On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 at 20:30, Chris Hodges wrote:
> What I've done is to create nodes for the pinch stile and kissing gate,
> and connect those with paths (access=foot) to the bridleway. Spacing is
> estimated as it all fits within the GPS error I had. But I'm not sure.
> It's
On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 at 15:09, Simon Still wrote:
> Not by any means. 1057’s are the ‘go-to’ way to DO SOMETHING for traffic
> engineers.
>
> - Cyclists getting hit by cars at a junction? Paint some 1057s across it ‘to
> alert drivers that there may be cyclists there” (though of course drivers
On Sun, 12 Jul 2020 at 13:20, Tony OSM wrote:
> So please do not tag as ncn; but please keep as a route.
Sustrans are not the only group in the UK that can make signed cycling
routes of national-importance, although they are certainly the biggest
and most well-known. But if another organisation
On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 at 11:04, Chris Fleming wrote:
> Secondly unsigned routes, these aren't necessarily great as they can't be
> verified on the ground, and often tend to be informal however they are
> useful, I cycled a day of the Capital trail last year and it was great being
> able to pull
On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 20:24, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 14:13, nathan case wrote:
> > Thanks for your input Robert, the approach taken for routes not following
> > the definitive line makes sense - though does this lead to two paths being
> > rendered? Or
On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 at 14:21, Andy Robinson wrote:
>
> For those keeping an eye on the HS2 Phase 1 preparatory works changes to the
> landscape here is the link to the latest Camden district 12 month look ahead
> which covers Euston and its approaches.
>
> http://tiny.cc/r9skhz
For the trivia
On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 05:22, Wulf4096 wrote:
> Hello,
> in Germany we've got "Radfahrstreifen" (solid line) which are
> additionally marked by bicycle signs. Only cyclists may use those, and
> the sign forbids cyclists to use the main carriageway, unless they've
> got a reason to.
>
> And we've
On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 at 15:14, Jez Nicholson wrote:
>
> That's interestingI'd wanted to go by train before as its more
> eco-friendly and more interesting, but struggled with the cost compared to
> flights. Do you use Loco2.com to plan?
I find it's worth paying a little extra both to avoid
On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 01:54, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The larger something is the longer it takes of the renders to see it.
This is not true.
> And if it is a change the renders are slower to see that too.
This is not true either.
> Something new and small gets rendered fairly
On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 at 10:10, Jez Nicholson wrote:
>
> I get the occasional email from Talk-GB telling me that my email address has
> excessive bounces. I'm using gmail. Am I the only one with problems? Is there
> something I need to change?
It happens to me too. I've opened at ticket on the
On 3 November 2017 at 17:51, Ilya Zverev wrote:
> First, thanks everyone for checking the import. I've made some improvements
> regarding addresses, and I removed the "operator" tag. You can see the
> improvements on the same map. I'd like to join Richard in a search for a
>
On 11 May 2017 at 09:07, Dan S wrote:
> Congratulations Robert! The long thread of letters is... educational!
To put it mildly! Well done Robert, not only on the outcome but also
in keeping calm and civil during the protracted correspondence.
My highlight of the saga
On 22 March 2017 at 09:24, Gregory wrote:
> Besides notification, shall we now focus on actual concerns/comments on the
> imports taking place?
Please bear in mind that contacting the mailing lists isn't just for
the purposes of "notification", but is also supposed
On 20 March 2017 at 12:34, Rob Nickerson wrote:
> I've no idea why Brian didn't follow the rules. I expect he probably didn't
> know about them.
I have emails from Brian discussing imports as far back as 2009. I
find it unlikely that with 8 years of experience he
On 19 March 2017 at 15:04, Rob Nickerson wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> I don't think any of us are members of the import mailing list and I don't
> see the point of joining any more mailing lists. They represent an arcane
> 20th century solution that allows a few negative
On 20 March 2017 at 12:34, Rob Nickerson wrote:
> I've no idea why Brian didn't follow the rules. I expect he probably didn't
> know about them.
I have emails from Brian discussing imports as far back as 2009. I
find it unlikely that with 8 years of experience he
On 19 March 2017 at 15:04, Rob Nickerson wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> I don't think any of us are members of the import mailing list and I don't
> see the point of joining any more mailing lists. They represent an arcane
> 20th century solution that allows a few negative
On 10 January 2017 at 15:55, SK53 wrote:
> I was going to say that usually we have the atco code in ref for bus stops
> with the more visible stop C in local ref, and thus bus stops aren't the
> perfect example. I certainly wouldn't tell someone to wait at bus stop
> 3390V1
On 10 January 2017 at 07:54, Robert Skedgell wrote:
> ref=legible_london
I would only use the ref= tag if there is a reference code for each
installation, e.g. if the totem has a displayed reference like "A01"
designed for users to see. From the pictures I don't
On 14 September 2016 at 13:57, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14-Sep-16 09:08 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>>
>> Andy Townsend wrote:
>>>
>>> ** many "names" on OS OpenData aren't names at all (for example,
>>> search for "poultry houses" in OSM and you'll get lots of things
>>> "named"
On 5 August 2016 at 13:41, Colin Smale wrote:
> What I meant was, having established that some (many?) schools will need to
> use the MP model, all consumers (for this data) will need to be ready to
> process MPs anyway.
Our mapping conventions are based on our mappers,
On 4 August 2016 at 19:13, Christian Ledermann
wrote:
> If the consensus is that schoolgrounds which consist only of a single
> polygon (without holes) should be rather mapped as a closed way I can
> change this
Yes please.
Thanks,
Andy
On 4 August 2016 at 15:14, Andy Townsend wrote:
> On 04/08/2016 14:42, Brian Prangle wrote:
>>
>> Yesterday approx 150 schools were added as relations according to the
>> taginfoscript which is monitoring schools. Does anyone know what's going on?
>
>
> I'd ask Christian
On 26 March 2016 at 06:30, Rob Nickerson wrote:
> How do we ensure the mix continues to contain a lot of OSM data?
At the highest level, by making sure the focus of OpenStreetMap is
on-the-ground mapping, which best enables us to capture valuable
information that's
On 31 October 2015 at 15:18, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Lester Caine wrote:
>> while switch2osm may well produce a working system for
>> some ... I have to also support current paying traffic on the
>> hardware and that prevents running too many different
>> competing web
On 13 July 2015 at 14:34, Mike Evans mi...@saxicola.co.uk wrote:
It seems to me that the viaduct and the railway are two separate entities and
should mapped as such. Just because an abandoned railway happens to run on
the top of the viaduct is irrelevant in my opinion.
Exactly. If there was
On 22 May 2015 at 14:27, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote:
Andy, the operator tags are all the same, not the building names.
No, they really aren't.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/148247775 - Churchill College
(University of Cambridge)
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/12861651 -
On 22 May 2015 at 14:03, Christopher Baines m...@cbaines.net wrote:
On 21/05/15 22:39, Dan S wrote:
I don't relish bringing this up since it's a bit of a tangle, but I
noticed Cambridge has a lot more universities than I thought!
Apparently 1219, judging from the number of amenity=university
On 22 May 2015 at 11:54, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote:
2. What is a University anyway?
I'll not explore the concept of a university too far, since very
little about groups of people is relevant to OSM!
However, if you were to say What is the physical aspect of a
university then
On 31 March 2015 at 23:48, pmailkeey . pmailk...@googlemail.com wrote:
Simple question - how does one edit the rubbish search results ?
Mike, you are being unnecessarily rude and confrontational again. If
you can't behave in a civil manner - both on this mailing list and in
the edits that you
On 19 March 2015 at 01:39, Pmailkeey . pmailk...@googlemail.com wrote:
So all ABCU road numbers need to be consistently placed
No they don't. We've had the discussion many times before, and in the
UK we don't put C or U refs into the ref tag. This is for good
reasons, as other people have
On 18 December 2014 at 11:30, SK53 sk53@gmail.com wrote:
I personally feel the current discussion is now thrashing.
I personally feel that the opposition to Matthijs' work is becoming
farcical. After setting up dozens of hoops for him to jump through,
which he has done, and then because he
On 18 December 2014 at 12:18, Jonathan Bennett jonobenn...@gmail.com wrote:
All your mechanical edit does
is correct one tiny part of the mapping, and possibly to no great effect -
it's just the text of the name that's getting corrected under a limited set
of circumstances.
So let's JFDI
On 26 November 2014 at 08:23, David Woolley for...@david-woolley.me.uk wrote:
When the actual meeting notice is issued,
That notice has already been given - see
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2014-November/003079.html
Thanks,
Andy
Hi all,
I've been alerted that the NCN 279 cycling route from Exeter to
Okehampton is currently missing from OpenStreetMap. I've no personal
knowledge of the area or even if the route is now signed, so I thought
I'd mention it here. If anyone knows more, or if anyone is from that
area and fancies
On 13 August 2014 12:38, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote:
I would still maintain that
the benefits of having reference numbers shown to users on
highway=tertiary roads (in terms of allowing them to cross-reference
the map to official documents) outweighs the
On 3 July 2014 17:51, John Baker rovas...@hotmail.com wrote:
He just said we release the plans and
they are public domain.
Public Domain (British English, especially Government and in the
Courts): Information known by the public, could be under any kind of
copyright
Public Domain (US
On 25 February 2014 09:47, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote:
City status is an honour granted by The Queen, not something that can be
claimed by size or population. Like trunk roads, its quirky and like trunk
roads I see it as the way we do things here.
Is that actually documented
On 7 February 2014 12:37, John Baker rovas...@hotmail.com wrote:
Always to play the devils advocate.
We have all heard about mapping for the renderer but are you mapping for
the third party data providers that is slow at updating the planet data.
Define slow for a printed atlas? Should we
On 6 January 2014 10:55, Ed Loach edlo...@gmail.com wrote:
Forwarded from osm-talk after reading the diary entry:
[GB] 2517
Very little progress. (70 Bugs fixed). Can anyone promote it to GB
mappers?
The bugs are distributed over the whole country.
See
On 2 December 2013 20:40, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
So, we have an announcements list, but there was no announcement there
about the recent change, which people are complaining was
inadequately, er, announced? I think they may have a case.
And here you are, complaining
Hi all,
I've sat down and created an updated version of the OpenStreetMap
Promotional Leaflets that many of you will have seen at some point or
another. They now have the correct licence and logo, for a start, (the
old ones date to 2010) but have also been thoroughly updated based on
both the old
On 16 September 2013 14:18, Adam Hoyle adam.li...@dotankstudios.com wrote:
If there is no license on their website regarding the information, then
shouldn't it be considered public domain?
Err, no. That's not how the law works - either on copyright or on
database rights.
Cheers,
Andy
On 10 September 2013 12:00, Craig Loftus craigloftus+...@googlemail.com wrote:
I would hope that whoever might fix the bugs in the rendering
stylesheet would start with those rather than discard all of them and
start with a new bug list on github.
That is step 3 on the roadmap described on
On 13 May 2013 11:49, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Would there be any opposition to gradually reverting uses of this tag to
railway=dismantled/abandoned, depending on what's on the ground?
I don't oppose the change in principle, but we need to be clear what
you intend for all
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 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
Hi All,
I noticed some weirdness when doing some openstreetmap-carto work.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.763681lon=-2.723075zoom=18layers=M
Notice a few things:
* Overlapping buildings (e.g. to the south of the junction)
* Strange triangular partial-buildings
* Incredibly thin buildings
On 26 February 2013 22:08, Aidan McGinley
aidmcgin+openstreet...@gmail.com wrote:
is the actual output that would get loaded onto OSM.
Please don't load this data into OpenStreetMap. It's not a good idea.
1) The source data appears to be heavily overprocessed.
Users should note that postcodes
On 17 January 2013 01:38, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote:
Anyone familiar with Alton Towers / rollercoasters in general?
This changeset:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/14382319
has merged a number of different-layered sections of Nemesis into one.
It's by a
On 28 November 2012 15:37, Ralph Smyth ral...@cpre.org.uk wrote:
The Department for Communities and Local Government released the data
for the 2011 green belt to the Telegraph, and it is being made available
here to view, explore, share and download.
That seems to be the limit of the details
Hi All,
I've made some updates to the software that powers the England Cycling
Data[1] project (i.e updates to snapshot-server).
* All the capitalisation bugs (e.g. Lane - lane) should be taken care of
* Each area now has an overall completion percentage, and these are
shown on the list of areas
On 8 November 2012 14:55, Aidan McGinley aidmc...@gmail.com wrote:
Andy,
Just looking at this and I’ll be doing some merging for my area as there
seems to be a good amount to do. One question, is there any way to quickly
create a way where one exists in the background data but not on open
On 9 October 2012 17:34, Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk wrote:
Gregory,
I thought that cycleway=opposite_lane was the equivalent of
cycleway:right=lane.
no - opposite_lane is useful in a one-way road to indicate cyclists
can go both ways. There's nothing in cycleway:right=lane to
On 2 October 2012 09:55, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote:
1) put the output back in the database, by using existing keys (eg
maxspeed=30 mph + maxspeed:source=inferred from presence of residential side
streets)
2) put the output back in the database, using new keys (eg
On 6 July 2012 21:43, Kev js1982 o...@kevswindells.eu wrote:
I've noticed a stack of stations showing up on the map recently labelled
VillageName Station which just seams wrong and to have them show up on the
default rendering seams even more wrong.
They are tagged railway=station;
On 28 June 2012 12:02, Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net wrote:
There are two pages on the wiki, each giving slightly different advice, each
containing confused, ambiguous and conflicting suggestions:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Railway_stations
On 28 June 2012 14:14, Gregory nomoregra...@googlemail.com wrote:
I thought the railway=station node should be attached to the railway line.
But that get's confusing over which line to attach it to, so I like using it
as an area.
I think if it's got the point where you have more than one way
On 28 June 2012 14:42, Kev js1982 o...@kevswindells.eu wrote:
Wikipedia has a handy map -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Preston_railway_station_2008.png 7 is the
right most one (numbered as such in the station itself) and 0 is the right
hand side of the blue platform)
To me the correct
On 20 June 2012 15:11, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote:
The people who collected the data tell me that the cycle lane widths were
recorded in 3 categories:
1) 1.5m
2) 1.5=x2
3) =2
So the values in the data (1.25 and 1.75 mostly) are spuriously accurate and
quite often
On 20 June 2012 15:21, Graham Stewart (GrahamS) gra...@dalmuti.net wrote:
David Earl wrote
I don't know about elsewhere in the country, but in Cambridgeshire the
council has used the parenthesis convention on such signs
I guess that ways signed as leading to an NCN could still use
On 18 June 2012 12:05, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote:
One last comment for now.
When looking at a project page, such as:
http://gravitystorm.dev.openstreetmap.org/cnxc-snapshot/projects/78/
tagged_ways
It would be good to have a link to edit a relevant area, or failing
that at least a
On 18 June 2012 10:11, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote:
Are there any notes I'm missing about how to access and deal with
nodes in the DfT data? e.g.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edloach/7392860104/in/photostream
Nope, you're not missing anything - it simply appears to be broken.
I'm
On 17 June 2012 12:44, Martin - CycleStreets
list-osm-talk...@cyclestreets.net wrote:
This data for each area is now available, converted, and ready for easy
merging in with a new Potlatch2 tool Andy has written. The DfT is very keen
to see the data more widely used, by OSM.
On 19 June 2012 12:59, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote:
a) Not a problem at all;
b) simply a problem for the rendering, and no change to the tagging is
required;
c) a possible problem with the tagging?
I'd say c). It seems to me like the road reference number (e.g. A514)
and public
On 19 June 2012 14:11, Gregory nomoregra...@googlemail.com wrote:
I use admin:ref for refs that are predominantly intended for
administrative usage, rather than public-facing usage.
Now that sounds like tagging for the renderer.
No, that's not true. Please see
On 18 June 2012 14:37, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote:
'Left'/'Right' is then based on the direction of the
way, therefore you will need to make sure that OSM's and DfT's ways are
drawn in the SAME DIRECTION before merging!
They should be. In some cases you'll find the DfT data
On 18 June 2012 10:58, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote:
Also, I'm not up on cycleway lane tagging, and on a section where
there are lanes both sides, is cycleway:left=lane and
cycleway:right=lane correct, as per merge tool suggestions? Also,
the merge tool is showing a suggest of Lane with a
On 16 May 2012 01:05, Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com wrote:
Unless it's been recently changed. the Cycle Only sign could never
prohibit 'pedestrian access' because use of the sign is defined by the
Department for Transports Traffic Signs Manual (chapter 3) [1].
The DFT
On 16 May 2012 12:42, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
On 05/16/2012 11:56 AM, Tim Pigden wrote:
that there are no one-way streets leading to dead ends,
This is not common in OSM but I am not aware of anyone doing a network
analysis that would fix such a problem.
Keepright has this
I don't think the email below made it to the list:
On , Tim Pigden tim.pig...@optrak.com wrote:
Error reporting would definitely be a challenge.Are there existing
facilities to add suspect type tags to enable OSM itself to be the primary
reporting medium? I haven't looked into the details of
On 10 May 2012 08:23, Brian Prangle bpran...@gmail.com wrote:
If you look at zoom level 3 for the UK you will see the Kingdom of Ivania
rendered. A google search throws up
http://micronations.wikia.com/wiki/Kingdom_of_Ivania which is a vanity
nation consisting of someone's bedroom in
On 30 April 2012 10:23, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote:
Which (yawn) is not a bad thing:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Brian Prangle bpran...@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO it's either a track on the main highway
On 26 March 2012 14:51, Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net wrote:
I'm trying to explain it all to the group members, it might help if the
route were named 'Proposed HS2 route' or similar.
Well, it would help if the standard layer only showed names for thing
that it was otherwise drawing. But in
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
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 14 March 2012 13:40, Oliver O'Brien m...@oliverobrien.co.uk wrote:
I think we are being too nice if we assume that edits like this might be
someone new that doesn't realise they aren't in a sandbox, especially when
they go through the trouble of pressing the save button and adding a
On 9 March 2012 23:00, Robert Norris rw_nor...@hotmail.com wrote:
I don't want to steal Andy's thunder, but I thought I'd check the progress
and what good timing!
. My reported geometry issues are solved.
. Many more areas have been processed (~ 1/3 of DfT areas including my local
area*)
On 11 March 2012 14:23, MT_Payne trevy...@fastmail.co.uk wrote:
NCN route 20 used to be continuous on the OSM, as it is on the ground and on
Sustrans site, checked from Wandsworth to Carshalton and on to Oaks Park.
Several sections appear to be missing on OSM:
On 12 March 2012 13:37, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 March 2012 14:23, MT_Payne trevy...@fastmail.co.uk wrote:
NCN route 20 used to be continuous on the OSM, as it is on the ground and on
Sustrans site, checked from Wandsworth to Carshalton and on to Oaks Park.
Several
On 8 March 2012 20:55, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote:
Its not an OSM problem, but anyone any idea why they have done it like
this?
I'll bet it's to do with the US.
I think that in the US we are mapping freeways as either
highway=motorway (for freeways that cross state lines, i.e.
On 3 March 2012 16:45, Robert Norris rw_nor...@hotmail.com wrote:
I can't say I'm convinced about the value of adding FIXMEs to 7000+ postboxes
in the UK in changeset:
...
As such I'm thinking the changeset should probably be reverted/removed.
Wholeheartedly agree. Automated QA shouldn't
On 14 February 2012 19:34, Graham Jones grahamjones...@gmail.com wrote:
but I made the way run
clockwise rather than anticlockwise.
Just for clarity, there's no difference between clockwise and
anticlockwise polygons in OSM. Either direction works fine.
There are, of course, one or two
On 24 January 2012 03:09, Robert Norris rw_nor...@hotmail.com wrote:
The Taunton Sedgemoor import data seems pretty messed up.
Eg Mansuel Road, seems have picked out wrong points (over 5+ miles away) to
generate crazily wrong geometry.
Thanks Robert - I'll have a look at that and find out
On 16 November 2011 09:20, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi All,
I previously discussed[1] what our plans were with regards to the
cycling data that is coming out of the DfT.
Hi again,
I've now received lots more data on this project, again for soliciting
feedback. Current areas
On 15 January 2012 19:27, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
If you reposition the new node in same place as the old one, this hasn't
really
achieved anything. At best, it has obscured the history a bit so it's no
longer
quite so clear that the node was originally added by a CT-decliner.
On 13 January 2012 16:36, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
On 13 January 2012 13:41, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyone fancy dealing with http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/kane123 ?
All of their changesets so far are bogus, and need reverting.
I have reverted
On 16 January 2012 10:34, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
The user is back, and has spent the early hours of this morning
deleting lots of things - major roads etc.
I'm going to upgrade my assessment to deliberate vandal, and ask
again if someone can revert the changesets
On 15 January 2012 09:28, Graham Jones grahamjones...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I am trying to find the history of the relation covering the Weardale Way (
86561 ). I can view the relation itself ok at
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/86561, but when I try to view
the history of it
On 14 January 2012 20:34, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
Q's
Does anyone have a template letter along the lines of 'please can you sign
the agreement as it would mean a lot of hard work replacing your data' to
send to those that are undecided or, more likely, unaware of the change?
On 13 January 2012 16:36, Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net wrote:
I'd rather not find big chunks of south east London and little segments of
major roads disappear overnight if I can help it.
I've started work in SW London (Putney / Wimbledon / Streatham) areas,
concentrating on the major roads.
On 14 January 2012 15:35, Eike Ritter osm...@rittere.co.uk wrote:
I'm trying to do some remapping, and would be grateful for some help in
situations I've encountered.
1.) Assume you need to replace a node which is in the intersection of
several ways. If I simply delete the node and re-create
Anyone fancy dealing with http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/kane123 ?
All of their changesets so far are bogus, and need reverting.
Cheers,
Andy
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
On 11 January 2012 00:21, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
Well I'm on SUSE11.3 64bit into an AMD quad core with 8Gb RAM and Seamonkey
2.6.1
Rock stable with everything else I run.
I'll switch to Firefox on another machine when I have a little more time
tomorrow night.
Just pissed me
On 11 January 2012 11:21, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
It's the usual problem of no time ...
15 mins tidying up an area while I'm waiting for something else to finish is
time usefully spent, but fire-fighting why something random is happening
takes a lot longer :(
Sure, I
On 12 December 2011 11:51, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
The main practical obstacle, as I see it, is that OS in their infinite
wisdom have started supplying the shapefiles in 100km x 100km squares...
which are certainly far too large to wrangle within a browser-based editor
On 4 December 2011 18:12, Pawel Stankiewicz sta...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Chances are something very different from a ban. There are also chances that
a satellite will fall on my head but there is no chances to predict every
consequence of any action and only 1 way to verify predictions.
That's
This sounds a bit like yes it is/oh no it isn't tags. If it's not an
actual cycle route, then it shouldn't be otherwise identically tagged
but just with additional official=no or operator=Some Wishful
Thinkers. I think your earlier suggestion of tagging them separately
to lcn/ncn/rcn would be
On 29 November 2011 09:17, Richard Mann
richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote:
In London there's also the problem that the Cycle SuperHighways and LCN are
both tagged the same, despite being rather different beasts.
In what way? They are both signed cycle routes covering a reasonably
local
1 - 100 di 644 matches
Mail list logo