Re: [Talk-us] Redaction bot is heading our way!

On 7/18/2012 2:19 PM, Richard Weait wrote: On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=33.9958&lon=-81.1074&zoom=13&layers=M Thanks, OSMF. We appreciate all the hard work you did in damaging our data. Some mappers in some areas hav

Re: [Talk-us] Redaction bot is heading our way!

On 7/18/2012 7:34 AM, James Mast wrote: I just happened to load up the progress page for the bot, and it's entered Mexico overnight. Just thought I would give all of you fellow North America mappers a heads up. ;) http://harrywood.dev.openstreetmap.org/license-change/botprocessing.php http://w

[Talk-us] accidental aligning nodes in line needs reverting

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/72505631 was accidentally aligned in a line, causing major damage to the geometry of intersecting ways. A recent API change to facilitate the license change broke JOSM's reverter plugin, so I can't fix it. This user's other changesets should probably als

Re: [Talk-us] railway=abandoned and mapping things that are not there any more?

On 7/13/2012 11:56 PM, Peter Dobratz wrote: I guess the main thing that is problematic about former railways is their verifiability. Between TIGER and GNIS and other imports, when I come across a road or church that no longer exists (or in some cases never existed), I just delete them. But befo

Re: [Talk-us] railway=abandoned and mapping things that are not there any more?

On 7/13/2012 4:43 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: If you want to change portions to railway=dismantled, I won't complain. But note that there are definite traces in places, at least across the Merrimack. In fact I've just done this. Enjoy. _

Re: [Talk-us] railway=abandoned and mapping things that are not there any more

On 7/13/2012 11:28 AM, william skora wrote: Although historical features such as abandoned railways can be valuable information and interesting, OSM is a consists of physical features that currently exist, as Shawn succinctly stated, http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2012-July/0085

Re: [Talk-us] railway=abandoned and mapping things that are not there any more?

On 7/13/2012 9:31 AM, Richard Weait wrote: And it seems like there is broad agreement that such an object with no such visible hints is currently not appropriate for the OSM db. Right? Not right. There has been a good deal of mapping former railways by a number of users over several years.

Re: [Talk-us] railway=abandoned and mapping things that are not there any more?

On 7/13/2012 8:45 AM, Peter Dobratz wrote: On 7/13/12, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 7/12/2012 11:43 PM, Peter Dobratz wrote: NE2, So after I bring up that I don't think railways should be drawn through buildings, and most people agree with me on that, you decide to do this:

Re: [Talk-us] railway=abandoned and mapping things that are not there any more?

On 7/12/2012 10:45 PM, Mike N wrote: On 7/12/2012 4:21 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: This is a strawman, since there will rarely be more than one former line across a small area. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone wants to map all the former second tracks, sidings

Re: [Talk-us] railway=abandoned and mapping things that are not there any more?

On 7/12/2012 11:43 PM, Peter Dobratz wrote: NE2, So after I bring up that I don't think railways should be drawn through buildings, and most people agree with me on that, you decide to do this: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.762886&lon=-71.430509&zoom=18&layers=M Does 86 Central Street,

Re: [Talk-us] TIGER fixup and mapping "more"

On 7/12/2012 11:27 AM, Clay Smalley wrote: I like this idea. That would encourage more people to TIGER-review streets, as highway=road shows up pretty ugly on Mapnik, and people like getting rid of ugly. What would be the drawbacks of doing this? It seems like there would be some but I can't thin

Re: [Talk-us] railway=abandoned and mapping things that are not there any more?

On 7/12/2012 3:15 PM, Mike N wrote: On 7/12/2012 3:10 PM, Greg Troxel wrote: So let's spiff up the render, not lose the info from the db. At some point, historical railways are just like general historical items in OSM: after years of buildings are built, demolished, and roads rerouted, edi

Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: [OSM-dev] Licence redaction ready to begin

On 7/11/2012 9:31 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 07/11/12 15:20, Nathan Edgars II wrote: The state capital region of Columbia, South Carolina will be a prime test of the "Do empty areas attract contributors?" theory for some time to come. Why, is someone planning to remove

Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: [OSM-dev] Licence redaction ready to begin

On 7/11/2012 8:38 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 07/11/12 13:59, Mike N wrote: The state capital region of Columbia, South Carolina will be a prime test of the "Do empty areas attract contributors?" theory for some time to come. Why, is someone planning to remove the TIGER import in that

Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: [OSM-dev] Licence redaction ready to begin

On 7/10/2012 6:15 PM, Charlotte Wolter wrote:> Nathan, > > How did you ensure that the railroads will be damaged minimally Using JOSM's license change plugin. If the OSMF uses a different algorithm, we're all screwed. > (and why is poor old LA excluded)? Because there's a lot of work and I can

Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: [OSM-dev] Licence redaction ready to begin

On 7/10/2012 5:40 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: I've just ensured that the OSMF will do minimal damage to the U.S. railway network outside the Los Angeles area. Oh, and South Carolina. Not going to touch that. > Most of the damage will be moving nodes, meaning that geometry may be

Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: [OSM-dev] Licence redaction ready to begin

I've just ensured that the OSMF will do minimal damage to the U.S. railway network outside the Los Angeles area. Most of the damage will be moving nodes, meaning that geometry may be totally borked but topology will be fine. ___ Talk-us mailing list

Re: [Talk-us] US Road route relation conventions

On 7/9/2012 6:23 PM, Mike N wrote: Is there a Wiki page that describes the best current highway tagging scheme to document use of route relations and refs to support Mapnik with shields and other data consumers? No, because there is no current tagging scheme :)

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Licence redaction ready to begin

On 7/9/2012 4:46 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Hello all, I'm pleased to announce that the licence change bot is ready to get underway. Starting this week, we will be 'redacting' the contributions (less than 1%) from the live database that are not compatible with the new Contributor Terms and Op

Re: [Talk-us] Scenic/Historic byways

On 7/8/2012 3:20 PM, Toby Murray wrote: Just came across this while processing pictures from my bike across Kansas: http://i.imgur.com/bmiV2.jpg This is a sign for the "Western Vistas" historic byway. It even has a website: http://www.westernvistashistoricbyway.com/ Closer to home I have also s

[Talk-us] How can I contact the tagging list moderators?

Some time ago my messages to the tagging list were supposedly placed on moderation. But it's instead been cold turkey; despite the automated message saying that "Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive notification of the moderator's decision", neither has happened.

Re: [Talk-us] Rails with trails

On 7/3/2012 4:11 PM, Anthony wrote: What if it's an abandoned railway which is adjacent to a not-abandoned railway? Then it's already tagged as a rail trail. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/t

Re: [Talk-us] Shorelines of highly variable lakes

Note that if you have the desired surface level, you can use USGS topos to place the shoreline on the correct contour. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] An amusing story of a GNIS entry

http://www.fuzzyworld3.com/3um/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=3183 I suppose the question is whether OSM should have this place (assuming someone verifies that the sign is gone). Currently it does as part of the GNIS import: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/153418203/history ___

Re: [Talk-us] Rails with trails

On 6/27/2012 10:46 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: Ideally a map of rail trails should include them (e.g. the one in Trains magazine's May 2011 issue), but there's no easy way to determine if a trail is one. I would map the ways independently when the trail is adjacent to the rails. Duh? The

[Talk-us] Rails with trails

Currently it's simple enough to find most (correctly-tagged) rail trails in the database: find anything tagged railway=abandoned and highway=[one of the trail values]. These trails are usually flatter than roads, and are therefore well-suited for long-distance cycling. But another popular kind

Re: [Talk-us] Work on Arizona rail lines deleted

On 6/19/2012 1:27 PM, Charlotte Wolter wrote: Dear US folks, I did a lot of work on the railroad that parallels I-40 across Arizona, from Gallup, N.M., to Flagstaff, Ariz. There are two parallel tracks with different names, Not sure what you mean by this. The Gallup Subdivision (Belen-East Wins

Re: [Talk-us] Los Angeles area status

On 6/14/2012 9:31 PM, Alan Mintz wrote: I'm not sure I blame him, in theory, for not agreeing to something unseen, being solely at the mercy of the masses - the same ones that approved this change to begin with. Actually there wasn't even that level of approval. The current license change neve

Re: [Talk-us] Bing Imagery link changed for JOSM?

On 6/13/2012 5:22 AM, James Mast wrote: I've also noticed this in the happening in St. Louis along I-64. JOSM is still loading the old imagery, while Potlatch 2 is getting the newer imagery. Perhaps you're zoomed in too far. PL2 also gives the old imagery at zoom 20: http://www.openstreetmap.

Re: [Talk-us] Special issues in LA remap

On 6/12/2012 4:21 PM, Alan Mintz wrote: It seems that the easiest way to quickly clean a way that is clean itself, but contains a bunch of orange nodes, is to select the way and then nudge it very slightly (i.e. in JOSM, zoom way in so that a shift-arrow movement is a small fraction of a meter, b

Re: [Talk-us] holes in Columbus OH?

On 6/12/2012 12:45 AM, Peter Dobratz wrote: I currently have the opportunity to do some mapping in Columbus, Ohio. The admin boundary for the city seems a bit odd: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/182706 There seem to be a lot of holes in the multipolygon relation, and it seems st

Re: [Talk-us] Seeing things you don't care about in the database

On 6/11/2012 7:17 PM, Mark Gray wrote: On one hand, I share the frustration of having lots of new data in an area making some of our tools slower and more difficult to use. In my area a building footprint import slowed down most of the mapping tools and land use polygons can get in the way of edi

Re: [Talk-us] Menlo Park Admin Boundary

On 6/9/2012 6:03 PM, the Old Topo Depot wrote: Hi Steve, Does the border reappear if your revert your changes ? If not, perhaps a style sheet change happened around the same time as your change. It may be fruitful to minimize the tags on the way; get it rendering properly, then re-add tags and

Re: [Talk-us] Menlo Park Admin Boundary

I forgot to mention that you can also use Potlatch 1. Hit U to view deleted ways, select the way, and unlock. This is probably the easiest for a simple undeletion like this. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap

Re: [Talk-us] Menlo Park Admin Boundary

On 6/8/2012 12:16 AM, the Old Topo Depot wrote: It appears that changeset 11339421 deleted way id 108849539, which was a part of the Menlo Park admin boundary. As the changeset is rather large (2,304 nodes; 160 ways) a full revert seems un

Re: [Talk-us] Special issues in LA remap

On 6/6/2012 3:07 AM, Steve All wrote: I have used the JOSM revert changeset to good effect before, I know that users like NE2 and others have the skill to write/wield/deploy powerful scripts that "do" high-level crafted semantically-laser beam effects. Nope - I use JOSM for my magic. _

Re: [Talk-us] Special issues in LA remap

On 6/5/2012 3:42 PM, Mike N wrote: On 6/5/2012 2:56 PM, stevea wrote: But "socially," or more properly stated, in the context of "reaching OSM consensus," what does our community think of (rather wholesale) reverts of a contributor who has not agreed to the CT? Are we OK with that? This nearly

Re: [Talk-us] User cleared out a chunk of streets

On 5/31/2012 11:33 AM, Brian May wrote: Hi All, I just noticed in Gainesville, FL user AMPINTERMEDIA recently deleted a chunk of streets from one section of town. Doesn't look sinister - they are a new user and probably didn't realize what they w

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] proposed automated edit: forested wetlands

On 5/30/2012 6:19 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: There's absolutely no reason to rush. Data that's been sitting in OSM for *years* without even being noticed as a problem I noticed it as a problem about a year ago. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstre

Re: [Talk-us] proposed automated edit: forested wetlands

On 5/29/2012 6:04 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: The landuse import for Georgia (which IMO is poor-quality and should be deleted, but that's not going to happen) has a bunch of areas tagged as note = Forested Wetland with no useful natural=* tags (since natural=wood and natural=wetland both

Re: [Talk-us] UK assumptions that don't hold in the U.S.

On 5/29/2012 10:00 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 05/29/12 11:57, Nathan Edgars II wrote: *Most railways have passenger service. Thus OCM (and the transport map) show all rail lines. But isn't a railway an obstacle for cyclists no matter what services they support? Sure. But that

[Talk-us] proposed automated edit: forested wetlands

The landuse import for Georgia (which IMO is poor-quality and should be deleted, but that's not going to happen) has a bunch of areas tagged as note = Forested Wetland with no useful natural=* tags (since natural=wood and natural=wetland both apply). Example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse

[Talk-us] UK assumptions that don't hold in the U.S.

I've noticed some odd things on OpenCycleMap and other renderings, and I think it's due to a difference in how things are in the UK vs. here. *Most railways have passenger service. Thus OCM (and the transport map) show all rail lines. *Tracks are useful for cycling. When you zoom in on OCM, tra

Re: [Talk-us] Topo map source?

On 5/28/2012 1:58 AM, Russ Nelson wrote: Do we have a new source for WMS topo maps now that Terraserver (msrmaps.com) has been shut down? Can I get a working URL from somebody? wms:http://raster.nationalmap.gov/arcgis/services/DRG/TNM_Digital_Raster_Graphics/MapServer/WMSServer?FORMAT=image/jpe

Re: [Talk-us] Railway start and end dates?

On 5/27/2012 1:51 PM, Russ Nelson wrote: Nathan Edgars II writes: > I'm considering using http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:start_date > and end_date for some railways, but there seems to be too much > ambiguity. First, if it's now a highway=*, I'd use sta

[Talk-us] Railway start and end dates?

I'm considering using http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:start_date and end_date for some railways, but there seems to be too much ambiguity. First, if it's now a highway=*, I'd use start_date:railway for when the line opened. But on a railway=disused, wouldn't this be when it started to be

Re: [Talk-us] Federally Funded Research R&D Centers: landuse=military?

On 5/27/2012 7:15 AM, Greg Troxel wrote: That raises an interesting question, which is the presumption that landuse= is nonoverlapping and tiles the world. Besides the issue with confusion between landuse and landcover, that single-tiling view seems like an unreasonable oversimplificiation of a

Re: [Talk-us] Federally Funded Research R&D Centers: landuse=military?

On 5/25/2012 5:41 PM, stevea wrote: I muse whether "Federally Funded Research and Development Centers" (FFRDCs) are amenable to either "landuse=military" or something like it. I'm not proposing a vote because this may be peculiarly USA-centric. (Then again, maybe it isn't, as there may very well

Re: [Talk-us] How do I fix dupe nodes in waterways?

On 5/20/2012 9:02 PM, the Old Topo Depot wrote: It looks like many of these are at the ends of ways; perhaps whip up a quick JOSM plugin that'll look for thee conditions on ways with NHD tags; perhaps intersected with what the current validator returns; and just fix em The "just fix em" is w

Re: [Talk-us] How do I fix dupe nodes in waterways?

On 5/20/2012 8:22 PM, James Umbanhowar wrote: I'm guessing that if you remove all the (superfluous) NHD:xxx tags, they will then become duplicate nodes in waterways, which I think can still be fixed in JOSM. Nope - removed all but waterway=* and I have the same problem. I've noticed "boundary

[Talk-us] How do I fix dupe nodes in waterways?

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/136738748 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/136765496 I'm creating waterway relations for major rivers and came across this import, which has a whole bunch of dupes. I run the JOSM validator and all it gives is "Duplicate nodes in two un-closed ways

Re: [Talk-us] Roundabout changes on the wiki

On 5/17/2012 7:27 PM, Chris Lawrence wrote: Besides which, the current edit of http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:junction%3Droundabout is yours, so obviously you haven't been banned from editing the wiki and Imagic hasn't imposed his will on that page. Huh? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w

[Talk-us] Roundabout changes on the wiki

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:junction%3Droundabout User Imagic has pushed through changes despite disagreement, and another editor blocked me from the wiki for making fixes to better match existing tagging. Imagic is trying to enforce conflating junction=roundabout with the "modern

Re: [Talk-us] U.S. inland waterways

On 5/17/2012 7:44 AM, Malcolm Herring wrote: > On 17/05/2012 03:44, Nathan Edgars II wrote: >> On 5/16/2012 10:42 PM, Dale Puch wrote: >>> You might check with the OpenSeaMap guys >> >> Surely at one of them is paying attention to tagging@? > > Nathan, > &

Re: [Talk-us] U.S. inland waterways

On 5/16/2012 10:42 PM, Dale Puch wrote: You might check with the OpenSeaMap guys Surely at one of them is paying attention to tagging@? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] U.S. inland waterways

On 5/16/2012 6:48 PM, Dale Puch wrote: I found this at http://www.ndc.iwr.usace.army.mil/data/dictionary/ddnwn.htm Data is here http://www.ndc.iwr.usace.army.mil//db/waternet/data/ but not in shp format so someone would need to do some format translation. There are lots of other sets of data and

Re: [Talk-us] U.S. inland waterways

On 5/16/2012 1:06 AM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote: I guess that depends on what you're trying to do... If you are trying to tag the largest possible vessel that can navigate a waterway (under "normal" conditions at least) you could probably come up with a reasonable set of tags. Inland waterways are hi

Re: [Talk-us] U.S. inland waterways

On 5/16/2012 1:06 AM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote: In either case, any idea what the suitable tags might look like (other than the generic boat=yes ship=yes)? I guess that depends on what you're trying to do... If you are trying to tag the largest possible vessel that can navigate a waterway (under "n

[Talk-us] U.S. inland waterways

Is anyone familiar with the regulations governing the U.S. inland waterways (such as the Mississippi River and the Intracoastal Waterway)? From my brief look, it seems to be less "these barge configurations are allowed" and more "you can go anywhere but don't crash". Is this correct, or are the

[Talk-us] Vandalism by ZeGermanata needs sorting out

http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/ZeGermanata/edits Vandalism includes the following: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/21523281/history changing ref=US 41 to US 241 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/163035927/history fake motorway bypass http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/162

Re: [Talk-us] tagging cul-de-sacs

On 5/15/2012 2:23 PM, Alan Mintz wrote: At 2012-05-15 11:19, Clifford Snow wrote: I tag culs-de-sac as turning_circles and only draw a circular way when there is an island in the middle. But I have a question. Where should the turning_circle node be placed? In the middle of the culs-de-sac or wh

Re: [Talk-us] Fixing TIGER street name abbreviations

The process seems obvious to me: check that the name is still what it originally was (from the tiger:name_base etc. tags), and if so, use those tags to expand abbreviations. (Ignore any with semicolons/colons from joining.) If not, set it aside for semi-manual checking. The only false positives

Re: [Talk-us] TIGER road expansion code

On 5/12/2012 12:41 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote: What error rate is acceptable? "As low as possible", but I've been generally able to handle the edge cases I've seen, either by doing the right thing, or by punting and doing nothing at all. It's worth noting that any errors are already there as

Re: [Talk-us] Fixing TIGER street name abbreviations

On 5/12/2012 2:16 AM, Dale Puch wrote: way id="11013343" "name" v="N F S 595-2" National Forest Service Road 595-2. There are so many different ways of abbreviating this, and I'm not sure which expansion is most correct, so I'd leave these alone. One thing you won't find much of in Florida

Re: [Talk-us] Fixing TIGER street name abbreviations

On 5/11/2012 9:45 AM, Anthony wrote: On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:45 PM, Dale Puch wrote: Clarity! The abbreviations are just that, they mean the full word, and are spoken that way, but written and displayed as the abbreviation. I also disagree I have never know anyone that said "whatever A V E

Re: [Talk-us] Fixing TIGER street name abbreviations

On 5/10/2012 4:08 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote: I've been testing a script to do this. Here it is: http://www.emacsen.net/tiger.py It needs to be fed a file. I've been using the state files from geofabrik. the resulting files in expansions can then be fed to a script for upload. I welcome feed

Re: [Talk-us] Abbreviation expansion - USS to United States Ship?

On 5/10/2012 12:47 PM, Peter Dobratz wrote: On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: Is this a good idea? It looks really odd to me: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/9061339 I bet that no one actually says United States Ship in conversation, but rather U.S.S. Would

[Talk-us] Abbreviation expansion - USS to United States Ship?

Is this a good idea? It looks really odd to me: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/9061339 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] WTF happened to Bing's imagery of Mackinaw City, MI?

http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=potlatch2&lat=45.78&lon=-84.73&zoom=16 For some reason, the city is blacked out, but the black only extends to the shoreline. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/l

Re: [Talk-us] First bona fide mini-roundabout spotted

The problem seems to be that mappers needed a tag for a small roundabout on a node. Since all that was available was mini_roundabout, that's what we used. Had there been another tag, e.g. highway=roundabout, we wouldn't have this discussion. But mini_roundabout is now in use for a large number

Re: [Talk-us] First bona fide mini-roundabout spotted

On 5/7/2012 4:28 PM, Nathan Mills wrote: So this is not/should not be a mini_roundabout? It seems a little silly to call it anything else, since the city just dug a hole in the center of the existing intersection, built a circular curb, and planted a tree: http://g.co/maps/e2gsv Even sillier:

Re: [Talk-us] First bona fide mini-roundabout spotted

On 5/7/2012 1:16 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 5/7/2012 1:02 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: Still, the diverging use overlaps improperly with the actual roundabout correctly as a ring using junction=roundabout. ;o) You're assuming that

Re: [Talk-us] First bona fide mini-roundabout spotted

On 5/7/2012 1:02 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: Still, the diverging use overlaps improperly with the actual roundabout correctly as a ring using junction=roundabout. ;o) You're assuming that each real-world situation has only one correct way of mapping.

Re: [Talk-us] First bona fide mini-roundabout spotted

On 5/7/2012 12:41 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: It vaults right over any supposed definition of mini-roundabout. I suppose if you ignored the whole traversability or vertical clearance requirements the wiki's had since the tag was creat

Re: [Talk-us] First bona fide mini-roundabout spotted

On 5/7/2012 11:02 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: On May 7, 2012 7:06 AM, "Nathan Edgars II" mailto:nerou...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > On 5/7/2012 9:59 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: >> >> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 6:51 AM, Ian Deesmailto:ian.d...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Re: [Talk-us] First bona fide mini-roundabout spotted

On 5/7/2012 10:03 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: Same here. I'm ignoring this "wiki-fiddling": http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:highway%3Dmini_roundabout&diff=747981&oldid=689543 Both edits you men

Re: [Talk-us] First bona fide mini-roundabout spotted

On 5/7/2012 9:59 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 6:51 AM, Ian Dees wrote: I've mapped dozens of these as miniroundabouts in the midwest: http://g.co/maps/w7mnr That's not a mini, though, since you can't just drive over the island. And highway=motorways aren't restricted to mo

Re: [Talk-us] First bona fide mini-roundabout spotted

On 5/7/2012 9:51 AM, Ian Dees wrote: On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Paul Johnson mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org>> wrote: This one surprised me, was pretty sure that the US didn't have real mini roundabouts, but I just spotted one in Burien, WA. http://g.co/maps/afh8m I've mapped dozen

Re: [Talk-us] Proposed Fresno fixes

On 5/6/2012 1:39 PM, Nathan Mixter wrote: 2. Align the shapes to match what is on the ground. I plan to either get rid of or modify them so they match what is on the ground. I'm not sure how you plan on doing this. Many times a fence will be on one side of the property line, to avoid dealing w

Re: [Talk-us] Fresno castradal imports

On 5/4/2012 2:42 PM, Apollinaris Schöll wrote: any import should be treated like this. if it's not edited and the data isn't used then it should be removed after some time. That's a silly statement. If something isolated gets imported, e.g. a water political boundary, it probably won't be edit

Re: [Talk-us] Fixing TIGER street name abbreviations

On 5/1/2012 1:23 PM, Anthony wrote: On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 5/1/2012 12:59 PM, Anthony wrote: Automatically expanding abbreviations is a terrible idea. If an abbreviation is unambiguous, then it can be expanded during the preprocessing step. If, on the

Re: [Talk-us] Fixing TIGER street name abbreviations

On 5/1/2012 12:59 PM, Anthony wrote: Automatically expanding abbreviations is a terrible idea. If an abbreviation is unambiguous, then it can be expanded during the preprocessing step. If, on the other hand, it is ambiguous, then you are turning ambiguous data into incorrect data, which certain

[Talk-us] Waterway directionality in drainage canals

It's the standard to draw a waterway in the direction of flow. I've questioned this several times, but it's an ingrained default. My question is more specific: what happens to a drainage canal that reverses direction? I offer the Everglades and surrounding agricultural land as an example. Ther

Re: [Talk-us] Fresno castradal imports

On 4/26/2012 2:54 AM, Paul Norman wrote: I happened across an import of Fresno castradal data from mid-2010 in the Fresno area. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=36.77&lon=-119.81&zoom=15 is the general area but I haven't fully explored the extents. For a view of the data, see http://maps.paulnor

Re: [Talk-us] 25or6to4 NHD imports

On 4/25/2012 7:25 PM, Paul Norman wrote: The users 25or6to4 and 25or6to4_upload have been importing NHD data in Louisiana without the required consultation and with a few other problems with the import guidelines. Among other things, I asked them to talk to the community to figure out what should

Re: [Talk-us] Parks, etc. Points or outlines

On 4/24/2012 10:21 PM, Toby Murray wrote: I think the reason they exist is the same reason why cities always have a node in addition to their administrative boundaries. And states/countries too far that matter. Most renderers render the name from the nodes, not the admin boundaries. This makes

Re: [Talk-us] Parks, etc. Points or outlines

On 4/24/2012 2:38 PM, Josh Doe wrote: Yes, there should be only one feature for each real world object, and the way/multipolygon has more spatial information, however the nodes might have other useful information like the GNIS feature ID. For this matter, why are there county nodes all over the

Re: [Talk-us] Naming of route relations

On 4/19/2012 10:04 AM, Alexander Jones wrote: The issues of the network=* tag notwithstanding, what should the route relations be named? For example, for, say, Texas State Highway 20 near El Paso, should the name tag say: "Texas State Highway 20" "TX 20" None (defaults to ref=20) Something else

Re: [Talk-us] Here's a weird one

On 4/18/2012 5:46 PM, Charlotte Wolter wrote: Great! Thanks. But, why do I have to mark tiles as dirty, and how does one do that? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Slippy_Map#Mapnik_tile_rendering ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Talk-us] Here's a weird one

On 4/18/2012 3:38 PM, Charlotte Wolter wrote: Hello all, Right in the middle of Beverly Hills, on the southeast corner of Carmelita and Arden (north of Santa Monica Boulevard and south of Sunset Bl.) appear the words "Pacific Coast Highway." Now, PCH is at least five miles away. And, an examinat

Re: [Talk-us] tiff, dwg and nad83

On 4/18/2012 4:02 PM, Ian Dees wrote: It's interesting if you look these up on the GNIS site. What's the source for them? Well, they got a local phone book and looked up schools and churches :) Most of these came from scanned USGS maps. In some cases they were OCR'd and in other cas

Re: [Talk-us] tiff, dwg and nad83

On 4/18/2012 3:31 PM, Charlotte Wolter wrote: Whew! You deleted 43 churches! Well, I know it's frustrating when they all are piled on top of each other, but there must be another way. I've done smaller towns in the Southwest (NOT Abuquerque) with 10 to 15 churches on top of each other. I just se

Re: [Talk-us] [Tagging] Smooth shoulder intended for cycling

Hmmm. Apparently Thunderbird's 'reply to list' fails when there are multiple lists. Sending again: On 4/17/2012 11:47 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: I quite like "cycleway=shoulder". It describes exactly what's going on: the cycling infrastructure at this point isn't a marked lane (cycleway=lane), no

Re: [Talk-us] [Tagging] Smooth shoulder intended for cycling

On 4/17/2012 11:47 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: I quite like "cycleway=shoulder". It describes exactly what's going on: the cycling infrastructure at this point isn't a marked lane (cycleway=lane), nor a segregated lane (cycleway=track), it's a sealed road shoulder. Could you elaborate on your objec

Re: [Talk-us] Smooth shoulder intended for cycling

On 4/17/2012 9:43 PM, Kristian M Zoerhoff wrote: Alternatively, maybe cycleway needs an "unmarked lane" setting for these situations, though that would imply the local authorities are intending for cyclists to use the shoulder, rather than just tolerating their presence (the usual situation). I

Re: [Talk-us] tiff, dwg and nad83

On 4/17/2012 9:23 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote: On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 8:52 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: When I joined OSM I went through photos and notes I had taken since the late 1990s. There's no guarantee of timeliness here either. Certainly not as much as an import of city boundary

[Talk-us] Smooth shoulder intended for cycling

I'm wondering what the best way would be to tag a good-quality shoulder that acts essentially as an undesignated bike lane, in that you can use it but it is not required. Current Florida DOT policy is to use these on rural roads, with marked bike lanes only when there is a lane to the right. Fo

Re: [Talk-us] tiff, dwg and nad83

On 4/17/2012 8:18 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote: If a user manually surveys data, there is an assumption of timeliness and accuracy of that survey. That's not the case with imported data, despite oftentimes being stamped "official". When I joined OSM I went through photos and notes I had taken sin

Re: [Talk-us] tiff, dwg and nad83

On 4/17/2012 4:26 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: And now assume there's a third city of equal size where *nothing* has been mapped at all... maybe I shouldn't speak for everyone but for me (and virtually every mapper I know) surely the city with data-but-no-mappers would be least appealing, far below t

Re: [Talk-us] tiff, dwg and nad83

On 4/17/2012 3:29 AM, Werner Poppele wrote: I totally agree with Frederik. Yes - imported data turns down new mappers. Have you ever seen those monster multipolygons ? I am sure a new mapper says: Forget that I personally tend to stop my contribution to OSM because of the very bad stuff I see whe

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   >