2012/1/22 Dave F.
> 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
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
On 17/01/2012 12:45, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
. Residential roads are obviously part of a residential landuse.
People don't general live in the middle of the road (unless you're one
of Monty Python's Four Yorkshiremen, of course).
Highways are maintained by local/national authorities not the
On Tue, 2012-01-17 at 16:41 +0100, 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
On Tue, 2012-01-17 at 10:18 -0500, Richard Weait wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
> > 2012/1/17 Volker Schmidt :
>
> >> it is
> >> simply not helpful from a practical point of view. What additional
> >> information do I gain from excluding the road from the l
On Tue, 2012-01-17 at 15:25 +0100, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> Regarding Landuse=residential I do not agree with the approach of the
> two examples
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=35.323225&lon=-119.077089&zoom=18
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=45.301967&lon=8.444596&zoom=18
>
>
> Ap
On Tue, 2012-01-17 at 08:30 -0500, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On 1/17/2012 8:10 AM, Simone Saviolo wrote:
> > I find it useless to map such wide areas as landuses. There's no point
> > in tagging a whole village's area as landuse=residential, and there's
> > no point in making a sixty-km-wide polygo
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 4:41 PM, 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 defini
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:41 AM, 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
2012/1/17 Jo :
> So you'll often observe me joining adjacent landuses for places I want to
> render or places I get serious about retracing from Bing or cleaning up non
> ODBL compliant data.
I think this is where the problem starts: people removing detail from
the map data which other mappers ad
2012/1/17 Richard Weait :
>> you get the border between public and private land. Why is that not
>> helpful or interesting?
>
> You get the border between public and private land _wrong_. In my
> experience, the property line is not at the curb, but some distance
> back from the curb. A reserved
2012/1/17 Jo :
> 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.
> I also prefer to create la
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.
I also prefer to create landuses as big as practica
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Richard Weait wrote:
> In my
> experience, the property line is not at the curb, but some distance
> back from the curb. A reserved area is held for utilities, road
> expansion, snowplow debris, etc.
Depends a lot on the jurisdiction (in some jurisdictions the p
> you get the border between public and private land. Why is that not
> helpful or interesting?
>
>
I think this is the basic point of my objection: I believe that OSM maps
what is out there, not what is legally defined in some document to which we
normally have no access.
I am interested surely i
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> 2012/1/17 Volker Schmidt :
>> it is
>> simply not helpful from a practical point of view. What additional
>> information do I gain from excluding the road from the landuse area, it is
>> anyway clear that people do not live on roads.
>
2012/1/17 Volker Schmidt :
> Apart from the aspect of overcrowding any map produced from this data,
what do you mean? In lower zoom levels it looks exactly the same:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=35.32655&lon=-119.07474&zoom=15&layers=M
and in closeups you get the detail that otherwise would
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/highway
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> Regarding Landuse=residential I do not agree with the approach of the two
> examples
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=35.323225&lon=-119.077089&zoom=18
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=45.301967&lon=8.444596&zoom=18
>
> Apart f
Regarding Landuse=residential I do not agree with the approach of the two
examples
http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=35.323225&lon=-119.077089&zoom=18
http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=45.301967&lon=8.444596&zoom=18
Apart from the aspect of overcrowding any map produced from this data, it
2012/1/17 Nathan Edgars II :
> On 1/17/2012 8:10 AM, Simone Saviolo wrote:
>>
>> I find it useless to map such wide areas as landuses. There's no point
>> in tagging a whole village's area as landuse=residential, and there's
>> no point in making a sixty-km-wide polygon to indicate that between
>>
2012/1/17 Nathan Edgars II :
> On 1/17/2012 8:10 AM, Simone Saviolo wrote:
> I'm not suggesting either of these. But a single chunk of houses is clearly
> all residential, whether it's the size of a few lots or a huge subdivision.
+1. public streets are not part of it. Have a look how others deal
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Simone Saviolo
wrote:
> I find it useless to map such wide areas as landuses. There's no point
> in tagging a whole village's area as landuse=residential, and there's
> no point in making a sixty-km-wide polygon to indicate that between
> Parma and Reggio Emilia th
On 1/17/2012 8:10 AM, Simone Saviolo wrote:
I find it useless to map such wide areas as landuses. There's no point
in tagging a whole village's area as landuse=residential, and there's
no point in making a sixty-km-wide polygon to indicate that between
Parma and Reggio Emilia there's cultivated l
2012/1/17 Nathan Edgars II :
> On 1/17/2012 6:28 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>
>> 2012/1/17 Maarten Deen:
>>>
>>> On 2012-01-16 23:27, Robin Paulson wrote:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=-36.878407&lon=174.741523&zoom=19
the landuse polygon has an orange highlight on
On 1/17/2012 6:28 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2012/1/17 Maarten Deen:
On 2012-01-16 23:27, Robin Paulson wrote:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=-36.878407&lon=174.741523&zoom=19
the landuse polygon has an orange highlight on it, why does it do that?
Just a hint on mapping (not to Ro
26 matches
Mail list logo
