Re: [Talk-us] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying InterstateRelations

On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 6:00 PM, Richard Welty wrote: > > between this, and some comments on the wiki made by NE2 on the > Talk:Interstate > Highway relations > page, i suspect we're setting up for some spectacular results due to > hardheaded non-cooperation: > > in this case it doesn't matter ye

Re: [Talk-us] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying InterstateRelations

On 2/8/10 8:06 PM, Apollinaris Schoell wrote: anyone can edit the wiki. I can't remember there was an agreement that is the right thing to do. As far as I know there is no renderer or other tool using the ref/network tags from the relation. And for that reason I didn't really care if it make

Re: [Talk-us] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying InterstateRelations

Hi, Richard Welty wrote: > there is a major disconnect between what people think is "right" and > what the wiki calls for. Welcome to OSM ;-) There is also in many cases a major disconnect between what *is* right and what the Wiki calls for, as well as a disconnect between what the Wiki call

Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying InterstateRelations

On 02/08/2010 08:14 PM, Apollinaris Schoell wrote: > same for me, Josm has good support for sorting and relations and > checking for gaps. also the relation analyzer will flag them without > errors then. this helped me so much when I tried to fix routing problems > and a road is disconnected becau

Re: [Talk-us] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying InterstateRelations

On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 8:21 PM, Apollinaris Schoell wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 5:07 PM, John Smith wrote: > >> >> >> Why does there need to be 2 relations for this? >> >> besides editing convenience a relation is directed and sorted since API > 0.6 You can see it as a route to follow from

Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying InterstateRelations

On 2/8/10 8:01 PM, Chris Hunter wrote: Moving back to one of my original questions, I think Nakor was the only one to respond to the 2 relations per state (1 relation each way) vs 1 relation with rolls per state question. The Diff code is a little tangled, but from the WIKI, it looks like

Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying InterstateRelations

> > I'm happy to use either method, but one of the reasons why I prefer the > 1-relation-per-direction method is that it lets me quickly find areas that > need to be split into dual carriageways. > same for me, Josm has good support for sorting and relations and checking for gaps. also the relatio

Re: [Talk-us] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying InterstateRelations

> there is a major disconnect between what people think is "right" and what > the wiki calls for. from > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Interstate_Highways_Relations > > we see: > > network=US:I, US:I:BUSINESS, US:I:DOWNTOWN, US:I:FUTURE Required. > Business, downtown and future routes

[Talk-us] Fwd: [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying InterstateRelations

On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Richard Welty wrote: > > there is a major disconnect between what people think is "right" and what > the wiki calls for. from > > Agreed. One of the reasons I started this discussion was to make sure that what the wiki calls for is still "right". As far as renderi

Re: [Talk-us] US Chapter temporary Board Nomination

> I accept the nomination to run for the temporary board of the US Chapter of > OSM. I've been an active mapper for almost 3 years. I've mapped extensively in the Clemson, SC area and less so around my new home in VA, but I'm working on it. I'm a member of the GNOME foundation and have been act

Re: [Talk-us] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying InterstateRelations

On 2/8/10 5:57 PM, Apollinaris Schoell wrote: quite. the format for ref in relations is very clear, for example network=US:I ref=95 Don't think this is clear. US:I is wrong, the network is only I. Any consumer application can figure out that it is in US by itself. as an example mkgm

Re: [Talk-us] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying InterstateRelations

Hi, Apollinaris Schoell wrote: > if you think the state, country info is needed as a tag use is_in or an > addr:* tag I think that addr:* tags should really only used for things that have an address. Streets don't usually have an address; you would not refer to the fact that a certain street

Re: [Talk-us] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying InterstateRelations

quite. the format for ref in relations is very clear, for example > > network=US:I > ref=95 > > Don't think this is clear. US:I is wrong, the network is only I. Any consumer application can figure out that it is in US by itself. as an example mkgmap currently supports custom shields and does it ba

Re: [Talk-us] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying Interstate Relations

Jeffrey Ollie writes: > On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Matthias Julius wrote: >> Jeffrey Ollie writes: >> >>> What's more annoying is that he is changing the names/refs.   From >>> what I understand the ref is supposed to be only the >>> interstate/highway number (e.g. "90" or "80") and not "I

Re: [Talk-us] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying InterstateRelations

"Mike N." writes: >> Second, separating out the highway system requires the data consuming >> application to know how to piece things back together. Otherwise, a >> shield on a map for example with just a "25" in it is pretty limited in >> use. > > After / if a generalized shield solution is i

Re: [Talk-us] FCC Antenna Structure Import

On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 3:25 PM, Anthony wrote: > On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote: >> >>    > > By the way, what is the datum for the elevation figure? I don't believe that it is specified explicitly, but the latitude and longitude are in NAD83 so I'm guessing that the eleva

Re: [Talk-us] FCC Antenna Structure Import

On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote: > > By the way, what is the datum for the elevation figure? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] FCC Antenna Structure Import

On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote: > > > v=" > http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrSearch/asrRegistration.jsp?regKey=2645662 > "/> > I'd say this is redundant, and would lose the url (doesn't seem very permanent anyway). ___

Re: [Talk-us] FCC Antenna Structure Import

At 2010-02-08 09:47, Jeffrey Ollie wrote: >The FCC maintains a database of antenna structures which includes an >approximate geographic location. Since this data maintained by the US >Government the data should be public domain. The main entry page for >the database is here:

Re: [Talk-us] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying InterstateRelations

On 2/8/10 2:34 PM, Mike N. wrote: > >> Third, I consider a reference containing just the number to be >> incomplete. IMHO, the ref tag should contain the complete designation >> of a piece of highway. This also makes it easier to search for this. >> >To search, just search for both the

Re: [Talk-us] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying Interstate Relations

On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Matthias Julius wrote: > Jeffrey Ollie writes: > >> What's more annoying is that he is changing the names/refs.   From >> what I understand the ref is supposed to be only the >> interstate/highway number (e.g. "90" or "80") and not "I 90 (MN)". > > And I don't like

Re: [Talk-us] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying InterstateRelations

> Second, separating out the highway system requires the data consuming > application to know how to piece things back together. Otherwise, a > shield on a map for example with just a "25" in it is pretty limited in > use. After / if a generalized shield solution is in place, a 25 placed on an

Re: [Talk-us] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying Interstate Relations

Jeffrey Ollie writes: > What's more annoying is that he is changing the names/refs. From > what I understand the ref is supposed to be only the > interstate/highway number (e.g. "90" or "80") and not "I 90 (MN)". And I don't like this at all. First, this seems to be different than how this is

Re: [Talk-us] US highway tagging and relations

Jeff Barlow writes: > Shows how? This is not obvious to me. Are there examples > somewhere? If they are not connected then are we supposed to move > them around till they are? If so how does one guess where they > are supposed to go? There is a sort button in the relation editor (the fifth from

Re: [Talk-us] FCC Antenna Structure Import

Jeff, One more thing. You may want to be careful about eliminating duplicates. For example, if you have a microwave tower that communicates with two other sites, it will be in the FCC data twice at the same location. To me that is not a "duplicate" as each record will contain different informat

Re: [Talk-us] FCC Antenna Structure Import

I have imported the next gen radio stations before. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Potential_Datasources#Next_Generation_Radar_.28NEXRAD.29_Locations http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/3350339 On 2/8/10, Mike Thompson wrote: > Jeff, > > I have worked with this data before (not fo

Re: [Talk-us] FCC Antenna Structure Import

Jeff, I have worked with this data before (not for OSM). The data is in the public domain. Your approach sounds sensible to me. Many of the locations are grossly wrong. So it is important to do manual cleanup. By the way, license holders are liable for a fine if the coordinates in this databa

[Talk-us] FCC Antenna Structure Import

The FCC maintains a database of antenna structures which includes an approximate geographic location. Since this data maintained by the US Government the data should be public domain. The main entry page for the database is here: I'd like to do some semi-automa

Re: [Talk-us] US Chapter temporary Board Nomination

This thread seems the place to be... I accept the nomination to run for the temporary board of the US Chapter of OSM. I've been active in the OSM community for about ten months and in that time I helped found a local mapping group (MappingDC), I've been acting as secretary for the US Chapter, as

Re: [Talk-us] US Chapter temporary Board Nomination

I'm going to jump on this thread as well. I accept the nomination to run for the temporary board of the US Chapter of OSM. I was on the board of the DC Rollergirls when they incorporated as a non-profit as well obtained tax-exempt status. I think my experience going through this process will be