On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 01:31:10AM +0200, Cartinus wrote:
On Monday 10 August 2009 09:10:15 Jochen Topf wrote:
The infrastructure route is something different from the moving vehicles
forming a route. They are two different concepts, so they deserve their
own keys. A bicycle route or
Hello,
we're having a discussion on talk-it@ about using copyrighted maps to trace a
border (or anything else, to be honest).
I mapped two archaeological sites, and have printed maps (bought at the
respective sites) for them. They're implicitely copyrighted material, and now
I'm only missing the
Hi,
Gioele wrote:
Instead of choosing between re-licensing to ODbL and having their
contribution removed, they could choose to release their contribution (past
and future) into public domain.
Should we go ahead with the ODbL relicensing - a question that is still
not answered and for which
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 09:12:10AM +1000, Roy Wallace wrote:
- Do we tag generic trails as highway=path or does this tag have a more
complex meaning?
I don't think there is any such thing as a generic trail. I think
highway=path should simply imply that the way is a physical route used
Hi List,
I just discovered, that the whole site seems to be down including
www,api,gpx
Hope, that mail is working. I will update the status at wiki to DOWN
now. Please change if site is available again.
Regards
Andre
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Hi,
Strangely no mention of this that I have seen on OSM so for those interested
Openstreetmap (Steve Coast) was on the FLOSS weekly podcast recently:
http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/twit.cachefly.net/FLOSS-081.mp3
Webpage:
http://www.twit.tv/FLOSS
Lambert Carsten
On 11/08/09 01:57, Alex Mauer wrote:
On 08/10/2009 05:31 PM, Liz wrote:
I would consider that if we have thousands of mappers, that we should set a
quorum for a vote
so that unless at least x hundred people vote the vote is not valid
From
Andre Hinrichs wrote:
Hi List,
I just discovered, that the whole site seems to be down including
www,api,gpx
Hope, that mail is working. I will update the status at wiki to DOWN
now. Please change if site is available again.
Everything works from here. The map, the api, haven't uploaded
On 11 Aug 2009, at 08:35, Maarten Deen wrote:
Andre Hinrichs wrote:
Hi List,
I just discovered, that the whole site seems to be down including
www,api,gpx
Hope, that mail is working. I will update the status at wiki to DOWN
now. Please change if site is available again.
Everything
Hi,
For my mind this starts to be far too complicated for most of the mappers and
users as well. Let's assume there is a smallish way/path/track or whatever it is
called. Anyway, something that is not meant for car traffic. I would believe
that majority of people would be satisfied if they just
Am Dienstag, den 11.08.2009, 09:25 +0200 schrieb Andre Hinrichs:
Hi List,
I just discovered, that the whole site seems to be down including
www,api,gpx
Hope, that mail is working. I will update the status at wiki to DOWN
now. Please change if site is available again.
Seems to be up
2009/8/11 Andre Hinrichs andre.hinri...@gmx.de:
Seems to be up again, but ping is still not working, why? Is it blocked?
$ ping -c 10 www.openstreetmap.org
PING www.openstreetmap.org (128.40.168.98) 56(84) bytes of data.
--- www.openstreetmap.org ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted,
On 11/08/09 08:50, Roy Wallace wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 5:31 PM, Tom Hughest...@compton.nu wrote:
That's a completely ridiculous quorum when we have 1 active mappers.
If the process says that eight people can get together and tell
thousands of people that they've been doing it wrong
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 09:02:07AM +0100, Grant Slater wrote:
ICMP is evil, nobody needs it anyway... *joke*
Pings are blocked and out of our control. sorry.
I hope you only refer to echo-request and not all ICMP e.g.
destination-unreachable/fragmentation-needed ...
Flo
--
Florian
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 09:02:28 +0100, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
On 11/08/09 08:50, Roy Wallace wrote:
What would you suggest? It is quite possible that the effect of
increasing the number of necessary votes will only result in slowing
down progress. Do you instead expect that it would
Roy Wallace wrote:
Is tagging the primary users intended to use the way verifiable? If
not, it shouldn't be tagged. If it is, then is footway/cycleway
As fine as it as a guideline, verifiability as a topic and was
introduced into the wiki only in 2009, while footway and cycleway have
been
Hi,
Tom Chance wrote:
Well the hurdle to jump to change an existing tagging should certainly
be much higher than the hurdle to introduce a new tag for something that
hasn't been tagged before.
Which is precisely why I made a simple proposal for a new process in these
situations.
But
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 10:23:09 +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Tom Chance wrote:
Well the hurdle to jump to change an existing tagging should certainly
be much higher than the hurdle to introduce a new tag for something
that
hasn't been tagged before.
Which is precisely why I made a simple
On 11 Aug 2009, at 09:20, Lauri Kytömaa wrote:
Roy Wallace wrote:
Is tagging the primary users intended to use the way verifiable? If
not, it shouldn't be tagged. If it is, then is footway/cycleway
As fine as it as a guideline, verifiability as a topic and was
introduced into the wiki only
Hi,
Tom Chance wrote:
1 – Nobody can actually agree what highway=path means so it is being used
in different senses all over the world, which reduces its usefulness to
near zero
Perhaps it really *is* useless and it was good that our process
demonstrated that?
We currently have no process
2009/8/11 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org
Hi,
Tom Chance wrote:
Well the hurdle to jump to change an existing tagging should certainly
be much higher than the hurdle to introduce a new tag for something that
hasn't been tagged before.
Which is precisely why I made a simple proposal
2009/8/11 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org mailto:frede...@remote.org
On the other hand, if your desire is to change something that already
exists and ask people to tag it differently from now on, or even worse
if you want people to agree on a blanket automatic change of millions
Hello Tom,
So for example Nick Whitelegg and Martin Simon might lead a group to work
out how best to tag paths of all kinds. If their proposal was accepted at
SOTM 2010, somebody would create a map highlighting all the ways that
probably need to be corrected and a massive effort to bring things
On 11/08/09 09:15, Florian Lohoff wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 09:02:07AM +0100, Grant Slater wrote:
ICMP is evil, nobody needs it anyway... *joke*
Pings are blocked and out of our control. sorry.
I hope you only refer to echo-request and not all ICMP e.g.
Shaun McDonald wrote:
As fine as it as a guideline, verifiability as a topic and was
Even so the on the ground rule and verifiability have not been on the wiki
for long. They have been the unwritten norms of the community since the
I'm all for referring to that verifiability where it comes
Anyone able to help this guy?
Yours c.
Steve
Begin forwarded message:
From: Ki-Joune Li l...@pnu.edu
Date: 10 August 2009 19:17:16 PDT
To: 'SteveC' st...@asklater.com
Subject: RE: documents on OpenStreetMap for iso/tc211 project 19154
Hi Steve,
I'm very happy to get an e-mail from you.
2009/8/11 David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com
2009/8/11 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org mailto:frede...@remote.org
On the other hand, if your desire is to change something that already
exists and ask people to tag it differently from now on, or even
worse
if you want
Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com
Sent by: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org
10/08/2009 23:2
To
Martin Simon grenzde...@gmail.com
cc
talk talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 8:52 PM, Martin Simongrenzde...@gmail.com wrote:
Frederik Ramm schrieb:
Hi,
Tom Chance wrote:
1 – Nobody can actually agree what highway=path means so it is being used
in different senses all over the world, which reduces its usefulness to
near zero
Perhaps it really *is* useless and it was good that our process
demonstrated that?
--- On Tue, 11/8/09, Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote:
The thing is though it doesn't necessary imply this. There
are examples of
highway=footway which are *private* paths not accessible
legally to the
public (or only through payment of an entrance fee) e.g.
the paths
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Aun Johnsen (via
Webmail)skipp...@gimnechiske.org wrote:
There are millions of references to London on
the net, while not that many of Pitlochry. That meaning a search for London
might not give any OSM returns unless OSM becomes a featured site, while a
search
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Nick
Whiteleggnick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote:
keep things simple : use footway, cycleway, bridleway for designated
foot, bicycle, horse and use path for everything else.
So a paved (concrete) cycle path where cyclists have a legal right and
pedestrians
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 12:30:30 +0200, Erik Johansson e...@kth.se wrote:
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Aun Johnsen (via
Webmail)skipp...@gimnechiske.org wrote:
There are millions of references to London on
the net, while not that many of Pitlochry. That meaning a search for
London
might not
Jukka Rahkonen wrote:
Hi,
For my mind this starts to be far too complicated for most of the mappers and
users as well. Let's assume there is a smallish way/path/track or whatever it
is
called. Anyway, something that is not meant for car traffic. I would believe
that majority of people
Path certainly seems to have fulfilled a need for less-good paths in
fields forests. I would go so far as to say it should now be recommended
for that purpose (but noting that there's still quite a lot of use of other
tags for data users to be aware of, and this usage may persist).
However, I
Hi,
I am a mapper who would be happy to have some kind of governance
process to the dispute of tags or acceptance of them.
As has been mentioned membership of OSMF and participation of SOTM
should not be factors, however we are all quite technically literate
so why note have IRC meetings every
Tom Chance wrote:
- Tags are proposed on the wiki, no change to current practice
- If the proposal throws into question existing, accepted tags, defer the
proposal to small working groups
- These working groups study the wider questions and formulate a complete
proposal for new tags,
Tom Hughes wrote:
That's a completely ridiculous quorum when we have 1 active mappers.
If the process says that eight people can get together and tell
thousands of people that they've been doing it wrong for the last five
years and should start retagging everything according to some new
Tobias Knerr wrote:
Tom Hughes wrote:
That's a completely ridiculous quorum when we have 1 active mappers.
If the process says that eight people can get together and tell
thousands of people that they've been doing it wrong for the last five
years and should start retagging everything
On 10/08/09 15:49, Tom Chance wrote:
- Tags are proposed on the wiki, no change to current practice
- If the proposal throws into question existing, accepted tags, defer the
proposal to small working groups
- These working groups study the wider questions and formulate a complete
proposal for
Quote Key:highway:
It is a very general and sometimes vague description of the importance
of the highway.
(Was until last week:)
... of the physical structure of the highway.
Either way, the highway tag itself should (IMO) convey they primary
description of the highway - the distinction
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
Those eight people can only do this if not even 0.1% of the other 1
care enough to oppose the proposal. If that's the case, then apparently
the proposal isn't so bad, is it? Why didn't all those people who
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Gervase Markham wrote:
(in the canal example,
UK canals and European ones are different in a few important ways)
and the canals in my area are very different again - not used for navigation
at all
so i'd need to be able to join in - but would you know that I have a
Hi,
It seems to me that tags have proliferated because as time has gone
by, people have invented more-and-more uses for OSM -- and that is good!
However, it is a problem because mappers are trying to accomplish very
different things from the same set of tags. Here is a set of distinct
David Earl wrote:
Why didn't all those people who
apparently hate path vote against it?
(a) because not everyone has the luxury of following all this with the
hundreds of emails a day and all.
(b) because many people just ignore the voting system as it has no
official status, and do
Hi,
David Earl wrote:
Up to now, we could get away with changing existing tags, but as people
start to use OSM for real world tasks and base software on it that is
outside the OSM community, like other file formats, we really have to be
more controlled about upward compatibility and
Frederik,
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 11:18:35 +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Tom Chance wrote:
1 – Nobody can actually agree what highway=path means so it is being
used
in different senses all over the world, which reduces its usefulness to
near zero
Perhaps it really *is* useless and it was good
I agree with the working groups idea, but disagree with membership of the
OSMF or attending SOTM being a requirement for taking part. (I wont joint
the osmf while it has links with paypal)
The working group would have to produce a report, and be able to show they
had considered all input. The
2009/8/11 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Pierenpier...@gmail.com wrote:
If you see different interpretations
of the current footway/path description, then try to improve the
description on the wiki, first.
+1
I'd also recommend that if there are
2009/8/11 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
actually I prefer Pieren's approach (if I got it right) of trying to
establish _one_ definition instead of having several contradictory
ones, where in the end it is not clear anymore, which meaning a
certain tag is intended for. To solve
On Saturday 08 August 2009 14:11:21 Marc Schütz wrote:
no, it's not, it's about relative order in the db.
Fair enough. In other words, at any node which is a junction of way
segments with different layers (whether the segments are part of the
same way or different ways), the physical
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 22:35:52 +1000, James Livingston doc...@mac.com
wrote:
- At SOTM present and discuss their proposals and vote
As others have mentioned this is bad because it penalises those who
can't go to SotM. IRC meetings could work, but as soon as you get more
than a certain
2009/8/11 Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net:
I would consider that if we have thousands of mappers, that we should set a
quorum for a vote
so that unless at least x hundred people vote the vote is not valid
From
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features#Proposal_Status_Process:
8
2009/8/11 Liz ed...@billiau.net:
and a working group should contain members from all over the globe, as
possible, because of the differences in legal issues in different places
and yes, it needs members who are native speakers of major world languages to
help with translation into Spanish,
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 8:02 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
David Earl wrote:
Up to now, we could get away with changing existing tags, but as people
start to use OSM for real world tasks and base software on it that is
outside the OSM community, like other file
2009/8/8 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com:
maxspeed:vehicle:weather = hgv;wet;value1|motorcycle;wet;value2
Actually that's quite readable...
We already use the : format for translations, so why don't use it for
time periods and the weather. Make sence to me.
Very useful for parking
Paul Houle schrieb:
The level of radiation may be so low that it is not harmful to humans
+1
Radioactivity is just one of many man-made hazards, and, overall,
people overestimate it's danger compared to other hazards and often
don't understand the real hazards.
+1
@Liz:
If you
2009/8/8 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de:
Mike Harris wrote:
And I still don't think turnstile is in any way a type of stile any more
than a stile is a type of gate.
+1
The English word for turnstiles may end with stile for some reason I
don't understand, but that doesn't mean it
On 11 Aug 2009, at 16:03, Markus Lindholm wrote:
2009/8/8 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de:
Mike Harris wrote:
And I still don't think turnstile is in any way a type of stile
any more than a stile is a type of gate.
+1
The English word for turnstiles may end with stile for some
reason
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 22:49:47 +0800, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
API 0.6 broke backwards compatibility for editors (with the addition of
changesets)
API 0.5 broke backwards compatibility for editors AND renderers/routers
(with the removal of segments)
So, any discussion about improving the
perfect, only one thing to add.
more emails to talk will not change anything.
active mappers, the ones writing tools and renderers will
over time the better scheme will win or both stay in peaceful
coexistence.
On Aug 11, 2009, at 5:02 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
David Earl wrote:
Up to
+1
Mike Harris
-Original Message-
From: Tom Chance [mailto:t...@acrewoods.net]
Sent: 07 August 2009 23:53
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] sidewalks
On Friday 07 Aug 2009 23:15:39 OJ W wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Martin
Tom
I agree with you!
Mike Harris
-Original Message-
From: Tom Chance [mailto:t...@acrewoods.net]
Sent: 10 August 2009 10:31
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Hi there,
I'm 100% unclear about the distinction between highway=path and
2009/8/11 Michael Kugelmann michaelk_...@gmx.de:
Paul Houle schrieb:
The level of radiation may be so low that it is not harmful to humans
+1
Radioactivity is just one of many man-made hazards, and, overall,
people overestimate it's danger compared to other hazards and often
don't
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
no, we shouldn't. But what's so strange about the desire to tag
nuclear installations? Why not tag all chemical plants? There is a lot
of benefit in mapping not just industrial but also the type of
industry, be it chemical, automotive, steel, clothing or whatever.
2009/8/11 Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk:
Another property that turnstiles have is that usually one can pass in
only one direction. But how that is going to be tagged if a turnstile
is just a node I have no idea.
A footway going through it with the tag oneway=yes?
yes, or a
On 11 Aug 2009, at 17:12, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2009/8/11 Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk:
Another property that turnstiles have is that usually one can pass
in
only one direction. But how that is going to be tagged if a
turnstile
is just a node I have no idea.
A footway
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
no, we shouldn't. But what's so strange about the desire to tag
nuclear installations? Why not tag all chemical plants? There is a lot
of benefit in mapping not just industrial but also the type of
industry, be it chemical, automotive, steel, clothing or whatever.
2009/8/11 Paul Houle p...@ontology2.com:
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
The waste issue is complex, but I can tell you one thing. The current
LWR extracts only 2% of the energy in it's fuel. Future reactors could
extract much more of that: there's enough energy sitting in the spent fuel
2009/8/11 Jonathan Bennett openstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk:
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
no, we shouldn't. But what's so strange about the desire to tag
nuclear installations? Why not tag all chemical plants? There is a lot
of benefit in mapping not just industrial but also the type of
industry,
Shaun McDonald wrote:
Another property that turnstiles have is that usually one can pass in
only one direction. But how that is going to be tagged if a turnstile
is just a node I have no idea.
A footway going through it with the tag oneway=yes?
oneway=yes isn't a good idea, as oneway is
Gustav Foseid wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de
mailto:o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
Those eight people can only do this if not even 0.1% of the other 1
care enough to oppose the proposal. If that's the case, then apparently
the proposal
2009/8/11 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de:
Shaun McDonald wrote:
Another property that turnstiles have is that usually one can pass in
only one direction. But how that is going to be tagged if a turnstile
is just a node I have no idea.
A footway going through it with the tag oneway=yes?
On 11 Aug 2009, at 17:39, Tobias Knerr wrote:
Shaun McDonald wrote:
Another property that turnstiles have is that usually one can pass
in
only one direction. But how that is going to be tagged if a
turnstile
is just a node I have no idea.
A footway going through it with the tag
Hi!
Lauri Kytömaa schrieb:
_When not signed for anyone_ but where local legislation allows cyclists
on such routes, people used local judgement to decide whether the way
was built as being suitable for the common cyclist. Some claim that one
couldn't know what others consider suitable, but I
Hi!
Jason Cunningham schrieb:
I agree with the working groups idea, but disagree with membership of
the OSMF or attending SOTM being a requirement for taking part.
+1
Absolutely.
bye
Nop
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
Hi!
James Livingston schrieb:
- At SOTM present and discuss their proposals and vote
As others have mentioned this is bad because it penalises those who
can't go to SotM. IRC meetings could work, but as soon as you get more
than a certain number of people involved they need to be
2009/8/11 Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk:
On 11 Aug 2009, at 17:39, Tobias Knerr wrote:
Shaun McDonald wrote:
Another property that turnstiles have is that usually one can pass in
only one direction. But how that is going to be tagged if a turnstile
is just a node I have no idea.
A
Hi!
Tobias Knerr schrieb:
Tom Chance wrote:
- Tags are proposed on the wiki, no change to current practice
- If the proposal throws into question existing, accepted tags, defer the
proposal to small working groups
- These working groups study the wider questions and formulate a complete
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
I'd therefore use something like foot[backward]=no (or whatever syntax
for conditional tagging is your personal favourite) on that footway
leading through the turnstile.
does this imply to split the way on the stile? Do you split it on
either side?
This can be
On 11 Aug 2009, at 18:01, Tobias Knerr wrote:
Shaun McDonald wrote:
oneway=yes isn't a good idea, as oneway is generally assumed to /
not/
affect pedestrians. (Or how many of you actually add an exception
for
pedestrians when mapping a highway with oneway=yes?)
The exception being
2009/8/11 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de:
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
I'd therefore use something like foot[backward]=no (or whatever syntax
for conditional tagging is your personal favourite) on that footway
leading through the turnstile.
does this imply to split the way on the stile? Do
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
This can be applied to any way as long as that way needs to be used when
passing the stile. The stile should be a node on that way, but whether
it is the first/last node or any node inbetween doesn't matter at all.
I see this differently as the restriction does not
Shaun McDonald wrote:
oneway=yes isn't a good idea, as oneway is generally assumed to /not/
affect pedestrians. (Or how many of you actually add an exception for
pedestrians when mapping a highway with oneway=yes?)
The exception being highways that are for pedestrians, i.e. footway and
2009/8/11 Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de
This is a rather lenient definition that is unsuitable to depict the
German use case. That is exactly the reason for the confusion we are
having. If something is tagged as a cycleway and I am planning to walk
on foot, I need to know whether it is an unsigned way
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 6:24 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
2009/8/11 Paul Houle p...@ontology2.com:
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
The waste issue is complex, but I can tell you one thing. The current
LWR extracts only 2% of the energy in it's fuel. Future
2009/8/11 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de:
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
This can be applied to any way as long as that way needs to be used when
passing the stile. The stile should be a node on that way, but whether
it is the first/last node or any node inbetween doesn't matter at all.
I see
2009/8/11 Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de:
Hi!
Lauri Kytömaa schrieb:
_When not signed for anyone_ but where local legislation allows cyclists
on such routes, people used local judgement to decide whether the way
was built as being suitable for the common cyclist. Some claim that one
couldn't know
2009/8/11 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de:
Those eight people can only do this if not even 0.1% of the other 1
care enough to oppose the proposal. If that's the case, then apparently
the proposal isn't so bad, is it? Why didn't all those people who
apparently hate path vote against it?
On 11/08/2009 09:20, Lauri Kytömaa wrote:
_When not signed for anyone_ but where local legislation allows cyclists
on such routes, people used local judgement to decide whether the way
was built as being suitable for the common cyclist. Some claim that one
couldn't know what others consider
G'day,
Today I have a question about administrative boundaries, multipolygons,
and what to do when they fall along a road. But first, I'll ramble a
little and describe what I already have.
There's a way (boundary=administrative; member of Enterprise and
Paradise multipolygons) that runs
Looks good to me, seems to follow the guidelines.
On 2 Jul 2009, at 11:13, Rajiv Aggarwal wrote:
Hi all,
I'm implementing a service/API similar to Google Static Maps API
that uses OpenStreetMap data. This is part of a larger effort
(www.cellguided.com
) to create store maps that are
Martin Simon grenzde...@gmail.com writes:
2009/8/11 Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de:
Hi!
Lauri Kytömaa schrieb:
_When not signed for anyone_ but where local legislation allows cyclists
on such routes, people used local judgement to decide whether the way
was built as being suitable for the common
Hi
I have a contact who has a GIS mailing list in Hungary and they'd like
someone to email them about OSM. Are there any locals that can help?
Please mail me.
Yours c.
Steve
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Emilie Laffrayemilie.laff...@gmail.com wrote:
We should stop reinventing the wheel.
Let's work on those definitions first to make sure that everyone and every
languages are on the same wavelength.
Agreed. I think:
step 1) Work out how the tags are being used
The admin boundary has (IMHO) extra nodes (they don't connect to another
way nor do they affect the shape of the boundary). To make things
worse, I've joined some of these nodes to streets as I worked on the
streets and land use in the area.
So... now that I have to fix things, I want to
--- On Tue, 11/8/09, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
why should we (or you) focus on the development of an
industry-scale-technology with high potential risk, if the
sun sends
far more energy for free than we need, without either the
risk of a
MCA nor the waste-problem,
2009/8/12 Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de:
Hi!
Lauri Kytömaa schrieb:
_When not signed for anyone_ but where local legislation allows cyclists
on such routes, people used local judgement to decide whether the way
was built as being suitable for the common cyclist. Some claim that one
couldn't know
--- On Tue, 11/8/09, Jonathan Bennett openstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk wrote:
There's a difference between mapping what you can verify --
the
presences of buildings, fences, structures, etc. and
mapping pollution
or radioactivity levels, especially when you're not allowed
anywhere
near the
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:06 AM, Craig Wallacecraig...@fastmail.fm wrote:
On 11/08/2009 09:20, Lauri Kytömaa wrote:
So what about things like mountain bike trails, signed or otherwise?
There's plenty that I wouldn't advise my mother to cycle on, but I
wouldn't describe them as a footway. For
1 - 100 of 343 matches
Mail list logo
