On 19/03/2012 12:40, John Sturdy wrote:
I started to work on Hampshire, but got the following request from a decliner:
I was wondering if you would mind refraining from 're-mapping' my contributions
for the time being? I'm still in discussions with the OSMF regarding
re-licensing some of my
It is difficult to chase tainted junctions though.
--
Andrew
I've knocked something together as a trial for tainted junctions. My
scripts extract the nodes at the start and end of a given set of ways
and pass them through quick history to check the licence state.
So far I've done
Does your CSV list take into account ways tagged with ODbL=clean? If
not (and assuming the rebuild process will honour such tagging) would
it be possible for such objects to be excluded from your list?
Thanks,
Robert.
Good spot.
No my list didn't allow for odbl=clean. However, the
Do you know
if/when that file will be updated as ways are re-mapped?
I've done an update and put some info on a wiki page:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:MarkS/Remapping
The page has the latest counts (down to 1889 currently expected to be
deleted). It also has a link to a CSV
There are lots of patches of detail in London that are still at risk:
http://cleanmap.poole.ch/?zoom=13lat=51.51807lon=-0.1225layers=00B%0D%0A
http://cleanmap.poole.ch/?zoom=13lat=51.51807lon=-0.1225layers=00B%0D%0A
My worry in Central London is the large number of traffic lights that
On 06/03/2012 14:31, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
Excellent -- thanks to both of you for getting this done. Do you know
if/when that file will be updated as ways are re-mapped?
I was playing around tonight with a combination of the Quick History
Service and Overpass to requery the
I agree that we want to try and have a complete main road network network.
Whilst longish stretches of road are easy to spot there are a lot of
other small sections (eg. bridges) which are harder to see on cleanmap
(unless the rest of the area is clean).
We also have the issue of nodes going
Looking at the wiki (route=road) it seems to suggest a relation can be
used here.
However, it stikes me that the relation should be more than just the
roads without a role. The wiki suggests the road itself would have a
forward/backward role, and that link roads should be in the relation
Maybe the wiki should be updated ?
However, I think route relations are quite extensive across the UK. I
first came across them on the A1 but I'm fairly confident lots of other
roads have them on. I'm a fan of consistency so if we remove the M5 one
then we should remove the others as well.
Sometimes though the reference is in general use even if it isn't
signposted. In this case having it on the renderers might be useful.
For example: we have a C road near us. On the ground the road looks like
a single road, but in reality it is made up of series of roads with
around 6
On 04/05/2011 14:13, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
Hello Peter,
I would say the most important thing with official rights of way is to
tag them with designation=public_footpath, public_bridleway,
public_byway or restricted_byway (as appropriate). The designation tag
is AFAIK generally regarded these
On 16/03/2011 19:31, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Richard Bullock wrote:
Do we *really* need to be tagging national speed limits on individual
ways?
E.g. the vast majority of roads ought to be one of;
*residential roads subject to 30mph
*rural roads subject to NSL
Perhaps we could tag the ones that
James Davis wrote:
Nick Whitelegg wrote:
We may be underestimating the intertwined nature of the definitive map
/statement and OS data.
Here in Hampshire the council are actually quite good. The definitive
maps are all online (and clearly say OS copyright on them). In addition
the
13 matches
Mail list logo
