Re: [Talk-us] Tagging a super-two highway (trunk or motorway?)

A true "super two" freeway, with no at-grade intersections whatsoever, would be properly classified as a motorway under global OSM tagging conventions. These may not be particularly common in the U.S. (although they exist), but they are common enough around the world to be consistent. Sorta-I-93

Re: [Talk-us] Cam4rd98 just doesn't get it

I agree that OSM needs to be more noob-proof than Wikipedia. Erroneously changing one thing on Wikipedia won't make much of a difference, whereas erroneously changing one thing on OSM could throw off a lot of software that depends on the data being correct. There's only so far OpenStreetMap can go

Re: [Talk-us] Cam4rd98 just doesn't get it

On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:29 AM, James Mast wrote: > I'll let his comments here[1] on a note page speak > Again, all I see is a well meaning user who very clearly is not yet absorbed OSM culture. There is no belligerence, just a bit of confusion. The tools could help: 1) After the first edi

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging a super-two highway (trunk or motorway?)

On 6/25/13 8:49 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: It's not the number of lanes that makes the distinction, but the character of the road. People don't expect an undivided motorway, but describing it as a trunk will cue most renderers to go for something motorway-like but not quite there. A super-two wit

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging a super-two highway (trunk or motorway?)

On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:48 PM, wrote: > I have marked US 169 between Iola and Chanute as Motorway because, > although it is a super-two, it is fully controlled access along this > segment. I believe this is consistent with the way most commercial > map-makers would mark this segment. For examp

Re: [Talk-us] Cam4rd98 just doesn't get it

In the most sincere way: apology accepted. I truly will be quite careful to follow these (and all talk-us) guidelines in the future to avoid misunderstandings. SteveA California SteveA, I apologize for jumping on your post so quickly. I was frustrated that you posted an off-topic comment on

[Talk-us] access restriction, water only: How to tag?

I'm tagging some camp sites as "boat=yes" to imply water access only, but I don't think this is right. Is there a water-only access tag? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Future Interstate Relations

Paul Johnson writes: Not likely but not entirely out of the possibility given some regional (above county, below state) names, which would be an issue if we were to bring bike networks into the hierarchical scheme (which seems like a good idea since the US has some rather complex hierarchy of

Re: [Talk-us] Cam4rd98 just doesn't get it

SteveA, I apologize for jumping on your post so quickly. I was frustrated that you posted an off-topic comment on a thread that was meant to have been closed. Moderation was unfair because I didn't set clear expectations in my previous message. To be more clear for everyone: - talk-us is not a for

Re: [Talk-us] what do we mean by geocoding?

The USPS site referenced below has zipcode polygons and postal delivery routes overlaid on an interactive map along with the number of residences and business each route serves. Search for a zipcode or an address to get started. https://eddm.usps.com/eddm/customer/routeSearch.action It looks l

Re: [Talk-us] what do we mean by geocoding?

> > Part of the reason that the USPS disavows a geographic boundary for ZIP Codes > is that they often keep residential delivery and commercial delivery and > high-rise delivery (having apts or suites) separate even when they are next > to each other on the street. This can be confusing if you

Re: [Talk-us] what do we mean by geocoding?

Steve, On a more technical level "ZIP Code Tabulation Areas" (ZCTA5) are statistical areas that are built using a predominant ZIP Code method. The predominant ZIP Code for addresses within a Face (Faces combine into Blocks) is assigned to the Face. Then a complex algorithm in-fills ZCTA5 informat

Re: [Talk-us] dirty2osm

Yea, that would be nice I guess - I personally never deal with DMS-style coordinates, so I have no incentive (or time) to add that. But if you do I'd be happy to merge it! Martijn On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Dale Puch wrote: > Before I whine about what this nice free tool can't do... > >

Re: [Talk-us] dirty2osm

I think someone had a stab at this already, for Firefox I believe - can't remember details. On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Alex Barth wrote: > LOVE IT!!! > > This should be a Chrome plugin. Open any map in OSM at the right zoom > level at a single mouse click or keyboard shortcut. > > Just th

Re: [Talk-us] what do we mean by geocoding?

One more point of good news/bad news to add: the Census did do its best to collect GPS coords for most structures during the 2010 Census, but will not be sharing that anytime soon: https://www.census.gov/privacy/data_protection/gps_coordinates.html On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Steven Johnson

Re: [Talk-us] Cam4rd98 just doesn't get it

SteveA, This message is completely off topic and goes in direct contradiction with my previous message. You have been temporarily moderated as a result. -Your friendly talk-us@ mod On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 2:55 PM, stevea wrote: > ** > > Folks, talk-us@ is a place for discussion, not personal

Re: [Talk-us] what do we mean by geocoding?

On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > > At SOTM-US (State of the Map US) I spoke to Steven Johnson of the Census > Bureau on the issue of what data USPS actually has internally (as the > Census Bureau has some special licensed access to this data). > > Yes, just to amplify: the

Re: [Talk-us] Cam4rd98 just doesn't get it

Folks, talk-us@ is a place for discussion, not personal attacks. If you have a problem with a particular user, contact the user and if they don't respond e-mail d...@osmfoundation.org. Apologies to all. I did/do not wish to attack anybody, just note what seeme

Re: [Talk-us] dirty2osm

LOVE IT!!! This should be a Chrome plugin. Open any map in OSM at the right zoom level at a single mouse click or keyboard shortcut. Just throwing this out there, I _have_ read the GitHub sign :-) On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 1:14 AM, Dale Puch wrote: > Before I whine about what this nice free too

Re: [Talk-us] Cam4rd98 just doesn't get it

Folks, talk-us@ is a place for discussion, not personal attacks. If you have a problem with a particular user, contact the user and if they don't respond e-mail d...@osmfoundation.org. Do not come here to laugh at anyone or their contributions to our dataset. -Your friendly talk-us@ mod On Tue

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging a super-two highway (trunk or motorway?)

I'm a little late to the party here, but I am involved in this question. I have marked US 169 between Iola and Chanute as Motorway because, although it is a super-two, it is fully controlled access along this segment. I believe this is consistent with the way most commercial map-makers would ma

Re: [Talk-us] Cam4rd98 just doesn't get it

Oh, that is rich: NE2 saying that somebody ELSE has "a history of gun-jumping" Wow, the mote in one's eye! SteveA California I'll let his comments here[1] on a note page speak. - James [1] - http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/note/3173_

Re: [Talk-us] Future Interstate Relations

Not likely but not entirely out of the possibility given some regional (above county, below state) names, which would be an issue if we were to bring bike networks into the hierarchical scheme (which seems like a good idea since the US has some rather complex hierarchy of bike networks that don't a

Re: [Talk-us] Future Interstate Relations

But that would not apply to the Interstate network, which otherwise has no 'children', right? If the modifier paradigm also applies to State Routes, then there would be the possibility of confusion between US:UT:Future as a future state route and US:UT:Future as a county highway in 'Future County'

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging a super-two highway (trunk or motorway?)

On 6/25/13 10:59 AM, Phil! Gold wrote: Maryland Route 90 seems to be what people would call a super-two and, although parts of it are divided, other parts have no physical separation. For most of its length, it has no at-grade intersections. When I was doing TIGER cleanup in that area, I decided

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging a super-two highway (trunk or motorway?)

* Paul Johnson [2013-06-25 09:40 -0500]: > There seems to be some disagreement on how to handle the super-two (or > super-four s California has a few of) highways. [snip] > I'm under the understanding that the consensus for a motorway would be > fully multiple (at minimum 2) carriageway with limit

Re: [Talk-us] Future Interstate Relations

I prefer the modifier proposal, since it prevents "Future" from being confused with a county level network. On Jun 24, 2013 11:16 PM, "James Mast" wrote: > Later tonight, I'm planning on splitting up the relations for the > following Interstates (I-26, I-73, I-74) in North Carolina to separate t

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging a super-two highway (trunk or motorway?)

On 6/25/13 10:40 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: I'm under the understanding that the consensus for a motorway would be fully multiple (at minimum 2) carriageway with limited access, whereas a trunk would be any motorway that doesn't meet that criteria (intersections, single carriageway, etc). Could I g

[Talk-us] Route Relation Tagging, again (was Re: ref tags)

* Paul Johnson [2013-06-24 09:11 -0500]: > network=US:I > modifier=Future * James Mast [2013-06-25 00:15 -0400]: > Now, I'm going to initially use the following to tag the "Future" > segments inside of relations: network=US:I:Future However, somebody else > suggested this: network=US:I modifier=

[Talk-us] Tagging a super-two highway (trunk or motorway?)

There seems to be some disagreement on how to handle the super-two (or super-four s California has a few of) highways. These highways are two lanes, one each way (or four lanes, two each way) with no central division or median, but freeway-like connecting ramps. Examples would be long stretches o

[Talk-us] Parsing web map URLs (Re: dirty2osm)

I have spent some time adding the ability to go to and from web map URLs in my program for viewing tiled maps. The source code is available at: http://code.google.com/p/vataviamap/source/browse/trunk/VataviaMap/Shared/clsServer.vb The part that parses web map URLs is: Private Const OSMshortlink

Re: [Talk-us] Cam4rd98 just doesn't get it

I'll let his comments here[1] on a note page speak. - James [1] - http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/note/3173 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-u

Re: [Talk-us] Cam4rd98 just doesn't get it

On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:56 PM, Clay Smalley wrote: > They seem to put in a lot of "future" things using tags that imply > something is currently there. On top of that, they use the wrong tags > (landuse=industrial instead of landuse=retail). They've also screwed up a > bit of TX 71 and US 290,