Seen some activity on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Davo
In particular, sletuffe mentions an abandoned 'usability' proposal. A
good one too. Because it covers a wider range it could be used to
trigger different rendering at different levels depending on what the
map is intended fo
Oh, dave and all others ! So sorry, I did not include a link !
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Davo
Sigh
David
On Fri, 2014-01-10 at 20:12 +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> @David - where is the summary located exactly? I reckon I need a
> specific link to "your" Wiki" page.
>
@David - where is the summary located exactly? I reckon I need a specific
link to "your" Wiki" page.
Thanks
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 5:12 PM, David Bannon wrote:
>
> OK folks, I have moved a draft summary of the discussion on this topic
> to my OSM wiki discussion page. Anyone with OSM Wiki cred
OK folks, I have moved a draft summary of the discussion on this topic
to my OSM wiki discussion page. Anyone with OSM Wiki credentials is
welcome to edit it to try and make the choices clearer.
if you don't have OSM credentials, feel free to post corrections or
additions to me and I will put the
I agree with this 'least disagreement'.
I would be happy with both the three you mentioned or surface and a new one to
replace tracktype and smoothness. I hope that whatever we decide we can define
clearly what the state of the surface is for the value used.
Perhaps in some cases we may want t
I greatly appreciate your summary, Kytömaa. I'm not sure exactly where
to go from here, I'm taking the "path of least disagreement" (so, I
decided to support 3 tags as possible/necessary to make this
judgement: tracktype, smoothness and surface). At some point in the
debate I felt that tracktype an
>Tracktype= has about 2.5 million grade2 and beyond ways. "Tracktype is a
>measure of how well-maintained a track or other minor road is."
>http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tracktype
Having now read through the messages, I find that nobody has mentioned a thing
about tracktype, as it was initi
I agree these threads are nearly impossible, but to continue the discussion
could you post a link to the page on the wiki where the discussion can
continue (possibly broken into sections).
Thanks,
Dominic
On 5 January 2014 07:05, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> Well said. I'm for that approach.
>
> The
Well said. I'm for that approach.
These threads are nearly impossible to keep in your head as new comments
and views emerge. I'm not sure consensus will be easy to arrive at in
either case but it's worth a try. Create a new "unified" proposal page and
go from there. I agree that the smoothness val
OK, this discussion is huge and conducted in a great manner.
But being so huge, I feel lost ! So, here is an attempt to summarize
where we are and what the options seems to be. Maybe by identifying what
we already agree on, we can see the way into the rest ?
If people think its a good idea I co
10 matches
Mail list logo
