Mogoče ste že opazili da je v zadnjih dneh uporabnik 4KK
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/4KK) naredil več sprememb na
področju Slovenije.
Kakšna je pozitivna, so pa tudi neustrezne.
Zgleda se je koncentriral na ceste pri tem pa je spremenil tudi precej
relacij. Zaradi površnega dela so
In dalje kot bomo odlašali z revertanjem težje ga bo izvesti, ker
nekateri že popravljajo posamezne napake:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/73235358#map=17/46.44110/15.08700
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/73235726#map=13/46.4341/15.1010
...
On 10. 08. 19 21:08, Blaž Lorger
Preden sem včeraj poslal sporočilo v to mailing listo sem mu poslal
sporočilo. Ni bilo odgovora, preprosto nadaljuje s "popravljanjem" karte.
Si pogledal zahodni del Pohorja? Vse gozdne ceste in traktorske vlake je
preklasificiral kot običajne ceste. *Vse* spremembe klasifikacij cest so
Zdravo,
Ali kdo pozna tega (https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/kartog) "genija"?
Zgleda da je več ali manj naključno dvignil rang poti. Marsikje je
traktorske vlake, ki niso prevozne niti s terenskimi vozili,
klasificiral kot normalne ceste.
Mislim da bi bilo najbolje preprosto revertati
Pravzaprav je dosti večje odstopanje zaradi relativno redkega vzorčenja
SRTM v primerjavi z LIDAR podatki. 90m proti 1 m. Večina (vsi)
interpolacijskih algoritmov ima v dolinah (+) in na grebenih (-) zelo
velika odstopanja. Če pogledaš kako cesto za katero veš da se enakomerno
vzpenja boš na
Izgleda da se je nek novinec (https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Tanch)
odločil da bo naredil par neumnosti.
V zadnjih nekaj dneh je naredil več sprememb v Sloveniji. Tista na
Pohorju je bila totalna neumnost, zato sem jo odstranil. Preprosto je
narisal pot, ki jo je prehodil, in vse skupaj
On Thursday 09 August 2012 12:08:48 Mark Martinec wrote:
Pred kratkim sem začel urejati OSM in imam vprašanje glede kategorizacije
cest. Iz legende je razvidno, da so tertiary road in tertiary link
dvopasovne ceste s črto na sredini, ki loči vozna pasova.
Vse manjše ceste pa so označene
On Tuesday 29 May 2012 16:19:20 Damjan Gerl wrote:
Martin Vuk, on 29/05/2012 15.36, wrote:
Živijo,
Geopedia je pripravila zanimiv portal
http://www.pespoti.si
A kaj ko je vse, kar oni počnejeo, licenčno nekompatibilno z
openstreetmap :-(
LP Martin
Ja, nekaj podobnega je
On Tuesday 29 September 2009 21:59:10 Matt Williams wrote:
I've been noticing recently a problem we're going to/already have in
our data when it comes to routing directions particularly. It concerns
how to define continuations of roads at junctions and/or the road
markings that delineate that.
On Wednesday 30 September 2009 21:00:12 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2009/9/30 Blaž Lorger blaz.lor...@triera.net:
I don't see where problem lies.
Is it that routing software will not be able to choose right route?
You never stated it clearly, but if I understand correctly road from
On Sunday 27 September 2009 02:38:31 Dave F. wrote:
You see, this is where I get /really /confused
I see no reference to 'todo' or 'continue' in the general OSM wiki.
In the Groundtruth wiki page they're highlighted red, saying there there
no reference page.
I'm repeatedly told don't tag
On Saturday 26 September 2009 20:09:34 Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
There are GroundTruth styles
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/GroundTruth_Hiking_Map#IconTodoJunction)
with support for tags todo=continue and todo=junction
In this sample
Well, I don't know what kind of interface is used by your device but viewing
and uploading maps to my GPSMap60 works very well with QLandkarte.
On Wednesday 16 September 2009 21:21:45 Stuckey wrote:
Hello,
I have a Garmin Streetpilot 2720 that I'd like to use with OSM. In
trying to copy
I've noticed that previous votes were changed to simple yes/no text. Should
those votes be recast?
On Wednesday 16 September 2009 09:46:16 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
The discussion seem to have calmed down, so please vote for
highway-definition here:
Use Mercator projection. But be careful. I think you have to use WGS84 for
tracing over aerial imagery.
Blaž
On Tuesday 15 September 2009 20:18:57 d f wrote:
Hi
I've downloaded some data to JOSM but the data is squashed in appearance in
the north-south direction. It causes inaccuracies
Zdravo,
Ali ste kaj uporabljali QA orodja
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Quality_Assurance)?
Mislim da bi bilo dobro če bi vsak malo pogledal področje, ki ga je mapiral.
Kamorkoli v Sloveniji pogledaš najdeš precej napak. Začetni link za Slovenijo
je
Lahko bi jih oznaceval ampak ne tako da zdruzis referenco in odsek. Namesto
tega kar si predlagal:
ref=617-1054
bi raje uporabil locene tage:
ref=617
section=1054
Na ta nacin lahko v OSM shranis dodatno informacijo brez da povozis nacin kako
so se ceste oznacevale do
On Friday 14 August 2009 00:31:38 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2009/8/13 Sam Vekemans acrosscanadatra...@gmail.com:
surface earth Probably the same as surface=ground
should be change to the same as surface=dirt
yes, clean up a little bit: dirt, mud, earth, ground seem all the same
to me (I
On Wednesday 29 July 2009 21:29:24 Miha wrote:
Zivjo!
Na OSM Wiki sem dodal navodila za označevanje državne kolesarske mreže
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Slovenian_NCN_routes Komentarji
dobrodošli (discussion page).
Kot primer sem označil tudi del L 043, dela pa je še ogromno. Roka
On Monday 03 August 2009 12:18:14 Emilie Laffray wrote:
4. At the end it is always up to the individual mapper to decide what is
narrow. While 1 meter is 1 meter.
Yes, 1 meter is 1 meter. That's why using an approximation is actually
worse than using a relative factor. Using a precise
Hi,
I have noticed intense discussion about changing how roads should be tagged.
It seems that some people devised their own way how to apply different values
for highway tag and now attempt to force this on everybody.
On the other hand some people are attempting to introduce new values for
On Sunday 02 August 2009 10:59:08 John Smith wrote:
--- On Sun, 2/8/09, Blaž Lorger blaz.lor...@triera.net wrote:
I also propose extending instructions for road
classification to use width tag
I agree with everything else you wrote except width since I really don't
want to get a tape
On Sunday 02 August 2009 11:49:06 Pieren wrote:
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 10:59 AM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
I agree with everything else you wrote except width since I really don't
want to get a tape measure out and measure widths of roads, using lanes=*
to estimate widths
On Sunday 02 August 2009 11:57:12 John Smith wrote:
--- On Sun, 2/8/09, Blaž Lorger blaz.lor...@triera.net wrote:
Unfortunately lanes only specifies number of lanes. In
general every road that
is not one way has at least 2 lanes, even if it is narrow,
say 3.5 meters.
Even one way roads
On Sunday 02 August 2009 12:36:48 Pieren wrote:
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Blaž Lorgerblaz.lor...@triera.net wrote:
Wiki clearly states why tag narrow=yes would be a bad idea
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:width#Using_relative_sizes).
Basically, what is wide for bicycle is
On Sunday 02 August 2009 14:40:09 Pieren wrote:
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Blaž Lorgerblaz.lor...@triera.net wrote:
Let's see:
1. There is no clear definition what is narrow.
2. There is no specification for default width of road type.
3. If narrow=yes is not applied everywhere where
We certainly need better solution than JOSM presets historic=wayside_cross and
historic=wayside_shrine. But with your suggestion there would be hundreds or
even thousands values for tag place_of_worship.
Maybe we should just differentiate on size and build type: building hosting
20+ people,
27 matches
Mail list logo
