[Talk-us] User yapple seems to have made some bad edits and then gone away
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/yapple/history All are commented as Testing. Do not take it seriously... /Stellan ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Moving historic railroad ways from OSM to OpenHistoricalMap
On 2015-04-02 10:08, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 04/02/2015 06:15 AM, Russ Nelson wrote: I understand keeping a feature in OSM if there is a remnant of the railroad, but there are areas where everything has been replatted, regraded and redeveloped, yet there is still a razed feature in OSM (for one small example, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?#map=16/38.8663/-94.7943). This seems like a good candidate for moving out of OSM to OHM. What problem would be solved by this action? The problem of OSM editors being confused by a strange line that cuts through houses in the editor perhaps. I can see how abandonend railroads where the bed is still visible in some way could be an issue of contention (even though I'd be in favour of not having them in OSM). But former railroads that have been built over by settlements are *clearly* not something that should be in OSM. Bye Frederik +1 /Stellan ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Why?
A related problem with Escondido is that the landuse areas boundaries are attached to road centerlines. This vastly increases the editing effort needed to improve on them later. /Stellan On 2015-03-05 13:30, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2015-03-05 1:14 GMT+01:00 stevea stevea...@softworkers.com mailto:stevea...@softworkers.com: What I understand Martin Koppenhoefer to say are essentially the same things, but I'm not sure if he understands (or agrees) with Escondido having large areas marked as landuse=residential. These are not simply zoned residential (they are), they ARE (on-the-ground verifiable) residential. So it is OK for them to be tagged as they are. Yes, I'm saying the same things. In particular, if you ask me about these huge landuse polygons in Escondido, I don't particularily like them. I like detailed mapping, and I believe as soon as someone starts to map the details he'll have to split these polygons into smaller ones in order to keep maintainability. I don't suggest to make them multipolygons and to exclude stuff, this would become a nightmare very soon. I would exclude (at least) the main arterial roads from the residential landuse and also stuff like this: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/65592897 And when you did this, you'd already have it all split into much smaller landuse areas. Cheers, Martin ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Road abbreviations
On 2014-08-01 00:23, Paul Norman wrote: A bit of PostgreSQL and CartoCSS later, and I have an overlay showing all the abbreviated roads: http://tile.paulnorman.ca/demo/abbreviated.html. This layer is *not* live updated. Most of the roads are in the eastern United States, with small clusters around some cities in the West. Great resource. I have fixed most of the cluster around South San Francisco/San Bruno, CA /Stellan ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US State highways.
Potlatch does let you reverse ways: click the direction-indicating arrow(s). On 2013-11-21 7:03 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote: That is a really good and interesting point, Chris. I just confirmed that iD leaves the north / south / east / west roles alone when reversing a way. Neither does Potlatch (although Potlatch does not seem to actually allow you to reverse a way, just to flip the oneway= between 1 and -1). ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Complex intersection mapping
On 2013-10-15 4:12 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote: I apologize for the confusion around the term 'braiding' - we used this term internally for a while (and it ended up in some changeset comments) not realizing that this had a different meaning that traces back to the TIGER source data. To me, the before pattern looks a lot like sausage links when repeated along several blocks... :) /StellanL ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Complex intersection mapping
I prefer, and always use, the after pattern. /Stellan On 2013-10-14 7:42 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote: Hi all, Here at Telenav we have been looking at complex intersections and we have set about editing some of these intersections in a way we feel represents the situation on the ground better than their original state, and because of that, works better for us. We have received some feedback on our edits so we wanted to take a step back and see what we (as the OSM community) think is the preferred way to map these intersections. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Redaction affected ways map
On 2012-08-04 08:27, Martijn van Exel wrote: I was curious how much of the road network in the US has been touched by the redaction process. So I made this map: http://lima.schaaltreinen.nl/redaction/ I would like to know if this is useful to anybody, or what I can do to make it more so. Nice. What do the colors signify? And I would suggest adding Show in OSM and/or Edit in Potlatch/JOSM links. /Stellan ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
