Ever been lost someplace where that's the only obvious set of fixed
landmarks?
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 9:16 PM john whelan wrote:
> Perhaps you could expand on the benefits of mapping them?
>
> Thanks John
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2023, 10:09 PM stevea, wrote:
>
>> I'd like to say "oh, please..."
On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 6:38 AM Alexey Z via Talk-transit <
talk-transit@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> Let me raise a question/appeal about stop_area relation. PTv2 is very
> disputable and imperfect, so I tried to touch a narrow and practical aspect
> to solve a specific problem. I
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 1:51 PM ipswichmapper--- via talk <
talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> You are right. If updating to mailman 3 will take monrhs of work it is
> probably not worth trying to make any changes right now.
>
Recurring OpenStreetMap theme: If fixing something takes absolutely
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 5:03 AM Rory McCann wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2020, at 10:04 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> > Rory, I am absolutely sure there was no bad intent in the choice of
> > format and platform, but given where this discussion went so fast, I
> > believe the setting should be
On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 11:07 AM Matthew Woehlke
wrote:
> On 28/09/2020 11.42, Jack Burke wrote:
> > I'm willing to bet that most OSM editors who drive on either of those two
> > will think "this is a great freeway, just with occasional traffic
> signals."
>
> That's an oxymoron. Freeways are,
On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 10:42 AM Jack Burke wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, September 28, 2020, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 8:35 PM Jack Burke wrote:
>>
>>> Recently, someone has taken it on himself to downgrade most (all?)
>>> highw
On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 8:35 PM Jack Burke wrote:
> Recently, someone has taken it on himself to downgrade most (all?)
> highway=trunk roads in the eastern U.S. to just primary. The odd
> thing is that the very wiki page he cites as his reason fully supports
> keeping them as trunk. Many of
On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 11:49 AM Volker Schmidt wrote:
> (this comment is only regardinbg the "lanes" part of the thread)
>
> Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 09:30:15 -0500
>> From: Paul Johnson
>> To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list
>> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Wh
On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 8:32 AM Brian Stromberg
wrote:
> This contradicts the OSM wiki but seems like the only way to avoid
> confusion.
>
Much like sport=american_football vs sport=soccer, this makes sense. Maybe
it's time to retire place=suburb as a tag due to its ambiguity?
> The only
On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 3:55 AM Minh Nguyen
wrote:
> Vào lúc 10:45 2020-09-23, Paul Johnson đã viết:
> > Can we finally fix two other longstanding problems, then?
> >
> > 1. The wiki being incorrect about not counting bicycle lanes. That's
> > not reflective of how
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 6:22 PM Andy Townsend wrote:
> On 24/09/2020 00:00, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 5:56 PM Andy Townsend wrote:
>
>>
>> On 23/09/2020 23:01, Paul Johnson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 23, 202
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 5:56 PM Andy Townsend wrote:
>
> On 23/09/2020 23:01, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 4:37 PM stevea wrote:
>
>> Paul Johnson wrote:
>>
> > 2. Tagging route information on ways. It's about a decade too l
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 4:37 PM stevea wrote:
> Paul Johnson wrote:
> > Can we finally fix two other longstanding problems, then?
> >
> > 1. The wiki being incorrect about not counting bicycle lanes. That's
> not reflective of how validators deal with lanes, how data
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 11:34 AM stevea wrote:
> > Exactly. My rule of thumb is if you're thinking about putting a name on
> it, and it's not a shopping center, apartment complex or similar large but
> contiguous landuse, then landuse=* probably isn't what your polygon should
> be.
>
> At least
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 9:27 PM stevea wrote:
> On Sep 22, 2020, at 7:05 PM, Clifford Snow
> wrote:
> > For example, in Seattle I lived in the Wallingford Neighborhood. Seattle
> has defined boundaries for each of the neighborhoods. In other areas,
> neighborhoods are roughly defined by people
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 8:56 PM stevea wrote:
> If you MUST tag place=neighbourhood (note the u) see if you agree with me
> that this tag makes most sense in a hierarchy where place=suburb (and
> perhaps quarter, if applicable, is/are above) also exist(s). I'm not
> strictly saying I believe
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 8:36 PM Mike N wrote:
> On 9/22/2020 9:26 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > The extra hamlet nodes are import remainders that haven't yet
> been
> > converted to landuse areas. The general landuse zones for that area
> > have
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 8:20 PM Mike N wrote:
> On 9/22/2020 8:56 PM, Karson Sommer wrote:
> >
> > Looking around the area of the edit, there is a lot of stuff from my
> > perspective that seems fishy. There are a bunch of place=hamlet nodes? I
> > certainly don't see anything that should be
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 7:14 PM Mike N wrote:
> Thoughts on use of place=neighborhood for subdivisions?
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/91255294
>
>Note that there are many thousands already tagged this way (5000 plus
> in a section of the southeast alone).
I'd consider a
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 1:41 PM Rory McCann wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Sep 2020, at 8:21 PM, Clifford Snow wrote:
> > Can you confirm that we can leave the recordings on the server and are
> > able to link to the recordings for other sites, like the wiki?
>
> No, you can't rely on it like that. We only
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 9:50 AM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <
talk...@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> In ID, on your profile page is, Other nearby users, and the home location,
> map
>
> the point is other locals based on my (our) edits know where we (I) live,
> but come on
>
> don’t edit the
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 9:50 AM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <
talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> In ID, on your profile page is, Other nearby users, and the home location,
> map
>
> the point is other locals based on my (our) edits know where we (I) live,
> but come on
>
> don’t edit the
On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 8:36 PM Clay Smalley wrote:
> For those who aren't following, the DWG recently decided on a two-day ban
> for the person who posted this, for the exact behavior they're exhibiting
> right now: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/3850
>
> jdd 3, please take a break.
On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 8:36 PM Clay Smalley wrote:
> For those who aren't following, the DWG recently decided on a two-day ban
> for the person who posted this, for the exact behavior they're exhibiting
> right now: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/3850
>
> jdd 3, please take a break.
On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 4:02 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <
talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> can somebody who knows how to use Tiger data fix this ?
>
Fix what??
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 1:03 AM Mateusz Konieczny via talk <
talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> Before going to vote it would need to demonstrate some sort of clear
> benefit and
> consensus that it is reasonable.
>
For this, as well as my take on this
On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 3:44 PM Volker Schmidt wrote:
>
> There are many different OSM tagging "dialects" to describe the details of
> a foot-cycle-way crossing a road.
> I looked up the situation of the example on Mapillary. From that it looks
> as if the specific path is a combined foot cycle
On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 12:49 PM Natfoot wrote:
> here is my example and location specific response
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/663362208
>
I'd probably call that highway=path, bicycle=designated, foot=yes based off
what I'm seeing in the aerial photography. I seem to recall it was
On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 6:11 AM Doug Peterson <
dougpeter...@dpeters2.dyndns.org> wrote:
> I have noticed in my area where some people have been adding crossings to
> a designated cycleway (named and signed as a bike trail). The crossings are
> fine. It is that the crossing is then been changed to
On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 11:24 AM Mike Thompson wrote:
> I have come across a number of examples[0] of route relations where all
> the trails in a given park have been put into a single relation. Is this a
> recommended use for route relations?
>
Nope. It's wrong. Each route should have its
t;
> Around 48.7993305N 116.2837172W
>
> Mark.
>
> On 2020/07/30 8:12, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > Could we get some examples of what you mean?
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 5:26 PM > <mailto:tj-osmw...@lowsnr.net>> wrote:
> >
> > That seems
Could we get some examples of what you mean?
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 5:26 PM wrote:
> That seems sensible. What about the general case (i.e. no continuity
> with a county road?) - to add "road" or not?
>
> On 2020/07/30 7:09, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > I'd gene
B". Should the suffix "road" be added
> or is it redundant and a waste of bytes? (Sometimes there may be
> continuity from, say, a County Road with e.g. "Burton Creek Road", though.)
>
> Mark.
>
> On 2020/07/30 2:55, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > Alright, I think
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2020, 6:47 AM Mike Thompson wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 1:33 PM Paul Johnson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Could we get the US Road Tagging page updated to reflect common name
>>> practice instead of encoura
In https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/59418875, seems we've hit on
some inconsistency in the documentation.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging#Tagging_Forest_Roads
suggests
that the ref should go in the name for national forest roads, when this is
directly
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 9:31 AM Bradley White
wrote:
> > We were doing great there, then I think my (admonishment? might be too
> strong) way of expressing "owned and operated by the USFS" is technically,
> accurately stated as "owned by the People, managed / operated specifically
> by the
Doesn't OpenStreetCam have similar corporate ownership problems, with the
additional problematic aspect that the toolchain's been neglected since
Telenav cut 'em loose?
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 6:23 PM Niels Elgaard Larsen
wrote:
> Paul Johnson:
> > Great. How's this affect those
Great. How's this affect those of us who trust Facebook about as far as we
can throw it?
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 5:37 PM Sérgio V. wrote:
>
> https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-deals-mapillary/facebook-acquires-crowdsourced-mapping-company-mapillary-idUKKBN23P3N6
>
>
> - - - - - - - -
Yeah, there's plenty that's wrong with Amazon's mapping (like basically
just straight out importing GPX from Amazon trucks and not bothering to
check for completeness or alignment at all, something I routinely see).
But armchair mapping in and of itself isn't the problem.
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 6:32 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 13/6/20 1:37 am, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 10:28 AM Florian Lohoff wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 02:14:15PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via talk
>> wrote:
>>
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 10:31 AM Florian Lohoff wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 03:45:17PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 12.06.20 15:22, Dave F via talk wrote:
> > > There is a lot of negativity about large changsets, but assessment of
> > > them should be based on quality, not
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 10:28 AM Florian Lohoff wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 02:14:15PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Jun 12, 2020, 13:59 by f...@zz.de:
> >
> > > Changeset envelopes which span more than 100s of km² are broken.
> > >
> > Except cases where you
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 6:07 AM Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I wonder if it would be feasible or desirable for editors to warn users
> if they are at risk of creating country/world-spanning changesets.
> Something like "you have unsaved edits more than 500km away from where
> you are editing at the
On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 4:15 PM Bob Gambrel wrote:
> Paul's in depth answer of my question was very helpful. Luckily I am not
> concentrating on road/highway routes. I like the concept of:
>
> We should be moving forward towards
> all routes being tagged in a route relation so we can phase out
On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 3:46 PM Bob Gambrel wrote:
> Paul Johnson says
>
> Ultimately consider adding a route relation with network=US:NSFR:Forest
> Name:FH/FR as well so we can finally kill off route tagging on things that
> are not routes.
>
>
> I am not doing any
On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 3:24 PM brad wrote:
> On 6/6/20 9:24 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 8:24 AM Mike Thompson wrote:
>
>> ref:
>> The wiki states that these should be ref=FR + . In
>> practice:
>> * ref:usfs=FS +
>> * ref=
On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 8:24 AM Mike Thompson wrote:
> ref:
> The wiki states that these should be ref=FR + . In
> practice:
> * ref:usfs=FS +
> * ref=FS +
> Most of the changesets that added a "ref:usfs" tag include a very helpful
> comment that this issue was discussed on the tagging list at
On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 12:57 PM Mike Thompson wrote:
> Do the names on the USGS Topo Maps that end in "Draw", "Gulch", and
> similar terms refer to a stream, or a valley? I have always assumed a
> stream, and applied the name to waterway=stream in OSM, but perhaps that is
> not correct.
>
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 10:22 AM James wrote:
> and if pedestrians are allowed on it:
>
> highway=path
> segregated=no
>
Maybe. If it clearly has lanes marked out, I tend to consider this a
cycleway even if there's no sidewalk as it was clearly built for bicycles a
forethought with minimal, if
On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 3:59 PM Greg Troxel wrote:
> Dave F via talk writes:
>
> > In my area, AL are adding legitimate data which helps improve the
> > quality of the OSM database. I believe they make the same amount of
> > errors as any other contributors, including experienced ones.
> >
> >
On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 3:59 PM Greg Troxel wrote:
> Dave F via talk writes:
>
> > In my area, AL are adding legitimate data which helps improve the
> > quality of the OSM database. I believe they make the same amount of
> > errors as any other contributors, including experienced ones.
> >
> >
On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 9:36 AM Dave F wrote:
> In my area, AL are adding legitimate data which helps improve the quality
> of the OSM database. I believe they make the same amount of errors as any
> other contributors, including experienced ones.
>
> Unsure why he thinks OSMF should be keeping
On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 9:36 AM Dave F wrote:
> In my area, AL are adding legitimate data which helps improve the quality
> of the OSM database. I believe they make the same amount of errors as any
> other contributors, including experienced ones.
>
> Unsure why he thinks OSMF should be keeping
On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 11:37 AM Jmapb wrote:
> I try to keep an eye on them and fix the errors and the most egregious
> road geometry. When I leave changeset comments, they generally reply,
> but there are so many of them that it feels like trying to cook rice one
> grain at a time.
Very much
On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 6:07 PM Paul Johnson wrote:
> 3) Amazon Logistics and a revolving door team of one-edit-and-done spam
> accounts keeps throwing paid contributions into Oklahoma that are of poorly
> aligned, largely fictional and low quality. I'm stuck cleaning up in a
> ne
On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 6:07 PM Paul Johnson wrote:
> 3) Amazon Logistics and a revolving door team of one-edit-and-done spam
> accounts keeps throwing paid contributions into Oklahoma that are of poorly
> aligned, largely fictional and low quality. I'm stuck cleaning up in a
> ne
So, you all know at this point that I've been heavily invested in editing
OSM and contributing to my maximum activity, less as a need to help a
charity and more of an obligation to the public to do the most good with
the short time I have on this planet. However, I've had a few events come
up
So, you all know at this point that I've been heavily invested in editing
OSM and contributing to my maximum activity, less as a need to help a
charity and more of an obligation to the public to do the most good with
the short time I have on this planet. However, I've had a few events come
up
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 8:50 AM Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
> On 3/13/20 15:36, Eric Christensen via Talk-us wrote:
> > I've been updating the opening_hours for businesses and services as I
> > hear about them closing or changing their hours of operation for
> > COVID-19. I'm also adding a note in
On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 9:59 PM Andrew Harvey
wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 12 Mar 2020 at 12:51, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 8:23 PM Jack Armstrong
>> wrote:
>>
>>> How would this be tagged? I can't seem to find anything about this on
>
On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 8:23 PM Jack Armstrong
wrote:
> How would this be tagged? I can't seem to find anything about this on the
> wiki. Perhaps I'm just not looking in the right place. Thanks.
>
The sign itself would be highway=traffic_sign, traffic_sign=maxpseed,
maxspeed=traffic_signals.
Just completed a roughly two month long process of checking the entire
length of I 405 in both directions in lane-level detail. This was inspired
from exceptionally bad lane guidance on what is the busiest freeway in
America and competes for busiest in the world on my last trip to Los
Angeles
Try network=US:US:Historic on your route relation. Might not render, but
you can at least give renderers *something* for renderers to latch onto if
they want that information. ref=US Historic xx seems to be the way tagging
for that if you want to go that route. I recommend, until we can finally
On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 10:32 AM Jack Armstrong
wrote:
> I'm not an expert in the field of naming U.S. interstate highways. I'd
> like some opinions from others with more experience with this.
>
> A new OSM user has just "named" Interstate 25 (I-25) as the "CanAm
> Highway".
>
It's been a while
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 10:45 PM Mateusz Konieczny
wrote:
>
>
> 19 Feb 2020, 05:27 by ba...@ursamundi.org:
>
> Could we get some lane editing/rendering in these editors to cut down on
> this kind of unintentionally erratic mapping?
>
> Not sure whatever Potlatch is still developed,
>
I would
I'm working on editing I 405 in Los Angeles, California for lane guidance,
and at almost 150 miles not counting ramps, it's a big effort to go
through, so it's taken enough time that others are editing around where I
started. No big deal, I'm fine with that, *except...*
I'm consistently
On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 8:58 AM Mike Thompson wrote:
> Mike,
>
> That is a very compelling story. Thanks to you and the other OSM folks
> involved for making it happen and to you for writing the diary entry. I
> have often thought that OSM would be a great resource emergency responders
>
On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 3:30 PM Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> hunting down spam in OSM I often stumble over medical establishments in
> the US that have maximum-length description tags exhorting just how
> beatiful your smile will be after your visit to that dentist, etc.; I
> also find many
On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 6:28 PM john whelan wrote:
> Locally in Ottawa many paths are multiuse there is a path many kilometers
> long along the Ottawa river that has a line marked down the center and is
> very much used by cyclists but according to NCC who own the path it is
> multi-use not
On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 5:06 PM James wrote:
> Bike advocacy group in Ottawa created this:
>
>
> https://github.com/BikeOttawa/OSM-Bike-Ottawa-Tagging-Guide/blob/master/README.md
>
> as well as a crowd sourced map like the one for winter bike trails that
> allows a user to submit if a path is
On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 10:28 AM 80hnhtv4agou--- via talk <
talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> What does this mean ?
>
> “should be tagged on a way drawn with the *lower side on right side* of
> way direction”
>
The downhill side of the embankment is to the right of the way.
On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 6:34 PM Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> In the USA a postal code is not actually an area, but a set of
> addresses. Often they are all in one area, but sometimes the area is
> not clearly defined. This is partially why postal codes are usually
> just added to the POI directly
On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 11:49 AM Mateusz Konieczny
wrote:
>
>
>
> 12 Jan 2020, 18:39 by snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com:
>
> On Sun, 2020-01-12 at 08:35 -0600, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 1:47 AM Snusmumriken <
> snusmumriken.map...@ru
On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 1:47 AM Snusmumriken
wrote:
> On Sat, 2020-01-11 at 21:22 +0100, Martin Trautmann via talk wrote:
> > On 20-01-02 12:23, pangoSE wrote:
> >
> > > A map cannot solve a lack of general awareness when visiting a
> > > new/unknown place. Going to the mountains to hike can
On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 2:25 PM Martin Trautmann via talk <
talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> On 20-01-02 12:23, pangoSE wrote:
>
> > A map cannot solve a lack of general awareness when visiting a
> > new/unknown place. Going to the mountains to hike can also be dangerous
> > if you are not well
On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 3:15 PM Tod Fitch wrote:
> In my area there seems to be a mix of how the US Forest Service route
> numbers are tagged on roads and trails. The main variations seem to be:
>
> name=“Forest Route 9N24”
> name=“FR 9N24”
> alt_name=“Forest Route 9N24”
> alt_name=“FR 9N24”
>
On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 8:22 AM James Mast wrote:
> As for restoring the 'motorway' roads, I've honestly just been manually
> fixing them. Sure, takes longer, but allows me to catch the 'Emergency
> U-Turn' crossovers that are improperly tagged as a '_link', and fix them at
> the same time.
On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 12:10 PM Mark Wagner wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 16:14:30 +0100
> Martin Trautmann wrote:
>
> > hi all,
> >
> > did you read about the Suisse tourist couple which was shot because
> > they got lost in a Brasilian favela?
> >
> > NZZ (Neue Zürcher Zeitung) from Tuesday
On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 12:55 PM Kevin Kenny
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 1:11 PM stevea wrote:
> > The myriad variations of "name" (alt, loc, nat, old, reg, official,
> sorting, int...) show how complex this is. The issues go back many years
> and will likely continue well into the
On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 12:09 PM stevea wrote:
> The myriad variations of "name" (alt, loc, nat, old, reg, official,
> sorting, int...) show how complex this is. The issues go back many years
> and will likely continue well into the future, indeed many participants in
> this/these thread(s) are
On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 1:07 PM Kevin Kenny wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 1:01 PM Paul Johnson wrote:
> > Did you mean to use "old_name" instead of "alt_name"?
>
> When the locals keep using an old name for decades, without regard for
> official signa
On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 12:56 AM Greg Morgan wrote:
> Please don't remove the alt_name tags. They are useful and not that much
> of a distraction or an error For example, a new freeway was just renamed
> for a congress person that helped with many AZ transportation projects. I
> added the
On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 3:48 PM Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 21. Dec 2019, at 01:10, Joseph Eisenberg
> wrote:
> >
> > Unfortunately, the road classification system in parts of Continental
> > Europe was different, so mappers in some major countries, including
> >
On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 7:22 PM Jarek Piórkowski
wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 20:16, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 6:57 PM Joseph Eisenberg <
> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Being able to speak each country's highway lingua franc
On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 7:18 PM Clifford Snow
wrote:
> I've reached out to a couple of the nearby reservations, one with a small
> parcel of off reservation land trust, the other with only a small
> reservation but a very large off reservation land trust. I don't expect
> answers until possibly
(Conversational quoting, please)
On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 6:42 PM David Bartecchi
wrote:
> All of these concerns must be weighed against the fact that the current
> absence of Native lands in OSM only contributes to the erasure Native
> Americans and their lands from the American collective
On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 6:57 PM Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> > Being able to speak each country's highway lingua franca would make it a
> lot easier for OSM to become the Rosetta Stone of maps simply from ease of
> classification.
>
> That would mean using "jalan=provinsi" instead of
On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 1:07 AM Mateusz Konieczny
wrote:
>
> 20 Dec 2019, 01:25 by ba...@ursamundi.org:
>
> So, for example, in the US, instead of motorway, trunk, primary,
> secondary, tertiary, perhaps something more like freeway, expressway,
> major/minor_principal (just having this would fix
Content warning: Aboriginal abuse mention
On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 2:08 PM Clifford Snow
wrote:
> I do have Washington State tribal lands available [1] as a background
> layer for JOSM. There is also a vector tile layer [2] of the same
> background available for iD users.
>
> The data contains
On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 1:19 PM Martijn van Exel wrote:
> I actually like your suggestion that highway=trunk does not add much value
> to the U.S. map, Eric.
> We love to add detail / granularity to OSM so much, it can become hard to
> envisage taking some away.
> Not saying we should abolish
On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 5:13 AM Mike N wrote:
> On 12/17/2019 10:19 PM, Evin Fairchild wrote:
> > some US routes are more important than others and lumping them all as
> > primary doesn???t make any sense;
>
> The arguments here about relative importance of parallel routes makes
> sense.
>
>
On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 3:03 PM Mike Thompson wrote:
> > I've avoided BIA because their data doesn't seem accurate
> We have gotten some additional feedback off list also suggesting that the
> BIA data may not be as accurate as some other sources. Perhaps we should
> create a wiki page listing
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 3:05 PM Greg Troxel wrote:
> Tod Fitch writes:
>
> > My reading of the wiki indicates that for the United States a trunk is
> “a high speed Arterial Divided highway that is partially grade separated.”
> [1]
> >
> > What is the problem with having the main road between
>
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 7:24 AM Mike N wrote:
>
>I think many of the trunk VS motorway VS primary conflicts come from
> 2 points of view: on the one hand, people like to zoom out and see a
> coherent network of interconnected roads.
In which case, rendering based on network on the route
On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 7:17 PM Eric H. Christensen wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Monday, December 16, 2019 7:35 PM, Tod Fitch
> wrote:
>
> > My reading of the wiki indicates that for the United States a trunk is
> “a high
On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 10:29 PM Michael Patrick
wrote:
> > secondary in most cases for the state
>> highways and primary for the US ones.
>>
>
> At least for the U.S., the Interstate vs. State Route distinction has
> more to do with funding than carrying capacity and physical attributes. We
On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 6:47 PM Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> Alaska is not attached to the rest of the USA, so consistency with the
> Yukon Territory and British Columbia is equally important.
>
> In the western USA, highway=trunk is not limited to expressways like it is
> in Germany and France
>
>
Please strongly consider splitting digests into constituent messages with
procmail or your MUA, or switch to the non-digest version to preserve
threading.
On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 6:35 PM Anthony Costanzo
wrote:
>
> All of AK 2 between Fairbanks and the Canadian border is paved. I can
> vouch
On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 6:26 PM Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> Trunks are rarely expressways in remote parts of the world. In Britain,
> where this tag started, many highway=trunk roads are not expressways or
> motorroads.
>
Are we not trying to remain internally consistent with the rest of the US?
On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 6:18 PM Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> I would use highway=trunk the whole way for consistency. In Canada the
> connecting highway is also highway=trunk. This makes sense because AK 2 is
> linking Fairbanks, the largest city in this part of Alaska, with All the
> cities in
1 - 100 of 1503 matches
Mail list logo
