> Jmapb wrote:
> ...if I saw a playground on a map
> and then arrived there and found it was just an empty lot or an
> undeveloped bit of land, I would find fault with that map. So if these
> places (kids play here but it's unofficial) are to be mapped, I'd
> suggest different tagging.
I would
On 4/25/2019 8:39 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:
>
A hazy sort-of-emerging along with this is wider recognition that a proto_park
thingy exists.
And on Fri Apr 26 22:44:56 UTC 2019, Jmapb replied:
Sounds like a good case for some lifecycle prefixes -- proposed:leisure=p
Doug Peterson wrote (about "Parks in the
USA..."):
> It is just that there is so much variety to deal with.
I agree, it proves frustrating from an OSM perspective. I believe partly what
happened is OSM started in the UK, where British English is spoken and
"typically British" concepts
It may be emerging that tagging boundary=protected_area (where correct) where
leisure=park now exists and we delete it, begins to supersede leisure=park on
many North American now-called-parks. I think that's OK, maybe even overdue.
To be clear, there are plenty of "we now call them parks"
On Apr 24, 2019, at 2:05 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote:
(a LOT about parks! thanks, Kevin!)
> TL;DR
I tried to be brief, sorry if I wasn't.
> - Tag the land use, not the land ownership. A city, town,
> county, or state park may be virtually indistinguishable urban green
> spots, recreation grounds,
A brief update: I have blown the dust off of a relevant wiki,
https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_States_Public_Lands , started over
eight years ago and hardly touched since then. As originally written, this
addressed federal (admin_level=2) public lands only. Mainly, it still does,
I'll try to be brief, but there's a decade of history. The leisure=park wiki
recently improved to better state it means "an urban/municipal" park, while
boundary=national_park (or perhaps leisure=nature_reserve, maybe
boundary=protected_area) works on large, national (and state or provincial
John, that was an outstanding overview of and answer to today's quite workable process. I can only dream that this be written up in whatever now guides this effort in OSM (BC2020 wiki, whatever). Congratulations on developing what looks like it now does allow and will eventually better allow
Ah, good dialog ensues. Municipality by municipality, in conjunction with BOTH
the StatsCan and Bing data, the right things are getting noticed, the right
things are getting human-realized at what the next steps are to do. It gets
better.
Yay. Stitch it together. One municipality at a
FWIW, I believe these TIGER tags have exceedingly low value in OSM:
approaching or at zero. I say this because of a large/wide/far-reaching
consensus we have reached with "similar" values in the USA on
boundary=admin_level tags, where such entities were not only found to not be
admin_levels
An update. Seeing Mark's recent post about is_in reminded me that it has been
two weeks since I politely asked the Rails-To-Trails Conservancy to donate to
OSM the same trail data they donated to Google Maps. I did receive a reply
that my message was forwarded to their "TrailLink group that
I believe I can make that date and time! (I do use zoom.us with clients (though I don't / won't use Slack and other proprietary tools) ; THANK YOU for making a dial-in option available for those who tend towards Luddite / more open / old-fashioned comm methods). Of course, I'm assuming you'll
As I believe the etymology of the word "motel" (circa 1920s) is a contraction
of "motor hotel," I believe it is fair to say that a motel is a hotel which
caters to motorists. That is, patrons who arrive in an automobile and wish for
it to be immediately accessible, as in parked directly
While I'm not sure the email address from their website I used is exactly
correct, I did make this request to RTC (and cc'd Richard). I'll let people
know here if or how they reply.
Cheers,
SteveA
California
On Mar 6, 2019, at 4:00 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I see that
On Sat, Mar 2, 2019, 7:45 PM Tim Elrick, wrote:
> Just my two cents here.
There are plenty of others doing so, too (me included, though I'll happily
deduct a cent for being non-Canadian, so before you know it, you've got a whole
dollar. "Many hands make light work," though I agree that
John, these aren't my fish to fry; this endeavor belongs primarily to Canadian
OSM volunteers with optimistic attitudes who have the courage to envision a
finish line of mighty and pride-inspiring results into existence. Being
encouraging, my feeling is it IS possible to reach consensus across
On Mar 2, 2019, at 3:47 PM, John Whelan wrote:
> Two years ago a group of Toronto mappers submitted the City of Toronto Open
> Data license to the LWG to see if it was acceptable. I assume they meant to
> import things such as building outlines. I also assumed as I think others
> did that
for letting us know
here that the data are ODbL and therefore OSM-compatible. (One down, perhaps a
bit more to go).
SteveA
> On Mar 2, 2019, at 2:40 PM, john whelan wrote:
>
> Why are you planning to import it?
>
> Cheerio John
>
> On Sat, Mar 2, 2019, 5:26 P
A responsible complement to this would be a link to license information, a wiki
page about these data, and perhaps an Import Plan should those data actually be
asserted to be worthy of being responsibly imported into OSM.
SteveA
California
> On Mar 2, 2019, at 2:17 PM, john whelan wrote:
>
>
I'm OK with this as well. I especially wish to call to the attention to others
who may do mechanical wiki edits like this (by Mateusz' good example) that he
was careful to:
1) Explain the problem; it confuses mappers/map consumers and wiki
authors/readers,
2) Offer a polite proposal as well
It is an honor to participate in this good growth. May good
(province-at-a-time building) data enter OSM at the hands of skilled OSM
editors who have good instructions on "how" (the Import Plan can go that
distance, please finish it) as their skills of good editing OSM data push the
import
I dislike sounding simply "like a cheerleader," here however, I am deeply
encouraged by what I see as substantial progress. This sort of discussion
bodes very well for the future of the import. Keep up the good work!
SteveA
On Feb 3, 2019, at 3:26 PM, john whelan wrote:
> I'm hearing we
Pierre writes that he is "waiting for John's demonstration that the import data
for Ottawa represents the outline of the buildings and is quality data."
In reality, anybody (not necessarily John) can offer this sort of
characterization.
En réalité, n'importe qui (pas nécessairement John) peut
Mmm, careful with your language, John. The data "have a license which is
compatible with OSM's ODbL" (is an accurate way to say it). I believe that
took about eight years and was a difficult slog, a lot of hard work by many,
lessons learned from Ottawa, a determination by OSM's LWG, but it is
On Feb 1, 2019, at 1:13 PM, john whelan wrote:
> So how would you tackle it?
>
> Adding buildings with JOSM and the buildings_tool is possible, I think Julia
> tried to whip up some interest with the 2020 project. Unfortunately
> mapathons using iD and new mappers for some reason don't work
On Jan 31, 2019, at 5:47 PM, john whelan wrote:
>
> I note that both Google and Bing have most buildings these days
That's a strong assertion, any cite you might make? Or are you simply
guessing? Also, so what? And, "most?"
> and it has almost become a map user expectation.
Do you have
this is moderately better, which is "moderately better."
SteveA
> From: Minh Nguyen
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] The San Jose / Santa Clara border
> Date: January 28, 2019 at 5:06:15 AM PST
> To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>
>
> On 2019-01-26 17:13, OSM Volunteer s
On Jan 26, 2019, at 4:00 AM, Andy Townsend wrote:
> A mapper has recently changed this to "cut the corner off" north of the 880
> between San Jose airport and Stevens Creek Mall / Westfield Valley Fair. You
> can see the change at
>
On Jan 26, 2019, at 12:37 PM, john whelan wrote:
A history of building data released by Stats Can and how these were entered
into OSM via an Ottawa pilot project, with some success and some lessons
learned. Good for OSM!
> The other complicating factor here is a lot of people are very
On Jan 26, 2019, at 8:42 AM, Nate Wessel wrote:
Four absolutely OUTSTANDING aspects of this project which can (seemingly must)
be addressed before the Task Manager releases these (or improved/simplified)
data.
A salute to you, Nate, for these thoughtful words and their potential to very
I'm changing the Subject to delete "Stats Can" as this is an import into OSM,
not a Stats Can import. True, they published the data, so "thanks for the
data," but Stats Can isn't a part of this conversation, they merely published
the data. I say it like this to emphasize that OSM is quite
Thanks to some good old-fashioned OSM collaboration, both the
https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Canada_Building_Import and
https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/WikiProject_Canada/Building_Canada_2020#NEWS.2C_January_2019
have been updated. (The latter points to the former).
In short, it says there are now
On Jan 24, 2019, at 11:03 AM, Danny McDonald wrote:
> A place does not need to incorporated to be a place=town, city, village.
> That is not how it works anywhere in OSM - there are many unincorporated
> places with these tags, worldwide. The tagging in Ottawa is a good guide,
> with e.g.
On Jan 24, 2019, at 7:50 AM, Danny McDonald wrote:
> My understanding of place tagging is that place=city, place=town, and
> place=village are for distinct urban settlements, whether or not they are
> separate municipalities.
Correct, in that these tags can be placed upon a node, way or
t;don't do this in talk-ca" I am saying "there are often
more-appropriate (vs. less-appropriate) places to have a discussion to achieve
consensus." Sometimes, it makes sense to have an off-list email conversation
in a one-on-one or one-on-many fashion. Thanks.
SteveA
California
> On
with memory options
> (Xms, Xmx), or it will crap out at 3.5GB
>
> On Sat., Jan. 19, 2019, 5:13 p.m. OSM Volunteer stevea
> On Jan 19, 2019, at 2:01 PM, James wrote:
> > Is there no one that will analyse the data I've posted here?
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d
On Jan 19, 2019, at 2:01 PM, James wrote:
> Is there no one that will analyse the data I've posted here?
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OK83yrPwMW4nefyu-6JsIInu0meK2rW6/view?usp=sharing
> or are we just email thread warriors?
Well, slow down there, cowboy, it is gigabytes of data and I've
On Jan 19, 2019, at 1:22 PM, john whelan wrote:
> As a point of information the 2020 web page I think was started by Julia and
> very heavily edited by Stevea.
Sure I did, because it seriously lacked in the technical direction anybody
would need to "map going forward" in the project/initiative
On Jan 19, 2019, at 10:48 AM, john whelan wrote:
> There was an earlier discussion on talk-ca about how to handle this project.
There were MANY. Speaking for myself only, I urged a very cautious, go-slow
approach, to edit the data into "improvement / harmony-with-OSM" as much as
possible
On Jan 17, 2019, at 6:27 PM, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> When no one is responding, sometimes it is because they are fine with
> the message as-is. I read it. I was fine with it. This isn't an
> Australian election.
I'm not sure about the allusion to Australian elections, so I'll let that pass
The thread link is:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/2019-January/005878.html
SteveA
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
This is redirected (by request of its author) from a thread on the (talk-)
imports mailing list at .
On Jan 17, 2019, at 4:55 PM, John Whelan wrote:
> The import was discussed on talk-ca and in my opinion there was a consensus
> of opinion it should go ahead. The data comes from the
On January 6, 2019 at 7:50:44 AM PST, brad wrote:
>
> Joseph, I'm not stuck on class 27, but as you say, that fits the definition
> on the wiki. I should probably look for other specific protection in the
> attributes and translate that somehow. Mostly it's just grazing and
> recreation
On Dec 21, 2018, at 4:17 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea
wrote:
> (Hawai'i, our national page says light_rail is "westerly portion is under
> construction." Updates?)
OK, I updated our Hawaii wiki so it has a Railroads section and table. A
dedicated Hawaii/Railroads wiki seemed a
In 2013 OpenRailwayMap was released. After 2014 talk-us posts about "Rail
Westerly" I spoke at SOTM-US Seattle in 2016 about Rail USA during a theme of
building community.
Let's call Rail USA today (a decade after our mid-2000s rail import) a version
0.4. This includes:
* a certain amount
Eric Ladner wrote
> That may be more of a note to motorists that "hey.. this freeway is coming to
> an end" rather than an absolute marker of "this freeway ends here at this
> sign". San Diego's own GIS system has it marked as I-8 all the way up to
> where it splits into motorway links at
I've seen 25or6to4's work, I am impressed. Furthermore, I've asked him
(off-list) if he would be willing to share his work more widely (here on
talk-us), as it may "spark" a wider launch into the sort of clean-up of
tiger:LSAD=57 data I've been waiting to see happen. (Their
Carl Anderson is correct: what is in the map from TIGER about LSAD is true and
affords the possibly to derive geo data about incorporated entities (in some
cases, where they haven't been deleted), although the data (being somewhere
between 11 and 13 years old) may not be accurate, given
A lot of people have (quickly) chimed in about this; political boundaries,
admin_level and cities extending into counties usually gets to be a "hot" topic
as people have a lot to say or strong opinions on these.
I and others recognized this years ago and what has emerged in OSM are two
wikis,
Reminding everybody that whatever Frederik decides to do about California, it
isn't "authoritative," simply helpful to keep OSM data manageable. Sure,
keeping "a solution" logical, simple, "politically correct" and achieving some
consensus (as we have) are all helpful towards that goal, but
Simon Poole wrote:
> I think the question is less where N vs S California is but more if
> there is a regional split of California that would make sense from a
> processing pov. Is for example somebody likely to do something with a
> North-CA extract, or if you would want to do something on a
Between "out meta;" and "out meta qt;" there should be a >; but sometimes this
gets mangled.
Entre "out meta;" et "out meta qt;" il devrait y avoir un >; mais parfois cela
est mutilé.
So, I'm choosing to share an "OT share link:"
Donc, je choisis de partager un "lien de partage OT:"
On Nov 6, 2018, at 8:08 AM, Pierre Béland wrote:
> Petit test rapide avec Overpass. J'observe que les clés suivantes sont
> utilisées
> highway=service
> service=emergency_access
> access=no
> exemple https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/19692719
>
> La Requête Overpass ci-dessous avec paramètre
Bradley White wrote:
> I would suggest splitting into North & South along the northern edge
> of the SLO/Kern/San Bernardino county lines as the first step; this
> will at least split the LA and SF Bay areas into separate files, both
> of which I assume account for a significant portion of CA's
On Nov 6, 2018,at 12:38:05 AM PST, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> ...on the Geofabrik download server, we usually split up countries into
> sub-regions once their single .osm.pbf has gone over a certain size. The
> aim is to make it easy for people to work with data just for their
> region, even on
On Nov 5, 2018, at 7:29 AM, keith hartley wrote:
> I saw it was a great job. But you're correct, I have no documentation on how
> they did it. Licence process, wiki ( I feel Steve already yelling at his
> computer)
If you mean me, I'm saddened to hear that others think I "yell." Rather, my
On Nov 2, 2018, at 3:58 PM, John Whelan wrote:
> So to paraphrase your reply. A centralised import plan in the wiki which
> says the data is approved for import and should be tackled in chunks of some
> sort of region since we are a decentralized organization. Which I think is
> similar to
On Nov 2, 2018, at 3:35 PM, Pierre Béland wrote:
> La rédaction d' une page wiki pour l'ensemble du Canada peut répondre aux
> exigences du groupe Import de OSM. Mais l'organisation doit être
> décentralisée.
Je conviens qu'il est plus facile de rédiger un "plan d'importation" unique
pour
On Nov 2, 2018, at 9:31 AM, John Whelan wrote:
> My feeling is OpenStreetMap has two sides. The first is local adding local
> knowledge to the map. The other I'll call armchair mapping. When Stats
> Canada did the pilot it tapped the local Ottawa mappers who meet physically.
Speaking from
On Nov 1, 2018, at 12:47 PM, Дмитрий Киселев wrote:
> Looks like the wiki needs amending to only list open data with the correct
> license either separately or a note added to each entry.
Mmmm, not "only," an Import Plan is required, too. That can be part of a wiki
that describes the project
Additionally, the greater OSM community looks forward to your Import Plan that
follows our Import Guidelines (
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines ).
Regards,
SteveA
California
> On Nov 1, 2018, at 11:22 AM, John Whelan wrote:
>
> I think on the OSM side we probably need to
Being as gentle (though not local) as I can be, I continue to assert that our
wiki for BC2020 in general and
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Canada/Building_Canada_2020#The_data_that_could_be_mapped
as a specific section IN that wiki (calling attention to these tags, with
"triple-check" of these
data, or even a comprehensive effort at statewide TIGER Review with state- and
county-level road naming/numbering authorities. Thank you in advance!
SteveA
California
> On Oct 27, 2018, at 2:30 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea
> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Greg,
Thanks, Greg, I'm now "double-check reviewing" USBR 23 in Kentucky. Thanks for
your reciprocity on 21 (when/as you get your 'net back, of course).
SteveA
California
> On Oct 27, 2018, at 11:38 AM, Greg Morgan wrote:
>
> I will be happy to review your implementation of the route. A second
Sorry, I should use the abbreviation of KYTC as Kerry does, not KDOT.
SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
"Having little confidence that KDOT got it right, either" is exactly why I
didn't change the names: let the locals (cities, counties, local
residents/citizens) hash this out as well as KDOT, if KDOT wants to get
involved. For whatever reason, I've only seen these serious differences of
this
f course; email one or both of us if you are interested in
helping.
SteveA
California
> On Oct 26, 2018, at 10:51 AM, OSM Volunteer stevea
> wrote:
>
> Wow, Greg, you are quick. Thank you!
>
> Additionally, (a major reason I'm including Kerry in this missive), I removed
> from O
I am told that "E datīs multum" would be more accurate Latin ("Out of data,
much.")
OSM might need a motto as much as we need a state flower, I'm simply having a
bit of fun tossing this into the greater world.
I do think it is important for OSM to keep important in our minds and hearts
that
AASHTO has completed it's "Autumn 2018 round" of national route numbering
approvals (almost) and there are new USBRs for OSM to map.
One is already completed (thank you, user:micahcochran!): USBR 15 was extended
from Georgia into Florida to connect to Florida's existing USBR 90.
In Kentucky,
I attempted to contact at least some of the authors of "bicycle routes" in the
Fort Worth area (and waited the requisite two weeks), alas, to no avail.
So I'll say this here: when tagging for bicycles in OSM, there are two
"levels" at which this is appropriate: 1) is infrastructure tagging,
Heck, all kinds of things are fun to map: bike routes, railways, making sure
provincial and TransCanada route relations are all lined up and tagged
correctly, bus and public_transport, small details (micro-mapping), like
gymnasium/library details and drinking fountain locations in
Well, I'm no longer seeing the Lua errors I saw, so "caches cleared" (all the
way down) and the problem seems to be "fixed" now.
Steve
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
What's up with OpenStreetMap's wiki? I've noticed in the last couple of days
that "more complex" wiki pages often generate Lua errors where they never have
before (and nothing has changed in the content), in particular
Lua internal error: the interpreter has terminated with signal "24"
Try,
No hijack seen as actual or intended: great idea, Martijn!
Trains, transit, our map: these really do keep getting better and better.
SteveA
> On Sep 18, 2018, at 12:01 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
>
> To branch out a little bit — sorry to hijack the thread Steve — it would be
> nice to do
In https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_States_railways#Train_Routes
there are over 30 USA-based passenger rail routes (e.g. FrontRunner in Utah,
MVTA in Minnesota, BrightLine as part of Florida East Coast Railway..) which
suffer from very little (wiki) documentation as to how they fit
Thank you for those clarifications, John. I speak for myself, but I do feel
confident that others are learning from what you say and that OSM and all
involved can and shall do better. Honestly, I look forward to "better
processes" which "make more open data available to OSM" (a worthy goal,
I (rather fully, and without Alessandro's accusatory "troll-like behaviours,"
wow) addressed Alessandro in an off-list email reply, though I quickly received
an "out of the office until September 21" bounce-back. We shall see.
One thing I must say here I found unfortunate in Alessandro's post
Matthew, I personally thank you for sharing Alessandro's missive with talk-ca (an OSM-based list).However, Alessandro mentions "BC2020i" (and even "BC2020i-2"), initiatives which "used" (or proposed to "use") OSM as a data repository. Not wishing to rehash history about this yet again, the
Jay Johnson wrote:
> The authoritative source for railroad GIS data is usually considered to be
> BTS: https://www.bts.gov
Thank you, Jay! That's a very rich website, I'm now fumbling my way through it
and I think I can find the "platform/stop" locations I'm looking for, but it
may take
On Sep 2, 2018, at 9:52 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea
wrote:
>
> I "found something rectangular" and sketched in
> http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Colorado/Railroads which we might agree (as a
> useful, communicative wiki) is "alpha-1" or so.
Following up to my own post
On Sep 12, 2018, at 11:06 AM, john whelan wrote:
> One of the requirements was to create something that did not require an
> Internet connection
OK, yet I had no way of knowing that from your post. Though, that is an
"interesting" requirement for a crowdsourced, Internet-based map database.
Whew, seems like overkill. Try "overpass turbo" (OT) for such queries. Here
is a sample, and the query language (OverPass QL) is text-based and
OSM-friendly, as it uses the tags you're searching for:
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/BQ6
When it dialogs that the query will return a lot of data,
On Sep 6, 2018, at 4:30 PM, john whelan wrote:
> The pilot project itself did manage to get a fair amount of accurate data
> into OSM. That data is still there and can be used. It was instrumental in
> supporting the HOT summit in Ottawa. It managed to raise awareness within
> local
On Sep 6, 2018, at 1:14 PM, john whelan wrote (replying
to me, stevea):
> > Hm, we tried to revive the wiki, a tried-and-true OSM methodology for doing
> > EXACTLY that. Is there something wrong with that idea?
>
> No this project was initiated by Stats Canada, but without clear requirements
> Personally I think if the BC2020i is to be revived mappers really need some
> feedback on what has been done and what tags are of interest.
Hm, we tried to revive the wiki, a tried-and-true OSM methodology for doing
EXACTLY that. Is there something wrong with that idea?
I've been trying to
I "found something rectangular" and sketched in
http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Colorado/Railroads which we might agree (as a useful,
communicative wiki) is "alpha-1" or so.
Denver's FasTracks Lines grow, let's sync OSM and this wiki with another
up-to-date light_rail table. This strategy works:
So many conversations at once; this list-digest medium proves limiting at
times, even often.
Helpful old-fashioned aids here might be sketch boards where small-group (two,
three people?) sub-projects can spin out and a main thread group where someone
explains what s/he sees going on and how we
1 - 100 of 300 matches
Mail list logo
