On 29 Apr 2013 22:01, Rovastar rovas...@hotmail.com wrote:
Great however the OSM referenced has been shoehorned in there (not
complaining though), as the cartographers mentioned finding the new 2000ft
mountain just seemed to use Ordinance Surveynotably the wrong height
appears on OSM and
Nice find, I've contacted them to ask if they would like to add them to
OSM, or publish the measurements somewhere under the ODBL.
Regards,
Tom
On 30 April 2013 08:05, Kevin Peat k...@k3v.eu wrote:
On 29 Apr 2013 22:01, Rovastar rovas...@hotmail.com wrote:
Great however the OSM
One of my little hopes (which I'm very very slowly attacking) is to have
OSM have all the walls and fences and suchlike to the same standard as
OS (them being very useful to walkers and suchlike).
I noticed that lots of fields, for example in
On 30 April 2013 09:38, Henry Gomersall h...@cantab.net wrote:
Am I the only one that has been drawing walls and not fields? It's nice
to have fields as individual logical units, but they're defined by the
walls, so it strikes me the wall should be the defining characteristic.
Is this a
Well I'm definitely in favour of mapping the boundary ways: hedges, fences,
walls.
I do not see any general value in mapping fields one by one, unless there
are particular cultural reasons (for instance the Cheshire Cheese in Hope,
Derbyshire, has maps showing all the historical field names on
This adding of refs on roads is getting ridiculous. I just was geotagging
some photos and I noticed this: http://osm.org/go/eu1a7D4X.
A number of unclassified residential roads have been tagged in Cheshire
(can't remember which one it is because this is on the border) with
obviously internal
Hi,
I have been spending a lot of time looking at Taginfo and golf courses. I would
like to layout the best way to map a golf course based on what I have found.
I was thinking of creating a page HOWTO map a golf course 2013
This is not a proposal for tags, I would link to Taginfo pages of
Have you seen Richard Weait's page on this subject :
http://weait.com/node/21.
And fewer of those named ways to make the hole names look nice :-)
Jerry
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Bob Kerr
openstreetmapcraigmil...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Hi,
I have been spending a lot of time looking at
On Tue, 2013-04-30 at 11:15 +0100, Ed Loach wrote:
I can't post to list at moment (stupid ISP) so am sending offlist
reply. I use landuse=farmland for the land (usually in areas greater
than a single field) and then add barrier=hedge or barrier=fence as
appropriate (I've not generally
There is also an ITO Map for Golf courses: http://www.itoworld.com/map/47
Shaun
On 30 Apr 2013, at 12:07, sk53.osm sk53@gmail.com wrote:
Have you seen Richard Weait's page on this subject : http://weait.com/node/21.
And fewer of those named ways to make the hole names look nice :-)
Hedges are also rendered at higher zoom levels.
Mapping hedges alongside roads had inspired me to try mapping roads as areas,
not too sure if its been a success.
Phil (trigpoint)
--
Sent from my Nokia N9
On 30/04/2013 12:09 Henry Gomersall wrote:
On Tue, 2013-04-30 at 11:15 +0100, Ed Loach
Thanks,
I have seen Richards page before but I am a lot further on, I have found out
that there are something like 50 tags ranging from golf=tee_area,
amenity=shelter, landuse=grass, golf=ball_washer. I noticed that there are even
some folk that are attempting to put in pars and indexes. I
On Tue, 2013-04-30 at 10:24 +0100, Tom Chance wrote:
On 30 April 2013 09:38, Henry Gomersall h...@cantab.net wrote:
Am I the only one that has been drawing walls and not fields?
It's nice
to have fields as individual logical units, but they're
defined by the
On 30/04/2013 09:38, Henry Gomersall wrote:
I noticed that lots of fields, for example in
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.92332lon=-1.7091zoom=15layers=M
are shown as closed loops of landuse=field. Clearly walls/fences and
enclosed fields are somewhat equivalent, but subtly different in
Henry Gomersall wrote:
That's interesting. So it seems that Mapnik _is_ rendering fences.
Who's the arbiter of what is rendered in the main map?
There's a trac subject for it, but as I understand it requests for
what gets rendered on the main map are a bit backed up right now
because the
On 30/04/2013 12:09, Henry Gomersall wrote:
That's interesting. So it seems that Mapnik _is_ rendering fences.
AFAIK, mapnik has rendered linear barrier for quite a while. The problem
it did have, which appears to have been sorted now, was landuse
barrier tags within the same polygon.
On Tue, 2013-04-30 at 13:03 +0100, SomeoneElse wrote:
barrier=wall is very common in the areas that interest me (the
lakes),
and very useful info to walkers too.
For info, barrier=wall is currently also rendered:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.04915lon=-1.68855zoom=16layers=M
On 30 April 2013 12:32, Henry Gomersall h...@cantab.net wrote:
Does meadow mean grazing land? Do we define high fell land as meadow
as well when it's used for grazing sheep?
Perhaps a landuse=grazing should be available.
If you wanted to define field types, I'd suggest the following tags.
On Tue, 2013-04-30 at 13:35 +0100, Tom Chance wrote:
On 30 April 2013 12:32, Henry Gomersall h...@cantab.net wrote:
Does meadow mean grazing land? Do we define high fell land as
meadow
as well when it's used for grazing sheep?
Perhaps a
On Tue, 2013-04-30 at 13:48 +0100, Henry Gomersall wrote:
Yeah, I had a look, but I can't see anything about mountainous pasture
land. The issue is land that is very clearly strongly influenced by
the
presence of animals, but isn't farmland as such. meadow is probably
acceptable, but doesn't
Hi all,
This feels like an appropriate thread to butt into and ask: is there an
accepted tag for grassy chalk downland, as found in southern England?
Would natural=fell be appropriate here too, or is that for proper
mountainous territory? If not, would something like natural=grassland,
This is quite reasonable, although as I use farmland for all agriculture
(but not viticulture or orchards) I had never appreciated that it seems to
have become synonymous with arable.
I still think landuse=farmland, farmland=arable is a better way of tagging
( a tad friendlier to data consumers).
This is one of the calcareous grasslands; downland sounds good, although
chalk_downland might be more precise.
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 2:00 PM, David Fisher djfishe...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
This feels like an appropriate thread to butt into and ask: is there an
accepted tag for grassy
On 30 April 2013 12:21, Bob Kerr openstreetmapcraigmil...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Is there no precedent for HOWTO documents like there are with other
opensource projects?
Sure, there's loads of pages on the wiki describing how to map
particular types of things - they are called Feature pages. These
On 30 April 2013 11:39, sk53.osm sk53@gmail.com wrote:
This adding of refs on roads is getting ridiculous. I just was geotagging
some photos and I noticed this: http://osm.org/go/eu1a7D4X.
A number of unclassified residential roads have been tagged in Cheshire
(can't remember which one
On 30 April 2013 19:21, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote:
I would still maintain that it is appropriate to use the ref key for
such reference numbers. Internal or not, it's still the primary
official reference number for that stretch of road. I would argue that
-Original Message-
From: Andy Allan [mailto:gravityst...@gmail.com]
Sent: 30 April 2013 19:45
To: Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
Cc: talk-gb
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Complaining about refs on roads again!
I'd appreciate it if we can all accept the most sensible position, and move
these
Hope is slowly becoming reality in the Peak District. We will eventually end
up with a better map than the OS 1:25 because it will also be possible to map
the types of barrier, the types of stiles, gates, kissing gates etc.
The current OSM website rendering seems to be geared towards urban
28 matches
Mail list logo
