Changeset: 69891225
Added city limit signs for San José & neighboring cities; retagged or deleted demolished buildings; added speed bumps, speed limits, crosswalks; added Monterey Hwy. to bike route 11; realigned footpaths
Closed by Minh Nguyen
Tags
changesets_count | 14764 |
---|---|
created_by | iD 2.14.3 |
host | https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit |
imagery_used | Mapbox Satellite;Mapillary Signs;Mapillary Images;OpenStreetCam Images |
locale | vi |
Discussion
-
Comment from stevea
Nasty storm recently. I'm weathering it OK.
What is your source for the lcn 11 extensions along Monterey Highway? I'm not doubting you, more like fumbling myself for a good/recent source for those data and I wasn't sure I saw it in your tagging/source comments.
Though there are four layers listed in imagery_used, I don't know if you are seeing city bike route signs in those, are using an online map I might not know has recently updated, or what. I didn't know of such "double-routing" (lcn 01, parts of lcn 17 and lcn 11 sharing common infrastructure). Thanks.
-
Comment from Minh Nguyen
The bike route 11 signs are visible all along the road in Mapillary imagery (going southbound) and OpenStreetCam imagery (going northbound). I used the Mapillary sign layer to more easily locate the signs, and the Mapbox layer was just on as a matter of course. (I used that layer for pinpointing city limit signs that I came across, also in this changeset.)
Bike route 11 is San José’s first signposted crosstown bike route. http://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/5417#page=2 To my knowledge, other routes that have been entered so far are only found on maps published by VTA and aren’t officially numbered. So I’m considering removing the refs from those routes.
-
Comment from Minh Nguyen
I originally didn’t intend to map bike route 11 in this changeset, but as I went looking for the “Welcome to San Jose” archway along Monterey Rd. (which sadly seems to have been taken down), I encountered the BEGIN and END signs for bike route 11 at the San José/Morgan Hill city limit.
-
Comment from stevea
Thanks for your answer: ground-truth bolstered by Mapillary and OSC images. Wow, not only bike route signs, but BEGIN and END signs for them, too! (I'm impressed with VTA for being so complete with its signage).
I don't want to sound publicly contentious, but when you say you're considering removing routes which aren't signposted, that seems a very (overly?) strict application of our on-the-ground rule. There are plenty of routes (and boundaries) in OSM which are not well signed (or even signed at all). Does OSM really want to remove them all? Do we want a map devoid of routes (and boundaries) which aren't clearly marked on-the-ground?
Have we settled whether or not if VTA (or any government) "publishes" a route (in written form, for example, declaring its existence) but hasn't signposted it, that route doesn't belong in OSM?
What about VTA's light_rail routes? Those aren't signed "green" or "blue" along the train routes, yet we agree those routes with color designations should be in OSM. How do we know what color and composition are the routes? VTA publishes those, they don't signpost them on-the-ground. I wonder where the determination is made about routes (or boundaries) when they can't be seen on-the-ground, but "everybody knows" (due to the publication of geo data or public-domain maps) where those routes (or boundaries) are. Thanks in advance for sharing your thoughts.
-
Comment from Minh Nguyen
Unlike the other routes that have been entered, route 11 is designated and signposted by the City of San José. I’ve never actually seen a VTA map that indicates route numbers; do you know where they come from?
The VTA LRT maps are posted on information boards at each station, so it’s no different than signage as far as I’m concerned.
I do consider publications distributed on the spot to satisfy the “on the ground” rule. For example, I often add contact information to business POIs based on receipts I’ve gathered. On the other hand, I draw the line at planning documents that one has to go out of their way to obtain; tags like unsigned_ref and official_name are more appropriate for those cases.
By the way, last year, VTA started replacing the color-coded destination icons with color-coded route icons on station signage. For example, the Mountain View–Winchester line is now represented by a B in a blue circle. But it’s in a state of limbo until BART Silicon Valley comes into service and the routes are reconfigured: onboard the trains, the routes are still posted and announced the old way, by destination, and the VTA’s website still shows the destination icons.
Compare the old and new sign designs:
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/cidGJeIL_L4FuTfv9HMm2A
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/gm-HoE1ONioHi2NUQPHA4A
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/CyiLY1mIydftpEA-xn5YvA -
Comment from Minh Nguyen
Clarification: The Mountain View–Winchester line will be an O in an orange circle after BART opens, so some signs have been updated to that instead.
-
Comment from stevea
I've been "watching" as VTA prepares for BART and "going to orange," but yours (above) is the first confirmation that I've seen (either on a map, not a planning map, an actual route map) that there really is an "orange" right now. So, thanks for that, I did not know VTA had started doing either "orange" or putting colors on signs like they're doing. Thanks for your great communication!
(BTW, I agree with all you say about "planning documents" and unsigned_ref. True, dat.)
-
Comment from stevea
Much has happened since 2008-9 when SCC's Countywide Bike Plan (CBP) was adopted, including a lot of work in 2016-7 to revise the CBP. I've just taken a look at that (and probably should have a year or three ago) and also find a dearth of bicycle route numbers on many of the related documents. I'm not sure what's up with that, though if you are seeing "11" on signs in Mapillary, these network=lcn routes do "still" seem to be around. I'm going to spend some time poking around "what's up" with these, perhaps I'll have more to say later. Though this discussion is getting long; perhaps I'll private missive you with what I learn. Thanks again for "waking up" some apparently needed attention and good communication about updating various sorts of routes around here.
-
Comment from stevea
I'm not sure where I got this (I sketched my understanding with a pen, leving my notes "source-less.") It was from maybe six months ago about how "orange" was being introduced into the VTA light_rail lines when BART SV arrives in the 2020s and it didn't call Orange MV->Winchester, it called Orange MV->Alum Rock. Baypointe becomes a "transfer station" as it serves all three (Orange, Blue, Green). This "truncates" Blue and Green at North 1st and Baypointe. (Orange is East-West, a bit SE towards Alum Rock), Green is (N-S, with a SW jog to Campbell) Baypointe->Winchester and Blue is (N-S with a SE jog to Santa Theresa) Baypointe->Santa Theresa.
It seems like you (or the signs? photo appears to be Baypointe...) say Orange will be a direct replacement for Green, while Blue will remain as it is today. Are we clear? (I honestly say no: I don't know which segments will make up Orange, though if VTA has chosen a single place to put Orange on a sign in prepping the future for BART SV, Baypointe station is a good choice).
We can look for more VTA Orange line signs or we can ask VTA to more clearly articulate its (BART SV route change plans), maybe both; that would be a two-pronged approach to get to the bottom of this. Sorry to be confused, it's like having two watches and not knowing what time it really is. Basically, "any help appreciated" and I'm looking around for answers myself (VTA's web site, BART's website, maybe...). I haven't tagged anything Orange...yet. Kinda wrapping my head around the future, really, as I'm surprised to see VTA putting Orange on light_rail signage this far before BART SV.
-
Comment from Minh Nguyen
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/CyiLY1mIydftpEA-xn5YvA is from the Downtown Mountain View station. (I took it from the comfort of a second-story seat on Caltrain.) The new signage has also gone up along the 1st St. corridor, if not elsewhere, though it isn’t reflected in Mapillary or OpenStreetCam yet.
The current plan of record is illustrated at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:VTA_Light_Rail_map_after_NTSP.svg , based on VTA documents. Full information about the New Transit Service Plan is at http://newtransitplan.vta.org/ .
I think the new signage went up prematurely (or proactively) because BART’s timelines keep slipping. Perhaps it’s more accurate to say that it’s being phased in, starting with the least critical station signage. Departure boards and onboard signage will probably be the last to change.
- 687865551, v1
- 687865552, v1
- 687865553, v1
- 687865554, v1
- 687865555, v1
- 687865556, v1
- 687865557, v1
- 687865558, v1
- Hershner Drive (687865559), v1
- 687865560, v1
- Monterey Road (687865561), v1
- Monterey Road (687865562), v1
- Monterey Highway (687865563), v1
- Monterey Highway (687865564), v1
- Monterey Highway (687865565), v1
- 687865566, v1
- 687865567, v1
- 687865568, v1
- 687865569, v1
- 687865570, v1
Relations (5)
- Highway 101 Corridor (149407), v196
- 11 (9551193), v4
- VTA 42 (8511329), v8
- VTA 68 (5324927), v28
- 7675571, v4
- San Jose (6448665708), v1
- 6448665709, v1
- 6448665710, v1
- 6448665711, v1
- Santa Clara (6448665712), v1
- Tree City USA (6448665713), v1
- Santa Clara (6448665714), v1
- Santa Clara (6448665715), v1
- Green Power Community (6448665716), v1
- Santa Clara (6448665717), v1
- 6448665718, v1
- 6448665719, v1
- 6448665720, v1
- 6448665721, v1
- 6448665722, v1
- 6448665723, v1
- 6448665724, v1
- 6448665725, v1
- 6448665726, v1
- 6448665727, v1
Welcome to OpenStreetMap!
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.
Hosting is supported by Fastly, OSMF corporate members, and other partners.
https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |