Dave - super awesome.
As I said on IRC the other week, but I'll repeat here for all - I
think dumping the addressing for all 3,000 counties and then letting
people import them one by one will be the best way to do it.
Another random thought - should the addressing ways be one long way
with
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 18:20, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
As I said on IRC the other week, but I'll repeat here for all - I
think dumping the addressing for all 3,000 counties and then letting
people import them one by one will be the best way to do it.
dont you think we need a simple
On 13 Oct 2009, at 09:26, Simone Cortesi wrote:
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 18:20, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
As I said on IRC the other week, but I'll repeat here for all - I
think dumping the addressing for all 3,000 counties and then letting
people import them one by one will be the
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 18:20, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
Dave - super awesome.
As I said on IRC the other week, but I'll repeat here for all - I
think dumping the addressing for all 3,000 counties and then letting
people import them one by one will be the best way to do it.
Another
On 13 Oct 2009, at 10:37, Hillsman, Edward wrote:
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 18:20, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
Dave - super awesome.
As I said on IRC the other week, but I'll repeat here for all - I
think dumping the addressing for all 3,000 counties and then letting
people import
Dave - super awesome.
As I said on IRC the other week, but I'll repeat here for all - I
think dumping the addressing for all 3,000 counties and then letting
people import them one by one will be the best way to do it.
Another random thought - should the addressing ways be one long way
with
On 13 Oct 2009, at 09:26, Simone Cortesi wrote:
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 18:20, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
As I said on IRC the other week, but I'll repeat here for all - I
think dumping the addressing for all 3,000 counties and then letting
people import them one by one will be the
On 13 Oct 2009, at 9:20 , SteveC wrote:
Dave - super awesome.
As I said on IRC the other week, but I'll repeat here for all - I
think dumping the addressing for all 3,000 counties and then letting
people import them one by one will be the best way to do it.
yes this is the best way to get
Is this the most up to date way of keeping addresses?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/House_numbers/Karlsruhe_Schema
Well, I have some perl code that will parse the 2007/2008 TIGER data
files. My goal is to get the addresses imported into OSM this time
around.
2009/10/4 Dave Hansen d...@sr71.net:
Is this the most up to date way of keeping addresses?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/House_numbers/Karlsruhe_Schema
Well, I have some perl code that will parse the 2007/2008 TIGER data
files. My goal is to get the addresses
On Sun, 2009-10-04 at 02:24 +1000, John Smith wrote:
2009/10/4 Dave Hansen d...@sr71.net:
Is this the most up to date way of keeping addresses?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/House_numbers/Karlsruhe_Schema
Well, I have some perl code that will parse the
My goal is to get the addresses imported into OSM this time
around.
I agree - most newbies' first usage of openstreetmap.org is to type their
street address, then not look further when nothing is found.(I know we
aren't serving as a real time reference site, but some of these people
2009/10/3 Dave Hansen d...@sr71.net:
On Sun, 2009-10-04 at 02:24 +1000, John Smith wrote:
2009/10/4 Dave Hansen d...@sr71.net:
Is this the most up to date way of keeping addresses?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/House_numbers/Karlsruhe_Schema
Well, I
On 3 Oct 2009, at 17:42, Mike N. wrote:
It needs to follow the road way to some extent, but it might be
possible
to simplify by reducing node count so that it doesn't exactly follow
the
road. In the samples I have seen, house placement is much
different than
the road path when
14 matches
Mail list logo
