On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 10:57 -0700, am12 wrote:
I'm saying that abbreviations are part of every day life, and locals know
what to abbreviate and what not to.
Sure, according to their local usage, which will be inconsistent with local
usage in other places. What one local thinks is an
I understand that this is a collaborative project, where standards are as
much defined by what somebody decides to do as anything else. Neither the
wiki pages nor mailing list opinions (or votes) are definitive mandates.
Given that, I'll toss my opinion out here.
I'm saying that abbreviations
On Mon, 2010-04-26 at 16:31 -0700, Alan Mintz wrote:
Good. We also need to settle on a set of component tags to make best use of
the information present in those edits - particularly to separate out
cardinal directions from those that are really part of the name. Can we
agree for now that,
Hi Alan,
On 24 April 2010 06:33, Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote:
At 2010-04-22 13:09, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
On 22 April 2010 04:24, Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote:
At 2010-04-21 17:12, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
On 22 April 2010 01:18, Apollinaris Schoell
-Original Message-
From: Apollinaris Schoell [mailto:ascho...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 9:47 AM
To: Lord-Castillo, Brett
Cc: 'talk-us@openstreetmap.org'
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Admin boundaries tied to roads
On 23 Apr 2010, at 7:13 , Lord-Castillo, Brett wrote
Schoell [mailto:ascho...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 9:47 AM
To: Lord-Castillo, Brett
Cc: 'talk-us@openstreetmap.org'
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Admin boundaries tied to roads
On 23 Apr 2010, at 7:13 , Lord-Castillo, Brett wrote:
On 19 Apr 2010, at 20:24, Apollinaris Schoell wrote
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Brad Neuhauser
brad.neuhau...@gmail.comwrote:
The bigger issue with it being
imported into OSM is the currency, because municipal boundaries are
always changing, and as has been mentioned, boundaries are not usually
something that is easily verifiable on the
At 2010-04-23 18:11, Anthony
wrote:
A navi system is more useful if the instructions and signs
match.
Depends on your purpose. If you're trying to navigate to the
missigned street (e.g. California Street, where the sign
reads Carolina Street), you don't want to get a response of
street not
At 2010-04-23 07:47, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
While I understand the mantra of TIGER=Bad because of the state of the
road data, this is not true for the boundary data. Most of the boundary
data comes directly from recorded surveys (something not available for
roads) and is not bad data
At 2010-04-22 13:33, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
On 22 April 2010 17:40, Apollinaris Schoell ascho...@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 Apr 2010, at 17:12 , andrzej zaborowski wrote:
The signs are posted there by authorities so this is similar to having
access to a tiny piece of a map or database made
On 23 Apr 2010, at 19:46 , Alan Mintz wrote:
At 2010-04-23 07:47, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
I don't know about completely. The parts of the Kern/LA/Orange/San
Bernardino/Riverside/San Diego borders that I have surveyed are at least
close to the signage at important points (admittedly a
At 2010-04-22 13:09, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
On 22 April 2010 04:24, Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote:
At 2010-04-21 17:12, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
On 22 April 2010 01:18, Apollinaris Schoell ascho...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 3:36 PM, andrzej zaborowski
On 22 April 2010 04:24, Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote:
At 2010-04-21 17:12, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
On 22 April 2010 01:18, Apollinaris Schoell ascho...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 3:36 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com
wrote:
Where's damage in that --
On 22 April 2010 17:40, Apollinaris Schoell ascho...@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 Apr 2010, at 17:12 , andrzej zaborowski wrote:
The signs are posted there by authorities so this is similar to having
access to a tiny piece of a map or database made by these authorities.
For maps people usually
On 20 April 2010 05:24, Apollinaris Schoell ascho...@gmail.com wrote:
Sounds a lot like the IMO ill-considered road name expansion that was
apparently agreed upon by a small group of people without input from the
majority of active mappers whose work has been damaged.
agreed, no idea why this
At 2010-04-21 17:12, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
On 22 April 2010 01:18, Apollinaris Schoell ascho...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 3:36 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com
wrote:
Where's damage in that -- is it in that you can now read the name out
without checking the
On 4/20/10 3:44 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
Alan Mintz wrote:
At 2010-04-19 10:45, Mike N. wrote:
I see that the separate VS tangled argument has been settled in the US by
the Duplicate Node attack bots, who have blindly merged all duplicate
nodes.
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Mike N. nice...@att.net wrote:
From an old message:
I take the point that 'road realignment' may
require the boundary also to move, but the word is MAY and so what ever
happens
to the road, the location of the boundary needs to be checked separately!
On 4/19/10 1:45 PM, Mike N. wrote:
From an old message:
I take the point that 'road realignment' may
require the boundary also to move, but the word is MAY and so what ever
happens
to the road, the location of the boundary needs to be checked separately!
It is
quite surprising in the
At 2010-04-19 10:45, Mike N. wrote:
I see that the separate VS tangled argument has been settled in the US by
the Duplicate Node attack bots, who have blindly merged all duplicate
nodes.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/38855677
Is this really happening? Can someone describe exactly
20 matches
Mail list logo
