OpenStreetMap

[jakeroot]

I just tried this out today. Why are there so many inaccuracies?

OpenStreetMap or the changesets previously discussed?

[Buffaboy]

I just tried this out today. Why are there so many inaccuracies?

OpenStreetMap or the changesets previously discussed?

OSM

[empirestate]

I just tried this out today. Why are there so many inaccuracies?

Because you haven't fixed them yet.

[Buffaboy]

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.

[Bruce]

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.

[vtk]

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.

[vtk]

About a month ago 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?

There 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.)

[english si]

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!

[lordsutch]

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.

[SD Mapman]

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.

[rickmastfan67]

About a month ago 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?

There 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.

[english si]

I'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).

Obviously 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.

[froggie]

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).

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.

[US 41]

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.

[route56]

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.

[vdeane]

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?

[froggie]

Too many personality conflicts...that's why.

[Duke87]

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....

[Sykotyk]

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.

[cl94]

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.

[Duke87]

So the Standard Mapnik rendering has been totally redone and now it's hideous.

According to this, it's meant to somehow be more legible:

Although 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?

[vtk]

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.

[SD Mapman]

So the Standard Mapnik rendering has been totally redone and now it's hideous.

According to this, it's meant to somehow be more legible:

Although 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???

[empirestate]

So the Standard Mapnik rendering has been totally redone and now it's hideous.

According to this, it's meant to somehow be more legible:

Although 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.

[Katavia]

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.