On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 4:00 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/8/28 Peter Childs pchi...@bcs.org:
A Way can have many lanes, Infact the default is lanes=2 (or is it?)
oneway=yes infers lanes=1
Seems like a sane assumption.
One with numerous counter-examples, then.
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 6:51 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
way id=
nd ref=.../
tag .../
tag .../
lane id=... direction=forward from-outside=2
nd ref=...
tag k='maxspeed' v='110' /
/lane
lane id= direction=backward from-outside=1
nd ref=
tag k='maxspeed'
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 12:20 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/8/30 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
way id=
nd ref=.../
tag .../
tag .../
tag k='lanes' v='2' /
tag k='lanedirection' v='backward;forward'
tag k='maxspeed' v='130;110' /
/way
That solution would fail
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 7:57 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/8/30 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
True but the example did not show why that was needed. Looking at
commercial mapping software, the typical solution is to split the way.
This whole discussion started because
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
I really don't see how it's less complicated to use the physical rather
than the logical. It's actually much more complicated when you get into the
micro areas and you start adding straight lines through a large intersection
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 9:01 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/8/30 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
It was you who suggested that a stop sign is applicable to a lane not a
way. I'd say, like Tobias, that it is applicable to a way and a
direction.
No, you stop at a stop sign
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 9:37 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
However I think this is the most common case:
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 10:27 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
Why is a relation the best solution?
What solution is better? Your lane-based solution doesn't work if there is
only one lane with bi-directional traffic. The solution of adding a node
and a direction would be
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 11:19 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/8/31 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
What solution is better? Your lane-based solution doesn't work if there
is
only one lane with bi-directional traffic. The solution of adding a node
and a direction would
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 11:45 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/8/31 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
No, it's a redesign of the whole system. A system which wasn't made for
per-lane routing information.
It wasn't designed with relations either, but they now exist too.
In any
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 12:51 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/8/31 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
And that's part of what's wrong with it. You still haven't explained how
to
handle stop signs on bi-directional, one lane road. You haven't
explained
how to handle lane
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 1:22 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/8/31 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
Right, and at an intersection which has a turning lane, there is a
restriction on a per-lane basis. You can only turn left from the turning
lane - you can only go straight
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 1:40 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/8/31 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
I guess we will have to agree to disagree, but it'd be nice if you'd
answer
my questions about how to do all those things I asked about.
I don't see a point in answering any more
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 1:09 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/8/31 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
What happens when the road goes from four lanes to six? Should this be
recorded at every intersection which has a turning lane?
I really need to stop feedint the trolls. Lanes
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 2:14 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
Now I know you're being a troll, however if we used lanes instead of
using ways you could easily tag that intersection you gave as an
exception rather than the average case that I presented which is a lot
more common.
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Lanes are ways.
A way is a list of at least two nodes that describe a linear feature such
as a street, or similar.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 12:14 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/8/31 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com: [should join] multiple
lanes. From the wiki: relations are basically
groups of objects in which each object may take on a specific role.
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Anthonyo...@inbox.org wrote:
I have a great fear of the solution proposed by John, though,
specifically
because it allows nodes (and even more specifically, nodes which
represent
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 6:04 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
Ah. So I think the issue here is whether a lane can be:
1) explicitly traced out as a way (i.e. series of nodes), or
2) assumed to follow the same path as the parent way
If a lane is related to its adjacent lanes and
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 1:26 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
it would be nice to tag things like GPS model, not just that it was
from a GPS, some models are better than others and so on and so forth.
In which case you ought to just upload the GPS data, right? GPX supports
Is it okay to use Google Street View to confirm turning restrictions, street
names, etc? This seems like an obvious yes to me, but then, I would have
said the same thing about tracing from a satellite photo, so I'm not going
to try to guess international copyright law.
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 6:49 PM, Jonathan Bennett
openstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk wrote:
David Muir Sharnoff wrote:
Google's forbids many things, but looking at an image and noting the
turn restrictions (or other content) that you can see within it is not
mentioned. Such a use is not covered
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 11:04 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/9/9 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 1:26 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
wrote:
it would be nice to tag things like GPS model, not just that it was
from a GPS, some models
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 2:52 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/9/9 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
If the way lines up with the GPS trace, the GPS trace was used as the
source
of data. If it doesn't, it wasn't (or it has been changed).
Am I missing some reason that's
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 11:39 PM, John Smithdeltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
wrote:
Legal arguments aside, there is very few street signs I've seen on
google street view that I can read anyway, most of them seem to be
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 8:48 AM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, there is some other, more practical arguments why such
checking isn't healthy thing to do. First of all, it's still just
another source, not field check. Second, it is quite interesting what
happens when you
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 10:21 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/9/10 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com:
Richard's contribution was interesting though, and obviously does have
a basis in law (http://www.systemed.net/blog/?p=100).
Just because someone quotes legal cases
That onramp isn't even connected:
http://cloudmade.com/maps?lat=52.502802lng=13.277653zoom=18directions=52.502259876407635,13.276575207710266,52.49494458610386,13.267847299575806travel=carstyleId=1
And there's no restriction against this similar move:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 5:17 AM, Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl wrote:
Haha. Nice one. Maybe you can? There is no line in the middle of the road
preventing crossing the road (see also the car turning a little south). I
do
assume there is a no left turn sign at the side of the road, but from
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 9:24 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/9/19 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:
don't get you. Isn't mapping lanes just the same like what I
suggested? I'm in favour of mapping all lanes and ways as well, but
you DO need relations to
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
yes, but that's not the problem: straight parallel ways. The problem
arises when they change (become one more or less), on intersections,
etc. Try to imagine a situation like the one I posted above in a
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Perhaps there could be some sort of special designation for a way with 3
lanes at the beginning and 2 lanes at the end, which designates whether the
right or left lane ends, if you really want to get into the fine detail
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 8:39 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
There is indeed a problem with bridges (in cases like yours it looks
like several bridges where in reality there is just one, then there
are bridge-names that can differ from the streetname, etc.)
I wonder if
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 11:37 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/9/20 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
This can be done without resorting to mapping each lane separately. If
you
have a three lane road with no lane change restrictions or physical
barriers, you map it as one way
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 12:49 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/9/20 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
That's an editor issue. If the editor wants to display lanes in a single
way as parallel ways, and let you edit them if need be, it can do that.
It's also a DB/framework issue
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 9:10 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/9/20 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
In most cases I don't think a relation is the only solution either. I
don't
see it as an abuse, though. It is clearly being used to show a relation
Lanes aren't physically
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 9:10 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
If it's a single physical section, ie a bridge with all the lanes
physically connected then it should only be one way and we should be
able to tag
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 10:04 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/9/20 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
Yes they are. If they weren't physically separated, people would be
driving
on top of each other. If they weren't physically separated, they
wouldn't
be called multiple lanes
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 10:27 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/9/21 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
So this is a single way?
http://bikelaneblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/pulaski-bridge-walkway.jpg?w=324h=241
That's nutty.
And abusing relations to do the same thing isn't
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 10:57 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/9/21 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
Fine. You can add maximum height along with maximum speed to your
list
of lane-specific data.
I don't find it very important, but if you want to allow for this,
without
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 11:39 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/9/21 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
I'd love for you to be able to do it. Come up with a way to do it that
doesn't require rewriting all the editors, all the routing software, and
combining multiple ways
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
The middle way should be reversible based on time - I'm not sure if this is
possible to do now or not.
Proposed solution is of the format oneway:time{0:00-4:00;12:00-24:00} =
yes and oneway:time{4:00-12:00} = -1
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 12:52 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
That isn't tagging reality, the bridge doesn't have multiple ways
You clearly define way differently than I do, and differently than the
current definition. The bridge most certainly has multiple ways in OSM
today.
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 1:13 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/9/21 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
You clearly define way differently than I do, and differently than the
current definition. The bridge most certainly has multiple ways in OSM
today.
However that doesn't reflect
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 1:20 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/9/21 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
True. But it is the best way to do it.
Says who?
Says the person who made the statement.
But there are multiple ways in reality. A way is a path of travel, not
a
piece
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 1:24 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/9/21 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
But there are multiple ways in reality. A way is a path of travel, not
a
piece of asphalt.
If that's the case why are most ways a lane in each direction?
I'm not sure
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 1:52 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/9/21 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
Not if you are free to cross the center line, for instance to make a left
turn across oncoming traffic to turn into a driveway.
I didn't know you can u-turn on most trunk roads
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 1:52 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/9/21 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
Not if you are free to cross the center line, for instance to make a
left
turn across oncoming traffic to turn
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 2:19 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/9/21 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
In general, the more important question than whether or not you can
U-turn
is whether or not you can cross the center line in order to make a left
(right if you drive on the other
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 2:39 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/9/21 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
Mapping ways should follow the legal paths of travel, not the existence
or
non-existence of concrete. If concrete is the only form of legal
barrier,
then fine, concrete can
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 3:03 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/9/21 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
If you're allowed to cross it, for instance to make a turn, it should be
represented as one way. If you aren't, it shouldn't. In Florida and I
As I point out below, you can't
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 3:03 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/9/21 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
I'm not talking about where passing is allowed, I'm talking about where
turning is allowed. In any case, once again
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:24 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Because that's the primary purpose for which maps are created. To inform
us
how to get from place to place.
Be careful...big assumption.
You're
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 6:20 AM, Richard Mann
richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote:
If we were just gathering data for routers, we would map every lane as a
separate way, with relations for moving between each pair of adjacent lanes.
I disagree with that. Dealing with relations when
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 8:21 AM, d f fac63te...@yahoo.com wrote:
It was more an off the top of my head comment really.
Would having it independent make it easier for the renderers?
I think the important question is, does it add information? Probably so. A
bridge really is more than just a
I've got parcel data for my county from the property appraiser's office.
It's in shp format, which I have converted to osm format. The data lines up
with what's already there nicely - there don't seem to be any projection
issues and the accuracy appears to be excellent. It is public domain with
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
The data is at ftp://209.26.172.71/.
Username: public
Password: access
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Hi Antony,
Here in France, we also have access to the land registry WMS for the
whole country (only raster images, not the shapefiles excepted for one
county who
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
I basically just want the address info.
One of these days I want to be able to get door-to-door driving directions
which I can *correct* when they're wrong!
___
talk mailing list
talk
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 6:20 AM, Richard Mann
richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote:
If we were just gathering data for rendering a single-scale street map,
we'd add tags to a single way, and probably not bother with lane
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 6:20 AM, Richard Mann
richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote:
If we were just gathering data for rendering a single-scale street map
in the roads.
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Hillsman, Edward hills...@cutr.usf.eduwrote:
Hi Anthony,
One other possibility would be to calculate and upload parcel centroids
(points) instead of whole parcels.
Yep. Or if I have the patience I could identify the road the address
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 11:32 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
John seems to combine everything into a single way and treat the
individual
lanes (some of the substructures aren't even really lanes
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
2009/9/21 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
Osmarender does a pretty good job of those bridges:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=27.95907lon=-82.53907zoom=17layers=0B00FTF
Notice how it combines the two ways
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
2009/9/21 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
Right now, like it or not, ways are being used essentially in the manner
I'm
suggesting we keep using them. We don't combine everything that crosses
a
bridge
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 8:57 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
2009/9/22 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
It is possible to represent different surfaces and different maxspeeds
without using more than one way. maxspeed:lane=130;110;
surface:lane=asphalt;concrete. That's
Usually there will be ~100mtres for this where you can
change at any time, but in OSM you have to decide on one merging
point.
I haven't seen a proposed scheme yet that really deals with this
properly, they pretty much all pretend that a lane starts at a point.
Personally I don't think
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote:
Ruben Wisniewski writes:
No I'm not only touching this buildings, I tried to fix every doubled
node. It's the same thing a user would do with a josm validator.
What is a doubled node? Any node which has the same
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 9:05 PM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote:
Lawds, I wish the English could speak English. Who decided it would
be a good idea to fork off American into a whole 'nother language?
That would be Noah Webster.
___
talk
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Thomas Wood grand.edgemas...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, 2009-10-05 at 01:15 +1000, John Smith wrote:
For people with good reason to be making dummy edits the dev system
can do this and will also render pretty maps too.
http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org/
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 4:30 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
If, however, you just drove along the road and have *one* GPS track and
then say well the road is 10 metres wide so I'll just draw parallel
lines offset by 5 metres left and right from the centreline
By the way, this is
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 4:30 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
MP wrote:
b) is easier for editing, more reflecting the reality
I think it is appropriate to choose b) if you indeed have separate
measurements for each of the three lines, for example a GPS track for
the road
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
Marc Schütz wrote:
IMO (a) is the correct way to do this.
We are trying to represent reality in our database.
I'm not sure that's true. A map is a representation of reality, not
reality itself.
True, but the
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
With the tools available to us at the moment attaining
reality is a lot of work For instance the majority of mappers don't draw
an area for, lets say
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:21 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/10/7 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
Most sidewalks pretty much meet that criterion, and roads sort of meet it
(not at intersections, though).
There is a landuse area around roads that isn't part of surrounding
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:56 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/10/7 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:21 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
wrote:
2009/10/7 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
Most sidewalks pretty much meet that criterion, and roads sort
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
The only way I can see doing that is when the landuse area is *also* a
highway area.
And then, only if you're sure that's what you want to do. If you have two
pedestrian areas separated by a highway, and you use the highway
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Mike Harris mik...@googlemail.com wrote:
This suggests that the area tag might even be landuse=highway!
Hey, I could go for that. I've already clearly separated the meaning of the
term highway when dealing with OSM from the meaning of the term highway
that I'd
Tagging: landuse=highway
Applies-to: area
Definition: an area of land set aside for public use in transportation
Land which is set aside for public use as a roadway, footway,
cycleway, etc. The actual road or path may or may not have already
been built. This tag should not be used for areas of
--
From: Anthony o...@inbox.org
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 19:58:03 -0400
Subject: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse=highway
To: openstreetmap talk@openstreetmap.org
Tagging: landuse=highway
Applies-to: area
Definition: an area of land set aside for public use
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Randy Thomson rwtnospam-...@yahoo.com wrote:
Then you are proposing
highway=planned
planned=* (highway class)
Is that correct? Sounds OK to me.
Make sure you get permission from the designer of the plans - in the
form of a release under CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, or
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
Anthony wrote:
Even then, I have mixed feelings about it, until there's support in
the major editors for downloading and editing subsets of data.
First of all, this would have to be supported by the API as well
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
Anthony wrote:
Even then, I have mixed feelings about it, until there's support in
the major editors for downloading and editing subsets of data.
First of all, this would have to be supported by the API as well
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 7:04 AM, Claudius claudiu...@gmx.de wrote:
True. In german we say Schutzhütte (losely translates as protection
hut) and the german wikipedia article shows good examples in pictures:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schutzhütte (ignore the one in the lower
right corner).
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Shaun McDonald
sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk wrote:
If you just add a disused=yes, pretty much nothing that works with the OSM
data will recognise that it is no longer a cafe.
But a disused mineshaft is still a mineshaft, it's just an abandoned one.
As another
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
Shaun McDonald wrote:
If you just add a disused=yes, pretty much nothing that works with the
OSM data will recognise that it is no longer a cafe.
Don't map for the renderer, router etc. etc.
You should be writing a post
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 7:49 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
Shaun McDonald wrote:
If you just add a disused=yes, pretty much nothing that works with the
OSM data will recognise that it is no longer a cafe.
Don't map
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 8:26 PM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
Because tags like disused=yes conflict with a general principle in OSM:
We don't have a fixed set of tags and mappers can invent and use their
own tags, so it should be possible for software to ignore tags it
doesn't
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 4:44 AM, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com wrote:
A former cafe can be helpful as a landmark as well. Especially when it's a
free standing building (e.g. in a forest) near a larger city, which is not
that uncommon in germany.
So propose landmark=cafe. Much easier
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote:
On Wednesday 21 October 2009 15:45:49 Anthony wrote:
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 4:44 AM, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com
wrote:
A former cafe can be helpful as a landmark as well. Especially when it's
a free standing
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 5:24 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
A further problem arises when the hole boundary consists of multiple
ways, something that is allowed for advanced multipolygons, but you
would not be able to place the name of the island (or whatever) in this
scenario.
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Anthony wrote:
Do advanced multipolygons have to have an inner?
No.
Great.
Personally, I am hoping that we will (re)introduce a proper area data type
some day because even though the multipolygons were a good idea
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
The other is multipolygons, where we (ab)use the relation object which is
*normally* used to model a relation between several primitives, to actually
construct a primitive in the first place. Constructing the geo-object
notes from those sources. Then
make your own work from your memory and your notes. Just like you're
making a research paper.
But no, don't actually do that. It's unfair to the people who spent
all that time riding around on their bicycles making GPS traces.
Anthony
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 4:13 AM, Jukka Rahkonen
jukka.rahko...@mmmtike.fi wrote:
There is an interesting blog post at http://www.systemed.net/blog/?p=100
Tracing a copyrighted work, is not necessarily copying. See image at
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Mike N. nice...@att.net wrote:
In reality, it isn't. It's factual information about the world, which
is not copyrightable in the USA, and given your sweat of the brow in
tracing it, is copyrightable (but it's YOUR copyright for having
traced) in the UK.
But
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 9:09 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/11/1 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
If you're tracing roads, you're copying the shape of the roads.
You're certainly copying *something*, but that something is probably
not copyrighted (and almost certainly
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
in some regions/countries like the EU there is also a database protection
and those aerial images are / might be considered a database.
Those database laws really make things tough. It's basically a flaw in the
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyway, to resume all this discussion - PLEASE don't trace from photo
without permission for OSM, whatever your temptations are.
Permission from whom, and in what form? Supposedly the Yahoo images
are okay, but 1) Yahoo
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Shaun McDonald
sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk wrote:
On 1 Nov 2009, at 20:17, Anthony wrote:
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com
wrote:
Anyway, to resume all this discussion - PLEASE don't trace from photo
without permission for OSM
1 - 100 of 1311 matches
Mail list logo
