Matt Amos wrote:
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
> The original decision that there should be no duplicate nodes simply ignored
> many of the arguments that there are very good reasons for needing them,
> then tools like the duplicate nodes map ASSUME that the decision t
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
> The original decision that there should be no duplicate nodes simply ignored
> many of the arguments that there are very good reasons for needing them,
> then tools like the duplicate nodes map ASSUME that the decision takes
> priority rather
Tom Hughes wrote:
On 09/01/11 10:34, Lester Caine wrote:
Nathan Edgars II wrote:
But why write routers for the one case thats
> theoretically possible, instead of the millions that are not only
> possible, but already in existance?
I don't care how the routers are written. I care about people
On 09/01/11 10:34, Lester Caine wrote:
Nathan Edgars II wrote:
But why write routers for the one case thats
> theoretically possible, instead of the millions that are not only
> possible, but already in existance?
I don't care how the routers are written. I care about people wrecking
the data b
Nathan Edgars II wrote:
But why write routers for the one case thats
> theoretically possible, instead of the millions that are not only
> possible, but already in existance?
I don't care how the routers are written. I care about people wrecking
the data by merging dupes.
And assuming that no
three-dimensional space.
---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Postmortem analysys
>From :mailto:da...@incanberra.com.au
Date :Sat Jan 08 19:54:06 America/Chicago 2011
On Sat, 2011-01-08 at 20:27 -0500, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 8:25 PM, David Murn
Oops - meant to send this to the list.
On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 8:54 PM, David Murn 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 decker bridge, direc
On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 8:54 PM, David Murn wrote:
> But why write routers for the one case thats
> theoretically possible, instead of the millions that are not only
> possible, but already in existance?
So your router doesn't tell people to jump off bridges.
_
On Sat, 2011-01-08 at 20:27 -0500, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 8:25 PM, David Murn 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.
>
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 directly on-top of the
road? Does the state line change as it crosses over
On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 8:25 PM, David Murn 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 directly on-top of
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 be
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 have ways crossing each o
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Nic Roets wrote:
> After ungluing a node, move one of them just a little bit.
If the road is straight at the would-be intersection, you should just
delete the node, right?
At the same time, having these nodes there isn't such a bad thing - at
least it tests the ro
Nathan Edgars II gmail.com> writes:
>
>
> 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.
The people who might have written an intelligent bot (only joining roads
I would suggest any (!) automatically dupe node analysis tool to respect
every possible tag present at two nodes.
Even two nodes describing two doctors in one building with different
opening hours are sometimes wanted to be at the same coordinates, there
is nothing describing anything like level
Vincent Pottier gmail.com> writes:
>> QA tools like Keepright make it feasible to monitor and maintain
>>large areas in a fully correct topology.
>
>But Keepright is bugged on that point.
>We have had to revert about 300 changesets from someone who glued nodes
>with different ele values on sur
Le 08/01/2011 02:34, Mike N. a écrit :
I'm not familiar with how survey marks are used - are there multiple
marks at the same lat/lon but different ele?
Not always but very often, the French IGN made several geodesic points
on the same object to alow multiple mesurement.[1]
The typical case
After ungluing a node, move one of them just a little bit. (Unless you
used a DGPS with a 10cm resolution and found that the centerlines are
in fact on top of each other). If you leave them on top of each other,
it's going to waste someone's time later on (either after a bot edit,
a keepright warn
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 11:49 PM, Mike N. wrote:
>> Mike, please don't blame the bot. Ungluing a node an just leaving it
>> there, is really looking for trouble. Some routing engine(s) glue
>> nodes together that are less than a few centimeters from each other.
>> Now you may want to complain that
Mike N. wrote:
Do routing engines glue nodes from different layers? Do they
automatically connect crossing ways on the same layer? Either
modification would change the calculated route.
I just love it when my tomtom gets confused when there is one of the quite
regular errors in a route and
Le 07/01/2011 22:49, Mike N. a écrit :
Consider me firmly in the "it's a bug" camp. Routers in general
work with data from different sources; but it's a bug in OSM to have
an intended connection only be close but not connected.There's no
minimum node distance for disconnected nodes -
Mike, please don't blame the bot. Ungluing a node an just leaving it
there, is really looking for trouble. Some routing engine(s) glue
nodes together that are less than a few centimeters from each other.
Now you may want to complain that those routing engine(s) are buggy,
but that "bug" has histor
Am 07.01.2011 17:12, schrieb Nic Roets:
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Mike N. wrote:
Recently I encountered a CSI-style mystery. Why was the Skobbler lady (OSM
Nav based) telling people to go jump off of so many bridges? An inspection
showed that the bridges were joined to the interstate h
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
>
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Mike N. wrote:
> Recently I encountered a CSI-style mystery. Why was the Skobbler lady (OSM
> Nav based) telling people to go jump off of so many bridges? An inspection
> showed that the bridges were joined to the interstate highway below, but
> many interchanges
Recently I encountered a CSI-style mystery. Why was the Skobbler lady (OSM
Nav based) telling people to go jump off of so many bridges? An inspection
showed that the bridges were joined to the interstate highway below, but
many interchanges otherwise had very high quality edits, with attentio
27 matches
Mail list logo
