On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 9:37 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
Should the changeset have a tag to indicate this?
license=CC0 perhaps?
Possibly. I have to be careful about disclaiming my copyright vs.
giving assurances on the license of such data. I don't know enough of
the legal side to
On 7 September 2011 15:53, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 September 2011 15:49, Ian Sergeant ina...@gmail.com wrote:
I write I just have something against this relation, because it is
arbitrary and confusing
and you write So your entire argument is that we should
On 7 September 2011 16:31, Ian Sergeant ina...@gmail.com wrote:
The Princes Highway is an historical curiosity, and internal name management
name assigned by the NSW roads authority, and the name of a bunch of roads
between Sydney and Adelaide.
It isn't a route any longer.
It's still a
On 7 September 2011 15:49, Ian Sergeant ina...@gmail.com wrote:
I write I just have something against this relation, because it is
arbitrary and confusing
and you write So your entire argument is that we should delete the whole
route because it isn't contiguous?
Most routes are arbitrary
On 7 September 2011 15:19, Ian Sergeant ina...@gmail.com wrote:
Nah, that is all good to me. I've got nothing against relations. Nothing
against routes. Nothing against multiple relations and multiple routes. In
fact, I'd have nothing against a parent relation that linked the sections of
On 7 September 2011 13:09, Christopher Barham cbar...@pobox.com wrote:
Hi,
I'm in Charleville, Qld for a couple of days with an iPhone, a garmin oregon
GPS and, from tomorrow, a vehicle.
The place is pretty much unsurveyed, but the DCDB has been used to add
streets so the road geometry is
On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 16:31:38 +1000
Ian Sergeant ina...@gmail.com wrote:
The Princes Highway is an historical curiosity, and internal name
management name assigned by the NSW roads authority, and the name of
a bunch of roads between Sydney and Adelaide.
It isn't a route any longer.
I'm
I wrote:
This is why route numbers were invented. So routes can be followed across
multiple road names. The route numbers are on the ground, or otherwise
discoverable.
On Sep 6, 2011 3:02 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure if we're disagreeing or not, but: assuming
On 08/09/11 07:58, Ian Sergeant wrote:
The issue I have is with using a route relation with a road name to
link split parts of a named road, and including roads that don't
have a name or alternate name in common with the route, and can't
clearly be identified as part of that route by survey.
I wrote:
I'm sure people say they are going to drive the Princes Highway from
Sydney to Melbourne, but you can never pin it down to actual set of
roads. They just mean they are driving down the coast, as opposed to
the Hume. It is a useful turn of phrase, but it is a mapping
anachronism.
On
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote:
An actual connected route along roads on the ground in this instance either
doesn't exist or cannot be determined from any verifiable source.
OSM requires verifiability, for reasons I consider apparent. A route
Quoting Ian Sergeant ina...@gmail.com:
I'm sure we are interested in the history of the development of the
road network, but I'm not sure our database is the place for the
information right now.
For those interested, a partial history of the development of Highway
1 is at Ozroads:
12 matches
Mail list logo
