2008/6/11 Alex Mauer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Vincent Zweije wrote:
You can only do this in very rare circumstances, otherwise the
errors-to-be-ignored drown out the errors you need to see and fix. An
unnamed street is not such a rare circumstance, IMO.
I don't think that's true. There really
On Mon, Jun 09, 2008 at 11:04:55AM -0500, Alex Mauer wrote:
|| -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
|| Hash: SHA1
||
|| SteveC wrote:
|| I'd like to define some roads that really don't have a name so that
|| they drop off the noname map.
||
||
On Mon, Jun 09, 2008 at 03:08:28PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
|| On 9 Jun 2008, at 12:43, 80n wrote:
|| noname=yes seems like a perfectly good solution. Why do you think
|| it might not be optimal?
||
|| SteveC wrote:
||coz it makes me think of no=yes
||and that would just be
Vincent Zweije wrote:
You can only do this in very rare circumstances, otherwise the
errors-to-be-ignored drown out the errors you need to see and fix. An
unnamed street is not such a rare circumstance, IMO.
I don't think that's true. There really aren't that many, in my
experience. At least
I didn't find much on the wiki, has anyone looked at defining streets
without names?
I'd like to define some roads that really don't have a name so that
they drop off the noname map.
http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~random/no-names/
I've been adding noname:yes but I can see that might
SteveC wrote:
I'd like to define some roads that really don't have a name so that
they drop off the noname map.
[..]
Maybe name:__none__. Or something.
Sounds good to me.. +1
What about just name=?
Nick
___
talk mailing list
SteveC wrote:
I'd like to define some roads that really don't have a name so that
they drop off the noname map.
[..]
Maybe name:__none__. Or something.
Sounds good to me.. +1
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
On 9 Jun 2008, at 11:15, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
SteveC wrote:
I'd like to define some roads that really don't have a name so that
they drop off the noname map.
[..]
Maybe name:__none__. Or something.
Sounds good to me.. +1
What about just name=?
Editors don't allow for empty tags
El Lunes, 9 de Junio de 2008, Nick Whitelegg escribió:
Maybe name:__none__. Or something.
Sounds good to me.. +1
What about just name=?
Some editors *cough*JOSM*cough*potlach*cough* won't let you enter an empty
value for a tag.
--
--
Iván Sánchez Ortega
Dave Stubbs wrote:
The good point about name=__none__ is that I can bet large amounts of
money that no street is actually named __none__ -- the bad points
are that renderers that don't know about it are going to write it in
the street name
So maybe named=no (or unnamed=yes)?
cheers
Richard
noname=yes seems like a perfectly good solution. Why do you think it might
not be optimal?
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 10:25 AM, SteveC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I didn't find much on the wiki, has anyone looked at defining streets
without names?
I'd like to define some roads that really don't
coz it makes me think of no=yes
and that would just be silly
On 9 Jun 2008, at 12:43, 80n wrote:
noname=yes seems like a perfectly good solution. Why do you think
it might not be optimal?
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 10:25 AM, SteveC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I didn't find much on the wiki,
On 2008-06-09, SteveC wrote:
coz it makes me think of no=yes
and that would just be silly
:)
how about nameless=yes ?
--
Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
talk mailing list
Hi,
On 9 Jun 2008, at 12:43, 80n wrote:
noname=yes seems like a perfectly good solution. Why do you think
it might not be optimal?
SteveC wrote:
coz it makes me think of no=yes
and that would just be silly
Use noname=true then ;)
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 3:44 AM, Dave Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Nick Whitelegg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SteveC wrote:
I'd like to define some roads that really don't have a name so that
they drop off the noname map.
[..]
Maybe name:__none__. Or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
SteveC wrote:
I'd like to define some roads that really don't have a name so that
they drop off the noname map.
http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~random/no-names/
I've been adding noname:yes but I can see that might not be optimal.
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Alex Mauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
SteveC wrote:
I'd like to define some roads that really don't have a name so that
they drop off the noname map.
http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~random/no-names/
I've been
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Dave Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Alex Mauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
SteveC wrote:
I'd like to define some roads that really don't have a name so that
they drop off the
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 5:22 PM, Karl Newman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Dave Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Alex Mauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
SteveC wrote:
I'd like to define
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 5:12 PM, Dave Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But how do you tell someone else that it's correct?
If I see there is an unnamed street I may go out of my way to find its
name, only to discover it doesn't have one
Define doesn't have one.
A) No evidence of the name
B)
Dave Stubbs wrote:
Maybe, but you're then asking, reviewed what/how?. And you're back
to specifying that you've reviewed that the road has no name, only
probably in a more complicated way.
Furthermore, I would expect the default (meaning the value to be assumed
if the key doesn't exist) to be
Alex Mauer wrote:
That said, I still doubt the utility of a no name meta-value. No
conscientious mapper should be putting in roads with no name if they
have a name
Wuh?
That statement is just... wrong. Really, really flabbergastingly wrong.
I cycled 420 miles recently, to do the Pennine
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Alex Mauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave Stubbs wrote:
Maybe, but you're then asking, reviewed what/how?. And you're back
to specifying that you've reviewed that the road has no name, only
probably in a more complicated way.
Furthermore, I would expect the
Andy Allan wrote:
A) No evidence of the name
B) Evidence of it not having a name
Doesn't have a sign? Or some authority agrees it actually has no name?
The two are different and should be handled differently, since the
I think one of the principles of OSM is mapping things as they are on
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Dave Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Alex Mauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave Stubbs wrote:
Maybe, but you're then asking, reviewed what/how?. And you're back
to specifying that you've reviewed that the road has no name,
On 9 Jun 2008, at 18:46, Karl Newman wrote:
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Dave Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Alex Mauer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Dave Stubbs wrote:
Maybe, but you're then asking, reviewed what/how?. And you're
back
to specifying
On 9 Jun 2008, at 19:22, Alex Mauer wrote:
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
That statement is just... wrong. Really, really flabbergastingly
wrong.
Well, it's my opinion. You're going to have to revisit the route
anyway
to find out the road names, so why not kill 2 birds with 1 stone?
Why
Alex Mauer wrote:
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
That statement is just... wrong. Really, really flabbergastingly
wrong.
Well, it's my opinion. You're going to have to revisit the route
anyway
to find out the road names, so why not kill 2 birds with 1 stone?
It's not you're going to,
Dave Stubbs wrote:
We have literally thousands of miles of unnamed roads in London... and
the vast, vast majority of these /should/ have names. And I'm going to
go try and fix them, and would like to know when not to bother.
When it's a single road or far out of the way of where you're
SteveC wrote:
Why do you think Richard 'has' to revisit it?
He personally doesn't, but if a road has a name, and that name is to be
in the database, someone has to go there and find out what it is.
-Alex Mauer hawke
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 9 Jun 2008, at 19:38, Alex Mauer wrote:
Dave Stubbs wrote:
We have literally thousands of miles of unnamed roads in London...
and
the vast, vast majority of these /should/ have names. And I'm going
to
go try and fix them, and would like to know when not to bother.
When it's a
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Oh sure, I'm not going to dispute that (things like work get in the
way there too). But to say it's not conscientious isn't right.
It may have been a poor choice of words (British/American usage
difference maybe?). I meant that someone leaving off the names is being
On 9 Jun 2008, at 19:40, Alex Mauer wrote:
SteveC wrote:
Why do you think Richard 'has' to revisit it?
He personally doesn't, but if a road has a name, and that name is to
be
in the database, someone has to go there and find out what it is.
Yes, but that's not what you said.
And, some
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 7:38 PM, Alex Mauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave Stubbs wrote:
We have literally thousands of miles of unnamed roads in London... and
the vast, vast majority of these /should/ have names. And I'm going to
go try and fix them, and would like to know when not to bother.
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 7:52 PM, Shaun McDonald
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Take a look at
http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~random/no-names/?zoom=15lat=6718359.62403lon=859.10713layers=B000
Actually, those areas aren't the problem at hand - we know someone
needs to go get the names, it's pretty
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 8:11 PM, Andy Allan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The issue is the partially-done, somewhat scrappy areas, like
http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~random/no-names/?zoom=15lat=6718359.62403lon=859.10713layers=B000
[...]
that only really applies there. I wouldn't suggest that
Dave Stubbs wrote:
Mostly because this is the property that we're most interested in at
the moment. Reviewed feels to me too open ended.
It is a bit, but I think it's great for this sort of localized, map
party sort of thing. You put the tags on in the area you're about to do
and take them off
Andy Allan wrote:
The issue is the partially-done, somewhat scrappy areas, like
http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~random/no-names/?zoom=15lat=6718359.62403lon=859.10713layers=B000
I don't know whether Dave or Shaun or Harry or anyone else has gone
and checked these roads. And there's no point in
38 matches
Mail list logo
