I'm somewhat hesitant to wade into this, but:
There is debate with the transportation/cycling community about
whether bike lanes are a good thing or a bad thing. Around me there
are some cycle lanes which are entirely within the door kill zone. I
would never ride in them, and their pres
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> This is why we have route relations. It's getting to the point of
> ridiculous that we don't have proper rendering of something as basic as
> a route relation.
Didn't we determine that Mapquest is most likely using relations to
render high
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Just to clarify our position in this regard: No matter which of the parties
> is "right" or "wrong", someone who puts his vision of correct tagging over
> the project's wellbeing by starting or continuing an edit war can never be
> "right". A
Hi,
On 10/17/2010 12:15 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
If we should continue to receive more complaints from or about the
individuals named in this posting, we will respond by banning both
accounts until they cool down.
Just to clarify our position in this regard: No matter which of the
parties is
>
> If we should continue to receive more complaints from or about the
> individuals named in this posting, we will respond by banning both accounts
> until they cool down.
>
How are you going to notice whether or not they've cooled down if they're
banned from editing?
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On 10/16/2010 06:02 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>> So would you have no objection to my use of bicycle=avoid on roads
>> that have bike lanes?
>
> That would be ambiguous in most cases, and I believe you're being obtuse
> for the sake of being
On 10/16/2010 06:02 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 6:52 PM, Paul Johnson
> wrote:
>>> If bicycle=avoid were a valid tag, I'd use it on roads like this that
>>> have unsafe "bike facilities":
>>
>> There's no such thing as an invalid tag. access=avoid even has a
>> proposal
Richard,
On 10/17/2010 01:02 AM, Richard Weait wrote:
Frederik, are there a couple of representative edits for the community
to consider as well?
Here's a typical edit of Paul adding bicycle=destination:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/5448874
And here's Nathan reverting it:
htt
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 7:02 PM, Richard Weait wrote:
> I wonder if both of the named parties would consider waiting 72 hours
> for the community to review and consider the edits involved before
> commenting further?
Perhaps; I think I've said my piece (the main point being that this is
a politic
I wonder if both of the named parties would consider waiting 72 hours
for the community to review and consider the edits involved before
commenting further? It might be a sign of good faith if they would
also refrain from edits regarding this matter until the community has
had a chance to comment.
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 6:52 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> If bicycle=avoid were a valid tag, I'd use it on roads like this that
>> have unsafe "bike facilities":
>
> There's no such thing as an invalid tag. access=avoid even has a
> proposal in the wiki to convey suitability based on local knowledg
On 10/16/2010 05:46 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> When you ensure that all new mappers are being careful, tell us.
I won't need to, you'll know it before everyone else, since that'll
happen around the time you leave.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 10/16/2010 05:43 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Paul Johnson
> wrote:
>> On 10/15/2010 03:04 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Ian Dees
>>> wrote:
Surely we're missing plenty of people by only having a discussion on the
On 10/16/2010 05:38 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Frederik Ramm
> wrote:
>> There is one person in the US community - Paul Johnson a.k.a. baloo - who is
>> rather creative with his tagging. It seems to us that Paul has, in the past,
>> used the mere existence of a
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 6:02 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On 10/15/2010 05:08 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Ian Dees
>> wrote:
>>> I don't think we should be storing any prefix as part of the network=* or
>>> ref=* tags (thus my suggestion for network=us_route/stat
On 10/15/2010 05:08 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Ian Dees
> wrote:
>> I don't think we should be storing any prefix as part of the network=* or
>> ref=* tags (thus my suggestion for network=us_route/state_route/county_route
>> or similar). For example the "I-x" d
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On 10/15/2010 03:04 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Ian Dees
>> wrote:
>>> Surely we're missing plenty of people by only having a discussion on the
>>> mailing list? SoTM.US proved to me that there are orders
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Dear talk-us list,
>
> we - the Data Working Group - have an issue that we hope you can help us
> resolve.
>
> There is one person in the US community - Paul Johnson a.k.a. baloo - who is
> rather creative with his tagging. It seems to us t
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> There is one person in the US community - Paul Johnson a.k.a. baloo - who is
> rather creative with his tagging. It seems to us that Paul has, in the past,
> used the mere existence of a cycle route to tag neighboring residential
> roads as "
On 10/16/2010 06:24 AM, Richard Welty wrote:
> On 10/16/10 7:12 AM, Mike N. wrote:
>>
>>> One thing I /haven't/ seen addressed yet is whether single relations are
>>> preferred, or one relation for each way with a super-relation.
>>> Currently both are in use, but I think it would be a lot easier f
On 10/15/2010 03:04 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Ian Dees
> wrote:
>> Surely we're missing plenty of people by only having a discussion on the
>> mailing list? SoTM.US proved to me that there are orders of magnitude more
>> people interested in OSM in the US than
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Peter Budny wrote:
> Nathan Edgars II writes:
>
>> It's certainly a bad idea to add the auto-created relations to the
>> database
>
> You're not the first person to say this. You're also not the first
> person to fail to give a reason why it would be so terrible.
On 10/15/2010 11:47 AM, Val Kartchner wrote:
> The standard should be something easy to parse. Perhaps, for the above
> example, it would be "US:UT:SR-67". This would allow an easy way to
> parse which shield to use. For instance, a made-up Canadian route would
> be "CA:BC:12". The colons woul
Dear talk-us list,
we - the Data Working Group - have an issue that we hope you can
help us resolve.
There is one person in the US community - Paul Johnson a.k.a. baloo -
who is rather creative with his tagging. It seems to us that Paul has,
in the past, used the mere existence of a cycle
Nathan Edgars II writes:
> It's certainly a bad idea to add the auto-created relations to the
> database
You're not the first person to say this. You're also not the first
person to fail to give a reason why it would be so terrible.
> Florida already has a full set of relations:
> http://wiki.
Hi,
On 10/16/2010 09:27 PM, Richard Weait wrote:
The extracts are in .osm.pbf format exclusively, you will need Osmosis 0.27
or the new pbf2osm (see dev list) to process them.
I meant 0.37, thanks Ian Dees for pointing that out.
I see, for example that this one for the NorthEast
http://downl
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Mike N. wrote:
If we're serious about starting to use exit_to, let's float this on the
talk list and get the JOSM preset changed. Eventually, all the existing
entries must be converted. (Hopefully no map data consumer is using the
name= part of the motorw
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Peter Budny wrote:
> I'm not sure whether you're saying it's a good idea or a bad idea.
I don't know either. It's certainly a bad idea to add the auto-created
relations to the database, but I don't think this is what you're
planning.
>
> It seems to me that once
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Peter Budny wrote:
> Here's one instance where this doesn't work as well as I'd like:
> http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyze.jsp?relationId=271830
> Michigan 3 (which I picked randomly off a list) alternates between
> single- and dual-carriageway.
You're in luck - N
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Dear talk-us,
>
> I'm now making daily OSM data extracts available for the US Census Regions
> (as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Us_regdiv.svg) on
> download.geofabrik.de. I will not do a full US or full North America extract
> beca
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Mike N. wrote:
> If we're serious about starting to use exit_to, let's float this on the
> talk list and get the JOSM preset changed. Eventually, all the existing
> entries must be converted. (Hopefully no map data consumer is using the
> name= part of the mot
Dear talk-us,
I'm now making daily OSM data extracts available for the US Census
Regions (as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Us_regdiv.svg) on
download.geofabrik.de. I will not do a full US or full North America
extract because I think it is too big (anyone who can process that might
Adding a single-carriageway to the relation twice, once for each role,
would solve this problem instantly, as would using two separate
relations. Neither requires much (if any) code changes to support it.
But in any case, I'm much more in favor of consistency, even if the
format we choose isn't t
"Mike N." writes:
>> The potential problem I see is when you have a road that alternates
>> frequently between single- and dual-carriageways (which many state
>> routes do, and even a lot of US highways). How do you represent this in
>> a single relation?
>>
>> 1) Put single-carriageways in once
Nathan Edgars II writes:
> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Peter Budny wrote:
>> Nathan Edgars II writes:
>>>
>>> TIGER's state highway data is pretty horrible. For example, in
>>> Florida, there are many so-called state roads that were given to the
>>> counties in the 1980s. It seems most ha
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dmotorway_junction has
mentioned it for several months. Browsing through
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/keys/exit_to I see use in Florida
(me), the UK, and France. There's also some use of
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/keys/exit:to .
If we're s
The potential problem I see is when you have a road that alternates
frequently between single- and dual-carriageways (which many state
routes do, and even a lot of US highways). How do you represent this in
a single relation?
1) Put single-carriageways in once, with no role. Or, with
"role=nort
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Peter Budny wrote:
> Nathan Edgars II writes:
>>
>> TIGER's state highway data is pretty horrible. For example, in
>> Florida, there are many so-called state roads that were given to the
>> counties in the 1980s. It seems most have been fixed, but here's an
>> ex
Nathan Edgars II writes:
> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 1:41 AM, Peter Budny wrote:
>> This seems relevant to this thread, although it's not in reply to any
>> particular part of it:
>>
>> As part of a school project, I'm creating a robot that will use the
>> TIGER metadata to automatically attempt t
"Mike N." writes:
>> One thing I /haven't/ seen addressed yet is whether single relations are
>> preferred, or one relation for each way with a super-relation.
>> Currently both are in use, but I think it would be a lot easier for
>> future code if we pick one and move towards it from now on.
>
>
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 1:41 AM, Peter Budny wrote:
> This seems relevant to this thread, although it's not in reply to any
> particular part of it:
>
> As part of a school project, I'm creating a robot that will use the
> TIGER metadata to automatically attempt to create route relations for
> Sta
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 12:41 AM, Peter Budny wrote:
>
> So far, it seems to be something like
> type=route
> route=road
> network=US:NY <- state abbreviation
> ref=87 <- number only
> symbol=*
>
> or for county roads,
> network=US:NY:Albany <- full county name
>
As I pointed out close
On 10/16/10 7:12 AM, Mike N. wrote:
One thing I /haven't/ seen addressed yet is whether single relations are
preferred, or one relation for each way with a super-relation.
Currently both are in use, but I think it would be a lot easier for
future code if we pick one and move towards it from now
One thing I /haven't/ seen addressed yet is whether single relations are
preferred, or one relation for each way with a super-relation.
Currently both are in use, but I think it would be a lot easier for
future code if we pick one and move towards it from now on.
I don't see any advantage for a
I'd love to see a consensus on how to tag these roads come pretty
quickly, as I'll need to have something finished in less than 2 months
(school schedules are rough, man!).
I would say that the result of your project will be usable even if we
change our mind. Once relations have been establi
There's a forum?
I don't have a problem with have lots of different modes of
communication, but it really needs to be made clear which one is THE
preferred way to talk to People Who Know Things and seek out community
agreement. It seems like that's the mailing lists (at the moment),
possibly fol
46 matches
Mail list logo
