On 01/09/2015 10:59, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 13:08:34 +0100
"Dave F." <dave...@madasafish.com> wrote:
Your suggestion of decreasing the road class is "trolltaging" Please
don't do that. Lane closures or access restrictions etc, does not
chan
ting words such as 'trolltag'. it doesn't help
in discussions especially when there are people of different nations
speaking numerous languages. It just causes confusion & doesn't make the
inventor of the word look clever or important. Please use a word such as
'incorrect' instead.
Dave F.
On 31
What's a 'trolltag'?
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
are unwilling to
add a few lines of code is the tail wagging the dog we don't want to
encourage that.
Dave F.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
---
This email has been checked for viruses
On 24/08/2015 21:49, Chris Hill wrote:
On 24/08/15 18:56, François Lacombe wrote:
Hi Mateusz,
It seems this tag is a combination of waterway=canal and disused=yes.
I'm not so in favor of such value (derelict_canal). There are two
different information in one value.
I think that
On 26/08/2015 13:34, Andy Townsend wrote:
On 26/08/2015 12:51, Dave F. wrote:
Sub tags such as disused=yes have always been the way to describe
additional attributes of an entity. It's even the syntax used by XML:
you collect all 'waterway=canal' items then manipulate that selection
set
such distinction
should be sub tagged, not by using separate, confusing key tags.
Cheers
Dave F.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https
to go into more detail you could use the
garden/private tags.
Dave F.
On 10/08/2015 11:29, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:
Take a look at this charming corner of Normandy: http://binged.it/1ht3p7v
On the left, a dense urban location that is clearly
landuse=residential. On the right, what is most
Hi
I presume the upper levels have a protective barrier such as a wall.
Would that help?
I've mapped a bridge as pedestrian area (closed way + area=yes)
Unfortunately some entities below render through. Try it out - see if it
works
Dave F.
On 11/08/2015 11:41, johnw wrote:
Places where
struggling
with this one I'm afraid.
Cheers
Dave F.
Michał
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
Hi
wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:contact
I remember a discussion a while back about this. As the page makes no
mention of the logic behind, could
informations to POIs and not to any private
address!
By 'POI' does he mean 'public company'?
Thanks
Dave F.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging
to be superseding the ring. Wouldn't life preserver be a more all
encompassing relevant tag?
2. Has anybody tagged these new types where they're locked need a code
to gain access? What sub tags do you suggest? access=access_code maybe?
Cheers
Dave F.
---
This email has been checked for viruses
aren't rendered because otherwise you'd have traffic
light symbols dotted all over the place on some junctions.
I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing. It should clarify routing
slightly. They don't need to be rendered until zoomed right in close.
Cheers
Dave F.
---
This email has been
/cquest/osmfr-cartocss/blob/abe144cfb375eb7fb403992f06924c40120c6cbf/other.mss#L3547
To me, it seems worse for mapnik to miss the rendering of 75% of traffic
lights than not displaying any of them. If you can see some the
assumption is that that's all of them.
Dave F.
On 15/07/2015 10:09, Richard
carto's. I
suggest a traffic light icon with a different colour icon. I note the
default French render with 'zebra' lines but that doesn't indicate any
lights are used.
Cheers
Dave F.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
by a boat not the flow direction I think it should be
added to the the route relation as role:backward.
Cheers
Dave F.
On 04/07/2015 21:37, Volker Schmidt wrote:
answer: oneway=-1
Have a look at this Overpass turbo query: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/ag9.
A nice example is this one:
http://osm.org/go
there's a sales outlet included.
Cheers
Dave F.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Hi
I've a warehouse where a collective of artists create occasionally
exhibit art work:
http://www.bathartistsstudios.co.uk/
I thought artist_studio would be correct, but tag info doesn't list it
in great numbers. Is there a better description?
Dave F.
---
This email has been checked
I've tagged these a spikes, although I think I saw some described as
'shark teeth'.
IMO oneway on the node is inconclusive as a node has no direction it
should already be on the way.
Dave F.
On 14/04/2015 09:16, Dave Swarthout wrote:
I had not seen the barrier=spikes tagging before
in combination with lifting barriers
so: barrier=lift_gate;spikes.
Dave F.
On 14/04/2015 10:45, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2015-04-14 11:35 GMT+02:00 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com
mailto:dave...@madasafish.com:
IMO oneway on the node is inconclusive as a node has no direction
Hi
Paintball is a sport/leisure activity where teams run around woodland
shooting paint pellets at each other with rifles. There only about 300
tags so I'm guessing there must be a more popular name. Any ideas?
Cheers
Dave F.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
I agree with leisure but where they're flown is a place
model_aerodrome differentiates it clearly from other types.
On 07/04/2015 16:04, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2015-04-07 16:52 GMT+02:00 Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us
mailto:cliff...@snowandsnow.us:
Check out
. With locations that have aerial imagery it's much more accurate to
trace its width. Couldn't the renderers adapt to both? If it has area
then fill it, if it has width render it as such.
Cheers
Dave F.
On 07/04/2015 16:55, fly wrote:
Am 07.04.2015 um 17:31 schrieb Dave F.:
As I was tidying
different rules regarding this?
Cheers
Dave F.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
.
Regards
Dave F.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
=swing
If there is a genuine reason, then surely there should be the equivalent:
bridge=static
bridge:static=*
Cheers
Dave F.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging
-cigarettes.
To me, electronic_cigarettes is clearer should be used, but I thought
it best to discuss first. I don't smoke, are all these power based?
Dave F.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
On 01/01/2015 00:39, Tom Hughes wrote:
On 01/01/15 00:36, Dave F. wrote:
I'm struggling to comprehend how a button to turn off the notes layer,
that's separate ( hidden!) from the only obvious button to turn the
layer on can be described as 'logical' to an experienced user let alone
a newbie
Apologies Thanks.
On 09/01/2015 12:17, Dan S wrote:
This appears to be nothing to do with tagging - you've presumably
sent to this list by mistake...
2015-01-09 12:12 GMT+00:00 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com:
On 01/01/2015 00:39, Tom Hughes wrote:
On 01/01/15 00:36, Dave F. wrote:
I'm
On 08/01/2015 09:35, Steve Doerr wrote:
On 08/01/2015 01:21, Dave F. wrote:
Are they relevant? If so, what are they for? The wiki suggests
they're superseded:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:boundary#Relation_members
No it doesn't, it says they're 'optional, disputed
.
Dave F.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
the admin_level tag can be used to determine if one polygon is inside
another. They seem to be purely extra baggage
Am I missing something or can these nested relations be removed?
Cheers
Dave F.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
as religious that, as well a church building, include
the likes of car parks, cemeteries, community halls etc. Maybe mapnik
needs to show landuse=religious to compensate.
Cheers
Dave F.
On 02/01/2015 15:17, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
Dear all,
In particular, areas tagged with amenity=place_of_worship
? Is it not available in other editors?
One advantageous thing would be to click on a GPX trace that's loaded in
an editor to find out when it was added by whom.
Dave F.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
On 15/12/2014 12:31, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
I don't see a need for a new key here.
The properties can be easily modelled with sub-tagging of playground:
+1
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
thought the general consensus was to start using landcover for this
type of object.
2. Some diversity in tags is required, otherwise, if boiled down, all
objects would either be natural or man_made.
Dave F.
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection
.
Dave F.
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection
is active.
http://www.avast.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
question!
Jo: Where are the new rules for bus route listed?
Dave F.
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection
is active.
http://www.avast.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https
This is incorrect usage, isn't it?
Cheers
Dave F.
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection
is active.
http://www.avast.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo
ways along a way the same as walkers/cyclists.
Dave F.
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection
is active.
http://www.avast.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https
I wish people in OSM would stop making things up, believing it makes
their point of view stronger.
On 28/08/2014 13:20, Xavier Noria wrote:
In the European cities and towns I know the majority of streets are
one-way.
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
I believe it was withdrawn as it vague. You logic is stated on one of
the pages you posted.
Dave F.
On 28/08/2014 16:01, Pieren wrote:
I find a bit harsh that leisure=common has been completely withdrawn
from the wiki map features in the middle of the summer. If it's a UK
specific tag
surprised by the number of landuse= tags. Was there a
mass edit?
Dave F.
On 28/08/2014 16:31, Pieren wrote:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
I believe it was withdrawn as it vague. You logic is stated on one of the
pages you posted.
It was in the map features
On 28/08/2014 16:49, Dave F. wrote:
It needs a separate tag to able to map the leisure activities with
the area.
Scrub that bit. Separate tags aren't needed of course. My mistake.
Dave F.
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection
is active
Hi
I think there are a few reasons, but let's start with the basics:
For two things so similar it's confusing to have two separate key
values: natural landuse. IMO both should use natural (which trees are
of course).
Any description of their management/harvesting should be put into sub
On 20/08/2014 13:33, André Pirard wrote:
I summarize the answers below.
An example for using RENDER is this:
*
landuse=recreation_ground* a sort of holiday/family event site inside
which you have
a quite visible *leisure=pitch sport=tennis*
and two perfectly invisible polygon features
the
same type of object is confusing, as is using the same tag (footway) to
represent two different types of object.
Any idea why these values have been changed?
Cheers
Dave F.
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection
is active.
http://www.avast.com
are primarily cafés would be more
accurate if 'are primary' was replaced with 'include'.
Dave F.
On 06/08/2014 07:24, Andreas Goss wrote:
Key:internet_access - Internet cafes are primarily cafes
Can anybody explain how you came to that conclusion?
For me this has nothing to do with a café:
http
.
Now, on its own, it looks bereft of clarity with just a faint dashed
border line.
What was the reasoning?
Regards
Dave F.
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection
is active.
http://www.avast.com
___
Tagging
every change.
Best
Dan
2014-07-23 22:59 GMT+01:00 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com:
Hi
Change in rendering of Mapnik Nature Reserves.
I probably missed the discussion for the above. Personally I like the
previous incarnation with NR letters displaying. It was enough on its own to
indicate
Thanks for pointing that out to me. As I said, I personally had no
problem with 'NR' but I'd be OK with it's removal is there was some king
of infill. ATM there is none it looks virtually invisible.
Cheers
Dave F.
On 23/07/2014 23:52, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
On 23 July 2014 23:16, Dan S
that,
it doesn't mean that it will automatically be rendered as such. As has
been said many times previously it is just a *guide* for the renderer,
who, as with Mapnik, will ignore the layer=* tags in that example let
common sense prevail.
Dave F.
---
This email is free from viruses and malware
On 02/04/2014 17:14, Richard Z. wrote:
as explained in the rationale the dimensions of the bridge/culvert are
frequently only a fraction of the achievable precision. Think of a
track crossing a small creek in a forest valley int the mountains. The
GPS precision will be 10 meters if you are
Mike
We should be mapping as accurately as we can within the limitations (gps
accuracy, aerial imagery etc) that we have. Data can always be upgraded
when more accurate information becomes available. This proposal is a
step backwards towards inaccuracy.
On 02/04/2014 18:29, Mike Thompson
? Are you sure you're not just making this up?
Show us where or I'm calling you a fibber.
Dave F.
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection
is active.
http://www.avast.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging
On 03/04/2014 22:05, John F. Eldredge wrote:
Yes, one reason to reject this is that it involves a neologism, coined by the
proposal author, that few people will recognize and use.
I think he's getting confused with I.K. Brunel ;-)
Dave F.
---
This email is free from viruses and malware
On 03/04/2014 22:58, Richard Z. wrote:
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 04:27:57PM -0500, John F. Eldredge wrote:
That is my main objection as well. This proposal is to deliberately reduce the
accuracy of the data in the name of saving a few seconds of mapping time.
nonsense. This proposal is here to
On 03/04/2014 23:06, Richard Z. wrote:
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 10:49:56PM +0100, Dave F. wrote:
On 03/04/2014 22:04, Richard Z. wrote:
A brunnel is a crossbreed of a bridge with a tunnel. It has been used somewhere
to describe
constructions where it is not easy to decide whether a grade
On 14/03/2014 15:57, Pieren wrote:
You don't see the point where adding one layer=-1 is easier than
adding 10 layer=1 ?
Not when you could have other entities passing under the bridges.
I see it as lazy less accurate. Making OSM more accurate is a primary
consideration when editing
I
were
user selectable from a pull down list.
Anybody recognise it Is it still in existence?
Cheers
Dave F.
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection
is active.
http://www.avast.com
___
Tagging mailing list
On 21/02/2014 20:10, sabas88 wrote:
2014-02-21 20:43 GMT+01:00 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com
mailto:dave...@madasafish.com:
Hi
I'm unable to remember the name or find the location of a tag
checking web page.
It was a slippy map of mapnik rendering that had a single line
. Is
there a specific reason for this? Does it correct any problems or give
any advantages for rendering etc?
Regards
Dave F.
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection
is active.
http://www.avast.com
Thanks for that ( to Christoph). So, is waterway=riverbank is being
deprecated as well?
Dave F.
On 03/02/2014 14:13, Janko Mihelic' wrote:
2014-02-03 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com
mailto:dave...@madasafish.com:
A user has recently amended them all to natural=water
water=canal
, but it should be in a separate database
overlaid onto OSM by a renderer.
Dave F.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
.
Dave F.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
'car park'? If not what would be the best sub tags to add to
them other than access=private.
Are there any examples I can copy?
Cheers
Dave F.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
this
question will bring up discussion of the landcover tag again. What was
the conclusion of that from last time?
What's the consensus/opinion of others?
I've emailed the user concerned
Cheers
Dave F.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http
Dave F.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On 07/04/2013 19:37, Martin Atkins wrote:
Hi all,
I do mapping in San Francisco, CA and I'm frustrated about the
inconsistent levels of detail we typically use when mapping urban
environments.
It looks just fine to me, Martin.
Cheers
Dave F
=' in similar fashion to a cyclway. Is there a better way?
Dave F.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On 09/02/2013 10:00, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2013/2/9 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com:
I'm not interest in this as:
1. It's far too detailed. There are much better thing I can spend my time
mapping.
2. It's too variable. The different seasons, whether the farmer has gone
down the lane
think tagging
should be a simple as possible it appears a few users are going esoteric.
Cheers
Dave F.
On 07/02/2013 17:47, Konfrare Albert wrote:
Hello,
Some people has suggested me to include a gradient for the key
obstacle=vegetation
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features
it's necessary. I think it should be implied bicycle=yes
added if they are allowed.
Cheers
Dave F.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
of differing levels.
I think the answer is 'no' to both my questions but I want to get a
consensus before removing.
Cheers
Dave F.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
what the type of
road it is. (it was tracks in my neck of the woods)
Cheers
Dave F.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
the MP.
His edits to fix the problem appear a bit overkill so I'll try make
contact to save him some time.
Thanks for your help.
Cheers
Dave F.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
the only known
user), I'll probably remove the tags.
No Richard, removing them is as bad as keeping them with your erroneous
values. You need to return them to their original state. Please make
sure it's only your edits you amend.
Dave F.
___
Tagging
a previously
closed way into a multi-polygon.
He's done this on numerous occasions around the South of the UK. He
seems to think that overlapping ways is bad but his edits appear a bit
random - notice he doesn't do a similar edit to the East of the
multi-polygon.
Cheers
Dave F
. My 'sniping' is
because RM repeatedly attempts to side-step the fact he got things wrong
has left inaccurate data. With almost four years experience he
shouldn't need 'mediation' on such a simple procedure.
Dave F.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging
use of the tracks= tag.
Dave F.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
in adding yet another tag to cover up other
inaccurate tags. Just revert your detrimental edits.
I fail to see the point in asking ITO as the tag usage is clearly laid
out in the wiki.
Please rescind your edits. They add errors into the OSM database.
Dave F
info.
That wasn't the reason I contacted you. It's disappointing you attempted
to high-jack an already established tag with something that even you
seem unclear about.
Dave F.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http
as they're not meant to be used for
collections/categories.
Dave F.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
within a route relation. Do
other countries have tracks side by side run by different companies?
Cheers
Dave F.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
there are a total of 16 tracks on the ground.
This seems incorrect tagging to me.
I've contacted him directly received a reply but he appears to think
his way is correct the wiki wrong, so I'm posting here for advice
clarification.
Cheers
Dave F
, whereas in reality it only has 4:
Poltatch 2:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=51.577856lon=-2.822146zoom=18
These inaccuracies will be added to my to do list.
Cheers
Dave F.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http
On 17/01/2012 15:41, Jo wrote:
For what it's worth. When I start rendering/printing maps based on
OSM, I think it's extremely ugly if the landuse is not 'connected' to
the roads, i.e. that the landuse uses separate parallel ways with a
small space in between for its definition.
That would be
above, if not, do it as one big area. The latter is OK, but the
former is more accurate, I'm all for making OSM that.
Dave F.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On 24/11/2011 18:15, Paul Johnson wrote:
Well, if we're going to exclude ways from being ways because they're not
improved for vehicular use, then i have a lot of cattle trails I need to
remove (despite being named, with addresses along them, open to vehicles
and accessible by 4x4).
That's not
On 22/11/2011 20:33, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
On 11/22/2011 09:17 PM, Colin Smale wrote:
Surely the road in this case simply has tide-related opening times (and
a variable surface?). It may be secondary, tertiary, unclassified or
whatever. The fact that it is sometimes closed by the tide
On 27/09/2011 21:57, Gérard wrote:
Hi,
After discussion at a mapping party in Toulouse, I propose a new tag
bike_safety to scale how safe a street/road is for bicyles.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/bike_safety
Note that I consider that in the same way that
lanes like bus-lanes or cycle-lanes should IMHO be tagged with
separate tags.)
I agree.
Dave F.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Silly_lane_count.jpg
I see nothing intrinsically wrong with that. Lots of splitting ways
tagging admittedly, but that's a problem with OSM its tagging process.
Dave F.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http
On 30/08/2011 12:10, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 8/30/2011 6:40 AM, Dave F. wrote:
You appear to be confusing the landuse tag with the boundary tag.
No. You appear to be disagreeing with my use of the boundary tag.
That as well.
Dave F
On 30/08/2011 01:27, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 8/29/2011 7:18 PM, Dave F. wrote:
On 29/08/2011 23:35, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 8/29/2011 6:05 PM, Dave F. wrote:
Mapping the difference between a
residential estate a golf course is, IMO, the bare minimum.
Here's an example of a residential
On 29/08/2011 23:35, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 8/29/2011 6:05 PM, Dave F. wrote:
Mapping the difference between a
residential estate a golf course is, IMO, the bare minimum.
Here's an example of a residential community (Bay Hill) that has a
golf course within it:
http
HMS Belfast should help:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=51.506278lon=-0.081219zoom=18
Take a scoot South-East for a totally over the top mapped/tagged building.
It was the fault of the government
Dave F.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging
On 29/07/2011 15:33, Sander Deryckere wrote:
Well, I just don't know any gates with names,
You not knowing is hardly a reason to not render. Please think of the
wider picture.
Dave F.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http
are interconnected where they join into each other.
To me interconnecting grid network is, essentially, three words to
describe the same thing.
Cheers
Dave F.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo
.
Cheers
Dave F.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
301 - 400 of 536 matches
Mail list logo
