Why not? Post your errors and I (or another OSM editor here) will see what I can do to fix them. (Note that overlaps are handled poorly and usually not rendered at all; this is the fault of the renderer (http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2675).)
Errors I won't fix due to interference by local mappers:
- Alaskan Way Viaduct and West Seattle Bridge not marked as freeway
- business letters in Texas
Not a highway, but still an error: In Auburn, NY (link (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.9173&lon=-76.55645&zoom=16)), the label "Mount Caramel High School" should be "Seward Elementary School". the "Seward School" to the north should not exist. Seward Elementary used to be Mount Carmel High, and USGS topos have not been updated.
Not necessarily highways per se, but here's a few:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=33.94777&lon=-84.5208&zoom=16&layers=M
All of the Lake Street, Pinecrest Circle stuff in the trapezoid bordered by US 41 and GA 120 are former paper streets, with the exception of Trade Center Blvd. Mapquest gets it completely correct : http://mapq.st/hB5Zkq
There's a phantom major highway here : http://osm.org/go/ZQqwz1li--
Quote from: Ga293 on April 12, 2011, 09:02:41 AM
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=33.94777&lon=-84.5208&zoom=16&layers=M
All of the Lake Street, Pinecrest Circle stuff in the trapezoid bordered by US 41 and GA 120 are former paper streets, with the exception of Trade Center Blvd. Mapquest gets it completely correct : http://mapq.st/hB5Zkq
Marked a few as parking lot service roads and removed names.
Quote from: Ga293 on April 12, 2011, 09:02:41 AM
There's a phantom major highway here : http://osm.org/go/ZQqwz1li--
Someone mistakenly marked a stream as a highway. Fixed.
I've been messing around with OSM a bit this week. Could you explain basically how streets/major highways are supposed to be marked? I've read the documentation but most of it is geared toward UK use. Am I correct in the understanding that it goes Interstate/freeway=motorway, expressway=trunk, US=primary, state=secondary? What are urban major arterials supposed to be? In Oklahoma City they are marked as secondary but in Norman they are tertiary. (If major arterials are secondary, is tertiary for residential collectors?)
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 06, 2011, 10:26:34 PM
I've been messing around with OSM a bit this week. Could you explain basically how streets/major highways are supposed to be marked? I've read the documentation but most of it is geared toward UK use. Am I correct in the understanding that it goes Interstate/freeway=motorway, expressway=trunk, US=primary, state=secondary? What are urban major arterials supposed to be? In Oklahoma City they are marked as secondary but in Norman they are tertiary. (If major arterials are secondary, is tertiary for residential collectors?)
Heh. There's no real consensus here. Motorway is of course freeway (add bicycle=yes if bikes are allowed). Trunk is used for both surface expressways and for major intercity highways (such as US 93 Phoenix-Las Vegas, even on those sections that aren't strictly expressway). Primary-secondary-tertiary is a balancing act with no strict rules. Usually a U.S. Highway will be primary or higher and a state highway will be secondary or higher, but exceptions will come up (for example I'd guess that SH 9 from Norman to Tecumseh serves a decent amount of traffic and should be primary). Functional classification is another useful data point; generally principal=primary, minor=secondary, collector=tertiary will be a good starting point. My personal balance can be seen best in Orlando (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=28.5478&lon=-81.3904&zoom=13&layers=M). But really, as long as you're internally consistent (e.g. not ending a secondary at an intersection of tertiaries without a good reason, like in Norman), you shouldn't have problems.
By the way, rendering is currently borked, so your changes won't show up immediately.
Quote from: NE2 on May 06, 2011, 10:42:31 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 06, 2011, 10:26:34 PM
I've been messing around with OSM a bit this week. Could you explain basically how streets/major highways are supposed to be marked? I've read the documentation but most of it is geared toward UK use. Am I correct in the understanding that it goes Interstate/freeway=motorway, expressway=trunk, US=primary, state=secondary? What are urban major arterials supposed to be? In Oklahoma City they are marked as secondary but in Norman they are tertiary. (If major arterials are secondary, is tertiary for residential collectors?)
Heh. There's no real consensus here. Motorway is of course freeway (add bicycle=yes if bikes are allowed). Trunk is used for both surface expressways and for major intercity highways (such as US 93 Phoenix-Las Vegas, even on those sections that aren't strictly expressway). Primary-secondary-tertiary is a balancing act with no strict rules. Usually a U.S. Highway will be primary or higher and a state highway will be secondary or higher, but exceptions will come up (for example I'd guess that SH 9 from Norman to Tecumseh serves a decent amount of traffic and should be primary). Functional classification is another useful data point; generally principal=primary, minor=secondary, collector=tertiary will be a good starting point. My personal balance can be seen best in Orlando (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=28.5478&lon=-81.3904&zoom=13&layers=M). But really, as long as you're internally consistent (e.g. not ending a secondary at an intersection of tertiaries without a good reason, like in Norman), you shouldn't have problems.
By the way, rendering is currently borked, so your changes won't show up immediately.
I am actually discussing the case of SH-9 with another user right now via PM. I was under the impression that SH-9 between 24th Ave. S.E. as an at-grade expressway with stoplights, should be trunk, but he cites the stoplight timing and the fact that usually the lights prohibit reaching the speed limit of 50 MPH as reasons why it should not be trunk. I am proposing that we mark it as primary, we'll see what he says.
I think part of the messiness in this was the fact that OSM started out tailored to the needs of UK mapping, which doesn't mesh perfectly with situations in the US. A little more pre-launch planning might have avoided the ambiguousness.
I had wondered about rendering. Are such interruptions normal? Is telling Osmarender/tiles@home to render tiles futile as well?
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 07, 2011, 10:07:41 AM
I am actually discussing the case of SH-9 with another user right now via PM. I was under the impression that SH-9 between 24th Ave. S.E. as an at-grade expressway with stoplights, should be trunk, but he cites the stoplight timing and the fact that usually the lights prohibit reaching the speed limit of 50 MPH as reasons why it should not be trunk. I am proposing that we mark it as primary, we'll see what he says.
There's no such requirement for 50 mph speeds to be trunk (or motorway). A number of expressways in California are 45 or lower: http://www.sccgov.org/scc_ordinance/31302011.HTM
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 07, 2011, 10:07:41 AM
I had wondered about rendering. Are such interruptions normal? Is telling Osmarender/tiles@home to render tiles futile as well?
The hardware is apparently being upgraded; it's not normal. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Platform_Status
I've been working on cleaning up Brevard County a bit this week. Mainly I've been working on cleaning up misaligned roads (crappy TIGER data) and making sure dual carriageways are marked properly.
I'm glad to know that there's a problem with the renderer I've noticed that it takes several days to see my updates (and then not even at all zoom levels), other than at the mapquest OSM site which almost seems to re-render on demand.
So guys, what's your ID @ OSM? I want to add you to my buddy list in it (already have you NE2). ;)
Quote from: NE2 on May 07, 2011, 10:20:16 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 07, 2011, 10:07:41 AM
I am actually discussing the case of SH-9 with another user right now via PM. I was under the impression that SH-9 between 24th Ave. S.E. as an at-grade expressway with stoplights, should be trunk, but he cites the stoplight timing and the fact that usually the lights prohibit reaching the speed limit of 50 MPH as reasons why it should not be trunk. I am proposing that we mark it as primary, we'll see what he says.
There's no such requirement for 50 mph speeds to be trunk (or motorway). A number of expressways in California are 45 or lower: http://www.sccgov.org/scc_ordinance/31302011.HTM
Well, he replied and said this:
Quote from: dufekin @ OSM
SH-9 west of SE 24th St in Norman is four-lane because it is urban (as opposed to rural east of SE 24th St) and carries more traffic. Norman is not a large city (and is fast becoming just another suburb of Oklahoma City).
As for traffic counts, check out Association of Central Oklahoma Governments (ACOG), which has traffic counts like these for other streets in Norman [I had mentioned that AADT of that segment of SH-9 is 29,503]:
30,058 West Main Street near Wylie Road
21,218 West Lindsey Street
28,440 East Robinson Street (east of Porter)
http://acog.ms2soft.com/tcds/tsearch.asp?loc=Acog&mod=
Rural roads (like OK-74 south of Goldsby) generally carry less traffic despite the same designation. Otherwise, residential streets in dense urban centers could get the same designation as thoroughfares between two remote towns. Although this designation may reflect traffic patters accurately, it looks horrible on the wide-zoom maps.
I use the "primary" designation for roads that connect one city with another and for US highways. On this theory, OK-9 may be primary because it connects Norman with Shawnee, but as I noted, Norman is fast becoming a suburb of Oklahoma City anyway.
So... is he just off-base here, or is this a thing where every major area has its own idea of what symbols represent what, as you seem to hint? If so that is a major, major failing of OpenStreetMap.
QuoteSo guys, what's your ID @ OSM? I want to add you to my buddy list in it (already have you NE2).
Scott5114
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 07, 2011, 07:28:57 PM
So... is he just off-base here, or is this a thing where every major area has its own idea of what symbols represent what, as you seem to hint? If so that is a major, major failing of OpenStreetMap.
It's a thing where every editor has his own idea. See the Alaskan Way Viaduct in Seattle. But since you live there, that gives you more weight than any old mapper (and the same amount of weight as dufekin, assuming he lives there).
Now, if you want, you can use an objective tag like expressway=yes (and even better, if you know what level of access control is used, also make up a tag for that). This isn't rendered as anything, but keeps the information there for the future.
Quote
So... is he just off-base here, or is this a thing where every major area has its own idea of what symbols represent what, as you seem to hint? If so that is a major, major failing of OpenStreetMap.
I think the problem is that the road classifications are British which lead to vagueness when applied to American highway systems. Keep in mind that our maps usually refer to physical road characteristics (controlled access, divided highway, etc.) which don't have a bearing on legal classification. British maps are based on classification (M, A, etc.) which map better to the OSM classes.
QuoteSo guys, what's your ID @ OSM? I want to add you to my buddy list in it (already have you NE2).
realjd
If you think about it, there's really no consistent objective system that could be applied across the US. HFCS looks 'unfinished' and outdated in many places, with roads changing classification willy-nilly. Route system means that Kentucky will be a sea of secondaries while Indianapolis will be all motorway and tertiary.
Hey realjd, just a quick suggestion for when you twin roads. Don't forget if they have relations to add the dirrection of traffic to the role in the relation. ;) Especially on US highways.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on May 07, 2011, 10:05:49 PM
Hey realjd, just a quick suggestion for when you twin roads. Don't forget if they have relations to add the dirrection of traffic to the role in the relation. ;) Especially on US highways.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I only started playing with this a few days ago. The relations were hidden under the advanced tab in potlach2. The only reason I knew to add them at all was that the existing roads showed a blue highlight. Adding the relation made it blue. I didn't see anything about direction of the road, other than making it one-way or not. I clicked the add relation button, then clicked the option in the list for the highway I was editing. To be honest I don't really know what it meant, other than that I was trying to copy what was there.
If you hit R it will copy everything from the previously-selected way to the current way. Then there should be a text box next to the relation for the role, where you can put north or whatever.
Quote from: realjd on May 07, 2011, 09:55:35 PMI think the problem is that the road classifications are British which lead to vagueness when applied to American highway systems. Keep in mind that our maps usually refer to physical road characteristics (controlled access, divided highway, etc.) which don't have a bearing on legal classification. British maps are based on classification (M, A, etc.) which map better to the OSM classes.
actually, I'd argue that US mapping maps better to OSM classes overall. Sure the colour scheme is British, but the difference in the primary, secondary and tertiary works better with America, IMO. Sure almost all our freeways (with restrictions on them) are motorways, which helps (France uses green for
voie express, which really ought to be blue, IMV), and we have the primary route network, so blue and green map well.
The official guideline of having non-primary A roads as 'primary' screws with my brain (primary A roads are labelled trunk, regardless of who runs the road). A, B (and C) classifications relate to funding, not the quality or importance of the road, though there are correlations there, of course. However you can have big and showy B roads, or puny little A roads of little importance.
It's worse in Ireland, where the colour scheme also fits mapping and the M/N(1-50)/N(51-99)/R/L system, but not entirely the roads and their quality and importance.
In the USA there's more interpretation work, but it makes for a more accurate map.
Quote from: english si on May 08, 2011, 03:14:14 AM
In the USA there's more interpretation work, but it makes for a more accurate map.
It makes for a more accurate map only if there is consensus on the part of the mappers as to what the classifications mean.
realjd, you're right. Worth pointing out that even the UK's colour system gets ignored by some OSM mappers - Bedford's A road network was almost entirely orange, along with unclassified roads so I changed it to fit the pattern, but then again it was probably more useful to have the roads as orange.
/me needs to remember to update the Kansas Turnpike ramps at East Lawrence.
I've been trying to update OSM data around my part of Kansas.
Motorway/Freeway is pretty obvious. I use KDOT maps as a reference (primary = major arterial, secondary = minor arterial, tertiary = collector). Those maps do not, however, distinguish rural expressways. That, unfortunately, still requires first-hand knowledge.
my OSM handle is "route56", same as my handle here. :)
I did a lot of work on OSM for the Cincinnati area, and have generally been pleased with the results. One thing that's tripped me up though is that rendering gets messed up with multi-level interchanges of different road classifications. Once bridges are involved, the renderer seems to only use the road classification to base the draw order, and it ignores any specific layer settings. For instance, in the following view, Columbia Parkway (trunk) renders below the various I-71 and I-471 (motorway) ramps, even though Columbia Parkway is on layer 5 and the ramps are on layers 1 or 2. I haven't looked into it for a while, but I think there is an outstanding bug ticket, though nobody seems to care much about it. Nevertheless, that's the one thing that really bugs me.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=39.10417&lon=-84.50186&zoom=17&layers=M
Quote from: jjakucyk on May 08, 2011, 06:14:00 PM
I did a lot of work on OSM for the Cincinnati area, and have generally been pleased with the results. One thing that's tripped me up though is that rendering gets messed up with multi-level interchanges of different road classifications. Once bridges are involved, the renderer seems to only use the road classification to base the draw order, and it ignores any specific layer settings. For instance, in the following view, Columbia Parkway (trunk) renders below the various I-71 and I-471 (motorway) ramps, even though Columbia Parkway is on layer 5 and the ramps are on layers 1 or 2. I haven't looked into it for a while, but I think there is an outstanding bug ticket, though nobody seems to care much about it. Nevertheless, that's the one thing that really bugs me.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=39.10417&lon=-84.50186&zoom=17&layers=M
See: http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/3678
That and http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2675 are probably the two worst rendering issues.
What are the "green" highways (lines) supposed to represent?
Quote from: Adam Smith on May 09, 2011, 04:20:12 PM
What are the "green" highways (lines) supposed to represent?
They are roadways designated as "trunk roads." As pointed out, the roadway classification is british oriented rather than US. As I mentioned above, any highway that I designate as "trunk" in Kansas will be a controlled access facility with flat junctions. YMMV with other OSM users.
To expand on what route56 said, it's basically an expressway. Controlled access, maybe some grade separated interchanges, but can have at-grade intersections too. It's higher than a surface arterial, but it's not a full-on interstate highway either. Rural divided highways with at-grade intersections would apply as well.
In Florida at least, in my mind a good and easy differentiator between red primary highways and green trunk highways would be speed limit. Divided highways with speed limit 65 are usually fast, have minimal at-grade intersections, and no driveways. Compare to divided highways with a speed limit of 55 which aren't necessarily like that.
Looking around the rest of the state, that mostly (but not always) holds. It seems like most 65 mph roads are marked green, but some slower, non-controlled access roads are also marked green.
Quote from: jjakucyk on May 09, 2011, 05:18:00 PM
To expand on what route56 said, it's basically an expressway. Controlled access, maybe some grade separated interchanges, but can have at-grade intersections too. It's higher than a surface arterial, but it's not a full-on interstate highway either. Rural divided highways with at-grade intersections would apply as well.
It's also used for major intercity highways that haven't (yet) been expresswayed.
Quote from: NE2 on May 09, 2011, 08:44:30 PM
Quote from: jjakucyk on May 09, 2011, 05:18:00 PM
To expand on what route56 said, it's basically an expressway. Controlled access, maybe some grade separated interchanges, but can have at-grade intersections too. It's higher than a surface arterial, but it's not a full-on interstate highway either. Rural divided highways with at-grade intersections would apply as well.
It's also used for major intercity highways that haven't (yet) been expresswayed.
That's what I've put McKnight Rd (US-19 Truck) as up here in Pittsburgh as trunk. While it does have the segment between it's two Babcock Blvd intersections that might be "primary", it's going to stay as trunk because the last thing is that we need people to be directed to Perry Hwy. Especially because of that wicked U-Turn curve in West View. North and South of both Babcock Blvd intersections, it's speeds are 50mph (North) and 45mph (South) with little to no business driveways.
Quote from: realjd on May 09, 2011, 07:10:46 PM
In Florida at least, in my mind a good and easy differentiator between red primary highways and green trunk highways would be speed limit. Divided highways with speed limit 65 are usually fast, have minimal at-grade intersections, and no driveways. Compare to divided highways with a speed limit of 55 which aren't necessarily like that.
Looking around the rest of the state, that mostly (but not always) holds. It seems like most 65 mph roads are marked green, but some slower, non-controlled access roads are also marked green.
In Florida I generally used trunk for rural four-lanes and a few rural two-lanes that continue the four-lane corridors, except where paralleled by an Interstate (Florida has a nice number of four-lane U.S. Routes right next to Interstates).
Post Merge: May 10, 2011, 05:35:11 PM
Quote from: route56 on May 08, 2011, 04:28:05 PM
Motorway/Freeway is pretty obvious. I use KDOT maps as a reference (primary = major arterial, secondary = minor arterial, tertiary = collector). Those maps do not, however, distinguish rural expressways. That, unfortunately, still requires first-hand knowledge.
If you're going to tag based on HFCS, please use the HFCS=* tag so the functional classification information will remain even if someone changes some of the OSM classifications.
Just a note for mappers that (some?) 2010 NAIP aerials are now available via WMS: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/National_Agriculture_Imagery_Program
Quote from: NE2 on May 15, 2011, 04:36:39 PM
Just a note for mappers that (some?) 2010 NAIP aerials are now available via WMS: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/National_Agriculture_Imagery_Program
Nice. Should make it a lot easier to use them when needed.
Quote from: NE2 on May 10, 2011, 05:26:11 AM
If you're going to tag based on HFCS, please use the HFCS=* tag so the functional classification information will remain even if someone changes some of the OSM classifications.
Got it.
Now, How do I tell people that the legal name of a road is "E 1000" and NOT "East 1000"
Quote from: route56 on May 17, 2011, 10:16:42 AM
Now, How do I tell people that the legal name of a road is "E 1000" and NOT "East 1000"
If the E is short for East, it should be expanded: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name#Abbreviation_.28don.27t_do_it.29 Otherwise smack the bot operator upside the head if he's expanding stuff incorrectly like E Street to East Street.
Quote from: route56 on May 17, 2011, 10:16:42 AM
Now, How do I tell people that the legal name of a road is "E 1000" and NOT "East 1000"
You could add a "note=*" tag if necessary to let people know that the "E" doesn't mean "East" if you wanted to.
Quote from: jjakucyk on May 08, 2011, 06:14:00 PM
I did a lot of work on OSM for the Cincinnati area, and have generally been pleased with the results. One thing that's tripped me up though is that rendering gets messed up with multi-level interchanges of different road classifications. Once bridges are involved, the renderer seems to only use the road classification to base the draw order, and it ignores any specific layer settings. For instance, in the following view, Columbia Parkway (trunk) renders below the various I-71 and I-471 (motorway) ramps, even though Columbia Parkway is on layer 5 and the ramps are on layers 1 or 2. I haven't looked into it for a while, but I think there is an outstanding bug ticket, though nobody seems to care much about it. Nevertheless, that's the one thing that really bugs me.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=39.10417&lon=-84.50186&zoom=17&layers=M
jjakucyk, you might want to take a look now. ;) They have finally fixed this bug in Mapnik this weekend!!
Here's an area in Pittsburgh that had the same *rendering* problem, but has been fixed. :)
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.4424&lon=-79.99224&zoom=17&layers=M
(But not all zoom levels have been updated yet. Zoom out and you'll see what I mean. ;))
Whoa. Awesome.
Now to get long refs rendered...
Quote from: NE2 on May 21, 2011, 05:03:31 PM
Whoa. Awesome.
Now to get long refs rendered...
Yep, it is awesome. It took them long enough to deal with it. haha.
[r26009] (http://trac.openstreetmap.org/changeset/26009)
I also agree about those long refs too. How goes your "offline" test of a possible fix for that?
The George Washington Bridge bus station roadways (highway=service) are finally drawn on top :)
I gave up with trying to get long refs working when I realized each rounded rectangle shield background is a separate image (so multiline refs would need a bunch more images for each color).
Great that they finally fixed the layering bug. Now if I could only fix problems on Google Maps as easily. :P
I've been using the HFCS tags of Major Arterial (Rural), Major Arterial (Urban), Minor Arterial (Rural), Minor Arterial (Urban), Major Collector, Minor Collector, and Urban Collector. I've been re-working OSM classification based on the suggested HFCS to OSM tag suggestions on this page:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_Functional_Classification_System
Basically:
Trunk = Major Arterial (Rural)
Primary = Major Arterial (Urban), Minor Arterial (Rural)
Secondary = Minor Arterial (Urban), Major Collector
Tertiary = Urban Collector, Minor Collector
Any segment that's fully controlled access (e.g., three interchanges with no "flat" junctions between them) will get the "motorway" tag regardless of HFCS.
There's still a little play in the system, and there's a question of how to label a Major Arterial that goes straight through an urban area.
Given my problems with Google Map Maker, I'm probably going to try to participate in this project instead. The people involved seem to know what they're doing...
Quote from: SyntheticDreamer on May 23, 2011, 02:16:01 PM
The people involved seem to know what they're doing...
hehe. Yeah. Google's way will just lead to more problems and their data going down the tank.
Now, if I could only find an app for my droid that would use OSM instead of Google.
I don't know how good these are, but http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Android lists a bunch.
Thanks, I'll have to give them a look.
I didn't know there were so many. Hopefully at least ONE will work for me. :sombrero:
Am I the only one who's unable to save right now? I have the message "Failure when uploading data", and my network sniffer tells me that the server returns a "400 Bad request" when creating the changeset.
Works fine for me. (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8241157)
Quote from: Dr Frankenstein on May 24, 2011, 11:01:56 PM
Am I the only one who's unable to save right now? I have the message "Failure when uploading data", and my network sniffer tells me that the server returns a "400 Bad request" when creating the changeset.
Are you sure you didn't recieve a "block" on the website? I don't know your user ID to even check there.
Nope. I've never been blocked... http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Carl%20Tessier/blocks .
And it worked... after a few hours and three retries from scratch (that is, scrapping the changes and restarting).
Quote from: Dr Frankenstein on May 28, 2011, 02:30:18 AM
Nope. I've never been blocked... http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Carl%20Tessier/blocks .
And it worked... after a few hours and three retries from scratch (that is, scrapping the changes and restarting).
Yikes, I just looked @ your edits and saw some RED flags in some of your comments.
Example, Changeset 8148493 (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8148493). You can't use Google Maps as a source... If you do, that's grounds for being blocked on the site as you can't copy from other maps (unless they are in the Public Domain of course).
^^^
And, it's not that most of us would consider Google maps a really reliable source, anyway. :sombrero:
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on May 28, 2011, 02:48:40 AM
Quote from: Dr Frankenstein on May 28, 2011, 02:30:18 AM
Nope. I've never been blocked... http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Carl%20Tessier/blocks .
And it worked... after a few hours and three retries from scratch (that is, scrapping the changes and restarting).
Yikes, I just looked @ your edits and saw some RED flags in some of your comments.
Example, Changeset 8148493 (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8148493). You can't use Google Maps as a source... If you do, that's grounds for being blocked on the site as you can't copy from other maps (unless they are in the Public Domain of course).
I used it to _confirm_ that my changes were right. I thought I made it clear.
Basically, I make changes, then verify on other maps, then save. If there's something wrong, I cancel, close Google Maps, and retry.
Also, does looking at signs from Street View constitute a violation as well? (I assume not, since I consider the
actual source to be the signs themselves...)
Quote from: Dr Frankenstein on May 28, 2011, 10:58:46 AM
Also, does looking at signs from Street View constitute a violation as well? (I assume not, since I consider the actual source to be the signs themselves...)
No, at least in small doses: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2011-April/057473.html
If you're getting every street name in an area from GSV, then you're probably breaking their terms of use (whether you care is a personal ethical decision). But the CanVec import already gives you street names, so there's no reason you'd be doing this anyway. Just remember that the photos are outdated by now, so recent changes in signs will not show up. (Of course this is also true when going through old notes and personal sign photos.)
As for numbered routes, putting aside legal/moral issues, I wouldn't trust any online map (other than the MTQ) to get anything right. Basically the main source should be the signs (if internally consistent), and if there's a disagreement with other government information, that can be noted (unsigned_ref=* works in a simple case where the route is just not signed; note=* can be used in more complicated cases where the government signs the route differently than they maintain it).
In fact, the change I think you are refering to (132 through Salaberry-de-Valleyfield) is actually in an area in which I drive a lot, and I can safely say I did it all by memory. The thing is, I'm relatively new on OSM, and I wanted something to back my changes, mostly to avoid an edit war... (after looking at some forum threads, I'd imagine that some people are really convinced that their wrong is right).
I don't know how detailed the CanVec import was and what its coverage was. For example, I had to fix a large amount of local street names that were added by one person and missing the generic (Rue/Street, Avenue, etc.) which, according to the Gouvernement du Québec, can never be omitted.
If I can't even use non-free sources (notice the plural) to verify my changes before saving them or to back them, so be it, but I'd like to know about that.
Trust me, there are not that many edit wars. You mostly only see them when two bull headed people collide when editing an area. lol. Personally, I've never had to have an edit war with anybody. But I will admit that there have been a few times me and NE2 have locked horns, but cooler heads prevailed. ;)
Just don't use Google Maps as a source (and especially mentioning it in the comment for a changeset) and you should be Golden. ;)
OSM is a little different from Google Mapmaker in that correctness is presumed unless there is reason to believe otherwise, especially when it comes to the word of a local on factual matters. Edit wars generally happen when people agree on the facts but disagree on the application of tags.
Personally, my problem with most online maps have been the symbology, but that's because I've grown up with the Thomas Guide standard and much prefer it. Outside of notating a tollway vs. a general motor/freeway, the symbology doesn't differentiate between mainline trunk highways and urban artery highways, and non-highway arteries are their own colour.
Here's an interesting rendering of lanes=* tags: http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=56&lat=30.21636566839809&lon=-84.29470878454289&zoom=8
What's with the pink shading in central NY that shows up on one of the middle zoom levels?
That was vandalism - someone tagged the whole US as landuse=military :)
It lasted about two hours; I'll force the tiles to refresh.
If anyone wants to friend-list me on OSM, I'm Vid the Kid (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Vid%20the%20Kid).
I do detailed edits primarily in the Columbus area, plus spot edits elsewhere (like interchange fixes) where I see something that's clearly wrong. I also do some larger-scale data-integrity edits from time to time, like some work with Ohio's county boundaries and the Great Lakes. Disagreements with other mappers on some road issues (particularly the proper value to use for the highway tag) has kind of put me off of doing significant highway work outside of Columbus, unfortunately. Maybe I'll get back into it in the future.
PS If you want to see a project of mine that uses OSM data, including a custom rendering stylesheet, take a look at my (fictional) Interstate 171 page (http://vidthekid.info/cmhroads/171/) and/or its forum thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4801.0).
Quote from: vtk on June 28, 2011, 10:34:31 PM
If anyone wants to friend-list me on OSM, I'm Vid the Kid (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Vid%20the%20Kid).
I do detailed edits primarily in the Columbus area, plus spot edits elsewhere (like interchange fixes) where I see something that's clearly wrong. I also do some larger-scale data-integrity edits from time to time, like some work with Ohio's county boundaries and the Great Lakes. Disagreements with other mappers on some road issues (particularly the proper value to use for the highway tag) has kind of put me off of doing significant highway work outside of Columbus, unfortunately. Maybe I'll get back into it in the future.
PS If you want to see a project of mine that uses OSM data, including a custom rendering stylesheet, take a look at my (fictional) Interstate 171 page (http://vidthekid.info/cmhroads/171/) and/or its forum thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4801.0).
Are you the one drawing in all the fictional streets around Delaware?
If you mean the alternating blue and white, those are highway=proposed. As long as they're actually proposed by the government, they belong on OSM.
I ran into something similar while editing the streets of downtown Cincinnati. I'd changed some alignments, marked roads as closed, changed some one-ways to two-ways based on personal observation of recent construction changes. Someone then reverted all my changes because they weren't shown on the (now quite outdated) aerial photo that OSM uses. After explaining to him where the changes came from he realized the error and un-reverted the changes, but it was still a pain. Why would we just make stuff up?
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on June 29, 2011, 12:14:00 AM
Are you the one drawing in all the fictional streets around Delaware?
I added several proposed roads listed in MORPC's long-range plan, and tagged them as proposed. I don't know about any "fictional" streets.
Quote from: jjakucyk on June 29, 2011, 09:53:50 AM
I ran into something similar while editing the streets of downtown Cincinnati. I'd changed some alignments, marked roads as closed, changed some one-ways to two-ways based on personal observation of recent construction changes. Someone then reverted all my changes because they weren't shown on the (now quite outdated) aerial photo that OSM uses. After explaining to him where the changes came from he realized the error and un-reverted the changes, but it was still a pain. Why would we just make stuff up?
People sometimes do make stuff up :) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:West_Harrisburg.jpg
Did you add an edit summary, like "recent changes in downtown Cincinnati based on observations"? If so, he needs to check the history of objects before changing them to match aerials. Even if not, he should have contacted you before reverting.
Is there a way or anything in development to use OSM for routing? A big part of what I use Google Maps for is to compare two possible routes, and with Google's accuracy in the gutter now I'd really like to use OSM instead.
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 30, 2011, 07:32:15 AM
Is there a way or anything in development to use OSM for routing? A big part of what I use Google Maps for is to compare two possible routes, and with Google's accuracy in the gutter now I'd really like to use OSM instead.
http://open.mapquest.com/
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on June 30, 2011, 07:38:25 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 30, 2011, 07:32:15 AM
Is there a way or anything in development to use OSM for routing? A big part of what I use Google Maps for is to compare two possible routes, and with Google's accuracy in the gutter now I'd really like to use OSM instead.
http://open.mapquest.com/
Perfect. Thanks.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on June 30, 2011, 07:38:25 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 30, 2011, 07:32:15 AM
Is there a way or anything in development to use OSM for routing? A big part of what I use Google Maps for is to compare two possible routes, and with Google's accuracy in the gutter now I'd really like to use OSM instead.
http://open.mapquest.com/
Does CloudMade still provide free OSM directions?
I just signed up and made a few changes, hope they will stick.
Quote from: vtk on June 30, 2011, 08:31:24 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on June 30, 2011, 07:38:25 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 30, 2011, 07:32:15 AM
Is there a way or anything in development to use OSM for routing? A big part of what I use Google Maps for is to compare two possible routes, and with Google's accuracy in the gutter now I'd really like to use OSM instead.
http://open.mapquest.com/
Does CloudMade still provide free OSM directions?
I think so.
Quote from: jdb1234 on July 01, 2011, 01:10:08 AM
I just signed up and made a few changes, hope they will stick.
What's your account name?
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on July 01, 2011, 07:15:09 AM
Quote from: jdb1234 on July 01, 2011, 01:10:08 AM
I just signed up and made a few changes, hope they will stick.
What's your account name?
It's jdb1234. Looks good (though it would have been more correct to change the railway to abandoned).
Quote from: NE2 on July 01, 2011, 09:53:36 AM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on July 01, 2011, 07:15:09 AM
Quote from: jdb1234 on July 01, 2011, 01:10:08 AM
I just signed up and made a few changes, hope they will stick.
What's your account name?
It's jdb1234. Looks good (though it would have been more correct to change the railway to abandoned).
I did not know that. Any way to change a road to abandoned?
You could set highway=abandoned, but it's not really useful for a simple ramp (just like former transfer tracks don't normally get mapped as abandoned railways).
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 30, 2011, 07:32:15 AM
Is there a way or anything in development to use OSM for routing? A big part of what I use Google Maps for is to compare two possible routes, and with Google's accuracy in the gutter now I'd really like to use OSM instead.
Note that driving times will likely be fairly useless on any router using OSM data until more speed limits (http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=5&lat=35.26246629355469&lon=-95.68310997289979&zoom=8) are entered. Distances should be better, but may be too high in counties where the TIGER data sucks and hasn't yet been improved.
[edit]A couple more routers: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Routing/online_routers
I don't know how good they are about adding intermediate points.
Another problem you'll probably find for state highways is that in some areas they don't connect properly at county lines (TIGER import issue). When this happens you won't be able to get the router to use the highway.
I joined a few days ago as NateOMatic. I spent a while cleaning up TIGER streets in my part of the Bronx, and made a couple other spot changes; cleaned up the Parksville bypass on NY 17 today.
Another area I've been working on is Ketchikan, AK...I've been there several times and it has a lot of unique mappable features: a tunnel, boardwalks & stair streets, etc. Turns out the first step is to move the whole city over several meters to line up with the aerials (from what I could read, it's the TIGER data that's mis-aligned, not the aerials). But it's a neat city, and one that I've always wanted to see accurately mapped (and it never has been, to my knowledge). Fortunately there are several sources and references at my disposal...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2012-July/063420.html
If the map starts to look like shit soon, the OSMF board is to blame.
Quote from: Richard Fairhurst
We are expecting to begin on
_Wednesday_ (9th July) assuming a couple of final setup details are
completed by then.
Which day?
Edit: oh, I see now he meant the 11th. I'm not accustomed to reading discussions with only one message visible at a time like that...
I've discovered a problem with the way Mapquest (and at least one other routing engine -- OSRM) are handling routes onto freeways using OSM data. Here's an example (ignore that this is a stupid trip): http://mapq.st/MgoyRr
Basically, the routing engine is trying to make you make a left turn onto a ramp that you can't turn left onto, rather than having you take the proper loop on NJ-33. I've discovered this bug also rears its head at the interchange for PA-332 on I-95. It has you turn left onto the ramp going northbound rather than take the loop to 95N on the right.
So, my question is this: is this something that needs to be corrected in OSM, or is this something that the people who maintain the routing engines need to fix? I'd be more than happy to fix this in OSM if need be. I was guessing that the ramp (or the intersection) needed to be flagged as no left turn, but I didn't want to go in and start mucking with it if that wasn't the right way to do it.
You could add a turn restriction, and for something like this that's more complicated than a simple cloverleaf, it makes a lot of sense. Cloverleaves do seem to be handled properly, so no need to add a turn restriction everywhere.
PA 332? I'm tempted to say that's a problem with the router, but you could add a turn restriction there too.
Quote from: NE2 on July 10, 2012, 03:17:14 PM
You could add a turn restriction, and for something like this that's more complicated than a simple cloverleaf, it makes a lot of sense. Cloverleaves do seem to be handled properly, so no need to add a turn restriction everywhere.
Something I've wondered for a while now is what to do with a turn that's technically permitted, but silly because another path is preferable in practice...
Quote from: NE2 on July 09, 2012, 05:00:13 PM
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2012-July/063420.html
If the map starts to look like shit soon, the OSMF board is to blame.
Why are they redacting changes? What license change are they talking about?
I wish we could add turn restirctions in driver's heads. On NY 342 west at I-81, traffic is supposed to use the loop ramp to I-81 south, but almost everyone ignores the signage and makes a left turn onto the ramp from NY 342 east to I-81 south. :ded: I swear I'm the only person to use the loop ramp like NYSDOT intended!
Quote from: deanej on July 11, 2012, 12:48:43 PM
I wish we could add turn restirctions in driver's heads. On NY 342 west at I-81, traffic is supposed to use the loop ramp to I-81 south, but almost everyone ignores the signage and makes a left turn onto the ramp from NY 342 east to I-81 south. :ded: I swear I'm the only person to use the loop ramp like NYSDOT intended!
Did they add that loop later on? The interchange *looks* like you should make a left there (ignoring the obvious ramp to the right..). NYSDOT should have put an island or at least painted a ramp line to make it more obvious. This interchange looks a lot like the PA-332/I-95 interchange I mentioned above, but in that case the ramp on the left is curved such that it's extremely awkward to make a left turn, so it's obvious you need to go right. The interchange between I-17 and AZ-74 was recently upgraded to add a loop, but it looks like ADOT left the dual left turn lanes there as well. Not sure why. </offtopic>
Quote from: vtk on July 10, 2012, 05:31:59 PM
Quote from: NE2 on July 10, 2012, 03:17:14 PM
You could add a turn restriction, and for something like this that's more complicated than a simple cloverleaf, it makes a lot of sense. Cloverleaves do seem to be handled properly, so no need to add a turn restriction everywhere.
Something I've wondered for a while now is what to do with a turn that's technically permitted, but silly because another path is preferable in practice...
Like the identical ramps at US 29/I-70?
Quote from: realjd on July 11, 2012, 09:12:26 AM
Quote from: NE2 on July 09, 2012, 05:00:13 PM
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2012-July/063420.html
If the map starts to look like shit soon, the OSMF board is to blame.
Why are they redacting changes? What license change are they talking about?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Help_preparing_for_the_license_change (read this as pro-change propaganda)
Florida will have minimal damage. There are a few roads in Palm Bay (http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfe&lon=-80.70940&lat=28.25674&zoom=13&overlays=overview,wtfe_point_clean,wtfe_line_clean,wtfe_point_harmless,wtfe_line_harmless,wtfe_point_inrelation,wtfe_line_inrelation_cp,wtfe_line_inrelation,wtfe_point_modified,wtfe_line_modified_cp,wtfe_line_modified,wtfe_point_created,wtfe_line_created_cp,wtfe_line_created) that will disappear. There's still time to dig those holes and fill them in.
yay! progress sucks! getting shit done is for chumps! let's waste tons of effort on inane legalities! heil AIG!
Quote from: Compulov on July 11, 2012, 05:22:05 PM
Quote from: deanej on July 11, 2012, 12:48:43 PM
I wish we could add turn restirctions in driver's heads. On NY 342 west at I-81, traffic is supposed to use the loop ramp to I-81 south, but almost everyone ignores the signage and makes a left turn onto the ramp from NY 342 east to I-81 south. :ded: I swear I'm the only person to use the loop ramp like NYSDOT intended!
Did they add that loop later on? The interchange *looks* like you should make a left there (ignoring the obvious ramp to the right..). NYSDOT should have put an island or at least painted a ramp line to make it more obvious. This interchange looks a lot like the PA-332/I-95 interchange I mentioned above, but in that case the ramp on the left is curved such that it's extremely awkward to make a left turn, so it's obvious you need to go right. The interchange between I-17 and AZ-74 was recently upgraded to add a loop, but it looks like ADOT left the dual left turn lanes there as well. Not sure why. </offtopic>
No idea. That thing's gonna be obsolete in a month and a half anyways (I'm surprised this interchange isn't being rebuilt as part of the I-781 construction; at the very least they should eliminate the dangerous weave on the lane from I-781 west to NY 342!). The traffic light at NY 342 and US 11 will also need to be reconfigured.
Oh gee. Assholes banned me from talk-us.
Quote from: NE2 on July 18, 2012, 03:25:00 PM
Oh gee. Assholes banned me from talk-us.
Why, whatever for?
I'm currently arguing with someone who decided to add the business route letters to Texas... http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=31.3394&lon=-94.7259&zoom=14&layers=Q
What's with I-40 just east of the NM/TX line?
Quote from: Bickendan on July 19, 2012, 07:38:18 PM
What's with I-40 just east of the NM/TX line?
It's got at-grades with ranch access roads.
Quote from: NE2 on July 18, 2012, 03:25:00 PM
Oh gee. Assholes banned me from talk-us.
You do have a tendency to give the outward appearance of dismissing other people's opinions too quickly. In a collaborative project like OpenStreetMap, I can see how that can irk people. That you were banned doesn't particularly surprise me. Disclaimers: I am not taking sides in any argument you may have been in recently, and I am not saying I agree with the moderator's action of banning you; frankly, I am not sufficiently informed on either matter.
Quote from: NE2 on July 19, 2012, 08:29:29 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on July 19, 2012, 07:38:18 PM
What's with I-40 just east of the NM/TX line?
It's got at-grades with ranch access roads.
Huh. I thought only I-10 in Hudspeth County had that distinction.
Quote from: Bickendan on July 20, 2012, 12:51:26 AM
Quote from: NE2 on July 19, 2012, 08:29:29 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on July 19, 2012, 07:38:18 PM
What's with I-40 just east of the NM/TX line?
It's got at-grades with ranch access roads.
Huh. I thought only I-10 in Hudspeth County had that distinction.
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=35.22783,-102.862566&spn=0.007817,0.016512&gl=us&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=35.228068,-102.862628&panoid=3tQQ4EfLi_B-n_-q7bMmBA&cbp=12,158.62,,0,7.6
Quote from: blawp
lOl texas
Personally I'm curious how these got grandfathered in, and why they can't do the same on I-69 in southeast Texas.
Split off at-grade discussion. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7278)
Good call - I was going to request the same.
OpenStreetMap now appears to default to the Mapquest-rendered tiles. I like the looks of them better, but are they copyright encumbered?
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 23, 2012, 12:17:13 AM
OpenStreetMap now appears to default to the Mapquest-rendered tiles.
Are you sure you don't have a cookie set? Try changing back to standard, closing the browser, and reopening.
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 23, 2012, 12:17:13 AM
I like the looks of them better, but are they copyright encumbered?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mapquest#MapQuest-hosted_map_tiles
Looks like terms are the same, though this is mainly directed at apps using the tiles.
Quote from: NE2 on July 23, 2012, 12:26:02 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 23, 2012, 12:17:13 AM
OpenStreetMap now appears to default to the Mapquest-rendered tiles.
Are you sure you don't have a cookie set? Try changing back to standard, closing the browser, and reopening.
I may well have a cookie set...I noticed it first when someone linked to an OSM map. The URL could have forced it to display in the MQ tileset, and set a cookie... like I said though, I don't care much for the "regular" tiles so I'll just stick with the MQ ones.
The drawback to the MQ tiles is they don't update as fast. At the moment they seem to be a couple of weeks behind, but then again, rendering and possibly updating of their database is probably suspended pending completion of the license change / redaction bot.
The only thing I particularly like about MQ's tiles is that they use proper shields, instead of those annoying bubbles that just say "US 23" or "I 270" that the Mapnik tiles use.
Quote from: Central Avenue on July 23, 2012, 03:10:03 PM
The only thing I particularly like about MQ's tiles is that they use proper shields, instead of those annoying bubbles that just say "US 23" or "I 270" that the Mapnik tiles use.
Do the MQ tiles work with multiplexes? I checked US 202/206, and while OSM mapping shows no route number at all, Mapquest just shows 202 and not 206. I'd almost prefer no number to only showing one, which could be misleading.
Quote from: Steve on July 23, 2012, 08:22:47 PM
Quote from: Central Avenue on July 23, 2012, 03:10:03 PM
The only thing I particularly like about MQ's tiles is that they use proper shields, instead of those annoying bubbles that just say "US 23" or "I 270" that the Mapnik tiles use.
Do the MQ tiles work with multiplexes? I checked US 202/206, and while OSM mapping shows no route number at all, Mapquest just shows 202 and not 206. I'd almost prefer no number to only showing one, which could be misleading.
Neither shows overlaps properly (unless the ref tag is 8 characters or less; "US 202;US 206" is way too long). Someone has made a rendering with overlaps and 'real' shield designs; most 'bannered' routes are not displayed due to his disagreement with the most common way of tagging them: http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/?zoom=12&lat=40.67&lon=-74.53&layers=B
If the shield is not rendered, that means there is no relation for the route, only tags on the way.
I would say that they don't show overlaps properly even if the ref tag is 8 characters or less. Have you seen I-86/17 in NY? 17 is a NY route, and multiplexes aren't signed like that anywhere.
Quote from: NE2 on July 23, 2012, 08:29:32 PM
most 'bannered' routes are not displayed due to his disagreement with the most common way of tagging them:
Which is silly. And so is arguing about the proper way to tag bannered routes, at least in the context of making a renderer work. The solution I suggested is to normalize the tagging as a preprocessing step; this way, multiple tagging styles can be accommodated while keeping the already-complex map rendering stylesheet from becoming yet a magnitude more complex. I suppose the guy could still do that in the future.
Quote from: deanej on July 24, 2012, 11:17:43 AM
I would say that they don't show overlaps properly even if the ref tag is 8 characters or less. Have you seen I-86/17 in NY? 17 is a NY route, and multiplexes aren't signed like that anywhere.
Overlaps aren't normally signed as anything but the shields next to each other. Dashes and slashes are out because some states use them in route numbers (Louisiana and West Virginia). Commas might be OK, but a semicolon is no worse and is probably a more obvious separator. (In any case, this is after-the-fact justification of a choice made in the early days of OSM.)
As for MapQuest's rendering, it also chokes on four-digit and lettered routes, and omits the part after the slash in a WV county route. There are issues near the international borders (apparently Canada and Mexico don't deserve a better rendering); for example the U.S. style invades Tijuana and part of Detroit is non-U.S. style.
I just saw several roads in Phillipsburg, NJ labeled with "(Shunpike)." And the old US 22 bridge is shown as "free bridge." Is this supposed to be this way or did someone just stick it there?
Quote from: Roadsguy on August 29, 2012, 03:42:08 PM
I just saw several roads in Phillipsburg, NJ labeled with "(Shunpike)." And the old US 22 bridge is shown as "free bridge." Is this supposed to be this way or did someone just stick it there?
Free Bridge may be the local name. Adding (Shunpike) to the street names is BS though; removing it.
Quote from: NE2 on August 29, 2012, 04:44:44 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on August 29, 2012, 03:42:08 PM
I just saw several roads in Phillipsburg, NJ labeled with "(Shunpike)." And the old US 22 bridge is shown as "free bridge." Is this supposed to be this way or did someone just stick it there?
Free Bridge may be the local name. Adding (Shunpike) to the street names is BS though; removing it.
That's hilarious. All shunpike routes should be so labeled in OSM.
Just realized that Camden, NJ overrides Philadelphia as you zoom out, even though Philadelphia is undoubtedly dominant. :P
...Even with its own installment of a classic Breezewood.
Looks like MapQuest has started experimenting with rendering (two-route) overlaps at low zooms: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=33.19&lon=-82.039&zoom=9&layers=Q
I see several issues - the second route is sometimes incorrectly in a circle, and "SR X" is sometimes (always?) in a county rectangle.
What exactly is TIGER? I see it referenced in some Advanced tags that seem to have no effect on the Simple editing mode. :/
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 13, 2012, 09:51:41 AM
What exactly is TIGER?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/TIGER
It seems JOSM won't continue either one of the ways that both end at a node. It'll make a new one. It took me forever to figure this out. Is this an intentional feature, or a bug? Either way, it's really annoying.
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 21, 2012, 03:08:26 PM
It seems JOSM won't continue either one of the ways that both end at a node. It'll make a new one. It took me forever to figure this out. Is this an intentional feature, or a bug? Either way, it's really annoying.
Select both the node and the way you want to continue.
Tried. Worked! :D
Strange rendering bug: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?way=135724062
It's as if the nodes are missing from the rendering database. (No, it's not "redaction"-related.)
Say, should PA 51 from the current northern end of PA Tpk. 43 down to its interchange with US 119 still be a trunk road? Maybe not now that there's a complete expressway route along that piece, and eventually (might?) be all the way up to I-279 where it turns into a short expressway and multiplexes US 19.
Quote from: NE2 on September 21, 2012, 05:43:48 PM
Strange rendering bug: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?way=135724062
It's as if the nodes are missing from the rendering database. (No, it's not "redaction"-related.)
Strange? Maybe if you use OSM for everything, but Google has that kind of stuff everywhere.
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 22, 2012, 12:14:51 PM
Say, should PA 51 from the current northern end of PA Tpk. 43 down to its interchange with US 119 still be a trunk road? Maybe not now that there's a complete expressway route along that piece, and eventually (might?) be all the way up to I-279 where it turns into a short expressway and multiplexes US 19.
It's still a high-speed road with interchanges, so why not?
Quote from: NE2 on September 21, 2012, 05:43:48 PM
Strange rendering bug: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?way=135724062
It's as if the nodes are missing from the rendering database. (No, it's not "redaction"-related.)
I saw something similar happen on one of the KY Parkways. What had to be done was delete/add a node to the way to force it to re-render properly. I'll go do that now. ;)
Quote from: NE2 on September 22, 2012, 01:12:26 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 22, 2012, 12:14:51 PM
Say, should PA 51 from the current northern end of PA Tpk. 43 down to its interchange with US 119 still be a trunk road? Maybe not now that there's a complete expressway route along that piece, and eventually (might?) be all the way up to I-279 where it turns into a short expressway and multiplexes US 19.
It's still a high-speed road with interchanges, so why not?
True, true...
Are we really supposed to be mapping turning lanes (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=41.405919&lon=-75.660465&zoom=18&layers=M)?
Nope, unless there's a barrier separating them.
Sigh. Why do people change frontage roads to secondary where they link to a primary?
Because Google does the same thing, more or less. :P
Quote from: NE2 on October 31, 2012, 08:06:26 AM
Sigh. Why do people change frontage roads to secondary where they link to a primary?
Because OSM tagging is arbitrary and lacks any sort of standard?
I noticed (and fixed) that someone marked most of the 222 part of the Trexlertown, PA Bypass as a motorway. :pan:
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 31, 2012, 01:02:35 PM
I noticed (and fixed) that someone marked most of the 222 part of the Trexlertown, PA Bypass as a motorway. :pan:
Yep, with a couple traffic lights in the middle. Sigh... (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/13572834)
PA 145-309 should probably be reverted too.
That's more debatable, like US 11/15 at I-81. :P
If I had full control, I'd have done it, but not in real life.
Somebody drew this new interchange a little funky:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.32673&lon=-87.39737&zoom=16&layers=M
This topology would be problematic for routing, making some left-turns impossible, except the mapper forgot to put oneway tags on the state route, so it sort of works out. If someone can observe the actual topology here (or be confident that INDOT built an ordinary diamond) and could fix up this interchange, that would be great.
Any chance we can get the renderer to make everything primary and trunk (red and green) temporarily on Christmas? :bigass:
Quote from: Roadsguy on December 01, 2012, 09:44:06 AM
Any chance we can get the renderer to make everything primary and trunk (red and green) temporarily on Christmas? :bigass:
Not with this War on Christmas raging in Foxland.
US 322, west of State College, is shown as a trunk. It's marked as (and is) a short freeway after its split from I-99, but past the first intersection, westbound is a freeway, but not eastbound. How would this be marked without looking ridiculous, and appearing to ignore the intersection?
Or doesn't it count?
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/155807977
WTF?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/5161690779/
Yep, definitely 35-V Business.
While I don't think I'd have done that, I've heard each business route gets a letter suffix in Texas to make them unique, and those letter suffixes do appear on independent-mount signage. The route relations appear to have been organized sensibly, anyway.
Yes, the business route inventory letter appears on independently-mounted business route signs, but not guide signs, in Texas. Here are three examples:
www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=TX19790351
www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=TX19700351
www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=TX19700831
See the Standard Highway Sign Designs for Texas (http://www.txdot.gov/txdot_library/publications/highway_signs.htm) for specifications (specifically signs M1-2, M1-3, and M1-4B).
Quote from: lordsutch on December 22, 2012, 09:39:23 PM
Yes, the business route inventory letter appears on independently-mounted business route signs, but not guide signs, in Texas.
I think what NE2 was trying to get at is that the BGS say it's an "I-35W Business" route, not a "I-35 Business" route.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on December 22, 2012, 10:15:27 PM
I think what NE2 was trying to get at is that the BGS say it's an "I-35W Business" route, not a "I-35 Business" route.
Yes, although the designation file (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/bi/bi0035v.htm) begs to differ. And, amazingly, so does the field signage along the route (http://goo.gl/maps/1Nzr2).
Quote from: lordsutch on December 22, 2012, 10:26:13 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on December 22, 2012, 10:15:27 PM
I think what NE2 was trying to get at is that the BGS say it's an "I-35W Business" route, not a "I-35 Business" route.
Yes, although the designation file (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/bi/bi0035v.htm) begs to differ. And, amazingly, so does the field signage along the route (http://goo.gl/maps/1Nzr2).
Well, the StreetView images are from 2008 (except I-35W NB only which is from 2011), and okroads's picture is from 2010. So, who knows, something might have changed in that area with signage on the route itself.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on December 22, 2012, 10:15:27 PM
Quote from: lordsutch on December 22, 2012, 09:39:23 PM
Yes, the business route inventory letter appears on independently-mounted business route signs, but not guide signs, in Texas.
I think what NE2 was trying to get at is that the BGS say it's an "I-35W Business" route, not a "I-35 Business" route.
Well, I was also pointing it out as a particularly good example of the stupidity of using tiny inventory letters in the ref tag.
Quote from: NE2 on December 22, 2012, 10:30:19 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on December 22, 2012, 10:15:27 PM
Quote from: lordsutch on December 22, 2012, 09:39:23 PM
Yes, the business route inventory letter appears on independently-mounted business route signs, but not guide signs, in Texas.
I think what NE2 was trying to get at is that the BGS say it's an "I-35W Business" route, not a "I-35 Business" route.
Well, I was also pointing it out as a particularly good example of the stupidity of using tiny inventory letters in the ref tag.
I'm making a point about this in talk-us (OSM) right now too. Also suggesting an alternative tag so that everybody can be happy and not have the renders/routers be confused up the wazzo.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on December 22, 2012, 10:29:47 PM
Quote from: lordsutch on December 22, 2012, 10:26:13 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on December 22, 2012, 10:15:27 PM
I think what NE2 was trying to get at is that the BGS say it's an "I-35W Business" route, not a "I-35 Business" route.
Yes, although the designation file (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/bi/bi0035v.htm) begs to differ. And, amazingly, so does the field signage along the route (http://goo.gl/maps/1Nzr2).
Well, the StreetView images are from 2008 (except I-35W NB only which is from 2011), and okroads's picture is from 2010. So, who knows, something might have changed in that area with signage on the route itself.
Field signage was Business 35W as of June 2012.
Quote from: kphoger on December 23, 2012, 07:08:08 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on December 22, 2012, 10:29:47 PM
Quote from: lordsutch on December 22, 2012, 10:26:13 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on December 22, 2012, 10:15:27 PM
I think what NE2 was trying to get at is that the BGS say it's an "I-35W Business" route, not a "I-35 Business" route.
Yes, although the designation file (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/bi/bi0035v.htm) begs to differ. And, amazingly, so does the field signage along the route (http://goo.gl/maps/1Nzr2).
Well, the StreetView images are from 2008 (except I-35W NB only which is from 2011), and okroads's picture is from 2010. So, who knows, something might have changed in that area with signage on the route itself.
Field signage was Business 35W as of June 2012.
So the signs along the route itself are now I-35W Bus shields? Got some pics?
Sorry, I misunderstood the post. I thought we were still referring to the signage on the Interstate, not the business route itself. No, I haven't actually used that exit.
The correct application of "trunk" in the US is kinda fuzzy* (either that or we need a mass-removal of trunk tags), but I think I see some candidates for it in Philadelphia.
-PA 611 (Broad Street) from I-95 (or maybe the actual Navy Yard gate; 611 itself ends at 95) up to Oregon Avenue.
-Columbus Blvd/Pattison Avenue from 291 or 611 to Girard Avenue, or possibly US 1 along Aramingo and Harbison Avenues??
-The entire Ben Franklin Parkway from Eakins Oval to Arch and 16th Streets.
*The one-way pair of Levick and Robbins Streets in northeast Philly are trunk, but PA 611/Broad Street, which is a major route through downtown, but just as "surface-street-y," is just primary.
Has anyone noticed (or commented) that the MapQuest tiles of OSM have started using state route shields?
Quote from: Bickendan on January 14, 2013, 03:00:22 AM
Has anyone noticed (or commented) that the MapQuest tiles of OSM have started using state route shields?
Yes, I pointed it out over in another thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7687.msg194382#msg194382). I first noticed it in the MapQuest mobile app, now it's partially been rolled out to their web-based system.
Does anyone know if this is based on the work with route shield rendering that's been discussed on talk-us?
Quote from: vtk on January 14, 2013, 12:06:05 PM
Does anyone know if this is based on the work with route shield rendering that's been discussed on talk-us?
I don't think so, as MapQuest's does theirs based on the "ref=*" tag on the ways. (that's why you don't see state shields in FL)
And on a side note, I did report to them a bug with KY. They weren't rendering shields for 4d KY State highways (ref=KY 1501). They said they'll get that fixed soon.
Arkansas has a worse bug than Kentucky :bigass:
https://github.com/MapQuest/MapQuest-Mapnik-Style/issues/19
Quote from: NE2 on January 14, 2013, 08:14:55 PM
Arkansas has a worse bug than Kentucky :bigass:
https://github.com/MapQuest/MapQuest-Mapnik-Style/issues/19
I'll send MapQuest a tweet (https://twitter.com/rickmastfan67/status/290992047740047364) about that. I did that when they first started rendering OSM tiles and they didn't have a 3d US highway shield (they got that fixed within 24h).
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on January 14, 2013, 08:21:50 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 14, 2013, 08:14:55 PM
Arkansas has a worse bug than Kentucky :bigass:
https://github.com/MapQuest/MapQuest-Mapnik-Style/issues/19
I'll send MapQuest a tweet (https://twitter.com/rickmastfan67/status/290992047740047364) about that. I did that when they first started rendering OSM tiles and they didn't have a 3d US highway shield (they got that fixed within 24h).
Maybe tell them to look at all the reported issues?
I looked at MQ Open today, and saw that in Ohio 1- and 2-digit routes are generic bubbles while 3-digit routes are generic boxes.
Quote from: vtk on January 14, 2013, 09:32:02 PM
I looked at MQ Open today, and saw that in Ohio 1- and 2-digit routes are generic bubbles while 3-digit routes are generic boxes.
That's a combination of the bug treating SR as county and the one showing one- and two-digit county routes in an oval.
Say, why exactly is it that OSM can't handle mutliplexes? It (or at least P2) can clearly tell multiple values apart. Is it a problem with rendering multiple shields? Is it technically a bug?
Quote from: Roadsguy on January 15, 2013, 08:46:30 AM
Say, why exactly is it that OSM can't handle mutliplexes?
Technically, OSM itself doesn't have to handle multiplexes. All it cares about are nodes, ways, relations, and key/value pairs, in the abstract without meaning. Various editors, renderers, and other tools handle route overlaps in different ways (or not at all) because they are different sub-projects with different priorities and limited volunteer resources.
What you see when you browse the map at www.openstreetmap.org is the output of just one specific renderer (often referred to as Mapnik, though that's not quite accurate). Its limitations don't necessarily represent limitations of OSM as a whole. This output is not meant to be specialized as a roadgeeky highway map, but a more general map that attempts to show a wide variety of features. How it handles route data is to take the value of the "ref=" tag on roads, and display it verbatim in a bubble on the map. In order to display an appropriate-sized bubble, it actually has distinct bubble sizes for ref tags of one to eight characters in length. This is somewhat related to limitations of the specific software which powers the renderer; it can be improved, but at the expense of exponentially increased stylesheet complexity.
There isn't universal agreement among contributors on how to format that tag when multiple routes overlap on the same road, but a leading method produces tags that look a bit like "ref=I 670; US 62". At twelve characters long, this information simply doesn't appear on the main map at www.openstreetmap.org, because the renderer doesn't have a bubble big enough.
There are other renderers which do a better job in this regard. Mapquest Open, for example, seems to recognize the semicolon and render an appropriate shield for each route. Unfortunately, it's not always so good at choosing an appropriate shield for a given route; this is due largely in part to the variability of how to write some designations in a ref tag.
And then there's a sub-project that's made great progress towards rendering highway shields as roadgeekily as possible. In order to avoid the vagueries of the ref tags on individual highways, this project uses the information in route relations, which are more structured and better suited to machine interpretation. And somewhere in the process is a fair amount of code dedicated specifically to choosing the correct shield type, and arranging multiple shields in a cluster. Take a look here: http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/?zoom=13&lat=39.1&lon=-84.55 (http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/?zoom=13&lat=39.1&lon=-84.55) (Warning: this is on a slow server.) I think the hope is this will eventually be how the map looks on www.openstreetmap.org, or at least just on www.openstreetmap.us.
Quote from: NE2 on January 14, 2013, 08:55:34 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on January 14, 2013, 08:21:50 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 14, 2013, 08:14:55 PM
Arkansas has a worse bug than Kentucky :bigass:
https://github.com/MapQuest/MapQuest-Mapnik-Style/issues/19
I'll send MapQuest a tweet (https://twitter.com/rickmastfan67/status/290992047740047364) about that. I did that when they first started rendering OSM tiles and they didn't have a 3d US highway shield (they got that fixed within 24h).
Maybe tell them to look at all the reported issues?
Well, they did respond back to me about the AR errors.
http://twitter.com/MapQuestTech/statuses/291316428198535168
So, hopefully it will be fixed soon.
Is it going to accept, for example "I 95" and "I-95," or just the former, which I see far more often?
"I-95" is, I believe, the correct abbreviation.
Personally I've always been of the opinion that (speaking in a general sense here, not just OSM) if you use "I-95" with a hyphen, you should hyphenate other forms as well, e.g. "US-23", "OH-16", "PA-144"...
Quote from: Roadsguy on January 16, 2013, 08:40:29 AM
Is it going to accept, for example "I 95" and "I-95," or just the former, which I see far more often?
Which "it" are you asking about? The main map on osm.org will just display whatever was typed. I think MQ Open works with either a hyphen or a space, but I'm not sure. Anything that uses route relations won't care, because in a route relation the I and the 95 should be in separate tags anyway.
Oh, I thought this sub-project would possibly be integrated into the main Mapnik renderer.
And yes, I know about the different renderers. I just tend to think in the back of my mind that OSM is only ever Mapnik, even though I know it isn't. :P
Quote from: NE2 on January 14, 2013, 08:55:34 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on January 14, 2013, 08:21:50 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 14, 2013, 08:14:55 PM
Arkansas has a worse bug than Kentucky :bigass:
https://github.com/MapQuest/MapQuest-Mapnik-Style/issues/19
I'll send MapQuest a tweet (https://twitter.com/rickmastfan67/status/290992047740047364) about that. I did that when they first started rendering OSM tiles and they didn't have a 3d US highway shield (they got that fixed within 24h).
Maybe tell them to look at all the reported issues?
Well, they have now fixed the AR shield bug. I just got a message from them on Twitter (https://twitter.com/MapQuestTech/status/292014097338363905) about it. And right now they are re-rending the AR tiles.
MapQuest seems to have changed their server to rerender on-the-fly rather than every few weeks. Changes I made an hour ago are showing up.
Has anyone ever used this site? http://www.itoworld.com/map/main It has different maps and uses OSM data to display each map, I especially like the highway lane maps and speed limit maps, they're very interesting, and I have yet to find a better site to display stuff like speed limits on a simple map.
Quote from: Some_Person on January 19, 2013, 11:25:37 PM
Has anyone ever used this site? http://www.itoworld.com/map/main
Yep. Put itoworld into the search box at the top of this thread.
Quote from: NE2 on January 19, 2013, 11:31:23 PM
Quote from: Some_Person on January 19, 2013, 11:25:37 PM
Has anyone ever used this site? http://www.itoworld.com/map/main
Yep. Put itoworld into the search box at the top of this thread.
Cool, thanks for letting me know, probably should've done that myself before posting :-P
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=31.9378&lon=-93.1536&zoom=13&layers=M
Obvious vandalism is needing reversion. I'd do it but I tend to get in trouble whenever I wander outside Florida.
Quote from: NE2 on March 31, 2013, 02:49:32 AM
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=31.9378&lon=-93.1536&zoom=13&layers=M
Obvious vandalism is needing reversion. I'd do it but I tend to get in trouble whenever I wander outside Florida.
I'll report that to the data group once the API comes back online and I can find out what user did that! Yikes!
EDIT: Database is back online (read-only mode), so I've been able to ID the user who did this. I've now reported him. Hopefully he'll be blocked and all the changes will be reverted once the database comes back out of read-only mode.
The semicolon is the good separator for concurrency, being it's not used elsewhere. The only other character I would have suggested would have been the pipe ( | ) to indicate multiple members of a text string, dashes and slashes being used for WV fractionals. Anything can later be displayed with commas for human text reading. Any shield rendering system should attempt to move into using the relational tags instead of the ref=* tags on the individual ways.
Risking the ire of the powers that be in Ohio, I tagged some routes with ref="OH xxx" in the southern tip of the state (Lawrence Co.); they render correctly with the Ohio shield once that's done. Lawrence also had well signed county and township numbers. MQ still needs to work on Kentucky 4-digit routes (though they've done Louisiana's so they render with no problem), and WV fractionals (render as concurrencies of the two numbers). In my back yard, someone tagged some unsigned reference routes issued by the state for all county maintained streets as "CO xxx" which is the correct unsigned_ref, but are now rendered as Colorado shields.
Quote from: NE2 on January 14, 2013, 09:34:46 PM
Quote from: vtk on January 14, 2013, 09:32:02 PM
I looked at MQ Open today, and saw that in Ohio 1- and 2-digit routes are generic bubbles while 3-digit routes are generic boxes.
That's a combination of the bug treating SR as county and the one showing one- and two-digit county routes in an oval.
Quote from: MDRoads on April 21, 2013, 07:51:05 AM
MQ still needs to work on Kentucky 4-digit routes (though they've done Louisiana's so they render with no problem)
I sent them a tweet about that awhile back. Hopefully they'll fix it soon.
How long does it typically take for edits to go live?
The change is in the database immediately. The visual rendered map you see on osm.org can potentially catch up in a few minutes to hours, though you may need to hard-refresh or clear your browser's cache to notice. Other services using OSM data may take a little longer before they incorporate the changes into their local copy of the database – minutes to weeks depending on the service – and if they also produce rendered maps, it could be a few days or more before those map tiles get re-rendered.
Quote from: vtk on April 30, 2013, 01:42:28 PM
The visual rendered map you see on osm.org can potentially catch up in a few minutes to hours, though you may need to hard-refresh or clear your browser's cache to notice.
This is true for zoom 13+ (where tertiaries appear).
Quote from: vtk on April 30, 2013, 01:42:28 PM
Other services using OSM data may take a little longer before they incorporate the changes into their local copy of the database – minutes to weeks depending on the service – and if they also produce rendered maps, it could be a few days or more before those map tiles get re-rendered.
For example, MapQuest's rendering still doesn't show Missouri I-49 at zoom 10-, 5 1/2 months after the ways were changed.
The edit I made to a street name has already caught up. However, I've been adding in Portland's bus lines, and those haven't shown up on the transport map yet (neither has the street name change). I'm reading that that can take longer to propagate?
The transport map (and cycle map) usually updates once a day.
What the fuck is this shit?
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2013-May/010867.html
Quote from: NE2 on May 31, 2013, 11:23:00 PM
What the fuck is this shit?
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2013-May/010867.html
It looked as though you're still having the same issues that you were having on Wikipedia. Look, NE2, you're a brilliant researcher and you know a lot about roads in a lot of places–much more than most of the people here, I'd wager. And when you're putting that to work you're a pleasure to work with; you were an incredible help on Wikipedia's Kansas Turnpike article. But when you want to do X and everyone else wants to do Y you seem to have a hard time accepting that and instead of letting it go, you tend to just double down on X and not budge. Trying to reason with a brick wall that insists it's right just pisses people off.
I have no idea what happened on OSM that resulted in you getting banned but judging by the message you linked it sounds as though the same scenario that led up to both of your appearances in front of Wikipedia's ArbCom played itself out again on OSM. If you choose to move on to another crowdsourced project, I think you might want to mull your experiences at Wikipedia and OSM over and see if you can use them as a learning opportunity. Sometimes you need to pick your battles and just let something stupid like turn restrictions go.
Quote from: NE2 on May 31, 2013, 11:23:00 PM
What the fuck is this shit?
/me slaps NE2 with an ASBO
Quote from: NE2 on May 31, 2013, 11:23:00 PM
What the fuck is this shit?
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2013-May/010867.html
Dude, I'm going to give you a few words of advice. You need to be a bit more diplomatic when dealing with people. It's something learned, not innate in people. Sometimes you can be right, but annoy the crap out of people with how you approach them. Trust me, I know from my own experiences and learned to tone down myself in that regard. Sometimes, somethings just aren't worth worrying about.
Quote from: NE2 on May 31, 2013, 11:23:00 PM
What the fuck is this shit?
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2013-May/010867.html
Clearly the only reasonable response is to open a new account and mass-edit all of the road names in Orlando to be ASCII representations of male genitalia.
Quote from: realjd on June 03, 2013, 01:51:25 PM
Quote from: NE2 on May 31, 2013, 11:23:00 PM
What the fuck is this shit?
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2013-May/010867.html
Clearly the only reasonable response is to open a new account and mass-edit all of the road names in Orlando to be ASCII representations of male genitalia.
I live at 10358 ====D Ave.
Looks like two-lane freeways are going to be tagged as trunks instead: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2013-June/011260.html
Two steps forward, one step back.
SPUI, doyamind if I take the lead on this one....
I'm in the epicenter of this because my marking of US 169 between Chanute and Iola (which is a super two with fully-controlled access) as 'Motorway,' while another use marked a similar facility (Chickasaw Turnpike) as "Trunk."
My reply has been posted here: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2013-June/011267.html
And then there's this: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/33262935
"This road shouldn't be marked as trunk. It is NOT divided, so please don't change it!"
on a road that has 'freeway entrance' signs at the onramps.
Next thing you know they'll say the DOT is wrong!
Is this a case of OSM being Euro-centric or are the editors just strange?
Quote from: NE2 on June 25, 2013, 05:30:20 PM
And then there's this: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/33262935
"This road shouldn't be marked as trunk. It is NOT divided, so please don't change it!"
on a road that has 'freeway entrance' signs at the onramps.
Nobody really knows how to use trunk in the US, so people are bound to get over arguments. In my opinion, that section should certainly be trunk. Look at US-97 between Bend and Redmond (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/143657594), which is currently trunk, and not divided (but is limited access expressway), which I agree with.
I think this is just one of the many problems inherent in applying a UK-oriented symbology scheme to other countries. They don't quite match up right.
You can mark me down as agnostic as to whether a fully-grade-separated super-2 should be marked as motorway or trunk.
In Ohio we don't have those anyway. There are several 2-lane undivided expressways ("Ohio super-2") but I am not aware of any that are completely grade separated. And I'm not likely to make a potentially controversial change of a road's classification outside central Ohio.
Quote from: vdeane on June 25, 2013, 08:08:00 PMIs this a case of OSM being Euro-centric or are the editors just strange?
Yes to both, though really UK-centric, rather than Euro-centric.
Though the labels 'trunk and primary' are not really UK-centric - in the UK, you mark primary A roads as 'trunk', whether or not they are trunk (a legal definition, and in Britain refers to those roads which Transport Scotland, Transport Wales, Transport for London and the Highways Agency are responsible for) and the label 'primary' applies to non-primary A roads.
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 27, 2013, 06:32:23 AM
I think this is just one of the many problems inherent in applying a UK-oriented symbology scheme to other countries. They don't quite match up right.
OK, here's a question for you: do you think the Chickasaw should be shown as a "Motorway" or "Trunk." US 169 between Chanute and Iola - same question.
The latter, I have marked as "motorway," the former is marked as "trunk"
Also, if you guys are ever bored and want to tidy some things up (specifically, lane counts on North American freeways/expressways) take a look at this: http://maproulette.org/
Quote from: doorknob60 on June 27, 2013, 06:13:16 AM
Quote from: NE2 on June 25, 2013, 05:30:20 PM
And then there's this: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/33262935
"This road shouldn't be marked as trunk. It is NOT divided, so please don't change it!"
on a road that has 'freeway entrance' signs at the onramps.
Nobody really knows how to use trunk in the US, so people are bound to get over arguments. In my opinion, that section should certainly be trunk. Look at US-97 between Bend and Redmond (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/143657594), which is currently trunk, and not divided (but is limited access expressway), which I agree with.
US-65 between Conway, AR and Harrison, AR is marked trunk. It's just a run-of-the-mill 2 and 4 lane non-divided highway. However, it is the main route of travel for trucks going from Little Rock to Springfield.
Quote from: route56 on June 27, 2013, 06:46:46 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 27, 2013, 06:32:23 AM
I think this is just one of the many problems inherent in applying a UK-oriented symbology scheme to other countries. They don't quite match up right.
OK, here's a question for you: do you think the Chickasaw should be shown as a "Motorway" or "Trunk." US 169 between Chanute and Iola - same question.
The latter, I have marked as "motorway," the former is marked as "trunk"
I think it should be marked as "turnpike".
But OSM doesn't have symbology for that, so the developer's faces should be marked with an imprint of a trout.
Turnpike? highway=motorway toll=yes. Done.
I'd rather there be actual symbology for that, such that a toll highway displays differently than a free highway.
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 27, 2013, 10:52:41 PM
I'd rather there be actual symbology for that, such that a toll highway displays differently than a free highway.
It does on the MapQuest rendering. (But only if it's motorway, not trunk...)
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=36.0945&lon=-95.9716&zoom=12&layers=Q
Apparently the Gilcrease is no longer a freeway...?
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 27, 2013, 10:52:41 PM
I'd rather there be actual symbology for that, such that a toll highway displays differently than a free highway.
Blame the "Mapnik" default rendering, which is based on UK Ordnance Survey style, since toll roads (other than bridges) are few and far between in the UK. When/if the relation-based shield rendering becomes available that's something that can easily be addressed, along with other wishlist things like figuring out a different rendering for divided highways.
Speaking of the relation-based shield rendering, according to talk-us a demo is now live on the OpenStreetmap.us server; it apparently should be truly "live" with controls and the like soon once some optimizations are done to ensure everything runs smoothly. A preview without controls is at http://tile.openstreetmap.us/osmus_shields/preview.html#13/33.5277/-86.7385 (panning works, zooming in works by double-click; anything else will require fooling with the query string).
I have to say it looks nice so far and hopefully is the first step towards a more inviting initial map for North American audiences who don't appreciate the virtues (or lack thereof) of Ordnance Survey-style maps.
God damn it, Brian@Brea...
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/16891509/history
Quote from: NE2 on August 03, 2013, 10:16:54 PM
God damn it, Brian@Brea...
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/16891509/history
I've reverted it and sent him a message about it.
QuoteOn 10/13/2013 11:13 PM, Paul Norman wrote:
>> From: data@osmfoundation.org [mailto:data@osmfoundation.org] On Behalf
>> Of Nathan Edgars II
>> Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 1:09 PM
>> Subject: Re: Mapping local observations
>>
>>> Thank you for your message and for your willingness to improve OSM. We
>>> do however think that allowing you to edit anything so shortly after a
>>> ban would send the wrong message, so our answer has to be no at this
>>> time.
>>
>> Is it still too soon? Another new road is about to open and the openings
>> several months ago are still not correctly mapped.
>
> Your ban was indefinite. Although criteria were not set for lifting the ban,
> we would expect evidence from your behavior elsewhere that indicates that
> the systemic communication and conflict problems that lead to your ban were
> no longer an issue. Only then would lifting it be considered.
I love getting useless answers. Is OSM a mapping project or a bloody social network? Does the so-called data working group actually care about the data?
Quote from: NE2 on October 14, 2013, 02:28:46 AM
QuoteOn 10/13/2013 11:13 PM, Paul Norman wrote:
>> From: data@osmfoundation.org [mailto:data@osmfoundation.org] On Behalf
>> Of Nathan Edgars II
>> Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 1:09 PM
>> Subject: Re: Mapping local observations
>>
>>> Thank you for your message and for your willingness to improve OSM. We
>>> do however think that allowing you to edit anything so shortly after a
>>> ban would send the wrong message, so our answer has to be no at this
>>> time.
>>
>> Is it still too soon? Another new road is about to open and the openings
>> several months ago are still not correctly mapped.
>
> Your ban was indefinite. Although criteria were not set for lifting the ban,
> we would expect evidence from your behavior elsewhere that indicates that
> the systemic communication and conflict problems that lead to your ban were
> no longer an issue. Only then would lifting it be considered.
I love getting useless answers. Is OSM a mapping project or a bloody social network? Does the so-called data working group actually care about the data?
You haven't just gone and made another account yet?
Call me crazy, but I'm guessing criticizing the decisions made by another project's administrators on a public board that (a) they know you frequent, and (b) are probably monitoring to see whether or not you can play nicely with others as part of their decision-making as to whether or not to rescind your ban, may be unwise.
Except for rare parts of the North Shore, it is all "SR 28" instead of "MA 28" for all routes in Massachusetts (28 was an example). It would take a LOT of work to make them all "MA" though.
Quote from: lordsutch on October 14, 2013, 02:53:20 PM
Call me crazy, but I'm guessing criticizing the decisions made by another project's administrators on a public board that (a) they know you frequent, and (b) are probably monitoring to see whether or not you can play nicely with others as part of their decision-making as to whether or not to rescind your ban, may be unwise.
They've obviously decided not to let me back in and are going to shape the arguments to fit that.
PS: you snitching?
Quote from: 1 on October 14, 2013, 03:07:09 PM
Except for rare parts of the North Shore, it is all "SR 28" instead of "MA 28" for all routes in Massachusetts (28 was an example). It would take a LOT of work to make them all "MA" though.
I know... I've worked on converting Utah to UT...
Quote from: NE2 on October 14, 2013, 03:29:11 PM
They've obviously decided not to let me back in and are going to shape the arguments to fit that.
PS: you snitching?
Uh, no. But it's hard to read "we would expect evidence from your behavior elsewhere that indicates that the systemic communication and conflict problems that lead to your ban were no longer an issue" without assuming they can Google "NE2" and quickly end up here.
Well, poo.
Quote from: NE2 on October 14, 2013, 03:29:11 PM
They've obviously decided not to let me back in and are going to shape the arguments to fit that.
Posting said comment in a forum where "they" could possibly read it makes it a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Quote from: NE2 on May 06, 2011, 10:42:31 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 06, 2011, 10:26:34 PM
I've been messing around with OSM a bit this week. Could you explain basically how streets/major highways are supposed to be marked? I've read the documentation but most of it is geared toward UK use. Am I correct in the understanding that it goes Interstate/freeway=motorway, expressway=trunk, US=primary, state=secondary? What are urban major arterials supposed to be? In Oklahoma City they are marked as secondary but in Norman they are tertiary. (If major arterials are secondary, is tertiary for residential collectors?)
Heh. There's no real consensus here. Motorway is of course freeway (add bicycle=yes if bikes are allowed). Trunk is used for both surface expressways and for major intercity highways (such as US 93 Phoenix-Las Vegas, even on those sections that aren't strictly expressway). Primary-secondary-tertiary is a balancing act with no strict rules. Usually a U.S. Highway will be primary or higher and a state highway will be secondary or higher, but exceptions will come up (for example I'd guess that SH 9 from Norman to Tecumseh serves a decent amount of traffic and should be primary). Functional classification is another useful data point; generally principal=primary, minor=secondary, collector=tertiary will be a good starting point. My personal balance can be seen best in Orlando (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=28.5478&lon=-81.3904&zoom=13&layers=M). But really, as long as you're internally consistent (e.g. not ending a secondary at an intersection of tertiaries without a good reason, like in Norman), you shouldn't have problems.
By the way, rendering is currently borked, so your changes won't show up immediately.
Yeah, I'm quoting old posts, but I kinda have my own system for marking flavors of highways:
Freeway = motorway (duh!)
Trunk highway = expressway (only thing I can figure out a use for it)
Primary = major US/state routes (since they're basically the same in most states' eyes)
Secondary = major streets through an area, county routes, minor state highways
Tertiary = minor collector streets without stop signs
Minor road = residential streets that serve as collectors, heavier traffic but not enough to be a tertiary. Unfortunately, they don't show up very well on maps, so I may change them to tertiary (not keen on unclassified).
I also only end primary/secondary/tertiary roads at other similar roads or greater, unless there's a good reason not to. Minor roads can end at residential.
Oh, and here's my profile: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/FightingIrish1
So is anyone willing to help me get the local streets correct?
Which local streets?
Quote from: lordsutch on October 15, 2013, 10:51:00 PM
Which local streets?
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/28.3926/-81.5192&layers=N
I've had these notes here for months.
That was very inappropriate renaming this thread NE2. Please don't do that again. I wouldn't stop you from renaming your new "individual" posts as they don't rename the entire thread, but not the entire thread name by editing the first post of the thread.
How's this?
This better?
Quote from: Molandfreak on October 16, 2013, 12:45:40 AM
What is this? U.S. 10 is not an expressway through Wadena. http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/46.4454/-95.1359
Trunk doesn't mean expressway any more than primary means four-lane.
Quote from: NE2 on October 16, 2013, 12:48:58 AM
Quote from: Molandfreak on October 16, 2013, 12:45:40 AM
What is this? U.S. 10 is not an expressway through Wadena. http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/46.4454/-95.1359
Trunk doesn't mean expressway any more than primary means four-lane.
Eh, I made a mistake. I'm new at this :-/
Quote from: Molandfreak on October 16, 2013, 12:49:56 AM
Quote from: NE2 on October 16, 2013, 12:48:58 AM
Quote from: Molandfreak on October 16, 2013, 12:45:40 AM
What is this? U.S. 10 is not an expressway through Wadena. http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/46.4454/-95.1359
Trunk doesn't mean expressway any more than primary means four-lane.
Eh, I made a mistake. I'm new at this :-/
Don't worry. Some long-term mappers made the same mistake and still haven't stopped trying to change the rest of the country to conform :)
Quote from: NE2 on October 16, 2013, 12:51:08 AM
Quote from: Molandfreak on October 16, 2013, 12:49:56 AM
Quote from: NE2 on October 16, 2013, 12:48:58 AM
Quote from: Molandfreak on October 16, 2013, 12:45:40 AM
What is this? U.S. 10 is not an expressway through Wadena. http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/46.4454/-95.1359
Trunk doesn't mean expressway any more than primary means four-lane.
Eh, I made a mistake. I'm new at this :-/
Don't worry. Some long-term mappers made the same mistake and still haven't stopped trying to change the rest of the country to conform :)
That was actually something I pushed for at a time when almost nobody had an idea of what to use "trunk" for in the US. I've since backed off of that as a strict practice, but I'd say a good guideline is the intercity corridors that have significant freeway or expressway portions should probably be trunk.
Quote from: vtk on October 16, 2013, 04:24:27 AM
Quote from: NE2 on October 16, 2013, 12:51:08 AM
Quote from: Molandfreak on October 16, 2013, 12:49:56 AM
Quote from: NE2 on October 16, 2013, 12:48:58 AM
Quote from: Molandfreak on October 16, 2013, 12:45:40 AM
What is this? U.S. 10 is not an expressway through Wadena. http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/46.4454/-95.1359
Trunk doesn't mean expressway any more than primary means four-lane.
Eh, I made a mistake. I'm new at this :-/
Don't worry. Some long-term mappers made the same mistake and still haven't stopped trying to change the rest of the country to conform :)
That was actually something I pushed for at a time when almost nobody had an idea of what to use "trunk" for in the US. I've since backed off of that as a strict practice, but I'd say a good guideline is the intercity corridors that have significant freeway or expressway portions should probably be trunk.
Another possible use for Trunk highways is to denote NHS routes. Just a thought.
Wish they'd 'Americanize' the site a bit.
Quote from: FightingIrish on October 16, 2013, 10:14:25 AM
Another possible use for Trunk highways is to denote NHS routes. Just a thought.
I have denoted principal arterials (which includes NHS routes) as Trunk in Kansas.
Quote from: route56 on October 16, 2013, 05:32:53 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on October 16, 2013, 10:14:25 AM
Another possible use for Trunk highways is to denote NHS routes. Just a thought.
I have denoted principal arterials (which includes NHS routes) as Trunk in Kansas.
Folks seem to use "trunk" for "parkway" in the NYC area, since they render in green.
Hi all - I'm new here. I've spent a few evenings getting lost in the wealth of road info on AARoads. Quite amazing. I am excited to see so many AARoad members being active OSM contributors as well :cool: , I definitely recognize some of your handles :)
I've been tempted to use information found on this site to update OSM on a number of occasions but never have. As you may know, OSM takes copying of information from third party sources very seriously, and without an explicit license or statement of consent, we don't go for it. This is both to respect the intellectual property of others - we as OSM community would want the same respect extended to us by users of OSM data - and to protect the integrity of the liberal OSM data license.
So, my question :confused: are there guidelines for deriving information from the content of AARoads (the pictures, descriptions) and using it to enhance OSM?
Full disclosure: I have a professional interest as well as a personal one. I have been involved with OSM since 2007, am currently the president of the OSM U.S. Chapter, and I work at Telenav where we are looking very actively at using OSM data in our personal navigation products.
Here's the thread on the talk-us mailing list I started a few hours ago: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2013-October/012019.html
You can't copyright a fact. If I post "Highway 50 is now designated along Patterson Parkway", I cannot claim that as my intellectual property (I can merely claim my word choice, and even that can be tenuous), and it should be OK to use that to change OSM to include that information. Likewise, if I take a picture showing Highway 50 as being designated along Patterson Parkway, it should be OK to use that to change OSM too, as long as you are not outright taking the image and putting it in OSM somehow.
The only thing you wouldn't want to do is take a map that someone created here, trace directly over it, and put the trace in OSM.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 01, 2013, 12:43:16 AM
The only thing you wouldn't want to do is take a map that someone created here, trace directly over it, and put the trace in OSM.
I think the majority of "map[
s] that someone created here" are either fictional, or based on OSM or other "open" sources anyway. Occasionally both.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 01, 2013, 12:43:16 AM
You can't copyright a fact. If I post "Highway 50 is now designated along Patterson Parkway", I cannot claim that as my intellectual property (I can merely claim my word choice, and even that can be tenuous), and it should be OK to use that to change OSM to include that information. Likewise, if I take a picture showing Highway 50 as being designated along Patterson Parkway, it should be OK to use that to change OSM too, as long as you are not outright taking the image and putting it in OSM somehow.
Not the fact itself perhaps, but the collection constitutes a database which is protected separately in many jurisdictions - although not in the United States as far as I know. So there may be a legal difference between copying a single statement of fact, and more or less systematically copying information from one collection into another. Does that difference exist and if so, does it apply here?
I can't just copy an encyclopedia (even wikipedia), as while you can't copyright a fact, you can copyright how that fact is presented.
Quote from: english si on November 01, 2013, 10:22:34 AM
I can't just copy an encyclopedia (even wikipedia), as while you can't copyright a fact, you can copyright how that fact is presented.
Being able to claim copyright to something is not the same thing per se as that thing not being liberally licensed, am I right? So you could have a copyrighted work (like the images on AAroads) that is licensed in a way that allows creating derived works. Or am I misunderstanding your point?
Street signs constitute a database that is protected in many jurisdictions. What gives you the right to copy the information from street signs? :bigass:
Quote from: mvexel on November 01, 2013, 02:25:24 PMBeing able to claim copyright to something is not the same thing per se as that thing not being liberally licensed, am I right? So you could have a copyrighted work (like the images on AAroads) that is licensed in a way that allows creating derived works. Or am I misunderstanding your point?
There's fair use derivatives, like satire (fair use is broader in the UK). But also you can allow derivatives, or not - copyright is as flexible as the copyright holder wants it to be.
Flickr, for instance, has several options for uploaders photos: All Rights Reserved, Share Alike, etc.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright explains it well.
Quote from: OSMThe cartography in our map tiles, and our documentation, are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 license (CC BY-SA). <snip> We require that you use the credit "© OpenStreetMap contributors" .
The data isn't copyright, and derivative works from that (eg MapQuestOpen) is allowed, but the cartography and documentation is copyright and if you share it, you have to not change it, and credit the contributors.
---
SABRE Maps has investigated this kind of stuff (UK law is more tight, eg Government stuff is copyright, though only for 50 years) - scans of out-of-copyright documents are copyright the person/organisation who scanned them, even if owned by someone else (libraries and archives charge for photocopies and often ban cameras to recoup money back), so SABRE (or rather one or two members) visited libraries they hoped to buy scans from as it was pointless if we weren't allowed to publish them online. The National Library of Scotland were rather happy provided that we pay for the scans at the going rate, do all the work to create tiles, attribute the NLS and let them publish those on their mapviewer. Others wanted an annual fee as well, so the SABRE response was "no thanks".
The Mona Lisa is not under copyright, however, a photo of the Mona Lisa is a new work, so is. Thus, the company "Old Ordnance Survey Maps" can copyright their work. It's really annoying when you buy an old map, only to find that it's a reproduction, and thus under copyright for the next 70 years or more. I saw a 1st edition A-Z of London cheap on Amazon and leapt for joy, as that is old enough to be copyright free (or will be soon), but then digging into the description I found that it was a reproduction, not a reprinting, and therefore under copyright for the foreseeable future. :banghead:
The above is not accepted by all legal scholars. So don't go removing map scans from your route log or other website just because you didn't physically scan them and contribute to damage of the original.
The above also represents UK law–in the US, there was a court ruling called Feist v. Rural that ruled that mere effort doesn't create new copyright. (The lawsuit was between two phone book companies. The court ruled that just because one company did all of the work to compile phone numbers into a book, that didn't give them a copyright claim to the facts of "John Smith = 555-3465", so when the other company grabbed the numbers from the first phone book, they were not infringing copyright.)
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 03, 2013, 02:37:56 PM
The above also represents UK law
The applicability of UK law is also questionable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.#Relevance_to_U.K._law (this is, by the way, a more relevant US court case than Feist v. Rural)
NH 108 in East Kingston seems to have 2 branches (the right one does not exist!)
EDIT: NH 43 is also messed up.
Quote from: 1 on February 17, 2014, 04:43:01 PM
NH 108 in East Kingston seems to have 2 branches (the right one does not exist!)
EDIT: NH 43 is also messed up.
Provide links to the location of the problem and one of us that edits OSM might be able to fix it. ;)
5 miles northeast of Manchester NH (NH 43), and 5 miles north of Haverhill MA (NH 108).
Quote from: 1 on February 17, 2014, 11:08:19 PM
5 miles northeast of Manchester NH (NH 43), and 5 miles north of Haverhill MA (NH 108).
That doesn't help people if they don't know the area. The URL in the address bar updates when you move it around on the main OSM website now, so just post it here so people know exactly where you're talking about. ;)
Check Google for the correct alignments.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/43.1166/-71.2959
Not NH 43
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/43.0721/-71.3055
Exit 3 on NH 101 north on Deerfield Rd. and Old Candia Rd. are NH 43 (and please upgrade to secondary road)
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/42.9021/-71.0269
Only the left branch of NH 108 exists (by the way, Powwow River Road is NH 107A all the way to the Massachusetts border)
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/43.0099/-70.9407
Portsmouth Avenue is only NH 33 north of College Rd., the rest is only NH 108
Quote from: 1 on February 18, 2014, 12:00:21 PM
Check Google for the correct alignments.
You do know that's a no-no for OSM editing, right?
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on February 19, 2014, 01:58:24 AM
Quote from: 1 on February 18, 2014, 12:00:21 PM
Check Google for the correct alignments.
You do know that's a no-no for OSM editing, right?
Though, as has been said many times, you can't copyright facts. Therefore if you leave the cartography alone (as neither fact, nor worth copying!) and use Streetview rather than taking a drive to the location, then it serves as an alternative to physically travelling to a location - if you don't tell anyone, they won't know.
I used it to double check the (weird) house numbering on my street, rather than looking decidedly dodgy walking down every side turn then almost immediately coming back out. It probably took more time (having to try hard to see the numbers as their zoom isn't as good), but I did get to avoid the rain, and the looking like a mad man. I was right anyway working from memory, but I needed the safety blanket of double checking to be sure.
As an alternative to Google, information on numbered routes can be sourced from USGS topo maps – specifically, the older hand-drawn ones, because the new all-digital maps appear to use commercial road data. The main drawback here is the route information could be years or decades out of date. All USGS topo maps are available for download here: http://usgs01.srv.mst.edu/MLAD4/?store_url=http://store.usgs.gov/b2c_usgs/usgs/z_lat_lon_matnr_list.do?b2cb2b=b2c&store_target=_top
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on February 19, 2014, 01:58:24 AM
Quote from: 1 on February 18, 2014, 12:00:21 PM
Check Google for the correct alignments.
You do know that's a no-no for OSM editing, right?
Quote from: vtk on February 19, 2014, 08:53:15 AM
As an alternative to Google, information on numbered routes can be sourced from USGS topo maps – specifically, the older hand-drawn ones, because the new all-digital maps appear to use commercial road data. The main drawback here is the route information could be years or decades out of date. All USGS topo maps are available for download here: http://usgs01.srv.mst.edu/MLAD4/?store_url=http://store.usgs.gov/b2c_usgs/usgs/z_lat_lon_matnr_list.do?b2cb2b=b2c&store_target=_top
Interestingly, now that USGS maps are being crowd-sourced (http://nationalmap.gov/TheNationalMapCorps/) for selected types of data, Google StreetView is now one of the recommended methods for field checking certain facts.
Quote from: empirestate on February 19, 2014, 05:19:16 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on February 19, 2014, 01:58:24 AM
Quote from: 1 on February 18, 2014, 12:00:21 PM
Check Google for the correct alignments.
You do know that's a no-no for OSM editing, right?
Quote from: vtk on February 19, 2014, 08:53:15 AM
As an alternative to Google, information on numbered routes can be sourced from USGS topo maps – specifically, the older hand-drawn ones, because the new all-digital maps appear to use commercial road data. The main drawback here is the route information could be years or decades out of date. All USGS topo maps are available for download here: http://usgs01.srv.mst.edu/MLAD4/?store_url=http://store.usgs.gov/b2c_usgs/usgs/z_lat_lon_matnr_list.do?b2cb2b=b2c&store_target=_top
Interestingly, now that USGS maps are being crowd-sourced (http://nationalmap.gov/TheNationalMapCorps/) for selected types of data, Google StreetView is now one of the recommended methods for field checking certain facts.
this seems like one giant circle-jerk. add in the Wiki world's general ban on primary research, and you are left with no options.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 19, 2014, 05:44:27 PM
Quote from: empirestate on February 19, 2014, 05:19:16 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on February 19, 2014, 01:58:24 AM
Quote from: 1 on February 18, 2014, 12:00:21 PM
Check Google for the correct alignments.
You do know that's a no-no for OSM editing, right?
Quote from: vtk on February 19, 2014, 08:53:15 AM
As an alternative to Google, information on numbered routes can be sourced from USGS topo maps – specifically, the older hand-drawn ones, because the new all-digital maps appear to use commercial road data. The main drawback here is the route information could be years or decades out of date. All USGS topo maps are available for download here: http://usgs01.srv.mst.edu/MLAD4/?store_url=http://store.usgs.gov/b2c_usgs/usgs/z_lat_lon_matnr_list.do?b2cb2b=b2c&store_target=_top
Interestingly, now that USGS maps are being crowd-sourced (http://nationalmap.gov/TheNationalMapCorps/) for selected types of data, Google StreetView is now one of the recommended methods for field checking certain facts.
this seems like one giant circle-jerk. add in the Wiki world's general ban on primary research, and you are left with no options.
Fortunately, OSM embraces original research.
I noticed that multiplexes/concurrencies (i.e. ref with multiple values, e.g. I-99;US 220) are now rendered in shields. Previously, there was a character limit on how long the rendered "shield" would be. It seems to have gotten larger, as some multiplexes are showing (like I-78/US 22, I-70/I-76, etc.), but others aren't. I can't find any shown triple multiplex except this one.
Is this a bug? I like it, because there are a lot of long multiplexes like the ones mentioned that don't have any shield at all. A way to render the shields separately should be implemented, though. Is such a feature in the works, or is it not possible? EDIT: Apparently not only is a relation-based shield rendering thing apparently in the works, but also shield images! It's clearly not implemented yet, though...
They just recently upped the number of 'characters' to be rendered in shields up to 11. Now stuff in the ref tag like 'US 19 Truck' and 'US 19;PA 51' can now be rendered.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/40.4661/-80.0327
There is also in the plans on adding multiple lines for refs via the ';' in tags. See here: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/750
We now have routing on the main OSM site!!!!
https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2015/02/16/routing-on-openstreetmap-org/
Southbound I-295 in NJ has an odd 'fold'. http://www.openstreetmap.org/directions#map=16/39.6972/-75.4680&layers=Q
Quote from: Bickendan on February 17, 2015, 12:39:35 PM
Southbound I-295 in NJ has an odd 'fold'. http://www.openstreetmap.org/directions#map=16/39.6972/-75.4680&layers=Q
Somebody has already fixed it. MapQuest just hasn't updated yet.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on February 17, 2015, 08:30:23 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on February 17, 2015, 12:39:35 PM
Southbound I-295 in NJ has an odd 'fold'. http://www.openstreetmap.org/directions#map=16/39.6972/-75.4680&layers=Q
Somebody has already fixed it. MapQuest just hasn't updated yet.
I got it after Bickendan's post... I don't know why it was there.
Quote from: SD Mapman on February 17, 2015, 09:01:31 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on February 17, 2015, 08:30:23 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on February 17, 2015, 12:39:35 PM
Southbound I-295 in NJ has an odd 'fold'. http://www.openstreetmap.org/directions#map=16/39.6972/-75.4680&layers=Q
Somebody has already fixed it. MapQuest just hasn't updated yet.
I got it after Bickendan's post... I don't know why it was there.
It seems that it was a newbie who did it with P2 per the history on that node for the bridge.
While I like the idea of US 66 being resurrected in California, can we get Hist banners up on the shield?
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/34.1394/-118.1157&layers=Q
Quote from: Bickendan on February 18, 2015, 02:34:21 PM
While I like the idea of US 66 being resurrected in California, can we get Hist banners up on the shield?
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/34.1394/-118.1157&layers=Q
Send a tweet about that to '@MapQuestTech' (https://twitter.com/MapQuestTech) and link them to the way in question. Then they might add it to their roadmap to fix.
Bumping because I'm not starting a new topic.
That moment when motorway vs trunk distinctions get overly pedantic: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/32230005#map=10/45.5578/-122.4845
Briefly: I changed WA 500 from trunk to motorway between I-5 and WA 503/Fourth Plain Blvd, save for the segment between 42nd and 54th. It got challenged, and later reverted to straight up trunk. My latest comment ain't happy about it.
Maybe a compromise by adding the 'motorroad=yes' tag?
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on August 24, 2015, 06:44:16 PM
Maybe a compromise by adding the 'motorroad=yes' tag?
Wouldn't that technically apply to any and all roads motor vehicles drive on? (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wordforge.net%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Funsure1.gif&hash=fe50da75d5dfccdfa611ee58287782d94a2a880d)
Quote from: Bickendan on August 24, 2015, 06:48:12 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on August 24, 2015, 06:44:16 PM
Maybe a compromise by adding the 'motorroad=yes' tag?
Wouldn't that technically apply to any and all roads motor vehicles drive on? (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wordforge.net%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Funsure1.gif&hash=fe50da75d5dfccdfa611ee58287782d94a2a880d)
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:motorroad
It's Paul Johnson. He's wrong much of the time, but don't dare to disagree with him or you'll get banned.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on August 24, 2015, 06:56:07 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on August 24, 2015, 06:48:12 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on August 24, 2015, 06:44:16 PM
Maybe a compromise by adding the 'motorroad=yes' tag?
Wouldn't that technically apply to any and all roads motor vehicles drive on? (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wordforge.net%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Funsure1.gif&hash=fe50da75d5dfccdfa611ee58287782d94a2a880d)
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:motorroad
"The motorroad tag is used to describe highways that have motorway-like access restrictions (i.e. cyclists and pedestrians banned) but that are not a motorway." SR 500 is open to bikes: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/bike/closed.htm#Clark
Quote from: NE2 on August 24, 2015, 08:01:24 PM
It's Paul Johnson. He's wrong much of the time, but don't dare to disagree with him or you'll get banned.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on August 24, 2015, 06:56:07 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on August 24, 2015, 06:48:12 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on August 24, 2015, 06:44:16 PM
Maybe a compromise by adding the 'motorroad=yes' tag?
Wouldn't that technically apply to any and all roads motor vehicles drive on? (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wordforge.net%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Funsure1.gif&hash=fe50da75d5dfccdfa611ee58287782d94a2a880d)
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:motorroad
"The motorroad tag is used to describe highways that have motorway-like access restrictions (i.e. cyclists and pedestrians banned) but that are not a motorway." SR 500 is open to bikes: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/bike/closed.htm#Clark
That restriction also doesn't apply to non-urban interstates.
Honestly, I can see both sides of the argument. I'm not familiar enough with WSDOT practices to wade in, but to me unless WSDOT has an official map designating it as a freeway or there's some distinguishing field signage between freeways and non-freeways in Washington and you're using that as the basis for what's motorway and what isn't (as opposed to more loosey-goosey stuff like number of grade separations versus at-grade crossings), it's not worth spending much capital on.
And an edit war is not a smart plan anyway. Refer it to DWG if you really, really want to stand on principle, bearing in mind that DWG's interests and those of pedantic roadgeekery aren't likely to coincide (after all, there are whole countries were many fully-grade separated highways are tagged highway=trunk).
I'd call a road like WA 500 a freeway except between those two at-grades. Just because it's short doesn't mean the whole road should be treated as one. Marking the freeway sections as such paints a much more accurate picture of what it's like to drive on that road at any given point. Looks like OSM is adopting the same methodologies for labeling roads as freeway/surface streets that drove me away from MapQuest. So much for accuracy...
So if any at-grade makes a road a trunk highway, does that mean US 36 in St. Joseph should be trunk too, due to the two at-grade ramps? :bigass:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/39.74912/-94.85761 (https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/39.74912/-94.85761)
Quote from: lordsutch on August 24, 2015, 09:22:04 PM
...unless WSDOT has an official map designating it as a freeway or there's some distinguishing field signage between freeways and non-freeways in Washington and you're using that as the basis for what's motorway and what isn't (as opposed to more loosey-goosey stuff like number of grade separations versus at-grade crossings), it's not worth spending much capital on.
A couple of points:
Like California, Washington uses "Freeway Entrance" signs at its on-ramps. Along WA-500, here's what each interchange has posted:
St Johns Blvd: "HIGHWAY ENTRANCE"
Andreson Road: "FREEWAY ENTRANCE"
Thurston Way: "FREEWAY ENTRANCE"
Gher Road towards east: "HIGHWAY ENTRANCE"
Gher Road towards west: "FREEWAY ENTRANCE"
Directly east of the Andreson Road junction is an at-grade signal...should be "Highway Entrance" in that direction (to be, like Paul, overly pedantic). Directly east of St Johns Blvd is all freeway, so it should read "Freeway Entrance" in that direction...no "buts" about that one.
Additionally, WSDOT does produce online maps. Here's a snippet of the area around Vancouver (http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/706FD0DF-CD12-42CD-9FEE-65545EF3F10B/0/Q14.pdf). Washington considers parts to be freeway, other parts to be regular highway:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F1HoLxsN.png&hash=c950b3b0bbdda69b047d368b37b1d2c47fc12253)
Seems to me a reasonable convention is, a stretch of expressway can be considered a freeway if it is five miles long, or has three interchanges, between at-grade intersections. Looks like you have two segments that marginally qualify. Are there other mappers in that area who can weigh in?
I also agree with adding motorroad=yes, because this is clearly an expressway, and that's the best tag we have to distinguish expressways from important conventional roads that are also tagged trunk. If bikes are indeed allowed, then bicycle=yes is called for. I would say bikes on a freeway or expressway is an oddity in this country, so it's reasonable to have expressway tags that seem to imply bicycle=no countered with an explicit bicycle=yes in this situation.
Using a minimum (and arbitrary) length to determine whether a segment is a freeway or not is not a good rule. The rubric should always be: How is it built in the field? How does it function? If it's built like a freeway, acts like a freeway, it's a freeway. If an expressway portion interrupts that, it should be noted. If OSM strives to be the most accurate map around, considerations like functions of junctions to length muddy up the water and dilute the accuracy. At a glance, and this comes from a cartographic perspective as well as an end-user's, if a route changes from one road type to another, I want to see that. A route switching from freeway to expressway can be important in routing decisions. Furthermore, on a more fundamental level, marking a route that changes strictly as trunk is completely disingenuous because trunks are being used for completely grade separated routes, expressways and pure at-grade routes. That is not helpful for the end-user, nor is it accurate.
Around Portland: US 30 along St Helens Rd and Yeon Ave is a trunk. OR 99E along McGloughlin Blvd in SE Portland and OR 224 from OR 99E to I-205 are trunks. US 26 between the Ross Island Maze and SE 26th Ave is a trunk. N Greeley Ave from I-5 to Going St is a trunk; Going from Greeley to I-5 is a trunk. OR 99W between Newberg and Tigard is a trunk. OR 213 between Beavercreek Rd and I-205 is a trunk. US 26 between Powell and OR 212 is a trunk. WA 500 between I-5 and WA 503 is a trunk. Padden Pkwy is a trunk for its length.
Which of these are freeways, for any of their length? If you've never driven these, how do you know? I've driven each one of these, and they are not equal to each other, yet according to OSM standards, they are, save for the segment tags that aren't visible on the map itself.
If it were up to me, and this isn't something I'd want to even try to implement given how established the OSM standards are, I'd have any and all freeway segments marked as such (motorway, for simplicity). All non-freeway numbered highways marked (trunk). Non-numbered, non-highway arteries (primary). Then secondaries/collectors (secondary), and everything else, with non-paved in their own field.
The trunk designation is still problematic all over the U.S. In the New York area, for one thing, it seems to be used to mean "parkway" as much as anything else. Just looking at the map closest to my home, here's what's labeled as "trunk":
-Bear Mountain Parkway: all of it, both segments. Those parkways in the greater region that are full freeways tend to be shown as such, but those with intersections or just lower design standards, such as the Bear Mountain, tend to show as trunk.
-US 6, east of the Taconic Parkway: probably the closest to the intention behind the trunk designation. It's a high-grade surface highway, almost expressway-like in spots. But there are other parts of the route, and other routes in the area, that seem just as worthy of the trunk designation that don't have it.
-US 6/202 approach to the Bear Mountain Bridge: it's a main route, to be sure, but physically isn't anything like US 6 to the east. Narrow and windy, almost parkway-like in some ways.
And that's pretty much it.
The problem at its base is attempting to fit a schema designed for a particular approach to highway designation (that of the UK and aped by Ireland and, to a lesser extent, some continental European countries) beyond that context.
That said the scheme as designed maps reasonably well to the North American use of functional classification (but poorly to route designation). But ultimately it also requires judgment calls, and a willingness to accept that your opinion of how to interpret the guidance won't always carry the day and that disagreement doesn't require being disagreeable (even if you are right and the rest of the project is wrong).
In this specific case: if the state built the road as a freeway and it is signed as such, as Washington does, it is unambiguously highway=motorway and should be tagged as such. Length has nothing to do with it. That's been the tagging rule as long as I remember, and it is worth challenging (again, not doing so in a disagreeable way).
Quote from: SD Mapman on August 24, 2015, 10:28:58 PM
So if any at-grade makes a road a trunk highway, does that mean US 36 in St. Joseph should be trunk too, due to the two at-grade ramps? :bigass:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/39.74912/-94.85761 (https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/39.74912/-94.85761)
That's an interesting case. I'd mark it at trunk between the at-grades in that interchange (which is clearly NOT freeway-freeway). A similar situation is the traffic light on NY 198. If we use my standard of "MapWorks is the most awesome thing to happen in the entire history of the multiverse and can do no wrong", then it's a freeway. If you use the apparent OSM standard of "if there's even a hint of an at-grade anywhere on the road then it's a trunk no matter where on the route you are", then it's trunk, despite functioning as a freeway (albeit one with an absurdly low speed limit).
QuoteIf you use the apparent OSM standard of "if there's even a hint of an at-grade anywhere on the road then it's a trunk no matter where on the route you are", then it's trunk, despite functioning as a freeway (albeit one with an absurdly low speed limit).
I-10, I-40 and I-78 would like a word. And, as far as I can tell, only I-78's marked correctly while I-10 and I-40's 'trunk' sections have been removed.
Oh, and I-5 across the Columbia River, but draw bridges are exceptions.
Because I felt like screwing with Paul, I changed everything back to motorway and provided a link to the state map showing the respective sections as freeway. Not sure how he can argue with that.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33587233#map=14/45.6572/-122.6097
Worth noting: my initial comment included an incorrect link to the state highway map, so I've added a new comment with the correct link.
lol
You should have tagged it to my changeset thread.
Can someone switch Tillamook Junction (OR 6 at US 26) from motorway to trunk? For some reason I can't select segments on OSM itself and JOSM's tied to the Opengeofiction dataset. Mountaindale Road is an at-grade and the motorway portion of the Sunset begins there, not at the Tillamook Junction (wish ODOT would address that...).
Quote from: jakeroot on August 26, 2015, 12:56:16 AM
Because I felt like screwing with Paul, I changed everything back to motorway and provided a link to the state map showing the respective sections as freeway. Not sure how he can argue with that.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33587233#map=14/45.6572/-122.6097
You missed half a SPUI :)
I have a similar situation in Johnson County KS.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/38.9980/-94.8213
Between Bonner Springs and Olathe, there are alternating sections that qualify as freeway, and sections with at-grade intersections.
Before I made changes, it was shown as motorway from north of the Nettleton interchange to the 43rd Street intersection, trunk from 43rd to 75th, and motorway from 75th to Olathe. The problem is, KDOT recently converted the intersection with Johnson Drive to an interchange, and there is a grade crossing with a private drive between 83rd and Prairie Star Parkway. Also, I prefer that the motorway/trunk transition occur at a break prior to a grade crossing. Thus, I moved the first motorway/trunk transition point to the south end of the Kansas River bridge and changed a segment to motorway from the asphalt/PCCP transition north of the Johnson Drive interchange to a speed limit change between Shawnee Mission Parkway and 75th Street. I extended the second trunk segment south to between the private crossing and PSP (and added the service roads that tied to K-7)
Quote from: route56 on August 28, 2015, 03:10:35 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 26, 2015, 12:56:16 AM
Because I felt like screwing with Paul, I changed everything back to motorway and provided a link to the state map showing the respective sections as freeway. Not sure how he can argue with that.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33587233#map=14/45.6572/-122.6097
You missed half a SPUI :)
Depends on your definition of "motorway". As far as I'm concerned, after the last grade-separated interchange, a road should revert to trunk status, thus any and all ramps to and from such a road should not have motorway links, but rather trunk links.
In theory, I should have ended by motorway (going east) after the NE 112th junction, to be consistent.
Quote from: jakeroot on August 28, 2015, 03:16:45 PM
Depends on your definition of "motorway". As far as I'm concerned, after the last grade-separated interchange, a road should revert to trunk status, thus any and all ramps to and from such a road should not have motorway links, but rather trunk links.
As I noted with my K-7 example, I try to split the difference between the interchange and the at-grade, preferably at a natural 'break point' (e.g. a bridge, speed limit change, or pavement change)
Some of the OSM mappers over in my region do the exact opposite of your example -- they mark the motorway/trunk transition at the first at-grade.
Quote from: route56 on August 28, 2015, 04:37:01 PM
Some of the OSM mappers over in my region do the exact opposite of your example -- they mark the motorway/trunk transition at the first at-grade.
Indeed. I have seen both my example and that example. I based my start/end point on how they often do it in the UK (especially since the roads in OSM are based on the UK road hierarchy). Perhaps I will move the motorway start/end points to the signals instead. I don't know. :spin:
Quote from: route56 on August 28, 2015, 04:37:01 PM
As I noted with my K-7 example, I try to split the difference between the interchange and the at-grade, preferably at a natural 'break point' (e.g. a bridge, speed limit change, or pavement change)
That's my preference as well. If I can "hide" the transition under an overpass, and there's no other obvious point to locate the change, that's my favorite treatment. In one case, that actually
is where the speed limit changes.
Quote from: jakeroot on August 28, 2015, 04:43:15 PM
Quote from: route56 on August 28, 2015, 04:37:01 PM
Some of the OSM mappers over in my region do the exact opposite of your example -- they mark the motorway/trunk transition at the first at-grade.
Indeed. I have seen both my example and that example. I based my start/end point on how they often do it in the UK (especially since the roads in OSM are based on the UK road hierarchy). Perhaps I will move the motorway start/end points to the signals instead. I don't know. :spin:
When I did the motorway edits, I had the transition points where the left turn lanes started.
Interstates sometimes end at an intersection (e.g. I-381). They never end at an arbitrary point that supposedly makes the map render nicely.
Quote from: NE2 on August 29, 2015, 02:34:00 PM
Interstates sometimes end at an intersection (e.g. I-381). They never end at an arbitrary point that supposedly makes the map render nicely.
Agreed, especially since they do post the normal signage about no bicycles and other stuff right at the intersection.
Quote from: jakeroot on August 26, 2015, 12:56:16 AM
Because I felt like screwing with Paul, I changed everything back to motorway and provided a link to the state map showing the respective sections as freeway. Not sure how he can argue with that.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33587233#map=14/45.6572/-122.6097
Worth noting: my initial comment included an incorrect link to the state highway map, so I've added a new comment with the correct link.
And now Paul is complaining about this on [talk-us].
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2015-September/015261.html
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33669446
Incidentally, according to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging, I-93 in NH should be tagged as a trunk, but I-10 and 40 in Texas stays motorway (a pity on the last two, I liked being able to tell where the at grades were at a glance). Time to stir the pot a little with a couple minor accuracy edits on WA 14...
He thinks WA 500's a Super-4. :banghead:
Be careful so you don't get blocked for being in an edit war.
However, if Paul comes and edits I-376 Business Loop here in Pittsburgh and downgrades it to 'trunk' on it's 'motorway' segments, he's in for a fight over it.
I raised an objection on talk-us, and since I've never been involved in editing the segments in question I can't very well be accused of "edit warring."
I have also replied in opposition to Paul's revert request. In my post, I referenced this discussion.
Quote
Revert request opposed. At best, there needs to be additional discussion within talk-us regarding this before DWG takes any action.
I am not one of the participants that have edited WA 500 recently; however, those that have have brought this up on the AARoads forum. It is the opinion of the AA posters that significant segments of upgradable expressways that have been upgraded to fully controlled access should be tagged as motorway.
I offer as an example this stretch of Kansas Highway 7 between Bonner Springs and Olathe:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33634149
It is 4 lane divided from Lansing to Olathe, and KDOT's future plan is to eventually bring the entire roadway up to freeway standards. I am also personally familiar with this roadway. I have verified and marked the controlled access segments of K-7 as motorway, and the partially controlled access roads as Trunk.
Of note: the interchange at 83rd Street is marked as trunk. There is a at-grade intersection with a service road between the 83rd and Prairie Star Parkway interchanges. This intersection has, in fact, been overlooked by OSM mappers, myself included, in the past.
Richie Kennedy
McLouth, KS
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on September 02, 2015, 09:30:25 AM
Be careful so you don't get blocked for being in an edit war.
However, if Paul comes and edits I-376 Business Loop here in Pittsburgh and downgrades it to 'trunk' on it's 'motorway' segments, he's in for a fight over it.
If anyone should get blocked for an edit war on this, it should be the instigator of the war, the "Paul Johnson" character, who strikes me as the most obtuse person I've ever heard of. How can he not get it through his thick skull that WA 500 is two freeway sections with an expressway section in between? What is with his obsession with having the entire route classified as the same thing even when it leads to inaccuracy? Why does he feel that his bureaucratic importance is so important that data must be made inaccurate as a result? And why has he not been banned for this behavior? Is he so stupid that he can't even look on street view to see that the road is divided? He doesn't even seem to be capable of realizing that MANY freeways end at traffic lights. Seriously, this guy is so obsessed with his own ego that he's destroying everything that was great about OSM.
Paul has replied to my post
Quote
I'm kind of seeing that as abuse of classification and classification creep as well. I'd probably have gone with trunk for the entire length of KS 7 from KS 32 to KS 10 rather than spin the wheel and creep it upwards. I'm not really seeing a significant difference in characteristic in the WA 500 example or the KS 7 example from the 70 MPH sections of OK 33 or US 75 between Tulsa and Bartlesville, OK. All four are surface freeways with regular intersections. This one doesn't "go to 11", folks; if you think you need a mix of motorway and trunk, it's probably just a trunk.
Quote from: Paul JohnsonSo what makes the northwest so special that they can just disregard common usage? I'm familiar with the road, and with WSDOT's idiosyncrasies.
Quote from: BickendanIf you were familiar with the road, why call it a Super-4 when it's not? Why compare it to OR 224, when such a comparison is disingenuous at best?
And speaking of OR 224, it is incorrectly mapped as a twinned highway when it isn't.
The changeset discussion's going in circles at this point.
Link for those wanting to catch up.
This is absolutely hilarious. And I want to jump in but I don't know what to say that won't come across a n00bish.
POST MERGE 15:32 PST, 2 September 2015
EDIT: Well, I jumped in. Basically, I told him that mapping the real-world is more important than continuity within OSM. Placing the latter in front of the former ruins the point of OSM in the first place.
Akin to the cartographic integrity argument I've been making.
Quote from: Bickendan on September 02, 2015, 06:37:13 PM
Akin to the cartographic integrity argument I've been making.
Exactly.
Also, not sure who Chris Lawrence is, but I'm glad to see he disagrees with Paul.
what
No seriously, I actually don't know what's going on. I tried OSM before, but let's just say I had some unexpected results...
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 02, 2015, 06:54:41 PM
No seriously, I actually don't know what's going on. I tried OSM before, but let's just say I had some unexpected results...
The state of Washington considers SR-500 from Interstate 5 to Falk Road and again from Stapleton Road to Fourth Plain to be freeway, so it was changed to highway=motorway to reflect this. However, Paul Johnson disagrees with the change, citing that consistency within OSM would instead make this a trunk road, as Falk and Stapleton are both signals. While everyone is aware that the entirety of the the highway between I-5 and Fourth Plain is not freeway, Mr Johnson suggests that the lengths currently marked as freeway (err, Motorway) are "not long enough" and lack "enough interchanges" to make it a freeway, and instead qualify it as a trunk road. We are saying, as more or less local residents, that the freeway is marked as a freeway by not only signs in the field (WSDOT has posted "FREEWAY ENTRANCE" signs at the interchanges), but by the official state map, and those should be enough to qualify it as motorway. Period.
Or, at least this is how I've interpreted it.
Quote from: jakeroot on September 02, 2015, 06:48:26 PM
Also, not sure who Chris Lawrence is, but I'm glad to see he disagrees with Paul.
That'd be me.
Quote from: lordsutch on September 02, 2015, 08:24:48 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 02, 2015, 06:48:26 PM
Also, not sure who Chris Lawrence is, but I'm glad to see he disagrees with Paul.
That'd be me.
Excellent! I thought it might be one of us.
Quote from: jakeroot on September 02, 2015, 06:48:26 PM
Also, not sure who Chris Lawrence is, but I'm glad to see he disagrees with Paul.
he is lordsutch, from AARoads :)
Quote from: route56 on September 02, 2015, 11:45:17 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 02, 2015, 06:48:26 PM
Also, not sure who Chris Lawrence is, but I'm glad to see he disagrees with Paul.
he is lordsutch, from AARoads :)
Well, duh, I know that now (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4420.msg2090788#msg2090788). :-P
Quote from: jakeroot on September 02, 2015, 11:50:41 PM
Well, duh, I know that now (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4420.msg2090788#msg2090788). :-P
Must have missed the "a new message has been posted" alert.
Quote from: route56 on September 03, 2015, 12:57:38 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 02, 2015, 11:50:41 PM
Well, duh, I know that now (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4420.msg2090788#msg2090788). :-P
Must have missed the "a new message has been posted" alert.
We all do once or twice. :-D
Anybody want to help back me up on this?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33674410#map=15/40.9467/-77.7880
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on September 03, 2015, 08:54:39 AM
Anybody want to help back me up on this?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33674410#map=15/40.9467/-77.7880
Sorry, I don't think one isolated interchange qualifies the road as motorway. You may wish to review the HFCS to determine if it should be classed as primary or trunk.
That's what Rick's arguing and asking backup for...
I'd also expect some degree of restriction of non-motorized traffic at least. GSV doesn't show any evidence of pedestrian restrictions (much less excluding bikes, horses, ag vehicles, etc.), which is something of a hallmark of a motorway-class facility in OSM.
Quote from: lordsutch on September 03, 2015, 01:30:02 PMI'd also expect some degree of restriction of non-motorized traffic at least. GSV doesn't show any evidence of pedestrian restrictions (much less excluding bikes, horses, ag vehicles, etc.), which is something of a hallmark of a motorway-class facility in OSM.
And arguably, given that (while using UK colours, the tags don't match the UK road system) everyone seems to think that the tags are an exact match for the UK road network, then at-grades and undivided highways don't matter, just the restrictions.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/54.1320/-2.7571
Paul strikes again...
My change set: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33749829
I had flipped the two lane divided WA 14 bridge from exit 12 to Lady Island from motorway to trunk, and upgraded the primary segment at the end of the freeway in Washougal to Washougal River Rd to trunk.
His: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33754973
Reverts that latter segment back to primary, downgrades everything else to trunk.
Surprised he hasn't mucked with my changes to the US 26/OR 6 interchange (ended the motorway at Mountaindale Rd -- at grade crossing -- and moved OR 6 up to trunk up to OR 47).
Quote from: route56 on September 03, 2015, 12:30:25 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on September 03, 2015, 08:54:39 AM
Anybody want to help back me up on this?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33674410#map=15/40.9467/-77.7880
Sorry, I don't think one isolated interchange qualifies the road as motorway. You may wish to review the HFCS to determine if it should be classed as primary or trunk.
See below.
Quote from: Bickendan on September 03, 2015, 01:29:08 PM
That's what Rick's arguing and asking backup for...
Yep. Not my changeset, but I left 2 comments on it asking the user why he upgraded it again.
Quote from: Paul JohnsonYes, that is the point, Bickendan, which is why I'm rejecting WSDOT's assertation and substituting in one that is the most consistent in accurately describing this object. One thing we do need to watch out for is an upward creep in tag classification as well or the higher classifications lose meaning. When there's a concise way to accurately describe that, why not do that instead of trying to pass it off as a larger road because a state agency did? What WSDOT has it down as on paper and how it functions in actual operation are two different things.
Quote from: BickendanBut this is the point you're not considering: We are classifying how the road functions in actual operation, from in the field observation!
Quote from: Paul JohnsonEvidently not, motorways are controlled access, divided exclusively.
:banghead:
Quote from: Bickendan on September 04, 2015, 03:14:37 AM
Quote from: Paul JohnsonYes, that is the point, Bickendan, which is why I'm rejecting WSDOT's assertation and substituting in one that is the most consistent in accurately describing this object. One thing we do need to watch out for is an upward creep in tag classification as well or the higher classifications lose meaning. When there's a concise way to accurately describe that, why not do that instead of trying to pass it off as a larger road because a state agency did? What WSDOT has it down as on paper and how it functions in actual operation are two different things.
Quote from: BickendanBut this is the point you're not considering: We are classifying how the road functions in actual operation, from in the field observation!
Quote from: Paul JohnsonEvidently not, motorways are controlled access, divided exclusively.
:banghead:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2015-September/015281.html :pan:
Bickendan, I recommend you joining in on the talk on [talk-us] too.
Oh the irony. The lane counts he's complaining about being deleted... were deleted by him.
I feel like I have to compliment him (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=12805) on his self-control for not posting in this thread.
Quote from: lordsutch on September 04, 2015, 11:43:04 AM
Oh the irony. The lane counts he's complaining about being deleted... were deleted by him.
I know. :pan:
Now that he's calling out jakeroot as the person vandalizing the map and removing the tags (https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2015-September/015283.html), I had to step in and make a post myself finally on the mailing list and recommended to the DWG to block Paul till he apologizes.
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2015-September/015292.html
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on September 04, 2015, 04:08:49 AM
Quote from: Bickendan on September 04, 2015, 03:14:37 AM
Quote from: Paul JohnsonYes, that is the point, Bickendan, which is why I'm rejecting WSDOT's assertation and substituting in one that is the most consistent in accurately describing this object. One thing we do need to watch out for is an upward creep in tag classification as well or the higher classifications lose meaning. When there's a concise way to accurately describe that, why not do that instead of trying to pass it off as a larger road because a state agency did? What WSDOT has it down as on paper and how it functions in actual operation are two different things.
Quote from: BickendanBut this is the point you're not considering: We are classifying how the road functions in actual operation, from in the field observation!
Quote from: Paul JohnsonEvidently not, motorways are controlled access, divided exclusively.
:banghead:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2015-September/015281.html :pan:
Bickendan, I recommend you joining in on the talk on [talk-us] too.
What's the easiest way of doing so?
Quote from: Bickendan on September 04, 2015, 11:18:48 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on September 04, 2015, 04:08:49 AM
Quote from: Bickendan on September 04, 2015, 03:14:37 AM
Quote from: Paul JohnsonYes, that is the point, Bickendan, which is why I'm rejecting WSDOT's assertation and substituting in one that is the most consistent in accurately describing this object. One thing we do need to watch out for is an upward creep in tag classification as well or the higher classifications lose meaning. When there's a concise way to accurately describe that, why not do that instead of trying to pass it off as a larger road because a state agency did? What WSDOT has it down as on paper and how it functions in actual operation are two different things.
Quote from: BickendanBut this is the point you're not considering: We are classifying how the road functions in actual operation, from in the field observation!
Quote from: Paul JohnsonEvidently not, motorways are controlled access, divided exclusively.
:banghead:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2015-September/015281.html :pan:
Bickendan, I recommend you joining in on the talk on [talk-us] too.
What's the easiest way of doing so?
Register here:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-usThen just wait till the next email with the subject of 'Request revert on Changeset #33669446' comes into your selected e-mail since that will prevent you from starting a new chain for that subject.
jakeroot, can you explain all the ways merged in Changeset 33587233? Did iD not alert you to the turn:lanes or other tags being different?
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on September 05, 2015, 11:46:12 AM
jakeroot, can you explain all the ways merged in Changeset 33587233? Did iD not alert you to the turn:lanes or other tags being different?
I do not remember any alerts but I did merge some nodes. I was careful to make sure they did not have different tags but it looks like I messed a few up.
A don't think that's a difficult fix though, is it? I do feel like a complete moron, and I certainly don't feel like I'm helping our case here, but I don't think that many are screwed up. There are plenty of nodes that I did not merge.
Late Edit: I can understand if he wants to revert the changes. I had no idea until viewing in JOSM how much data was deleted. This certainly was not intentional, and while I certainly feel that the road should remain as motorway, for the sake of his conscious and that I feel his edits are not worth deleting, the changes should probably be reverted and someone with more experience in editing OSM should make the necessary modifications to return the segments (as present) to motorway.
I think I'm going to go ahead and stick to small-town editing.
Also, I have an .osm file with potential lane modifications, returning as much of the original setup, as edited by Baloo (i.e. Paul Johnson) to how it was, minus highway=trunk, but I don't want to upload any additional changes without some oversight, for fear of being banned for destructive editing.
I just tried this out today. Why are there so many inaccuracies?
Quote from: Buffaboy on September 10, 2015, 07:48:24 PM
I just tried this out today. Why are there so many inaccuracies?
OpenStreetMap or the changesets previously discussed?
Quote from: jakeroot on September 10, 2015, 08:04:16 PM
Quote from: Buffaboy on September 10, 2015, 07:48:24 PM
I just tried this out today. Why are there so many inaccuracies?
OpenStreetMap or the changesets previously discussed?
OSM
Quote from: Buffaboy on September 10, 2015, 07:48:24 PM
I just tried this out today. Why are there so many inaccuracies?
Because you haven't fixed them yet. ;-)
Quote from: empirestate on September 10, 2015, 10:34:24 PM
Quote from: Buffaboy on September 10, 2015, 07:48:24 PM
I just tried this out today. Why are there so many inaccuracies?
Because you haven't fixed them yet. ;-)
I see. It's definitely fun, for example I see many colleges had buildings and paths filled in, mine had none. So I took the liberty of going through and doing some and I'm already hooked.
Quote from: Buffaboy on September 10, 2015, 09:07:00 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 10, 2015, 08:04:16 PM
Quote from: Buffaboy on September 10, 2015, 07:48:24 PM
I just tried this out today. Why are there so many inaccuracies?
OpenStreetMap or the changesets previously discussed?
OSM
User-generated content will always have inaccuracies that slowly get corrected as more and more dedicated janitors come along and clean it.
Quote from: Bruce on September 11, 2015, 04:33:57 PM
Quote from: Buffaboy on September 10, 2015, 09:07:00 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 10, 2015, 08:04:16 PM
Quote from: Buffaboy on September 10, 2015, 07:48:24 PM
I just tried this out today. Why are there so many inaccuracies?
OpenStreetMap or the changesets previously discussed?
OSM
User-generated content will always have inaccuracies that slowly get corrected as more and more dedicated janitors come along and clean it.
Also, a lot of what's in OSM in the US is data imported from the Census Bureau's TIGER dataset several years ago, which was far from perfect. That, too, will improve with time as contributors notice the errors and fix them.
About a month ago user Walleye2013 (https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Walleye2013) decided to add "FUT I-73" to the ref tags of a bunch of ways along the corridor. Including in Ohio. Including in downtown Portsmouth and through the middle of Columbus and Delaware, where I-73 was not planned to go.
I have commented on the five changesets where he added I-73 in Ohio, as quoted below. Should I wait some period of time for a response, or would it be alright to revert these clearly (to us) wrong changesets immediately?
QuoteThere are no "Future I-73" signs in Ohio. There won't be any time soon, if ever. The State of Ohio hasn't had any interest in building I-73 in about twenty years. Therefore, adding "FUT I-73" to all the ref tags along the route is not appropriate. (Furthermore, it was not planned to go through downtown Columbus or Portsmouth as your edits indicate.)
It almost certainly is my British sensibilities (of the sort that the old style was designed for), but the new standard render is ugly.
Better than Google's though!
Quote from: english si on October 31, 2015, 08:42:17 AM
It almost certainly is my British sensibilities (of the sort that the old style was designed for), but the new standard render is ugly.
I'll wait a while before passing judgment. Obviously the old style was essentially a ripoff of the Ordnance Survey cartography style. Personally I'd prefer something closer to the Michelin style (which is what OSM.de uses for its tiles).
I will say the "shields" (such as they are) at least look cleaner; the old shield style was fugly.
Quote from: english si on October 31, 2015, 08:42:17 AM
It almost certainly is my British sensibilities (of the sort that the old style was designed for), but the new standard render is ugly.
It's freaky not having the motorways be blue; I'm so used to that.
Quote from: vtk on October 30, 2015, 10:05:23 PM
About a month ago user Walleye2013 (https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Walleye2013) decided to add "FUT I-73" to the ref tags of a bunch of ways along the corridor. Including in Ohio. Including in downtown Portsmouth and through the middle of Columbus and Delaware, where I-73 was not planned to go.
I have commented on the five changesets where he added I-73 in Ohio, as quoted below. Should I wait some period of time for a response, or would it be alright to revert these clearly (to us) wrong changesets immediately?
QuoteThere are no "Future I-73" signs in Ohio. There won't be any time soon, if ever. The State of Ohio hasn't had any interest in building I-73 in about twenty years. Therefore, adding "FUT I-73" to all the ref tags along the route is not appropriate. (Furthermore, it was not planned to go through downtown Columbus or Portsmouth as your edits indicate.)
Revert.
He did the same thing in PA along "Future I-99". Never did get a response back from him.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/34467034 + https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/34467140 and a few more all the way to NY.
Quote from: lordsutch on October 31, 2015, 11:20:12 PMI'll wait a while before passing judgment.
With the initial shock being over, it's better than I thought. Still rather monochromatic. But it is very clear (clearer than the old style).
QuoteObviously the old style was essentially a ripoff of the Ordnance Survey cartography style.
Was it? I'd argue it was part of a continuing heritage of map colours, partially part of an older heritage that wasn't uniquely British (red for more major roads, white for minor with yellow in between) and partially road signs (blue for motorway, green for primary).
OS only had green roads in 1923-34 (for B roads on MOT maps) and after about '95, when they were copying the AA, etc that had been showing primary routes in green since the 1970s.
Quote from: BickendanIncidentally, according to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging), I-93 in NH should be tagged as a trunk, but I-10 and 40 in Texas stays motorway (a pity on the last two, I liked being able to tell where the at grades were at a glance).
I know I'm a couple months late in responding to this, but I'd just like to point out that the Wiki directly contradicts itself here. While it says that I-93 through Franconia Notch should be tagged as a trunk, it also points out that
"Any freeway anywhere in the United States, whether designated Interstate or otherwise, gets highway=motorway. ". And I-93 through the Notch is very much a freeway.
By their rationale, I-35E south of downtown St. Paul should also be labeled as a trunk. Or any freeway section (I-264 Norfolk, most freeways in DC proper) that has a low speed limit (<50) for that matter.
When I mapped out the whole Libramiento Laguna Norte (new Torreon toll road bypass) on OSM I was then invited to a group that specializes in mapping Mexico. I joined the group, but I did tell them that I wouldn't be very helpful most likely, since I had never been to Mexico and I am not very fluent in Spanish. I haven't edited anything since then.
Quote from: froggie on November 01, 2015, 09:13:55 AM
I know I'm a couple months late in responding to this, but I'd just like to point out that the Wiki directly contradicts itself here. While it says that I-93 through Franconia Notch should be tagged as a trunk, it also points out that "Any freeway anywhere in the United States, whether designated Interstate or otherwise, gets highway=motorway. ". And I-93 through the Notch is very much a freeway.
Basically, it's a dispute over the definition of "freeway." I-93 through the Notch is only two lanes. To some, that disqualifies it from being a freeway.
I don't agree with the four-lane qualifier, and have tagged the controlled access super-two segments of US 169 and US 36 in eastern Kansas as Motorway. OTOH, the Chickasaw Turnpike in OK is tagged as trunk because the primary user there does believe that a motorway must be four lanes... and I'm not wishing to start an edit war.
How anal can they possibly be? Super-2s are freeways. Period. I hate it when maps insist on calling freeways as not freeway and vice-versa. Why isn't there a single online mapping source that gets this right?
Too many personality conflicts...that's why.
Yeah, there is no standard exact definition as to what is or isn't a freeway. Indeed it's an arbitrary distinction that doesn't unto itself mean much. If anything average travel speed is the most meaningful measurement of a road's quality - but plenty of two lane roads with intersections have higher travel speeds than some fully access-controlled freeways, so....
A freeway, in my eyes, has nothing to do with number of lanes. it has to do with free, unrestricted movement of vehicles on the roadway. No crossroads. No driveways. All entrance and exits controlled by on and off ramps. (Ex: almost any interstate in the country, I-80, etc).
Expressways, to me, are a drop below that. minor crossroads are allowed, but generally not-signalized or stop-signs on the main route. Driveway access is allowed, as long as it doesn't allow vehicles to cross the road to head the opposite direction from the side the driveway is on. Also, any major intersecting route should be with an interchange. (Ex: NY 17 is a high standard one, lower standard would be "Texas Freeways" where there's crossroads and driveways, but generally bypass cities and have interchanges at major crossroads.
Anything below that, other than city grid-route, would be a Highway, Boulevard, Arterial, etc. Bayfront Connector in Erie, PA 18 from Hermitage to Greenville, US 422 from Youngstown to New Castle/I-376, etc. A major thoroughfare, but generally no requirement on what is and isn't allowed on the roadway. There's lights, slightly urban or rural, but it is 'the way' for people to get between those points.
And nowhere in my personal opinions of nomenclature do I mention number of lanes needed to achieve a particular status. US 169 in KS, MA-2 (certain stretches), southern part of PA-8 north of I-80, etc, are freeways, regardless of lanes. Even though some of them don't even have a divider, the route has no access to cross the roads to in those stretches.
The "trunk" label is quite sloppy in the US, mainly because there is no defined application. If I were doing it, NHS routes with no viable Interstate alternative would be labeled as "trunk". In some places, that's how it is, but not in others. For example, VT 9 is marked as "trunk", but NY 149 and US 4 between I-87 and I-89 are not. US 11 is marked as "trunk" north of Watertown, even though it is quite substandard.
So the Standard Mapnik rendering has been totally redone and now it's hideous.
According to this, (https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2015/10/30/openstreetmap-org-map-changing/) it's meant to somehow be more legible:
QuoteAlthough the new version is an evolution of the existing version, the changes to road colours and the display of railways will significantly help to improve the readability of the map.
To which have to ask, what the fuck are they smoking? They used to have a whole array of colors for roads that made different types stand out. Now everything is all red and orange with very little contrast compared to how it used to be. On what planet does less contrast equal greater readability?
It's a bit less cluttered looking now. Notably, one has to zoom in a few more steps to see tertiary, unclassified, residential roads. Previously, residential would show up too early, completely filling in urban areas at the first zoom level at which they're visible.
There's still room for improvement to be sure. I'd still like to see unclassified show up at least one zoom level before residential, and have the former stand out from the latter somehow when they are both visible.
Quote from: Duke87 on November 02, 2015, 10:54:39 PM
So the Standard Mapnik rendering has been totally redone and now it's hideous.
According to this, (https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2015/10/30/openstreetmap-org-map-changing/) it's meant to somehow be more legible:
QuoteAlthough the new version is an evolution of the existing version, the changes to road colours and the display of railways will significantly help to improve the readability of the map.
To which have to ask, what the fuck are they smoking? They used to have a whole array of colors for roads that made different types stand out. Now everything is all red and orange with very little contrast compared to how it used to be. On what planet does less contrast equal greater readability?
I guess because nothing else is red/orange, it stands out???
Quote from: SD Mapman on November 02, 2015, 11:55:02 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on November 02, 2015, 10:54:39 PM
So the Standard Mapnik rendering has been totally redone and now it's hideous.
According to this, (https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2015/10/30/openstreetmap-org-map-changing/) it's meant to somehow be more legible:
QuoteAlthough the new version is an evolution of the existing version, the changes to road colours and the display of railways will significantly help to improve the readability of the map.
To which have to ask, what the fuck are they smoking? They used to have a whole array of colors for roads that made different types stand out. Now everything is all red and orange with very little contrast compared to how it used to be. On what planet does less contrast equal greater readability?
I guess because nothing else is red/orange, it stands out???
They actually explain why, in that very same link.
Quote from: Duke87 on November 01, 2015, 06:29:10 PM
Yeah, there is no standard exact definition as to what is or isn't a freeway. Indeed it's an arbitrary distinction that doesn't unto itself mean much. If anything average travel speed is the most meaningful measurement of a road's quality - but plenty of two lane roads with intersections have higher travel speeds than some fully access-controlled freeways, so....
It's kinda like the argument of what a country is.
Was the Bing satellite view removed from the Potlatch editor? I see a blank background, with no option for anything in the "Backgrounds" tab except manually entering something.
That kind of sounds like a configuration file failed to load. I wouldn't expect a fix, though. The main developer for Potlatch also significantly helped to create iD, and I don't think he really wants to keep maintaining two editors concurrently.
I guess it got fixed. I just tried it now and the imagery showed up just fine. Personally I don't like iD--I've used it a couple of times and was just dissatisfied with it. In my opinion iD is to Windows 8 as Potlatch 2 is to Windows 7 as Potlatch 1.4 was to Windows Vista.
Potlatch 1.x was more like Windows 9x
Potlatch is still not loading the Bing satellite view for me, but iD loads it right away no problem.
Not that it's that big a deal for me anyway. The few times I edit OSM are almost always in JOSM.
The only time I have tried Potlatch, it was a pain in the butt. Also it looks like MapQuest took down their direct tiling system.
Is it a good idea to use proposed tags in the map if the proposal is under way? Specifically I have destination details (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Destination_details) in mind.
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 17, 2016, 10:15:30 AM
Is it a good idea to use proposed tags in the map if the proposal is under way? Specifically I have destination details (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Destination_details) in mind.
I don't see how it can hurt.
Looks like someone forgot which state was where.
(https://i.imgur.com/w939Vig.png)
Quote from: Roadsguy on December 22, 2017, 04:48:45 PM
Looks like someone forgot which state was where.
(https://i.imgur.com/w939Vig.png)
If you look at the history, it was a 'paid' mapper from India or another country who have no idea what road shields in the US look like. :/
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/53765096
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/venkanna37
Not the worse I've seen from a 'Paid' mapper, but still very annoying. Had to correct them a ton of times when they believe that 'Tiger' is 'god' and can't be disputed.
(Sorry Roadsguy, thought I had hit 'quote', and instead originally edited your message and put my response in it.)
Since this thread still exists, I'll post this here since it's rather interesting...
The Engineering Working Group of the OpenStreetMap Foundation commissioned a study on how to improve the OSM data model. The article about it can be found here: https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2023/01/04/reminder-call-for-feedback-on-the-data-model/
The direct link to the PDF of the study can be found here: https://media.jochentopf.com/media/2022-08-15-study-evolution-of-the-osm-data-model.pdf
The article summarizes the study as follows:
QuoteThe Engineering Working Group of the OpenStreetMap Foundation commissioned a study in the beginning of 2022 on how to improve the existing data model. Jochen Topf has delivered the results of this study, including recommendations on how to make the OpenStreetMap data model more computationally efficient and more accessible.
Two key suggestions have been made:
introducing an area datatype for representing polygons
getting rid of untagged nodes
Despite it being 10 years since the block, there are still 34,000 ways in OpenStreetMap that haven't been touched since NE2 last touched them.
https://twitter.com/OSMChangesets/status/1615830912717004811
Someone keeps jumping the gun in Texas and signs every section of the proposed I-69 corridors built to Interstate standards as I-69, I-69W, I-69C or I-69E, despite the fact Texas hasn't designated those sections as such and AASHTO hasn't designated, let alone approved, of the designation along those sections. One time, even going as far as to make ALL of US 77 between Corpus Christi and Brownsville a motorway. I changed it back so the I-69 references were only on the designated sections once, but it got changed back again. I haven't attempted to fix it yet, in hopes of avoiding an edit war. I'll just let someone else fix that, unless I have permission to fix it again.
Quote from: 707 on April 17, 2023, 01:50:12 PM
I changed it back so the I-69 references were only on the designated sections once, but it got changed back again. I haven't attempted to fix it yet, in hopes of avoiding an edit war. I'll just let someone else fix that, unless I have permission to fix it again.
You could report said user to the OSM mods.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on April 18, 2023, 04:06:18 AM
Quote from: 707 on April 17, 2023, 01:50:12 PM
I changed it back so the I-69 references were only on the designated sections once, but it got changed back again. I haven't attempted to fix it yet, in hopes of avoiding an edit war. I'll just let someone else fix that, unless I have permission to fix it again.
You could report said user to the OSM mods.
Thanks. I might just do that.
Also, found myself cracking up laughing at this:
https://twitter.com/OSMChangesets/status/1493315181841113090
I think you should ignore him. He's not worth the effort.
Sorry I'm a bit late to react, but a PM sent out today I believe was in regards to this.