national park tag is an abstract concept that will just result in
> confusion.
Brad, I "like it," too (what Joseph wrote, as it correctly meets present-day
OSM conventions), but I won't (right now) go so far as to say I like it
"better." We have both, as both defi
" too (what Joseph wrote, as it correctly meets present-day OSM conventions), but I won't (right now) go so far as to say I like it "better." We have both, as both definitions and tagging are messy; we have multiple tagging methods for meaning the same thing. I say this partl
; so that sketches a date for OSM /
OCM to contain / display a completed route. We'll get there, I think we're
almost there.
Steve
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
I appreciate it! I'm now/soon scouring more aerial/satellite imagery before I
MIGHT (with trepidation) enter this. I do think it would be better if locals
who are more certain about this were to enter it. Though if MassDOT asserts a
USBR 7 re-route through here, "it must exist."
SteveA
_
Oops, USBR 7 (not 1) through the area.
SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Does anybody local-to-Massachusetts know if the Ashuwillticook Rail Trail (ART,
in Adams) exists (in real life) north of Hoosac Street? It both does exist in
real life and in OSM south of Hoosac Street, but while the railtrail "area" is
entered in OSM as a leisure=recreation_ground
e going to eliminate
boundary=national_park anytime soon, as even though this shouldn't have
mattered, it did: this was a tag that rendered, so people used it. (How
rendering — presently, eventually, politically-within-OSM... — gets coupled to
tagging is another chewy topi
l-expressed with the (linguistic community) phrase "natural
language."
Much of what OSM is going through with "park" is because:
1) leisure=park wasn't clearly defined (this is essentially the most important
lesson),
2) "park" has wide variation in what
At today's creation of https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Talk:Key:park:type , I
introduce a proposal to reduce usage of the park:type tag (initially, in the
USA) with the goal of better clarifying USA park tagging. There are a couple
of "low hanging fruit" tasks we might do as a pilot run, though past
I do think it important we hear about distinctions between British English (and
how it had a defining influence on much tagging in OSM), and American English,
which I often say distinctly affected the way Americans have used the
leisure=park tag. "Park" in American English is
How much consensus IS there for tagging national_park on "large, (important?)
state parks" which roughly (or not) meet the national_park definition in our
wiki?
We have two in New York, quite a few in California, some in other states. Do
we wish to keep these as they are? Do we rough out "rul
Oops, I meant landuse=recreation_ground. (Not landuse=recreation_area). My
apologies.
SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
t;unfortunateness" of boundary=national_park. But it
would have to be a quite-well-thought-out proposal, might NEED to include the
concept of park_level (which can be supplemented by operator=* and/or owner=*
tags), and should scale to the whole world of OSM, rather than be USA-specifi
plenty of "legacy
tagging" usage of leisure=park, often in California. Some
not-strictly-what-the-wiki-says and how leisure=park IS understood "around the
OSM world" is certainly found in the US beyond California, that is quite true.
So this topic isn't a fresh, clean sh
isclosure, I did just propose on leisure=playground's Talk page that we
add two simple words, "and schools" to describe areas where playgrounds are
found, as lots of schools micro-map their campus as an OSM introduction.
Giving a wiki-nod to playgrounds explicitly being found at scho
On 4/25/2019 8:39 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:
>
A hazy sort-of-emerging along with this is wider recognition that a proto_park
thingy exists.
And on Fri Apr 26 22:44:56 UTC 2019, Jmapb replied:
Sounds like a good case for some lifecycle prefixes -- proposed:leisure=park
Doug Peterson wrote (about "Parks in the
USA..."):
> It is just that there is so much variety to deal with.
I agree, it proves frustrating from an OSM perspective. I believe partly what
happened is OSM started in the UK, where British English is spoken and
"typically
It may be emerging that tagging boundary=protected_area (where correct) where
leisure=park now exists and we delete it, begins to supersede leisure=park on
many North American now-called-parks. I think that's OK, maybe even overdue.
To be clear, there are plenty of "we now call them parks" whi
e, the conundrum
continues. Especially as I ask again, what IS the "land use" on these?
> It's common for large 'parks' (suitable) to introduce beginners...
This is (almost?) yet another category of (loosely stated) "park," perhaps "a
kind of human recreation
reveals the obvious
hole: OSM in the USA has yet to tackle the now-difficult question of what to
do on "county parks" (and county beaches, etc.) at admin_level=6.
So, that wiki might be the primary place to discuss, enrich, contribute ideas.
There are links there to the (just born) pa
s into a solution.
> I am not sure how one could make a blanket categorization based on the little
> part of the world I am familiar with.
The examples you give are all too familiar to me, yet I believe that OSM does a
decent job of tagging all of them, with the exception that leisure
I'll try to be brief, but there's a decade of history. The leisure=park wiki
recently improved to better state it means "an urban/municipal" park, while
boundary=national_park (or perhaps leisure=nature_reserve, maybe
boundary=protected_area) works on large, national (and state or provincial in
FWIW, I believe these TIGER tags have exceedingly low value in OSM:
approaching or at zero. I say this because of a large/wide/far-reaching
consensus we have reached with "similar" values in the USA on
boundary=admin_level tags, where such entities were not only found to not be
ad
An update. Seeing Mark's recent post about is_in reminded me that it has been
two weeks since I politely asked the Rails-To-Trails Conservancy to donate to
OSM the same trail data they donated to Google Maps. I did receive a reply
that my message was forwarded to their "TrailLink
I believe I can make that date and time! (I do use zoom.us with clients (though I don't / won't use Slack and other proprietary tools) ; THANK YOU for making a dial-in option available for those who tend towards Luddite / more open / old-fashioned comm methods). Of course, I'm assuming you'll let
As I believe the etymology of the word "motel" (circa 1920s) is a contraction
of "motor hotel," I believe it is fair to say that a motel is a hotel which
caters to motorists. That is, patrons who arrive in an automobile and wish for
it to be immediately accessible, as in parked directly outside
t 2:43 PM, Mark wrote:
> Thanks Steve.
> Mark
>
> > Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2019 10:00:20 -0800
> > From: OSM Volunteer stevea
> > To: talk-us
> > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Rails-to-Trails data
> >
> > While I'm not sure the email address from their websi
;
> I see that Rails-to-Trails Conservancy donated their GIS data to Google:
>
> https://www.railstotrails.org/our-work/trail-mapping-and-gis/
>
> Anyone in the US fancy asking if they might do the same for OSM? Our coverage
> is good on the major trails (Katy Trail, Coeur d&
wiki, talk page and
community communication. OSM has every reason to support such excellent
suggestions/proposals.
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
involves a
creek edge near Trimble and Orchard). Those four "islands" probably could be
used to (rather crudely) "hand draw modify" the Santa Clara City Limit boundary
in OSM (relation 2221647) but it isn't clear to me how what these maps define
as Urban Service Bound
cal could check it if possible.
I'm fairly local (SJC is my "home airport") yet I'm not finding
easily-available San José City Limit boundaries in an ODbL-compatible format
which I could use to relatively quickly repair the damage. (The user mk408 has
a history of "m
ST be done to correctly import these data: each parcel must be examined
as to its landuse (in the generic sense, not the OSM tag) and assigned an
appropriate protect_class, especially if it is not 27. The protect_class key
may not render today (though, Carto will hopefully "fix" this
On Dec 21, 2018, at 4:17 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea
wrote:
> (Hawai'i, our national page says light_rail is "westerly portion is under
> construction." Updates?)
OK, I updated our Hawaii wiki so it has a Railroads section and table. A
dedicated Hawaii/Railroads wiki see
certain amount of TIGER Review of our rail import is substantial, though
still plenty to do,
* wiki to reflect that status in color-coded tables, "all Western states" (save
Hawai'i) roughly done, and
* the actual state of USA rail data in OSM (completion, correctness). "Loo
(freeway, motorway) and where 17 ends at signalized Ocean Street
(highway=primary). At first I was nonplussed about this being so tagged in
OSM, but as I remembered where the regulatory (therefore, by law) "End Freeway"
sign is (confirming it today), it actually is tagged correctly.
I've seen 25or6to4's work, I am impressed. Furthermore, I've asked him
(off-list) if he would be willing to share his work more widely (here on
talk-us), as it may "spark" a wider launch into the sort of clean-up of
tiger:LSAD=57 data I've been waiting to see happen. (Their
boundary=administr
given annexations, etc.
However, OSM's community, through exhaustive consensus (much of it right here
on talk-us, many of these discussions are ref'd in a wiki I noted earlier)
agree that what the US Census Bureau says is not necessarily what OSM does or
should use to document such enti
A lot of people have (quickly) chimed in about this; political boundaries,
admin_level and cities extending into counties usually gets to be a "hot" topic
as people have a lot to say or strong opinions on these.
I and others recognized this years ago and what has emerged in OSM are
Reminding everybody that whatever Frederik decides to do about California, it
isn't "authoritative," simply helpful to keep OSM data manageable. Sure,
keeping "a solution" logical, simple, "politically correct" and achieving some
consensus (as we have) are
Simon Poole wrote:
> I think the question is less where N vs S California is but more if
> there is a regional split of California that would make sense from a
> processing pov. Is for example somebody likely to do something with a
> North-CA extract, or if you would want to do something on a smal
Bradley White wrote:
> I would suggest splitting into North & South along the northern edge
> of the SLO/Kern/San Bernardino county lines as the first step; this
> will at least split the LA and SF Bay areas into separate files, both
> of which I assume account for a significant portion of CA's da
c entities 'bite-sized'" is a technical reality, hence
necessity. The data are otherwise simply too large.
> 2. is there a demand for this?
Not by me, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it VERY likely does exist.
Let's keep OSM "human sized" by mak
Hi Andrew:
Your wiki for the import is quite sparse, to the point of being so incomplete
it isn't even "skeletal." If that is your "Import Plan," I don't believe it
meets OSM's Import Guidelines (https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines ).
You might have completed Step 1 (Prerequisites), t
"fair to poor" to simply "poor."
I probably made similar errors on my entry of USBR 21 in Kentucky, including a
road/rail-undercrossing I'm still not sure truly exists!
If you are reading this and live/work in Knox County, Warren County and/or the
City of Franklin in Kentu
Thanks, Greg, I'm now "double-check reviewing" USBR 23 in Kentucky. Thanks for
your reciprocity on 21 (when/as you get your 'net back, of course).
SteveA
California
> On Oct 27, 2018, at 11:38 AM, Greg Morgan wrote:
>
> I will be happy to review your implementation of the route. A second pass
Sorry, I should use the abbreviation of KYTC as Kerry does, not KDOT.
SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
differences of
this magnitude in the state of Kentucky, lest the greater-in-US OSM community
suddenly panic that TIGER needs a major boost in fixing. (I mean, let's STAY
busy cleaning up TIGER, but let's not panic that it is especially bad).
OK, TIGER data are "only fair to poor&q
t deal of work to do to change highway
names in OSM in Kentucky, as it appears that counties, cities and KDOT change
names (and segment breaks that make them up) quite a lot in the last 11 years
since TIGER data were entered.
As our wiki says and as is good practice in OSM, Greg's 23 and my
I am told that "E datīs multum" would be more accurate Latin ("Out of data,
much.")
OSM might need a motto as much as we need a state flower, I'm simply having a
bit of fun tossing this into the greater world.
I do think it is important for OSM to keep important in o
AASHTO has completed it's "Autumn 2018 round" of national route numbering
approvals (almost) and there are new USBRs for OSM to map.
One is already completed (thank you, user:micahcochran!): USBR 15 was extended
from Georgia into Florida to connect to Florida's existing U
I attempted to contact at least some of the authors of "bicycle routes" in the
Fort Worth area (and waited the requisite two weeks), alas, to no avail.
So I'll say this here: when tagging for bicycles in OSM, there are two
"levels" at which this is appropriate: 1) is
Well, I'm no longer seeing the Lua errors I saw, so "caches cleared" (all the
way down) and the problem seems to be "fixed" now.
Steve
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
mn remarks that the
job queue counter continues growing. It seems a "beefy enough" server (HP
ProLiant DL360 G6, 2 x 6 cores of Xeon X5660s at 2.80 GHz, 72 GB RAM...) but
maybe we're simply over-stressing it. Yes, I do write a lot of wiki, but I'm
fairly certain it isn&#x
No hijack seen as actual or intended: great idea, Martijn!
Trains, transit, our map: these really do keep getting better and better.
SteveA
> On Sep 18, 2018, at 12:01 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
>
> To branch out a little bit — sorry to hijack the thread Steve — it would be
> nice to do a
Yes, I've been beating the drums rather loudly about USA Rail recently, yet
there is so much that OSM can (and should, imo) do about this. OSM's actual
rail data (imported from TIGER a decade ago) do slowly improve, and for that I
am grateful, even as a lot of the work is both min
t, out of 50 states,
the USA is pushing up to having a dozen or so of them, and growing).
If you are looking for something to do in OSM, please consider creating a State
project rail wiki. There are seeds both simple and complex for you to clone,
starting with the lightly-sketched
https://wik
m looking for, but it
may take some data massaging to get those into OSM in a straight line. I find
it kind of neat (circular logic?) that OSM is at least partly used as a basemap
layer on this site's geo browser, although as I drill down to the data I'm
looking for, the US DOT web si
On Sep 2, 2018, at 9:52 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea
wrote:
>
> I "found something rectangular" and sketched in
> http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Colorado/Railroads which we might agree (as a
> useful, communicative wiki) is "alpha-1" or so.
Following up to my own post
I "found something rectangular" and sketched in
http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Colorado/Railroads which we might agree (as a useful,
communicative wiki) is "alpha-1" or so.
Denver's FasTracks Lines grow, let's sync OSM and this wiki with another
up-to-date light_ra
might all get on the same page,
making (actually or the equivalent of) a two- or three-page (at most?) wiki /
OSM structure with two or three graphics of stacks of things, where this stack
differs from that stack, where technical boundaries make divergences among
real-world data consumers and a
eventual solution is to fix what's broken. Mihai
broached the topic, again (thank you), here we are.
It seems "until then" is good enough for some people. As I can only speak for
myself, I say "not good enough for me." Identifying defects is an absolutely
critical pr
nt. It is
correct, not impractical.
Continuing to put ref=* tags on ways is called a "workaround." Like a bandage
on a wound, workarounds can be decent short-term solutions, but the real
healing which OSM must complete is for renderers to respect route relation
tags. All else is folly.
(I did co-develop PDF while at Adobe, so I have helped
humanity use less paper) I'm still OK with the idea of handing out business
cards or printed matter explaining who OSM is and what we do. A-OK.
I repeat myself, but simply opening my mouth and offering a helpful bit of
truth and
to see, but I
suppose we shouldn't be too surprised. Whether this is legal or ethical or has
anything to do with maps (OSM or otherwise), I'll refrain from saying anything
about here and now. Except that as more and more telescopes are pointed at
everybody everywhe
often in remote/rural areas, simple junctions, switches or
sidings which were named by the railroads "turned into" what we (in OSM and
other contexts) might call a "locality" or even serve as the de facto location
of a hamlet or village, especially as a station serving freight or pa
"federal" sovereign state. In short, "the federal entity"
and "one of the fifty" are wholly different legal entities and "Union" is an
approximate word. Our courts agree.
That's OK: most people know "there's federal law and there's st
Hi Nic:
Several years ago I developed a ten-step process for importing USFS data
(boundaries) into OSM using our JOSM editor (more difficult to use than
web-based iD, but more powerful, too). These are pretty technical steps,
suitable for an intermediate or advanced OSM volunteer, but they
Again, one of the most important things that might be said (in talk-us) about
"State Open Data" is that there are at least fifty different sets of rules.
"Check your state laws and county practices" remains excellent advice. Yes, it
can be complex, but if in a state like California, we're in p
(improperly, even illegally), it may even take DECADES of effort in open
data/open source projects like OSM and we, the good People and Citizen Mappers
who believe in this stuff and continue to knock on doors, send emails and make
phone calls to our elected folks. But the bottom line is that
is a distinction between the legality of
California-produced data and "the data are in the public domain" it is either
very subtle or completely non-existent; I consider California-produced data
"somewhere around, if not actually PD" and "fully ODbL-compatible"
rently
codified as California Government Code §§ 6250 through 6276.48)
Hooray for open data, hooray for how it continues to improve OSM!
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
There is an interesting discussion initiated by Skybunny on whether townships
and cities/villages subordinate to them are (or are not) "inclusive" for
purposes of geocoding.
https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_admin_level#Minor_Civil_Divisions.2C_distinguished_by_inclusiveness
I believ
Hello Volker, old friend:
Thank you for the Garmin history, thank you for the additional links! (I knew
one, didn't know two).
SteveA
> On July 7, 2018 at 6:23:52 AM, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> In fact Garmin started using OSM maps aleady in summer 2013 on the edge
> Touring. Th
Yes, indeed! If Garmin wanted to make its loyal hardware customers a bit
happier, it could firmware-update how it draws various zoom levels and how much
detail it those include. On an "old-school" device like my GPS 60 CSx, it may
be prudent to trim and prune here and there when
ticed that as the CPU
in my Garmin GPS 60 CSx remains the same (obviously), yet the density of OSM
data from the SDHC card gets denser (especially in urban areas at medium-zoom),
it REALLY slows down screen-drawing on the Garmin. This is problematic, but
only during initial draw or re-draw a
in the real world, and I see no inconsistency.
Sometimes a datum in OSM will LACK all the tags it should, because some are not
known. That's not great, but it's OK: mappers who come along later can add
these (and improve this and other features in our map), this is called "growin
> Clifford Snow wrote:
> I must admit I like Slack better than some other forms of communications.
Truly, I think that's great. And again, the many forms of communication OSM
uses, including new ones, are a natural part of a project as large and diverse
as OSM is. There ARE a great
d
him upon!) his awesome community organization skills. I have "done OSM" with
him via talk-us, face-to-face (we briefly spoke at SOTM-US Seattle), email and
wiki to better our map — all using these terrific relatively freely-available
methods of communication — and none of them requir
re
OSM rail tagging. I am in a listening mode as I do so and don't wish to be too
aggressive in positing anything too new or too controversial.
I have not done a comprehensive review of how many Class II railroads (a
category of regional railroad in the USA which is not usually as "
The legacy of TIGER-tagging will persist in OSM for a long, long time. That is
the reality of the import we did, rough/sloppy data and all. This legacy
serves as many lessons to be learned regarding the practice(s) of wide-scale
imports. If it sounds like I'm saying "we made this b
It's a busy time for new national bicycle routes in the USA's USBRS! To help
OSM "get ahead of the curve" of May's AASHTO ballot, several USBR applications
by state DOTs have been made available, allowing OSM to enter these
state-at-a-time national bicycle route da
The Spring, 2018 AASHTO ballots for new USBRs are now becoming available. If
you wish to enter data into OSM for USBR 66 in Missouri,
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/46ztv3epkgj5kv9/AABiIcGZILoUnSckJqzD0uNda?dl=0
downloads route data, including turn-by-turns and 30+ pages of rather nice,
clear
er rail networks
on Earth, it is a large task to improve the many pieces to be "world-class
passenger train route data." OSM is well underway towards this goal and
progress has been steady for several years. See
https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Amtrak and/or
https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Wiki
I remain listening as to what OSM might best do with the network= tag on Amtrak
routes. Some additional research (Wikipedia) reveals that "Amtrak services
fall into three groups: short-haul service on the Northeast Corridor,
state-supported short haul service outside the Northeast Cor
much like a "lonely heart rail mapper" calling across the
chasms of talk-us, looking for more kindred spirits who OSM rail in the USA, I
am doing that here and now, as I'd like to better establish contact with
additional active USA rail mappers. In the last few years OSM has grown
You're quite welcome.
Steve
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
I should have included:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_States_railways
as that is a better starting place (for your flavor of question) than our "at
the top" Amtrak wiki.
There's a lot to grok to become a good OSM rail editor (and don't forget
updat
er rail, like tram, light_rail or monorail).
See https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Relation:route (train, light_rail...) wiki to get
to v1, and https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Relation:public_transport to grow these to
v2 (underway now all over the world there are v1 train routes in OSM).
Happy to help,
Steve
> O
Gee, what a lot of good chatter here on this list! However, neither this list
(nor this requestor) have heard a peep about changing a couple dozen Amtrak
route network=* tags so all have value Amtrak. Too easy? I might simply ask
forgiveness rather than permission or for feedback, though cons
Per our Amtrak wiki, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Amtrak , I'd
appreciate some feedback on conflating all Amtrak route=train relations to be
tagged network=Amtrak. Currently, some have this tag, some have network=Amtrak
Intercity. I find the latter to be superfluous and confusing and wo
So many good things being said by so many good people here. This is OSM at its
best: organically growing goodness and correct actions by right-thinking
people. Be bold, we might say out loud, as in "I delete spam and even just
plain bad mapping when and as I see it." (Whether
Even as I knew my "contact one SEO/Marketing firm, see what happens" approach
was quite pedestrian in the grand scheme of "fighting advertising," I still
though it valuable to share with the talk-us list so others could experience it
too, put on their thinking caps and offer additional approache
Sent to Bright Valley Marketing via their website Contact text box:
How can you help me? More like how can YOU help Bright Valley Marketing?!
OK: you can stop putting advertising into your clients' OpenStreetMap (OSM)
nodes. Phone, website, opening_hours, addr: fields: those are a
understand the harm
to both his business and OSM, then encouraged me to remove the ad "from
whatever seems to be bothering you, Steve." After I said that we're trying to
get these kinds of SEO firms to change their business practices, he wished me
"good luck with that.&qu
Thank you Frederik, thank you Ian. Yes! To both of you.
I am glad to see Frederik encourages me to do what I (somewhat timidly, at
first) already now do in earnest: sweep up when I see some poop in our map.
It took me many years to grow my confidence as an OSM volunteer as "somebody
d by the Census Bureau and could only change once every 10 years. Only
> one U.S. census has occurred in OSM history, so it's not like we'd be
> constantly updating them.
Thank you for your perspective Albert, and while you didn't ask a direct
question, I am left with a coup
ensus geographies, as bureaucratic as that might be. That alone
> seems to make them significant enough to keep. Deleting them because they
> appear useless seems short sighted. It's not like roads are deleted from OSM
> just because nobody uses them.
Brian, Wolfgang, Clif
at a time and TIGER review is no exception.
OSM-US still doesn't have a hard consensus about what to do with many/most of
the "other" TIGER tags (I would like to see this discussion progress), but
after a good review, please DO delete the tiger_reviewed=no tag. Delete it,
don
On Feb 12, 2018, at 1:07 PM, Tod Fitch wrote:
> Thank you Steve for that ITO link. I was unaware of that and it really is a
> nice tool to see the overall status of the TIGER fixup in an area.
You are welcome, Tod; I'm happy to share what I know.
> I used to simply delete the the tiger:reviewed
Clifford Snow wrote
> How many of the TIGER imported streets are still untouched?
Thanks for rallying us with this great thrust forward, Clifford, with excellent
Challenges, resources and direction. I'd like to add one more tool I use for
TIGER cleanup, the Ito! map at:
http://product.itowor
1 - 100 of 233 matches
Mail list logo
