Has anyone got any bright ideas about how best to map Unsuitable for
Motors etc. signs? As I understand it they're not really access
restrictions, just advisory. Currently they tend to be mapped as notes
or as motorcar=unsuitable (which I'm yet to be convinced about because
that's an access
Dave Stanley wrote:
I don't know if it is from an import or just careless editing. Have a
look at:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=22.32989lon=91.80766zoom=15layers=M
At first glance it looks like editing rather than an import, and the
people doing the editing look like they're
Kai Krueger wrote:
A simple standard tileserver can now be setup in 5 commands in a terminal:
sudo add-apt-repository ppa:kakrueger/openstreetmap
sudo apt-get install libapache2-mod-tile
wget http://download.geofabrik.de/osm/north-america/us/colorado.osm.pbf
osm2pgsql -C 1500 colorado.osm.pbf
Erik Johansson wrote:
So I took 103 entries that only occurred once from
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/FIXME
Since taginfo is case sensitive, you'd want to check this also:
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/fixme#values
(including 19,000 comically misspelt
On 01/10/2011 20:31, John Sturdy wrote:
The edit tab isn't working for me -- neither on my home machine, nor
if I ssh through to my work machine. (Both running iceweasel on
Debian, and I haven't reconfigured anything since it last worked for
me.) The slippy map and placename search seem to be
Thomas Davie wrote:
Proposed solutions (all of which are horrible):
1) Don't tag sliproads onto roundabouts as junction=roundabout,
instead use some other tagging scheme. Not greatly desirable because
it involves a *whole* lot of retagging.
2) Ask garmin to fix it (doesn't sound likely).
3)
On 31/08/2011 10:47, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
[1] the stuff that people have built useful stuff on, that is. I doubt
anyone would miss the random landuse
... or the NPE-derived waterways in Southern England (given that we now
have far better sources for those).
The problem with that of
On 31/08/2011 01:08, Pete Ramjet wrote:
Noticed this morning that user 99scilla111
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/99scilla111 has vandalised a
large number of roads/buildings/etc since 12 August. It really annoys
me when somebody goes out of their way to detroy the good work of
other
On 29/08/2011 09:44, Steve Bennett wrote:
I'm not sure if this is a recent change (or I've just noticed it), but
it seems that tags that don't contain anything recognisable to mapnik
other than a name are getting rendered: http://osm.org/go/uG42g@6EB--
It's not a new thing, I don't think - in
On 24/08/2011 13:14, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:
Widening out to the rest of the gb list.
Cheers
Andy
-Original Message-
From: Brian Prangle [mailto:bpran...@gmail.com]
Sent: 22 August 2011 3:11 PM
To: talk-gb-westmidla...@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-gb-westmidlands]
On 24/08/2011 13:30, SomeoneElse wrote:
(and hopefully the link will survive the mailing list OK)
... which of course was exactly what Andy posted. Sorry about that!
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org
On 14/08/2011 14:33, Stephan Knauss wrote:
the magic thing is called Bing imagery.
...
If it is good to have such remote mapping or bad depends on how the
people on the ground react. Adding a whole street including geometry
is imho a lot more rewarding then just entering street names.
SomeoneElse wrote:
I'll bung him a message about way
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/62327024/history
(and got a reply BTW)
Cheers,
Andy
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
On 10/08/2011 22:06, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
First changeset after expiry:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8976461
I'll bung him a message about way
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/62327024/history
and way
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/125500644
which
On 08/08/2011 11:47, Paul Williams wrote:
I've found that there is still a big problem with unconnected roads in
the area west of Uttoxeter (including in Stoke-on-Trent)
...
I've so far fixed some of the problems along the A50 in Stoke and am
currently working on sorting out the Longton area,
On 25/07/2011 08:53, Michael Kugelmann wrote:
On 23.07.2011 18:35, I wrote:
I for my personnal view think that's way too slow for current
demands: we should see at least a daily update for the demands of the
current work which is necessary to replace ways. Is there a way to
speed up e.g. by
On 21/07/2011 11:44, Mitja Kleider wrote:
The Matterhorn recording system has audio and video in various formats,
you can query them by talk-id:
http://matterhorn.zserv.tuwien.ac.at/search/rest/episode?id=Unscheduled-lecturetube-ei7-1310734982522
Search for Camera.avi or Screen.avi and you
On 21/07/2011 09:46, Dave F. wrote:
On 20/07/2011 22:48, SomeoneElse wrote:
A couple of days ago I spotted a couple of marked trails that I'd not
seen before...
What did it look like where was it?
The first one is here:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1574005
The sign
On 18/07/2011 13:25, Norbert Wenzel wrote:
All videos should now be online. If there's still a video missing we
do not have the right to publish it or we have technical problems with
the video (Steves Keynote seems not to work. Andreas Trawöger is still
working on this together with the TU
A couple of days ago I spotted a couple of marked trails that I'd not
seen before. Before I spend a fruitless half-hour trying to google for
a picture (unfortunately neither has a description on the trail marker)
could anyone point me in the direction of a gallery of such things? I'm
sure
On 18/07/2011 12:15, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Unless this person has surveyed the 1350 pubs he doesn't add any
information, because you can already see from the data that the toilet
is inside a pub. There might be pubs which consent general use (not
very probable, but in 1350 pubs this might
On 11/07/2011 22:42, Frederik Ramm wrote:
... But what if I had
1. a facility where I can comment on the perceived usefulness of a
changeset;
2. a facility where I can click a thumbs down or thumbs up in case
I particularly like or dislike the change;
3. a league table showing the most
On 28/06/2011 20:45, Richard Bullock wrote:
It seems Mr Darren39 has simply nuked all of my contributions in the
north and east of the town, and replaced them with his own - and none
of the ways connect to any other ways. A whole section of the A523 is
missing. Much of the replacements are a
On 11/07/2011 22:42, Frederik Ramm wrote (to talk@):
Hi,
I just stumbled across a changeset where someone helpfully added a
toilet:access=customers to 1350 pubs in the Greeater London area
On the specific point of that changeset, is the author of it really sure
that none of the
On 29/06/2011 22:56, SomeoneElse wrote:
For info - I've dropped them a mail (hopefully friendly in tone) about
it.
... and they've said that it was OK to roll back their changes, which
I've done.
Cheers,
Andy
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8573585
(this might still be at the stage at which a clean reversion is possible)
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
On 29/06/2011 16:41, Peter Miller wrote:
... and tools can highlight 'changes made by new editors that you
might want to check' etc.
You're ahead of yourself on that one - it was ITO's osm mapper that
highlighted cja's edits to me! Luckily as well as the deletions they'd
added one new way
On 29/06/2011 15:57, Lester Caine wrote:
Frederik Ramm wrote:
On 06/29/11 15:58, SomeoneElse wrote:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8573585
Changeset comment Ashbourne map - plain might point to user wanting to
make a nice no-frills map for himself and not thinking about
Just a bit of a heads-up - if anyone's created a map that they intend to
use for routing that covers this area:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.0286lon=-1.849zoom=13layers=M
(the A52 and A523 west of Ashbourne)
any time between 18th June and about now you might want to re-extract
it. An
On 28/06/2011 20:45, Richard Bullock wrote:
I originally surveyed Leek back in 2009.
It seems Mr Darren39 has simply nuked all of my contributions in the
north and east of the town, and replaced them with his own - and none
of the ways connect to any other ways. A whole section of the A523 is
On 22/06/2011 21:22, Mike Dupont wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 9:54 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com
mailto:st...@asklater.com wrote:
On 6/22/2011 12:51 PM, 80n wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 7:31 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com
mailto:st...@asklater.com wrote:
How
On 19/06/2011 18:12, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
To use it, simply choose 'Show licence status' from the Options
dialogue, and make sure you're editing with the standard Potlatch map
style. It will show:
- Elements where version 1 was created by someone who's declined
ODbL+CT: solid red
-
On 17/06/2011 06:35, Ed Avis wrote:
This is not really a technical question but one of convention: are
per-changeset
source tags generally accepted practice in the project these days?
I suspect that it varies by community. My experience locally is that
on-the-ground mappers tend to use
On 17/06/2011 09:42, Jochen Topf wrote:
The source tag can sometimes be some help in figuring out the history
of an
object. After it was entered in OSM we have a complete history, before that the
source tag can sometimes help. But it is far less useful in practice than many
think. Exactly
On 16/06/2011 18:00, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
You can also put this information in the change-set-comment. IMHO this
is where this belongs to. AFAIK the source-tag is disputed and it is
recommended to use the changeset comments.
The problem with the changeset source tag is that there's no
On 13/06/2011 16:34, Stephan Knauss wrote:
As long as MS wants to promote Silverlight using the OSM layer they
should at least not silently fall back to another map. So either serve
OSM with plain JS or tell the user it won't.
If you believe the news / rumour sites, they might not be
On 10/06/2011 13:17, Ed Avis wrote:
Richard Fairhurstrichard@... writes:
This is no doubt true.
But surely having an area that has been *surveyed* to 100% road name
completion is just as likely to put off any new contributors as one that
was *traced* to 100%?
...
I think we all agree that
On 08/06/2011 08:15, Peter Miller wrote:
...
On a separate note. Would you be able to do a comparison between place
names in NatGaz and in OSM. I think we will be surprised how many
places we are still missing from OSM. My guess is that OSM only
contains about 65% of the 50K places in that
When looking at a bit of the A1:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/34158443
I happened to notice that it seems to belong to 6 route relations.
There's a bus route, an E road (both of which make sense) and 4 A1s
(which don't), one of which (103597) seems to have a lot more versions
than
On 05/05/2011 16:40, Peter Miller wrote:
http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=87
First reaction - thank you - that will be _extremely_ useful.
Second reaction - have I really forgotton to add footpath and bridleway
designations from quite so many footpaths locally? Oh dear
On 04/05/2011 13:22, Peter Oliver wrote:
• There's an old method of tagging ways suitable for pedestrians,
and a new method.
I'd ignore the new method as documented there. It was added by a
wikifiddler a couple of months ago and bears no resemblance to common
usage in the UK. The huge
On 20/04/2011 10:03, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:
On your note re Sustrans walking/cycling I did the same chuckle. I'm also
surprised that they haven't yet changed the standard ranger sticker from the
cycling one to the one that adds the pedestrian at the top as well. Every
ranger
On 19/04/2011 14:31, Peter Miller wrote:
... railways at layer=1 or -1
Well, that might be correct if they're at layer -1 or +1 relative to a
feature that hasn't been mapped yet. A conversation with the original
mappers (or a visit) should be able to resolve that easily.
In the process
On 19/04/2011 15:26, Peter Miller wrote:
That is not what the wiki says (and said before my edits). Before my
edits it said: ...
It really doesn't matter what the wiki says. What matters is that
someone's mapped something and recorded some information and you're
removing that
On 14/04/2011 10:56, Michael Collinson wrote:
The revised contributor terms should now be live and I have just got
the go ahead to be able to announce that the mandatory Accept/Decline
will be switched on on Sunday.
Thanks Mike - I spotted that they'd changed last night.
Cheers,
Andy
On 12/04/2011 09:38, Peter Miller wrote:
On 11 April 2011 23:39, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk
mailto:li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote:
We've lost the information that the sign is actually NOT a 60 mph
sign. Something like method 2 above would have avoided losing
On 9 April 2011 08:15, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com
mailto:peter.mil...@itoworld.com
mailto:peter.mil...@itoworld.com
mailto:peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote:
...
We seem to be nudging towards something close to a conclusion.
On 06/04/2011 15:02, Chris Hill wrote:
On 06/04/11 14:22, Peter Miller wrote:
Do we have a preference for tagging unrestricted limits in the UK? I
say that because a section of the A1 is beginning to look a bit war
damaged (as in edit war).
...
Any thoughts?
I think we should tag
On 04/04/2011 11:08, Ed Avis wrote:
I've stopped tagging route_ref because according to the wiki the preferred way
to map bus routes is as a relation. Does that reflect the accepted practice in
this country?
What uses the bus route data anyway?
Potentially anyone with a Garmin following the
On 31/03/2011 12:40, Dave F. wrote:
As someone from across the pond, excuse my ignorance, but what are
these for:
On 28/03/2011 15:30, Maurizio Napolitano wrote:
I found today this article
A qualitative enquiry into OpenStreetMap making
Author: Yu-Wei Lina
*Single Article Purchase:* US$41.00
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
On 24/03/2011 10:11, Mike Harris wrote:
I am not insensitive to the need for OSM to remain free of any
copyright or similar restrictions but I do not think absence of
physical signage /ipso facto/ constitutes such a barrier to use.
I don't either - but think that a source:designation would
On 24/03/2011 17:13, Kevin Peat wrote:
On 24 March 2011 16:56, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
mailto:e...@waniasset.com wrote:
You could use something like
designation=public_footpath
highway=no
note=Although a right of way, there is no path on the ground.
Would work I
On 23/03/2011 11:18, Dave F. wrote:
Hi
I've noticed a couple few ways being tagged with designation= Other
Route with Public Access (or just ORPA)
I've never heard of that as a legal designation (of an England / Wales
right of way) or seen such a sign. If I saw it on a way in OSM I'd
On 23/03/2011 12:37, Dave F. wrote:
Most of the OPRA I know of lead onto paths/bridleways etc are signed
as such at the beginning of the OPRAs.
If it's not obvious along the length of a path what its designation is,
or the designations in use are just silly*, then I'll usually tag a
On 11/03/2011 13:31, Ed Avis wrote:
I don't argue against that at all, I think it's great. But in fact
that is not
the classical OSM way, which has been (a) armchair trace from Yahoo imagery
then (b) send out the mappers to find street names and other stuff.
(adopts tone from the four
On 11/03/2011 13:42, Steve Doerr wrote:
Field boundaries can be traced from Bing? A lot of work though.
Contours can be done using the same method as Cycle Map.
Field boundaries can be traced in this way, with the caveat that 10
years can be long time in terms of field boundaries (certainly
On 07/03/2011 13:31, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
it is an error as soon as not all attributes on the road apply to the
parallel cycleway ...
Any map (in fact any measurement) has errors. Adding extra information
to the map is useful, even if it doesn't add all the information that
everyone
Even apart from the node cockup, whilst it's possible that the
perpetrator of this changeset has checked that every item changed did in
fact sell processed dead cow, I suspect that that's unlikely. For
example, I note after a quick Google that McDonalds Carpets Rugs
spell their name without
On 21/02/2011 18:03, Peter Budny wrote:
Okay, even if we accept that -- and many OSM mappers do not,
They've clearly not heard the posh woman inside my satnav then - she has
no problems pronouncing name and ref information on roads (she can't
pronounce Huthwaite, but that's another problem).
Frank Steggink wrote:
I believe the average community opinion is more like: imports _are_
welcome, but _only_ if there are no better alternatives, and _only_ if
a strict set of guidelines is followed (for example _not_ deleting
better quality user contributed data).
I think that historical
On 17/02/2011 01:04, Robin Paulson wrote:
On 17 February 2011 12:21, David Murnda...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
Ive fixed quite a number of spots where keepright has picked up a river
and highway on the same layer (=0), generally without a junction node.
i wonder what would be the consequences
On 15/02/2011 20:28, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
Any feelings on this?
First things first, more GPS tracks are definitely useful, even if
there's no other information recorded. For example, if I've walked from
A to B and recorded one GPS track, and no-one else has been there (which
is true a lot
On 07/02/2011 17:52, Ralph Smyth wrote:
The document is at:
www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/open/2011-02/roadsnetworkconsultation.pdf
Nearly - it is now:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/open/2011-02/roadnetworkconsultation.pdf
(37 pages of extreme verbosity later, losing the will to live on
On 04/02/2011 13:48, Ed Avis wrote:
I have sometimes wondered whether harvesting GPS traces would help with this
task. If every trace shows turning left at the junction, flag a warning for
somebody to check whether a turn restriction needs to be added. But to do that
we would need a bigger
On 26/01/2011 15:53, Sami Dalouche wrote:
For instance, the geonames project (http://www.geonames.org/) provides
over 7 million POI, and 2 million of them are cities.
How many of them are vaguely close to the correct location though? I
tried a few local (UK) village names. About half weren't
On 26/01/2011 16:12, David Murn wrote:
The only issue I would have, is with the spelling of licence. Steve
suggested licensed but as OSM is traditionally British English,
shouldnt licenced=yes/no be used?
taginfo shows licenced=yes has 2 usages where licensed=yes has 9, so its
early enough to
On 26/01/2011 17:24, Ralph Smyth wrote:
You can see the sign by rule 218 of
the Highway Code, although some pre-2006 schemes used a different sign:
www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069858
So there should be a 'quiet_lane' value for highway, just as there is
'living_street'.
On 24/01/2011 23:08, John Smith wrote:
Not all restaurants are licensed...
amenity=restaurant
licensed=yes/no/byo
Sounds good to me - thanks.
Cheers,
Andy
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Hi - quick question - what's the normal way to indicate BYO vs licenced
restaurants?
Cheers,
Andy
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
On 20/01/2011 11:10, Jerry Clough - OSM wrote:
Certainly the Grantham Canal is a good place to clarify how to tag
canals in various states of disuse: ...
... Cromford Canal from Cromford to Ambergate ...
Mea culpa for parts of both of those. I think that I used canoeable
(i.e. having
On 18/01/2011 14:48, Mike Collinson wrote:
The links below show the wording we will formally release.
Thanks Mike. I'll look forward to a derivative of those appearing on
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/terms at some point in the future.
___
On 19/01/2011 09:55, James Davis wrote:
- Tools using the data won't easily be able to parse a freeform fixme tag.
'highway=motorway;fixme=highway tag clearly wrong, please correct' being a good
example.
But it's humans and not machines that edit the map. The fixme is for
humans to read.
On 17/01/2011 23:21, Graham Jones wrote:
Chris,
I don't know one about waterways, but for walking routes it is worth
looking at Lonvia's hiking map
(http://osm.lonvia.de/world_hiking.html) - I use this one.
That's really useful - I'd no idea that there was anywhere that rendered
these all
On 17/01/2011 23:05, Chris Moss wrote:
... What about ... bus routes ...
There's http://openbusmap.org/ , although that's not being updatd currently.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
On 09/01/2011 20:17, Dave F. wrote:
On 09/01/2011 16:28, Gorm E. Johnsen wrote:
Hi
Today there is 5500 ways with highway=unsurfaced...
Whilst the surface condition should be a sub-tag (surface=*), you
unfortunately don't know what the actual road classification is, so
it's inadvisable to
On 08/12/2010 21:59, Steve Bennett wrote:
So the question arises: does the community support this view?
Unlike the Life of Brian, here everyone does seem to be an individual -
I suspect that you'll get as many answers as there are mappers.
Speaking entirely personally, I do mostly only map
On 22/11/2010 12:20, Steve Bennett wrote:
So...what's the right format? I have a feeling I've been down this
road before and didn't get very far. It really doesn't seem like a
very obscure thing I'm trying to do here. Workarounds?
Steve
___
talk
On 08/11/2010 12:27, Donald Campbell II wrote:
What is the process for getting a tag supported in mkgmap?
If you're creating your own maps, then you have complete control over
what gets included or not in the mkgmap map (whether you're using the
newer style files or the older map features
Maybe eventually we'll end up with two separate projects - one that
edits the wiki and one that does the mapping (and ignores the wiki)?
Maybe that's happening already?
Cheers,
Andy
:-)
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
On 01/11/2010 22:51, Gorm E. Johnsen wrote:
Interesting to see that nobody seems to object strongly to the
(manual) edits I have already done with *ways* tagged with highway=ford.
That's not strictly true; I did object (and you replied) via the OSM
message system when you started updating
On 31/10/2010 13:46, Gorm E. Johnsen wrote:
I propose to replace highway=ford with ford=yes (or perhaps
barrier=ford?) on nodes as well, simply to de-clutter the highway tag
and to be more consistent.
Please don't change things unless you've actually been there and
surveyed the item in
On 24/10/2010 18:15, Gregory wrote:
I hope the mapping passion isn't sliding away from the UK.
Whether people can get around to organising a conference isn't
necessarily related to whether they're still keen on mapping or not.
Maybe the weather this summer was too good?
Cheers,
Andy
On 21/10/2010 00:51, David Murn wrote:
On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 17:35 +0200, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Anyone interested in the openstreetmap tile downloader 5.0 ? It is now
available for only 29,95 $
On 12/10/2010 17:07, Andy Allan wrote:
Might I quietly suggest that until the Naptan import is finished (and
that more than 25% of the naptan stops appear in the right place),
that we leave any discussion of importing street lights off the table?
Is that still happening?
On 27/09/2010 12:02, Dave F. wrote:
I've an abandoned railway in my area where sections of it are now
invisible having been completely leveled used as agricultural land.
Someone's tagged these as railway=abandoned. I don't think they should.
I'd agree with that. I think that what
On 19/09/2010 14:37, Nic Roets wrote:
This is because a gate with no access tags
implies that nothing can go through.
It wouldn't to me - no access tags on the gate would imply to me that
nothing had been recorded about whether it was normally open or closed,
or locked so that it couldn't
On 14/09/2010 12:55, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
It might be nice to tie in this wiki page with the error itself, so
when people are banned, it says Go to this page for more information
and they're given useufl information and steps they can take to
prevent it from happening again.
Not seen the
On 10/09/2010 11:14, Tobias Knerr wrote:
Lulu-Ann wrote:
I would like to add loc_name-tags for this and name ways like footway from village
A to B, west of footway crossing in MyWoodName
Yes: Don't use loc_name (or any other key that contains name) for
this. It's not a name. It's a
On 27/08/2010 08:50, Ian Spencer wrote:
I don't think there is anyone rendering it explicitly at the moment,
however, it would be trivial for someone to take the OpenCycleMap code
and apply a similar style to an OpenWalkMap.
I'm not entirely convinced it's that straightforward.
On 27/08/2010 11:22, Ian Spencer wrote:
There is a relationship type route with network tag uk_ldp, and in
Potlatch it already renders the long distance paths in a different
way, so in principle it should be easy. Not sure whether that has been
adopted though.
On 27/08/2010 11:56, Ian Spencer wrote:
Had a quick look at Nick's current rendering which is a good stab as
you said. The thing that sticks out is that there are very few
footpaths rendered as public footpaths. It is unsurprising that this
happens because Potlatch et al have defaults when
On 23/08/2010 01:34, Richard Weait wrote:
That's an open question for the lawyer that wrote the CT. In casual
conversation with one lawyer (casual as in I wasn't paying the
lawyer)
Thanks Richard. What we could do with from the LWG (and I'm sure that
they will look at doing it) is a here are
On 24/08/2010 11:35, Ed Avis wrote:
... under the proposed ODbL or whether it would technically be in
breach of the
contract-law provisions
But presumably I as Joe Mapper wouldn't be restricted in going back to
the OS with a bunch of errors that I've found after comparing what I've
mapped
On 22/08/2010 15:27, Mike Collinson wrote:
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes or directly
https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1lVQlsnuEKPY2gjspScwHqgmo8RyoqmuaWWmWh58T4TY
0.1
https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=18q0b_f_-rtuWWC04qaAcO3NY_Aob2QjY2gGRMmo0IrM
0.2
On 22/08/2010 21:42, Steve Chilton wrote:
My new week old Garmin etrex Vista HCx is causing me grief.
The power on/off button has decided to not function at all.
Am thinking I will have to go to Garmin to resolve it (it was purchased from
Amazon).
Possibly, but I think that it should be the
On 21/08/2010 10:01, Ian Spencer wrote:
I suspect that it is an area where it has never been done properly, so
there hasn't been an example to follow.
It's also a between other mappers area - north of the West Midlands, a
bit west for me and a bit SE for mikh43.
The initial ways I
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=44.25812lon=-71.44119zoom=15layers=M
Looks like it could do with someone visiting to add some POIs?
(trying to bring this back on topic)
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
Ross Scanlon wrote:
Total time 6 minutes
Hundreds of hours, yeah right.
So you've also updated every user of mkgmap who uses a customised style
file too? That should add a few to the 20 or so (or whatever number
were mentioned before). Each change is of the same order as the one
that
On 23/07/2010 08:52, Ed Avis wrote:
Fair point. In that case, to be scrupulous, you would need to add
individual
source tags to each object as you change it. But even then, the object data is
not sufficient to know where it has come from: you must check the change history
and see at which
401 - 500 of 579 matches
Mail list logo
