[Talk-us] Talk-us Digest, Vol 52, Issue 18

william skora skorasaurus at gmail.com
Sat Mar 17 13:04:57 GMT 2012


As a relative recent us mapper, I've mapped only a few  Sub divisions and
they're low on priority list to map. One, I live in the dense city which is
more efficient to map (more to map in a small area) and when I go on
errands, I can take alternate routes to map that aren't far out of the way.
For subdivisions, they tend to be dead ends, only one way in and out. Also,
I do a bit of my mapping while biking and roads surrounding sub divisions
usually aren't bike friendly. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, I also
map to explore my city, finding new businesses to try, see great
architecture and places. The sub divisions generally don't offer that.
On Mar 15, 2012 6:44 PM, <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. suburban superblocks that nobody wants to survey
>      (Hillsman, Edward)
>   2. Re: suburban superblocks that nobody wants to survey (Mike N)
>   3. Re: suburban superblocks that nobody wants to survey
>      (Martijn van Exel)
>   4. Re: suburban superblocks that nobody wants to survey
>      (Richard Weait)
>   5. Re: suburban superblocks that nobody wants to survey (Alan Mintz)
>   6. Re: Route Relations and Special (Bannered) Routes (Craig Hinners)
>   7. Re: suburban superblocks that nobody wants to survey
>      (Nathan Edgars II)
>   8. Re: suburban superblocks that nobody wants to survey
>      (Nathan Mills)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 08:52:56 -0400
> From: "Hillsman, Edward" <hillsman at cutr.usf.edu>
> To: "talk-us at openstreetmap.org" <talk-us at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: [Talk-us] suburban superblocks that nobody wants to survey
> Message-ID:
>        <5E720878F33D3244932503066FC93BF067F5B86492 at USFMAIL2.forest.usf.edu
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> On 3/14/2012 21:18:57 -0400 Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>
> >Depending on the state or local government, you may be able to verify
> >names against an official dataset. Otherwise subdivision plats work for
> >the endless suburban superblocks that nobody wants to survey.
>
> In the interest of figuring out how to attract more people to participate
> in OSM, I'd like to see some more discussion of this. Is it generally true
> that people who work on OSM don't like to map subdivisions? And, if so,
> why? Because these are home to so many people in the US, it raises a
> question about the viability of strategies that suggest people start in OSM
> by mapping their own neighborhoods.
>
> I admit that I prefer not to, but because of where I live and work, my
> activity space doesn't take me into them very often. I did start out in OSM
> by mapping my neighborhood surroundings. I have mapped some subdivisions
> (ways and land-uses but not individual houses) and don't find them boring
> or onerous (for onerous, splitting streets into dual carriageways is at the
> top of my list).
>
> Ed Hillsman
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 09:27:03 -0400
> From: Mike N <niceman at att.net>
> To: talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] suburban superblocks that nobody wants to
>        survey
> Message-ID: <4F61EE27.3040700 at att.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 3/15/2012 8:52 AM, Hillsman, Edward wrote:
> > In the interest of figuring out how to attract more people to
> participate in OSM, I'd like to see some more discussion of this. Is it
> generally true that people who work on OSM don't like to map subdivisions?
> And, if so, why? Because these are home to so many people in the US, it
> raises a question about the viability of strategies that suggest people
> start in OSM by mapping their own neighborhoods.
>
>  I don't know anything about this specifically.   It's interesting that
> not a single person in those 120 subdivisions was interested in mapping
> their own subdivision.   I have done some onsite surveys of smaller
> subdivisions (100-400 homes), and can set this up with a camera,  video
> cam, and bike to collect quite a lot of information in a single visit,
> and the end result is streets with lanes, speed limits, one ways, and
> house numbers.   In this area, since no one else is participating[1],
> it's just a practical matter to create the base new subdivision
> information from TIGER since the local governments don't freely give
> this information.  The only followup surveys are quick to clarify
> obvious errors in the TIGER data.
>
> The subdivision plat idea is new to me, but I'm not sure where I'd find
> them.
>
> [1] It is notable that likely because of the Apple publicity spike, a
> single new mapper popped up and added streets in his neighborhood and
> did a quality job.   If this was indeed because of the lure of the
> 'blank page', our license removal exercise will create many more blank
> pages to test this theory with.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 10:35:07 -0500
> From: Martijn van Exel <m at rtijn.org>
> To: "Hillsman, Edward" <hillsman at cutr.usf.edu>
> Cc: "talk-us at openstreetmap.org" <talk-us at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] suburban superblocks that nobody wants to
>        survey
> Message-ID:
>        <CAGCum_4ACYG0KHz3O=wZLZHFbwoWnJZN2gbFPhf=c88Lwp7J6g at mail.gmail.com
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 7:52 AM, Hillsman, Edward <hillsman at cutr.usf.edu
> >wrote:
>
> > In the interest of figuring out how to attract more people to participate
> > in OSM, I'd like to see some more discussion of this. Is it generally
> true
> > that people who work on OSM don't like to map subdivisions? And, if so,
> > why? Because these are home to so many people in the US, it raises a
> > question about the viability of strategies that suggest people start in
> OSM
> > by mapping their own neighborhoods.
>
>
> It would be straightforward enough to do some analysis on this, and I
> concur that it would be interesting, if only there was some geographical
> demarcation file of these types of neighborhoods. Would it be possible to
> define that?
>
> Apart from that, I can see why these areas seem to have low priority. I am
> going to make a lot of assumptions here, because that's all I can do
> without having really investigated.
> Subdivisions make for boring mapping. It is repetitive and there seems to
> be no end to them. OSM contributors invest their free time in the project
> and want to get something out of it: fun, a sense of accomplishment. So
> they spend their time on fun mapping projects, not boring ones. Considering
> that the US is horribly understaffed with contributors, subdivisions are
> much less likely to be tended to, unless one of those sparse mappers has
> some personal incentive.
>
> I see two ways to break this: 1) attract more mappers. 2) make boring
> projects fun. I see both tasks as core to growing OpenStreetMap in the US,
> and they are related.
>
> --
> martijn van exel
> geospatial omnivore
> 1109 1st ave #2
> salt lake city, ut 84103
> 801-550-5815
> http://oegeo.wordpress.com
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20120315/baa36ec6/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 12:27:01 -0400
> From: Richard Weait <richard at weait.com>
> To: "talk-us at openstreetmap.org Openstreetmap"
>        <talk-us at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] suburban superblocks that nobody wants to
>        survey
> Message-ID:
>        <CAGwUD5sMZr4nF8CT=pBs9YAW2pfZaux73VZWUYPv1ae0e_24Yw at mail.gmail.com
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Martijn van Exel <m at rtijn.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 7:52 AM, Hillsman, Edward <hillsman at cutr.usf.edu
> >
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> In the interest of figuring out how to attract more people to
> participate
> >> in OSM, I'd like to see some more discussion of this. Is it generally
> true
> >> that people who work on OSM don't like to map subdivisions?
>
> [ ... ]
> > Apart from that, I can see why these areas seem to have low priority.
> [ ... ]
> > Subdivisions make for boring mapping.
> [ ... ]
> > I see two ways to break this: 1) attract more mappers.
>
> I don't accept that mapping a subdivision is any more-boring or
> less-rewarding than other forms of mapping.  The caveat is "as long as
> it is your subdivision".  Sure, they might be row upon row of similar
> construction, but at least they are row upon of similar construction
> full of your friends and neighbours.  That motivates the mapper to put
> it on the map and to get it right.
>
> That new, local mapper is most likely to update the map when one field
> is converted to a cricket pitch, and when the local convenience store
> has a name change a few years down the road.  You can't beat that as a
> mapper from a distance.
>
> So, yes.  Attract more mappers, in more places.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 10:15:20 -0700
> From: Alan Mintz <Alan_Mintz+OSM at Earthlink.Net>
> To: talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] suburban superblocks that nobody wants to
>        survey
> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20120315094840.0506ad60 at mail.earthlink.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
> At 2012-03-15 06:27, Mike N wrote:
> >On 3/15/2012 8:52 AM, Hillsman, Edward wrote:
> >>In the interest of figuring out how to attract more people to participate
> >>in OSM, I'd like to see some more discussion of this. Is it generally
> >>true that people who work on OSM don't like to map subdivisions? And, if
> >>so, why? Because these are home to so many people in the US, it raises a
> >>question about the viability of strategies that suggest people start in
> >>OSM by mapping their own neighborhoods.
> >
> >  I don't know anything about this specifically.   It's interesting that
> > not a single person in those 120 subdivisions was interested in mapping
> > their own subdivision.
>
> Assuming we're talking about the US, not really surprising. I've mapped
> hundreds of subdivisions in southern Cal.  In particular, dozens of them
> were not on the map at all, having been developed after TIGER's 2005 source
> date. Some were not even on Google Maps, so you'd think someone out there
> other than me would have wanted to map them.
>
>
> >    I have done some onsite surveys of smaller subdivisions (100-400
> > homes), and can set this up with a camera,  video cam, and bike to
> > collect quite a lot of information in a single visit, and the end result
> > is streets with lanes, speed limits, one ways, and house numbers.
>
> Yup - me too, with a car, GPS, and a digital camera.
>
>
> >   In this area, since no one else is participating[1], it's just a
> > practical matter to create the base new subdivision information from
> > TIGER since the local governments don't freely give this
> > information.  The only followup surveys are quick to clarify obvious
> > errors in the TIGER data.
> >
> >The subdivision plat idea is new to me, but I'm not sure where I'd find
> them.
>
> I've recently done this when I see an area that really is untouched. I
> first make sure that all the ways are the original TIGER ways
> ("tiger:cfcc"=* ((version:1 user:DaveHansenTiger) | (version:2
> user:balrog-kun))), remove them, then convert and transplant in new
> TIGER2011 data, connecting it to existing ways at the borders.
>
> BTW, many (most IME) county governments have at least some data available
> for free. Assessor's maps are generally more available, though keep in mind
> that they are less authoritative on naming than tract/parcel maps because
> the assessor's role is more related to the land parcels than the streets
> between them. Tract/parcel maps, records of surveys, roadbooks, etc. are
> generally available from the planning and/or public works departments.
> While they are usually filed with the county recorder, that avenue is
> usually not free. All it takes is a little digging. If you run into a
> fee-required situation, don't be afraid to ask for a waiver, describing OSM
> and your need to use them as a reference. That's worked for me.
>
> --
> Alan Mintz <Alan_Mintz+OSM at Earthlink.net>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 11:53:14 -0700
> From: "Craig Hinners" <craig at hinnerspace.com>
> To: talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Route Relations and Special (Bannered) Routes
> Message-ID:
>        <
> 20120315115314.fc51b6200e9fb8577c2c80bc0fc5554d.0f6fbbbd31.wbe at email03.secureserver.net
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> This was discussed in the August 2011 thread, "Use of ref-tag on state
> highways".
>
> At the time, a number of people seemed to be on board with the
> "network-classification-per-banner" scheme, as in:
>  network=US:US:Alternate
>  ref=1
>
> Or, something similar at the state level:
>  network=US:VA:Secondary
>  ref=7100
>
> I think all that really remains is to formalize/define the valid values
> for the various federal- and state-level "network" tags in the wiki.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 17:59:47 -0400
> From: Nathan Edgars II <neroute2 at gmail.com>
> To: talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] suburban superblocks that nobody wants to
>        survey
> Message-ID: <4F626653.2090900 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 3/15/2012 8:52 AM, Hillsman, Edward wrote:
> > On 3/14/2012 21:18:57 -0400 Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> >
> >> Depending on the state or local government, you may be able to verify
> >> names against an official dataset. Otherwise subdivision plats work for
> >> the endless suburban superblocks that nobody wants to survey.
> >
> > In the interest of figuring out how to attract more people to
> participate in OSM, I'd like to see some more discussion of this. Is it
> generally true that people who work on OSM don't like to map subdivisions?
> And, if so, why? Because these are home to so many people in the US, it
> raises a question about the viability of strategies that suggest people
> start in OSM by mapping their own neighborhoods.
>
> I was talking specifically about driving through these neighborhoods to
> get street names. Obviously if you live there it's different, or if you
> live nearby and exercise by bike. But driving through subdivisions far
> from home has a high cost-to-benefit ratio - lots of driving and all you
> get is street names, since everything else is single-family houses.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 17:43:58 -0500
> From: Nathan Mills <nathan at nwacg.net>
> To: talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] suburban superblocks that nobody wants to
>        survey
> Message-ID: <4F6270AE.7020106 at nwacg.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 3/15/2012 4:59 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> > lots of driving and all you get is street names, since everything else
> > is single-family houses.
>
> And address points, amenities, water features, gates, and whatever else
> might be around, maybe a bridge or a stream or something. Oh, and don't
> forget the streets themselves if aerial imagery is outdated. It's not
> terribly exciting, but it's not terribly hard, either. A few hundred
> house subdivision only takes a couple of hours at most to map and input.
>
> If all I wanted was street names, I'd ask the planning commission.
>
> Besides, there's some amount of fun that comes from "beating" Google. ;)
>
> -Nathan
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
> End of Talk-us Digest, Vol 52, Issue 18
> ***************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20120317/20d7d518/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Talk-us mailing list