I would rather that we don't have non existant roads on OSM.
Twenty plus years ago, I heard a comment that maps had deliberate errors in
them so that the mapmakers could find if others were copying their work.
In my job of driving around Australia checking mobile phone coverage, I am
2009/10/25 Graeme Wilson wandere...@live.com.au:
I would rather that we don't have non existant roads on OSM.
I'm sure we all have things we dislike about OSM.
Twenty plus years ago, I heard a comment that maps had deliberate errors in
them so that the mapmakers could find if others were
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 11:54 PM, Graeme Wilson wandere...@live.com.au wrote:
[cut for brevity]
When I first started on OSM, I wanted to have altitude data in with the lat
lon info, and was told bluntly that OSM is a street map, not a GIS.
We do have altitude now in the Shuttle Radar Topography
I agree with Graeme Wilson.
OSM should not include non-existent roads. The only convincing argument I
have seen put so far by the minority who want to show them is that it will
save other mappers from wasted time. Given that mappers are the minority and
people like Graeme in the majority I think
2009/10/26 swanilli swani...@gmail.com:
I agree with Graeme Wilson.
OSM should not include non-existent roads. The only convincing argument I
have seen put so far by the minority who want to show them is that it will
save other mappers from wasted time. Given that mappers are the minority and
2009/10/26 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
So far you are the only one suggesting non-existent is unhelpful or
ambiguous, please explain how it is either of these things.
A browse through the preceding 30 or so entries in this thread will show
that this is not the case.
However, in an
If highway=gazetted is ambiguous and most people are going to be puzzled by
highway=non-existent, might I suggest
highway=planned or highway=proposed
(I occasionally find myself (walking) on highway=overgrown – but I am not
suggesting adding this.)
2009/10/22 Evan Sebire e...@sebire.org
I
2009/10/23 swanilli swani...@gmail.com:
If highway=gazetted is ambiguous and most people are going to be puzzled by
highway=non-existent, might I suggest
U?
highway=unmade seems to be ambiguous, and people are going to be
puzzled by highway=gazetted
Which is why Evan and myself were
Yes I have an objection.
From what I can tell, roads are generally not gazetted in Queensland. The
exceptions seem to be State transport routes (i.e. those under control of Main
Roads). All roads are registered as part of survey plans and the like.
By way of illustration:
2009/10/22 Evan Sebire e...@sebire.org:
In Melbourne people sometimes use the term 'unmade' for non-sealed roads. So
perhaps something clearer like gazetted would suit Australia. Someone on
another list mentioned 'non-existent' being better for non-native English
speakers. But I think this
I like 'gazetted_road', but I think it should be 'non-existent'.
Looking at dictionary.com(which isn't a great reference) nobody would
understand gazetted road, then I tried the best German translator dict.cc and
it failed.
Googling Gazetted road comes back with variety of answers, none of
I wrote a diary entry about this:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/JohnSmith/diary/8283#comments
In one of the comments someone suggested:
highway=nonexistent
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Unless anyone has an objection I propose that we tagged non-existent
roads from DCDB Qld as:
highway=gazetted_road
Anything that hasn't been surveyed can be tagged as highway=road which
is consistent with current usage, these will also be rendered enough
to indicate they need to be surveyed and
Thinking about it now, I realise you are quite correct :) My apologies.
- Ben.
2009/10/14 Liz ed...@billiau.net
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, Ben Kelley wrote:
I would have thought highway=unclassified would be better if you don't
know
what type of highway it is.
the highway=road has actually the
2009/10/14 Sam Vekemans acrosscanadatra...@gmail.com:
Ok, so my big question is:
Why are your property boundaries rendered with solid fill?
Its not indicating land use, and should be rendered as a
'dash-dot-dot-dash' line.
(at least thats how i remember it from drafting class)
So if the
2009/10/14 Sam Vekemans acrosscanadatra...@gmail.com:
But of course the landuse us 'unknown' by default. .. so what needs to be
done is to go around and find out what the actual landuse is.
... of course there are voids there are voids all over the map of black
space. :)
Swing and a
I made another example:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/images/5/5d/Dcdb-example.png
It's clearer in this screen shot (using JOSM, JOSM has a black
background so the transparent pixels are black) exactly what runs down
the middle of these voids.
___
2009/10/14 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/images/5/5d/Dcdb-example.png
Here's the after shot:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/images/b/bf/Dcdb-example2.png
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Then the yellow must be all the landuse=residential then :)
As land use can extend past the property boundary, were there is an easment.
Strike 3,
im out.
Since were on the tagging list, the sidewalks waterworks like sewer
lines, or underground cable lines, do we map these too, as the data is
John Smith wrote:
2009/10/12 Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com:
If it's from the DCDB data then highway=gazetted_road and don't put anything
in the renderer to show them.
At the moment it's suggested to use highway=road and I was thinking of
doing a special style sheet for mapnik to
2009/10/12 Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com:
If it's from the DCDB data then highway=gazetted_road and don't put anything
in the renderer to show them.
At the moment it's suggested to use highway=road and I was thinking of
doing a special style sheet for mapnik to highlight these sorts of
roads
21 matches
Mail list logo
