On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Harald Kleiner wrote:
> Do you think, this tunnel is OK the way it is or should someone add a
> small piece of way on layer 0 at the eastern end next to the T-junction
> to avoid a T-junction of different layers?
What is the situation at that T-junction in reality?
--- On Fri, 31/7/09, Lester Caine wrote:
> more inclusive than is necessary. So from my perspective
> they ARE
> intentionally going out of their way to invade privacy by
> showing views that
> are simply not normally visible? If we want to see what is
> over a wall we can
> now go to googl
Hi!
to make my question more precise, please have a look at this tunnel that
crosses a railway track (the railway is a subway that runs at ground level):
http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=48.1325961&lon=16.3109488&zoom=19&way=29205957
The tunnel tag implies layer=-1 and that leads to a junc
John Smith wrote:
> --- On Fri, 31/7/09, Lester Caine wrote:
>> But the point I was trying to make was more that of 'We get
>> stopped and told
>> we have to ask permission' while Goggle stick two fingers
>> up and just carry on
>> regardless. It is about time there was a level playing
>> field,
--- On Fri, 31/7/09, Lester Caine wrote:
> But the point I was trying to make was more that of 'We get
> stopped and told
> we have to ask permission' while Goggle stick two fingers
> up and just carry on
> regardless. It is about time there was a level playing
> field, and just because
> one
John Smith wrote:
>
>
> --- On Thu, 30/7/09, si...@mungewell.org wrote:
>
What's wrong with it? Where's the exact line
>> dividing looking with
naked eye and filming?
>>> I think that the difference here is that they make the
>> images available
>>> for others to view. There can be a
On 31 Jul 2009, at 04:41, Karl Newman wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 7:29 PM, Andrew Ayre
wrote:
Take a look at this boundary where a forest and national park meet:
http://osm.org/go/TwUljNo--
Notice that the boundaries don't line up. This is because the national
park is in slightly the
I don't know what the Osmarender update speed is or how to mark
tiles as
dirty or find out when they were rendered, so I am unsure if
Osmarender
tiles can be directly compared.
osmarender doesn't work currently for large areas defined by relation
boundaries
there is a lonly white tile
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Cartinus wrote:
> For three reasons:
>
> 1) In the part of my e-mail you did not quote I just pointed out lots of
> people don't read those definitions. The difference between the words
> maxheight and maxheight:physical is not explicit enough.
>
> 2) Because the ol
And now to the list too:
On Friday 31 July 2009 04:42:56 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> > maxheight:legal -> a legal restriction of some kind
>
> -1
> why would you recommend different tags (maxheight:legal and maxheight)
> for the same thing in different countries? This seems strange to me.
> Just
Accidentally hit send there...
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 23:12, David Lynch wrote:
> To paraphrase a post in one of the US tagging talk pages on the Wiki,
> this is what my tags end up being:
>
> Motorway: More than one grade-separated intersection in a row, high speed,
> oncoming traffic separated
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 19:22:23 -0500
Ian Dees wrote:
>
> The Canon 30D (for example) is rated for 100,000 shutter cycles. If you
> take a shot every 1-10 seconds, you'll be able to go for roughly 6 straight
> hours before the shutter will fail.
>
OK so how nerdy am I, just spent an hour (or so)
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 08:59, Martin
Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> The problem is that there is a continuous hierarchy of roads in terms of
>> importance, and when you get huge numbers of roads in the city the jump
>> From tertiary to residential/unclassified is too big and people tag
>> roads that aren'
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Martin
Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2009/7/31 Cartinus :
>
>> When using maxheight / maxheight:physical / maxheight:legal the words
>> themself
>> already tell most of the definition.
>>
>> maxheight -> for places where the difference is academic / for people who
>> don'
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 7:29 PM, Andrew Ayre wrote:
> Take a look at this boundary where a forest and national park meet:
>
> http://osm.org/go/TwUljNo--
>
> Notice that the boundaries don't line up. This is because the national
> park is in slightly the wrong place. The national park is this c
--- On Thu, 30/7/09, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> From: Martin Koppenhoefer
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Clearance
> To: "Cartinus"
> Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
> Date: Thursday, 30 July, 2009, 10:42 PM
> 2009/7/31 Cartinus :
>
> > When using maxheight / maxh
2009/7/31 Cartinus :
> When using maxheight / maxheight:physical / maxheight:legal the words themself
> already tell most of the definition.
>
> maxheight -> for places where the difference is academic / for people who
> don't care about the difference
+1
> maxheight:physical -> the name says it a
Take a look at this boundary where a forest and national park meet:
http://osm.org/go/TwUljNo--
Notice that the boundaries don't line up. This is because the national
park is in slightly the wrong place. The national park is this changeset
uploaded yesterday:
http://www.openstreetmap.org
There are lots of mappers that don't read the wiki pages at all and lots of
mappers that only give them a cursory glance. So when introducing new tags it
should be important that the tag itself is as descriptive as possible.
When comparing the words maxheight and clearance, it isn't obvious at a
--- On Thu, 30/7/09, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> it's a different meaning in urban areas as in rural areas.
> Many of
> what you tag as primary and secondary in rural areas
> (especially low
> density ones) has 2 (1+1) lanes, while in a
> metropolitan area will
> very often be at least 2+2.
2009/7/31 John Smith :
> --- On Thu, 30/7/09, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>> - residential roads (just in residential areas, no
>> connecting
>> function, you will not take this if you don't live in the
>> area)
>> - unclassified roads (not clear, there are voices that they
>> don't
>> exist in u
--- On Thu, 30/7/09, Aun Johnsen (via Webmail) wrote:
> insurance companie how to deal with it. They both should
> give the same
> advise to the driver (find a different road if you are too
> tall).
Exactly, so you only need to place the lower value to discourage stupidity...
> And many more,
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 01:35:15 + (GMT), John Smith
wrote:
> --- On Thu, 30/7/09, Aun Johnsen (via Webmail)
> wrote:
>
>> For countries that have different signs for legal maxheight
>> and physical
>> maxheight, you can have a section of road preventing tall
>> vehicles from
>> passing, but the
--- On Thu, 30/7/09, Aun Johnsen (via Webmail) wrote:
> For countries that have different signs for legal maxheight
> and physical
> maxheight, you can have a section of road preventing tall
> vehicles from
> passing, but they can still legally enter the road (and get
> stuck?!?). In
So wouldn'
--- On Thu, 30/7/09, Roy Wallace wrote:
> This is difficult to answer. For a way passing under a
> bridge, I would
> argue the limitation is (semantically) a physical one and
> not a legal
> one.
I assume it would be legal in many countries and would use it as such to
recover money to fix br
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 11:04 AM, John Smith wrote:
> How much does the physical height exceed the legal height in most cases?
This is difficult to answer. For a way passing under a bridge, I would
argue the limitation is (semantically) a physical one and not a legal
one.
> If maxheight already i
--- On Thu, 30/7/09, OJ W wrote:
> I put a wrapper around the rather
> excellent
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Server_Side_Script
> which can
> tell you which town/county/state/country something is in:
I haven't looked at the script but it doesn't cope well with US locations at
al
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 01:04:37 + (GMT), John Smith
wrote:
> --- On Thu, 30/7/09, Roy Wallace wrote:
>
>> different". This, I would argue, is a reason to allow for
>> the
>
> How much does the physical height exceed the legal height in most cases?
>
>> possibility to differentiate between max
Ok, I am revisiting this. Both me and Gustav F (original writes of the
proposal) was not satisfied with the outcome of the last vote (about
50/50), so I have rewritten the proposal based on many of the comments from
the rejecting votes.
There was mainly two issues of the rejecting votes:
1) T
--- On Thu, 30/7/09, Roy Wallace wrote:
> different". This, I would argue, is a reason to allow for
> the
How much does the physical height exceed the legal height in most cases?
> possibility to differentiate between maxheight:physical
> and
> maxheight:legal.
If maxheight already implies t
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:45:50 +1000, Roy Wallace
wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:16 AM, Aun Johnsen (via
> Webmail) wrote:
>>> I agree. So, how about maxheight:physical, maxheight:legal, and leave
>>> room for others if there is a demonstrable need in future?
> ..
>> If this is your suggestion
--- On Thu, 30/7/09, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> - residential roads (just in residential areas, no
> connecting
> function, you will not take this if you don't live in the
> area)
> - unclassified roads (not clear, there are voices that they
> don't
> exist in urban areas, I personally use t
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:24 AM, John Smith wrote:
> Is there really such an overwhelming need to mark the physical difference to
> the legal difference?
Whether there is an "overwhelming" need is not the question. The
question is whether allowing for the annotation of two kinds of
maxheight is
Hello !
> Cool. Any idea why it's failing for cities in Iran [1]? Missing country
> polygon?
>
> Claudius
>
> [1] http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~ojw/WhatCountry/?lat=36.303&lon=59.606
This excellent tool seems to use the admin-boundary relations.
The output for my example (
http://dev.openstreet
> You split based on the equal sign and it doesn't matter
> that the time condition or key uses colons.
Actually you don't have to, key values and key tags are stored independently of
each other, writing it with an equal sign is simply a way of describing it and
has nothing to do with how thin
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:16 AM, Aun Johnsen (via
Webmail) wrote:
>> I agree. So, how about maxheight:physical, maxheight:legal, and leave
>> room for others if there is a demonstrable need in future?
...
> If this is your suggestion to solve this, than I suggest you do something
> about it and ge
--- On Thu, 30/7/09, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> It's basically there to decide whether to use colons as in
> your example
> or switch to something like
> maxspeed[wet][forward][motorcycle]. Why?
> Well, because those time conditions tend to have colons in
You split based on the equal sign and it d
--- On Thu, 30/7/09, si...@mungewell.org wrote:
> >> What's wrong with it? Where's the exact line
> dividing looking with
> >> naked eye and filming?
> >
> > I think that the difference here is that they make the
> images available
> > for others to view. There can be a great difference
> bet
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Ian Dees wrote:
> That's why Google uses high-res digital video cameras running on Firewire on
> their rigs.
I was more expecting the Elphel board design ;) Using 20MP kodak's CCDs
like they use in their book digitizing stuff.
Stefan
__
--- On Thu, 30/7/09, Aun Johnsen (via Webmail) wrote:
> If this is your suggestion to solve this, than I suggest
> you do something
> about it and get that information on the maxheight
> documentation. I am not
> sure how you intend this to be done. When you have a
> process going, point
> me th
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 5:51 PM, wrote:
> A Canon EOS Rebel, a few mirrors and some glue... might be an interesting
> experiment.
>
The Canon 30D (for example) is rated for 100,000 shutter cycles. If you
take a shot every 1-10 seconds, you'll be able to go for roughly 6 straight
hours before th
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 09:25:17 +1000, Roy Wallace
wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 8:41 PM, John Smith
wrote:
>> Either way, expanding the existing tag makes more sense than creating 2
>> differently named tags which will cause even more confusion and
>> duplication.
>
> I agree. So, how about maxh
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 8:41 PM, John Smith wrote:
> Either way, expanding the existing tag makes more sense than creating 2
> differently named tags which will cause even more confusion and duplication.
I agree. So, how about maxheight:physical, maxheight:legal, and leave
room for others if ther
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> The maxheight for a feature such as a bridge is the maximum height of an
> object of the standard type that will fit under it.
No, the maxheight for a way refers to the maximum height *above* it
(not under it).
___
Hi
Marc Coevoet wrote:
> 004E4800,47N2000
> 002W2300,57N
> 001W0547,51N4823
> 013E2600,47N3400
> 013E2600,47N3400
> 013E2600,47N3400
> 013E2600,47N3400
> 013E2500,47N3343
>
> to something where 001W0547 becomes -1.0547
That can actually be done with sed on the Unix command line:
% sed -e "
>
>> As an idea for 'openstreetviewbike' you could use a single camera
>> pointing
>> straight up with a rotating mirror above it in order to capture in all
>> directions at once.
A colleague suggested using a hi-res camera shooting upwards onto a fixed
multi-angle mirror.
How much resolution do
I meant to send this to the list...
>
>> What's wrong with it? Where's the exact line dividing looking with
>> naked eye and filming?
>
> I think that the difference here is that they make the images available
> for others to view. There can be a great difference between taking a
> picture of a d
I meant to send this to the list
> As an idea for 'openstreetviewbike' you could use a single camera pointing
> straight up with a rotating mirror above it in order to capture in all
> directions at once.
>
> The velocity of the bike would probably be OK to still capture pictures
> with close enou
Hi,
andrzej zaborowski wrote:
> The idea of google streetview infringing anybody's privacy is so misled.
I'm sure there is lots of intelligent argument on both sides of the
fence and I have no desire of going into the details here.
But on a more general note - I think that someone's privacy is
Tom Hughes schrieb:
> The whole home page needs a redesign, and I don't really want to start
> fiddling with little things like this when we should be doing the job
> properly.
>
> There are also issues with search at the moment which mean we don't
> actually want to make it too prominent.
>
>
2009/7/30 Lester Caine :
> Simply filming and saying 'we will remove pictures if you want' is just
> arrogance that should not be condoned.
What's wrong with it? Where's the exact line dividing looking with
naked eye and filming? Since a camera is a set of light sensors and
lenses, if I'm using
as far as I understand the db this is correct. the way uses the same nodes.
no need to increase the version the way doesn't have any additional location
info
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Andrew Ayre wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I select a way with approx 2,000 nodes and move it in JOSM. I then
> commit
Yann Coupin wrote:
> The problem is that your reasoning doesn't take bus/coach/hgv into
> account. You're probably going to be as high in each of those vehicules
> as Google's cams are...
Not on many of the private roads that are now being photographed but from
which large vehicles are banned -
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Lester Caine wrote:
> OJ W wrote:
>> Maybe the big tricycle is needed to lift the cameras up above the traffic?
>
> THAT I think is the big mistake that Google made. Pushing the camera head up
> so that it looks OVER security walls and hedges is what annoys people
Am 30.07.2009 20:59, OJ W:
> I put a wrapper around the rather excellent
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Server_Side_Script which can
> tell you which town/county/state/country something is in:
>
> http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~ojw/WhatCountry/?lat=51.51&lon=-0.05
>
> - which replies tha
I put a wrapper around the rather excellent
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Server_Side_Script which can
tell you which town/county/state/country something is in:
http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~ojw/WhatCountry/?lat=51.51&lon=-0.05
- which replies that the specified numbers are in Tower Ham
El día Wednesday 29 July 2009 18:39:29, Marc Coevoet dijo:
> I want to convert to something where 001W0547 becomes -1.0547
Have a look at cs2cs, part of the proj.4 suite. It excels at conversions of
decimal/sexagesimal/whatever geographical coordinates.
If cs2cs doesn't do the job, you'll have
Hi,
I select a way with approx 2,000 nodes and move it in JOSM. I then
commit the change.
This creates v2 of the nodes but the way is still v1.
How do I revert this changeset? It seems Potlatch can only revert ways?
thanks, Andy
--
Andy
PGP Key ID: 0xDC1B5864
___
See the following:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Name_finder
http://trac.openstreetmap.org/browser/sites/namefinder
Cheers,
Andy
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Yann Coupin wrote:
> Just out of curiosity, is the indexing/search code available
> somewhere? I'm intrigued by geosearch...
Just out of curiosity, is the indexing/search code available
somewhere? I'm intrigued by geosearch...
Yann
Le 30 juil. 09 à 17:01, David Earl a écrit :
> Andy Allan wrote:
>> It's worth pointing out that there are developers who are working on
>> improving the search (primarily David Earl), so
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> And obviously you're also not travelling to Poland, otherwise you
> would have seen this sign:
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/Speedlimitsinpoland.png/424px-Speedlimitsinpoland.png
Nope, I haven't. And if I was driving past it I wouldn't kno
Andy Allan wrote:
> It's worth pointing out that there are developers who are working on
> improving the search (primarily David Earl), so it's a known issue
> that's being worked on rather than something that's being ignored.
Indeed. I am currently reloading the index from the planet file. The
i
Tom Hughes schrieb:
> On 30/07/09 15:01, lulu-...@gmx.de wrote:
>
>
>> on the SotM09 there was agreement that the search field should be visible at
>> the upper left of the screen in all screen resolutions on
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org .
>>
>
> Funny, I obviously missed that.
>
+1
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Tom Hughes wrote:
> There are also issues with search at the moment which mean we don't
> actually want to make it too prominent.
It's worth pointing out that there are developers who are working on
improving the search (primarily David Earl), so it's a known issu
2009/7/30 Maarten Deen :
> Lennard wrote:
>
>> Exactly, it's a moot point, and I included it mostly to make the point
>> that there are so many subtle ways to handle maxspeed, that it would be
>> difficult to make an all-encompassing tagging scheme. At some point,
>> you'll just have to go with a g
On 30/07/09 15:01, lulu-...@gmx.de wrote:
> on the SotM09 there was agreement that the search field should be visible at
> the upper left of the screen in all screen resolutions on
> http://www.openstreetmap.org .
Funny, I obviously missed that.
> This is not realized yet.
> Who can do it, ple
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:01:09AM +0200, Pieren wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> > I started tagging the sign when i started with maxspeed as it
> > sometimes help the orientation in the data when adding maxspeed.
>
> Could you explain what you mean by "help th
Hi there,
on the SotM09 there was agreement that the search field should be visible at
the upper left of the screen in all screen resolutions on
http://www.openstreetmap.org .
This is not realized yet.
Who can do it, please?
Thanks
Lulu-Ann
--
Jetzt kostenlos herunterladen: Internet Explorer
2009/7/30 Greg Troxel :
>> this is working well for out-of-town situations. Inside urban
> good point; that's what I am used to thinking about.
>
>> agglomerations there should be different criteria though (and not
>> necessarily they are physical, what is my point: let's put the
>> definition acco
Martin Koppenhoefer writes:
>> secondary is typically used for travel at least 25km (between
>> multiple towns)
>> tertiary is used to get to secondary roads (to get to the 'real
>> road' in the next town)
>
> this is working well for out-of-town situations. Inside urban
good po
Florian Lohoff wrote:
> maxspeed:wet:forward:motorcycle=50
>
> Afterwards add time based maxspeeds :)
>
> I think we'd need a generic way to tag conditional ...
Have you already participated in the syntax poll for
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extended_conditions_for_acces
--- On Thu, 30/7/09, Lennard wrote:
> In that case, your 100/100/40 example is easily collapsed
> into maxspeed=100.
>
> Let's see ... Hey, that's the current tagging scheme,
> already! Why did we
> need a change? :-)
Current GPSr's are only capable of knowing within 10m, most lanes are 2-3m, s
> Lennard wrote:
> The general solution is "maxspeed is the highest of the maxspeeds of all
> classes of vehicle on that road".
> See also the signs we have in continental europe when you enter a country:
> there is usually a large sign specifying the maximum speeds on different
> roads
> (within t
2009/7/30 Gervase Markham :
> On 30/07/09 09:26, Aun Johnsen (via Webmail) wrote:
>> much more. Since many countries have two different signs for max legal
>> height and max physical height, and its usages can be very different, why
>> not allow this in tags?
>
> Can you provide sample images for s
Lennard wrote:
> Exactly, it's a moot point, and I included it mostly to make the point
> that there are so many subtle ways to handle maxspeed, that it would be
> difficult to make an all-encompassing tagging scheme. At some point,
> you'll just have to go with a generalized solution.
The genera
marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 09:41:07 +0200, "Maarten Deen" wrote:
>> Florian Lohoff wrote:
>> Not only in a corner. In Germany the A3, going down the Elzer Berg (near
>> Limburg an der Lahn in the eastward direction) has a speedlimit of 40
> km/h
>> on
>> the right
> 2009/7/30 John Smith :
>> bikes have the same speed limits here as every other thing on wheels,
>> and even horses for that matter, and you can get tickets like all the
>> other wheeled vehicles and even get done for drink driving on horses and
>> ride on lawn mowers.
That's exactly why I talked
--- On Thu, 30/7/09, Aun Johnsen (via Webmail) wrote:
> will continue on my proposal. Without any clearification on
> the existing
> tag, than it will be more confusing than adding new tags. I
> have atleast
> stated in the definition of the tag how it is to be used.
No, 2 completely differen
2009/7/30 John Smith :
> --- On Thu, 30/7/09, Lennard wrote:
>> And in my own jurisdiction: to be able to set maxspeed=none
>> for bicycles
>> when there is no explicit maxspeed sign. :D
>
> bikes have the same speed limits here as every other thing on wheels, and
> even horses for that matter, a
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 10:41:11 + (GMT), John Smith
wrote:
> --- On Thu, 30/7/09, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>> actually even though the definition in the wiki might not
>> specify it
>> unambigously and explicitly the current use of maxheight
>
> These things should be explicitly stated, ot
--- On Thu, 30/7/09, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> actually even though the definition in the wiki might not
> specify it
> unambigously and explicitly the current use of maxheight
These things should be explicitly stated, otherwise people interpret it
differently :)
> (as discussed
> intens
--- On Thu, 30/7/09, Lennard wrote:
> And in my own jurisdiction: to be able to set maxspeed=none
> for bicycles
> when there is no explicit maxspeed sign. :D
bikes have the same speed limits here as every other thing on wheels, and even
horses for that matter, and you can get tickets like a
2009/7/30 "Marc Schütz" :
>
> Maybe not in all cases, but have a look at this example:
> http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=de&geocode=&q=bayreuth&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=59.467068,107.138672&ie=UTF8&ll=49.935936,11.646567&spn=0.000375,0.000817&t=k&z=21
>
> It'd be hard to argue that
2009/7/30 John Smith :
> So why not just use maxheight=* and maxheight:legal=* ?
actually even though the definition in the wiki might not specify it
unambigously and explicitly the current use of maxheight (as discussed
intensively at least on German ML) should be maxheight:legal, so I
would enco
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Florian Lohoff wrote:
>> > In that one case it's okay.
>> > Reason:
>> > * There can only be ONE maxspeed on a road. ever!
>>
>> Please add "per direction on a road".
>
> "at a given time."
> (we have reduced maxspeed in front of schools depending on time, day and
> whether i
2009/7/30 John Smith :
>
>
>
> --- On Thu, 30/7/09, Liz wrote:
>
>> "at a given time."
>> (we have reduced maxspeed in front of schools depending on
>> time, day and
>> whether it is term time)
>
> There are other roads that have variable limit speed signs and they can
> change at any time.
>
> T
--- On Thu, 30/7/09, Liz wrote:
> "at a given time."
> (we have reduced maxspeed in front of schools depending on
> time, day and
> whether it is term time)
There are other roads that have variable limit speed signs and they can change
at any time.
There is also changes in speed limits dur
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 09:41:07 +0200, "Maarten Deen" wrote:
> Florian Lohoff wrote:
> Not only in a corner. In Germany the A3, going down the Elzer Berg (near
> Limburg an der Lahn in the eastward direction) has a speedlimit of 40
km/h
> on
> the right lane and 100 km/h (or 120? haven't been there i
--- On Thu, 30/7/09, Aun Johnsen (via Webmail) wrote:
> > You also mentioned sailboats under bridges, are you
> planning to update
> the
> > clearance 24 hours a day, 7 days a week as the tide
> goes in and out?
> You are clearly not familiar with the term "free sailing
> height" which
> refer
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 10:17:02 +0100, Gervase Markham
wrote:
> On 30/07/09 09:26, Aun Johnsen (via Webmail) wrote:
>> much more. Since many countries have two different signs for max legal
>> height and max physical height, and its usages can be very different,
why
>> not allow this in tags?
>
> Ca
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> > In that one case it's okay.
> > Reason:
> > * There can only be ONE maxspeed on a road. ever!
>
> Please add "per direction on a road".
"at a given time."
(we have reduced maxspeed in front of schools depending on time, day and
whether it is term tim
OJ W wrote:
> Maybe the big tricycle is needed to lift the cameras up above the traffic?
THAT I think is the big mistake that Google made. Pushing the camera head up
so that it looks OVER security walls and hedges is what annoys people the
most. If a person has to use a ladder to obtain a pictur
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 08:43:22 + (GMT), John Smith
wrote:
> --- On Thu, 30/7/09, Aun Johnsen (via Webmail)
> wrote:
>
>> much more. Since many countries have two different signs
>> for max legal
>> height and max physical height, and its usages can be very
>> different, why
>> not allow this i
John Smith wrote:
>Sent: 30 July 2009 10:42 AM
>To: OJ W; m...@koppenhoefer.com
>Cc: OSM Talk
>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Google StreetView From Bikes
>
>
>
>
>--- On Thu, 30/7/09, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>> > Maybe the big tricycle is needed to lift the cameras
>> up above the traffic?
>>
>> I
--- On Thu, 30/7/09, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> > Maybe the big tricycle is needed to lift the cameras
> up above the traffic?
>
> I guess they are recording in higher resolutions. The
> problem with
I don't know what res street view in general is but you can't read most signs.
Some of th
2009/7/30 OJ W :
> their kit looks quite bulky. I've got just one videocamera (and no
> LIDAR) fitted, and it all mounts on handlebars with room to spare for
> other stuff.
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Georeference_video
>
> Maybe the big tricycle is needed to lift the cameras up above t
> >> this might be a logical topic: we are mapping the center of the road.
> >> The tunnel can not end at the center of the crossing road, because
> >> this road itself is not a tunnel. (you will have at least half the
> >> width of the crossing road untunneled).
> >
> > No, IMO we're mapping the e
On 30/07/09 09:26, Aun Johnsen (via Webmail) wrote:
> much more. Since many countries have two different signs for max legal
> height and max physical height, and its usages can be very different, why
> not allow this in tags?
Can you provide sample images for such signs? I confess I find it hard
2009/7/30 "Marc Schütz" :
>> this might be a logical topic: we are mapping the center of the road.
>> The tunnel can not end at the center of the crossing road, because
>> this road itself is not a tunnel. (you will have at least half the
>> width of the crossing road untunneled).
>
> No, IMO we're
> > I want to talk about this page on the wiki describing how to map tunnels
> > correctly:
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tunnel#How_to_Map
> >
> > Especially the last paragraph causes headaches to me:
> > "If the tunnel ends in a junction you'll need a small un-tunneled way
> > between th
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
