OpenStreetMap
New housing developments usually have one or more companies contracted to build homes (e.g. Lennar, David Weekley). Would this be a useful addition to the landuse/neighbourhood polygon?
osm.org/?lat=49&lon=-122.7&zoom=13&layers=Q
There’s nothing relevant in the OSM database with name=British Colombia. The relation is spelled correctly.
Disney’s Pop Century Resort has an address of 1050 Century Drive. According to the Orange County Property Appraiser, Century Drive is the road from Victory Way to the parking lots, but no signs give the name. The only street signs, overhead internally-lit ones at the Victory Way traffic light, say “Disney’s Pop Century”. Someone following directions to turn at Century Drive may miss their turn.
My first inclination is to move the name to an unsigned_name field, but would this break anything such as address searching?
A more complicated case: the entrance to Coronado Springs has a name that is signed internally, but the signs at the entrance instead say “Coronado Springs”.
I seem to have flipped from manic (“I can stop a bully with logic!”) to depressive (“what the hell was I thinking”) in the past few hours. Don’t bother me unless kicking a man when he’s down makes you feel bigger.
Original text follows:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Today I made this movement in a Ford [s]Focus[/s] Escape (I’m usually a passenger and pay more attention to the road than details of the car) with no trouble with respect to staying off the striped gore. No signs prohibited this left-and-quick-right. (Note that the national MUTCD gives no prohibitory meaning to the single white line, and neither does Florida law.)
It remains to be seen if this is enough for Paul Johnson, who added a turn restriction prohibiting this movement based solely on aerials.
Taken to its logical conclusion, this post by Frederik Ramm suggests exactly that - delete administrative boundaries that are not marked on the ground: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2012-December/010026.html
TLDR: the anti-importers are coming for your data.
osm.org/browse/way/89902961/history Note that wambag changed the maxspeed (presumably correctly; the city recently took over maintenance from the state), but the source:maxspeed was not touched (and is thus incorrect now). I haven’t gotten a response, but it’s very likely that he was using PL2’s simple mode, which allows you to choose the maxspeed from a dropdown, but has no mention of source:maxspeed.
Possible solution: put a list of all tags at the bottom (possibly ignoring certain ones like TIGER), with some sort of hint showing the correlation between the simple tags up top and the ones at the bottom. This has the beneficial side effect of easing the learning curve.
This is from the MapQuest rendering, but I can’t find this name anywhere in the OSM data. It should, of course, be Sierra Nevada (“sierra” is Spanish for “mountain range”).
add:description = Mapping your location can make your business more visible on Google Maps, smart phones, and vehicle navigation systems, showing your potential customers right where you are located.
http://map.project-osrm.org/1r9 The obvious route is to follow I-80 all the way. But instead it gets off and follows surface roads across Indiana.
Could it be avoiding barrier=toll_booth? The exit where it gets off (SR 66) is missing this. But why would it avoid toll roads without the user telling it to do so, and why wouldn’t it be using the toll=* tag on the ways?
osm.org/?way=135724062 This is not “redaction”-related. It’s as if the nodes were never added to the rendering database.
The following can be observed in many edits done in Potlatch 2, especially in simple mode.
Nodes as one in two. Often a way will be drawn to intersect another not at an existing node but right next to it. It seems that PL2 has a problem with the minimum distance at which it assumes the user means to connect two nodes, and no obvious indication after-the-fact that something is wrong (since, unlike JOSM, nodes only appear when you mouse over a way). This causes not only redundant nodes but bad errors. For example, where a dual carriageway ends, there may be a tiny bit of one-way single carriageway, due to the node at the end of one direction being different from the one where the other direction and the single-carriageway continuation join. Hence the road is not routable in one direction.
Too many tags. This may be a matter of personal taste, but what’s the point of adding oneway=no, bicycle=yes, foot=yes, cycleway=no, access=yes, motor_vehicle=yes to every street? (And sometimes people will think they have to fill in every value despite not knowing for sure what they are, leading to bicycle=no on major highways where cycling is actually legally allowed.) Related is the misuse of the designation tag, which, according to the wiki, is only for certain types of object in the UK, but has been incorrectly used for what belongs in name, ref, note, or other tags.
Use of separators other than semicolons. The accepted way of tagging an overlap of two routes is with a semicolon; e.g. ref=I 80;I 90 for the long segment of toll road that carries Interstates 80 and 90 together. But PL2 displays this as red with a warning icon - “This tag contains more than one value - please check” - leading some mappers to “correct” the tag with a slash, dash, comma, or by deleting the second route.
osm.org/browse/way/9379855 osm.org/browse/way/101831599 Obviously the highway expands to twice its width, keeping the same number of lanes, when it crosses the town line.
Sigh, I suppose it’s unconstructive to complain about the actions of a huge multinational organization
Nathan
You have continued to post on talk@, violating several points of etiquette
* Stay on Topic
* No Conspiracy theories
* Assume Good Faith
* Nitpicking doesn't help you or anyone else
Since just last month, you received a 24 hour ban, you are now receiving a 1 week ban from talk.
Mikel & moderators
== Mikel Maron ==
+14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
From: Nathan Edgars II
To: Russ Nelson
Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 7:17 AM
Subject: [OSM-talk] OSMF's tainting decisions (Re: Mixing OSM and FOSM data)
On 1/15/2012 9:38 PM, Russ Nelson wrote:
> The OSMF seems determined to avoid any edge cases by being very
> conservative.
Maybe in some cases, but with respect to splitting and joining ways, they're being extremely liberal and assuming that a new way ID is a new way wrt licensing. That is, unless they're not going to follow the precedent of the existing tools, in which case we're in rather deep shit.
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
To the best of my knowledge, all jughandles in New Jersey are now mapped and tagged with proper turn restrictions. This will prevent improper directions such as this one, though the Cloudmade router's present handling of jughandles leaves a lot to be desired.
Every state road in Florida has been tagged with ref and relation: osm.wiki/Florida/State_road_relations
see topic