Am 22. April 2012 16:43 schrieb Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com:
I've had a look for uk guidance as the uk's ordnance survey was mentioned,
and a lot of older uk advice appears based around a now historic view that
'cars = saloon cars' and were 1.8m or less. If cars were assumed to be
Am 23. April 2012 13:05 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
:
Am 22. April 2012 16:43 schrieb Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com
:
But saloon cars are no longer the 'standard' car, in the uk they've more
or
less been replaced by hatchbacks 4x4's. If we look at best
On Sun, 22 Apr 2012, martinq wrote:
I've had a look for uk guidance as the uk's ordnance survey was
mentioned, and a lot of older uk advice appears based around a now
historic view that 'cars = saloon cars' and were 1.8m or less. If cars
were assumed to be 1.8m wide then implied OS figure
On April 23rd 2012 13:05 many people wrote
something about car width .
The only reason we started discussing about the width of vehicles was
a recommendation for narrow roads with two lanes to replace the
lanes=1.5: if someone can not or does not want to measure the width of
the road,
Am 23. April 2012 13:45 schrieb Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com:
the road, we need some recommend value for est_width. If we agree on,
that most cars have a width of something around 2 meters, a good value
for the estimated(!) width of a road with two lanes, which is so
narrow, that
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Ronnie Soak
chaoschaos0...@googlemail.com wrote:
It may be harder to estimate a width in meters instead of a lanes count, but
I think it's possible within +/- 1m, especially for narrow ways.
(I personally only use it with either rather narrow or rather wide
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
I prefer the second form. You will never have widths with cm
precision, so they will always be somehow estimates, because even if
you measure them precisely they won't probably be exactly the same 10
or 100
On 23 April 2012 12:05, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
Am 22. April 2012 16:43 schrieb Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com
:
I've had a look for uk guidance as the uk's ordnance survey was
mentioned,
and a lot of older uk advice appears based around a now historic
Am 21.04.2012 um 13:34 schrieb Ilpo Järvinen ilpo.jarvi...@helsinki.fi:
...What I don't really care if it is called lanes=1.5 or
lanes=1/2+some_other_agreed_tag_which_is_not_an_estimated_width=x, but
simply saying that use lanes=1/2 alone instead I oppose.
I would recommend lanes=2 and
2012/4/23 Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com:
Problem with that, and why I am said this is far more complex than I first
thought, is some people responding to lanes=1.5 by saying 'computers' only
like whole numbers. This suggests width=4.3 would need to be rounded to
either width=4 or
Last week we've done some walking papers work in Brasilia and there are now
some questions on how to enter data.
Brasilia and its satellites do not use street names, but an elaborate block
numbering system. Before we start entering data, I'd like to propose a proper
way to enter blocks.
On Apr 23, 2012 3:57 PM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote:
Brasilia and its satellites do not use street names, but an elaborate
block numbering system. Before we start entering data, I'd like to propose
a proper way to enter blocks.
I would strongly consider taking a look at towns and cities
12 matches
Mail list logo
