On 15 Jul 2010, at 11:21, Joe Hughes wrote:
Peter,
I think it would be helpful to look at GTFS data from a few diverse
providers when testing ideas about imports, as data tends to reflect
the historical practices of the particular agency in ways like
naming patterns, which details are
On 15 Jul 2010, at 11:21, Joe Hughes wrote:
Peter,
I think it would be helpful to look at GTFS data from a few diverse
providers when testing ideas about imports, as data tends to reflect
the historical practices of the particular agency in ways like
naming patterns, which details are
In NaPTAN each direction of travel must be modelled with a separate stop -
so even though you may have a sign which says stops in both directions
(but the sign is only on one side of the road) ... there are two NaPTAN
records, one showing a marked stop, and the other an unmarked one (what we
call
Thanks! :-)
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 6:51 AM, Sorbi Ildefonso
sorbi.ildefo...@gmail.comwrote:
The poster looks really good! Great work sir! =)
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 10:13:07PM +0100, 80n wrote:
The correct way to make any significant and contentious change to a project
is to fork it.
How about we do the significant changes and anyone unhappy with them can
fork it? That works too.
Simon
--
A complex system that works is invariably
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 05:46:02PM +1000, John Smith wrote:
I don't really see the point of this question, since it's already more
than obvious I'm bucking the trend...
Ah, you already know you’re in a minority then, that’s why you’re so
vocal… ;)
Simon
--
A complex system that works is
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:53 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
There's only one undeniable fact in this whole affair. Exactly 100% of all
contributors have signed up to CC-BY-SA and have indicated that they are
willing to contribute their data under that license.
Given that that has been the
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 12:26 AM, TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote:
The new contributor rights also waters down my effective
veto rights to control future licenses.
That's one of its great strengths - 150,000 people each with a veto is
not a community, it's a recipe for nothing to
On 07/16/2010 12:26 AM, TimSC wrote:
Not to mention the notes that accompanied the vote
were unashamedly pro-ODbL, despite Creative Commons criticizing the
ODbL.
Science Commons's views on the ODbL are not shared by OKFN, who seem to
have a better understanding of data law.
(different
/Andy Allan wrote:
/
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 12:26 AM, TimSCmapping at sheerman-chase.org.uk
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk wrote:
/ The new contributor rights also waters down my effective
// veto rights to control future licenses.
/
That's one of its great strengths -
On 07/16/2010 09:49 AM, Anthony wrote:
ODbL is a comparable licence to BY-SA, with the main change being
that it has actually been written to cover data.
That's not at all correct. The main change between BY-SA and ODbL is
the requirement to release the database whenever you use the
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Rob Myers wrote:
BY-SA does not protect the freedom to use OSM data in Australia. Trying
to continue pretending that it does doesn't serve the interests of
Australians.
a complete untruth
I see that you are based in UK
so I'm not sure how you obtained such advice.
Rob Myers wrote:
If we are allowed to arbitrarily redefine how votes should be counted
then, as I say, only 6.05% of the total possible electorate voted
against relicencing.
There appear to be some indications that the LWG are at least considering a
final vote amongst all active
On 07/16/2010 10:25 AM, John Smith wrote:
On 16 July 2010 18:35, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:
48% for, 6% against, no clear majority...
The largest single voting category is clearly the for vote.
And within the cast votes the result is even clearer.
I guess you misunderstand what
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:24 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
Given that that has been the only option, that's hardly surprising.
Everyone had two options: 1) agree to CC-BY-SA or 2) take your data to some
other
On 07/16/2010 10:28 AM, Liz wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Rob Myers wrote:
BY-SA does not protect the freedom to use OSM data in Australia. Trying
to continue pretending that it does doesn't serve the interests of
Australians.
a complete untruth
Then I sincerely apologize. :-(
- Rob.
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Rob Myers wrote:
Has anyone asked the Australian or New Zealand governments how scared
they would be of ODbL?
This statement indicates your complete failure to understand political
process.
I'm not young, I'm white haired actually, and glib remarks like this don't
On 16 July 2010 19:57, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, this is ridiculous. Of course I've agreed to CC-BY-SA. The ODbL
didn't even exist when I joined OSM - and you know that fine and well
Etienne, you were there too when there was only 3 of us mapping in SW
London. So it's a
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 11:17 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 July 2010 19:57, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, this is ridiculous. Of course I've agreed to CC-BY-SA. The ODbL
didn't even exist when I joined OSM - and you know that fine and well
Etienne, you
On 16 July 2010 20:23, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
No, he was making the point that CC-BY-SA has 100% support amongst all
the contributors, since we all agreed to it, and is using that to
suggest that nobody wants to relicense and that anyone who does needs
to fork the project.
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:24 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com
wrote:
Given that that has been the only option, that's hardly surprising.
Everyone
John,
John Smith wrote:
You are correct, it's obvious that there is some people unhappy with
the status quo.
I wouldn't exactly say I am unhappy with the status quo. It's like
living in a house where experts say it is going to fall apart any minute
- you might like to be able to retain the
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 11:28 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
On 16 July 2010 20:23, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
No, he was making the point that CC-BY-SA has 100% support amongst all
the contributors, since we all agreed to it, and is using that to
suggest that
On 16 July 2010 20:39, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I wouldn't exactly say I am unhappy with the status quo. It's like living in
a house where experts say it is going to fall apart any minute - you might
like to be able to retain the status quo but it's not on the menu. The
status
On 16/07/2010, at 6:35 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
ODbL is a comparable licence to BY-SA, with the main change being that it has
actually been written to cover data. If people don't relicence because they
are afraid not enough people will relicence then that will be a bit of a
self-fulfilling
On 16/07/2010, at 6:28 PM, Andy Allan wrote:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:53 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
There's only one undeniable fact in this whole affair. Exactly 100% of all
contributors have signed up to CC-BY-SA and have indicated that they are
willing to contribute their data under
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 8:01 AM, James Livingston
li...@sunsetutopia.com wrote:
* Currently you can import any data with a compatible licence (e.g. CC-BY-SA,
CC-BY), you can't if we change without the copyright holder's permission
This is a tremendous improvement in my opinion. I'd like to
James Livingston wrote:
/ Although, as Simon Ward said Everyone has a say on whether their contributions
can be licensed under the new license., I am uncomfortable with the ODbL process and I
resent not being polled before the license change was decided. OSMF has gotten this far in
the
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 8:01 AM, James Livingston
li...@sunsetutopia.com wrote:
* Currently you can import any data with a compatible licence (e.g.
CC-BY-SA, CC-BY), you can't if we change without the copyright holder's
Brian Quinion wrote:
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Richard Weaitrichard at weait.com
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk wrote:
/ On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 8:01 AM, James Livingston
// lists at sunsetutopia.com
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk wrote:
On 07/16/2010 01:01 PM, James Livingston wrote:
On 16/07/2010, at 6:35 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
ODbL is a comparable licence to BY-SA, with the main change being that it has
actually been written to cover data. If people don't relicence because they are
afraid not enough people will relicence
On 07/16/2010 04:33 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 5:19 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org
mailto:r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 07/16/2010 10:05 AM, Anthony wrote:
BY-SA almost certainly applies to the OSM database as a whole,
even if
it doesn't apply to some
On 07/16/2010 05:11 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
Science Commons seem to think copyright doesn't apply to databases,
In the US.
OKFN
seem to think it might.
- Rob.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 07/16/2010 04:33 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 5:19 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org
mailto:r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 07/16/2010 10:05 AM, Anthony wrote:
BY-SA almost certainly applies to the
On 16 July 2010 17:11, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
Science Commons seem to think copyright doesn't apply to databases, OKFN
seem to think it might. I'm erring on the side of caution. If you can
provide any clearer guidance I'd be very grateful. :-)
You might want to read the Supreme
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
I see you're talking about the US. So I'll provide a case for you. Key
Publications, Inc. v. Chinatown Today Publishing Enterprises Inc. held that
the yellow pages of the phone directory were copyrightable. Surely the OSM
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
But there is quite a high threshold for protection since there is a
requirement that databases so protected by reason of the selection or
arrangement of their contents, constitute the author's own
intellectual creation.
On 16 July 2010 17:55, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
But there is quite a high threshold for protection since there is a
requirement that databases so protected by reason of the selection or
arrangement of their contents,
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 08:14:46PM +1000, John Smith wrote:
And that's where the fear comes in, just because you may have good
intentions doesn't mean that it won't harm my goals.
Did you think there would be no losers? The project can’t please
everyone. If you care that much, why not
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:01:08PM +1000, James Livingston wrote:
* It also uses contract law, which makes things a *lot* more complicated
Despite my strong bias towards copyleft, I thought this was a problem
with the license. Unfortunately people thought that because laws about
rights to data
On 17 July 2010 02:44, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
In Australia, there was an important decision last year in the High
Court involving TV schedules:
http://www.copyright.org.au/news/news_items/cases-news/2009-cases/u29768/
I've been told that Telstra (white/yellow pages owner among
Forwarded from talk because it might miss someone not on both lists
-- Forwarded Message --
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more
inclusive?
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010, 01:13:36
From: Roland Olbricht roland.olbri...@gmx.de
To:
On 17 July 2010 04:07, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
Did you think there would be no losers? The project can’t please
everyone. If you care that much, why not campaign with reasons against
the license change, and encourage lots of OSMers to disagree with it. If
you’re lucky you might
On 17 July 2010 04:58, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Is that a desired safeguard against OKFN releasing bad new license
versions, or is it an oversight?
That clause most likely makes cc-by data incompatible, since a free
and open license may not require attribution, regardless if you
Roland Olbricht schrieb:
- There is no tool yet to see the impact of the relicensing to the data. But
this is the key need for those who are rather interested in the data than the
legalese.
I would say that the new licence might be good, beter than the old one
BUT:
I also interested MUCH MORE
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 07:08:07AM +1000, John Smith wrote:
At this stage I'm against the process, not the new license, but of
course you completely missed what my motivation is, which is making an
informed determination if the loss is acceptable or not, if it isn't
and ODBL still goes ahead
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 08:58:31PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Notice the absence of any or later clause here. This means that if
ODbL 1.1 comes out, it will not be usable out of the box, but we
would have to go through the whole 2/3 of active members have to
accept poll to upgrade.
I don’t
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 07:07:19AM +1000, Liz wrote:
- There is no tool yet to see the impact of the relicensing to the data. But
this is the key need for those who are rather interested in the data than the
legalese. Please develop the tool first or leave sufficient time to let
develop
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 01:36:09AM +0100, I wrote:
Getting people to agree to a “we can change it even though you don’t
agree because we have a 2/3 majority” is just a little bit sneaky in
my opinion.
The project needs to understand the consequences of a license change,
this one or any future
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 07/16/2010 04:33 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 5:19 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org
mailto:r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 07/16/2010 10:05 AM, Anthony wrote:
BY-SA almost certainly applies to the
I don't share your pessimism. I've mapped maxspeed=* quite a bit.
Compared to name=*, it's no harder to map, and it is of increasing
importance. I think we'll get far more than 8% of road names tagged in
the long-term future, and I think the same of maxspeed=*.
Well ... maybe not - since
Hello,
It looks like there is no planet file for this week. Was there an export
issue?
Thanks,
N.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
On 16 July 2010 14:33, Nakor nakor@gmail.com wrote:
It looks like there is no planet file for this week. Was there an export
issue?
Yes no planet file this week yet. The usual planet dump was stopped
when we added additional storage yesterday.
I've restarted the dump. ETA Sunday.
I've split this from the original thread before it derails the one it
was in any further, and cc'd legal-talk.
[...]
What could we (you/me/LWG) do to make this more inclusive?
Just some bullet points at first, explanation follows:
- There is no tool yet to see the impact of the relicensing to
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 5:18 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 07/16/2010 09:49 AM, Anthony wrote:
ODbL is a comparable licence to BY-SA, with the main change being
that it has actually been written to cover data.
That's not at all correct. The main change between BY-SA and
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 5:19 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 07/16/2010 10:05 AM, Anthony wrote:
BY-SA almost certainly applies to the OSM database as a whole, even if
it doesn't apply to some individual parts of the database. So you're
wrong that this is an undeniable fact.
Hi All,
As requested last week, the MapQuest Mapnik style is available on GitHub,
at:
http://github.com/MapQuest/MapQuest-Mapnik-Style
Its under an MIT license
Please note there are some changes in there since the conference already.
We've been adding on working the boke and footpaths in, and
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010, Rob Myers wrote:
Science Commons seem to think copyright doesn't apply to databases,
In the US.
OKFN
seem to think it might.
After a recent High Court decision, in Australia copyright is not applicable
to databases. Maps were not included in the Court decision,
Roland Olbricht schrieb:
- There is no tool yet to see the impact of the relicensing to the data. But
this is the key need for those who are rather interested in the data than the
legalese.
I would say that the new licence might be good, beter than the old one
BUT:
I also interested MUCH MORE
Heiko Jacobs-2 wrote:
But I don't will accept any data loss because only of legal reasons.
Wikipedia and other projects changed licence without any loss of data.
Unfortunately Wikipedia took advantage of a loophole: contributors agreed to
the current GFDL or any later version, and they
Consider two cases:
1. Current license does not cover the OSM data (I think that's the OSMF
view). In this case, OSMF can just change to ODBL without asking anyone.
2. Current license does cover the OSM data. Then there's no need to change.
Where's the issue?
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 5:55 PM,
On 17 July 2010 14:59, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
As John Smith has pointed out, actually finding out the real status of
the boundary could be a lot of work, but it would be valuable.
I also said no one wants to spend the time and effort on it.
Weet iemand of dat mogelijk is? Of kan iemand me naar de juiste tools wijzen?
Ik heb een vraag uitstaan van Brabants Landschap die eigenlijk alleen
Brabant nodig hebben.
Groet,
Floris
___
Talk-nl mailing list
Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org
Floris,
Wat moet er in de shapefiles?
Groet,
--Roeland
On Friday 16 July 2010 09:45:12 Floris Looijesteijn wrote:
Weet iemand of dat mogelijk is? Of kan iemand me naar de juiste tools
wijzen?
Ik heb een vraag uitstaan van Brabants Landschap die eigenlijk alleen
Brabant nodig hebben.
Alles wordt lastig.
Enkel de fietspaden is geen probleem. Of enkel de wegen. Maar je kan niet
punten en lijnen in 1 shape file hebben. Dus alles wordt sowieso al lastig.
Een shape files met alle lijntjes met een highway=* tag moet wel te fixen zijn
Groet,
--Roeland
On Friday 16 July 2010
2010/7/14 Roeland Douma u...@rullzer.com:
Enkele tijd terug heeft Lennard een kaartje naar deze lijst gestuurd met
daarop het volgende voorstel. Het omtaggen van:
highway=tertiary + AND:importance_level=5 + version=1
= highway=unclassified
Hierbij was teven een visualisatie [1]. Deze
Ik heb een vraag over postkantoren.
De situatie in Nederland verandert en de postkantoren verdwijnen.
Daarvoor in de plaats komt dat bij gewone winkels een afdeling is waar men
postzaken kan afhandelen (net zoals op het platteland van Canada en de V.S.
Hoe mappen we dat?
Ronald
No worries! The new coverage they have set out for Victoria including
the Mornington Peninsula, Phillip Island, Ballarat and the Yarra
Valley is great news for me! All they need to plan to fly now is
Pakenham then i'll be happy! Oh wait, then the Latrobe Valley,
then you all get the idea!
On
While Nearmap for Tamworth and Armidale would be nice, surveyors have been
hard at work in both.
That said, having had a look at the new coverage in the Hunter Valley, there
is a huge amount of detail you can get from Nearmap that would be
practically impossible with surveying.
- Ben.
On 16
On 16 July 2010 15:35, Babstar babsta...@gmail.com wrote:
While we're on the requests, please an an extension from Mittagong west
If we're on to requests :)
How about some more of North Qld.
I notice Mackay and Cairns are on the plan but what about areas in between,
(Whitsunday's,
I've known about TheList for years but am pretty certain that there is
copyright issues stopping me from using it?
Neal
On 16/07/10 4:22 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 16 July 2010 15:35, Neal Schulzneal.sch...@internode.on.net wrote:
I'd like a bit more.. Tasmania has NONE :(
I posted
On 16 July 2010 16:29, Ben Kelley ben.kel...@gmail.com wrote:
While Nearmap for Tamworth and Armidale would be nice, surveyors have been
hard at work in both.
Aerial imagery can do things like landuse, not just roads, which is a
lot harder to get or even see from ground level...
If you want to make requests, http://forum.Nearmap.com/ :)
Cheers
b
On Friday, July 16, 2010, Babstar babsta...@gmail.com wrote:
While we're on the requests, please an an extension from Mittagong west south
west to cover Bowral, Moss Vale, Exeter Bundanoon as well as the Hume
Highway.
On 16 July 2010 20:31, Ben Last ben.l...@nearmap.com wrote:
If you want to make requests, http://forum.Nearmap.com/ :)
I did some time ago :)
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Ben Kelley ben.kel...@gmail.com wrote:
That said, having had a look at the new coverage in the Hunter Valley, there
is a huge amount of detail you can get from Nearmap that would be
practically impossible with surveying.
I've also been finding the opposite.
Hallo Thorsten,
Thorsten Kunkel wrote:
O.K., hab es hingekriegt. Den Wiki-Eintrag hab ich gleich mit
verfeinert. Jetzt knöpf ich mir noch die anderen vor...
ich hatte vor längerer Zeit das hier beschreieben:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Undoing_Deletions#Recover_deleted_Relations
Es
mehr infos als auf der website hab ich derzeit auch nicht.
wichtig ist - für mich - nur, dass die nicht für die autobahnen zuständig
sind aber der trend in richtung abbau geht. daher sollte man gelegendlich
mal nachsehen, ob die dinger noch da sind.
gruss
walter
-
Ich bin root, ich darf
hi !
wollte gerade den shortlink nutzen - da wurde die url noch länger.
kann mir einer sagen wie ich dennoch an diesen kommen - wäre schön für
anfragen.
gruß jan :-)
___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
Frederik Ramm wrote:
Du bist damit nicht allein - die Leute haben nicht Angst vor der neuen
Lizenz, sondern Angst davor, dass zu viele andere Angst vor der neuen
Lizenz haben koennten.
hi,
damit hast du aus meiner sicht das problem zielgenau getroffen!
gruss
walter
-
Ich bin
sei mit bitte nicht böse,
da schreibst du als muttersprachler deutsch wikis in englisch und bittest
dann andere, diese ins deutsche zu übersetzen?
erscheint mir irgendwie nicht so richtig sinnvoll ;( da können sich spielend
fehler einschleichen, die dem autor nicht passieren würden.
gruss
Am 15.07.10 16:16, schrieb Thorsten Kunkel:
Am 15.07.2010 14:31, schrieb Thorsten Kunkel:
Ich hab mich an dieser Relation nach Anleitung
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Relations#Gel.C3.B6schte_Relationen_wieder_herstellen
versucht, JOSM will mir immer eine neue ID zuweisen, da das
Am 16.07.2010 08:55, schrieb Stephan Knauss:
Hallo Thorsten,
Thorsten Kunkel wrote:
O.K., hab es hingekriegt. Den Wiki-Eintrag hab ich gleich mit
verfeinert. Jetzt knöpf ich mir noch die anderen vor...
ich hatte vor längerer Zeit das hier beschreieben:
Am 16.07.2010 08:58, schrieb Walter Nordmann:
mehr infos als auf der website hab ich derzeit auch nicht.
wichtig ist - für mich - nur, dass die nicht für die autobahnen zuständig
sind aber der trend in richtung abbau geht. daher sollte man gelegendlich
mal nachsehen, ob die dinger noch da
Am 16.07.2010 09:10, schrieb André Joost:
Am 15.07.10 16:16, schrieb Thorsten Kunkel:
Am 15.07.2010 14:31, schrieb Thorsten Kunkel:
Ich hab mich an dieser Relation nach Anleitung
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Relations#Gel.C3.B6schte_Relationen_wieder_herstellen
versucht, JOSM will
Hallo.
Am Donnerstag 15 Juli 2010, 22:02:50 schrieb Nils Faerber:
2. Straßenname mit als Attribut an das Haus. Finde ich super redundant.
Dann steht der Straßenname-String (n+1) mal in der OSM Datenbank -
eigentlich Blödsinn.
Das ist aber state of the art, denn es hat sich in der Praxis
Am 16.07.10 09:32, schrieb Thorsten Kunkel:
Am 16.07.2010 09:10, schrieb André Joost:
Wie hast du denn JOSM davon überzeugen können, keine neue ID
aufzumachen? In dem Wiki-Artikel steht jetzt nicht wesentlich anderes
als vorher und so, wie ich es bislang auch immer gemacht hatte.
Den o.g.
Hallo,
am 16.07.2010 08:58 schrieb Jan Tappenbeck:
wollte gerade den shortlink nutzen - da wurde die url noch länger.
kann mir einer sagen wie ich dennoch an diesen kommen - wäre schön für
anfragen.
Ja, kann ich.
Falls du es auch wissen willst: Maus auf Shortlink, Rechtklick,
Linkadresse
Walter Nordmann wrote:
da schreibst du als muttersprachler deutsch wikis in englisch und bittest
dann andere, diese ins deutsche zu übersetzen?
ich vermute mal, das war eine Antwort auf meine Mail. Hätte ich
vielleicht nicht so schnell löschen sollen, dann wäre der Bezug klarer.
Ich
jetzt noch die Deutsche Seite zu amenity=emergency_phone unter
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:amenity%3Demergency_phone
gruß jan :-9
___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Hallo steffterra,
Aber unabhängig davon würde mich interessieren (nicht als Argumentation):
- Unterstützt _derzeit_ z.B. Nominatim die Adressuche in Relationen?
- Außerdem wäre es natürlich super, wenn auch der OSM-Inspektor um
diese Variante 3 erweitert würde.
Am Freitag, 16. Juli 2010, 01:15:16 schrieb Daniela Duerbeck:
Und wenn es einmal labbrig geworden ist, dann wird's beim Ankleben eine
Schnitzarbeit,
Nein, nicht unbedingt. Bei meinem ersten Legend standen einige
Millimeter ab, aber nach Einschmieren mit dem genannten Pattex schmiegte
Am 16.07.2010 09:40, schrieb André Joost:
Am 16.07.10 09:32, schrieb Thorsten Kunkel:
Am 16.07.2010 09:10, schrieb André Joost:
Wie hast du denn JOSM davon überzeugen können, keine neue ID
aufzumachen? In dem Wiki-Artikel steht jetzt nicht wesentlich anderes
als vorher und so, wie ich es
Bernd Wurst schrieb:
Btw, JOSM merkt sich alle eingegebenen Daten, wenn man also mehrere
Hausnummern pro Straße eingibt, hat man keine zusätzliche Arbeit damit.
Ich bevorzuge, für jede Straße die Adressnodes zu duplizieren und nur
die Hausnummer hinzuzufügen/zu ändern.
nur meine 2 byte ;)
2010/7/15 Nils Faerber nils.faer...@kernelconcepts.de:
Ich habe dazu nun drei Varianten gefunden:
Das ist korrekt.
1. Straßennamen nicht mit angeben - Algorithmen sollen bei einer Suche
in der Nähe der Straße suchen. Das ist in wohl 90% der Fälle OK, schlägt
aber bei Häusern an Straßenecken
Am 15.07.2010 22:02, schrieb Nils Faerber:
Wie mappe ich Hausnummern richtig?
Zur Zeit verpasse ich jedem Haus seine Hausnummer, aber nicht den
Straßennamen. Ich finde es mehr als redundant, jedem Haus den kompletten
Namen mitzugeben.
2. Straßenname mit als Attribut an das Haus. Finde
Am 16.07.2010 06:36, schrieb steffterra:
ist aus genanntem Grund schlecht: weiterer Grund: die _Adresseinformation_
eines Gebäudes besteht nicht nur aus der Hausnummer.
Dieser Satz sollte Gesetz werden. Mir ist es egal, ob die Adresse via
Relation oder via addr:*-Tag definiert wird, _aber_
Am Freitag 16 Juli 2010, 11:04:45 schrieb Andreas Neumann:
Dagegen sind Angaben, wie Stadt oder Land nicht ganz so wichtig, wenn es
eine funktionierenden Grenzrelation drumherum gibt... Wovon aber oft die
Grenzen fehlen, sind die Viertel/Ortschaften einer Stadt! Das sollte
man, wenn nötig,
Moin,
liegt es an der Hitze?
Ihr stoßt eine Diskussion an, ob eine durchgezogenen Mittellinie allein
durch ein Tag abgebildet und *routingmäßig*(!) ausgewertet werden kann
oder ob dafür zwingend Relationen erforderlich sind.
Und anschließend beruft Ihr Euch darauf, das es die relevanten,
Am 16. Juli 2010 07:48 schrieb Guenther Meyer d@sordidmusic.com:
Wenn man sich die Beschreibung durchliest, dann passt das aber trotzddem recht
gut... ;-)
Wikipedia Seite zur Unterscheidung der Bedeutungen, nur 1 Satz: A
village green is is an area of common land in a village.
Das passt
Am 16.07.2010 09:41, schrieb Norbert Kück:
Hallo,
am 16.07.2010 08:58 schrieb Jan Tappenbeck:
wollte gerade den shortlink nutzen - da wurde die url noch länger.
kann mir einer sagen wie ich dennoch an diesen kommen - wäre schön für
anfragen.
Ja, kann ich.
Falls du es auch wissen willst: Maus
1 - 100 of 324 matches
Mail list logo
