The border crossing points for both the US and Canada can be found here. https://hifld-dhs-gii.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets?group_id= e1132867c8b1409c9c9aace259b968fe
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 6:36 PM, <talk-us-requ...@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > Send Talk-us mailing list submissions to > talk-us@openstreetmap.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > talk-us-requ...@openstreetmap.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > talk-us-ow...@openstreetmap.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Talk-us digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: I think I got this right... (Paul Johnson) > 2. Re: I think I got this right... (Martijn van Exel) > 3. Re: I think I got this right... (Paul Johnson) > 4. U.S.-Mexico border fence update (Michael Corey) > 5. Re: U.S.-Mexico border fence update (Frederik Ramm) > 6. Re: U.S.-Mexico border fence update (Clifford Snow) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 09:31:29 -0600 > From: Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> > To: Richie Kennedy <richiekenned...@gmail.com> > Cc: OpenStreetMap talk-us list <talk-us@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] I think I got this right... > Message-ID: > <CAMPM96oDFNST+Lv6v176-x-hD-vnsKDEPF-tVy0ma3Fpfp0auQ@mail. > gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 12:08 PM, <richiekenned...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 6:24 AM, Paul Johnson wrote > > > > > It would be easier to verify by using forward in the child relations > > exclusively. Then it will validate as a loop, or it won't, > > > > > and the gap becomes immediately apparent. As tagged, most tools (JOSM > > included) won't "get" it. > > > > > > > > In order to automatically validate, no tag should be necessary. However, > > the GUI in the JOSM relation editor will still show be able to show the > > complete loop or lack thereof, making for a easy manual > valication/override. > > > > > > > > The retention of the directional tags are easier for **human** reference > > 😊 > > > > That's the thing, though...JOSM is a human interface. I would argue > breaking JOSM breaks human reference. > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/ > attachments/20170123/4387e256/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 11:14:34 -0700 > From: Martijn van Exel <m...@rtijn.org> > To: Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> > Cc: Richie Kennedy <richiekenned...@gmail.com>, OSM US Talk > <Talk-us@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] I think I got this right... > Message-ID: <5ad6aa6a-00ba-4925-94f8-eac1b62ec...@rtijn.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Well, in this case, the only way to know for a routing application what > the cardinal direction is, is to look at the member roles. Either that our > you slice the relation up even more to have separate relations for east / > west / north / south, which to my mind would make for a too-convoluted > relationship hierarchy. What is your thought on indicating cardinal > direction in this case if not as member role? > > Martijn van Exel > > > On Jan 22, 2017, at 5:24 AM, Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 6:11 PM, <richiekenned...@gmail.com <mailto: > richiekenned...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Regarding the use of child relations for routes, and what to do about > directional roles on beltways, I made some mapping changes to a beltway > that happens to be local to me. > > > > > > > > I took the relation for I-435[1] and “cloned” it into 2 new relations in > JOSM[2][3]. I then deleted all ways from the in the relation and added the > new relations, turning the old relation into the parent. As 435 is a > beltway, I added “(clockwise)” and “(counterclockwise)” to the new > relations. Milepost 0 on I-435 is the junction with I-35 at the southwest > corner and the mileposts increase going clockwise (and do not reset at the > state line) so I used the I-435 bridge over I-35 as my starting point. > Starting there, I organized the ways in the clockwise direction in the JOSM > relation editor. Once I had created a “loop,” I removed all the other ways > from the clockwise relation, then selected the members of the clockwise > relation to remove them from the counterclockwise relation. I then sorted > out the ways for the counterclockwise direction in the same way. > > > > > > > > I left the directional roles (i.e. “north,” “south,” “east,” and “west”) > intact to represent how the segments on 435 are signed, and changed roles > previously marked as “forward” back to directional roles. I also happened > to find that I had inadvertently left a gap in the counterclockwise > direction in the Johnson County Gateway project. I also noticed someone has > previously attempted to note the direction in the “ref” tag. I changed > those as well. > > > > > > > > Aside from the fact that JOSM does not support the use of directional > roles, I think the changes should make it cleaner for future mappers. > > > > > > > > [1]: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/62155 < > http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/62155> > > [2]: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6898835 < > http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6898835> > > [3]: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6898836 < > http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6898836> > > > > It would be easier to verify by using forward in the child relations > exclusively. Then it will validate as a loop, or it won't, and the gap > becomes immediately apparent. As tagged, most tools (JOSM included) won't > "get" it. > > _______________________________________________ > > Talk-us mailing list > > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/ > attachments/20170123/871387b4/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 13:12:42 -0600 > From: Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> > To: Martijn van Exel <m...@rtijn.org> > Cc: Richie Kennedy <richiekenned...@gmail.com>, OSM US Talk > <Talk-us@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] I think I got this right... > Message-ID: > <CAMPM96pE5D-PUdF-hd1X4ngrjEy1sBYsLGGwUTVGfLWKff > y...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Martijn van Exel <m...@rtijn.org> wrote: > > > Well, in this case, the only way to know for a routing application what > > the cardinal direction is, is to look at the member roles. Either that > our > > you slice the relation up even more to have separate relations for east / > > west / north / south, which to my mind would make for a too-convoluted > > relationship hierarchy. What is your thought on indicating cardinal > > direction in this case if not as member role? > > > > I'm not sure where the problem is with child relations with direction=* > tags as one of the relation tags is exactly. Sure, takes more to set up, > but it's easier to maintain long term. > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/ > attachments/20170123/92a7969d/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 14:13:19 -0800 > From: Michael Corey <mco...@revealnews.org> > To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org > Subject: [Talk-us] U.S.-Mexico border fence update > Message-ID: <a5b6e421-6526-e63a-ab92-46e76cab8...@revealnews.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Hello: > > (Also posted in imports) > > Several years ago I did a lot of work adding sections of the U.S.-Mexico > border fence to OSM. In light of the new U.S. president's intention to > expand the fence/wall system, I have been updating that work for our > news organization. We have now mapped the entire existing fence with > significantly more official data and more information about individual > segments. > > I would like to share this work back into OpenStreetMap, but it may be > difficult to modify or sync up with my old work, since I have > changed/added/subtracted significant features. > > Does anyone have thoughts on how to do this most efficiently and without > causing major headaches? I would like to share the maps on both OSM and > on Github, so I will need some kind of workflow to keep everything > synced up. > > The current fence is captured by this relation: > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2266294 > > Any advice people have from past experience would be most welcome. > > Thanks much, > > > -- > > Michael Corey > Senior News Applications Developer > o: 510.809.3178 > twitter: @mikejcorey > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 23:52:28 +0100 > From: Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> > To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] U.S.-Mexico border fence update > Message-ID: <971ca19c-235a-3d31-9989-f735e8280...@remote.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Hi, > > On 01/23/2017 11:13 PM, Michael Corey wrote: > > Does anyone have thoughts on how to do this most efficiently and without > > causing major headaches? > > I wouldn't bother, it's going to be replaced by a wall soon anyway! > > SCNR > Frederik > > -- > Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 15:35:31 -0800 > From: Clifford Snow <cliff...@snowandsnow.us> > To: Michael Corey <mco...@revealnews.org> > Cc: talk-us <talk-us@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] U.S.-Mexico border fence update > Message-ID: > <CADAoPLpLCoDTYKWXYt9jF012kU0d6uMpxN4fyJJhqc84y01dwA@mail. > gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Michael, > Sharing your new work on GitHub would be a good start. The community could > look at the work and see how to best incorporate it into OSM. > > (We could tag the existing fence as before_trump and if anything actually > gets built as by_trump. ) > > Clifford > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Michael Corey <mco...@revealnews.org> > wrote: > > > Hello: > > > > (Also posted in imports) > > > > Several years ago I did a lot of work adding sections of the U.S.-Mexico > > border fence to OSM. In light of the new U.S. president's intention to > > expand the fence/wall system, I have been updating that work for our > > news organization. We have now mapped the entire existing fence with > > significantly more official data and more information about individual > > segments. > > > > I would like to share this work back into OpenStreetMap, but it may be > > difficult to modify or sync up with my old work, since I have > > changed/added/subtracted significant features. > > > > Does anyone have thoughts on how to do this most efficiently and without > > causing major headaches? I would like to share the maps on both OSM and > > on Github, so I will need some kind of workflow to keep everything > > synced up. > > > > The current fence is captured by this relation: > > > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2266294 > > > > Any advice people have from past experience would be most welcome. > > > > Thanks much, > > > > > > -- > > > > Michael Corey > > Senior News Applications Developer > > o: 510.809.3178 > > twitter: @mikejcorey > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Talk-us mailing list > > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > > > > > -- > @osm_seattle > osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us > OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/ > attachments/20170123/32b9a35e/attachment.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Talk-us Digest, Vol 110, Issue 26 > **************************************** >
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
