On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Maarten Deenmd...@xs4all.nl wrote:
Having a node shared between a bridge and the way
underneath may solve one problem but introduces another (having to make a
relation to indicate this physical route is not present).
Agreed.
maxheight needs to be applied to
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
Um...the way would also be close proximity to the bridge,
because it
passes under it... I don't see how finding a node near a
bridge is a
particularly elegant solution. And by random I mean the
particular
node you choose would
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm starting to like this idea. But the problem with this
is how to
define that section of way, so as not to introduce a
maintenance
You really don't want to pull on that thread, the same can be said for bridges
or virtually
Roy Wallace wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Maarten Deenmd...@xs4all.nl wrote:
Having a node shared between a bridge and the way
underneath may solve one problem but introduces another (having to make a
relation to indicate this physical route is not present).
Agreed.
maxheight
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:58 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
The solution depends on what problem you are trying to solve, if you are
trying to find attributes of a bridge or restrictions of a way, my suggestion
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 00:22:54 +0200, Aun Johnsen (via Webmail)
skipp...@gimnechiske.org wrote:
I do not agree that they bouth should be treated as maxheight=* If my car
with load that is 3m high, and maxheight=3m, but physical clearance is
much
higher,than you would pass at the speed limit, but
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Maarten Deenmd...@xs4all.nl wrote:
IMHO it is not that important if the way with the limit is only just beneath
the bridge, or is somewhat longer or is applied to nodes on either side of a
bridge.
I recently came across this example where the way with the
Roy Wallace wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Maarten Deenmd...@xs4all.nl wrote:
IMHO it is not that important if the way with the limit is only just beneath
the bridge, or is somewhat longer or is applied to nodes on either side of a
bridge.
I recently came across this example where
Maarten Deenmd...@xs4all.nl wrote:
I recently came across this example where the way with the
maxheight is a lot
longer than strictly necessary. For every day uses this does not
really pose a problem.
Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
A couple of potential problems with this: What
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 08:11:21AM +1000, Roy Wallace wrote:
There are two issues here: 1) what should be tagged and 2) what should
it be tagged with.
For 1), what should be tagged? Definitely the bridge. For two reasons:
firstly, clearance under a bridge is an attribute of the bridge.
What
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:11:21 +1000, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 9:47 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com
wrote:
--- On Mon, 27/7/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the bridge should be tagged.
There was an overwhelming response on the
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 08:01:45AM +0100, Simon Ward wrote:
What of bridges that cross multiple ways of different heights?
Sorry. I see that this has been commented on elsewhere in the thread.
Simon
--
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 5:22 AM, Aleksejs Mjaliksli...@keeper.lv wrote:
Does OSM invalidates GPS data after some time? Otherwise, roads
continuously changes and after we will have a big cloud of points that
don't make any sense.
No, it doesn't. GPX tracks stay where they are forever and
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 09:21, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmasonava...@gmail.com wrote:
Does OSM invalidates GPS data after some time? Otherwise, roads
continuously changes and after we will have a big cloud of points that
don't make any sense.
No, it doesn't. GPX tracks stay where they are forever and
Simone Cortesi wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 09:21, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmasonava...@gmail.com
wrote:
Does OSM invalidates GPS data after some time? Otherwise, roads
continuously changes and after we will have a big cloud of points that
don't make any sense.
No, it doesn't. GPX tracks stay
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com
marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com wrote:
2)
Not only bridges have maxheight but also parking-lots,
tunnels, ...
and trees even if they aren't explicitly signed.
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Simone Cortesi wrote:
Does OSM invalidates GPS data after some time? Otherwise, roads
continuously changes and after we will have a big cloud of points that
don't make any sense.
No, it doesn't. GPX tracks stay where they are forever and continue
being served by
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl wrote:
But there is no way to determine if a particular GPS track
is outdated. Sure,
you can look at the map and say I don't see a physical
road for this track,
but how would you identify GPS points of a track that is
invalid? Especialy
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
please , don't drop data
for many areas we are lucky to have one trace and it may be
a year or more
before another mapper goes back there
consider having access to older data in separate sets if
there is concern
about using old gps
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, Simone Cortesi sim...@cortesi.com wrote:
GPS are becoming more precise. older tracks are, on a
general basis,
You can't make assumptions of the quality of the data based simply on how
recently it was added, someone might be using an old piece of GPS kit they were
given
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
For maxspeed (your example), the restriction should be
applied to the
Exactly, you may have to break a way up to apply maxspeed tags to several
different parts of what was originally a single way. Exactly the same as a
bridge,
This doesn't make sense to me.
At least there should be a timestamp of gpx-files which
tells us when they've been uploaded so that one could filter them
a la show me gpx-files not older than 3 years !
Roman
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 5:22 AM, Aleksejs Mjaliksli...@keeper.lv wrote:
Does OSM
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 09:59, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, Simone Cortesi sim...@cortesi.com wrote:
GPS are becoming more precise. older tracks are, on a
general basis,
You can't make assumptions of the quality of the data based simply on how
recently it
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 09:58, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
consider having access to older data in separate sets if
there is concern
about using old gps tracks, just don't drop any because it
is old (like some
of us)
Maybe the best option is to let people stipulate how many
Hello !
One think I think it can be useful is a tool for editing all our old trace :
- easy to download all our trace
- easy to remove unprecise segment (in some old my trace I have some
segment who is 50 m wrong !)
- easy to simplify them
- easy to re-upload modified trace !
I think that a tool
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, Simone Cortesi sim...@cortesi.com wrote:
I'm talking in the long run. Not something to be done in
the coming
moths. Still we are just 5 years old. And not many roads
did change
shape in this short period of time.
Some areas have lots of road duplication construction
John Smith wrote:
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl wrote:
But there is no way to determine if a particular GPS track
is outdated. Sure,
you can look at the map and say I don't see a physical
road for this track,
but how would you identify GPS points of a track that is
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl wrote:
That is not indicative. A road could remain unchanged for
the last 100 years
or could have been demolished last year. What would be the
expiration time of
a track? And would you be prepared to lose correct GPS data
to do this?
Also
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:25:34 +0200, marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 00:22:54 +0200, Aun Johnsen (via Webmail)
skipp...@gimnechiske.org wrote:
I do not agree that they bouth should be treated as maxheight=* If my
car
with load that is 3m high, and maxheight=3m, but
Hi everyone,
We are really sorry for being late to send u the result of Mapping Party on
last 18th July:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/HanoiMappingParty2009
Around 15 people assisted to the conferences and to the party, with 5 GPS
they divided themselves into 5 groups of 3 people each.
On
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 09:07:56AM +0200, marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com wrote:
The way below the bridge does not intersect the bridge at all.
There is no reference from the street below to indicate that there
is a bridge at all. You would have to analyse the location and
vector of all other
Sorry to break the threading,
Maybe it's an idea to allow users to specify an area where traces are outdated?
So when a junction is reconstructed a local user can place a bounding
box over that junction and all GPS points in that box are marked as
outdated (or deleted, or whatever). Maybe some
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, André Riedel riedel.an...@gmail.com wrote:
What about those information offices that exist on
estates where they try and sell you a block of land and/or a
house, sometimes a demo house is used as an office, but I've
seen little shacks put up as well.
Because of
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, René Affourtit raffour...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe it's an idea to allow users to specify an area where
traces are outdated?
So when a junction is reconstructed a local user can place
a bounding
box over that junction and all GPS points in that box are
marked as
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:27:52 +0200, Aun Johnsen (via Webmail)
skipp...@gimnechiske.org wrote:
I am not using maxheight in any of the metrics
that involve a travel-time to optimize for so
it has no effect on the route other then allowing
or disallowing that path at all.
Thus at least for me
2009/7/26 Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net:
Can you suggest how I would map the sign
Tourist Radio 88.1
which gives the frequency to tune your FM receiver for the information
I am not sure that a sign would help us. But it could be interested if
we have tag with important radio frequencies of
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, André Riedel riedel.an...@gmail.com wrote:
Radio with actual trafic information often found at the
beginning of a tunnel
radio:traffic = 92.4 MHz
Some tunnels broadcast across the entire FM radio range if there is accidents
and instructions to motorists. Not sure
John Smith schreef:
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, André Riedel riedel.an...@gmail.com wrote:
Radio with actual trafic information often found at the
beginning of a tunnel
radio:traffic = 92.4 MHz
Some tunnels broadcast across the entire FM radio range if there is accidents
and
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 9:04 AM, René Affourtitraffour...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry to break the threading
I can break threading too!
So when a junction is reconstructed a local user can place a bounding
box over that junction and all GPS points in that box are marked as
outdated (or deleted,
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason ava...@gmail.com wrote:
* The data is versioned, and anyone can edit it
I have a lot of GPX tracks that could be improved, e.g. by
deleting
I'd say deleting sections, but not editing... Only very erroneous information
should be touched up by
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:49 AM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason ava...@gmail.com wrote:
* The data is versioned, and anyone can edit it
I have a lot of GPX tracks that could be improved, e.g. by
deleting
I'd say deleting sections,
André Riedel schreef:
I am not sure that a sign would help us. But it could be interested if
we have tag with important  radio frequencies of an area or especially
of a tunnel.
Radio with actual trafic information often found at the beginning of a tunnel
radio:traffic = 92.4 MHz
I
On 28/07/09 11:33, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 9:04 AM, René Affourtitraffour...@gmail.com wrote:
* All the data is losslessly inserted into the database
This means that we can get waypoint/segment/time/ele/whatever data out
again. It would probably be simplest
Also, and I've already posted here about that a while ago, it would
really help if hdop, and eventually vdop, wasn't lost in the
anonymization process. This is an important data when tracing, but
unless you know who published the track and you can download the
source, you don't have access
Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Stephen Hopeslh...@gmail.com wrote:
No, you're wrong here. Maxheight is an element of the way that goes
under the bridge. It is caused by the bridge, but it is not part of
the bridge.
You're saying that the
Many of the UK wiki pages with 'place' and 'slippery map' templates
are badly formatted, but not all.
This one is badly formatted:-
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/East_Sussex
and this one as well:-
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/County_Durham
But this one is fine:-
On 28 Jul 2009, at 12:15, Tom Hughes wrote:
The start point in the trace table, which isn't very useful, could
be
replaced by a bounding box to allow bbox queries - that's something
that
I have been thinking about doing for a while.
I thought Potlatch used it for the edit links.
Shaun
Hello,
I put a list for the fm online at
http://users.fulladsl.be/~spb13810/research/ukwlist.gz
format:
name ; freq; lat; long
Can you upload that to osm @ once ?? ;-)
I use the tools on linux like:
cut -c 5-35 UKW.TXT ukwloc
cut -c 62-69 UKW.TXT ukwlat
cut -c 70-76 UKW.TXT
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð
Bjarmasonava...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 9:04 AM, René Affourtitraffour...@gmail.com wrote:
So when a junction is reconstructed a local user can place a bounding
box over that junction and all GPS points in that box are marked as
On 28/07/09 12:36, Shaun McDonald wrote:
On 28 Jul 2009, at 12:15, Tom Hughes wrote:
The start point in the trace table, which isn't very useful, could be
replaced by a bounding box to allow bbox queries - that's something that
I have been thinking about doing for a while.
I thought
Peter Miller wrote:
Many of the UK wiki pages with 'place' and 'slippery map' templates
are badly formatted, but not all.
This one is badly formatted:-
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/East_Sussex
and this one as well:-
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/County_Durham
But this one is
Maarten Deen wrote:
Peter Miller wrote:
Many of the UK wiki pages with 'place' and 'slippery map' templates
are badly formatted, but not all.
This one is badly formatted:-
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/East_Sussex
and this one as well:-
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:43 AM, René Affourtitraffour...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð
Bjarmasonava...@gmail.com wrote:
I have a lot of GPX tracks that could be improved, e.g. by deleting
point clouds. I'd like to edit them using normal OSM tools, have
Hi,
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
The problem with this is that it's a broken solution to an already
limited system. We shouldn't have to /remove/ GPS tracks depending on
age, but rather have the ability to mark segments or points of them as
trusted (amongst other things).
To be honest, I
- Original Message -
From: Martijn van Oosterhout klep...@gmail.com
To: Openstreetmap talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 4:46 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Coastline
Forward to ML.
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Martijn van
Oosterhoutklep...@gmail.com wrote:
On
Is there a real need for is_in tags or have admin boundaries replaced the need?
It seems there is a lot of redundancy going on for example node id = 17652780
aeroway = aerodrome
closest_town = Newcastle, New South Wales
ele = 9
iata = NTL
icao = YWLM
is_in = Australia, NSW, New South Wales
On 28 Jul 2009, at 13:43, John Smith wrote:
Is there a real need for is_in tags or have admin boundaries
replaced the need?
Admin boundaries are the new way of doing this. The is_in tag was the
early way of trying to show a hierarchy of admin areas.
Shaun
smime.p7s
Description:
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk wrote:
Admin boundaries are the new way of doing this. The is_in
tag was the early way of trying to show a hierarchy of admin
areas.
Ok, so is_in is redundant.
There was talk on the dev list about removing a bunch of tiger tags
2009/7/28 Liz ed...@billiau.net:
To return to the bridge
the following attributes of the bridge and the road underneath it all need to
be considered
a) Height of bridge
height tag on bridge way
b) Height above sea level of the bridge
ele tag on bridge way
c) Max height of the arch of the
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Tom Hughest...@compton.nu wrote:
On 28/07/09 11:33, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 9:04 AM, René Affourtitraffour...@gmail.com
wrote:
* All the data is losslessly inserted into the database
This means that we can get
Shaun McDonald wrote:
On 28 Jul 2009, at 13:43, John Smith wrote:
Is there a real need for is_in tags or have admin boundaries replaced
the need?
Admin boundaries are the new way of doing this. The is_in tag was the
early way of trying to show a hierarchy of admin areas.
It is
Perhaps the more appropriate question would be what are appropriate tag keys
that could be used in combination with the tag place=*?
So far all I can come up with is name and possibly source. I'm primarily only
looking at aussie data so I may have over looked things.
is_in seems to have
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote:
It is still *very* helpful to have is_in present though. It
is much easier to present this information in a search than
to do polygon tests which requires a whole new algorithm
(desirable though that is), and of course,
2009/7/28 Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl:
I changed the Geohack for OSM part on Template:place a bit. It looks better
on the template page, but it appears the template is cached so it might take a
little time before the pages look better.
It should say More maps on Geohack for OSM in the
John Smith wrote:
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote:
It is still *very* helpful to have is_in present though. It is much
easier to present this information in a search than to do polygon
tests which requires a whole new algorithm (desirable though that
is),
2009/7/28 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com:
Perhaps the more appropriate question would be what are appropriate tag keys
that could be used in combination with the tag place=*?
So far all I can come up with is name and possibly source. I'm primarily only
looking at aussie data so I may
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote:
But until we do, the existing mechanism does no harm, and
Apart from massively bloating the database due to massive amounts of redundant
and/or useless information that doesn't gain us anything.
as I said, you don't always
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
What if boundary is not defined but the hierarchy is
defined, such as
with post codes? Should people invent boundary
polygons based on just
what nodes/ways belong to the area? I hope not.
Why spend just as much time tagging
On 28 Jul 2009, at 15:35, John Smith wrote:
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
What if boundary is not defined but the hierarchy is
defined, such as
with post codes? Should people invent boundary
polygons based on just
what nodes/ways belong to the area? I
David Groom wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Martijn van Oosterhout" klep...@gmail.com
To: "Openstreetmap" talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 4:46 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Coastline
Forward to ML.
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Martijn van
But until we do, the existing mechanism does no harm, and as I said, you
don't always know the boundary while you do know where the place is.
Determining the inclusion of every place in the database, even if we had
complete information, is massively more complex than simply being told
the
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk wrote:
Only use the is_in tag on the place nodes rather than every
node.
Why?
The reasoning I've been given so far is for routing, but to find such
information routing software would have to look at all nodes near by until it
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, Donald Allwright donald_allwri...@yahoo.com wrote:
(I'm not volunteering to write the checker, but I would
certainly be willing to spend time looking at any errors
thus detected).
This came up because I've started writing a checker to find certain tag
combinations and
2009/7/28 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com:
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
What if boundary is not defined but the hierarchy is
defined, such as
with post codes? Should people invent boundary
polygons based on just
what nodes/ways belong to the area? I
John Smith wrote:
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk
wrote:
Only use the is_in tag on the place nodes rather than every node.
Why?
The reasoning I've been given so far is for routing, but to find such
information routing software would have to look at all
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
Both for the time spent tagging and space used in database,
perhaps
there might be some saving from using polygons but it
depends on the
exact scenario. Either way, don't add the tags you
I doubt I can agree that using
John Smith wrote:
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk wrote:
Admin boundaries are the new way of doing this. The is_in
tag was the early way of trying to show a hierarchy of admin
areas.
Ok, so is_in is redundant.
There was talk on the dev list about
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote:
We can give ourselves a helping hand here if we keep
is_in.
That's assuming the information contained in it is useful to begin with, as I
keep stating the information I've seen is inconsistent so that's not helping
any one.
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, MarkS o...@redcake.co.uk wrote:
We need to be careful about removing tags because it could
cause
renderers to fail (or at least not work as expected). For
example, I
think the is_in tag is added after the place name in mkgmap
when
creating the city POIs.
That's
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:09 PM, David Earlda...@frankieandshadow.com wrote:
The reason I gave was for name searching, not routing. It allows the
result of a search to be given a descriptive context that isn't
currently possible any other way.
It allows the result of a search to be given a
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
Let's stop the is_in debate - yes, they are useful to data
consumers,
no, they shouldn't be in OSM itself, and no, nobody has yet
stepped up
to sort it out.
U I am stepping up to sort it out, at least for some parts of
John Smith wrote:
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, MarkS o...@redcake.co.uk wrote:
We need to be careful about removing tags because it could
cause
renderers to fail (or at least not work as expected). For
example, I
think the is_in tag is added after the place name in mkgmap
when
creating the city
2009/7/28 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com:
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote:
We can give ourselves a helping hand here if we keep
is_in.
That's assuming the information contained in it is useful to begin with, as I
keep stating the information I've seen is
Hi, some of you might know my proposal
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extended_conditions_for_access_tags
or its predecessor, Conditions for access tags. The proposal presents
the idea of adding conditions to existing keys (such as maxspeed, access
...). A tag with
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
Data being wrong is a moot point, it doesn't speak for
either is_in
tags or boundary polygons and neither help make data more
correct
really.
data being stored consistently is the point.
2009/7/28 Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com:
Let's stop the is_in debate - yes, they are useful to data consumers,
no, they shouldn't be in OSM itself, and no, nobody has yet stepped up
to sort it out.
One of the two ways to indicate belonging to an area should not be in
OSM, agreed. Why's
--- On Tue, 28/7/09, MarkS o...@redcake.co.uk wrote:
I'm not against getting rid of is_in, I just think we need
to manage the
change over a fair period of time to give the renderers a
chance to
catch up.
It's irrelevant if place nodes don't already have is_in and instead of adding
2009/7/27 Ciprian Talaba cipriantal...@gmail.com:
And no daily diffs since July 25th.
Fixed now.
20090727-20090728.osc.gz is current.
/ Grant
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Andy Allan wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:09 PM, David Earlda...@frankieandshadow.com wrote:
The reason I gave was for name searching, not routing. It allows the
result of a search to be given a descriptive context that isn't
currently possible any other way.
It allows the result of a
Hi,
I started the process of getting tags for transmitters 'approved', these
may be of use for you.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dtower
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Communications_Transponder
What you really need is some way to link a transmitter as a
Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com schrieb:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Ross Scanloni...@4x4falcon.com
wrote:
Does this mean the bridge has a clearance of 2.8 or the road under
the bridge has a clearance of 2.8. To me this would suggest the
bridge has a limit of 2.8 ie vehicles
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 5:20 PM, David Earlda...@frankieandshadow.com wrote:
Andy Allan wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:09 PM, David Earlda...@frankieandshadow.com
wrote:
The reason I gave was for name searching, not routing. It allows the
result of a search to be given a descriptive
Could someone[1] setup a web-service where you send it a lat/lon and
it returns a list of all boundaries that point is within? So just one
website imports the boundary data instead of everyone having to know
how to do the 'is within' search[2].
Namefinder could then query this to add its own
Very good point, and feature suggestion.
I've started a wiki page on this project. Please contribute!
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Translation_Interface
From: Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
To: Subhodip Biswas subhodipbis...@gmail.com; Mikel Maron
Have a look at boundaries.pl in the wiki
-- Urspr. Mitt. --
Betreff: Re: [OSM-talk] is_in and similar tags
Von: OJ W ojwli...@googlemail.com
Datum: 28.07.2009 19:33
Could someone[1] setup a web-service where you send it a lat/lon and
it returns a list of all boundaries that point is within? So
OJ W ojwli...@googlemail.com schrieb:
Could someone[1] setup a web-service where you send it a lat/lon and
it returns a list of all boundaries that point is within? So just one
website imports the boundary data instead of everyone having to know
how to do the 'is within' search[2].
I think
Mikel Maron wrote:
Very good point, and feature suggestion.
I've started a wiki page on this project. Please contribute!
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Translation_Interface
Hello,
one of the thing that I am working on (at least initially on design) is
a translation website, as I
Should we be charging to upgrade businesses details on OSM?
I think it should be free. You could pay OSM to have a OSM member put
all the details onto the map for them, saving them signing up etc. But
I would not like to see charging being the norm. Only because OSM
exists as a free map service,
Please forward to your local lists and provide translation as required.
Cheers
Andy
-Original Message-
From: Andy Robinson (OSMF) [mailto:a...@osmfoundation.org]
Sent: 28 July 2009 8:37 PM
To: 'osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org'
Subject: OPENSTREETMAP FOUNDATION - NOTICE OF ANNUAL GENERAL
On Mon, 2009-07-27 at 10:37 +0100, David Groom wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Chris Hill chillly...@yahoo.co.uk
To: OSM Talk talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2009 3:22 PM
Subject: [OSM-talk] Coastline
I have altered the coastline in the Humber estuary, UK
1 - 100 of 285 matches
Mail list logo