Steve Coast wrote:
Ok I think it's shameful how bad the mapping was there so I added a
bunch of trees, car parks, the park, some buildings...
Let's see how good we can make Lockport, NY ?
Wait... user alexrudd is Steve Coast?
--
View this message in context:
On 3/28/2011 12:28 PM, Alan Mintz wrote:
In southern California, in my experience, people do not use exit numbers
when giving directions - they use what we would call the name of the
exit, which is usually the name of the street on which the offramp
terminates*. One reason is that exit numbering
On 3/28/2011 5:00 PM, Andrew Cleveland wrote:
Just a nitpick: For exit numbers that consist of both a number and a
letter, should we insert a space? For example 20A vs. 20 A.
The MUTCD (
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/part2e.htm#section2E31 ) says
Suffix letters shall be used for exit
On 3/26/2011 7:51 AM, Mike N wrote:
The better the visualizers and consumers, the more maxspeeds will get
entered. You could almost needed a stopwatch to measure the delay
between Mapquest rendering tollways as green and the completion of toll
road markings in the US.
Well that was mainly me
On 3/26/2011 11:37 AM, Richard Welty wrote:
a helpful visualizer for the US would be one that flags speeds w/o a
units tag (kph
default). the mph option was added to the wiki in recent memory, and i
for one
tagged a lot of US roads with kph values before i became aware of the
update to the
User ToeBee has, in several changesets in February, aligned state
borders to exact lat/long. The problem is that this is not how the
borders are defined; instead they are based on work that the 19th
century surveyors did with the tools they had. Two obvious examples follow:
On 3/25/2011 3:56 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705298412/Four-Corners-marker-212-miles-off-Too-late.html
Note the correction to this article:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705299160/Four-Corners-Monument-is-indeed-off-mark.html
I was a little hasty
On 3/25/2011 4:17 AM, Toby Murray wrote:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 2:56 AM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com wrote:
User ToeBee has, in several changesets in February, aligned state borders to
exact lat/long. The problem is that this is not how the borders are defined;
instead they are based
On 3/25/2011 4:44 AM, Paul Norman wrote:
The first of your examples ('015 node) appears to be more accurate than the
node it replaced in one of the ways,
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/263660932 which was farther away
from the monument (based on NAIP imagery)
In the second one ('476
On 3/25/2011 5:43 AM, Toby Murray wrote:
Thank you for the apology.
I don't think that revert is going to happen though. Even if I agreed
that this was the solution, it would be a nightmare. I did a lot of
boundary work in that changeset involving splitting circular county
border ways, creating
On 3/25/2011 7:49 AM, Ian Dees wrote:
I would say that a better use of our time would be in creating boundary
relations to fix the duplicated county/state boundaries.
I would say it's more important to have the border in the right place
(at least such that all roads in one state are on the
On 3/25/2011 8:37 AM, Ian Dees wrote:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 7:04 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com
mailto:nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/25/2011 7:49 AM, Ian Dees wrote:
I would say that a better use of our time would be in creating
boundary
relations to fix
On 3/25/2011 12:28 PM, Toby Murray wrote:
Yep, it is off by a couple hundred meters in some places. When I get
home tonight I will download the latest Census shapefile and align the
Colorado border to it by hand. A brief check shows that this data does
have the border going through the monuments
I'd like to apologize for specifically naming ToeBee and Techlady in
subject lines, and any connotation that may have been attached to
screwup. The former was my error at reading the tea leaves of node
histories, and the latter was Techlady's error but perhaps my overreaction.
If this sounds
Frederik Ramm wrote:
Assuming that Nearmap-derived data is indeed not compatible with the
future OSM license, I fail to understand how contributing data that will
later be deleted is a quot;privilegequot;.
(a) the license change is not a certainty
(b) the OSM instance run by OSMF is not
Remember when Anthony's edits were reverted a few months ago? Well, Tampa is
still screwy (examples:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=28.13332lon=-82.502659zoom=18layers=M
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=28.0467lon=-82.5069zoom=13layers=Mrelation=371155
- the latter shows how easy it is for
On 3/20/2011 8:13 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
On 3/20/11 7:50 PM, Paul Norman wrote:
3 is about making the rivers into single ways, more like a mapper
would do
by hand. I'm not really set on this step and if done it would be after
steps
1 and 2 have been done everywhere. Looking at nhd:com_id it
On 3/20/2011 9:12 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
if combining them meaningfully improves the map, by all means do it.
Or improves editing.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
On 3/8/2011 8:03 AM, Mike N wrote:
The Motorway Junction tag at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Motorway_junction has recently had
the exit_to tag added. Old interstate tagging advice at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway was to put exit
sign destinations in the name tag.
Gilles Bassière wrote:
When hiking, I often encounter short technical passages which have a
name painted on the rock. In French, the name almost always begin with
Pas de ... but I'm not sure if there is a good translation for pas
in English [1]. Such portions of the path often consist in
Diego Woitasen wrote:
Hi,
Mapping the tolls of a highway a found that there is no tag to assign the
cost of the toll. I haven't found examples in taginfo or tagwatch. Are you
using something for this?
I know this is a little complex because the cost of the toll is different
and
http://open.mapquest.com/link/10-YfsRKQZk
I figured someone higher-up would have noticed and fixed this by now.
There's a roughly drawn boundary outside which the US rendering rules
don't apply. This boundary sometimes crosses into the US.
Is this boundary even necessary? What's wrong with
On 3/9/2011 5:27 PM, PJ Houser wrote:
1) We are editing incorrect trails and adding missing trails from RLIS
(Metro, Oregon) and CCGIS (Clark County, Washington). We'd like to tag
handicap accessibility of the trails we edit or add in. What tag would
OSM mappers prefer? We were thinking
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Last time I read a discussion about bicycles on interstates the only
known spot where they were allowed in the US was some few miles on one
rural interstate highway (where there was if I recall right no other
alternative route for many miles).
For trunk roads
On 3/7/2011 9:51 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2011/3/7 Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com:
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
the wiki states for the USA http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway
motorway = Limited access freeway with interchanges.
In my reading every highway which is not limited
ant-2 wrote:
One more thing... it seems that turn restrictions are regarded--although
they generally don't apply to cyclists (in most countries I guess).
Please fix this.
If a turn restriction does not apply to cyclists, there's a way to tag that.
In the US, bikes are vehicles and are
On 3/6/2011 2:30 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
On 03/05/2011 08:01 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 3/5/2011 7:56 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
For the route selected at http://open.mapquest.com/link/10-TSgZnD38
based on data I know OSM knows about Tulsa, I would be more inclined to
see a route more like
On 3/5/2011 7:45 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
Something that would be nice but isn't as
critical is to pick up on bicycle=preferred/avoid cues for ways that
have been observed by mappers to be ideal/scary to use by bicycle.
Please don't do this, as mappers may have completely opposite ideas of
what
On 3/5/2011 7:56 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
For the route selected at http://open.mapquest.com/link/10-TSgZnD38
based on data I know OSM knows about Tulsa, I would be more inclined to
see a route more like http://open.mapquest.com/link/9-Fc1vHAi7 but with
a more direct route taking the
What we really need is a way to tag a grid (in those places that use
one). That way we can give an approximate location (and hopefully the
correct side of the street) if we lack an exact location.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
On 2/24/2011 8:18 AM, Greg Troxel wrote:
On the other hand, some apparently non-local user has messed up tagging
of Route 2 near Boston/Cambridge (from alewife to the science museum)
and made them trunk when they obviously aren't (to anyone who has been
on them - no limited access, constant
On 2/24/2011 12:14 PM, Greg Troxel wrote:
Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com writes:
On 2/24/2011 8:18 AM, Greg Troxel wrote:
On the other hand, some apparently non-local user has messed up tagging
of Route 2 near Boston/Cambridge (from alewife to the science museum)
and made them trunk
On 2/24/2011 6:44 PM, Charlotte Wolter wrote:
These two are probably the best known of such roads, but there are others.
--In the 1920s, the Lincoln Highway was established across the United
States to promote auto travel (it seems to have succeeded). Portions
were financed by oil companies. The
On 2/24/2011 7:40 PM, Charlotte Wolter wrote:
I wonder if we are making a distinction that's not important. I think it
is much more important to identify historical or scenic routes clearly
than to highlight the distinction of being constructed just for
sightseeing.
I agree (at least for special
On 2/24/2011 8:16 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
Until you're
actually in the Tri-Cities area, it's rare to see official signage
actually point out any of the three cities involved independently,
Have signs changed recently? On the photos on
http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-082.html I see Kennewick
In the US there are two long federally-maintained roads, the Blue Ridge
Parkway and Natchez Trace Parkway, that were built for the sole purpose
of sightseeing. Since they are surrounded by a narrow strip of parkland,
access is only allowed at certain points, so they are technically
expressways
On 2/23/2011 9:46 PM, Ian Dees wrote:
They should be part of a route relation.
Buh...? I'm asking what highway=* value they should have.
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com
mailto:nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
In the US there are two long federally
On 2/23/2011 10:10 PM, Ian Dees wrote:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 9:04 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com
mailto:nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/23/2011 9:46 PM, Ian Dees wrote:
They should be part of a route relation.
Buh...? I'm asking what highway=* value they should have
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/876536239
There's no city named Tri-Cities; this is the name of the metropolitan
area that comprises Pasco, Kennewick, and Richland. I assume there's no
defensible reason to keep it tagged as such, but what should be done
about it?
Peter Budny wrote:
I really don't mind whether it's route relations or ref tags. The
problem is that NEITHER is finished. To get to my house, I have to get
on State Route 1966, then 1267. Neither of these are marked as such on
the map, and I'm certainly not going to do it by hand when I
Hillsman, Edward wrote:
But I'm starting to regret mentioning crime in my earlier post. The point
I was trying to make focused on the physical environment, and the fact
that a lot of suburbia in the US is not conducive to walking. In addition,
its design and heavy levels of car traffic
Tordanik wrote:
The best way to achieve this, IMO, is to only execute mass edits and
imports in collaboration with a local community. This makes sure that
there is a sufficiently developed community of mappers on the ground,
allows them to evaluate the data's quality beforehand, and makes
Felix Hartmann-2 wrote:
Most important things for OSM are good aerial photos coupled with large
community. Worst are imports. The United States are so bad, I don't
think OSM will ever become important there. The biggest thing to
remember is that creating something is much more fun than
On 2/20/2011 6:58 PM, David Murn wrote:
On Sun, 2011-02-20 at 15:35 -0800, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
I find tracing endless residential subdivisions from aerials to be a chore
and no fun.
I know many who disagree, fortunately. Last year I was laid up in bed
for around 3 months after surgery
Richard Weait wrote:
Mike N, you must have missed the first x-years of the project.
Neither aerial imagery, nor imports were available. ;-) Of course,
renderers were missing too. Not only subdivisions, but cities, lakes
and oceans were missing.
I took a look at the project some years
Andrew Errington-2 wrote:
Anyway, I like the idea of using imports as a 'scaffold' for building real
objects. Imported data could sit on a separate layer, much like GPS
traces,
then a mapper can either trace over the imported shapes, or select an
imported object and 'promote' it to
Daniel Sabo wrote:
I would think (or at least hope) that this kind of bad import would be
less of an issue if the revert tools were not so arcane. My previous
attempts are reverting stuff have always ended up with manual XML fiddling
to get the desired results.
I don't know how recent it
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
This is getting crazy.
Exhibit 1:
http://twitter.com/#!/maproomblog/status/39053538692698112
Whoever imported CanVec in Aylmer, Quebec obliterated hours of work and
introduced hundreds of errors. #osm #openstreetmap #whybother
I wonder how many complaints
On 2/18/2011 7:45 PM, Richard Weait wrote:
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 7:37 PM, Dale Puchdale.p...@gmail.com wrote:
That said, for now using oneway is better than not tagging flow
direction.
I disagree. Water flow direction is recorded by the direction of the
way, same as steps up direction is
On 2/18/2011 8:22 PM, Richard Weait wrote:
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com wrote:
I never knew that about steps, and have thus mapped roughly half the number
of steps I've added incorrectly. In addition, for waterways, there's no way
to say I don't know what
On 2/16/2011 10:13 PM, Val Kartchner wrote:
What I'm asking about is this anomaly in the area of Sevier Lake:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=39.0035lon=-113.0895zoom=14layers=C;.
What is up with this sudden change in terrain?
Most likely the quality or method of creation of the data in
Rodolphe Quiedeville-2 wrote:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/6938764
Now I'm looking for a tool to analyse this changeset to see if there's
only deletion on it. If the changeset is compose of 100% deletion I'll
look to do a revert on it.
You should be able to use JOSM's
Jacek Konieczny wrote:
layer=-1 tells only that the thing is under layer=0 and over layer=-2,
nothing in relation to 'ground level' (some rivers or roads may have
layer=-1 or layer=1 on most of its length).
No, ground level is layer 0. A nonzero layer on a ground-level feature is an
On 2/15/2011 5:38 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2011/2/15 Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com:
Jacek Konieczny wrote:
layer=-1 tells only that the thing is under layer=0 and over layer=-2,
nothing in relation to 'ground level' (some rivers or roads may have
layer=-1 or layer=1 on most of its
On 2/15/2011 7:52 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2011/2/16 Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com:
-1,
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Layer
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:layer
our wiki is becoming something like the bible: you can find a page for
every opinion ;-)
I don't have a
David Murn wrote:
Well, the page seems to contradict itself, suggesting that a tunnel
under a building is layer=0.
Depends if the tunnel goes underground or just through a building while
remaining at ground level (though the latter case might be better described
as covered).
David Murn
On 2/12/2011 12:47 PM, Val Kartchner wrote:
I'm having a problem with the Mapnik rendering of this area:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=41.176495lon=-111.948208zoom=18;.
In the retail area northwest of 48th Street and Harrison Blvd (UT-203) I
have entered parking lots. However, they are not
On 2/12/2011 2:01 PM, Val Kartchner wrote:
That was it. I split the parking lot at the boundary of the land use,
and it now renders correctly. I'll have to keep this in mind when I'm
drawing parking.
I figured that since there was very little separation between parking
lots that it should
On 2/12/2011 3:19 PM, Lennard wrote:
On 12-2-2011 20:10, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
(By the way, the commercial parking to the north still goes slightly
into the retail area. Maybe Mapnik calculates the area and draws from
biggest to smallest?)
Yes, it does, in this case, render from largest
Toby Murray-2 wrote:
It strikes me as odd that a tag on a member way affects the rendering
of a relation in this way. Am I missing something?
The same thing happens when a highway=* railway=abandoned way is part of a
railway=abandoned relation. Remove the railway=abandoned from the way and
On 2/5/2011 10:44 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
On 02/04/2011 01:42 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 2/3/2011 11:15 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
underlying ways
often have refs that belong to them (like bridge numbers) but not the
route itself.
You've said this a number of times without explanation. Why
On 2/6/2011 2:41 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
On 02/06/2011 05:14 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
What does this have to do with anything?
USDOT is working hard to make all federal highways bicycle accessible.
These routes are national in nature and often share with the motorway
where bicycles
On 2/5/2011 12:36 PM, stevea wrote:
Take a look at Santa Cruz County, California with OSM Cycle Map layer
(see the text in the last paragraph at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Santa_Cruz_County,_California#Work_to_be_done_in_the_County).
We tag highways (AGAIN: additionally tag the WAY
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/357366507/history
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/158642035/history
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
On 2/3/2011 3:25 PM, PJ Houser wrote:
Hi all,
I have some basic questions:
1) Why are relations preferred for bike routes?
If there's a continuous route from point A to point B, it's easier to
keep track of it as a relation. If there's just a signed network using
bike route signs, there's no
On 2/3/2011 6:37 PM, j...@jfeldredge.com wrote:
I know that, using relations, a particular way can be part of several different
routes. Is this also true if the ways are used directly, instead of through a
relation?
Yes, using semicolons: lcn_ref=1;8
On 2/3/2011 11:15 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
underlying ways
often have refs that belong to them (like bridge numbers) but not the
route itself.
You've said this a number of times without explanation. Why does the
bridge number, or ODOT's internal referencing, belong to the way,
while the route
On 2/3/2011 11:20 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
If it's a bicycle boulevard, it should have it's own LCN relation (even
if it does have one member), as it would also qualify as a route. And
the way will probably be split up many times over it's existence as turn
restrictions get added, ways get split
Anthony-6 wrote:
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 7:00 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net
wrote:
Yes, if you try
and use Potlatch to show several thousand objects you are certifiably
insane. If you want to work in a JOSM-like manner, use JOSM!
Good points. I think that's a big part of
colliar-3 wrote:
Am 25.01.2011 02:44, schrieb Nathan Edgars II:
One issue I have is this: I often import selected ways (such as railways)
in
an area from xapi and then edit them, adding new ones and deleting bad
ones.
(On upload if I deleted something that's referenced by a non
On 1/24/2011 8:54 PM, Alan Mintz wrote:
At 2011-01-24 16:55, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
I'd suggest tiger:reviewed=no which is kind of what the tag was for.
...except that some (many?) people don't know (or don't care) to remove
the tag after they edit/confirm the feature. There are many
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/7057167
This should have been railways; apparently JOSM got confused with
another changeset of mine. It's too late for me to change it, but is it
possible for someone with higher permissions to fix it?
It seems to be having the same problem again. Is there a better place
to report it than spamming this list?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Kristian M Zoerhoff
kristian.zoerh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, all.
I've been working on adding some abandoned railway lines in my area, and
I've been wondering how to group them together. The line I'm working on
right now (the former Elgin Belvidere Electric
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
On 01/10/2011 10:23 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Kristian M Zoerhoff
operator = Elgin Belvidere Electric Co.
This should be unabbreviated: Elgin and Belvidere Electric Company
Does anyone know when the xapi will be back online? It's been down for
several days at least.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Frederik Ramm wrote:
Your original complaint was about people removing *duplicate* nodes
though, not people removing fresh, unused nodes. That's another
situation; if your upload creates duplicate nodes then your upload is
buggy and should be stopped.
Not always - an import of TIGER
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 12:14 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
Should be ok now. Seems like someone had been messing with the server ... it
somehow had an identity crisis.
Hmmm - I'm still getting the same failed to open a connection to the
remote server message in JOSM.
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Grant Slater
openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
On 9 January 2011 16:19, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
Does anyone know when the xapi will be back online? It's been down for
several days at least.
80n is the only person who coded / runs
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
Although policy is that software should be open source, and 80n has recently
removed the access to the code we have not as yet done anything to restrict
his access to or use of the server.
Ah, OK. Thanks for the clarification.
The xapi is now back up. Thanks to everyone involved in creating and
maintaining this great resource.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
David Murn wrote:
On Fri, 2011-01-07 at 10:18 -0800, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Let those broken routers choke on real-world cases where nodes really are
in
the same place (double-decker bridge that crosses a state line, for
example). I'll continue to map correctly.
Just because you
On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 8:25 PM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
On Sat, 2011-01-08 at 17:17 -0800, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
If the name or ref is different on either side of the state line, then it
needs to be split in the middle.
Thats fine, but does the state line need a node
Oops - meant to send this to the list.
On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 8:54 PM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
On Sat, 2011-01-08 at 20:27 -0500, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
That's why I specified a double-decker bridge: each deck gets split at the
line.
I guess in theory, having a double
On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 2:35 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 11:58 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
Just noticed this: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/82696560/history
Done. I think. Be good to have a local check it.
There are still
I've fixed it, thanks to JOSM's reverter plugin.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Both Yahoo and Bing have nice imagery in the Orlando area:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=28.417946lon=-81.491858zoom=20
http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=potlatch2lat=28.417946lon=-81.491858zoom=20
But I cannot get JOSM to load this quality. Is there a trick I'm missing?
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com wrote:
Have you tried bumping up the zoom setting in the imagery plugin
preferences? The setting is in tile zoom level. I think by default it
only goes up to z18 but I have been able to bump it up to z21 in some
areas. Of
Nic Roets wrote:
Mike, please don't blame the bot.
It's not the bot. It's the operator that did horrible stuff. And
bot-operator-enablers who defended their actions.
Nic Roets wrote:
Ungluing a node an just leaving it
there, is really looking for trouble. Some routing engine(s) glue
Just noticed this: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/82696560/history
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Alan Mintz
alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote:
I don't believe I've seen anything other than the die-cut style in CA. Any
background would look wrong.
You live in the one state that still uses cutout US Highway shields :)
See the image near the top of
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 3:12 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
On 01/03/2011 08:33 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeGUSMssl7kt=0m15s
There's not much merging room (no worse than on many Interstates), but
it's nowhere near a right angle.
I'm familiar
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 10:43 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
On 01/01/2011 09:45 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Yes - Seattle's Alaskan Way Viaduct. It seems like a clear motorway to
me, but a local has tagged it as trunk.
Alaska has intersections on at least one of it's three decks
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Alan Mintz
alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote:
At 2011-01-02 19:46, Paul Johnson wrote:
On 01/01/2011 11:55 AM, Richard Weait wrote:
I've been adding more highway shields to the shield renderer. Most
recently I've added a shield for Historic Route 66.
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Mike N. nice...@att.net wrote:
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net
wrote:
if by 2 lane freeway, you mean a super 2, by convention those are
usually trunk in the US.
I mean what some roadgeeks call a super 2, which isn't
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote:
if by 2 lane freeway, you mean a super 2, by convention those are
usually trunk in the US.
I mean what some roadgeeks call a super 2, which isn't necessarily
the same as what others use that term for. Two-lane freeway
Question: what do people think about minimum standards for tagging
something highway=motorway? In other words, would it be reasonable to
tag a highway as trunk rather than motorway because it has no
shoulders or a low speed limit (40 mph)?
___
Talk-us
Oops - meant to send this to the list.
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote:
On 1/1/11 5:47 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Question: what do people think about minimum standards for tagging
something highway=motorway? In other words, would it be reasonable
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 5:47 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
Question: what do people think about minimum standards for tagging
something highway=motorway? In other words, would it be reasonable to
tag
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote:
In the US, we seem to have what I'd call Interstate standards.
It generally seems like motorway is appropriate for
Except half the Interstates don't meet current standards. I don't know
of any maps that show Interstate-standard
501 - 600 of 889 matches
Mail list logo
