Peter
Locality Classification was added as a possible nice to have to the
version 2 schema but it has not been populated, and no guidance has been
created to indicate how this field should be used (save for a table of
permitted values). There is no classification data in NPTG other than that
Good evening,
Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com schrieb:
On 26 Jul 2009, at 22:14, Christoph Böhme wrote:
I also created a copy of the NOVAM viewer and changed it to display
NTPG data instead of bus stops:
http://www.mappa-mercia.org/cgi-bin/nptg.wsgi/viewer.html
Great stuff, and
Hi
Roger Slevin ro...@slevin.plus.com schrieb:
Locality Classification was added as a possible nice to have to the
version 2 schema but it has not been populated, and no guidance has
been created to indicate how this field should be used (save for a
table of permitted values). There is no
You ask about the omissions from NPTG. Perhaps it would be helpful if I
described the history of creating NPTG and what the brief has been to local
data editors in terms of what is or is not included in the database.
NPTG started life as a national statistical gazetteer based on a collation of
One other possibility that might work would be to look at the number of bus
stops associated with a locality - something fairly easy to measure from
NaPTAN. Combine this with the parent / child locality relationship could
give you a way of expressing a sort of locality type classification.
Roger
Christoph Böhme wrote:
Hi
Roger Slevin ro...@slevin.plus.com schrieb:
Locality Classification was added as a possible nice to have to the
version 2 schema but it has not been populated, and no guidance has
been created to indicate how this field should be used (save for a
table of
Ronny volunteered to be one of the incorporators before:
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2009-May/000901.html
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Andre Marcelo-Tanner
an...@enthropia.comwrote:
no responses yet, need 1 more, 4 cannot make a company, need 5
ok thats 5 then, is Murlwe in Davao atm? ok i have to look into the
logistics of having incorporators abroad and not all in the same place.
Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
Ronny volunteered to be one of the incorporators before:
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2009-May/000901.html
Awww. No beer with all the incorporators in one amenity=pub signing
the SEC documents? :)
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Andre
Marcelo-Tanneran...@enthropia.com wrote:
ok thats 5 then, is Murlwe in Davao atm? ok i have to look into the
logistics of having incorporators abroad and not all in
Andre, I had second thoughts. How much would each incorporators shell
out?
murlwe
-Original Message-
From: Andre Marcelo-Tanner [an...@enthropia.com]
Sent: 7/27/2009 10:33:56 PM
To: sea...@gmail.com
Cc: talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-ph] Draft MoA between the OSM-F and any
Shell out? Nothing aside from the cost of acquiring your TIN, and maybe
your Community Tax Certificate (~PHP5) and Notarization fee of wherever
you get notarized (here its PHP100)
Marloue Pidor wrote:
Andre, I had second thoughts. How much would each incorporators shell out?
murlwe
Sorry I missed this.
Yes, I still volunteer, and I'm going to the Phils in 3 weeks anyway, so
if it will happen between 3 and 7 weeks from now, perfect!
Ronny.
Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
Ronny volunteered to be one of the incorporators before:
Hi,
generally good progress on ODbL; many things have been cleared up
and we will soon be at a point where the proposal for a license change
is not some cloudy abstract thing any longer but a very concrete
proposal that people can evaluate.
After the LWG has made an effort to resolve the
On 27 Jul 2009, at 04:43, John Smith wrote:
--- On Sun, 26/7/09, Vikas Yadav vi...@thevikas.com wrote:
btw, JOSM does not recognize turnstile while it had an icon
for stile.
Then file a trac ticket at http://josm.openstreetmap.de to get one
added.
there is no official turnstile tag
--- On Mon, 27/7/09, Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk wrote:
Then file a trac ticket at http://josm.openstreetmap.de to get one added.
Do we really need to file bugs on all types of stiles? or would it be better to
list it as barrier=stile and subtype?
Remember that in OSM you can
I've noticed some people have tagged bridges with height=*, rather than tagging
the road way under the bridge as maxheight=* and I'm kind of unsure which is
better.
By using height you don't have to break the way under the bridge up, on the
other hand maxheight is specific to the road under
maxheight=* refers to legal maxheight, in some countries, such as brazil,
there is a difference on legal height (restriction) and physical
height/clearance (information sign). See my note on the discussion on the
wiki key:height - if height is not to be used for this, than another tag is
needed
-
- Original Message -
From: Chris Hill chillly...@yahoo.co.uk
To: OSM Talk talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2009 3:22 PM
Subject: [OSM-talk] Coastline
I have altered the coastline in the Humber estuary, UK to reflect the
official position of where the coast ends and
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Aun Johnsen (via Webmail)
skipp...@gimnechiske.org wrote:
maxheight=* refers to legal maxheight, in some countries, such as brazil,
there is a difference on legal height (restriction) and physical
height/clearance (information sign). See my note on the
I am tagging both as maxheight.
It is a restriction that you are not capable or allowed
to pass a given node or a given way in any direction
with a vehicle of greater height.
That is also how I am evaluating maxheight and maxwidth
in Traveling Salesman.
Marcus
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:31:49
On 27/07/2009 09:57, John Smith wrote:
I've noticed some people have tagged bridges with height=*, rather than
tagging the road way under the bridge as maxheight=* and I'm kind of unsure
which is better.
By using height you don't have to break the way under the bridge up, on the
other
2009/7/27 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com:
--- On Mon, 27/7/09, Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk wrote:
Then file a trac ticket at http://josm.openstreetmap.de to get one added.
Do we really need to file bugs on all types of stiles? or would it be better
to list it as
2009/7/27 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com:
I've noticed some people have tagged bridges with height=*, rather than
tagging the road way under the bridge as maxheight=* and I'm kind of unsure
which is better.
height on the bridge instead of the way under it would IMHO indicate
the height
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, John Smith wrote:
I've noticed some people have tagged bridges with height=*, rather than
tagging the road way under the bridge as maxheight=* and I'm kind of unsure
which is better.
the Key:maxheight says it clearly
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxheight
--- On Mon, 27/7/09, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
maxheight expresses a height limit for using the way to
which the tag is
added. If no unit is included, the value is assumed to be
in metres.
You get to break up the way and mark it as maxheight
I'm just trying to make other people's
2009/7/27 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com:
--- On Mon, 27/7/09, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
maxheight expresses a height limit for using the way to
which the tag is
added. If no unit is included, the value is assumed to be
in metres.
You get to break up the way and mark it as
And the bridge in question is a rail bridge with over head wires, the height
bit is clearance under the bridge.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
--- On Mon, 27/7/09, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
but be careful not to break things up. Maxheight could be
valid for
the way on the bridge itself as well.
Yup, the height is someone's attempt to do maxheight, not mapping the clearance
or height of the bridge...
In
I made this icon for JOSM.
My not an artist.
This is the top with walls on both sides.
2009/7/27 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
2009/7/27 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com:
--- On Mon, 27/7/09, Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk wrote:
Then file a trac ticket at
On 27/07/09 14:09, Simone Cortesi wrote:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 11:54, Andy Robinson
(blackadder-lists)ajrli...@googlemail.com wrote:
Did you mean impo...@osmfoundation.org perhaps?
Which I've just realised is not yet set up. Have now done so.
Actually it is. I just can't read the control
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 15:16, Tom Hughest...@compton.nu wrote:
That is still the address for the WG but following a request at SOTM there
is now a mailing lists for general public discussion of imports as well.
Who is in the working group? And what are they doing? I could not find
any
Hi,
Simone Cortesi wrote:
Who is in the working group? And what are they doing? I could not find
any information about this
It is a new style of working group. OSM never had physical working
groups (PWG); ours were always remote working groups (RWG) where people
would ususally work by e-mail
The other day my family was on a road trip and we passed by an
unfamilliar city. We wanted to find a chinese restaurant, so I used
the database of business locations in City Navigator NT to find one.
OSM could replace, perhaps even surpass, the street maps in a
product like City
My wild guess is that this might be on the core-business-todo list for
cloudmade ;-)
Paul Houle schreef:
The other day my family was on a road trip and we passed by an
unfamilliar city. We wanted to find a chinese restaurant, so I used
the database of business locations in City
Brilliant! I second that.. Erm.. +1 that idea!
-with a custom CM slippy map that will show the listings. (that
companies can use)
BUT -The basemap (mapnik, osmarender, cyclemap) shouldnt play
favorites, it lists it all at lowest zoom :-) (a middleman who can
play nice with yellow pages)
Cheers,
Martin Koppenhoefer escribió:
2009/7/27 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com:
--- On Mon, 27/7/09, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
maxheight expresses a height limit for using the way to
which the tag is
added. If no unit is included, the value is assumed to be
in metres.
You get to
But CloudMade and OSM are 2 different things.
Yellow pages can use cloudmades slippymap instead of others.
They could partner-up, but give us 2 more years to get OSM-basemap
upto snuff :-)
On 7/27/09, John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Mon, 27/7/09, Paul Houle
El Lunes, 27 de Julio de 2009, John Smith escribió:
At this point in time OSM needs businesses to embrace it more than it can
offer back to businesses, so charging them would be like a slap in the
face.
You're doing it wrong.
I do think that OSM should tap into government sources. Every
Forward to ML.
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Martijn van
Oosterhoutklep...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 11:37 AM, David Groomrevi...@pacific-rim.net wrote:
Yes. For mapnik, at high zoom levels the coast polygons used are generated
from shapefiles created by the coastline error
Maybe an offshoot of osm should be a open directory business directory. That
people locate their business on a osm then it should be search able via the
main page. As I keep saying it also would add extra navagation points such
as postal codes.
On Jul 27, 2009 4:46 PM, Iván Sánchez Ortega
John Smith wrote:
Don't ya just love a good chicken and egg problem. Yellow pages
works because it has both critical mass and usually a physical
product is sent out.
Before telecom deregulation (1980 or so), every person (or
household, anyway) was in the phone book because there was just
Right,
my business is listed with the BC business registry, which is
government funded. You can look up in the Canadian corporate registry
all businesses the addresses.
I dont think that that information is copyrighted, as long as its
properly sourced? Right? Being manually listed with an
Hi!
You might want to try this:
http://www.openstreetbrowser.org
Unfortunately I'm not able to provide this for the whole planet right now,
only Europe is there.
greetings,
Stephan
--
Seid unbequem, seid Sand, nicht Öl im Getriebe der Welt! - Günther Eich
Some very good observations, Lars.
Even simpler than webcrawling would to imitate these guys and just provide a
simple web form :
http://www.google.com/local/add/analyticsSplashPage?gl=ushl=en-US
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Lars Aronsson l...@aronsson.se wrote:
John Smith wrote:
Anyway,
I created a wiki page for it.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Business_Directory
And we can throw in more facts and ideas there on how to improve on
OpenStreetBrowser etc.
Cheers,
Sam
Twitter: @Acrosscanada
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at
Lars Aronsson wrote:
I doubt that any yellow pages catalog covers a critical mass of
all business any longer. We're back to the 19th century, when,
before telephones, various private publishers printed address
calendars.
Just jumping in with a random factoid here. I read a piece in the
(Sending this to wikipedia-l OSM's legal-talk too)
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmasonava...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 9:15 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmasonava...@gmail.com
wrote:
So, what we should do is to author a document (on the wiki?) which
clearly
El Lunes, 27 de Julio de 2009, Sam Vekemans escribió:
Right,
my business is listed with the BC business registry, which is
government funded. You can look up in the Canadian corporate registry
all businesses the addresses.
I dont think that that information is copyrighted, as long as its
Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:
I do think that OSM should tap into government sources. Every
country must have some kind of business registry that could be
cross-referenced with house numbers.
Did you try to get hold of such a list? Was it useful?
I'm an independent computer consultant. In
El Lunes, 27 de Julio de 2009, Lars Aronsson escribió:
Did you try to get hold of such a list? Was it useful?
I'm an independent computer consultant. In the tax registry, I'm
an educational venture. Maybe your map would show my home
address as a school building? I guess most restaurants
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð
Bjarmasonava...@gmail.com wrote:
NASA/METI have updated their distribution terms with a FAQ in response
to my questions:
https://lpdaac.usgs.gov/lpdaac/about/news_archive/friday_july_24_2009
Unfortunately the new terms aren't new at all,
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 5:19 PM, sergio
sevillanosergiosevillano.m...@gmail.com wrote:
Martin Koppenhoefer escribió:
there is no need to break anything
height and maxheight can also be just nodes.
i think the wiki definition is quite clear for all.
so for me:
- maxheight on the bridge
2009/7/27 Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es:
El Lunes, 27 de Julio de 2009, John Smith escribió:
At this point in time OSM needs businesses to embrace it more than it can
offer back to businesses, so charging them would be like a slap in the
face.
You're doing it wrong.
I do think
one way that a business-listings website could work with OSM would be
to let each advertiser 'own' (not exclusively) an OSM node that they
can keep updated from some business-advertising website.
(1) you create an account and say I want to advertise a
{business_type} at {location} (doesn't matter
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð
Bjarmasonava...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Ed Avise...@waniasset.com wrote:
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason avarab at gmail.com writes:
http://cassini.toolserver.org/browse-fr.html
http://cassini.toolserver.org/browse-nl.html
The
Phil Endecott wrote:
I'm not sure how far you can extrapolate from that, but I think it's
still fair to say that Yellow Pages covers most businesses. Certainly
the copies that arrive on my doorstep each year (and go straight into
the recycling bin) are not getting any thinner.
Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
Ævar, thanks for taking point on this... These sort of licensing
issues are an annoying, but necessary part of our work and not
everyone has the stomach for it. I myself have run into the issue
locally... There's nearby county that has very high resolution aerial
images
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:44:44 +0200, Peter Dörrie
peter.doer...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Aun Johnsen (via Webmail)
skipp...@gimnechiske.org wrote:
maxheight=* refers to legal maxheight, in some countries, such as
brazil,
there is a difference on legal height
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 9:47 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Mon, 27/7/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the bridge should be tagged.
There was an overwhelming response on the main talk list that this be tagged
as maxheight on the way that has the
I do not agree that they bouth should be treated as maxheight=* If my car
with load that is 3m high, and maxheight=3m, but physical clearance is much
higher,than you would pass at the speed limit, but if both maxheight and
physical clearance is 3m, than I would need to slow down to almost crawl
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Lars Aronsson wrote:
Most businesses would register the postal address where
they receive mail from tax authorities, not the shop front door.
So you would find me, and another hundred businesses, at the one address. It
will be an accountants when you arrived at the
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Stephen Hopeslh...@gmail.com wrote:
No, you're wrong here. Maxheight is an element of the way that goes
under the bridge. It is caused by the bridge, but it is not part of
the bridge.
You're saying that the clearance under a bridge is not an attribute of
the
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:15 AM,
Cameronosm-mailing-li...@justcameron.com wrote:
I think tag the part of the way that is signed. Generally before bridges
there is a sign informing road users of the bridge's restrictions. Sometimes
they will offer an alternate route for larger vehicles. So tag
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Stephen Hopeslh...@gmail.com wrote:
No, you're wrong here. Maxheight is an element of the way that goes
under the bridge. It is caused by the bridge, but it is not part of
the bridge.
You're saying that the
Liz schrieb:
To return to the bridge
the following attributes of the bridge and the road underneath it all need to
be considered
Height of bridge
Height above sea level of the bridge
Max height of the arch of the bridge above the roadway
Max height of a vehicle which can drive under the
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:34:00 +1000, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:15 AM,
Cameronosm-mailing-li...@justcameron.com wrote:
I think tag the part of the way that is signed. Generally before bridges
there is a sign informing road users of the bridge's
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Dirk-Lüder Kreie wrote:
Liz schrieb:
To return to the bridge
the following attributes of the bridge and the road underneath it all
need to be considered
Height of bridge
Height above sea level of the bridge
Max height of the arch of the bridge above the roadway
Funnily enough, where I have been mapping the sign is always on the
bridge itself. Anyway, I think we should be tagging what the sign is
referring to, independent of the sign itself.
even if the sign is on the bridge structure it is a limitation valid
for the road passing under the bridge.
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Ross Scanloni...@4x4falcon.com wrote:
Does this mean the bridge has a clearance of 2.8 or the road under the bridge
has a clearance of 2.8. To me this would suggest the bridge has a limit of
2.8 ie vehicles travelling over the bridge can not be above 2.8
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Apollinaris Schoellascho...@gmail.com wrote:
one bridge can cross multiple roads with different maxheight limtations.
This is a good argument in favour of tagging the ways that pass under
a bridge instead of the bridge. But I think it should be weighed
against
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:
My main point is that when there is a maximum height under a way,
this should be tagged as an attribute of that way, not of the ways
that pass under it.
Here I cannot agree
When I travel over the bridge I am not interested in the maximum height of the
I think everyone is thinking of this in one of 2 ways, it's either an attribute
of the bridge, or a restriction of the way under the bridge.
The maxheight tag looks like it was aimed as a restriction tag, the way below
the bridge is restricted if you are above or close to X metres you will
2009/7/28 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com:
In Australia in Telstra won a lawsuit against people OCR'ing the street
directory and selling white/yellow pages on CD. For all intents and purposes
Telstra owns the copyright on all Australian White/Yellow page directories
and now Telstra is a
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Stephen Hope wrote:
And I don't know if the TV company counter appealed at a higher
level.
They couldn't. The last one ruling was from the High Court.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
Very nice!
What i miss is getting a bigger map. If there is a thumbnail map
embedded into an article people would normally click it in order to
see the map in better detail (normally on a bigger map), not to
navigate in a thumbnail sized slippy map. There needs to be some
intuitive way to switch
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Lized...@billiau.net wrote:
When I travel over the bridge I am not interested in the maximum height of the
way which travels under the bridge.
When I travel under the bridge I am interested in the height limitation.
Ah, perhaps our difference in opinion stems
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:26 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
I think everyone is thinking of this in one of 2 ways, it's either an
attribute of the bridge, or a restriction of the way under the bridge.
Agreed. And it's clear that both ways of thinking are probably valid.
As
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
Agreed. And it's clear that both ways of thinking are
probably valid.
As of time of writing maxheight is the only valid one and I don't think we need
or should have 2 tags to indicate the same thing in 2 different ways.
Can
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:26 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
I think everyone is thinking of this in one of 2 ways, it's either an
attribute of the bridge, or a restriction of the way under the bridge.
Agreed. And it's clear that both
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
Ah, perhaps our difference in opinion stems from our
different
perspectives - your emphasis on when I travel vs my
emphasis on,
perhaps, when I look at a map, or when I conceptualise
the world.
That was the basis of the 2 sets
Hello!
I am currently looking at GPS collected by OSM colleges here at Riga.
I see there is data about temporary bridge built during road works and
after de-mounted.
Does OSM invalidates GPS data after some time? Otherwise, roads
continuously changes and after we will have a big cloud of
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 2:57 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
As of time of writing maxheight is the only valid one and I don't think we
need or should have 2 tags to indicate the
same thing in 2 different ways.
I meant there's two ways of conceptualising the distance below a
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I would at least suggest that - if maxheight is applied to
a node, as
you suggest - the node should be *shared* by the bridge
(way) and the
way passing under. This makes it clearer that maxheight is
The problem with this is
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:
By the way, you can't place a node under the bridge, unless it is
indeed shared by the bridge, as all ways have zero width (right?).
Logically you can as they are on different layers.
___
talk mailing list
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:30 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I would at least suggest that - if maxheight is applied to a node, as
you suggest - the node should be *shared* by the bridge (way) and the
way passing
Roy Wallace wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 2:57 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
As of time of writing maxheight is the only valid one and I don't think we
need or should have 2 tags to indicate the
same thing in 2 different ways.
I meant there's two ways of conceptualising the
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Lized...@billiau.net wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:
By the way, you can't place a node under the bridge, unless it is
indeed shared by the bridge, as all ways have zero width (right?).
Logically you can as they are on different layers.
Yes,
Liz edodd at billiau.net wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:
By the way, you can't place a node under the bridge, unless it is
indeed shared by the bridge, as all ways have zero width (right?).
Logically you can as they are on different layers.
That is not going to work. There is
Je hebt gelijk, de generatie van de verschillende NL Topo kaarten is op
dit moment kapot. Oorzaak is een invalide XML export van de OSM.org site
waardoor de NL extract op dit moment nog steeds kapot is. We zitten
allemaal te wachten op bepaalde mede OSM-mers die bij machte zijn om de
NL
De essentie van mijn verhaal komt niet over: zonder ingrijpen is het blog
dood.
OSM is een groot project, met veel kanten. Het is van belang dat een aantal
van die kanten op de website direct aanwezig zijn.
Goede informatie voor beginners hoort daar zeker bij.
Een andere kant is dat je als
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Ante wrote:
Zonder ingrijpen is het blog dood.
Ga eerst eens bloggen, of gewoon tags herstellen, heb ik bij de laatste
twintig artikelen ook gedaan.
Stefan
___
Talk-nl mailing list
Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org
kan ik ergens m'n account herterugaanvragen?
gr,
floris
Stefan de Konink wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Ante wrote:
Zonder ingrijpen is het blog dood.
Ga eerst eens bloggen, of gewoon tags herstellen, heb ik bij de laatste
twintig artikelen ook gedaan.
Stefan
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Floris Looijesteijn wrote:
kan ik ergens m'n account herterugaanvragen?
Je account zit er nog gewoon in ;)
Stefan
___
Talk-nl mailing list
Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Ante wrote:
OSM is een groot project, met veel kanten. Het is van belang dat een aantal
van die kanten op de website direct aanwezig zijn.
Goede informatie voor beginners hoort daar zeker bij.
Een andere kant is dat je als OSM ook je belangen wilt behartigen. Komt het
Hi there,
Ik had een week of anderhalf geleden een paar kleine vragen gesteld naar
aanleiding van problemen die ik tegenkwam bij het verhelpen van Keep
Right issues. Slechts een van die vragen is beantwoord.
Kan iemand mij nog helpen met:
- Bij onder meer jacht- en woonboothavens heb je
In your letter dated Mon, 27 Jul 2009 20:32:52 +0200 you wrote:
- Bij onder meer jacht- en woonboothavens heb je geregeld dat er een
stijger en/of pier ergens op het land begint en een aardig stuk het
meer of plas inloopt. Deze tag je met highway: footway, man_made:
pier of iets dergelijks.
++ 27/07/09 21:05 +0200 - Philip Homburg:
Ok. Dus, de regel is: als een way een andere way kruist in hetzelfde
vlak, dan *moet* er op de op de kruising van die twee ways een node
aanwezig zijn. Als een way een andere way in een andere laag kruist, dan
hoort daar geen node (in ieder geval niet
In your letter dated Mon, 27 Jul 2009 21:18:16 +0200 you wrote:
Ok. Dus, de regel is: als een way een andere way kruist in hetzelfde
vlak, dan *moet* er op de op de kruising van die twee ways een node
aanwezig zijn. Als een way een andere way in een andere laag kruist, dan
hoort daar geen node (in
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Lambert Carsten wrote:
On Monday 27 July 2009 22:05:51 Lennard wrote:
Hans van Wijk wrote:
Maar weet iemand de reden daarvoor ook?
Een brug loopt in het algemeen niet door tot op een kruising.
Ik ken anders in Amsterdam genoeg voorbeelden.
Die regel (3 of meer wegen
Christiaan Welvaart wrote:
Het probleem is misschien dat die levels vooral gebruikt worden om dingen
netjes te kunnen stapelen bij het renderen. Het is de vraag of waterways
e.d. met level=-1 goed gerenderd worden.
Speaking for mapnik:
Het maakt op dit moment geen bal uit. De levels van
1 - 100 of 273 matches
Mail list logo
