Last night, I added Arbela, MO, and some geometry in the immediate vicinity. It’s the next village west of Granger, MO.

Today, I did a quick walk for a GPS trace, and then I came home and added some more geometry around Arbela. Unfortunately, I managed to get JOSM into a bad state before uploading, and I decided to start this evening’s changes over again. Alas. It’s almost bedtime, but I was able to redo the buildings and the driveways I’d done before. The water will have to wait until tomorrow.

Merry Mapmas!

I’m kicking myself for not celebrating Mapmas, since I apparently signed up on December 1st. :) Alas.

Well, I’m retconning it, so Merry Mapmas 2025! I know, the staunch Anglicans in the crowd would (rightfully) say: “But shouldn’t it be Mapvent?” And they would be right! But I’ve already typed the title and these two paragraphs, so on we go!

Remote work

I added Granger, MO last night and this morning. It’s the next village to the west after Luray, MO, which the delightful UnmappedSmallTownUSA bot posted the other day. Someone had already done Luray, but there are several municipalities nearby that are unmapped, and Granger was the first one I saw.

This was my first time adding an entire place, and from imagery, too. Some of the buildings were skewed, so I had to trace roof outlines and then position them correctly to correspond to where they ought to actually be. Granger is also quite wooded, and there were areas where I wasn’t sure if it should count as natural=wood or not. I used my best judgement there.

There might be one or two structures or ponds outside of the official Granger boundary that I’ve missed, so I’m going to check on that tonight or tomorrow. Then, I’ll map Arbela, another village directly west of Granger.

I’ve really enjoyed getting out in the sun and mapping stuff in my own community, but it was nice and zen to hang out with a friend late last night and trace buildings and ponds in Granger.

In-office

I took a couple GPS traces today. Old Towne Orange in particular is missing most of its sidewalks, it seems. Once I convince myself that I’m not going to misplace a bunch of them, I plan to add them in, with appropriate crossings and such. While still doing doorbells. And I should add some more fire hydrants soon… There really aren’t enough hours in the day heh. If only I could get paid to wander around town all day mapping things. That might actually be the dream.

Merry Mapmas!

It was a nice day. I think I just added more cameras. I also saw several cats, and a very excited dog who ran over to the fence to jump up and say hi. A nice day, indeed.

I also noticed that one of the house numbers on the north side of E Culver Ave seems to be out of order with the rest. The house numbers go: 537, 543, 555, 605, 569, 577. 605 is between 555 and 569, which doesn’t make sense. 618 is across the street, and starts the even-numbered 600 houses. Was it meant to maybe be 565 and some clerical error happened? Is it even a mistake at all or is this something deliberate? I have no idea, but it definitely threw me. I wonder if they struggle to receive packages.

Orange is pleasant to walk around. The houses are unique and interesting, the people are friendly, and sometimes there are dogs outside you can say hi to (and I say hi to every single one). Even in the quieter neighborhoods, it’s still a lively place. At least, during the day.

At night, it’s perfectly quiet and still. Because of this, I like to walk around at night; sometimes to help digest a large meal, sometimes just to think a bit before bed. Despite the solitude, I don’t feel entirely alone, because I’m being watched by a network of doorbell cameras. Some of them are set far enough back that I’m pretty sure they can’t see me. Others are close enough that they come alive and emit a faint glow when I walk by. Can they see in the dark? Does someone get a push notification alerting them to my presence? I’m not breaking the law, but it feels like I am.

I’m interested in privacy rights, and how technology makes it easy to surveil entire groups of people, always without their consent. I believe that people have a right to know when they’re being watched, and by whom, at least as long as recording in public remains legal. To that end, I’m starting to map doorbell cameras.

I did some research beforehand to see what the community thinks of mapping private objects. I’m still new, and I want to make sure I contribute in a way that is welcome and helpful. The Good practice page also reads: “Be brave in what you add…”

I read the Mapping private information wiki page. As far as I can tell, nothing there explicitly prohibits doorbell camera mapping. I believe I can also satisfy verifiability requirements: someone with a reasonably up-to-date prescription could stand on the same sidewalk and verify that these devices exist at a given location.

I also found a forum thread with some lively debate. The arguments I read in favor were convincing. Then, I checked the map, which had 1,121 camera:mount=doorbell tags, some of which go quite far back.

… See full entry

I was a bit too sleepy to post last night, but I got coffee and wandered by Long Dog Coffee and Treats, a delightful dachshund-themed café (with treats for both two-legged and four-legged friends) because that POI was not on the map. :)

So as I was mapping some rooftop solar, I noticed that some of the houses were all offset from the Bing image data by the same amount. I’m pretty sure there’s a way to resolve this without turning my GPS on and driving around a bunch, but where’s the fun in that? I also wanted to play around with Go Map!! and get comfortable with uploading traces in general, so I turned on Go Map!!’s GPS and drove around a bunch while listening to a podcast. Seeing the GPS data later on in JOSM was neat! It was also a reminder that GPS has a sampling frequency, and moving in a car, even at 25 miles per hour, spreads those samples out.

I’m guessing this is an imagery offset problem (I think that’s usually more likely to be incorrect), but I want to be sure so the solar panels are correct. I have to dig in some more. I know there are various ways to do it, but I’m entirely too sleepy to figure them out right now, which means it is officially a tomorrow thing. :)

Edit: I got a brief second wind. I learned that there is an imagery offset database, although neither of the two options available helped in this instance. I also noticed that both Bing and ESRI imagery comport, so the buildings are offset by the same amount compared to both images.

I checked the history of one of the buildings, and it was created in 2018 from Bing imagery. I then checked the buildings against ESRI Clarity, and they match much better. Now it’s officially a tomorrow thing. ;)

I’m finding it difficult to pick a particular mapping task to focus on, because even in my corner of Orange, there seems to be so much to do. For example, I’ve noticed that the sidewalk ways sort of peter out a few blocks away from the Circle. I was glancing at some geometry last night, and also noticed that some people have tagged a few backyard swimming pools, but there are plenty of unmapped pools visible on imagery. I spent a little time adding some pools, as well as adding access=private tags the existing ones. It’s nice to have some stuff to do that doesn’t always involve going out somewhere (not that that would be feasible in people’s backyards anyway heh).

Then I noticed solar panels on aerial imagery, and wondered if anyone had tagged them. I know people tag larger power infrastructure, but mapping rooftop solar seems like it would be cool data to have, too, especially in Southern California, where it works particularly well. It’s also easy to do from imagery.

The neighborhood with the pools also has a decent amount of rooftop solar, so I mapped a few of those as well. I realized, though, after uploading a bunch (oops), that some of the panels aren’t necessarily photovoltaic cells; they could be rooftop water heating, especially smaller areas that look particularly black. I plan to go back through and try to verify if they really are rooftop solar. Most probably are, and most of them look distinctive or big enough that I’d be confident in tagging them as rooftop photovoltaic cells, but a few of them could also be rooftop water heating, so I might just remove the photovoltaic-specific tags from them for now. It’s still rooftop solar, but the particular energy use will just be ambiguous. I think that’s better than it being incorrect.

Focus!

I need to pick a few things to focus on and them see them through to completion, I think. I have a bad habit of starting projects and not finishing them. In no particular order, I’d like to map:

… See full entry

It was a lovely day outside today. I added some fire hydrants along East Almond, and also adjusted the crossing at Almond and Center, which I believe must’ve been edited based on out-of-date aerial imagery. The previous nodes and ways specified unmarked, uncontrolled intersections for all but one crossing, which matches the existing Bing imagery. I walk through this area all the time, though, and the city installed more stop signs and painted the remaining three crossings with yellow ladder crosswalks some months back. So, I’ve updated the map to reflect this.

Some of the hydrants along (or just off of) Almond were Clow hydrants, as I’ve seen before, but instead of a more recognizable model number, these all just read “5” underneath “Clow”. A quick search didn’t turn up any “Clow 5” hydrants, although it is, admittedly, hard to Google, and I was outside on my phone when I searched.

That being said, I did another quick search just now on my computer, and I found a PDF that mentions a “Clow #5” hydrant. Mystery solved! I tagged these as “model: 5” at the time, so there’s nothing to do!

Not much to report today. I stopped by Play Coffee with a friend and added some POI tags while we were in line. There’s always something to map if you have a little downtime!

I also discovered that the building Cali Tacos is in has no POIs to speak of, so I’ll focus on adding those next, along with ever more fire hydrants. (I found some possibly interesting information about Van Deventer fire hydrants, but I’m not sure it’s enough to answer the question firehydrant.org posed about whether or not it was a company or just a licensed design.) In fact, the geometry on the map just shows one singular building, which is true, but there are individual units for each business. I think it makes sense to break them up, I just need to make sure I’m doing it correctly.

It was another beautiful, sunny day in Orange. I’m toying with the idea of conjuring up some sort of regular Saturday mapping activity, solely so I can use the word “Mapurday”, even though I’ve mapped at least one thing every day for the last five days. I’m sure that will slow down a bit once I re-balance the other parts of my life (although I did add a bench in Riverside last night while waiting for a friend to arrive; it doesn’t take much to contribute!). I’m not sure if it will be just for myself, or I want to try to get other local mappers involved.

It was a productive day! My goal was to add more fire hydrants along Palmyra, and to catch one I had somehow missed along Almond. I can’t say it’s representative, but so far, the manufacturers have all been one of:

• Rich Valve Co. (or Rich Manufacturing Company; I’ve seen both and other variations in newspaper clippings)
• M. Greenberg’s Sons
• Long Beach Iron Works
• Clow (Valve Company)

There’s also one Van Deventer, which firehydrants.org says could be a company, but it could also just be a fire hydrant produced under license. I plan to do a little newspaper digging to see if I can learn more.

Orange Street Barbershop

I added the Orange Street Barbershop to the map. I’ve been correcting several missing or otherwise out-of-date business POIs in addition to my quixotic hydrant mapping quest. The previous salon for 120 S Orange St was long since closed, so I updated it for the new business. I also noticed that the entire building was marked as the salon (now barbershop). I switched this to an individual node because the Orange Street Barbershop is technically suite B; there’s a suite A with doors set a bit back into a covered part of the building, but they don’t seem to be for anything useful.

… See full entry