Re: [OSM-talk] Missing structure

On Jan 18, 2008 9:01 AM, Lester Caine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > > On Jan 18, 2008 3:42 PM, Karl Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I don't have any particular objections against your proposal (although > it is > >> somewhat complex), but I still think geograp

Re: [OSM-talk] Missing structure

Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > On Jan 18, 2008 3:42 PM, Karl Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I don't have any particular objections against your proposal (although it is >> somewhat complex), but I still think geographic boundaries are the way to >> go. Which do you think will happen first: C

Re: [OSM-talk] Missing structure

On Jan 18, 2008 3:42 PM, Karl Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't have any particular objections against your proposal (although it is > somewhat complex), but I still think geographic boundaries are the way to > go. Which do you think will happen first: Creation of boundaries and a way > t

Re: [OSM-talk] Missing structure

On Jan 17, 2008 11:00 PM, Lester Caine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Karl Newman wrote: > > On Jan 17, 2008 12:52 PM, Lukasz Stelmach <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > wrote: > > > > Lester Caine wrote: > > > After my missive in the postal addresses thread I had yet anothe

Re: [OSM-talk] Missing structure

Karl Newman wrote: > On Jan 17, 2008 12:52 PM, Lukasz Stelmach <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > Lester Caine wrote: > > After my missive in the postal addresses thread I had yet another > scout around > > on what is already available and how it is no

Re: [OSM-talk] Missing structure

On Jan 17, 2008 3:39 PM, Martin Trautmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Karl Newman wrote: > > > It seems to me we're going about this all wrong. Instead of splitting up > > ways just because any of its attributes change (or to break it up for a > > route), it seems like a way which denotes the sam

Re: [OSM-talk] Missing structure

Karl Newman wrote: > It seems to me we're going about this all wrong. Instead of splitting up > ways just because any of its attributes change (or to break it up for a > route), it seems like a way which denotes the same street (or other linear > feature) should be as long as possible. Then we cou

Re: [OSM-talk] Missing structure

On Jan 17, 2008 12:52 PM, Lukasz Stelmach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Lester Caine wrote: > > After my missive in the postal addresses thread I had yet another scout > around > > on what is already available and how it is not being managed well. > > > > All mapping is currently based on physica

Re: [OSM-talk] Missing structure

Lester Caine wrote: After my missive in the postal addresses thread I had yet another scout around on what is already available and how it is not being managed well. All mapping is currently based on physical nodes, but I think that perhaps we need an abstract element that we can hang things

Re: [OSM-talk] Missing structure

On Sun, 2008-01-13 at 09:40 +, Lester Caine wrote: > Taking an example > > * place=village > * name=Ryde > * is_in=England, Isle of Wight, Hampshire > > SHOULD be is_in=Isle of Wight > > With > * place=county > * name=Isle of Wight > * is_in=Hampshire > >

Re: [OSM-talk] Missing structure

Lester Caine wrote: >Sent: 13 January 2008 9:40 AM >To: talk@openstreetmap.org >Subject: [OSM-talk] Missing structure > snip >Back to the street problem, in the case of England and Wales, >the >ref= entry could be the NSG (National Street Gazetteer) street number (for >which there is one for the

Re: [OSM-talk] Missing structure

On Jan 13, 2008 10:40 AM, Lester Caine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > After my missive in the postal addresses thread I had yet another scout around > on what is already available and how it is not being managed well. All this is_in stuff is interesting, but isn't this exactly what relations are f