Ngày 2013-01-09 5:30 AM, Kevin Kenny viết:
On 01/09/2013 03:24 AM, Minh Nguyen wrote:
While filling in townships in the Greater Cincinnati area, I've also
been working on TIGER's rather artful interpretation of the area's
municipal boundaries, motivated by the Mapnik style's prominent
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 1:43 AM, Michael Patrick geodes...@gmail.com wrote:
There are already communities around Disaster Relief,
etc., and good etiquette would dictate that I wouldn't go in and edit their
data.
You
On 2013-01-08 3:13 AM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 12:40 AM, Jeff Meyer j...@gwhat.org wrote:
All of the rules about observability and verifiability apply to country and
state borders, as well, as Mike states, but we include them and somehow
improve them.
We do include
On 01/09/2013 03:24 AM, Minh Nguyen wrote:
While filling in townships in the Greater Cincinnati area, I've also
been working on TIGER's rather artful interpretation of the area's
municipal boundaries, motivated by the Mapnik style's prominent
rendering of them. The boundaries are full of things
Kevin Kenny kken...@nycap.rr.com writes:
On 01/09/2013 03:24 AM, Minh Nguyen wrote:
While filling in townships in the Greater Cincinnati area, I've also
been working on TIGER's rather artful interpretation of the area's
municipal boundaries, motivated by the Mapnik style's prominent
On 1/9/13 8:30 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote:
Around here, for municipal boundaries to cut diagonally through
residential lots isn't uncommon. I once lived in a house where
the front yard was in one township and the back yard in another.
Two separate tax bills (although the second one was cheap because
Toby Murray wrote:
I think it would be great to make more tools support more
external data sets as opposed to dumping *everything* into OSM.
Yep. Absolutely. To my mind this is one of the really nice things about
TileMill. I'm currently playing with it to render (UK) maps that combine OSM
and
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 12:40 AM, Jeff Meyer j...@gwhat.org wrote:
For example, requiring that any data imported into OSM have a lifetime
maintenance plan seems like something that we don't require of *any* OSM
data entry.
I don't think that we've discussed a lifetime mainteince plan
anywhere,
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 1:43 AM, Michael Patrick geodes...@gmail.com wrote:
So there too, is a potential win for OSM. We could rely on current, highly
accurate public domain boundry data and use that for rendering, geolocation
and other places, while keeping it out of the OSM dataset.
Please
. They were most helpful. I am
continually amazed by the energy and thought people give to the OSM
project.
Cheers,
derrick
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 5:00 AM, talk-us-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
Re: [Talk-us] Anyone ever talked about adding more Land
Ownership data to OSM
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 11:08 PM, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com wrote:
I think it would be great to make more tools support more external
data sets as opposed to dumping *everything* into OSM. You want county
borders on your garmin? Check a box while creating the file and mkgmap
Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com writes:
I think it would be great to make more tools support more external
data sets as opposed to dumping *everything* into OSM. You want county
borders on your garmin? Check a box while creating the file and mkgmap
downloads the most recent county borders
On 01/08/2013 12:17 PM, derrick nehrenberg wrote:
It seems like the majority consensus is that the US Land Ownership (or
management data) doesn't belong in the OSM database. So, I guess I won't
be adding it.
[... argument for why the USFS Managed Land cadastre belongs ...]
If anyone has any
It would be awesome to include the land ownership data from BLM especially
if we could do it for the whole US. Unfortunately that is probably not
something that people would want to add because of the conflicts with other
data. I wonder if we could include it on a limited basis or only include
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 6:53 PM, Nathan Mixter nmix...@gmail.com wrote:
It would be awesome to include the land ownership data from BLM especially
if we could do it for the whole US. Unfortunately that is probably not
something that people would want to add because of the conflicts with other
On Monday, January 7, 2013, Ian Dees wrote:
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 6:53 PM, Nathan Mixter
nmix...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'nmix...@gmail.com');
wrote:
It would be awesome to include the land ownership data from BLM
especially if we could do it for the whole US. Unfortunately
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
On Monday, January 7, 2013, Ian Dees wrote:
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 6:53 PM, Nathan Mixter nmix...@gmail.com wrote:
It would be awesome to include the land ownership data from BLM
especially if we could do it for the
Isn't that true of all data in the database?
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
On Monday, January 7, 2013, Ian Dees wrote:
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 6:53 PM, Nathan Mixter nmix...@gmail.com
Some OSM Editors have spent time improving at least county borders.
A core part of the discussion is ownership. If BLM data is added to the
OSM DB, who are the individuals within the community that will take active
ownership for keeping the data quality high and updated as BLM issues
changes, or
On 1/7/13 10:37 PM, the Old Topo Depot wrote:
We do have an issue with US state and county borders, as some are missing,
incorrect, incomplete or incorrectly tagged. Perhaps we can organize a
cleanse the state and county borders project to improve the data quality
and currentness.
i would
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 9:34 PM, Jeff Meyer j...@gwhat.org wrote:
Isn't that true of all data in the database?
OSM is built on surveyors doing surveys. That is we have people who go
out and walk around with GPSes, or maps, and manually survey what's on
the ground. Then when a second person goes
We just had this conversation a couple threads ago. This sort of land
ownership border doesn't really belong in OSM because we can't improve it.
In OSM as a whole, or just in the US? When I peruse the various
hiking/path/trail tagging portions of the Wiki, I found this:
Since the tagging is
My apologies - my real point was that it doesn't seem that rules are being
applied equally across different data sets.
For example, requiring that any data imported into OSM have a lifetime
maintenance plan seems like something that we don't require of *any* OSM
data entry. Most data is entered
Full ack to to what Serge and Ian mentioned already. In addition I checked the
metadata and this data is of questionable accuracy and shouldn't be added alone
for this reason.
Data set now is a mix of scale, tolerances, and vintage, ranging from 1994 to
2006, line work ranging from GCDB to 24K
So there too, is a potential win for OSM. We could rely on current, highly
accurate public domain boundry data and use that for rendering, geolocation
and other places, while keeping it out of the OSM dataset.
Please expand on this. There are already communities around Disaster
Relief, etc.,
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 11:40 PM, Jeff Meyer j...@gwhat.org wrote:
All of the rules about observability and verifiability apply to country and
state borders, as well, as Mike states, but we include them and somehow
improve them.
Have we improved them? Being the last user to touch about 35% of
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 11:08 PM, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 11:40 PM, Jeff Meyer j...@gwhat.org wrote:
All of the rules about observability and verifiability apply to country
and
state borders, as well, as Mike states, but we include them and somehow
27 matches
Mail list logo
