On 7/12/2012 11:27 AM, Clay Smalley wrote:
I like this idea. That would encourage more people to TIGER-review
streets, as highway=road shows up pretty ugly on Mapnik, and people like
getting rid of ugly. What would be the drawbacks of doing this? It seems
like there would be some but I can't
On 7/12/2012 11:43 PM, Peter Dobratz wrote:
NE2,
So after I bring up that I don't think railways should be drawn through
buildings, and most people agree with me on that, you decide to do this:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.762886lon=-71.430509zoom=18layers=M
Does 86 Central Street,
On 7/12/2012 10:45 PM, Mike N wrote:
On 7/12/2012 4:21 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
This is a strawman, since there will rarely be more than one former line
across a small area. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone
wants to map all the former second tracks, sidings
On 7/11/2012 8:38 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
On 07/11/12 13:59, Mike N wrote:
The state capital region of Columbia, South Carolina will be a prime
test of the Do empty areas attract contributors? theory for some time
to come.
Why, is someone planning to remove the TIGER import in that
On 7/11/2012 9:31 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
On 07/11/12 15:20, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
The state capital region of Columbia, South Carolina will be a prime
test of the Do empty areas attract contributors? theory for some time
to come.
Why, is someone planning to remove the TIGER import
I've just ensured that the OSMF will do minimal damage to the U.S.
railway network outside the Los Angeles area. Most of the damage will be
moving nodes, meaning that geometry may be totally borked but topology
will be fine.
___
Talk-us mailing list
On 7/10/2012 5:40 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
I've just ensured that the OSMF will do minimal damage to the U.S.
railway network outside the Los Angeles area.
Oh, and South Carolina. Not going to touch that.
Most of the damage will be
moving nodes, meaning that geometry may be totally
On 7/10/2012 6:15 PM, Charlotte Wolter wrote: Nathan,
How did you ensure that the railroads will be damaged minimally
Using JOSM's license change plugin. If the OSMF uses a different
algorithm, we're all screwed.
(and why is poor old LA excluded)?
Because there's a lot of work and I can
On 7/9/2012 6:23 PM, Mike N wrote:
Is there a Wiki page that describes the best current highway tagging
scheme to document use of route relations and refs to support Mapnik
with shields and other data consumers?
No, because there is no current tagging scheme :)
On 7/8/2012 3:20 PM, Toby Murray wrote:
Just came across this while processing pictures from my bike across Kansas:
http://i.imgur.com/bmiV2.jpg
This is a sign for the Western Vistas historic byway. It even has a website:
http://www.westernvistashistoricbyway.com/
Closer to home I have also
On 7/3/2012 4:11 PM, Anthony wrote:
What if it's an abandoned railway which is adjacent to a not-abandoned
railway?
Then it's already tagged as a rail trail.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Note that if you have the desired surface level, you can use USGS topos
to place the shoreline on the correct contour.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
On 6/27/2012 10:46 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
Ideally a map of rail trails
should include them (e.g. the one in Trains magazine's May 2011
issue), but there's no easy way to determine if a trail is one.
I would map the ways independently when the trail is adjacent to the rails.
Duh? The
http://www.fuzzyworld3.com/3um/viewtopic.php?f=29t=3183
I suppose the question is whether OSM should have this place (assuming
someone verifies that the sign is gone). Currently it does as part of
the GNIS import: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/153418203/history
Currently it's simple enough to find most (correctly-tagged) rail trails
in the database: find anything tagged railway=abandoned and highway=[one
of the trail values]. These trails are usually flatter than roads, and
are therefore well-suited for long-distance cycling.
But another popular
On 6/19/2012 1:27 PM, Charlotte Wolter wrote:
Dear US folks,
I did a lot of work on the railroad that parallels I-40 across Arizona,
from Gallup, N.M., to Flagstaff, Ariz. There are two parallel tracks
with different names,
Not sure what you mean by this. The Gallup Subdivision (Belen-East
On 6/14/2012 9:31 PM, Alan Mintz wrote:
I'm not sure I blame him, in theory, for not
agreeing to something unseen, being solely at the mercy of the masses -
the same ones that approved this change to begin with.
Actually there wasn't even that level of approval. The current license
change
On 6/11/2012 7:17 PM, Mark Gray wrote:
On one hand, I share the frustration of having lots of new data in
an area making some of our tools slower and more difficult to use.
In my area a building footprint import slowed down most of the
mapping tools and land use polygons can get in the way of
On 6/6/2012 3:11 PM, Tirkon wrote:
Worst Fixerworstfi...@gmail.com wrote:
It means that we must revert things like TIGER and CanVec. Am I right?
I think fundamentally you are right with this point. My impression is
that many people at OSM regret these imports - in fact the longer they
are
I forgot to mention that you can also use Potlatch 1. Hit U to view
deleted ways, select the way, and unlock. This is probably the easiest
for a simple undeletion like this.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
On 6/5/2012 3:42 PM, Mike N wrote:
On 6/5/2012 2:56 PM, stevea wrote:
But socially, or more properly stated, in the context of reaching OSM
consensus, what does our community think of (rather wholesale) reverts
of a contributor who has not agreed to the CT? Are we OK with that?
This nearly
On 5/31/2012 11:33 AM, Brian May wrote:
Hi All,
I just noticed in Gainesville, FL user AMPINTERMEDIA
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/AMPINTERMEDIA recently deleted a
chunk of streets from one section of town. Doesn't look sinister - they
are a new user and probably didn't realize what they
On 5/29/2012 6:04 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
The landuse import for Georgia (which IMO is poor-quality and should be
deleted, but that's not going to happen) has a bunch of areas tagged as
note = Forested Wetland with no useful natural=* tags (since
natural=wood and natural=wetland both apply
On 5/30/2012 6:19 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
There's absolutely no reason to rush. Data that's been sitting in OSM
for *years* without even being noticed as a problem
I noticed it as a problem about a year ago.
___
Talk-us mailing list
I've noticed some odd things on OpenCycleMap and other renderings, and I
think it's due to a difference in how things are in the UK vs. here.
*Most railways have passenger service. Thus OCM (and the transport map)
show all rail lines.
*Tracks are useful for cycling. When you zoom in on OCM,
The landuse import for Georgia (which IMO is poor-quality and should be
deleted, but that's not going to happen) has a bunch of areas tagged as
note = Forested Wetland with no useful natural=* tags (since
natural=wood and natural=wetland both apply). Example:
On 5/29/2012 10:00 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
On 05/29/12 11:57, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
*Most railways have passenger service. Thus OCM (and the transport map)
show all rail lines.
But isn't a railway an obstacle for cyclists no matter what services
they support?
Sure. But that would
On 5/28/2012 1:58 AM, Russ Nelson wrote:
Do we have a new source for WMS topo maps now that Terraserver
(msrmaps.com) has been shut down? Can I get a working URL from
somebody?
On 5/25/2012 2:16 AM, Martin Vonwald wrote:
Am 25.05.2012 um 01:44 schrieb Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com:
I'd register my disapproval, but it would simply be ignored, so I'll just
ignore the new guidelines and continue tagging as I have been.
I'm curious: what exactly do you
On 5/22/2012 10:07 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
E.g. if the cycleway is not
suitable for your bike (e.g. you have a huge trailer, or it is
damaged, or it is obstructed by stuff, or...) you will still be
legally entitled to use the road. Also if the cycleway does not go
where you want to go
On 5/20/2012 8:22 PM, James Umbanhowar wrote:
I'm guessing that if you remove all the (superfluous) NHD:xxx tags, they
will then become duplicate nodes in waterways, which I think can still
be fixed in JOSM.
Nope - removed all but waterway=* and I have the same problem. I've
noticed boundary
On 5/19/2012 11:43 AM, Volker Schmidt wrote:
All three examples would not be roundabouts in Germany or Italy, where
the use of the roundabout tag is linked to the presence of the
corresponding road sign for a roundabout, at least this seems to be
common practice on OSM.
In New Jersey the
On 5/19/2012 1:01 PM, Anthony wrote:
I'd be interested in
seeing a sign which says circle used on a roundabout, though.
If you mean simply a circle where all entering traffic yields, here's
one:
On 5/19/2012 1:34 PM, Anthony wrote:
I'm not sure that qualifies as approaching vehicles being deflected
around a central island (the MUTCD definition). The deflection is
being done by the islands in the four corners.
Buh? So you wouldn't call
On 5/18/2012 9:15 AM, Anthony wrote:
2012/5/18 Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com:
If anyone doubts that existing tagging does not match the wiki, see the
following examples, all tagged as junction=roundabout by editors other than
me:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/5677217
On 5/17/2012 3:04 PM, Martin Vonwald wrote:
Hi!
I updated now the english article:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:junction%3Droundabout
Translations will follow in the next days.
Traffic circles are usually tagged as roundabouts, contrary to your
statement.
On 5/17/2012 3:40 PM, Martin Vonwald (Imagic) wrote:
Can someone please stop NE2? I'm sick and tired of this person.
I'm on it. Oh wait, that's me. Hi there.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
Whoever the hell Gnonthgol is on the wiki has blocked me to get his
way in an edit war.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On 5/17/2012 5:39 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com wrote:
Whoever the hell Gnonthgol is on the wiki has blocked me to get his way in
an edit war.
Why do you keep starting the wars?
Have you stopped beating your wife?
On 5/17/2012 5:27 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Whoever the hell Gnonthgol is on the wiki has blocked me to get his
way in an edit war.
By the way, his block summary is complete bullshit. He says The
discussion on tagging@ mentions traffic circles and right of way several
times and allways
On 5/17/2012 5:48 PM, Gnonthgol wrote:
Whoever the hell Gnonthgol is on the wiki has blocked me to get his
way in an edit war.
I am sorry I offended you but I was not out to win an edit war. You were
blocked because you edited against the consensus on the list, and when I
reverted your edits
If anyone doubts that existing tagging does not match the wiki, see the
following examples, all tagged as junction=roundabout by editors other
than me:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/5677217
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/9080282
I'd like to propose a page that basically says that just because a tag
is named X, that does not mean that something should be tagged as such
only if it meets the real-world definition of X. The following examples
can be included:
*Many cities are tagged with place=town
*Bikes and pedestrians
On 5/16/2012 8:51 AM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com wrote:
Unless you want to invent a new tag
for the New Jersey circles that give right-of-way to some approaches.
I wouldn't mind. There's something fundamentally different between a
Does anyone have an actual use case where it's so important to know
whether entering traffic yields that the user expects a completely
different tag when one or more approaches has right-of-way?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
On 5/16/2012 1:52 PM, Martin Vonwald (Imagic) wrote:
Am 16.05.2012 um 19:44 schrieb Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com:
Does anyone have an actual use case where it's so important to know whether
entering traffic yields that the user expects a completely different tag when
one or more
On 5/16/2012 1:06 AM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
I guess that depends on what you're trying to do... If you are trying
to tag the largest possible vessel that can navigate a waterway (under
normal conditions at least) you could probably come up with a
reasonable set of tags. Inland waterways are
On 5/16/2012 6:48 PM, Dale Puch wrote:
I found this at http://www.ndc.iwr.usace.army.mil/data/dictionary/ddnwn.htm
Data is here http://www.ndc.iwr.usace.army.mil//db/waternet/data/ but
not in shp format so someone would need to do some format translation.
There are lots of other sets of data and
On 5/16/2012 7:41 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com wrote:
Does anyone have an actual use case where it's so important to know whether
entering traffic yields that the user expects a completely different tag
when one or more approaches has
On 5/16/2012 8:13 PM, Anthony wrote:
Also, I'd prefer for my satnav to save the word roundabout for
actual roundabouts. If it starts talking to me about roundabouts when
I'm just merging onto a road which is part of an interchange which is
kind of circular in shape, I'm just going to get
On 5/16/2012 8:34 PM, Anthony wrote:
Anyway, while looking for an example of a roundabout, I came across
this: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/83428962/history
Why did you remove the roundabout tag?
Because it's not a complete circle...
___
On 5/16/2012 10:42 PM, Dale Puch wrote:
You might check with the OpenSeaMap guys
Surely at one of them is paying attention to tagging@?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On 5/15/2012 10:30 AM, Anthony wrote:
Okay, so, for OSM terminology, a roundabout means 1) traffic goes in
one direction; 2) entering traffic must yield; and 3) entering traffic
need not stop (no stop signs).
Nope. Junction=roundabout applies to all (one-way) traffic circles, no
matter what
Is anyone familiar with the regulations governing the U.S. inland
waterways (such as the Mississippi River and the Intracoastal Waterway)?
From my brief look, it seems to be less these barge configurations are
allowed and more you can go anywhere but don't crash. Is this
correct, or are there
On 5/16/2012 1:06 AM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
In either case, any idea what the suitable tags might look
like (other than the generic boat=yes ship=yes)?
I guess that depends on what you're trying to do... If you are trying
to tag the largest possible vessel that can navigate a waterway (under
On 5/15/2012 2:23 PM, Alan Mintz wrote:
At 2012-05-15 11:19, Clifford Snow wrote:
I tag culs-de-sac as turning_circles and only draw a circular way when
there is an island in the middle. But I have a question. Where should
the turning_circle node be placed? In the middle of the culs-de-sac or
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/ZeGermanata/edits
Vandalism includes the following:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/21523281/history changing ref=US
41 to US 241
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/163035927/history fake motorway
bypass
Is anyone familiar with the regulations governing the U.S. inland
waterways (such as the Mississippi River and the Intracoastal Waterway)?
From my brief look, it seems to be less these barge configurations are
allowed and more you can go anywhere but don't crash. Is this
correct, or are there
On 5/16/2012 1:06 AM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
In either case, any idea what the suitable tags might look
like (other than the generic boat=yes ship=yes)?
I guess that depends on what you're trying to do... If you are trying
to tag the largest possible vessel that can navigate a waterway (under
On 5/14/2012 11:02 AM, Martin Vonwald wrote:
The longer I think about it, the more I'm asking myself: do we really
need a tag for this? If someone doesn't want to map it as loop, why
not simply end the road without any additional tag? What information
are we missing then, that we are not missing
On 5/13/2012 5:25 PM, Pieren wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com wrote:
Since oneway=yes is the default for motorways (per the wiki, and apparently
some routers), these should be tagged as oneway=no (as these two in fact
are).
NE2 is in favour of
On 5/12/2012 12:41 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
What error rate is acceptable?
As low as possible, but I've been generally able to handle the edge
cases I've seen, either by doing the right thing, or by punting and
doing nothing at all.
It's worth noting that any errors are already there as
The process seems obvious to me: check that the name is still what it
originally was (from the tiger:name_base etc. tags), and if so, use
those tags to expand abbreviations. (Ignore any with semicolons/colons
from joining.) If not, set it aside for semi-manual checking. The only
false
On 5/11/2012 4:23 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
Hi,
Two-lane expressways. I came across one of these when running an
analysis on OSM data in Vermont, USA. I didn't even know they existed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-lane_expressway#United_States
The one I looked at is tagged as motorway:
On 5/10/2012 11:05 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
mini_roundabout is by definition a traversible object, but one with a
hard median isn't.
A mini-roundabout may be by definition traversable, but that doesn't
mean highway=mini_roundabout is, any more than a highway=trunk is a
trunk road or a
On 5/10/2012 11:21 AM, Volker Schmidt wrote:
Nathan,
formally you are correct, but it has been OSM practice to base its tags
on UK definitions.
Nope. In the UK, not all highway=trunks are trunk roads. Some have been
detrunked but remain in the primary route network.
On 5/10/2012 11:30 AM, Josh Doe wrote:
I've made some significant edits to this article to improve the
overall quality, as well as hopefully provide text which satisfies
both concerned parties.
Nope - you said that it's erroneous to use the tag as many mappers have,
for a miniature roundabout
On 5/10/2012 11:52 AM, fly wrote:
Why should we have two tags for roundabouts which differe only in size.
We do not do this with other objects/tags.
waterway=ditch/canal and stream/river?
(By the way, we don't currently have two node tags for roundabouts.
Hence the current situation.)
On 5/10/2012 12:18 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2012/5/10 Josh Doej...@joshdoe.com:
I propose we start accepting junction=roundabout to be used on nodes.
you can do this but it will always be preliminary and worse than
explicit geometry
Why?
On 5/10/2012 12:35 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2012/5/10 Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com:
On 5/10/2012 12:18 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
you can do this but it will always be preliminary and worse than
explicit geometry
Why?
Because it gives you more information (e.g. the radius
I've started tagging local mini_roundabouts with mountable=yes/no. Most
have trees and are obviously not. But I'm not exactly sure where the
line is. Should one with a low curb, more like a gutter, be considered a
true mini-roundabout or not? For example, this one in Kissimmee:
On 5/10/2012 5:31 PM, Andrew Chadwick (lists) wrote:
19 tc (turning circle at the end of a road, with or without a
solid centre)
Careful - there was a recent dispute over whether a turning circle with
an island is really a turning_circle, very reminiscent of this
mini_roundabout
I just went through the mini_roundabouts in east central Florida. I
found one definitely mountable (in an industrial park), 202 definitely
not mountable (including some culs-de-sac), 3 that I'm not sure about,
and 4 mistagged turning_circles. Obviously this says a lot about
roundabout
On 5/10/2012 6:47 PM, Andrew Chadwick (lists) wrote:
Might solve the
problem of people not making the distinction between flat mini
roundabouts and the bigger sort, or not making the distinction in the
definitively correct place.
You're conflating size of intersection with height of center.
On 5/7/2012 10:03 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com wrote:
Same here. I'm ignoring this wiki-fiddling:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:highway%3Dmini_roundaboutdiff=747981oldid=689543
Both edits you mention seem to
On 5/7/2012 11:02 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
On May 7, 2012 7:06 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com
mailto:nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/7/2012 9:59 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 6:51 AM, Ian Deesian.d...@gmail.com
mailto:ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
I've mapped
On 5/7/2012 12:41 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com wrote:
It vaults right over any supposed definition of mini-roundabout.
I suppose if you ignored the whole traversability or vertical
clearance requirements the wiki's had since the
On 5/7/2012 1:02 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
Still, the diverging use overlaps improperly with the actual
roundabout correctly as a ring using junction=roundabout. ;o)
You're assuming that each real-world situation has only one correct way
of mapping.
On 5/7/2012 1:16 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/7/2012 1:02 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
Still, the diverging use overlaps improperly with the actual
roundabout correctly as a ring using junction=roundabout. ;o)
You're
On 5/7/2012 4:28 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:
So this is not/should not be a mini_roundabout? It seems a little silly
to call it anything else, since the city just dug a hole in the center
of the existing intersection, built a circular curb, and planted a tree:
http://g.co/maps/e2gsv
Even sillier:
The problem seems to be that mappers needed a tag for a small roundabout
on a node. Since all that was available was mini_roundabout, that's what
we used. Had there been another tag, e.g. highway=roundabout, we
wouldn't have this discussion. But mini_roundabout is now in use for a
large number
On 5/6/2012 1:39 PM, Nathan Mixter wrote:
2. Align the shapes to match what is on the ground. I plan to either get
rid of or modify them so they match what is on the ground.
I'm not sure how you plan on doing this. Many times a fence will be on
one side of the property line, to avoid dealing
On 5/4/2012 2:42 PM, Apollinaris Schöll wrote:
any import should be treated like this. if it's not edited and the data
isn't used then it should be removed after some time.
That's a silly statement. If something isolated gets imported, e.g. a
water political boundary, it probably won't be
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/place%3Dquarter#Voting_result
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On 4/27/2012 3:25 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
While this is ongoing, Pieren continues to remove area=yes from
railway=platform, which has been on the page since it was created in
2008:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:railway%3Dplatformaction=history
And Pieren continues
On 5/1/2012 1:23 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/1/2012 12:59 PM, Anthony wrote:
Automatically expanding abbreviations is a terrible idea. If an
abbreviation is unambiguous, then it can be expanded during the
preprocessing
It's the standard to draw a waterway in the direction of flow. I've
questioned this several times, but it's an ingrained default.
My question is more specific: what happens to a drainage canal that
reverses direction? I offer the Everglades and surrounding agricultural
land as an example.
On 4/28/2012 5:32 AM, Sander Deryckere wrote:
Can you give a picture of multi-lane cycleways (or coordinates, so we
can see it in aerial pics or via streetview)?
Not quite what you're looking for, but here's another weird edge case
with a pedestrian lane rather than a sidewalk:
On 4/28/2012 7:59 AM, Anthony wrote:
Scanning the wiki it looks like usually-not-area would be less of a
moving target. Otherwise almost every time someone adds a new amenity
you have to add a new always-area tag. The usually-not-area would be
junction=roundabout, barrier=*,
It's the standard to draw a waterway in the direction of flow. I've
questioned this several times, but it's an ingrained default.
My question is more specific: what happens to a drainage canal that
reverses direction? I offer the Everglades and surrounding agricultural
land as an example.
While this is ongoing, Pieren continues to remove area=yes from
railway=platform, which has been on the page since it was created in
2008:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:railway%3Dplatformaction=history
___
Tagging mailing list
On 4/26/2012 2:54 AM, Paul Norman wrote:
I happened across an import of Fresno castradal data from mid-2010 in the
Fresno area. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=36.77lon=-119.81zoom=15 is
the general area but I haven't fully explored the extents. For a view of the
data, see
On 4/25/2012 3:39 AM, Pieren wrote:
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 3:46 AM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com wrote:
It's not highway only. For example, it can be used on railway=platform:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/94063273
or man_made=pier:
On 4/25/2012 4:53 AM, Pieren wrote:
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com wrote:
Because a railway platform is usually drawn as a single line (as is a pier).
Omitting area=yes gives a hole in the middle.
Sounds tagging for the renderer...
Where did I mention
On 4/24/2012 2:13 PM, Alex Barth wrote:
Pieren - thanks for pointing out that area=yes is highway only. How could the
documentation for it be clearer [1]?
It's not highway only. For example, it can be used on railway=platform:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/94063273
or
On 4/24/2012 2:38 PM, Josh Doe wrote:
Yes, there should be only one feature for each real world object, and
the way/multipolygon has more spatial information, however the nodes
might have other useful information like the GNIS feature ID.
For this matter, why are there county nodes all over
On 4/24/2012 10:21 PM, Toby Murray wrote:
I think the reason they exist is the same reason why cities always
have a node in addition to their administrative boundaries. And
states/countries too far that matter. Most renderers render the name
from the nodes, not the admin boundaries.
This makes
Is there a tag in use for weigh stations, places where trucks are
weighed to ensure that they are not too heavy?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On 4/20/2012 4:19 AM, Georg Feddern wrote:
Am 20.04.2012 09:02, schrieb Nathan Edgars II:
Is there a tag in use for weigh stations, places where trucks are
weighed to ensure that they are not too heavy?
There is only a tag at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:enforcement
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dservices says that it
(usually) has fuel and food, but it links to Wikipedia:rest area. Should
the Wikipedia link be removed (and added to
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Drest_area)? Should the
word 'usually' be removed?
1 - 100 of 1448 matches
Mail list logo
