Richard,<div>Here is a presentation I did to a class back in my CM days: <a href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Education_SFSU">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Education_SFSU</a></div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Education_SFSU"></a>I have a couple renditions of that, as well as intros for mapping parties. Let me know if you want me to email them to you directly, or if you have a wiki page you would like them uploaded to.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Best,<br>Sarah<br><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 2:42 AM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:talk-us-request@openstreetmap.org">talk-us-request@openstreetmap.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">Send Talk-us mailing list submissions to<br>
<a href="mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org">talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
<a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us</a><br>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
<a href="mailto:talk-us-request@openstreetmap.org">talk-us-request@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<br>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
<a href="mailto:talk-us-owner@openstreetmap.org">talk-us-owner@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<br>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>
than "Re: Contents of Talk-us digest..."<br>
<br>
<br>
Today's Topics:<br>
<br>
1. Re: proposed first principles for United States road tagging<br>
(Paul Johnson)<br>
2. Re: proposed first principles for United States road tagging<br>
(Paul Johnson)<br>
3. Re: OSM presentations (Michal Migurski)<br>
4. Re: proposed first principles for United States road tagging<br>
(Paul Johnson)<br>
5. Re: proposed first principles for United States road tagging<br>
(Apollinaris Schoell)<br>
6. Re: proposed first principles for United States road tagging<br>
(Andrew Sawyer)<br>
7. Re: proposed first principles for United States road tagging<br>
(Serge Wroclawski)<br>
8. Time to retire ref= on ways? (Paul Johnson)<br>
<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2010 13:01:56 -0800<br>
From: Paul Johnson <<a href="mailto:baloo@ursamundi.org">baloo@ursamundi.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States<br>
road tagging<br>
To: <a href="mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org">talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:2rgd67xsrt.ln2@ursa-major.network.ursamundi.org">2rgd67xsrt.ln2@ursa-major.network.ursamundi.org</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII<br>
<br>
Anthony wrote:<br>
<br>
<br>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "work differently". The laws of different<br>
> states are different, so the information which needs to be presented by the<br>
> map is different. The maps, therefore, are going to be different. I<br>
> wouldn't "expect the same map to work differently" in different places,<br>
> because I wouldn't "expect the same map" in different places.<br>
<br>
So you're suggesting a 300+ way fork of OSM?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2010 13:06:44 -0800<br>
From: Paul Johnson <<a href="mailto:baloo@ursamundi.org">baloo@ursamundi.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States<br>
road tagging<br>
To: <a href="mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org">talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:34hd67x0su.ln2@ursa-major.network.ursamundi.org">34hd67x0su.ln2@ursa-major.network.ursamundi.org</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII<br>
<br>
Bill Ricker wrote:<br>
<br>
> On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 5:45 AM, Paul Johnson <<a href="mailto:baloo@ursamundi.org">baloo@ursamundi.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
>> I can think of several interstates that are unpaved and undivided,<br>
>> though all of them are in Alaska.<br>
>><br>
><br>
> wow that's news to me. Are they limited access ?<br>
<br>
No, not outside Anchorage, and even then, barely.<br>
<br>
> How do those get tagged? highway=trunk, surface=dirt, divided=no ?<br>
<br>
I would tag them as "secondary", with the AK## state ref numbers<br>
since they're not even signed as interstates, but as Alaska state<br>
highways.<br>
<br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highways_in_Alaska" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highways_in_Alaska</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 3<br>
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 13:27:45 -0800<br>
From: Michal Migurski <<a href="mailto:mike@stamen.com">mike@stamen.com</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] OSM presentations<br>
To: Talk Openstreetmap <<a href="mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org">talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a>><br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:93FD2510-C8A2-480F-AC5C-463252156DC7@stamen.com">93FD2510-C8A2-480F-AC5C-463252156DC7@stamen.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii<br>
<br>
I gave this keynote at the North American Cartographic Information Society late last year:<br>
<a href="http://mike.teczno.com/notes/slides/nacis.html" target="_blank">http://mike.teczno.com/notes/slides/nacis.html</a><br>
<br>
It's mostly about the motivations for OSM and the end products that can be made from the data. Maybe applicable?<br>
<br>
-mike.<br>
<br>
On Mar 6, 2010, at 7:41 AM, Richard Welty wrote:<br>
<br>
> is there a collection anywhere of presentations on OSM that are available<br>
> for reference or reuse? if there isn't, anyone have presentations that<br>
> they're<br>
> willing to let me take a look at?<br>
><br>
> now that i am on the verge of being employed again, i find much to my<br>
> surprise that there will be some mapping involved and that the folks at<br>
> GE Research i'll be working with are intrigued by OSM. thus, i will<br>
> likely need a presentation to give spun towards experienced software<br>
> types who are mostly a little light on mapping and GIS (they're working<br>
> on a logistics/supply management system for internal use by GE<br>
> manufacturing units).<br>
><br>
> probably there is no existing presentation that does exactly what i want,<br>
> but being able to look at a number of them might be a big aid in<br>
> developing one.<br>
><br>
> richard<br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Talk-us mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org">Talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us</a><br>
><br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------<br>
michal migurski- <a href="mailto:mike@stamen.com">mike@stamen.com</a><br>
415.558.1610<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 4<br>
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2010 13:08:27 -0800<br>
From: Paul Johnson <<a href="mailto:baloo@ursamundi.org">baloo@ursamundi.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States<br>
road tagging<br>
To: <a href="mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org">talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:a7hd67xosu.ln2@ursa-major.network.ursamundi.org">a7hd67xosu.ln2@ursa-major.network.ursamundi.org</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII<br>
<br>
Richard Welty wrote:<br>
<br>
> probably a better example are the unpaved state highways that may be found<br>
> in some parts of New Hampshire. they do have signage, are they secondary<br>
> because they're state highways?<br>
<br>
I would say so. There's the "surface" tag, too... surface=gravel,<br>
surface=unpaved...<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 5<br>
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 17:24:40 -0800<br>
From: Apollinaris Schoell <<a href="mailto:aschoell@gmail.com">aschoell@gmail.com</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States<br>
road tagging<br>
To: Frederik Ramm <<a href="mailto:frederik@remote.org">frederik@remote.org</a>><br>
Cc: Anthony <<a href="mailto:osm@inbox.org">osm@inbox.org</a>>, Paul Johnson <<a href="mailto:baloo@ursamundi.org">baloo@ursamundi.org</a>>,<br>
<a href="mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org">talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:51A4FE1F-0DA3-4EDF-930F-822FBB88F855@gmail.com">51A4FE1F-0DA3-4EDF-930F-822FBB88F855@gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1<br>
<br>
<br>
On 7 Mar 2010, at 11:59 , Frederik Ramm wrote:<br>
<br>
> Hi,<br>
><br>
> Apollinaris Schoell wrote:<br>
>> Perhaps we should be working more towards worldwide consistency.<br>
>> yes, please osm is an international project<br>
><br>
> I agree that worldwide consistency is good, however it is a target that comes at a price, and one has to carefully think about whether it makes sense economically to pay this price - or if it may be more efficient to reach the same goals on another route!<br>
><br>
> Remember that the free-form tagging we have, where anyone can do what they believe makes sense, is one of the pillars of OSM's success. Working towards worldwide consistency does not necessarily mean creating stricter rules, but in my experience many who talk about this topic have exactly that in mind - the idea is, more or less, always the same: (1) convene some kind of expert group to make decisions, (2) perhaps have the discussions ratified by the current project membership somehow, and (3) find ways to enforce them - voila, consistency by decree.<br>
<br>
not that I disagree with you here but<br>
the start of the thread contains "should", the follow up "please"<br>
where do you read anything about strict rules, experts, enforcement ...<br>
<br>
><br>
> The danger behind such an approach is that it could kill the "drive" that many mappers have. The "let's roll up our sleeves and get something done" spirit could suffer if mappers feel controlled/overruled by someone somewhere (witness the many disgruntled Wikipedians coming to OSM and expressing relief about the absence of self-made relevance criteria - just because a decision is carried by a majority doesn't mean it is good for the project).<br>
><br>
> Thus, it *may* be better to accept that people in different countries or even different regions tag their stuff differently, and work on a smart way to handle all this. More work for those using the data but at the same time less of a corset for those creating it.<br>
><br>
<br>
there must be a balance, entering data must be easy but also consuming data must be easy too. most mappers are in one or the other form consumers of the data. If cost of consumption is too hight the osm data is useless because for the same cost it can be created in a better form.<br>
<br>
> SteveC wrote about this half a year ago, and already saying that he was "reviving an old idea":<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2009-October/017287.html" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2009-October/017287.html</a><br>
><br>
> As discussion progressed he was reminded of the Osmosis TagTransform plugin which can already do a lot of work "streamlining" an OSM data set. Surely not the answer to everything, but worth investigating.<br>
<br>
I know this discussion. discussion didn't go far and for my impression makes direct access to the osm data more difficult. But it could definitely make sense as an API for osm data consuming applications.<br>
In a certain way Josm, Potlatch are doing it already with the templates. Adding a translation table to "hide" the raw tag names and values could be easily done.<br>
<br>
><br>
> Bye<br>
> Frederik<br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Frederik Ramm ## eMail <a href="mailto:frederik@remote.org">frederik@remote.org</a> ## N49?00'09" E008?23'33"<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 6<br>
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 21:10:26 -0500<br>
From: Andrew Sawyer <<a href="mailto:assawyer@gmail.com">assawyer@gmail.com</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States<br>
road tagging<br>
To: <a href="mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org">talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
Cc: Paul Johnson <<a href="mailto:baloo@ursamundi.org">baloo@ursamundi.org</a>><br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:e26aa8401003071810k4b0b6d97xe54a6e33b39a9a23@mail.gmail.com">e26aa8401003071810k4b0b6d97xe54a6e33b39a9a23@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<br>
<br>
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 16:08, Paul Johnson <<a href="mailto:baloo@ursamundi.org">baloo@ursamundi.org</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Richard Welty wrote:<br>
><br>
> > probably a better example are the unpaved state highways that may be<br>
> found<br>
> > in some parts of New Hampshire. they do have signage, are they secondary<br>
> > because they're state highways?<br>
><br>
> I would say so. There's the "surface" tag, too... surface=gravel,<br>
> surface=unpaved...<br>
><br>
> Not to be super technical, but in New Hampshire all public roads are state<br>
highways. The distinction you are likely referencing is the numbered State<br>
routes which are maintained by NH DOT (except some city/town centers) and<br>
known as the New Hampshire Highway System.<br>
<br>
A question that I have is whether or not NH Routes should ever be listed as<br>
Primary or Tertiary? I know in Mass its been done using a functional usage<br>
criteria, whereas I have used the US Routes get to be Primary, NH Routes<br>
Secondary and routes that connect town centers that aren't the other two are<br>
tertiary. I know this is the debate that we are having, but it would seem<br>
that either we leave it to regions or states to decide or try a one size<br>
fits all approach based off the British system which doesn't seem to match<br>
up very well (at least terminology wise) with the US and its intricacies.<br>
<br>
There seem to be two major groups of roads: limited access and everything<br>
else. Within those groups there are variations that at some level get<br>
tedious in distinguishing between various classifications that depend on<br>
routing/lanes/max speed. In some respects a standard is important, but it<br>
has to describe and differentiate between the roads. I think that a regional<br>
approach, especially in NE, would be best while maintaining some uniformity<br>
across the US and World. I would propose more, but I find it difficult given<br>
the current structure. It would seem that there be two major tagging<br>
classifications could dominate the tagging:<br>
1. administrative (coming from the authorities over it - route numbers,<br>
administrative designations of classification, etc.)<br>
2. functional (coming from actual usage criteria, like number of lanes,<br>
width, etc)<br>
<br>
The first is going to be easier to tag and edit, whereas the latter is going<br>
to be more intensive with reviewing official GIS data and personal<br>
observations. Just some thoughts. I don't propose to reinvent the wheel,<br>
maybe this can be accomplished with Relations or current tagging and leave<br>
people quibbling over colors to renders?<br>
<br>
Some thoughts and my two cents.<br>
<br>
Andrew Sawyer<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20100307/9f48bba4/attachment-0001.htm" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20100307/9f48bba4/attachment-0001.htm</a><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 7<br>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 09:22:01 +0100<br>
From: Serge Wroclawski <<a href="mailto:emacsen@gmail.com">emacsen@gmail.com</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States<br>
road tagging<br>
To: Paul Johnson <<a href="mailto:baloo@ursamundi.org">baloo@ursamundi.org</a>><br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org">talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:2475f0c31003080022w60b4cb7dga913d4c9a42a3b77@mail.gmail.com">2475f0c31003080022w60b4cb7dga913d4c9a42a3b77@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1<br>
<br>
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Paul Johnson <<a href="mailto:baloo@ursamundi.org">baloo@ursamundi.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> Anthony wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
>> I'm not sure what you mean by "work differently". ?The laws of different<br>
>> states are different, so the information which needs to be presented by the<br>
>> map is different. ?The maps, therefore, are going to be different. ?I<br>
>> wouldn't "expect the same map to work differently" in different places,<br>
>> because I wouldn't "expect the same map" in different places.<br>
><br>
> So you're suggesting a 300+ way fork of OSM?<br>
<br>
It's entirely possible I'm wrong here (since I'm not paying as close<br>
attention to this thread as others) but I believe the recommendations<br>
here are to add tags which correspond to local standards. Once that's<br>
done, other tags which may be more subjective can be added for<br>
simplicity, and the renderer can use either the exact tagging scheme<br>
that makes sense locally, or else it can use the more generalized (but<br>
less precise) tags.<br>
<br>
- Serge<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 8<br>
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 02:36:30 -0800<br>
From: Paul Johnson <<a href="mailto:baloo@ursamundi.org">baloo@ursamundi.org</a>><br>
Subject: [Talk-us] Time to retire ref= on ways?<br>
To: <a href="mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org">talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:newbies@openstreetmap.org">newbies@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:ei0f67x34k.ln2@ursa-major.network.ursamundi.org">ei0f67x34k.ln2@ursa-major.network.ursamundi.org</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII<br>
<br>
It's time to retire ref=* on highway=* ways to describe attributes<br>
of the overlying route instead of the physical attributes of the way<br>
itself. Using the ref= tag on ways to describe routes simply<br>
creates more problems than it solves for many reasons.<br>
<br>
* The ref=* tag on a way is describing properties of a route that<br>
is using the way, not a property of the way itself.<br>
<br>
* Many bridges and tunnels have signed references that would<br>
actually be physical attributes of a way, but with the ref= tag on<br>
ways describing the overlying route instead of the way itself,<br>
makes it impossible to properly describe these attributes if ref= on<br>
a way is describing the route above the way, not the way itself.<br>
<br>
* The ref= tag as defined for ways now includes more than the ref,<br>
but also the network. ncn_ref, int_ref, etc were created as an<br>
attempt to describe network references uniquely, but there aren't<br>
*_ref keys for every possible network already in play.<br>
<br>
* The US has two federal highway networks, each state has it's own<br>
highway network, and counties and cities have the option for their<br>
own local networks. That's at minimum 52+ *_ref keys that would be<br>
needed to describe each network uniquely...for the US alone! And<br>
we're not even into transit or other routes that might use the way!<br>
<br>
* Munging the modifier=, network= and ref= tags provided by<br>
relations into a single do-all ref= tag creates more problems than<br>
it solves, particularly for formatting. It also creates<br>
hard-to-answer questions for renderers and parsers.<br>
<br>
* Multiple routes, particularly when they are involved in multiple<br>
networks, creates unmanageable way ref= tags. It also makes it<br>
more difficult to describe attributes that belong to the route,<br>
not the way itself (such as which direction it's going, whether it's<br>
a bypass, business, toll or other sort of route, etc).<br>
<br>
Given that we have route relations, and have had them for some time<br>
now, perhaps now is the time to:<br>
<br>
* put ref= information pertaining to the route that travels on the<br>
way to a relation for that route. Provide facilities to search by<br>
network and ref on relations.<br>
<br>
* Actively remove ref= tags describing routes from ways that have<br>
route relations already: Let's kill this dinosaur.<br>
<br>
Thoughts?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-us mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org">Talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us</a><br>
<br>
<br>
End of Talk-us Digest, Vol 28, Issue 14<br>
***************************************<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>