On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 2:53 AM, Dave Sutter sut...@intransix.com wrote:
Creating another instance of the OSM database and server is a very
good idea. I would propose we make the purpose of this database to
allow people post ANY geo data that is NOT part of the base map. It
would be an open
Am 09/apr/2013 um 16:17 schrieb Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 2:53 AM, Dave Sutter sut...@intransix.com wrote:
Creating another instance of the OSM database and server is a very
good idea. I would propose we make the purpose of this database to
allow people
would some kind of meta OSM database be appropriate?
+1 on this, I guess the challenge would be finding resources to host it.
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 12:08 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 2:15 AM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote:
I think this
Creating another instance of the OSM database and server is a very
good idea. I would propose we make the purpose of this database to
allow people post ANY geo data that is NOT part of the base map. It
would be an open database for general GIS data.
Some examples of random things people could do
That idea seems good to me: reasonably simple - not a new database for each
usecase, but giving place to all that potentially useful data that is seen
as unworthy for the main database.
Some categories (category=sport/birds/metadata/...) would likely have to be
created to allow filtering only some
Yes, we would need tagging conventions like this so users can identify
the data that is of interest to them. And relations would be useful
to group geometry that goes together, such as the features associated
with a particular bird migration study.
On the technical side, I suppose access to the
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
It's not only for outdated outlines. As said, it is not a map feature, it's
just for some comfort during edition (would consider the same for mapping
party cakes). What was the easiest and most pratical solution can be
tolerated
We had a deployment of OSM Tasking Manager, and it gives you a possibility
to make a task with boundaries taken from a OSM way. We used one of this
imagery boundaries.
It could be used for aligning imagery offset, for analysis of data
frequency based on imagery availability, etc.
I think this
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 2:15 AM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote:
I think this boundaries can be useful, but should be in some other database.
Are there any other appropriate databases? That is, something with the
same form (an OSM database) for stuff related to the OSM project, but
not
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.comwrote:
So storing a few hundred extra ways in the database had been the easiest
and most practical solution. The way do no harm to anybody. So just keep
them for a while until all functionality has been migrated to
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 03:56:16PM -0300, ingalls wrote:
I'm with everyone who is against adding this to the database although I
agree that a mass edit is not the way to get rid of these. I'll go through
I didnt mass-edit. I came past 2-3 boundarys which were all broken for
a long time.
So i
On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 11:37:59AM +0200, Stephan Knauss wrote:
Florian Lohoff writes:
As they were wrong and nobody cared i deleted them.
A better way of dealing with updated data in OSM is usually to fix
and not to delete data. Had you considered mailing the users who
created the original
Florian Lohoff writes:
As they were wrong and nobody cared i deleted them.
A better way of dealing with updated data in OSM is usually to fix and not
to delete data. Had you considered mailing the users who created the
original data before removing their work?
In contrast to eg. underground
On 2013-04-01 04:57, Clay Smalley wrote:
This seems silly and useless. The imagery is subject to change and
the
way will become obsolete. I dont see a point in mapping this, and Im
all data in the database is subject to change and will become obsolete,
there is nothing unusual in that
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.dewrote:
A better way of dealing with updated data in OSM is usually to fix and not
to delete data.
Mapping aerial imagery boundaries into OSM has always been controversial.
And today, we have an alternative solution with
2013/4/1 Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.de
Florian Lohoff writes:
As they were wrong and nobody cared i deleted them.
A better way of dealing with updated data in OSM is usually to fix and not
to delete data. Had you considered mailing the users who created the
original data before
Hello everyone,
In response to everyone's concerns, as stated in my action plan above, the
owner of each way was contacted to ask if removal was ok. As I stated in
the pm I sent that, I will only delete the way if they say that I am good
to do so or if they do not respond and based on their edits
De : Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
À : Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.de
Cc : osm talk@openstreetmap.org
Envoyé le : Lundi 1 avril 2013 6h20
Objet : Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?
2013/4/1 Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.de
Florian Lohoff writes:
As they were
2013/4/1 Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.de
Martin Koppenhoefer writes:
Btw.: how many boundaries shall we tolerate?
How much of your mapping shall I tolerate? It's always the same answer.
Pay respect to other mappers. If the data is of use to other mappers,
respect it. Even if you
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 3:50 AM, Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.dewrote:
How much of your mapping shall I tolerate? It's always the same answer.
Pay respect to other mappers. If the data is of use to other mappers,
respect it. Even if you would not map it this way.
I personally thing that
I'd like to reaffirm the following statement:
+1, that's what I wrote. I thought the only question we're still
discussing is how to deal with outdated outlines (better keep/ignore them
when outdated so maybe someone can update them, or simply delete them).
As I've said several times, I am
Hey guys came across a really weird way.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/104974280
Not sure exactly what it is supposed to represent? Is it showing where bing
has high quality imagery? And secondly can I remove it!
___
talk mailing list
It doesn't look like this is an isolated example, there are over a hundred
of these
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/boundary=imagery#overview
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 12:35 PM, ingalls nicholas.inga...@gmail.comwrote:
Hey guys came across a really weird way.
I'd first asked the person that created the polygon before deleting.
BTW - We don't have complete hi-res coverage from Bing. While many areas it
may not matter, I've mapped in areas where better imagery would have been
very helpful. Maybe we need to explore other avenues to obtain imagery in
This seems silly and useless. The imagery is subject to change and the way
will become obsolete. I don't see a point in mapping this, and I'm okay
with deleting these ways. But I'd rather hear from someone with more
experience before anything happens.
On Mar 31, 2013 10:39 AM, ingalls
People use this geometry and get offended if you delete it. There is this
page http://ant.dev.openstreetmap.org/bingimageanalyzer/, but vectors can
be useful for some scenarios. I think a separate database would be the best
solution.
Janko
___
talk
On 2013-03-31 17:57, Clay Smalley wrote:
This seems silly and useless. The imagery is subject to change and
the way will become obsolete. I don't see a point in mapping this, and
I'm okay with deleting these ways. But I'd rather hear from someone
with more experience before anything happens.
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 11:35 PM, ingalls nicholas.inga...@gmail.comwrote:
Hey guys came across a really weird way.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/104974280
Not sure exactly what it is supposed to represent? Is it showing where
bing has high quality imagery? And secondly can I
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 10:57:41AM -0500, Clay Smalley wrote:
This seems silly and useless. The imagery is subject to change and the way
will become obsolete. I don't see a point in mapping this, and I'm okay
with deleting these ways. But I'd rather hear from someone with more
experience
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 07:01:19PM +0200, Maarten Deen wrote:
It is a common and often-used method to indicate regions that have
high-resolution Bing imagery in an area where the rest is only
low-resolution.
I would not delete them. They serve a purpose. If you have a better
working
I'm with everyone who is against adding this to the database although I
agree that a mass edit is not the way to get rid of these. I'll go through
them and contact the individual owners and see about getting as many as
possible removed. If they don't respond after a reasonable time (a month or
On 2013-03-31 19:22, Florian Lohoff wrote:
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 07:01:19PM +0200, Maarten Deen wrote:
It is a common and often-used method to indicate regions that have
high-resolution Bing imagery in an area where the rest is only
low-resolution.
I would not delete them. They serve a
Am 31/mar/2013 um 20:56 schrieb ingalls nicholas.inga...@gmail.com:
I'll check if they actually represent areas of high-res imagery, if they
don't, I'll remove them. If they still represent areas of high res imagery
I'll grandfather them until they become outdated.
Sound reasonable to
/GoogleTalk: jhelleranta
-Original Message-
From: ingalls nicholas.inga...@gmail.com
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 15:56:16
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http
34 matches
Mail list logo
