Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

(I'll try that again, without the link syntax that got scrubbed). Apologies for length, yet this is long and requires words. > brad wrote: > I like this > (what Joseph Eisenberg wrote) > better than calling a state park a national park. Tagging them state parks > with the national park tag is

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

Apologies for length, yet this is long and requires words.brad wrote:I like this(what Joseph Eisenberg wrote)better than calling a state park a national park.  Tagging them state parks with the national park tag is an abstract concept that will just result in confusion.Brad, I "like it," too

Re: [Talk-us] Ashuwillticook Rail Trail in Massachusetts

Thanks, Kevin. I believe it will be sorted in a month, but you never know. Great to have a dedicated mapper like you so willing to help, I will mention it if isn't sorted by then. Kerry Irons (ACA volunteer) believes the AASHTO ballot process will be around "month's end" so that sketches a

Re: [Talk-us] Ashuwillticook Rail Trail in Massachusetts

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

[Talk-us] Ashuwillticook Rail Trail in Massachusetts

Oops, USBR 7 (not 1) through the area. SteveA ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

Apologies if I've already answered these. On Apr 24, 2019, at 4:34 PM, Greg Troxel wrote: > I think Kevin has it right that we should tag primarily by something > about land use, not by owne/operator, although it's fine to tag > operator. I 100% agree. Yet I peruse landuse key values (except

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

The linguist in me feels compelled to be a bit pedantic: terms like "plain language" and "human language" used to distinguish between data/code/machine kinds of "language," including what we mean by "tagging" or "codepoint" are, I believe, well-expressed with the (linguistic community) phrase

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

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

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

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 much more

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

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

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

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

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

James Umbanhowar wrote: > Just to throw another curveball in here, there is also > leisure=nature_reserve which is frequently (occasionally?) used for the > city/county parks that are less structured and used for hiking and > nature appreciation. Thanks, James. Reiterating, when I say "Existing

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

On Apr 28, 2019, at 9:27 AM, Josh Lee wrote: > Where is the consensus or vote? The wiki page says "Status: de facto" > which implies that the wiki page should document *actual usage* and > not some sort of idealist, narrow viewpoint. Perhaps this is where I throw up my hands in exasperation.

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

> Jmapb wrote: > ...if I saw a playground on a map > and then arrived there and found it was just an empty lot or an > undeveloped bit of land, I would find fault with that map. So if these > places (kids play here but it's unofficial) are to be mapped, I'd > suggest different tagging. I would

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

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=p

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

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 British" concepts

[Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

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"

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

On Apr 24, 2019, at 2:05 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: (a LOT about parks! thanks, Kevin!) > TL;DR I tried to be brief, sorry if I wasn't. > - Tag the land use, not the land ownership. A city, town, > county, or state park may be virtually indistinguishable urban green > spots, recreation grounds,

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

A brief update: I have blown the dust off of a relevant wiki, https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_States_Public_Lands , started over eight years ago and hardly touched since then. As originally written, this addressed federal (admin_level=2) public lands only. Mainly, it still does,

[Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

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

Re: [Talk-us] Is there any value at all in tiger:MTFCC and tiger:FUNCSTAT tags? (Kevin Kenny)

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 admin_levels

Re: [Talk-us] Rails-to-Trails data

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 group that

Re: [Talk-us] Online mappy hour

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

Re: [Talk-us] motel vs. hotel

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

Re: [Talk-us] Rails-to-Trails data

While I'm not sure the email address from their website I used is exactly correct, I did make this request to RTC (and cc'd Richard). I'll let people know here if or how they reply. Cheers, SteveA California On Mar 6, 2019, at 4:00 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Hi all, > > I see that

Re: [Talk-us] Proposed mechanical edit - elimination of old-style Wikipedia links in USA

I'm OK with this as well. I especially wish to call to the attention to others who may do mechanical wiki edits like this (by Mateusz' good example) that he was careful to: 1) Explain the problem; it confuses mappers/map consumers and wiki authors/readers, 2) Offer a polite proposal as well

Re: [Talk-us] The San Jose / Santa Clara border

this is moderately better, which is "moderately better." SteveA > From: Minh Nguyen > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] The San Jose / Santa Clara border > Date: January 28, 2019 at 5:06:15 AM PST > To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org > > > On 2019-01-26 17:13, OSM Volunteer s

Re: [Talk-us] The San Jose / Santa Clara border

On Jan 26, 2019, at 4:00 AM, Andy Townsend wrote: > A mapper has recently changed this to "cut the corner off" north of the 880 > between San Jose airport and Stevens Creek Mall / Westfield Valley Fair. You > can see the change at >

Re: [Talk-us] US Bureau of Land Management Boundaries

On January 6, 2019 at 7:50:44 AM PST, brad wrote: > > Joseph, I'm not stuck on class 27, but as you say, that fits the definition > on the wiki. I should probably look for other specific protection in the > attributes and translate that somehow. Mostly it's just grazing and > recreation

Re: [Talk-us] Rail Easterly

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 seemed a

[Talk-us] Rail Easterly

In 2013 OpenRailwayMap was released. After 2014 talk-us posts about "Rail Westerly" I spoke at SOTM-US Seattle in 2016 about Rail USA during a theme of building community. Let's call Rail USA today (a decade after our mid-2000s rail import) a version 0.4. This includes: * a certain amount

Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: Trunk versus motorway

Eric Ladner wrote > That may be more of a note to motorists that "hey.. this freeway is coming to > an end" rather than an absolute marker of "this freeway ends here at this > sign". San Diego's own GIS system has it marked as I-8 all the way up to > where it splits into motorway links at

Re: [Talk-us] Strange city boundary: Lee, Illinois

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

Re: [Talk-us] Strange city boundary: Lee, Illinois

Carl Anderson is correct: what is in the map from TIGER about LSAD is true and affords the possibly to derive geo data about incorporated entities (in some cases, where they haven't been deleted), although the data (being somewhere between 11 and 13 years old) may not be accurate, given

[Talk-us] Strange city boundary: Lee, Illinois

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 two wikis,

Re: [Talk-us] California is too big ;)

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 all helpful towards that goal, but

Re: [Talk-us] California is too big ;)

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

Re: [Talk-us] California is too big ;)

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

Re: [Talk-us] California is too big ;)

On Nov 6, 2018,at 12:38:05 AM PST, Frederik Ramm wrote: > ...on the Geofabrik download server, we usually split up countries into > sub-regions once their single .osm.pbf has gone over a certain size. The > aim is to make it easy for people to work with data just for their > region, even on

Re: [Talk-us] New United States Bicycle Routes!

"triple-check" of these data, or even a comprehensive effort at statewide TIGER Review with state- and county-level road naming/numbering authorities. Thank you in advance! SteveA California > On Oct 27, 2018, at 2:30 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea > wrote: > > Thanks, Greg,

Re: [Talk-us] New United States Bicycle Routes!

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

Re: [Talk-us] New United States Bicycle Routes!

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

Re: [Talk-us] New United States Bicycle Routes!

"Having little confidence that KDOT got it right, either" is exactly why I didn't change the names: let the locals (cities, counties, local residents/citizens) hash this out as well as KDOT, if KDOT wants to get involved. For whatever reason, I've only seen these serious differences of this

Re: [Talk-us] New United States Bicycle Routes!

f course; email one or both of us if you are interested in helping. SteveA California > On Oct 26, 2018, at 10:51 AM, OSM Volunteer stevea > wrote: > > Wow, Greg, you are quick. Thank you! > > Additionally, (a major reason I'm including Kerry in this missive), I removed > from O

[Talk-us] OSM "motto"

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 our minds and hearts that

[Talk-us] New United States Bicycle Routes!

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 USBR 90. In Kentucky,

[Talk-us] Fort Worth, Texas bicycle routes

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 infrastructure tagging,

Re: [Talk-us] More-complex wiki pages are spitting up Lua errors

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

[Talk-us] More-complex wiki pages are spitting up Lua errors

What's up with OpenStreetMap's wiki? I've noticed in the last couple of days that "more complex" wiki pages often generate Lua errors where they never have before (and nothing has changed in the content), in particular Lua internal error: the interpreter has terminated with signal "24" Try,

Re: [Talk-us] Yet more about USA Rail: now, wiki

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

[Talk-us] USA (non-Amtrak) passenger rail

In https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_States_railways#Train_Routes there are over 30 USA-based passenger rail routes (e.g. FrontRunner in Utah, MVTA in Minnesota, BrightLine as part of Florida East Coast Railway..) which suffer from very little (wiki) documentation as to how they fit

Re: [Talk-us] Denver RTD's public_transport growth

Jay Johnson wrote: > The authoritative source for railroad GIS data is usually considered to be > BTS: https://www.bts.gov Thank you, Jay! That's a very rich website, I'm now fumbling my way through it and I think I can find the "platform/stop" locations I'm looking for, but it may take

Re: [Talk-us] Denver RTD's public_transport growth

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

[Talk-us] Denver RTD's public_transport growth

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_rail table. This strategy works:

Re: [Talk-us] ref=* tags on links (Kevin Kenny)

So many conversations at once; this list-digest medium proves limiting at times, even often. Helpful old-fashioned aids here might be sketch boards where small-group (two, three people?) sub-projects can spin out and a main thread group where someone explains what s/he sees going on and how we

Re: [Talk-us] ref=* tags on links

On Aug 24, 2018, at 11:41 AM, Evin Fairchild wrote: > Hey, I totally agree that we need to fix the rendering so that the renderer > will show ref tags on route relations. But until then, it's impractical to > expect people to avoid putting the ref tags on the ways. Evin, we agree to disagree

Re: [Talk-us] Talk-us Digest, Vol 129, Issue 27

> Evin Fairchild wrote > The only way you can get people to stop putting reg tags on ways and only put > them on relations is if the renderer actually rendered reg tags from > relations. Currently it doesn't do this, so All good and correct so far... > it's impractical for people to do what

Re: [Talk-us] Food delivery services: Move-fast-and-break-trust

Though I'm "old enough in this project" to celebrate my first decade coming up, I haven't seen the English, German or ANY version in printed form — I'd now almost consider it a historic document! And while I seldom snarl "don't print, we need our trees" (I did co-develop PDF while at Adobe, so

Re: [Talk-us] Food delivery services: Move-fast-and-break-trust

I like Clifford's approach of "If you are curious and asking, I reply openly and honestly with my real name and a card I'm handing you so you may forthrightly know who I am and what I'm doing." In the very, very limited number of times I have also had what I can only characterize as "mild

Re: [Talk-us] place=locality on rail junction

On Aug 17, 2018, at 2:59 AM, talk-us-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: When I come upon these, what's The Right Thing? 'railway=junction ref="CPF 499"' instead? Hi Kevin: "Railroad place names" in the USA have a lore all their own. Sometimes and even often in remote/rural areas, simple

Re: [Talk-us] Proposition for changing the common name tag

I'll refrain from whether adding (or not) "of America" to the end has anything to do with cabals or sovereignty. I agree with Kevin (and others) that adding "it is never incorrect to add it" (can't hurt), usually helps and distinguishes Mexican states from the fifty north of the Rio Grande (in

Re: [Talk-us] [Talk-us-nps] [EXTERNAL] North Carolina National Park

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

Re: [Talk-us] State Open Data

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

Re: [Talk-us] State Open Data

could not be copyrighted > or sold at exorbitant prices in Florida for "cost recovery". At that time the > Attorney General's office had an open records advocate that would help > educate, communicate, and mediate with local governments about public records > laws. >>

Re: [Talk-us] State Open Data

I'm not an attorney, though were I to attempt to sharpen focus on these two replies, I'd say that in California, it's more like this: data produced by state agencies (by our state government personnel "on the clock") publishing them as "produced by the state of California" cannot have onerous

[Talk-us] An interesting discussion on admin_level about "inclusiveness" with townships

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

Re: [Talk-us] Whole-US Garmin Map update - 2018-07-03

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. This map goes by

Re: [Talk-us] Whole-US Garmin Map update - 2018-07-03

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 using OSM

Re: [Talk-us] Whole-US Garmin Map update - 2018-07-03

I frequently download Dave's Garmin images for my (fairly ancient, yet still trusty!) Garmin GPS 60 CSx. (The fact that it runs on two AA NiMH rechargeable cells I can rotate into a pocket-sized solar charger while I'm in the wilderness has something to do with this). Yes, I have noticed that

Re: [Talk-us] named links

While I don't have "a dog in this fight," I also read our wiki which says "Link roads NORMALLY do not have names." (Emphasis mine). In the unusual (abnormal?) cases where they do (and I trust Paul wouldn't have added them unless they do), there is no contradiction with our wiki, rather an

Re: [Talk-us] Slack: Do we need an Alternative (was Planning an import in Price George...)

> 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 many, some

Re: [Talk-us] Planning an Import in Prince George's County, Maryland

> Clifford Snow wrote: > If you haven't already joined our US Slack community, please sign up at > https://osmus-slack.herokuapp.com/. The community can help you with build > your import plan. Having met Clifford two summers ago, I admired, marveled at (and congratulated him upon!) his

[Talk-us] Central Oregon & Pacific Railroad: usage=branch -> usage=main?

I realize that distinctions between railway=rail + usage=* tags is subjective (even as OpenRailwayMap — ORM — renders main orange and branch yellow). Full disclosure: I have tried to sharpen focus in contributing to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenRailwayMap/Tagging and related wiki

Re: [Talk-us] Drop the tiger:reviewed tag from roads

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 bed, so now

[Talk-us] United States Bicycle Route ballots pending AASHTO approval

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 data. Currently a USBR 35

[Talk-us] USBR 66 in Missouri data available

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,

Re: [Talk-us] Amtrak network=Amtrak tagging

Project_United_States_railways if you wish to participate. Did you "play with trains" when you were younger? Please help improve OSM's "national train set" in the US: it's actually rather fun! SteveA California > On Apr 3, 2018, at 11:08 AM, OSM Volunteer steve

Re: [Talk-us] Amtrak network=Amtrak tagging

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 Corridor,

Re: [Talk-us] Amtrak network=Amtrak tagging

On Mar 25, 2018, at 11:09 PM, Greg Morgan wrote: > I wonder what to do with some of the routes. For example, additional tracks > were added in the Tucson area. If we add a route, say, us 60 then an east and > west relation is created along with a master route. Do we do

Re: [Talk-us] Amtrak network=Amtrak tagging

You're quite welcome. Steve ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Amtrak network=Amtrak tagging

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 updating wiki), yet, many

Re: [Talk-us] Amtrak network=Amtrak tagging

Hi Greg: Great questions. If you are a rail public_transport:version=2 super-jockey, hey, polish them up to a firm buff and we'll marvel at their brilliant shine! However (and this is pedestrian me), I make "better" progress (higher quality data, at the expense of being slower) following

[Talk-us] Amtrak network=Amtrak tagging

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

[Talk-us] Amtrak network=Amtrak tagging

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

Re: [Talk-us] Help fight advertising

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 front door,

Re: [Talk-us] Help fight advertising

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

Re: [Talk-us] Help fight advertising

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 all OK.

Re: [Talk-us] Help fight advertising

I phoned a local business owner from Frederik's list and learned he used "Bright Valley Marketing" (https://www.brightvalleymarketing.com) out of Sacramento, California: it was they who apparently are the culprit. The business owner was happy to recognize and vaguely seemed to understand the

Re: [Talk-us] Help fight advertising

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 who

Re: [Talk-us] Satus CDP

Albert Pundt writes > Many towns and suburbs in my area are only CDPs, and having proper boundaries > for them seems like it'd be useful, especially in more densely populated > areas. It's not like there's any fuzziness with them either, since they're > defined by the

Re: [Talk-us] Satus CDP

Brian Stromberg writes: > As someone who does research with Census data, it would be helpful to keep > all Census geographies in place (at least until Census decides to get rid of > them). Someone will use them at some point. Additionally, they're an official >

Re: [Talk-us] Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways (Ben Miller)

Chiming in my +1 that county-at-at-time is a good, workable approach for TIGER cleanup. I review the Ito! map's red highways/freeways first, then red major roads, then get to orange. Joe Larson in San Luis Obispo (part of the firefighters there) spent a couple of years coordinating this

Re: [Talk-us] Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

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

Re: [Talk-us] Rural US: Correcting Original TIGER Imported Ways

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

Re: [Talk-us] tiger name issue in New York

I encourage you to edit wiki, Max, it is an important part of OSM-ing, if you are one who does, fantastic. Honest updates or better data, it's easy to write and comes naturally to many. Please, go for It! Steve ___ Talk-us mailing list

[Talk-us] [Imports-us] New to lists and would like to suggest some imports

I would add that the guidance of an OSM volunteer with some experience with importing can be quite helpful. It is easy to be eager to complete an import. It can be challenging, especially for novice mappers or those unexperienced with "medium-sized" projects like this to do one for the first

Re: [Talk-us] Leonia, NJ doesn't want you to navigate through

What most of us largely "know" (in this context, as we, myself included, posit both opinion and potential solutions) comes from a web-based news article. It isn't clear to me that a local ordinance has already passed specifying "something." Same with signs on-the-ground, speaking personally,

Re: [Talk-us] Leonia, NJ doesn't want you to navigate through

First, as they are public (not private) streets, anybody has the right to traverse them. Yes, a local ordinance might (in the near future) prohibit access for "cut-through," it is the right of the municipality to pass such an ordinance and for local police to enforce it. "We don't want the

Re: [Talk-us] Parks, again

There is a lot to unpack in this discussion. First, OSM has the strong tenet that we should not code (data tag) for the renderer. That is sound advice and largely serves us well, but it fails to directly address that there is no point to being an OSM volunteer unless there ARE renderers which

Re: [Talk-us] Parks, again

On January 4, 2018 at 6:21:03 PM PST, Bradley White wrote: >> I don't think the title >> given to a piece of land should necessarily have bearing on the data >> representation, in the same way "Hampstead Heath" doesn't get >> "natural=heath" just because it's in the

  1   2   3   >