On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 1:45 AM, Tyler Gunn ty...@egunn.com wrote:
I think this is a HUGE improvement over what Google Maps shows:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.82372lon=-97.20104zoom=16layers=B000FTF
Tyler
Yup, the parking lots give you a real feel for the place.
Richard
2010/5/6 Tyler Gunn ty...@egunn.com:
Here's the same area in OSM; I've added a lot of detail to this shopping
district including parking lots, buildings, and started to put in POIs. I
think this is a HUGE improvement over what Google Maps shows:
On Thu, 6 May 2010 12:37:10 +0200, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
+1, nice.
cheers,
Martin
It definitely shows how incredibly pedestrian-unfriendly these big
suburban box store malls are. There are buildings in a sea of parking
lots. Lol.
Tyler
___
Tagging
2010/5/6 Tyler Gunn ty...@egunn.com:
On Thu, 6 May 2010 12:37:10 +0200, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
+1, nice.
cheers,
Martin
It definitely shows how incredibly pedestrian-unfriendly these big
suburban box store malls are. There are buildings in a sea of parking
lots. Lol.
sure. Mapping
I am currently working on cleaning up stuff in Stockholm, and I was
wondering if it was OK do to things like:
* Remove cycleways parallel to other ways and add a cycleway=track to that
way instead.
* Remove parks created from green areas on the satellite that are not really
parks (adding a
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 2:56 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
On 5 May 2010 22:50, Jonas Minnberg sas...@gmail.com wrote:
* Remove cycleways parallel to other ways and add a cycleway=track to
that
way instead.
Is there a good reason you want to reduce information?
Yes, as
2010/5/5 Jonas Minnberg sas...@gmail.com:
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 2:56 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 5 May 2010 22:50, Jonas Minnberg sas...@gmail.com wrote:
* Remove cycleways parallel to other ways and add a cycleway=track to
that
way instead.
Is there a good
On 5/5/10 9:12 AM, Jonas Minnberg wrote:
Yes, as you may guess from my topic. Removing unnecessary stuff is a
good thing IMHO. I thought the idea behind cycleway=track and
cycleway=lane was to avoid having to draw lots of parallel ways. It
avoids clutter on my limited resolution GPS. It
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/5/5 Jonas Minnberg sas...@gmail.com:
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 2:56 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 5 May 2010 22:50, Jonas Minnberg sas...@gmail.com wrote:
* Remove cycleways parallel
2010/5/5 Jonas Minnberg sas...@gmail.com:
I am currently working on cleaning up stuff in Stockholm, and I was
wondering if it was OK do to things like:
* Remove cycleways parallel to other ways and add a cycleway=track to that
way instead.
no, you should rather do the opposite: remove the
cleway into the highway).
So OK, I can leave sidewalks (even though to be consistent you should then
draw sidewalks next to every street in the city that has them).
Well, not exactly, I draw only when I survey them on the ground,
therefore I know how they are connected with each other. And for
On 5 May 2010 23:54, Jonas Minnberg sas...@gmail.com wrote:
So OK, I can leave sidewalks (even though to be consistent you should then
draw sidewalks next to every street in the city that has them).
That's where things are headed, removing existing ones only delays the
inevitable...
A bad
On 5 May 2010 23:57, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
I suggest to change leisure=park to landuse=grass if it is not a park.
This was covered in another thread, landcover isn't the same thing as
landuse, the only landuse=grass I can think of is turf farms,
surface=grass is more
A bad compromise would be to leave the park area and retag it as
fixme=looked_green_on_satellite or something, but that approach would just
leave lots of useless areas...
If they aren't parks, then what are they?
Wouldn't it be smart to tag it as fixme for surveying on the ground,
and by
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 3:59 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
On 5 May 2010 23:54, Jonas Minnberg sas...@gmail.com wrote:
So OK, I can leave sidewalks (even though to be consistent you should
then
draw sidewalks next to every street in the city that has them).
That's where
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:
A bad compromise would be to leave the park area and retag it as
fixme=looked_green_on_satellite or something, but that approach would
just
leave lots of useless areas...
If they aren't parks, then what are they?
2010/5/5 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com:
On 5 May 2010 23:57, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
I suggest to change leisure=park to landuse=grass if it is not a park.
This was covered in another thread, landcover isn't the same thing as
landuse, the only landuse=grass I
2010/5/5 Jonas Minnberg sas...@gmail.com:
If they aren't parks, then what are they?
They are trees or sometimes small areas of grass next to buildings. For
instance;
use landuse=grass, that's IMHO not wrong regarding landuse-use ;-) in general.
cheers,
Martin
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 4:18 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.comwrote:
2010/5/5 Jonas Minnberg sas...@gmail.com:
If they aren't parks, then what are they?
They are trees or sometimes small areas of grass next to buildings. For
instance;
use landuse=grass, that's IMHO not
On 6 May 2010 00:12, Jonas Minnberg sas...@gmail.com wrote:
Of course I have been surveying on the ground :) Same street as in the
streetview link but from my own camera:
http://swimmer.se/not_a_park.jpg
surface=pavers ?
Although you are also welcome to map individual trees :D
2010/5/5 Jonas Minnberg sas...@gmail.com:
Shouldn't you expect - you know - *grass* in areas with landuse=grass ? :9
Seriously though, from the image of the actual street you can see that it is
a sidewalk. The only people who see the green surface are the ones flying
over it.
I must admit I
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Jonas Minnberg sas...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 3:59 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
On 5 May 2010 23:54, Jonas Minnberg sas...@gmail.com wrote:
So OK, I can leave sidewalks (even though to be consistent you should
then
draw
OK, I think I'm beginning to understand the lay of the land.
What I most wanted to get acknowledged is that data gathered first hand on
street level should trump data traced from low-res satellite images.
I will not remove any walkways or cycleways that are adjacent to other ways.
I will align
On Wed, 5 May 2010 17:55:10 +0200, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
What inevitable ?. I think that drawing sidewalks is silly and waste of
time. Let say that 99.99% of the unclassified and residential roads can
be
walked on both sides, why should we draw the sidewalks everywhere ? It
would
If the sidewalks are next to the road, and in Europe, you can probably
rely on people assuming them by default (unless you advise otherwise).
Clearly in other places, it may be necessary to tag them explicitly.
Richard
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Tyler Gunn ty...@egunn.com wrote:
On Wed,
2010/5/5 Jonas Minnberg sas...@gmail.com:
I will not join together joining areas since there doesn't seem to
be consensus on that.
I think there is consensus that the nodes should be connected (and
I'll even go so far to say it is wrong if they are not connected). The
open question is whether
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 7:49 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.comwrote:
2010/5/5 Jonas Minnberg sas...@gmail.com:
I will not join together joining areas since there doesn't seem to
be consensus on that.
I think there is consensus that the nodes should be connected (and
I'll even
2010/5/5 Jonas Minnberg sas...@gmail.com:
Well since we need space for all those thousands of sidewalks that people
want to add maybe we better leave space around all roads anyway :)
IMHO the sidewalk (and the street) are not part of the adjacent
landuses anyway. I thought you were asking for
At 2010-05-05 08:55, Pieren wrote:
...Let say that 99.99% of the unclassified and residential roads can be
walked on both sides, why should we draw the sidewalks everywhere ? It
would be more clever to tag where sidewalks are missing or not allowed,
imo. Say where things are missing, not where
+1. Micromapping may be on the rise, but that doesn't mean it's
necessarily a good thing. I'd still like to see a means of specifying,
on
administrative boundaries, tags that are to be assumed (inherited) by
contained objects (e.g. sidewalk=yes, surface=paved, lanes=2,
maxspeed=25
mph,
30 matches
Mail list logo
