[Talk-us] Talk-us Digest, Vol 110, Issue 26

Jonathan Witcoski jwitcoski at gmail.com
Tue Jan 24 01:33:40 UTC 2017


The border crossing points for both the US and Canada can be found here.

https://hifld-dhs-gii.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets?group_id=
e1132867c8b1409c9c9aace259b968fe

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 6:36 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
>         https://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: I think I got this right... (Paul Johnson)
>    2. Re: I think I got this right... (Martijn van Exel)
>    3. Re: I think I got this right... (Paul Johnson)
>    4. U.S.-Mexico border fence update (Michael Corey)
>    5. Re: U.S.-Mexico border fence update (Frederik Ramm)
>    6. Re: U.S.-Mexico border fence update (Clifford Snow)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 09:31:29 -0600
> From: Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org>
> To: Richie Kennedy <richiekennedy56 at gmail.com>
> Cc: OpenStreetMap talk-us list <talk-us at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] I think I got this right...
> Message-ID:
>         <CAMPM96oDFNST+Lv6v176-x-hD-vnsKDEPF-tVy0ma3Fpfp0auQ at mail.
> gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 12:08 PM, <richiekennedy56 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 6:24 AM, Paul Johnson wrote
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> > In order to automatically validate, no tag should be necessary. However,
> > the GUI in the JOSM relation editor will still show be able to show the
> > complete loop or lack thereof, making for a easy manual
> valication/override.
> >
> >
> >
> > The retention of the directional tags are easier for **human** reference
> > 😊
> >
>
> That's the thing, though...JOSM is a human interface.  I would argue
> breaking JOSM breaks human reference.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/
> attachments/20170123/4387e256/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 11:14:34 -0700
> From: Martijn van Exel <m at rtijn.org>
> To: Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org>
> Cc: Richie Kennedy <richiekennedy56 at gmail.com>, OSM US Talk
>         <Talk-us at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] I think I got this right...
> Message-ID: <5AD6AA6A-00BA-4925-94F8-EAC1B62ECF44 at rtijn.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> 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?
>
> Martijn van Exel
>
> > On Jan 22, 2017, at 5:24 AM, Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 6:11 PM, <richiekennedy56 at gmail.com <mailto:
> richiekennedy56 at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> > [1]: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/62155 <
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/62155>
> > [2]: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6898835 <
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6898835>
> > [3]: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6898836 <
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6898836>
> >
> > 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.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Talk-us mailing list
> > Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/
> attachments/20170123/871387b4/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 13:12:42 -0600
> From: Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org>
> To: Martijn van Exel <m at rtijn.org>
> Cc: Richie Kennedy <richiekennedy56 at gmail.com>, OSM US Talk
>         <Talk-us at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] I think I got this right...
> Message-ID:
>         <CAMPM96pE5D-PUdF-hd1X4ngrjEy1sBYsLGGwUTVGfLWKff
> yA1Q at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Martijn van Exel <m at rtijn.org> wrote:
>
> > 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?
> >
>
> I'm not sure where the problem is with child relations with direction=*
> tags as one of the relation tags is exactly.  Sure, takes more to set up,
> but it's easier to maintain long term.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/
> attachments/20170123/92a7969d/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 14:13:19 -0800
> From: Michael Corey <mcorey at revealnews.org>
> To: talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [Talk-us] U.S.-Mexico border fence update
> Message-ID: <a5b6e421-6526-e63a-ab92-46e76cab86f3 at revealnews.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Hello:
>
> (Also posted in imports)
>
> Several years ago I did a lot of work adding sections of the U.S.-Mexico
> border fence to OSM. In light of the new U.S. president's intention to
> expand the fence/wall system, I have been updating that work for our
> news organization. We have now mapped the entire existing fence with
> significantly more official data and more information about individual
> segments.
>
> I would like to share this work back into OpenStreetMap, but it may be
> difficult to modify or sync up with my old work, since I have
> changed/added/subtracted significant features.
>
> Does anyone have thoughts on how to do this most efficiently and without
> causing major headaches? I would like to share the maps on both OSM and
> on Github, so I will need some kind of workflow to keep everything
> synced up.
>
> The current fence is captured by this relation:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2266294
>
> Any advice people have from past experience would be most welcome.
>
> Thanks much,
>
>
> --
>
> Michael Corey
> Senior News Applications Developer
> o: 510.809.3178
> twitter: @mikejcorey
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 23:52:28 +0100
> From: Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>
> To: talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] U.S.-Mexico border fence update
> Message-ID: <971ca19c-235a-3d31-9989-f735e8280a9b at remote.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Hi,
>
> On 01/23/2017 11:13 PM, Michael Corey wrote:
> > Does anyone have thoughts on how to do this most efficiently and without
> > causing major headaches?
>
> I wouldn't bother, it's going to be replaced by a wall soon anyway!
>
> SCNR
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 15:35:31 -0800
> From: Clifford Snow <clifford at snowandsnow.us>
> To: Michael Corey <mcorey at revealnews.org>
> Cc: talk-us <talk-us at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] U.S.-Mexico border fence update
> Message-ID:
>         <CADAoPLpLCoDTYKWXYt9jF012kU0d6uMpxN4fyJJhqc84y01dwA at mail.
> gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Michael,
> Sharing your new work on GitHub would be a good start. The community could
> look at the work and see how to best incorporate it into OSM.
>
> (We could tag the existing fence as before_trump and if anything actually
> gets built as by_trump. )
>
> Clifford
>
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Michael Corey <mcorey at revealnews.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Hello:
> >
> > (Also posted in imports)
> >
> > Several years ago I did a lot of work adding sections of the U.S.-Mexico
> > border fence to OSM. In light of the new U.S. president's intention to
> > expand the fence/wall system, I have been updating that work for our
> > news organization. We have now mapped the entire existing fence with
> > significantly more official data and more information about individual
> > segments.
> >
> > I would like to share this work back into OpenStreetMap, but it may be
> > difficult to modify or sync up with my old work, since I have
> > changed/added/subtracted significant features.
> >
> > Does anyone have thoughts on how to do this most efficiently and without
> > causing major headaches? I would like to share the maps on both OSM and
> > on Github, so I will need some kind of workflow to keep everything
> > synced up.
> >
> > The current fence is captured by this relation:
> >
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2266294
> >
> > Any advice people have from past experience would be most welcome.
> >
> > Thanks much,
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Michael Corey
> > Senior News Applications Developer
> > o: 510.809.3178
> > twitter: @mikejcorey
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Talk-us mailing list
> > Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> >
>
>
>
> --
> @osm_seattle
> osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/
> attachments/20170123/32b9a35e/attachment.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Talk-us Digest, Vol 110, Issue 26
> ****************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20170123/02d103ea/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Talk-us mailing list