[Talk-us] OSM presentations

Sarah Manley sarah.m.manley at gmail.com
Tue Mar 9 15:34:24 GMT 2010


Richard,
Here is a presentation I did to a class back in my CM days:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Education_SFSU

<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Education_SFSU>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.

Best,
Sarah

On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 2:42 AM, <talk-us-request at openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Send Talk-us mailing list submissions to
>        talk-us at openstreetmap.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>        http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>        talk-us-request at openstreetmap.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>        talk-us-owner at openstreetmap.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Talk-us digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: proposed first principles for United States   road    tagging
>      (Paul Johnson)
>   2. Re: proposed first principles for United States   road    tagging
>      (Paul Johnson)
>   3. Re: OSM presentations (Michal Migurski)
>   4. Re: proposed first principles for United  States  road    tagging
>      (Paul Johnson)
>   5. Re: proposed first principles for United States road      tagging
>      (Apollinaris Schoell)
>   6. Re: proposed first principles for United States road      tagging
>      (Andrew Sawyer)
>   7. Re: proposed first principles for United States road      tagging
>      (Serge Wroclawski)
>   8. Time to retire ref= on ways? (Paul Johnson)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2010 13:01:56 -0800
> From: Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org>
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States
>        road    tagging
> To: talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> Message-ID: <2rgd67xsrt.ln2 at ursa-major.network.ursamundi.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> Anthony wrote:
>
>
> > I'm not sure what you mean by "work differently".  The laws of different
> > states are different, so the information which needs to be presented by
> the
> > map is different.  The maps, therefore, are going to be different.  I
> > wouldn't "expect the same map to work differently" in different places,
> > because I wouldn't "expect the same map" in different places.
>
> So you're suggesting a 300+ way fork of OSM?
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2010 13:06:44 -0800
> From: Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org>
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States
>        road    tagging
> To: talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> Message-ID: <34hd67x0su.ln2 at ursa-major.network.ursamundi.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> Bill Ricker wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 5:45 AM, Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> I can think of several interstates that are unpaved and undivided,
> >> though all of them are in Alaska.
> >>
> >
> > wow that's news to me. Are they limited access ?
>
> No, not outside Anchorage, and even then, barely.
>
> > How do those get tagged? highway=trunk, surface=dirt, divided=no  ?
>
> I would tag them as "secondary", with the AK## state ref numbers
> since they're not even signed as interstates, but as Alaska state
> highways.
>
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highways_in_Alaska
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 13:27:45 -0800
> From: Michal Migurski <mike at stamen.com>
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] OSM presentations
> To: Talk Openstreetmap <talk-us at openstreetmap.org>
> Message-ID: <93FD2510-C8A2-480F-AC5C-463252156DC7 at stamen.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> I gave this keynote at the North American Cartographic Information Society
> late last year:
>        http://mike.teczno.com/notes/slides/nacis.html
>
> It's mostly about the motivations for OSM and the end products that can be
> made from the data. Maybe applicable?
>
> -mike.
>
> On Mar 6, 2010, at 7:41 AM, Richard Welty wrote:
>
> > is there a collection anywhere of presentations on OSM that are available
> > for reference or reuse? if there isn't, anyone have presentations that
> > they're
> > willing to let me take a look at?
> >
> > now that i am on the verge of being employed again, i find much to my
> > surprise that there will be some mapping involved and that the folks at
> > GE Research i'll be working with are intrigued by OSM. thus, i will
> > likely need a presentation to give spun towards experienced software
> > types who are mostly a little light on mapping and GIS (they're working
> > on a logistics/supply management system for internal use by GE
> > manufacturing units).
> >
> > probably there is no existing presentation that does exactly what i want,
> > but being able to look at a number of them might be a big aid in
> > developing one.
> >
> > richard
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Talk-us mailing list
> > Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> >
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> michal migurski- mike at stamen.com
>                 415.558.1610
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2010 13:08:27 -0800
> From: Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org>
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United     States
>        road    tagging
> To: talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> Message-ID: <a7hd67xosu.ln2 at ursa-major.network.ursamundi.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> Richard Welty wrote:
>
> > probably a better example are the unpaved state highways that may be
> found
> > in some parts of New Hampshire. they do have signage, are they secondary
> > because they're state highways?
>
> I would say so.  There's the "surface" tag, too...  surface=gravel,
> surface=unpaved...
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 17:24:40 -0800
> From: Apollinaris Schoell <aschoell at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States
>        road    tagging
> To: Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>
> Cc: Anthony <osm at inbox.org>, Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org>,
>        talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> Message-ID: <51A4FE1F-0DA3-4EDF-930F-822FBB88F855 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
>
> On 7 Mar 2010, at 11:59 , Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
> >>        Perhaps we should be working more towards worldwide consistency.
> >> yes, please osm is an international project
> >
> > 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!
> >
> > 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.
>
> not that I disagree with you here but
> the start of the thread contains "should", the follow up "please"
> where do you read anything about strict  rules, experts, enforcement ...
>
> >
> > 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).
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> 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.
>
> > SteveC wrote about this half a year ago, and already saying that he was
> "reviving an old idea":
> >
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2009-October/017287.html
> >
> > 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.
>
> 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.
> 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.
>
> >
> > Bye
> > Frederik
> >
> > --
> > Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49?00'09" E008?23'33"
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 21:10:26 -0500
> From: Andrew Sawyer <assawyer at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States
>        road    tagging
> To: talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> Cc: Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org>
> Message-ID:
>        <e26aa8401003071810k4b0b6d97xe54a6e33b39a9a23 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 16:08, Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:
>
> > Richard Welty wrote:
> >
> > > probably a better example are the unpaved state highways that may be
> > found
> > > in some parts of New Hampshire. they do have signage, are they
> secondary
> > > because they're state highways?
> >
> > I would say so.  There's the "surface" tag, too...  surface=gravel,
> > surface=unpaved...
> >
> > Not to be super technical, but in New Hampshire all public roads are
> state
> highways. The distinction you are likely referencing is the numbered State
> routes which are maintained by NH DOT (except some city/town centers) and
> known as the New Hampshire Highway System.
>
> A question that I have is whether or not NH Routes should ever be listed as
> Primary or Tertiary? I know in Mass its been done using a functional usage
> criteria, whereas I have used the US Routes get to be Primary, NH Routes
> Secondary and routes that connect town centers that aren't the other two
> are
> tertiary. I know this is the debate that we are having, but it would seem
> that either we leave it to regions or states to decide or try a one size
> fits all approach based off the British system which doesn't seem to match
> up very well (at least terminology wise) with the US and its intricacies.
>
> There seem to be two major groups of roads: limited access and everything
> else. Within those groups there are variations that at some level get
> tedious in distinguishing between various classifications that depend on
> routing/lanes/max speed. In some respects a standard is important, but it
> has to describe and differentiate between the roads. I think that a
> regional
> approach, especially in NE, would be best while maintaining some uniformity
> across the US and World. I would propose more, but I find it difficult
> given
> the current structure. It would seem that there be two major tagging
> classifications could dominate the tagging:
> 1. administrative (coming from the authorities over it - route numbers,
> administrative designations of classification, etc.)
> 2. functional (coming from actual usage criteria, like number of lanes,
> width, etc)
>
> The first is going to be easier to tag and edit, whereas the latter is
> going
> to be more intensive with reviewing official GIS data and personal
> observations. Just some thoughts. I don't propose to reinvent the wheel,
> maybe this can be accomplished with Relations or current tagging and leave
> people quibbling over colors to renders?
>
> Some thoughts and my two cents.
>
> Andrew Sawyer
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20100307/9f48bba4/attachment-0001.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 09:22:01 +0100
> From: Serge Wroclawski <emacsen at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States
>        road    tagging
> To: Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org>
> Cc: talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> Message-ID:
>        <2475f0c31003080022w60b4cb7dga913d4c9a42a3b77 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:
> > Anthony wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I'm not sure what you mean by "work differently". ?The laws of different
> >> states are different, so the information which needs to be presented by
> the
> >> map is different. ?The maps, therefore, are going to be different. ?I
> >> wouldn't "expect the same map to work differently" in different places,
> >> because I wouldn't "expect the same map" in different places.
> >
> > So you're suggesting a 300+ way fork of OSM?
>
> It's entirely possible I'm wrong here (since I'm not paying as close
> attention to this thread as others) but I believe the recommendations
> here are to add tags which correspond to local standards. Once that's
> done, other tags which may be more subjective can be added for
> simplicity, and the renderer can use either the exact tagging scheme
> that makes sense locally, or else it can use the more generalized (but
> less precise) tags.
>
> - Serge
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 02:36:30 -0800
> From: Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org>
> Subject: [Talk-us] Time to retire ref= on ways?
> To: talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> Cc: newbies at openstreetmap.org
> Message-ID: <ei0f67x34k.ln2 at ursa-major.network.ursamundi.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> It's time to retire ref=* on highway=* ways to describe attributes
> of the overlying route instead of the physical attributes of the way
> itself.  Using the ref= tag on ways to describe routes simply
> creates more problems than it solves for many reasons.
>
> * The ref=* tag on a way is describing properties of a route that
> is using the way, not a property of the way itself.
>
> * Many bridges and tunnels have signed references that would
> actually be physical attributes of a way, but with the ref= tag on
> ways describing the overlying route instead of the way itself,
> makes it impossible to properly describe these attributes if ref= on
> a way is describing the route above the way, not the way itself.
>
> * The ref= tag as defined for ways now includes more than the ref,
> but also the network.  ncn_ref, int_ref, etc were created as an
> attempt to describe network references uniquely, but there aren't
> *_ref keys for every possible network already in play.
>
> * The US has two federal highway networks, each state has it's own
> highway network, and counties and cities have the option for their
> own local networks.  That's at minimum 52+ *_ref keys that would be
> needed to describe each network uniquely...for the US alone!  And
> we're not even into transit or other routes that might use the way!
>
> * Munging the modifier=, network= and ref= tags provided by
> relations into a single do-all ref= tag creates more problems than
> it solves, particularly for formatting.  It also creates
> hard-to-answer questions for renderers and parsers.
>
> * Multiple routes, particularly when they are involved in multiple
> networks, creates unmanageable way ref= tags. It also makes it
> more difficult to describe attributes that belong to the route,
> not the way itself (such as which direction it's going, whether it's
> a bypass, business, toll or other sort of route, etc).
>
> Given that we have route relations, and have had them for some time
> now, perhaps now is the time to:
>
> * put ref= information pertaining to the route that travels on the
> way to a relation for that route.  Provide facilities to search by
> network and ref on relations.
>
> * Actively remove ref= tags describing routes from ways that have
> route relations already:  Let's kill this dinosaur.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
> End of Talk-us Digest, Vol 28, Issue 14
> ***************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20100309/c05c55df/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-us mailing list