Hi all,
Has anyone used JOSM for audio mapping? I've tried and failed to get it
working.
I want to use several separate wav file recordings, and use the modified
times of the wav files to associate them with the correct places in the gpx
track. Following is my attempt, which doesn't work. Please
Hi all,
I'm after some advice on a potential data source.
I've got a contact in Logan City Council (LCC) who seems open to the idea of
making data available for import into OpenStreetMap. At the moment, the data
in question regards bikeways, in the form of standard MapInfo databases
based on
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 6:57 PM, John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
I've noticed some people have tagged bridges with height=*, rather than
tagging the road way under the bridge as maxheight=* and I'm kind of unsure
which is better.
I think the bridge should be tagged.
Firstly,
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 9:47 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Mon, 27/7/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the bridge should be tagged.
There was an overwhelming response on the main talk list that this be tagged
as maxheight on the way that has
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Stephen Hopeslh...@gmail.com wrote:
No, you're wrong here. Maxheight is an element of the way that goes
under the bridge. It is caused by the bridge, but it is not part of
the bridge.
You're saying that the clearance under a bridge is not an attribute of
the
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:15 AM,
Cameronosm-mailing-li...@justcameron.com wrote:
I think tag the part of the way that is signed. Generally before bridges
there is a sign informing road users of the bridge's restrictions. Sometimes
they will offer an alternate route for larger vehicles. So tag
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Ross Scanloni...@4x4falcon.com wrote:
Does this mean the bridge has a clearance of 2.8 or the road under the bridge
has a clearance of 2.8. To me this would suggest the bridge has a limit of
2.8 ie vehicles travelling over the bridge can not be above 2.8
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Apollinaris Schoellascho...@gmail.com wrote:
one bridge can cross multiple roads with different maxheight limtations.
This is a good argument in favour of tagging the ways that pass under
a bridge instead of the bridge. But I think it should be weighed
against
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Lized...@billiau.net wrote:
When I travel over the bridge I am not interested in the maximum height of the
way which travels under the bridge.
When I travel under the bridge I am interested in the height limitation.
Ah, perhaps our difference in opinion stems
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:26 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
I think everyone is thinking of this in one of 2 ways, it's either an
attribute of the bridge, or a restriction of the way under the bridge.
Agreed. And it's clear that both ways of thinking are probably valid.
As
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 2:57 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
As of time of writing maxheight is the only valid one and I don't think we
need or should have 2 tags to indicate the
same thing in 2 different ways.
I meant there's two ways of conceptualising the distance below a
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Lized...@billiau.net wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:
By the way, you can't place a node under the bridge, unless it is
indeed shared by the bridge, as all ways have zero width (right?).
Logically you can as they are on different layers.
Yes
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:30 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I would at least suggest that - if maxheight is applied to a node, as
you suggest - the node should be *shared* by the bridge (way) and the
way passing under
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Ross Scanloni...@4x4falcon.com wrote:
Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I would suggest splitting the way under the bridge and tagging that section
of way with the max_height tag. This is consistent as it is a restriction
for that section of way
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Maarten Deenmd...@xs4all.nl wrote:
Having a node shared between a bridge and the way
underneath may solve one problem but introduces another (having to make a
relation to indicate this physical route is not present).
Agreed.
maxheight needs to be applied to
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:58 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
The solution depends on what problem you are trying to solve, if you are
trying to find attributes of a bridge or restrictions of a way, my suggestion
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Maarten Deenmd...@xs4all.nl wrote:
IMHO it is not that important if the way with the limit is only just beneath
the bridge, or is somewhat longer or is applied to nodes on either side of a
bridge.
I recently came across this example where the way with the
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:05 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm starting to like this idea. But the problem with this
is how to
define that section of way, so as not to introduce a
maintenance
You really don't want
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Mark Williams
mark@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
Therefore maxheight is a property of the way going under the bridge,
possibly 1 way if the road is fragmented in OSM, and ought to be on the
whole road from where the sign is until after the bridge.
Yup, that
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 11:06 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
Currently thinking of doing up a simple flier and/or text based email to send
out to clubs/user groups in and around the sunshine coast to promote the
mapping party to those that may not be aware of OSM, or may have
The Australian Tagging Guidelines currently say that for bush walking
tracks: Tag these highway=footway. and for track sections along fire
trails, highway=track is appropriate.
Shouldn't these be highway=path; foot=yes, rather than
highway=footway? The wiki page of the former says It is also used
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Ian Sergeantiserg...@hih.com.au wrote:
Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote on 03/08/2009 03:06:38 PM:
Calling a bush walking track a designated footpath doesn't sound
exactly right, nor does calling a bushwalker a pedestrian.
Thoughts?
We should focus
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Stephen Hopeslh...@gmail.com wrote:
Check the dates on the Wiki pages. The whole highway=path thing is
relatively recent - it may well be that the Australian Wiki advice was
written before it existed.
Maybe. But the question remains.
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Lized...@billiau.net wrote:
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Stephen Hopeslh...@gmail.com wrote:
Check the dates on the Wiki pages. The whole highway=path thing is
relatively recent - it may well be that the Australian
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 11:53 AM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
Anyone have any objection to highway=rural?
Depends how you define it. If it's verifiable and exists only to
describe the way, there's no objection from me.
___
Talk-au mailing
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 12:59 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
[ highway=rural means ] No administrative classification. Rural roads
typically form the lowest form of the non-Urban interconnecting grid network.
Anything non-connecting would be almost a service road?
Sounds ok. But
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 1:25 PM, b.schulz...@scu.edu.au wrote:
I guess this comes down to tagging what exists vs tagging intended use. For
instance there are parts of the Pacific Highway which are 2 lanes but are
tagged as trunk because they're the Pacific Highway and are therefore the
most
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 1:48 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
Although the intended use is the first, urban=town/city, I very much doubt
that there would be enough roads in anything smaller than a town to need a
higher capacity version of a residential road.
Ok with me.
Someone
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 12:47 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Thu, 6/8/09, Sam Couter s...@couter.id.au wrote:
I understand but will never accept the opposing position as
I use a mail
client that does handle reply-to-list correctly and have no
sympathy for
people who
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 1:29 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
They don't understand that they need to hit reply to all, that's what started
this thread in the first place, they thought hitting reply would reply to the
list, not to the person that sent it.
IMHO that's a problem
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 2:26 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Fri, 7/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO that's a problem with them, not with the mailing
list. But you
Shouldn't we be a little more accommodating then treating people that don't
know better
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 7:51 PM, b.schulz...@scu.edu.au wrote:
Yeah, the 2 logos kind of each represent an extreme: one is a bit plain and
the other is too distracting.
I might try putting a map rendered as the background, but have it more as a
watermark than an attraction. It's probably time
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 6:08 AM, j...@talk21.com wrote:
I have a strong feeling that this would be unacceptable. We need to know
about different types of path and road. Just knowing that they're suitable
for bicycles or for motor traffic isn't enough. Such dumbing-down of the
data to meet a
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 6:45 PM, Evan Sebiree...@sebire.org wrote:
Bush walking paths should also be tagged as path not footway, except for
National parks were bicycles / horses are typically banned.
I think these should still be tagged as path, with additional tags
added as necessary. Often
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 9:56 AM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Fri, 7/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm pretty sure no one was suggesting this (i.e. removing
information). It's the way the information in entered in
tags that is
being discussed. The fact
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Ashley Kyda...@kyd.com.au wrote:
I'm really not
convinced that [it's] a good idea, for renderer *or* semantics to tag a
government-designated cycleway as a path with bike access.
So, something that's currently a highway=cycleway, right?
highway=path;
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 5:50 AM, j...@talk21.com wrote:
With all footpaths being shared paths here in the ACT, what makes a good
cycling path is sometimes difficult to pin down.
If the meaning of a tag is difficult to pin down, IMHO it is
probably not verifiable and therefore probably not a good
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 6:03 AM, j...@talk21.com wrote:
Think of the situation with roads, and the multitude of different tags
available to show how important the road is.
We only need two (or maybe three at most) to say whether a shared path is a
good cycling path. And then a few guidelines
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Lized...@billiau.net wrote:
i think we should mark highway=cycleway where it is a cycleway
What is a cycleway? Is it defined in a verifiable way?
i accept that highway=path could be subdivided into everything
but to me path is primarily foot use first
This is
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 10:02 AM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Sun, 9/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
What is a cycleway? Is it defined in a verifiable way?
Yes they have signs up with pictures of bicycles.
So you seem to be suggesting:
1. for a way signed
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 6:54 AM, Ben Kelleyben.kel...@gmail.com wrote:
In NSW a shared path means foot=yes, bicycle=yes. The default in NSW for
highway=footway (or highway=path) is bicycle=no (same as the OSM
conventions).
No, highway=path does not imply bicycle=no (please see the wiki page).
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 8:39 AM, Lized...@billiau.net wrote:
SUMMARY
Trying to keep my comment general at first to find what are the needs:
what should be in the highway tag and what are local factors. This
turned into a stream of thoughts but hopefully coherent enough to
breed some more
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 10:34 AM, BlueMMbluemm1975-...@yahoo.com wrote:
Has anyone discussed the appropriateness of using the 4wd_only nomenclature?
It seems a bit Australia(NZ?) specific. Maybe that is why there is so much
opposition. Seems the Wiki proposal is losing the vote.
What about
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 2:23 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Tue, 18/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
From Map Maker, Google has made the entire dataset of
Africa fully
available for download by non-profits, government agencies
and
individuals to create
Gday,
For tagging highway=bus_stop 's, in addition to the existing shelter=yes/no,
I'm planning to also use bench=yes/no and waste_basket=yes/no, as these
features are often installed as part of the bus stop itself, in Brisbane.
Tagging separate nodes with amenity=* is not ideal, as 1) i
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 9:43 PM, James Livingston doc...@mac.com wrote:
I've been doing that for a while (well, except waste_basket=*), so
that's a +1 from me :)
Any objections (from anyone) to adding these to
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbus_stop ?
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Ashley Kyd a...@kyd.com.au wrote:
(Also, I'm not going to stick around and work out where the attack
perimeter is. You can do that. They're nasty creatures. ;)
Don't forget it should be verifiable, too :)
___
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 10:28 PM, Hugh Barnes list@hughbris.com wrote:
I guess this is one specific case of the broader problem of what to do
when two separate entities are co-located (i.e. nodes would be right
on top of each other).
Well, it depends what you're calling the bus stop. If
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 10:41 PM, Hugh Barnes list@hughbris.com wrote:
I'd like that, too. It's also been discussed regarding temporary
features like events and road closures and seasonal features. T-shirt.
I'm guessing you've seen the following proposal (early stages)?
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 6:30 PM, swanilli swani...@gmail.com wrote:
Given this inconsistency, I have been tagging fire trails and the like
(I ask myself if they are suitable for 4WD) as highway=track and
bushwalking tracks as highway=path.
Did you see the Bush Walking Tracks section of the
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
Some things I'd like to see us add to paths is to indicate which ones do have
available drinking quality water - do you have any ideas on that?
Add an amenity=drinking_water node where applicable.
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Mark Pulley mrpul...@lizzy.com.au wrote:
In light of the recent discussion on this list, maybe we should decide
on which tag to use prior to making extensive changes like these,
I agree. IMHO extensive, (semi-)automated changes should be limited
*at least* to
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com wrote:
Tags that are not VERY clearly defined in the wiki (as a guide) should
be left alone. Given that source=survey and source=GPS are *both not
defined* on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:source, these
should have
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 1:20 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/9/24 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com:
If Mark wants to use source=gps rather than source=survey, because he
feels it conveys a different meaning, then in the spirit of using any
tags you like, I think he should
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com wrote:
In general, the two are inseparable. If author A says M and means X,
and author B says N and means Y, then changing N to M *does not lead
to consistency*. (note: in this example, M=source=survey,
N=source=gps, B=Mark).
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 10:11 PM, Mark Pulley mrpul...@lizzy.com.au wrote:
The obvious place to look at the wiki
is http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:source - however on this page even
source=survey is missing.
I'm with Mark - this should be cleaned up, preferably by someone who
has a
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 8:30 PM, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote:
ideas for subsets
gps_chip=antaris/sirfstar3/mediatek/trimble/
gps_model=
hdop=
pdop=
(precision would be some rough figure for the track, i wouldn't want to see
them on each single node)
May I suggest adding
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 8:02 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
just for fun I've printed out a walking-papers page and am going to see if it
is any use for tagging shops in a suburban strip shopping strip
and then how will I define the survey=
source=survey
survey=observation
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 6:58 AM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 8:02 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
just for fun I've printed out a walking-papers page and am going to see if
it
is any use for tagging shops in a suburban strip shopping strip
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 8:33 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
It shouldn't be too hard to hack up a quick db that can do a layer
over the top, I think people were suggesting to put this info directly
into OSM but that may over kill a simpler DB can do the same thing in
the same
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 6:02 AM, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote:
Suitable channels?
suitable for what?
I think those complaining about list activity need to be more specific
about what is and what isn't acceptable. You can't just ask people
to stop being twitter-like.
Personally, I
Nearmap (http://www.nearmap.com/) now has imagery available for the Gold
Coast, QLD area.
For further updates, follow http://twitter.com/nearmap.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
And what about JOSM? So far I've just been using Potlatch because it
just works. What do I have to do to get Nearmap going in JOSM?
As Leon said, first go to
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NearMap_PhotoMaps#JOSM. I
If The License Change goes ahead, will that have any influence on, say, the
legality of tracing from nearmap imagery?
Does it appear as though some contributions will have to be removed if The
License Change happens?
If so, what kind of contributions?
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 6:26 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/12/9 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com:
If The License Change goes ahead, will that have any influence on, say, the
legality of tracing from nearmap imagery?
Does it appear as though some contributions will have
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote:
so i filled the Australian guidelines page with definitions from the road
rules
hope no one gets offended!
Nice work. I'm adding talk-au to this discussion. Liz has updated:
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 11:50 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
One question, though, for Australian shared path, shouldn't this be:
highway=cycleway, bicycle=designated, foot=designated
rather than
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 7:54 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009, Liz wrote:
we're having another discussion about this same point concurrently on
t...@openstreetmap.org
and making a number of suggestions there
care to join in?
bum steer
tagg...@openstreetmap.org
And can I
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 1:42 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
The problem I'm really trying to solve is with the slippymap plugin,
because it is compiled and the URL isn't easily setable/changeable by
a user, there is no options to tweak the URL in the plugin
interface/settings
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:10 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
So... sports_centre for the actual sporting facilities, something_club
for the commercial bit? Maybe social_club? club_rooms, while it
sounded good for the buildings members genuinely use for their
meetings and
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 7:08 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/12/15 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com:
Thought I might chip in to me this seems to be a matter of trying
to cram a complex and ambiguous meaning into a single tag. I couldn't
help but be reminded
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 6:20 PM, swanilli swani...@gmail.com wrote:
Two points:
1. The terminology foot=designated and bicycle=designated is confusing,
since the opposite of designated is not no but undesignated or
non-designated. Just leave it as it is on thousands of ways as
bicycle=yes or
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 2:03 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
An idea came to me the other day about some kind of intro to OSM
video, with a noticibly Australian slant to it.
I've seen a couple of intro videos for different editors, but I had
something else in mind, where we
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 6:59 AM, morb@beagle.com.au wrote:
In the first case I have edited the entry, exit and roundabout as meeting at
exactly one node. IMHO this represents reality and if the router can't handle
it then the router should be upgraded to suit (or its OSM-to-router-format
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com wrote:
I have not changed the current intersection in osm but here are two screen
shots of the intersection in josm.
http://www.4x4falcon.com/osm/junctions/intersection_messy.jpg
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 1:03 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
... seems to include a
lot of disclaimers about the information being best effort/use at own
risk...
Probably just covering their back - because people looking for a
hospital do tend to be at risk if the data's
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
In that case, the voting means nothing at all? Weird.
From my perspective, voting's similar to asking for opinions on an
email list, just with the added benefit of yes/no responses and
documentation of results.
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 9:46 AM, John Henderson snow...@gmx.com wrote:
I thought long and hard about this issue before I make the first
correction to a local roundabout. I came to the conclusion that
roundabout entry and exit points should be separate.
Sure, and I see the logic - but the
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 10:28 AM, John Henderson snow...@gmx.com wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
Yeah, good work. Should the name be Bairnsdale Centrelink or just
Centrelink?
I'm all for putting town/suburb names in as well. One place where it
matters is looking up POIs on GPS units.
These
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
I feel weird tagging name=Bowls Club - that's clearly not the name
I would feel weird too! If you don't know the name, PLEASE don't enter a name=*.
___
Talk-au mailing list
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com wrote:
This is an interesting example. The _messy and _simple techniques,
of course, could just as well be described as _complete and
_approximate, etc.
No _messy is over mapped and _simple is accurate.
This is subjective
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
I feel weird tagging name=Bowls Club - that's clearly not the name
I would feel weird too! If you don't know the name, PLEASE don't enter a
name=*.
This must be important to you. Why so?
People tag A=B when they
On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 10:42 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
I've just update a matilda location with information from their
website (types of fuel sold etc).
Any way, they list services on their station locations like hot food,
groceries, dry cleaning etc:
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 12:46 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
Feel free, but these locations are all tagged with fixme=not_reviewed
and show up in things like keepright etc, and as I said before I even
made a custom page for the bp locations to make it simpler again.
IMHO it
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Specifically, though, I'm wondering why use amenity:atm=yes rather
than atm=yes? Is there ever some atm that isn't an amenity?
It's for when there are several amenities sharing one node. Not that any
renderers/editors
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 11:43 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
wrote:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:atm=yes
this was Roy's point
amenity:atm=yes is not consistent with the page I just mentioned
I
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com wrote:
After that it might be wise to figure out some strategy to monitor
changes to admin boundaries to limit the effect of mistakes in future.
Easy fix.
Don't join other ways to them.
I don't get it. If I join another way
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 7:04 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/12/23 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com wrote:
After that it might be wise to figure out some strategy to monitor
changes to admin boundaries
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 1:42 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
The problem I'm really trying to solve is with the slippymap plugin,
because it is compiled and the URL isn't easily setable/changeable
Anyone know what the deal is with this?:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/316607432
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
My 2 cents: anything that is less important than tertiary is:
1) if it is a named/public road:
* residential if lined primarily with people's homes and used
primarily by people accessing those homes
* unclassified
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 6:53 PM, Ben Last ben.l...@nearmap.com wrote:
Ok, I tried this myself and it doesn't work, seemingly because the
slippymap plugin attempts to fetch tiles from url/*/*/*.jpg, rather
than urlz=zx=xy=ynml=Vert.
What is the URL format? If it's possible to change the
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 7:21 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 6:53 PM, Ben Last ben.l...@nearmap.com wrote:
Ok, I tried this myself and it doesn't work, seemingly because the
slippymap plugin attempts to fetch tiles from url/*/*/*.jpg, rather
than urlz=zx
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 9:44 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/12/29 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com:
Actually, in addition to this, it would be great if you could allow
the date to be specified in the path, i.e. allow us to make requests
in the form of http
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Can't help but wonder
if Australian cities will ever have that level of detail...
Hell yeah they will.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 5:47 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
The only problem with this scheme is you can't do, first sunday of the
month for example.
Surely someone in some field has already come across this problem
before - i.e. surely someone's already developed a formal
On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 7:33 AM, Jim Croft jim.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
think it might have to be derived, e.g.
http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/vb-date2.htm#Month
http://code.google.com/p/datejs/
That's a shame. But iso 8601 is probably still a good starting point.
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 10:13 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
Speed cameras are a bit of a mess tagging wise, some add a node others
add a relation, but I don't think any method renders on OSM...
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Speed_trap
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 11:07 PM, Craig Feuerherdt
craigfeuerhe...@gmail.com wrote:
Happy New Year OSMers!
Have created a page listing all the Victorian routes (M, A, B C roads) -
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Victoria%2C_Australia/Routes.
Woah this is a great idea. Have you
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 8:04 AM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO they justify an extra way, as there is clearly a physical
separation and two separate areas of bitumen. (Go ahead and add a
whole extra node
1 - 100 of 164 matches
Mail list logo
