Re: [Talk-us] guidelines regarding roads access

2017-09-30 Thread Greg Morgan
On Sep 24, 2017 8:33 AM, "Greg Troxel" wrote: Adam Franco writes: > One additional note is that at least in my area, the TIGER import > incorrectly added access=private to many driveways and privately maintained > residential roads. Upon surveying these

Re: [Talk-us] dubious church node

2017-09-30 Thread Max Erickson
>One more thing to know about GNIS: entries are never deleted. One minor exception to this is if they determine that a given feature has 2 IDs, one of the IDs will often be removed. Max ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Talk-us] dubious church node

2017-09-30 Thread Martijn van Exel
I sense a topic for the next Many Mappy Minutes or a BOF at State of the Map US —> cleaning up old imports. I sure appreciate all the knowledge shared here! So much I didn’t know about GNIS data. Martijn > On Sep 30, 2017, at 11:54 AM, Wolfgang Zenker > wrote: > >

Re: [Talk-us] dubious church node

2017-09-30 Thread Wolfgang Zenker
* Carl Anderson [170930 17:21]: > ​A little history on GNIS data, and the Board of Geographic Names. > The US Board of Geographic Names manages names for places and features > shown on US govt maps. They have been using a database to manage the names > across maps and

Re: [Talk-us] dubious church node

2017-09-30 Thread Jesse B. Crawford
I also seem to have observed that, at least in rural New Mexico where I do most of my mapping, GNIS features like historic places seem to have only been entered to the resolution of what town they were in, and then all ended up at something like the centroid of the town or county limits. The

Re: [Talk-us] dubious church node

2017-09-30 Thread Mark Wagner
On Sat, 30 Sep 2017 15:11:06 +0700 Dave Swarthout wrote: > "Second, many entries have their coordinates specified using the old > NAD 27 datum, but somewhere along the line, that fact was lost and the > coordinates were assumed to be in either NAD 83 or WGS 84. This >

Re: [Talk-us] dubious church node

2017-09-30 Thread Brian May
On 9/29/2017 11:06 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 9:33 PM, Mark Bradley > wrote: In the course of my mapping in the American Midwest, I have come across several small country churches of GNIS origin that

Re: [Talk-us] dubious church node

2017-09-30 Thread Brian May
On 9/30/2017 3:19 AM, Mark Wagner wrote: Second, many entries have their coordinates specified using the old NAD 27 datum, but somewhere along the line, that fact was lost and the coordinates were assumed to be in either NAD 83 or WGS 84. This results in an offset that increases the further you

Re: [Talk-us] dubious church node

2017-09-30 Thread Marc Gemis
> Another point is that if you have the outline for something that GNIS shows > as a node, please conflate! I've done that with a lot of buildings and parks > locally - just copy-and-paste the GNIS tags from the node to the polygon and > then delete the node. The utilsplugin2 [1] for JOSM and

Re: [Talk-us] dubious church node

2017-09-30 Thread Dave Swarthout
"Second, many entries have their coordinates specified using the old NAD 27 datum, but somewhere along the line, that fact was lost and the coordinates were assumed to be in either NAD 83 or WGS 84. This results in an offset that increases the further you go from central Indiana; the offset in

Re: [Talk-us] dubious church node

2017-09-30 Thread Mark Wagner
On Sat, 30 Sep 2017 06:56:31 +0700 Dave Swarthout wrote: > Glad you mentioned that GNIS import, Ian. > > This isn't a pressing issue but I've been doing considerable mapping > in Alaska and encounter GNIS features constantly. Many of them are > nodes and refer to mines,