On 18/03/2009 11:21, Ed Loach wrote:
one in Bury St Edmunds is tagged landuse=industrial (with a
visitor
centre attraction).
That was me. It really is a factory, so I felt industrial was
appropriate.
No, I agree. I've seen the place and it is very industrial. But
landuse to me seems more
On 03/04/2009 12:42, Richard Mann wrote:
*** I would like feedback/discussion on this particular point - whether
urban made-up and rural unmade footpaths should be tagged distinctively ***
Given we already have a separate tag for surface, I don't see the
distinction.
In highway engineering
On 03/04/2009 14:11, Steve Hill wrote:
However, mistake or not, we have what we have and making fundamental
changes doesn't seem especially likely (I have in the past made
suggestions regarding the fundamental data structure and have been met
with nothing but sarcastic replies and put-downs
On 18/05/2009 16:28, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
Tom Hughes wrote:
I normally just use tertiary for roads which are not A/B but are
significant through roads of some sort.
+1
+1 also
The C classification is just not available on the ground, and is in
practice only of use to highway
New Scietists covered this more than a month ago, and has another
article this week:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227085.700-ageing-satellites-put-gps-at-risk.html
which references the original report on which this story has been based
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09325.pdf
David
On
For those not subscribed to talk-gb-midanglia who may be interested: I'm
organising a mapping party for King's Lynn, West Norfolk on June 27th.
See:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Norfolk/King's_Lynn_and_West_Norfolk/MappingParty2009-06
David
On 03/06/2009 11:42, Bob Kerr wrote:
The maps are copyright free and can be used in their magazine
Err... they aren't copyright free.
David
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
There is no right answer. If you tag things 40mph (which is what I do,
like most of the other people who've replied) then you may well find
that someone else goes round systematically changing them to km/h and
puts in maxspeed:mph - that's what's happened to most of the ones I've
done. I think
On 04/06/2009 12:48, WessexMario wrote:
Isn't all this already specified?
The trouble is tag specifications count for very little in OSM, as
people ignore them because they think they have a better way of doing
it, or when they make a mistake, or just on a whim. They're conventions
not
On 08/06/2009 13:06, Ed Loach wrote:
Jonathan asked:
Do we have an existing tagging scheme for these?
Yes
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_Kingdom_National_Cycle_Network#Tagging_information
That seems to be just mile posts. What about tagging the artwork?
What
http://realcycling.blogspot.com/2009/05/thames-crossings-21-and-32-dartford.html
(and you can also see in the photos that the signs change colour as you
approach the toll booths, where the motorway gives way to being a trunk
road just to go through the tunnel).
David
On 12/06/2009 11:46, Andy
Jack Stringer wrote:
As I have mentioned before I am interested in improving the data on
Amenities such as Pubs, Fast Food places. Most of this data can be
found openly on the companies own website so I doubt they will have
issues with us including the data as they want to be found on the
Tom Hughes wrote:
On 14/07/09 18:21, Chris Fleming wrote:
I find that the print in firefox works very well. The print stylesheet
ensures that only the required parts of the page get printed. The only
caveat, is that if I switch from portrait to landscape mode then the
attribution is printed
Tom Hughes wrote:
That's entirely a browser thing though, so different browsers may not do
exactly the same thing.
Curiously, IE8 produces 3 (!) pages in landscape, but all map - the area
you were seeing plus 1.5 pages worth to the south - BUT omits the
attribution completely.
David
Chris Hill wrote:
Since this is a Freedom of Information Act request, and they have
refused to supply me the requested information I'll ask the Office of
the Information Commissioner for a ruling. Not expecting much, but you
never know.
Even if they did or do supply it, doesn't mean you
Dave Stubbs wrote:
I really hope that this
central working group doesn't get distracted by every clown in the
world who messes with an area for a few hours after an evening in
the pub!
Most disappear quite happily without further interaction. The community
can handle the
Nicholas Barnes wrote:
Please could somebody give me some ideas about what (if anything) is
wrong with this whole roundabout/bus route/highway junction and what
should be done to sort it all out.
I was doing some bus routes for the first time recently too, and I think
there's a fundamental
Jack Stringer wrote:
St Neots, are there any locals that can tell me the area they want
GPSed as a priority?
Users Hook and Laverock have been going great guns recently in St Neots
and neighbouring Eynesbury and Eaton Ford.
David
___
Talk-GB
liam123 has been active again this morning - the first changeset for a
while:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/2043351
I have no idea whether this represents valid data or rubbish. It seems
to be related to the high speed rail line through Kent.
David
David Earl wrote:
David Earl wrote:
liam123 has been active again this morning - the first changeset for a
while:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/2043351
I have no idea whether this represents valid data or rubbish. It seems
to be related to the high speed rail line through
This time he's invented a fictitious railway line into Great Yarmouth
This needs reverting:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/2063848
added to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php?title=GB_revert_request_log
David
___
Talk-GB mailing
Andy Allan wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 8:21 PM, David Earlda...@frankieandshadow.com wrote:
Peter Miller wrote:
3 more changesets today from Liam123 for reversion.
I have added them to the revert page and have copied this email the
Andy.
Peter Miller wrote:
Personally I see little justification for not removing every edit done
by Liam123 until he talks to us or clearly starts to make good useful
contributions that we can verify. Can I ask you to reconsider you
decision and remove the changeset where he has made small
David Earl wrote:
I'll wrote to him/her.
Doh, my typing. 'write', of course. I've also added a feed on their
edits so I can keep an eye on them.
Fortunately these were largely isolated nodes, and no one had touched
them in the meantime.
Ito OSM Mapper has reported no changes in Cambridge
On 17/08/2009 13:28, Glenn Proctor wrote:
Following on from this, am I correct in assuming that the only
definitive source of mapping information about public rights of way is
the OS? It seems ludicrous that *public* rights of way are effectively
copyrighted in this manner. I suppose it's
I put a proposal on the wiki page
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters/Proposed_Chapters
for a central England OSM local chapter.
Peter disagrees with the (too small) scale of this and wants to discuss
it here.
I have no huge feelings about this. I just felt that we have
On 18/08/2009 12:42, Chris Hill wrote:
What is the point of local chapters in England? We don't have language
conversion issues, currency issues or time zone issues.
The main reason is one of the reasons behind the idea of local chapters
in the first place - to give an official point of
On 27/08/2009 10:31, Peter Childs wrote:
I mean if you look at the A2 it looks and feels like a Motor Way (Hard
Shoulder, Slipways, 70MPH) all the way till Wilmington it just happens
that Tractors and Learners are aloud to use it (I would not advise it
however).
and cyclists (ditto)
which
On 03/09/2009 14:53, Peter Miller wrote:
Here he has added goods=yes to a railway line. Is this correct?
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/4356960/history
No: I just did a search for a journey on the national rail website and
it gives me trains between the two stations either side, with
On 03/09/2009 14:53, Peter Miller wrote:
This looks like messing with a street and yahoo photography shows it
as going through a house. This appears to be straight forward vandalism
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/5215590
Yes, looking at the Yahoo images, I agree completely.
I'm
On 03/09/2009 18:18, David Earl wrote:
I'm going to revert these two changesets now.
2359068 was OK, but the later one, 2359116 already has a conflict.
David
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo
I have now reverted this changeset - it went through cleanly and easily.
BTW for reverts I do I'm using a different user id from my usual -
GuardianAngel is me with a different hat on.
I wonder whether you could contact him again Peter and find out what he
did that led him to believe he wasn't
On 14/09/2009 22:30, Someoneelse wrote:
I notice that liam123's been editing in SE London again tonight. Seems
to consist of lots of oneway=yes changed to oneway=no, among others.
Unfortunately, I can't use the revert script to rever this. Though the
edits are all his, the same way appears
On 15/09/2009 00:59, Lennard wrote:
David Earl wrote:
Unfortunately, I can't use the revert script to rever this. Though the
edits are all his, the same way appears twice in the same changeset
and this seems to upset Frederick's script. I don't know whether it is
a bug or not.
He
Two changesets:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/2510163 reverted cleanly
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/2510485 failed to revert
410 gone - I suspect there was a node/way changed in the second
changeset that was also in the first.
The automatic reversion is
On 17/09/2009 14:09, Peter Miller wrote:
Who would join a 'talk-counter_vandalism' list or support its creation?
Yes. But can we call it something less judgemental: not all incorrect
changes are vandalism, and people seeing their account names on such a
list would be most depressing.
On 17/09/2009 14:30, Peter Miller wrote:
Possibly a different name would be clearer
talk-Counter_vandalism_tools, but that is getting a bit long. Any other
ideas or feedback?
talk-reversion-tools?
___
Talk-GB mailing list
On 18/09/2009 11:17, Lennard wrote:
And about removal/deactivation/hiding of Potlatch's live editing mode:
yes, please. We've had a case in Belgium as well, recently, of someone
dicking about in live mode, apparently unaware of the destructive nature
of their actions.
+1
But I don't think
Well done, and congratulations! I saw the feed come through earlier on
this morning and have been working through reviewing the changes in my area.
In my so far futile attempts to reload the namefinder index, I've found
the same thing - the time to reload seems to be exponential with the
size.
On 18/09/2009 12:13, Dave Stubbs wrote:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Brian Prangle bpran...@googlemail.com
wrote:
I may be being a simpleton but can't we just disable write privileges for
this user to the database? Then he can continue editing but it all has no
effect
If somebody
On 19/09/2009 07:30, Frederik Ramm wrote:
I have reverted the remaining edits so that, to my knowledge as per now,
not as single object should be in the state last modified by liam123.
Thank you very much for doing this.
David
___
Talk-GB mailing
As those of you paying attention will know, CycleStreets
(www.cyclestreets.net) is a routing and photo-map application for
cyclists based on OSM data.
It's primary developer is Simon Nuttall and he has been nominated for
TalkTalk's digital hero award, which offers a much needed £5K to help
I notice that we now have this area
name = Cambridge
public_transport = pay_scale_area
ref = CAMBDGE
source = naptan_import
which looks like it delimits the area within which the Cambridge
megarider bus tickets are valid (Pay scale area is not a term in
public parlance).
Problem is,
NPE maps have always had major alignment problems which have seemed to
me to be worse in the eastern side of the country. There's also a new
problem, but I don't know whether it is in the JOSM WMS plugin, the tile
server or what.
Consider three JOSM screenshots:
I'm planning a mapping party for the weekend of 14/15 November to map
Wisbech, Cambridgeshire and environs. Anyone fancy a weekend in the Fens?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Fenland/WisbechMappingParty2009-11
David
___
Talk-GB mailing list
On 15/10/2009 11:02, Ed Avis wrote:
Ed Loach e...@... writes:
As only Sealand recognise Sealand and no
UN member does (from the wiki article you quote), I can't see the
claim that the sea boundary of England is wrong can be justified.
Who would have expected an edit war in the English
it on, and take it off if they complain.
Richard
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 2:22 PM, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com
mailto:da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote:
On 10/11/2009 13:21, Peter Miller wrote:
On 10 Nov 2009, at 12:41, Ed Avis wrote:
Are we legally permitted
On 10/11/2009 15:02, Richard Mann wrote:
But simply reproducing their name or logo to represent them is just free
advertising, and they'd be laughed out of court.
Rubbish. It's their property and they can decide who uses it and where.
They may well not have any objection, but if they did,
On 10/11/2009 19:35, Peter Miller wrote:
On 10 Nov 2009, at 19:05, Tom Chance wrote:
We get permission from TfL, or we seek costly legal advice.
I agree that the cautious approach would be to ask. I was wondering if
we could use the argument that it is in the background (as is a photo of
On 11/11/2009 10:39, Richard Mann wrote:
I found this a useful summary of the UK copyright position:
http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p09_fair_use
That's about the general concept.
This was the reason for my comment that our use on a street map would be
akin to news reporting
to show their store locations on the map
were we to ask them, as essentially free advertising, and I do hope TfL
might be able to take that position also.
Many thanks,
David Earl
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http
On 11/11/2009 12:40, Peter Miller wrote:
I do also agree with Richard in that there are numerous possible map
styles emphasising many different sorts of features in a lot of
different languages
Sure, but there are some that are so iconic they are the expectation.
And as others said and
On 11/11/2009 12:44, Peter Childs wrote:
OSM also has the advantage that you can render your map your self, If
you want Yellow Primary Roads, London Transport Symbol for train
stations etc etc then go ahead, If you infridge copy right on your own
rendering its not in the OSM data so OSM can't
There was an item on this lunchtime's You and Yours on BBC Radio 4 (a
consumer magazine programme) about mapping, Ordnance Survey and satnav,
which also mentioned OSM.
It's 35:30 minutes in at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00p4l7x
David
On 14/01/2010 18:27, Dave F. wrote:
Andy, The taxpayers have already paid for it, many times over. I resent
having to pay £7.50 for a map I've already financed to construct.
As I've paid for it, I think it should be given to me free of charge.
For a paper map, I think not. You've helped pay
Does anyone know what happens to ncn11 south of Stansted Mountfitchet?
I mapped it through to there a few months ago and then went back to
take it further but couldn't find it on the ground. I'd assumed it
followed the Lea valley maybe via Bishops Stortford and Harlow, but
the signs just
On 09/03/2010 11:29, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
I'm currently trying to form a sort of consensus as to the best way of
defining the classes of highway in the US, and a bit of information
about the UK would help. I know about the definitions used
(trunk=primary route network, primary=A roads,
might be able to take
that position also. Many thanks, David Earl
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
On 25/03/2010 13:36, Thomas Wood wrote:
Wow, good work. I suppose this will start a flood of localisation
requests for other metro systems, this will probably be a good thing -
it'll force our mapnik localisation to be made better! (maybe I could
target it as a GSoC project for myself...)
As
I thought it was very interesting to look at the OS and OSM overlaid on
each other on the WMS link someone posted.
1. I was very impressed with how really accurate OSM is compared to OS
where I know it has been done systematically
2. I was disappointed to see how out of date the OS data is -
On 06/04/2010 17:51, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:
A lot of stuff nowadays is done from aerial imagery, but they can still drop
back to traditional surveying methods if required.
It was a strange coincidence that I met an OS surveyor, theodolite in
hand, doing just that when I was
This reached me via a roundabout route about an event on Thursday late
afternoon. Is anyone from OSM involved? Is anyone going? Is someone in
the London area able to go? Looks light up our street, so to speak.
http://www.mappingforchange.org.uk
and in particular:
On Monday, November 1, 2010, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote:
On 29/10/2010 22:22, thomas van der veen wrote:
You might like to take note that nothing is implicit in OSM. There are no
defaults as renderers or
On Sunday, 26 December 2010, Richard r...@f2s.com wrote:
My personal opinion is that Signed on the ground should always take
precedence.
+1
But you can always use alt_ name where there is another variant (or
even completely different name).
David
On 21/01/2011 10:02, Kevin Peat wrote:
So I should delete the various admin boundaries in the db then as they
cannot be viewed on the ground?
Well said. I absolutely agree admin boundaries have the same kind of
status as postcodes.
I think there is value in visualising postcodes, and while
On 21/01/2011 10:10, Tom Hughes wrote:
On 21/01/11 10:02, Kevin Peat wrote:
So I should delete the various admin boundaries in the db then as they
cannot be viewed on the ground?
They may not be viewable on the ground, but they are real in the sense
that somebody has defined them by
On 15/04/2011 19:50, David Earl wrote:
there's various lane indications such as
cycleway=lane
...
PS if you want examples, Cambridge and the surrounding area is
particularly dense with all the variations of these all over the place.
David
On 09/06/2011 17:36, Ed Avis wrote:
What stops more people using OSM?
While I agree with your other points, even before you get to the data, I
think the first reason is people don't know about it.
And for most people, why would you not just use Google maps even if you did?
David
On 05/07/2011 11:26, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
David Earl wrote:
Even then, to infringe database copyright under UK law you would have to
copy a substantial part of the database. Checking or obtaining a few
names against such a list isn't database copyright infringement
Oh, absolutely
On 05/07/2011 12:28, Nick Austin wrote:
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:58 AM, David Earlda...@frankieandshadow.com wrote:
To take a different example, the Royal Mail (still) claims database
copyright over the PAF (postcode address file) database. Would crowd
sourcing the address vs postcode data
You may remember the announcement of the University of Cambridge's
OpenStreetMap project back in July (
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2011-July/012067.html ).
I was appointed to the project from that and I have now written up a bit
about what I'm doing on my OSM diary (
On 06/12/2011 12:54, Stephen Gower wrote:
On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 05:44:48PM +, David Earl wrote:
I was appointed to the project from that [...]
Congratulations!
Thank you!
and also published the tagging schema I'm working to (
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cambridge
On 10/01/2012 11:44, Peter Miller wrote:
Is there no way in this case to formally 'claim' the IPR for this
features on the basis that we have moved them and edited all the
surrounding features?
Exactly the question I raised on talk on Monday. I don't think you even
need to have moved
On 10/01/2012 13:46, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Michael Collinson wrote:
+1 to Richard's suggestion odbl=clean
Just a tiny little clarification - this isn't something I've dreamed up,
it's a real live tag with 9,000 occurrences in the database already, and
which is being used by status
On 10/01/2012 14:53, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
On 01/10/12 15:37, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Yes, the trouble is when Frederik pointed this out and referred to the
page, it says it is for cases where the suspect edit has been wiped out,
not simply verified from other sources. How can you change the
On 10/01/2012 16:05, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
David Earl wrote:
Why does pressing the keys make any
difference whatsoever? The original contributor doesn't own the
copyright in the name, only their contribution, and by marking it
odbl clean I'm making an alternative contribution which asserts
I bet you this is liam123 in a different guise. He's editing in the same
area doing quite similar things.
David
On 13/01/2012 13:41, Andy Allan wrote:
Anyone fancy dealing with http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/kane123 ?
All of their changesets so far are bogus, and need reverting.
Cheers,
On 23/01/2012 20:21, Jason Cunningham wrote:
Good to see the data being released,
But I don't believe this proposed route should yet be added to OSM.
You'll regularly here the phrase map what's on the ground, but we
all(?) accept upcoming changes to what's on the ground can be mapped,
and
On 20/06/2012 14:57, Graham Stewart (GrahamS) wrote:
Merging this data I see that some ways that just lead to an NCN route (but
are not actually part of the continuous route) are still marked with the
ncn=yes;ncn_ref=xx tags for the route the lead to.
What's the feeling on this? I'm a bit torn:
Might this be of help, if the info were included with the station. It
seems to be official:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_railway_station_categories
David
On 28/06/2012 11:15, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
tl;dr: Please tag your local station(s) with platforms=n where n2
I had a
On Wednesday, July 25, 2012, Chris Hill wrote:
On 25/07/12 22:16, Chris Baines wrote:
I have been playing around with OSM on my university's campus [1], I
have most of the buildings and their names on OSM, but not the
numbers. My university are quite good with data, you can see the
building
On 31/10/2012 15:29, Andy Robinson wrote:
Shaun McDonald [mailto:sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk] wrote:
Sent: 31 October 2012 15:21
To: Matt Williams
Cc: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Ambiguous restrictions sign
On 31 Oct 2012, at 14:49, Matt Williams li...@milliams.com wrote:
On 06/01/2013 14:02, SomeoneElse wrote:
I recently deleted a doodle in Hay-on-Wye, but after doing so noticed
that to there northwest there seem to be a cycle path and a footpath
_very_ close together:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.073537lon=-3.130221zoom=18layers=M
I guess that this
Do you know about openheatmap (http://www.openheatmap.com )? Basically
you can supply spreadsheets of locations vs data and it will do the
graphics for you. It doesn't know about postcodes, but if you have the
means to get locations for postcodes you don't have to do any of the rest.
David
On 19/03/2013 14:04, David Fisher wrote:
Hi Shaun,
I take it you're referring to Ipswich? In which case, I can sort of see
the logic. It's not one-way, it's no entry, so when the excepting
conditions are satisfied it becomes two-way. In Croydon's case there's
that no motor vehicles sign at
On 19/03/2013 20:10, Simon Blake wrote:
Could I ask the panel about http://goo.gl/maps/y9Zj3 ? If you look
towards the road to the right (Parliament St, Gloucester), there are No
Entry signs with no exceptions signed, but on the road it says Buses
and taxis only. Equally, the sign under the
On 19/03/2013 20:34, David Earl wrote:
On 19/03/2013 20:10, Simon Blake wrote:
Could I ask the panel about http://goo.gl/maps/y9Zj3 ? If you look
towards the road to the right (Parliament St, Gloucester), there are No
Entry signs with no exceptions signed, but on the road it says Buses
On 20/03/2013 09:25, Brad Rogers wrote:
Both those links are the same, and both seem to point (for me anyway)
to the original except buses junction.
It's not just you, Andy. I got the same result and thought it must be
me.
Sigh. I corrected them immediately afterwards.
On 20/04/2013 13:58, Kevin Peat wrote:
I am not that familiar with NCN signage. Why are the route numbers
sometimes shown in brackets and sometimes not?
Just as with ordinary road signs in the UK, the number in brackets means
this is the way to route N rather than being route N itself.
On 28/04/2013 09:49, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
Hi,
I've noticed (through doing nominatim searches) that a small number of
UK cities (i.e. Manchester and Leeds) do not appear to have a place=city
node, only an administrative boundary.
Is this deliberate? I've tried other large UK cities and all of
On 28/04/2013 13:57, Dave F. wrote:
General point: Please don't attach place tags onto other way/polygon
objects. They often get deleted when the ways are unpicked then re-added.
Indeed. And I would say don't try to use nodes or ways for multiple
purposes at all. So putting a node at the
On 28/04/2013 15:21, Andrew wrote:
David Earl david@... writes:
In general, it shouldn't be necessary to
have a node and an area which
represent the same thing.
In this case the nodes and areas do not
represent the same thing. The areas are
the local government districts called
Leeds
On 01/05/2013 09:15, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
if someone comes with an
alternative proposal for tagging those reference numbers on more minor
roads (i.e. a specific key to use), which gains widespread support in
the UK, I'd be happy to go along with that.
According to
On 09/05/2013 12:56, Jason Cunningham wrote:
UK legislation is fairly clear that Traffic Islands (with or without
hatched markings before are after) are not considered to create two
carriagways. We're not mapping legislation, but nethertheless I wouldnt
create two carriageways for a traffic
On 09/05/2013 13:30, Oliver Jowett wrote:
If there's a better way to represent this while keeping enough
information to be able to route sensibly, how should it be done?
You can set up turn restrictions with relations where necessary. But as
John said, it doesn't do much for pedestrians (or
Bournemouth (01202)[1] and before long Brighton and Hove (01273),
Aberdeen (01224), Milton Keynes (01908), Bradford (01274) and Cambridge
(01223) which are all running short of numbers[2], require or will
require the 'area code' to be dialled as part of the number, even if you
are inside the
On 16/09/2013 17:35, Adam Hoyle wrote:
On 16 Sep 2013, at 16:14, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
Err, no. That's not how the law works - either on copyright or on
database rights.
Lol, good point - perhaps I should ask if any of them can attribute a
license to the locations on their
On 12/10/2013 21:00, Philip Barnes wrote:
I came across an odd situation where a road is on way, except for cycles
and vehicles over 13'3 high. Its a residential area of Shrewsbury which
would be a useful rat run, hence the oneway. But to make it complicated,
there is are industrial units, and a
On 15/11/2013 20:15, Rob Nickerson wrote:
(The aim of this email is to provide prior knowledge of an upcoming change to
the
OSM website and to give you an opportunity to provide constructive feedback)
I very much like the fact it is responsive on small screens.
Would it be possible to have a
On 15/11/2013 20:15, Rob Nickerson wrote:
(The aim of this email is to provide prior knowledge of an upcoming change to
the
OSM website and to give you an opportunity to provide constructive feedback)
One other thing... notes are really helpful, and not immediately new
though they were
401 - 500 of 529 matches
Mail list logo
