Jason Cunningham wrote:
Just had a look at the text file. Can anyone give me some advice on a
way to quickly find the locations given in file?
SomeoneElse replied:
It's the way ID:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/78499375
http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=78499375
If it
I've been working down the list in ID order (though you can sort the
columns if you want)
And some. I ordered by type and randomly clicked on a dozen and
haven't found one you haven't already squashed.
I have better luck finding things using badmap.
Craig
On 23 March 2012 08:51,
On 23 March 2012 08:51, e...@loach.me.uk wrote:
b) if it does need remapping, use the remote control link to open the way
in JOSM
Out of interest (and I'm not 'having a go') - why did you put a remote
control link there? I see lots of different QA websites and they have
a mixture of links to
Incidentally, is just knowing the footpaths evidence enough to tag with
odbl=clean? Or is there the risk that the footpath was created with iffy
sources?
I ask as I am intending to do some remapping of Andy Street's paths in the
Bishops Waltham/Meon Valley area and wondering whether I have to
I just tried 2 options with my default editor set to remote. The
default edit URL [1] from browse/way/32795934 does work, but throws an
error:
Editing failed - make sure JOSM or Merkaartor is loaded and the
remote control option is enabled
A simplified version of the URL that would be useful in
Incidentally, is just knowing the footpaths evidence enough to tag with
odbl=clean? Or is there the risk that the footpath was created with iffy
sources?
As I read it, if the nodes along the way are clean then by marking the
way odbl clean you're just checking the properties are clean... so if
On 23 March 2012 12:59, Craig Loftus craigloftus+...@googlemail.com wrote:
I just tried 2 options with my default editor set to remote. The
default edit URL [1] from browse/way/32795934 does work, but throws an
error:
Editing failed - make sure JOSM or Merkaartor is loaded and the
remote
On 23 March 2012 12:58, Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote:
Incidentally, is just knowing the footpaths evidence enough to tag with
odbl=clean? Or is there the risk that the footpath was created with iffy
sources?
Use odbl=clean to clear features which contain historic
On 23/03/12 13:14, Andy Allan wrote:
On 23 March 2012 12:58, Nick Whiteleggnick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote:
Incidentally, is just knowing the footpaths evidence enough to tag with
odbl=clean? Or is there the risk that the footpath was created with iffy
sources?
Use odbl=clean to clear
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Nick Whitelegg
nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote:
Incidentally, is just knowing the footpaths evidence enough to tag with
odbl=clean? Or is there the risk that the footpath was created with iffy
sources?
If the way was created by a declining contributor then
On 23-3-2012 3:55, mick wrote:
A relation tagged as a motorway will render as such. What would then
happen is that the tunnel way is actually rendered, but then the
non-tunnel motorway relation is rendered on top of that.
Perhaps its time to review the rendering, many motorways have sections
On 23 March 2012 12:58, Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote:
Incidentally, is just knowing the footpaths evidence enough to tag with
odbl=clean? Or is there the risk that the footpath was created with iffy
sources?
Use odbl=clean to clear features which contain historic
OK may be I wasn't quite using it quite with the proper intention,
although I think most of the ways I added it to have been revised in some
manner.
However it's quite difficult to determine how much a ways' geometry has
changed.
You should definitely always err on the side of caution.
OK may be I wasn't quite using it quite with the proper intention, although
I think most of the ways I added it to have been revised in some manner.
However it's quite difficult to determine how much a ways' geometry has
changed.
You should definitely always err on the side of caution.
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 20:42:07 +0100
Lennard l...@xs4all.nl wrote:
On 23-3-2012 3:55, mick wrote:
A relation tagged as a motorway will render as such. What would then
happen is that the tunnel way is actually rendered, but then the
non-tunnel motorway relation is rendered on top of that.
On 24-3-2012 1:00, mick wrote:
The rendering of 'tunnel' should over-ride 'motorway' showing that the motorway
passes through a tunnel.
And so it does.
But then someone creates a relation, tags it as non-tunneled motorway as
well, adds a whole bunch of motorway ways including tunneled
On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 01:07:06 +0100
Lennard l...@xs4all.nl wrote:
On 24-3-2012 1:00, mick wrote:
The rendering of 'tunnel' should over-ride 'motorway' showing that the
motorway passes through a tunnel.
And so it does.
But then someone creates a relation, tags it as non-tunneled
17 matches
Mail list logo
