<div dir="ltr"><div>The border crossing points for both the US and Canada can be found here.</div><div><br></div><a href="https://hifld-dhs-gii.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets?group_id=e1132867c8b1409c9c9aace259b968fe" target="_blank">https://hifld-dhs-gii.<wbr>opendata.arcgis.com/datasets?<wbr>group_id=<wbr>e1132867c8b1409c9c9aace259b968<wbr>fe</a><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 6:36 PM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:talk-us-request@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">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="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.<wbr>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.<wbr>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.<wbr>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: I think I got this right... (Paul Johnson)<br>
2. Re: I think I got this right... (Martijn van Exel)<br>
3. Re: I think I got this right... (Paul Johnson)<br>
4. U.S.-Mexico border fence update (Michael Corey)<br>
5. Re: U.S.-Mexico border fence update (Frederik Ramm)<br>
6. Re: U.S.-Mexico border fence update (Clifford Snow)<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<wbr>------------------------------<wbr>----------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 09:31:29 -0600<br>
From: Paul Johnson <<a href="mailto:baloo@ursamundi.org">baloo@ursamundi.org</a>><br>
To: Richie Kennedy <<a href="mailto:richiekennedy56@gmail.com">richiekennedy56@gmail.com</a>><br>
Cc: OpenStreetMap talk-us list <<a href="mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org">talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] I think I got this right...<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:CAMPM96oDFNST%2BLv6v176-x-hD-vnsKDEPF-tVy0ma3Fpfp0auQ@mail.gmail.com">CAMPM96oDFNST+Lv6v176-x-hD-<wbr>vnsKDEPF-tVy0ma3Fpfp0auQ@mail.<wbr>gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 12:08 PM, <<a href="mailto:richiekennedy56@gmail.com">richiekennedy56@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 6:24 AM, Paul Johnson wrote<br>
><br>
> > It would be easier to verify by using forward in the child relations<br>
> exclusively. Then it will validate as a loop, or it won't,<br>
><br>
> > and the gap becomes immediately apparent. As tagged, most tools (JOSM<br>
> included) won't "get" it.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> In order to automatically validate, no tag should be necessary. However,<br>
> the GUI in the JOSM relation editor will still show be able to show the<br>
> complete loop or lack thereof, making for a easy manual valication/override.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> The retention of the directional tags are easier for **human** reference<br>
> 😊<br>
><br>
<br>
That's the thing, though...JOSM is a human interface. I would argue<br>
breaking JOSM breaks human reference.<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20170123/4387e256/attachment-0001.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.<wbr>org/pipermail/talk-us/<wbr>attachments/20170123/4387e256/<wbr>attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 11:14:34 -0700<br>
From: Martijn van Exel <<a href="mailto:m@rtijn.org">m@rtijn.org</a>><br>
To: Paul Johnson <<a href="mailto:baloo@ursamundi.org">baloo@ursamundi.org</a>><br>
Cc: Richie Kennedy <<a href="mailto:richiekennedy56@gmail.com">richiekennedy56@gmail.com</a>>, OSM US Talk<br>
<<a href="mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org">Talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] I think I got this right...<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:5AD6AA6A-00BA-4925-94F8-EAC1B62ECF44@rtijn.org">5AD6AA6A-00BA-4925-94F8-<wbr>EAC1B62ECF44@rtijn.org</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
Well, in this case, the only way to know for a routing application what the cardinal direction is, is to look at the member roles. Either that our you slice the relation up even more to have separate relations for east / west / north / south, which to my mind would make for a too-convoluted relationship hierarchy. What is your thought on indicating cardinal direction in this case if not as member role?<br>
<br>
Martijn van Exel<br>
<br>
> On Jan 22, 2017, at 5:24 AM, Paul Johnson <<a href="mailto:baloo@ursamundi.org">baloo@ursamundi.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 6:11 PM, <<a href="mailto:richiekennedy56@gmail.com">richiekennedy56@gmail.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:richiekennedy56@gmail.com">richiekennedy56@gmail.<wbr>com</a>>> wrote:<br>
> Regarding the use of child relations for routes, and what to do about directional roles on beltways, I made some mapping changes to a beltway that happens to be local to me.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> I took the relation for I-435[1] and “cloned” it into 2 new relations in JOSM[2][3]. I then deleted all ways from the in the relation and added the new relations, turning the old relation into the parent. As 435 is a beltway, I added “(clockwise)” and “(counterclockwise)” to the new relations. Milepost 0 on I-435 is the junction with I-35 at the southwest corner and the mileposts increase going clockwise (and do not reset at the state line) so I used the I-435 bridge over I-35 as my starting point. Starting there, I organized the ways in the clockwise direction in the JOSM relation editor. Once I had created a “loop,” I removed all the other ways from the clockwise relation, then selected the members of the clockwise relation to remove them from the counterclockwise relation. I then sorted out the ways for the counterclockwise direction in the same way.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> I left the directional roles (i.e. “north,” “south,” “east,” and “west”) intact to represent how the segments on 435 are signed, and changed roles previously marked as “forward” back to directional roles. I also happened to find that I had inadvertently left a gap in the counterclockwise direction in the Johnson County Gateway project. I also noticed someone has previously attempted to note the direction in the “ref” tag. I changed those as well.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Aside from the fact that JOSM does not support the use of directional roles, I think the changes should make it cleaner for future mappers.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> [1]: <a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/62155" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.openstreetmap.org/<wbr>relation/62155</a> <<a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/62155" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.openstreetmap.org/<wbr>relation/62155</a>><br>
> [2]: <a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6898835" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.openstreetmap.org/<wbr>relation/6898835</a> <<a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6898835" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.openstreetmap.org/<wbr>relation/6898835</a>><br>
> [3]: <a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6898836" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.openstreetmap.org/<wbr>relation/6898836</a> <<a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6898836" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.openstreetmap.org/<wbr>relation/6898836</a>><br>
><br>
> It would be easier to verify by using forward in the child relations exclusively. Then it will validate as a loop, or it won't, and the gap becomes immediately apparent. As tagged, most tools (JOSM included) won't "get" it.<br>
> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
> Talk-us mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org">Talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.<wbr>org/listinfo/talk-us</a><br>
<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20170123/871387b4/attachment-0001.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.<wbr>org/pipermail/talk-us/<wbr>attachments/20170123/871387b4/<wbr>attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 3<br>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 13:12:42 -0600<br>
From: Paul Johnson <<a href="mailto:baloo@ursamundi.org">baloo@ursamundi.org</a>><br>
To: Martijn van Exel <<a href="mailto:m@rtijn.org">m@rtijn.org</a>><br>
Cc: Richie Kennedy <<a href="mailto:richiekennedy56@gmail.com">richiekennedy56@gmail.com</a>>, OSM US Talk<br>
<<a href="mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org">Talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] I think I got this right...<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:CAMPM96pE5D-PUdF-hd1X4ngrjEy1sBYsLGGwUTVGfLWKffyA1Q@mail.gmail.com">CAMPM96pE5D-PUdF-<wbr>hd1X4ngrjEy1sBYsLGGwUTVGfLWKff<wbr>yA1Q@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Martijn van Exel <<a href="mailto:m@rtijn.org">m@rtijn.org</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Well, in this case, the only way to know for a routing application what<br>
> the cardinal direction is, is to look at the member roles. Either that our<br>
> you slice the relation up even more to have separate relations for east /<br>
> west / north / south, which to my mind would make for a too-convoluted<br>
> relationship hierarchy. What is your thought on indicating cardinal<br>
> direction in this case if not as member role?<br>
><br>
<br>
I'm not sure where the problem is with child relations with direction=*<br>
tags as one of the relation tags is exactly. Sure, takes more to set up,<br>
but it's easier to maintain long term.<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20170123/92a7969d/attachment-0001.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.<wbr>org/pipermail/talk-us/<wbr>attachments/20170123/92a7969d/<wbr>attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 4<br>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 14:13:19 -0800<br>
From: Michael Corey <<a href="mailto:mcorey@revealnews.org">mcorey@revealnews.org</a>><br>
To: <a href="mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org">talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
Subject: [Talk-us] U.S.-Mexico border fence update<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:a5b6e421-6526-e63a-ab92-46e76cab86f3@revealnews.org">a5b6e421-6526-e63a-ab92-<wbr>46e76cab86f3@revealnews.org</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8<br>
<br>
Hello:<br>
<br>
(Also posted in imports)<br>
<br>
Several years ago I did a lot of work adding sections of the U.S.-Mexico<br>
border fence to OSM. In light of the new U.S. president's intention to<br>
expand the fence/wall system, I have been updating that work for our<br>
news organization. We have now mapped the entire existing fence with<br>
significantly more official data and more information about individual<br>
segments.<br>
<br>
I would like to share this work back into OpenStreetMap, but it may be<br>
difficult to modify or sync up with my old work, since I have<br>
changed/added/subtracted significant features.<br>
<br>
Does anyone have thoughts on how to do this most efficiently and without<br>
causing major headaches? I would like to share the maps on both OSM and<br>
on Github, so I will need some kind of workflow to keep everything<br>
synced up.<br>
<br>
The current fence is captured by this relation:<br>
<br>
<a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2266294" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/<wbr>relation/2266294</a><br>
<br>
Any advice people have from past experience would be most welcome.<br>
<br>
Thanks much,<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
<br>
Michael Corey<br>
Senior News Applications Developer<br>
o: <a href="tel:510.809.3178" value="+15108093178">510.809.3178</a><br>
twitter: @mikejcorey<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 5<br>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 23:52:28 +0100<br>
From: Frederik Ramm <<a href="mailto:frederik@remote.org">frederik@remote.org</a>><br>
To: <a href="mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org">talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] U.S.-Mexico border fence update<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:971ca19c-235a-3d31-9989-f735e8280a9b@remote.org">971ca19c-235a-3d31-9989-<wbr>f735e8280a9b@remote.org</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8<br>
<br>
Hi,<br>
<br>
On 01/23/2017 11:13 PM, Michael Corey wrote:<br>
> Does anyone have thoughts on how to do this most efficiently and without<br>
> causing major headaches?<br>
<br>
I wouldn't bother, it's going to be replaced by a wall soon anyway!<br>
<br>
SCNR<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>
Message: 6<br>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 15:35:31 -0800<br>
From: Clifford Snow <<a href="mailto:clifford@snowandsnow.us">clifford@snowandsnow.us</a>><br>
To: Michael Corey <<a href="mailto:mcorey@revealnews.org">mcorey@revealnews.org</a>><br>
Cc: talk-us <<a href="mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org">talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] U.S.-Mexico border fence update<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:CADAoPLpLCoDTYKWXYt9jF012kU0d6uMpxN4fyJJhqc84y01dwA@mail.gmail.com">CADAoPLpLCoDTYKWXYt9jF012kU0d<wbr>6uMpxN4fyJJhqc84y01dwA@mail.<wbr>gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
Michael,<br>
Sharing your new work on GitHub would be a good start. The community could<br>
look at the work and see how to best incorporate it into OSM.<br>
<br>
(We could tag the existing fence as before_trump and if anything actually<br>
gets built as by_trump. )<br>
<br>
Clifford<br>
<br>
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Michael Corey <<a href="mailto:mcorey@revealnews.org">mcorey@revealnews.org</a>><br>
wrote:<br>
<br>
> Hello:<br>
><br>
> (Also posted in imports)<br>
><br>
> Several years ago I did a lot of work adding sections of the U.S.-Mexico<br>
> border fence to OSM. In light of the new U.S. president's intention to<br>
> expand the fence/wall system, I have been updating that work for our<br>
> news organization. We have now mapped the entire existing fence with<br>
> significantly more official data and more information about individual<br>
> segments.<br>
><br>
> I would like to share this work back into OpenStreetMap, but it may be<br>
> difficult to modify or sync up with my old work, since I have<br>
> changed/added/subtracted significant features.<br>
><br>
> Does anyone have thoughts on how to do this most efficiently and without<br>
> causing major headaches? I would like to share the maps on both OSM and<br>
> on Github, so I will need some kind of workflow to keep everything<br>
> synced up.<br>
><br>
> The current fence is captured by this relation:<br>
><br>
> <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2266294" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/<wbr>relation/2266294</a><br>
><br>
> Any advice people have from past experience would be most welcome.<br>
><br>
> Thanks much,<br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
><br>
> Michael Corey<br>
> Senior News Applications Developer<br>
> o: <a href="tel:510.809.3178" value="+15108093178">510.809.3178</a><br>
> twitter: @mikejcorey<br>
><br>
> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
> Talk-us mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org">Talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.<wbr>org/listinfo/talk-us</a><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
@osm_seattle<br>
<a href="http://osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us</a><br>
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20170123/32b9a35e/attachment.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.<wbr>org/pipermail/talk-us/<wbr>attachments/20170123/32b9a35e/<wbr>attachment.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Subject: Digest Footer<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Talk-us mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org">Talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.<wbr>org/listinfo/talk-us</a><br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
End of Talk-us Digest, Vol 110, Issue 26<br>
******************************<wbr>**********<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>