|
|
|
I'd like to activate this one. Is there any reason to hold off,Mapcat and yakra have talked about peer reviewing my US state route systems this summer.
other than the lack of specific sources on the credits page?Does there need to be one?
other than the lack of specific sources on the credits page?Does there need to be one?
How accurate should we be at placing the waypoints exactly on an intersection? Many of these are slightly off (meaning over one road but not the other) or further away (not over pavement at all) according to both Google satellite data and OSM.
Routes should always be plotted west-to-east and south-to-north, correct? CDOT plots some in different directions, and some of the Colorado routes follow CDOT's plot rather than TM convention. Please let me know if there are exceptions to this (besides obvious judgment calls such as diagonal routes).
US287 -> US287/14I don't do that, as it's very confusing and isn't necessary (showing more than one route is only needed if they are of the same level) - is that US14?
SmiRd doesn't intersect CO2.MQOpen shows a slip road (and as a GSJ, it is a mandatory point), though Mapnik shows that it's closed. Starred.
(point is not on any intersection so it's hard to tell which road it refers to, but Depot St does not intersect CO9)The point was clearly close to OSM's point at Depot Rd (though if you zoom in, it becomes 6thSt) - I've moved it to 7thSt anyway.
SheTraRd -> GatDrWhy use the Google names, when OSM provides perfectly cromulant ones?
DotRd -> WhiPinLn & move slightly
What does StoGap represent?You'd have found out if you looked at the OSM/MQOpen mapping rather than the Goog! ;)
EchoCanRd -> EchoCynRd (or is "Cyn" not recognized as a standard abbreviation here?)Why this one and not the others (there's three on this route, there's been several more in lower-numbered routes)? We can use either, and I went with 'Can'. I can change them all, but I'm certainly not going to change just the one.
CoalMineRd does not intersect CO13 (bridge)Can you really not see slip roads? Oh wait, you're using Google's mapping, not OSM's...
other named roads could be CR's as wellBut if they aren't mapped with the number, what's the point in using them. GMSVing every waypoint with a road name to see whether it's a county route seems a waste of time. I know you left this optional, but it seems highly excessive to play 'hunt the county route'.
(or is the "-" necessary for CR's that begin with a letter?)Yes - I think as it makes clear it's a CR.
S end seems to be CO52 (which ends there rather than continuing on to I-76)Southbound, CO52 reaches exit 66A, rather than goes down Central Avenue. As there's no CO39 signs at CO52/Central Ave (or south from I-76), there's no reason to continue it southwards. I might change my mind on this later, but I'm keeping it as-is for now.
the E end should be on the county lineBecause being 2m off is sooo bad....
I couldn't find any reference to CR57 besides OSM. The Gilpin County GIS doesn't show county road numbers.And?
WilWhiBlvd -> PeteJimPkwyand again with the desire to replace perfectly acceptable OSM mapping data :(
No, CO14. I've seen it done enough by others that I thought it was standard.US287 -> US287/14I don't do that, as it's very confusing and isn't necessary (showing more than one route is only needed if they are of the same level) - is that US14?
Why wouldn't you zoom in?Quote(point is not on any intersection so it's hard to tell which road it refers to, but Depot St does not intersect CO9)The point was clearly close to OSM's point at Depot Rd (though if you zoom in, it becomes 6thSt) - I've moved it to 7thSt anyway.
Just to be clear, I'm not simply blindly following Google's map data, which is often incorrect or incomplete. I'm using its satellite imagery, which is newer than other satellite imagery in most cases in the US, and street view imagery, which also is dated and seems more reliable than a map built and maintained completely by volunteers.QuoteSheTraRd -> GatDrWhy use the Google names, when OSM provides perfectly cromulant ones?
DotRd -> WhiPinLn & move slightly
All I could see when I checked those other sources was the name of a community. We're using those as waypoints?QuoteWhat does StoGap represent?You'd have found out if you looked at the OSM/MQOpen mapping rather than the Goog! ;)
Sorry, I should have been more clear that this was a general question about the use of that abbreviation. Of course the abbreviation should be consistent across all instances.QuoteEchoCanRd -> EchoCynRd (or is "Cyn" not recognized as a standard abbreviation here?)Why this one and not the others (there's three on this route, there's been several more in lower-numbered routes)? We can use either, and I went with 'Can'. I can change them all, but I'm certainly not going to change just the one.
Yes, I saw the slip road--actually more of a separate road than a ramp in this case--but it's nowhere near where you placed the waypoint.QuoteCoalMineRd does not intersect CO13 (bridge)Can you really not see slip roads? Oh wait, you're using Google's mapping, not OSM's...
So is it not necessary, or even helpful, that the waypoint names ought to match what's signed in the field? If not, why not just simplify this even further and assign them all random names?Quoteother named roads could be CR's as wellBut if they aren't mapped with the number, what's the point in using them. GMSVing every waypoint with a road name to see whether it's a county route seems a waste of time. I know you left this optional, but it seems highly excessive to play 'hunt the county route'.
2m? Try 2 blocks.Quotethe E end should be on the county lineBecause being 2m off is sooo bad....
When you've got something tangible like a recent photo of a sign, why ignore it in favor of a name that may or may not be correct?QuoteI couldn't find any reference to CR57 besides OSM. The Gilpin County GIS doesn't show county road numbers.And?
Why are you so impressed with OSM data? Google isn't perfect by any means, but it's really hard for me to accept that a photo of a sign or satellite imagery of a realigned road may be less trustworthy than a map drawn by a bored teenager at 3am.QuoteWilWhiBlvd -> PeteJimPkwyand again with the desire to replace perfectly acceptable OSM mapping data :(
No, CO14. I've seen it done enough by others that I thought it was standard.I was being rhetorical - I know it was CO14, just pointing out the reason why I don't use that format.
Why wouldn't you zoom in?Because I want to see more than a couple of hundred feet away from the point? It only appeared when I was right zoomed in onto the lowest zoom levels - why would I zoom in that far? It's fixed now anyway.
I'm using its satellite imagery, which is newer than other satellite imagery in most cases in the US, and street view imagery, which also is dated and seems more reliable than a map built and maintained completely by volunteers.So what you are saying is I need to use data that is copyrighted and leave TM open to lawsuits? >:(
All I could see when I checked those other sourcesOSM/MQOpen is not 'other sources' its the main mapping source we have. We used to use Google (with .ggm files) as our main mapping source, but we did a lengthy conversion to OSM for legal reasons in 2008.
the name of a community. We're using those as waypoints?Yes, when there's no road name or number.
Yes, I saw the slip road--actually more of a separate road than a ramp in this case--but it's nowhere near where you placed the waypoint.What I see is a echline style link and another ramp (hence my OP's use of 'ramps'). If it was just an echline, then of course I would have placed it at the link road, but the way I see that junction, according to the mapping, is that the waypoint should go there at the bridge.
So is it not necessary, or even helpful, that the waypoint names ought to match what's signed in the field?They should also match what's on the map, surely? It should be assumed that, ideally they would be one and the same and most of the time they are. It's an awful lot of busy work to assume that the map needs double-checking. And that's before we go into the copyright issues of creating a derived work from Google (and it's sources that it uses under licence) data and then licensing it differently.
If not, why not just simplify this even further and assign them all random names?Because there's a massive gulf of difference between random names and names on a mapping source that we can legitimately use. Most of the time, the mapping source is accurate.
2m? Try 2 blocks.2 blocks??? Is there an ant city there? This is at max zoom!
When you've got something tangible like a recent photo of a sign, why ignore it in favor of a name that may or may not be correct?Because:
Sorry that this seemed to touch a nerve.The copyright issues are bigger for me, as I'm in a jurisdiction with a lot less lax 'fair use' regulations. Plus having spent several days on usaco only to be told that I need to spend several more days double-checking every point irks me. Add in stuff like the moving of the CO46 end point that a tiny bit off thanks to what oscar calls "mapping drift" and I can become rather irritable (plus I'm already irritable thanks to Downing Street deliberately trying to create a disaster for my country should we not side with them, just so that their insane apocalyptic predictions (based on xenophobia towards both the electorate and the rest of Europe) might just come true).
I'm just trying to narrow the gap between my knowledge and the common and best practices employed by the others working on this project.A lot of this is in the manual, though, yes, you are just coming into this and don't have the years of consensus and discussions of how to do this in your memory.
From what I gather from your comments, it seems I've wasted a great deal of time on finding a "correct" name and location for each waypoint. I was not aware of the low priority placed on these, and will work accordingly in the future.It's not a low priority to find a "correct" name and location for the waypoint. It's a low priority to do a lot of busy work assuming that the map is wrong and double-checking that the name and location is right.
Plus having spent several days on usaco only to be told that I need to spend several more days double-checking every point irks me.Please understand that this is my first attempt at a peer-review. I am not yet familiar with what needs to be flagged and what does not. I didn't tell you you need to do anything; I was just surprised that you weren't concerned with getting the placement of points as exact as I suspected they were supposed to be. This doesn't make you wrong: it just clarifies something for me. The rest of my review should demonstrate a clearer understanding on my part.
A lot of this is in the manual, though, yes, you are just coming into this and don't have the years of consensus and discussions of how to do this in your memory.I appreciate your recognizing that.
Regarding the use of too much Google data, I don't know what made Tim decide several years ago that we needed to get CHM off of that data, but something made him to go the trouble of not using it. I wish I knew what happened to force the switch away. As long as the site is on a domain with my name attached to it and running on a server I own, I'd like to err on the side of caution and make sure we're not deriving anything from Google other than the occasional point recentering or renaming. Ensuring that we only derive our data from sources that are entirely legal for use is also important to the academic side of this project for me, and that connection to my academic project is the only way I can justify putting in as much time as I do on TM.This is a very good point that I had not considered. In a roundabout way, Jim is deriving an income from the data we're gathering here, and as much as anyone else here I'd wish to protect him from any controversy regarding this data.
(plus I'm already irritable thanks to Downing Street deliberately trying to create a disaster for my country should we not side with them, just so that their insane apocalyptic predictions (based on xenophobia towards both the electorate and the rest of Europe) might just come true).I wish you and your country the best as you navigate this. I hope you'll return the favor in a bit less than 5 months when my country faces its own existential crisis.
Please understand that this is my first attempt at a peer-review. I am not yet familiar with what needs to be flagged and what does not. I didn't tell you you need to do anything; I was just surprised that you weren't concerned with getting the placement of points as exact as I suspected they were supposed to be. This doesn't make you wrong: it just clarifies something for me. The rest of my review should demonstrate a clearer understanding on my part.Of course - I lost sight of this when the red mist descended. I was a real grump - don't take it personally. Other stuff (not to mention the awful weather that has thankfully stopped and turned out nice, lightening my mood a lot) had wound me up, and this was merely a small rock that caused an avalanche of annoyance.
Of course - I lost sight of this when the red mist descended. I was a real grump - don't take it personally. Other stuff (not to mention the awful weather that has thankfully stopped and turned out nice, lightening my mood a lot) had wound me up, and this was merely a small rock that caused an avalanche of annoyance.
I came out far too strong in opposition to you, and for that, I unreservedly apologise.
Most of your review was good stuff, and I've implemented it.
Regarding the use of too much Google data, I don't know what made Tim decide several years ago that we needed to get CHM off of that data, but something made him to go the trouble of not using it. I wish I knew what happened to force the switch away.
The gray areas are "fair use" and "no tracing." I think we could make arguments either way for both areas for our work.(This post (http://clinched.s2.bizhat.com/viewtopic.php?p=6736&mforum=clinched#6736) in this thread (http://clinched.s2.bizhat.com/viewtopic.php?t=844))
http://www.google.com/permissions/geoguidelines.html
In lieu of knowing with certainty if we're complying with permissions, it would be better to only be able to make the argument that we aren't stretching permissions, hence the switch to less restricted data that clearly allows our usage.
OSM collaborators are instructed to completely avoid using commercial sources like Google and Yahoo (with the exception of imagery provided by Yahoo with special permission) even for picking out coordinates. They took the safest and perhaps smartest approach by using only public domain sources.
CO470: has exit numbersNot signed, AFAICS.
Whoops! That's me, I clicked the modify button rather than the quote button. And I forgot a few things I didn't do.QuoteCO470: has exit numbersNot signed, AFAICS.
I've made the other changes, and moved the pointers for 58, 470 and E470 to be part of usaco (and be the usaco versions of the files), rather than usansf.
I believe this system is ready to be activated.