On 4 Aug 2009, at 23:37, Frankie Roberto wrote:
Hi all,
I'm still keen to try and nail this public transport service vs
infrastructure issue.
I have create a new wiki-page 'Public transport schema 2' based on
Oxomoa's proposal on the main wiki based on the last edit made before
the
Couldn't you just use the network tag on the 3 tram route relations
and merge the results to get this relations? It requires a bit more
preprocessing to get the information that you are looking for, whilst
making it easier for mappers and reducing the data size.
Shaun
On 4 Aug 2009, at
Do we want to add route=coach to differentiate long distance routes operated
in the UK mainly by National Express and which mainly travel city to city
with very limited stops, from the typical bus services which operate within
cities or short distance between adjacent or closely related towns and
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Roger Slevin ro...@slevin.plus.com wrote:
Before anyone answers your question, please bear in mind that there is no
clear definition of a “coach” ... and I have dealt with a feedback to
traveline on this very point only this morning. A limited stop service
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote:
IMHO the solution is simple. Name it after what you are mapping.
For vehicles:
The route the cyclist follows is route=bicycle.
The route bus 5 follows is route=bus.
The route tram 13 follows is route=tram.
The route the
On 5 Aug 2009, at 13:05, Frankie Roberto wrote:
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Roger Slevin
ro...@slevin.plus.com wrote:
Before anyone answers your question, please bear in mind that there
is no clear definition of a “coach” ... and I have dealt with a
feedback to traveline on this
Some information lies better on the infrastructure, so for some purposes you
want both. I've concluded that infrastructure relations are probably the
best way to mark whether route sections are predominantly 1-track, 2-track,
4-track etc. I don't think we've identified much of a need for
There's a clear definition - a coach has it's wheels attached to an
underframe distinct from the bodywork. That's why they're higher and have a
more-comfortable ride.
However there's an overlap caused by the 50km rule. I would surmise that the
same threshold is used to require free access by
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Richard Mann
richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote:
Deprecating route= and replacing it with line= for most things where we
currently use route= is a lot of work for no real gain.
Though I'd go for route=railway for infrastructure, since route=rail
On 5 Aug 2009, at 13:13, Richard Mann wrote:
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote:
IMHO the solution is simple. Name it after what you are mapping.
For vehicles:
The route the cyclist follows is route=bicycle.
The route bus 5 follows is route=bus.
The route tram
Yes Frederik could tidy things up, but it's best not to change things
arbitrarily (ie substituting line for route), because it just makes it
harder to remember what is correct. The lack of presets for relations in
Potlatch makes it doubly useful to minimise the complexity.
Richard
On 5 Aug 2009, at 14:41, Richard Mann wrote:
Yes Frederik could tidy things up, but it's best not to change
things arbitrarily (ie substituting line for route), because it just
makes it harder to remember what is correct. The lack of presets for
relations in Potlatch makes it doubly
I've had a quick look at a couple of the PlusBusZones (once inadvertently, as
the name is rendering
inappropriately on the Mapnik map): Nottingham and Maidenhead. In both cases
boundaries are only
approximate, and appear to be delimited by bus stops rather than routes (e.g.,
service 6 in
I would favor a similar solution to the network=lcn/ncn etc for
route=bicycle. For example network=local/regional/national. Than you can
handle the distinction between long distance and regioal trains also with
it.
regards,
melchior
2009/8/5 Brian Prangle bpran...@googlemail.com
Do we want to
I guys Andre and Ahmed can and should take of this?
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 12:26 AM, maning sambale
emmanuel.samb...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
Don't know how to respond here:
On Monday 03 August 2009 20:09:23 SLXViper wrote:
www.openstreetmap.is and osm.is weren't mentioned as far as I could
you can add the other language names with for instance name:fr tag or so. If
there are - or will be - different language versions of the osm rendering,
dunno if there are, they would be marked with the name of the language
specific name, if there is one.
see
While this isn't my proposal, I have an interest in getting 4wd_only tracks to
render properly. I've slightly modified this page to conform to what people
suggested on the talk-au list. This tag is already in use in the Australian
area, judging by the talk pages possibly other countries too.
John Smith wrote:
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
'Urban' areas should on the whole be covered by
'residential' or 'service' in
between the 4 main vehicle route tags. Although personally
I'd prefer that
motorway service roads were not grouped with 'industrial'.
Since proposing this tag combination I've tagged about a dozen schools and at
first glance I can't see any problems.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:restriction%3Dschool_zone
___
talk mailing list
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 7:40 AM, John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
I'm proposing not to replace highway=unclassified but to clarify it's
meaning to be one thing, that is it has higher volumes of traffic than
residential, but not enough to be considered tertiary.
Then I propose to
John Smith wrote:
While this isn't my proposal, I have an interest in getting 4wd_only tracks
to render properly. I've slightly modified this page to conform to what
people suggested on the talk-au list. This tag is already in use in the
Australian area, judging by the talk pages possibly
On 5 Aug 2009, at 06:40, John Smith wrote:
Currently highway=unclassified is too ambiguous, and while there was
a proposal to replace this with highway=minor this seems to have
gone no where yet the same problem still exists.
I'm proposing not to replace highway=unclassified but to
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 7:40 AM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
I'm also proposing to introduce a new highway classification for non-urban*
areas. That is highway=rural would be for roads generally lesser than
residential, generally unsealed but some of them are sealed and they
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
High ground clearance required?
More 4WD vehicles are appearing nowadays, but it's not
always clear what they
are actually capable off. So 4WD_Only is not really the
correct terminology
and does not clearly identify the
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk wrote:
You can determine whether an unclassified road is rural by
whether there are other things around in the area. That's
the whole point of Geo extensions in databases. you can also
do some preprocessing if you need to.
That
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Gustav Foseid gust...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm proposing not to replace highway=unclassified but
to clarify it's meaning to be one thing, that is it has
higher volumes of traffic than residential, but not enough
to be considered tertiary.
Someone already tried that. It
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Elena of Valhalla elena.valha...@gmail.com wrote:
where would this differ from an highway=track?
A track is lower grade, at least here.
rural road: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/131/330763485_4f976dba02.jpg
track:
Hi,
John Smith wrote:
I'm proposing not to replace highway=unclassified but to clarify it's
meaning to be one thing, that is it has higher volumes of traffic
than residential, but not enough to be considered tertiary.
This is not how it is generally used over here (Germany) where the
4x4 are for the crap drivers, 2wd is the best. In the UK there are several
reliabilty trials that use these so called 4x4 tracks for competitions.
I think we need a tag that suggests the highway is either rough terrain or
hard going and a decent off road vehicle is strongly advised. 4x4 only does
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
This is not how it is generally used over here (Germany)
where the majority of people use unclassified for a road
roughly equal to residential but without people living
there.
I don't know about the talk-de list, just what I've
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Jack Stringer jack.ix...@googlemail.com wrote:
4x4 are for the crap drivers, 2wd is
the best. In the UK there are several reliabilty trials that
use these so called 4x4 tracks for competitions.
I think we need a tag that suggests the highway is
either rough terrain or
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Lester Caineles...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
High ground clearance required?
...So 4WD_Only is not really the correct terminology
and does not clearly identify the problem? IS it ground clearance, deep fords,
mud or poor traction conditions ...
The sign says 4WD ONLY
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 5:49 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I would not hesitate to use highway=residential or
highway=unclassified for these (or even tertiary and up if
they are important to traffic). In fact, nobody
Hi,
Roy Wallace wrote:
The sign says 4WD ONLY - I therefore suggest that 4wd_only is indeed
the correct terminology, at least in regions (e.g. Australia) where
the sign appears as such and the phrase is in common use.
What is the legal status of these signs? Are you liable to a fine if you
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 7:33 AM, Lester Caineles...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
High ground clearance required?
More 4WD vehicles are appearing nowadays, but it's not always clear what they
are actually capable off. So 4WD_Only is not really the correct terminology
and does not clearly identify the
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm... Frederik has a point. John you seem to be mashing
together 1)
the importance and 2) the quality (good vs bad).
Quality doesn't have as much to do with things as the importance, as a result
of the importance and the number
On 05/08/2009, at 10.09, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Maybe it makes sense to use a variation of the motorcar tag which is
already widely used to model car access (e.g. highway=tertiary,
motorcar=4wdonly - or even highway=tertiary, motorcar=no,
motorcar:4wd=yes or something)?
This is going in the
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
What is the legal status of these signs? Are you liable to
a fine if you
proceed with a 2WD car, or is it just that the insurance
won't pay if
you do and get stuck? Or are they just meant as an advice
to drivers?
Primarily
Morten Kjeldgaard schrieb:
On 05/08/2009, at 10.09, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Maybe it makes sense to use a variation of the motorcar tag which is
already widely used to model car access (e.g. highway=tertiary,
motorcar=4wdonly - or even highway=tertiary, motorcar=no,
motorcar:4wd=yes or
On 05/08/2009, at 5:54 PM, Roy Wallace wrote:
The sign says 4WD ONLY - I therefore suggest that 4wd_only is indeed
the correct terminology, at least in regions (e.g. Australia) where
the sign appears as such and the phrase is in common use.
While true, it would also be useful to know whether
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
that's IMHO why I started this discussion: it surely isn't just physical.
well perhaps that was why the Australian Guidelines, written before I joined
OSM, tagged highways both with their physical condition and an administrative
condition, double
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Lester Caine wrote:
Certainly an 'unclassified' highway should not be capable of handling a
large lorry so routes for access to farms should be tagged 'service'
perhaps where such access is practical,
It must be capable of taking the fire truck.
Often they can also take
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 5:18 AM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
Change highway=unclassified definition to be more explicit, for example:
Are you just speaking about Australia wiki pages or in general ?
No administrative classification. Unclassified roads typically form the
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Lester Caine wrote:
High ground clearance required?
More 4WD vehicles are appearing nowadays, but it's not always clear what
they are actually capable off. So 4WD_Only is not really the correct
terminology and does not clearly identify the problem? IS it ground
clearance,
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Peter Körner osm-li...@mazdermind.de wrote:
But never the less I think if 4wd-only is common in that
region, why not
tag it? The more data, the better. But I'm unsure if the
renderer should
implement it, as it could just be used in this area,
whereas surface=*
can
Roy Wallace wrote:
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Lester Caineles...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
High ground clearance required?
...So 4WD_Only is not really the correct terminology
and does not clearly identify the problem? IS it ground clearance, deep
fords,
mud or poor traction conditions ...
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
and mud, poor traction ground clearance and a ford still
might not make a 4wd
only track.
Having grown up in such areas I'm well schooled in traveling along tracks that
aren't 4wd only and ways to unstick yourself, usually jacking up the car
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Frederik Ramm wrote:
What is the legal status of these signs? Are you liable to a fine if you
proceed with a 2WD car, or is it just that the insurance won't pay if
you do and get stuck? Or are they just meant as an advice to drivers?
Ah, the legal status is very interesting.
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Jonathan Bennett openstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk wrote:
WHS -- it meets the guidelines of being verifiable, by
being what's on
the ground. If it were based on one mapper's judgement,
that would be
different, but this is unambiguous.
Australia isn't the only country that
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Jonathan Bennett openstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk wrote:
It's up to the AU community what to do about this, but be
aware that in
the European Axis there's a very strong feeling that for a
road to be
tagged residential, there needs to be houses (or other
dwellings) on it,
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
be aware that in
the European Axis there's a very strong feeling
we are very aware of the European Axis
there are many terms in English which can be used
Eurocentric
Cultural Imperialism
etc
Please guys, your corner of the world is small
You don't
As we probably never can agree on the semantics discussion we should
redefine the syntax of the highway-tag from scratch. This will never
happen since it's a pita-job to edit the existing data, but here we
go:
1. Remove all highway=motorway, trunk, primary, etc.
2. Use highway=road. It's a road!
John Smith schrieb:
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Peter Körner osm-li...@mazdermind.de wrote:
But never the less I think if 4wd-only is common in that
region, why not
tag it? The more data, the better. But I'm unsure if the
renderer should
implement it, as it could just be used in this area,
Hi,
Peter Körner wrote:
4WD has a special meaning in your area
I don't know what 4WD means in other places but if I saw a map with
certain roads marked 4 WD only I would know exactly what that means,
and I doubt that anyone wouldn't!
Bye
Frederik
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Peter Körner wrote:
surface=* is unambiguous to anyone and in any place around the world.
it doesn't tell me whether i drive my FWD car along there or if i should stay
away
and it doesn't matter how you define surface, it isn't going to explain what
4wd only means.
it's a
John Smith wrote:
I feel there is a very real need to describe something that is between
residential and track and up until this point in time unclassified has been
used.
If there are types of roads in Australia that you feel the existing tags
don't adequately describe, feel free to start
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 3:36 AM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
I know google forbids it, but I haven't heard about MS/Bing... Have they
disallowed use of their sat imagery or is it explicitly forbidden in their
TCs?
It doesn't need to be explicitly forbidden for it to still be
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
It doesn't need to be explicitly forbidden for it to still
be forbidden.
Is it forbidden, explicitly or otherwise?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Jonathan Bennett openstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk wrote:
If there are types of roads in Australia that you feel the
existing tags
don't adequately describe, feel free to start using a new
one -- you can
use Any Tags You Like. Bear in mind that the highway tags
aren't
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Richard Mann
richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote:
I'd agree that it should be importance for
trunk/primary/secondary/tertiary. The stuff about not using trunk for
single-track roads just doesn't match what people are actually doing
(judging by some of
John Smith wrote:
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
It doesn't need to be explicitly forbidden for it to still
be forbidden.
Is it forbidden, explicitly or otherwise?
These are from Multimap, and if you click the TCs on the bing mapping
page it takes you to
John Smith wrote:
Is it forbidden, explicitly or otherwise?
Yes. Unless it's explicitly permitted, it's forbidden.
--
Jonathan (Jonobennett)
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
2009/8/5 maning sambale emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com:
I hope they do, they have several areas with high-res that are not
covered in yahoo! in the Philippines
While Ms's and Multimap's reputation is that they would not allow that
if they have this option (Microsoft is a coin operated machine),
Hi,
I'm currently implementing the cadastre support in JOSM for the french
part of the island Saint-Martin shared with our Dutch friends (it is
a special projection).
The island is quite well mapped today, mostly from the hi-res Yahoo
imagery I guess:
Konrad Skeri konrad at skeri.com writes:
[tagging 'admin_level' of roads instad of residential, unclassified, etc]
Use the whole scale and omit levels so that countries with
intermediate classifications will have a free number to use. One way
of doing this it so use 1...100 and have 1, 10, 20,
2009/8/5 Pieren pier...@gmail.com
Can someone from the Netherlands contact me and check with me what
could be done to fix this issue ?
It is not someone from the Netherlands you should have contact with but with
someone from the Netherlands Antilles of which Saint Martin is part of.
The
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
In addition the Australian Tagging Guidelines (which Liz mentioned
were written a year before the residential page) explicitly disagree
with the residential page.
I've done some investigation on this specific point, and found the
following:
Proposal: +1. Thanks
The question whether urban unclassifieds are at the same level of urban
residentials can be left to the router/renderer - best not to mention it.
The tagger just needs to be able to describe what is there simply and
clearly. A new tag for rural unclassifieds would clarify
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote:
The tagger just needs to be able to describe what is
there simply and clearly. A new tag for rural
unclassifieds would clarify matters, and
highway=rural is as good a suggestion as any. It would be
better for us
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 9:30 AM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
but the emails in the last day or 2 have gone no where in addressing the
issue,
Seriously, there's a lot of people subscribed to this list, and very
few joining the conversation. Maybe everyone is watching 5 or 6 people
But never the less I think if 4wd-only is common in that
region, why not
tag it? The more data, the better. But I'm unsure if the
The BETTER data, the better. There, I fixed that for you :-)
Remember that data is no good if it's not rendered, and the software
can't be expected to deal with
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Morten Kjeldgaard m...@bioxray.au.dk wrote:
Remember that data is no good if it's not rendered, and the
software
can't be expected to deal with a gazillion different
situations. It's
better to keep the data general. So using the surface=*
tag is a
better approach
After reading the
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines page,
it strikes me that you are already redefining most of the values for
the highway key. So why would you continue to refer to the
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features page. I guess that is
because it
Morten Kjeldgaard wrote:
Remember that data is no good if it's not rendered,
Remember that rendering a map isn't the only use for geodata.
--
Jonathan (Jonobennett)
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
David Earl david at frankieandshadow.com writes:
These are from Multimap, and if you click the TCs on the bing mapping
page it takes you to Multimap's TC's:
http://www.multimap.com/about/legal_and_copyright/
and the imagery (Birds Eye View) is explicitly marked as copyright
below the
Scott Bronson schrieb:
Apparently you need to host the map yourself.
1) Click Download Map
2) Upload map.html it to your web host or save it to a directory on your
local machine
3) Put map.css and util.js into the same directory as map.html (urls below)
4) Open map.html in Firefox.
Sebastian,
Sebastian Hohmann wrote:
To get map.css and util.js, you can run these commands from the same
directory as the one that contains map.html, or just right-click on the
links in Firefox and hit save as):
wget http://osmtools.de/easymap/temp/map.css
wget
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 09:45, Morten Kjeldgaardm...@bioxray.au.dk wrote:
So using the surface=* tag is a
better approach IMHO to warn that a road is in a bad shape for ordinary
traffic.
Surface alone doesn't tell you enough. A standard car can handle just
about any surface except mud, as long
John Smith wrote:
That isn't the point, the same key/value pair is being used for 2
completely different purposes
No, it isn't. highway=unclassified has, and always has had, a consistent
meaning.
If you are using highway=unclassified in a residential area to mean less
significant than
Frederik Ramm schrieb:
Sebastian,
Sebastian Hohmann wrote:
To get map.css and util.js, you can run these commands from the same
directory as the one that contains map.html, or just right-click on the
links in Firefox and hit save as):
wget http://osmtools.de/easymap/temp/map.css
wget
Not exclusively less technical, it's also an easier process, if you
just want a simple map. I'm also unsure if its easier to unzip the files
than to just download them. Its not like its dozens of files.
Don't modern browsers provide a way to include all html/image/include
files in one chunk
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Richard Mann wrote:
I'd define a rural as a road which is (usually) maintained by a public
body, and open to public access, but where only partial provision is made
for vehicles travelling in opposite directions to pass (be that lower-grade
shoulders, Australian-style or
2009/8/5 Pieren pier...@gmail.com:
I'm currently implementing the cadastre support in JOSM for the french
part of the island Saint-Martin shared with our Dutch friends (it is
a special projection).
The island is quite well mapped today, mostly from the hi-res Yahoo
imagery I guess:
What landuse are we using for hotels? I'm pretty sure it should be
commercial or retail.
I'm going to go with commercial, they as retail suggests that they
sell a physical product.
Ciarán
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 9:21 PM, Ciarán
Mooneygeneral.moo...@googlemail.com wrote:
What landuse are we using for hotels? I'm pretty sure it should be
commercial or retail.
I'm going to go with commercial, they as retail suggests that they
sell a physical product.
commercial suggests office
Pieren wrote:
I'm currently implementing the cadastre support in JOSM for the french
part of the island Saint-Martin shared with our Dutch friends (it is
a special projection).
The island is quite well mapped today, mostly from the hi-res Yahoo
imagery I guess:
On 5 Aug 2009, at 21:31, OJ W wrote:
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 9:21 PM, Ciarán
Mooneygeneral.moo...@googlemail.com wrote:
What landuse are we using for hotels? I'm pretty sure it should be
commercial or retail.
I'm going to go with commercial, they as retail suggests that they
sell a
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Konrad Skerikon...@skeri.com wrote:
1. Remove all highway=motorway, trunk, primary, etc.
2. Use highway=road. It's a road!
Q) how will we classify each road?
A) they will all be named Beverly
___
talk mailing list
On 5 Aug 2009, at 20:59, Christiaan Welvaart wrote:
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Richard Mann wrote:
I'd define a rural as a road which is (usually) maintained by a
public
body, and open to public access, but where only partial provision
is made
for vehicles travelling in opposite directions
Could even be farmland or nature reserve e.g. Singita Lodge.
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 11:04 PM, John McKerrell j...@mckerrell.net wrote:
On 5 Aug 2009, at 21:31, OJ W wrote:
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 9:21 PM, Ciarán
Mooneygeneral.moo...@googlemail.com wrote:
What landuse are we using for
David Lynch schrieb:
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 09:45, Morten Kjeldgaardm...@bioxray.au.dk wrote:
So using the surface=* tag is a
better approach IMHO to warn that a road is in a bad shape for ordinary
traffic.
Surface alone doesn't tell you enough. A standard car can handle just
about any
Jonathan Bennett schrieb:
Morten Kjeldgaard wrote:
Remember that data is no good if it's not rendered,
Remember that rendering a map isn't the only use for geodata.
And also remember that the Main-OSM-Mapnik renderer isn't the only one
out there. If someone wants to render a map with this
John Smith schrieb:
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Morten Kjeldgaard m...@bioxray.au.dk wrote:
Remember that data is no good if it's not rendered, and the
software
can't be expected to deal with a gazillion different
situations. It's
better to keep the data general. So using the surface=*
tag is
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Shaun McDonald wrote:
On 5 Aug 2009, at 20:59, Christiaan Welvaart wrote:
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Richard Mann wrote:
I'd define a rural as a road which is (usually) maintained by a public
body, and open to public access, but where only partial provision is made
for
2009/8/5 Jukka Rahkonen jukka.rahko...@mmmtike.fi:
and the imagery (Birds Eye View) is explicitly marked as copyright
below the image.
Seems pretty explicit to me.
Sure, if the aim is to copy the images. It is not so clear if the aim is to
interpret the imagery and make a map from the
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Peter Körner osm-li...@mazdermind.de wrote:
Okay, i got the point. I agree that this should be put into
a tag/value pair but with the clarification that
4wd_only=yes (or whatever the tag will be) does *not*
necessarily mean that all 4wd vehicles could pass this road
at
2009/8/5 Elena of Valhalla elena.valha...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 7:40 AM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
I'm also proposing to introduce a new highway classification for non-urban*
areas. That is highway=rural would be for roads generally lesser than
residential,
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
If you are using highway=unclassified in a residential area
to mean less
significant than highway=residential, you're doing it
completely contrary
to standard practice. Therefore you are by definition
wrong.
I didn't say I
2009/8/5 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com:
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk wrote:
You can determine whether an unclassified road is rural by
whether there are other things around in the area. That's
the whole point of Geo extensions in databases. you can also
2009/8/5 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com:
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
but on second glance there are, and they are documented in
the
discussion-section:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Tag:restriction%3Dschool_zone
The
1 - 100 of 304 matches
Mail list logo
