James, @crystalbells, @qaptainqwerty and I banded together last spring to run in Fort Hamilton for some hard to reach nodes. These nodes are now off the map. I am wondering whether you could re-integrate them into Brooklyn NY.
Cool, keep me posted. As far as I know, Crystal, Linus and I are the only ones to have completed it
If they’re coded properly, the streets on a military base in OpenStreetMap would be marked private.
Since your query excludes private streets…
Though disappointing to folks that have access to military bases, from a community perspective, this is probably the correct alignment.
Also, the neighborhood of Seagate is no longer included in the list of streets. Could this be for the same reason?
@awapniak I had a look at the areas you mention:
Fort Hamilton: roads are marked as ‘private’, land use military on OSM. If this is a military base it seems correct that they should be excluded from citystrides (kudos for getting in!).
Seagate: it’s not clear from wikipedia whether access to those streets is open to all (no checkpoint or other access control). If it is, you could change the OSM access tag from ‘private’ to ‘permissive’ on all the streets, and hopefully these roads should be back in the next update.
Navy Yard: OSM has most roads in this area as ‘unclassified’ and not access restricted. Could you specify what you mean when you say they are off-limits?
Maybe have a look at the discussion here which is about optimising the query to import the set of roads. It sounds like you have found some interesting edge-cases that are relevant!
Seagate is a gated community within the Boro of Brooklyn with 2 checkpoints for entrances. They even have a separate police agency (Seagate PD).
Fort Hamilton in Brooklyn is an active military base (the last one in NYC). It is a combined community comprised of active duty Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, and the National Guard.
The Washington Navy Yard is correctly excluded (image below).
I don’t think any of these are edge cases at all. Now, this is not my site and it’s James’ call for how he wants to run it, but ask yourself this: do you want to encourage people to try to run in places where they’re not supposed to be? Do you really want to risk that someone tries to sneak onto a military base or private neighborhood trying to finish a city? Before the big update, when all sorts of things that weren’t streets were in the map, people in the forums talked about running around the perimeters of buildings and so forth to get all the nodes. If the dots are out there, there will be people that will try really hard to hit them all, even if it’s a really bad idea.
Seagate is still part of NYC, and while a private community, having a Beach Club membership or a friend in the community will grant you access. Before the change, nodes were active in Seagate and Fort Hamilton. I get why these areas are noted as private and now removed from the map. It was still fun to run those streets.
As for the Brooklyn Navy Yard, those roads are counted as streets, but are run by the Navy or other industry and privately maintained. The Navy Yard is generally off limits to the general public. You need to have a reason to visit and register in advance.
I will attempt to find a way in. To date, I have been unsuccessful in gaining access.
Yeah, if it’s private I don’t want it in CityStrides. I don’t want people risking anything for CityStrides. At all.
I’ve been able to find a handful of Brooklyn Naval Yard streets in OSM:
I’m still taking the Remedial Level class in OpenStreetMap Editing … do the streets in this area need to be updated to “access private”? The “access destination” tag doesn’t seem entirely off based on a google doc that a community member created for us, but if “access destination” is correct, then I may need to exclude that in my Overpass query.
I hope this goes without saying, but … Please do not attempt to access this (edit: or any) area illegally.
Sure, go to the main gate & show them your CityStrides NodeHunter view and ask to run the streets (even offer to have a guide come along) … but do not attempt to circumvent their security/privacy wishes. PLEASE
@zelonewolf I agree entirely that every node should be reachable in a safe and legal way. I mentioned edge cases more in the context of shaping the overpass query. For example, Brooklyn Navy Yard has access = destination tags, which based on the OSM tag description should be runnable even though @awapniak confirms it is not.
@JamesChevalier I think setting access to private would be better than excluding ‘destination’ tags which should be for “Only when travelling to this element/area; i.e., local traffic only.” restrictions
Somewhere in OSM wiki-land I found a discussion that concluded that military base roads should be access=private, so I’ve been making that change wherever I encounter it. I fixed most of the Anacostia naval base in DC that way this morning.
Re-reading the wiki on access=destination, it sounds like if it’s used correctly, it should be fine to run.
I’ve changed the streets in brooklyn navy yard to access = private. While it’s not an active military base having to register in advance to enter sounds like private is the correct tag. The nodes should be gone from CS by the next update (unless someone changes it back, of course… )