On 4/2/2012 2:27 PM, Phil! Gold wrote:
I'm deliberately leaving county routes for a second phase and focusing on
state routes for the moment. (New Jersey is an exception, but it was an
experiment and I don't actually believe we're using the proper shields for
all of its counties.)
As far as I
On 3/30/2012 12:55 PM, Paul Norman wrote:
From: Jeffrey Ollie [mailto:j...@ocjtech.us]
Could this be mitigated somewhat by the use of super relations? IE on
relation each for the US-Canada, US-Mexico, US-Pacific, US-Atlantic
borders tied together with one super relation?
Do any of the tools
On 3/30/2012 3:59 PM, Paul Norman wrote:
Yikes, that's complicated. I'm not sure that hatching will help much with a
situation like that in general - what if the boundary between two cities is
like that? Both would be inside a boundary and have the same shading.
It's much less likely that the
On 3/30/2012 5:08 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/11154859 has the comment
proposed bikeways (primary greenways as rcn). I wonder, are these
actually state cycleways? If not, then LCN would be the correct
network.
Yawn. This passive-agressive shit is
On 3/29/2012 10:49 AM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
I'm going to look at this same problem for Salt Lake County just to see
if any different issues arise for a different geography, and hope to
provide some more input soon.
It would be useful to test an area where the TIGER data is rather
imprecise
On 3/29/2012 11:06 AM, Ian Dees wrote:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Kristian M Zoerhoff zoerh...@sdf.org
mailto:zoerh...@sdf.org wrote:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:53:55AM -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 3/29/2012 10:49 AM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
I'm going to look
On 3/24/2012 7:13 AM, David Groom wrote:
- Original Message - From: Paul Norman penor...@mac.com
- Adopting changesets. Many of the dirty ways and nodes appear to be
imported. If the imported just imported PD data than they have no IP
in the
ways and they can be retained.
Are you
On 3/24/2012 1:37 AM, Toby Murray wrote:
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 8:35 PM, James Mastrickmastfa...@hotmail.com wrote:
I just saw this mentioned on MSNBC and thought I would let everybody know
about this since we would have to adjust the border in the future when it
becomes official. It seems
On 3/16/2012 7:33 PM, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:
Spotted in @openstreetmap's Twitter feed... I don't remember having ever
used a routing service that fast. It is apparently tuned for car
routing... And that's all I can say since the Karlsruher Institut für
Technologie whose homepage is linked from
On 3/22/2012 4:47 AM, Janko Mihelić wrote:
Ok, so whats the difference between a pedestrian highway and a footpath
then?
I'm sure everyone has different criteria, but I generally use footway if
it's not a separate right-of-way (meaning it's either a path in a larger
property such as a park,
On 3/15/2012 8:52 AM, Hillsman, Edward wrote:
On 3/14/2012 21:18:57 -0400 Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Depending on the state or local government, you may be able to verify
names against an official dataset. Otherwise subdivision plats work for
the endless suburban superblocks that nobody wants
On 3/15/2012 6:43 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:
On 3/15/2012 4:59 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
lots of driving and all you get is street names, since everything else
is single-family houses.
And address points
How does this work? Do you stop at every house and write down the address
On 3/14/2012 8:37 PM, Mike N wrote:
The tiger:reviewed=no tag usage varies with each person, but generally
anything validated by a human against local knowledge or an aerial image
doesn't need the tiger:reviewed tag at all.
I would disagree with this - reviewing should include verifying the
On 3/13/2012 9:33 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/problems.html
(The what nodes column lists the nodes missing for a revert.)
If that is desirable, I can undelete the nodes and revert the ways
thereafter.
I'm willing to clean up if you do this. Thanks.
On 3/13/2012 5:14 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
On 03/13/2012 08:20 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
If that is desirable, I can undelete the nodes and revert the ways
thereafter.
I'm willing to clean up if you do this. Thanks.
Done, all ways in Montana and Idaho reverted clean.
Hmmm - now
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/10842511 is labeled
remove non-relicensable imports in Canada by request of Canadian
community, yet includes a number of deletions in the U.S. The changeset
is too large for JOSM's reverter plugin, and I can't download the
osmChange XML. Frederik
On 3/12/2012 3:45 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
The changeset in question is problematic for two reasons; one is that it
deletes a (small number of) objects in the US instead of just things in
Canada, and the other is that even in Canada it deleted more than
Canadians had decided to delete right now.
On 3/12/2012 5:28 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
I will probably undelete all deleted ways and then revert the relations
to re-add them, except where the stray nodes were already cleaned up
(assuming that in these areas, a human mapper has evaluated the
situation and fixed it).
We'll see how that
Even before April Fools:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/10842511
I love how portions of US 2, US 83, and US 95 are now in Canada.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=48.562lon=-112.387zoom=11layers=M
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=48.812lon=-101.089zoom=11layers=M
On 3/11/2012 6:35 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
On 03/11/2012 10:58 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Even before April Fools:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/10842511
I love how portions of US 2, US 83, and US 95 are now in Canada.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=48.562lon
Can someone please revert changeset 10842511? It's too big for JOSM's
reverter plugin.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
It's obvious to me that the banner is not part of the network. US 1
Alternate is part of the U.S. Highway system (US:US), not some mythical
U.S. Highway Alternate system.
It also makes the most sense to put it in the ref tag. Otherwise there's
inconsistency between an alternate signed as US 1
On 2/29/2012 1:15 AM, James Mast wrote:
Just wanted to let you guys know and give kudos to MapQuest for doing
something that Google hasn't done with their maps EVER.
MapQuest is either fully reading the ref tag or using the tags from
relations, but they are now properly showing Business
On 3/8/2012 2:53 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
Still needs fixing:
C-* is a county road (in Ohio at least; it may be used for state highways in
Colorado)
I believe in the OSM scheme, CR is county road. Colorado and Kansas
typically stylize their state roads as C and K roads, though the
preferable
On 3/8/2012 3:03 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, but when a local insists on tagging it one way, what's one to do?
Let 'em know about consistency. Whenever practical, we should try to
be as globally consistent as
On 3/3/2012 8:24 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote:
We don't have zero-point markers in the USA, either, at least not from my
experience. However, the highway departments seem to be referring to some point in or
near the center of the cities, judging from the distances shown.
Sometimes it's to the
On 3/6/2012 8:53 AM, Lynn W. Deffenbaugh (Mr) wrote:
On 3/3/2012 9:04 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Sometimes it's to the center (usually the courthouse or city hall?)
and sometimes to the city limits. The only zero point I know of
(that's not intended for only one road) is the Zero Milestone
Is it just me, or are there more timeout magnifying glasses than usual?
Is this due to the Osmarender server going down?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Is it just me, or are there more timeout magnifying glasses than usual?
Is this due to the Osmarender server going down?
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
On 2/29/2012 1:15 AM, James Mast wrote:
Just wanted to let you guys know and give kudos to MapQuest for doing
something that Google hasn't done with their maps EVER.
MapQuest is either fully reading the ref tag or using the tags from
relations, but they are now properly showing Business
Another update: they now color motorway_links with toll=yes green (and
display toll booths at high zooms - not sure if this is new). The
overlap where a toll motorway becomes a free motorway is a bit messy though.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=28.45095lon=-81.28962zoom=16layers=Q
Oops - bad pattern matching finding I in RI :)
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=41.8193lon=-71.4737zoom=13layers=Q
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
On 2/29/2012 12:17 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 4:12 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com
mailto:nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
Another update: they now color motorway_links with toll=yes green
(and display toll booths at high zooms - not sure if this is new
On 2/29/2012 6:55 PM, Clifford Snow wrote:
Using JOSM to copy the tiger data to OSM I end up with red circles with
no tag.
What do you mean by red circles with no tag?
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
I don't know if any UK towns use an addressing grid. Locally, when the
grid zero point lies within the downtown area, I've used this (e.g. the
intersection of Orange and Central in Orlando).
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
On 2/16/2012 6:00 PM, Jochen Topf wrote:
Generic key names can be confusing, especially when one OSM object is used for
multiple things. Say there is a way tagged as railway and at the same time this
way is part of an area tagged as a generating station. Does power_source mean
the type of
On 2/20/2012 8:23 AM, Hillsman, Edward wrote:
While we are discussing this, we should
also agree on how to tag bicycle lanes that are unmarked. We have a
surprising number of these in my area of the world. They have no signs
(I know, they are no longer required to) and no markings within the
On 2/19/2012 5:34 PM, Humphries, Grant wrote:
I've proposed a tag for buffered bicycle lanes, see the proposal here
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycleway%3Dbuffered_lane. Any
feedback is appreciated.
It seems like it would be better as an additional tag like
cycleway:buffer=yes, keeping
On 2/17/2012 4:41 PM, TC Haddad wrote:
For example: in Portland all the expanded quadrant names (NE,NW, SE, SW)
really detract from the experience of using osm extracts on handheld
GPS. All the streets in an area of interest end up looking like they
have the same name because all that fits on
On 2/17/2012 5:44 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com
mailto:nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
If the directional prefixes are not generally used as part of the
name, they should probably not be in the name tag, but instead
On 2/16/2012 8:50 PM, Steven Johnson wrote:
I also think that USDOT probably
has only a subset of bridges (say, those in the US highway system) and
probably lacks a number of state- and locally-maintained bridges.
Nope - at least in Florida, they have all road bridges except maybe
those on
Is there a way (in JOSM or otherwise) to find all dead-ends (nodes
contained in only one highway way) without highway=turning_circle or
noexit=yes in an area?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
On 2/15/2012 4:09 AM, Alan Mintz wrote:
At 2012-02-13 15:21, you wrote:
I've never been to Fresno, but I can't believe there would not be a
single primary road there. Still, that is the Truth According To
OSM[1]
I find that most areas where there has been little manual editing of the
TIGER
On 2/15/2012 6:46 AM, Mike N wrote:
On 2/15/2012 12:41 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
(nodes contained in only one highway way)
... and first or last node of the way?
Yes, that's what I meant to say. But even that's not perfect for a
P-shaped road. Essentially it's a node with only one exit
On 2/14/2012 1:23 AM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
So only TIGER CFCC A2* were mapped to highway=primary in the import?
I guess that makes sense -- TIGER has a clear distinction between
primary (A2), secondary (A3) and local roads (A4). But in that
classification, where do the tertiary and trunk
On 2/14/2012 6:37 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
Hi,
Has anyone ever looked into using the National Bridge Inventory
(NBI)[1] for adding missing bridges to OSM in the US? I'm pretty sure
TIGER does not have (most) bridges and I'm very sure the community has
not added all the 600k bridges that are
Is there a way (in JOSM or otherwise) to find all dead-ends (nodes
contained in only one highway way) without highway=turning_circle or
noexit=yes in an area?
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
On 2/13/2012 6:21 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
Hi all,
I've never been to Fresno, but I can't believe there would not be a
single primary road there. Still, that is the Truth According To
OSM[1]
Who knows more about this situation? Are there any local mappers on
this list who can shed their
On 2/6/2012 7:13 AM, ciprian niculescu wrote:
Do the way is gooing to be deleted or it will stay but only the tags not
edited by a subsequent agreeing user will be deleted?
The way in question is http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=41220492
If you want it kept, there are a few steps:
On 2/7/2012 3:50 PM, Matthew Deabreu wrote:
Hello All,
Just a quick question, are OSM tags case sensitive?
Yes, in that FIXME and fixme are two separate tags. No, in that they
mean the same thing.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
On 2/9/2012 3:00 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2012-February/007382.html
There seems to be some confusion over whether we'll be able to go into
the history and retrieve any tags added by good mappers to a tainted way
after the April Fools wipe
On 2/9/2012 11:43 PM, Skye Book wrote:
Has anyone had any luck with
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/tommischneider? The contact log has
him as being contacted in the middle of January but nothing else is
available. He seems to have split his time between Europe and the
northeastern coast of
On 2/6/2012 7:30 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 2/6/2012 7:06 PM, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
Any remapping after April Fools will not be able to use tags added by
good
users to ungood objects. Any loss will be on the hands of the OSMF.
Why not? They'll be in the history same as they are now
On 2/6/2012 11:47 PM, Nick Hocking wrote:
For the OSM data to become unroutable when that is so easily
avoided would be unthinkable.
Yet the OSMF is planning to do just that on April Fools.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
On 1/16/2012 7:48 PM, Nick Hocking wrote:
I believe that OSm's most usefull attribute is to be up to date.
The only real way to do this is with a local mapper but bringing
the USA up to Tiger 2011 up-to-datedness would be a great start.
I've recently been using another way of finding new
One possible enhancement would be a filter, so you could show e.g. only
highways or only waterways. I don't know how complicated this would be.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
On 2/1/2012 12:05 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
http://wtfe.gryph.de/report/way/5656569
This should answer the question of why is something
red/orange/yellow/unmarked.
If you find anything strange with that, let me know too.
I'm confused. http://wtfe.gryph.de/report/way/11023229 is marked as
On 1/28/2012 4:26 PM, Toby Murray wrote:
The other major thing that no existing tools take into consideration
is relations. They are mentioned on the What is clean? page but they
aren't being factored into any existing algorithms. Not the easiest
thing to show since some of them aren't even
So I did some looking at LA in the OSM Inspector WTFE view, and I don't
see how we're going to keep the OSMF from totally wrecking it on April
Fools. So go for it. Just kill the whole damn thing.
This wouldn't have happened, by the way, if the TIGER import had been
more forceful. But no, we
On 1/31/2012 4:07 PM, Nick Hocking wrote:
Blimey - two streets up from Arvia, Asbury Street was incorrectly
named in OSM as Ashbury.
Just how many typos are there in L.A.
Hey - now there's a good idead for a competition!!!
What you mean is that imports are better than surveying (since mappers
On 1/30/2012 5:46 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
I'd say knowing what they look like + Bing is sufficient if the road
markings are actually there (not only the lane separator linear
markings - that's too ambiguous). What I'm not sure of is whether bike
lane road markings are the same across the US
On 1/30/2012 8:38 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
Many in Multnomah County only have diamonds, no arrows, no other
markings, with a ◊ RIGHT LANE BIKE ONLY sign**every half mile or every
block, whichever comes first, with BIKE ONLY markings and arrows only at
the intersections. I think they
On 1/29/2012 5:27 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
New Haven CT,
http://cleanmap.poole.ch/?zoom=13lat=41.31231lon=-72.92162layers=00B
Much of the taint here (though probably not much on the cleanmap, which
only deals with newly-created ways) comes from ungood user Brian Tang
adding (IMO garbage)
On 1/27/2012 6:48 PM, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
Hi Mike and Graham,
We should not assume that contributors' acceptance of the new licence
means that they are particularly in favour of it - they may have just
accepted because it was easier than getting involved in the argument,
and did not see it
On 1/27/2012 7:48 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Anyone who says I can't really do anything before I know the exact
algorithm should perhaps take the second half of March off work.
This condescending tone isn't useful. We should all care about the
entire map, not just our little area.
On 1/21/2012 12:05 AM, Ben Robbins wrote:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/2/21/Comparison_-_Junction1.png
Just a minor issue - shouldn't the primary_link and unclassified near
the upper right corner be motorway_links, since you can only access them
from the motorway? Otherwise, this
On 1/21/2012 6:03 AM, Richard Mann wrote:
The current tagging rules for links don't make life at all easy for the
renderer, but I got flamed when I suggested that the link road should
take the status of the lower classification (unless it's a motorway_link).
I agree that taking the status of
On 1/24/2012 8:33 AM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know about Pennsylvania, but here in Florida a single white line
does not legally prevent crossing. But even if it did, we don't map a double
yellow as a median.
*You*
On 1/24/2012 8:45 AM, Anthony wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:20 PM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/23/2012 9:52 PM, dies38...@mypacks.net wrote:
Yuck. A separate way should not be used for a turn lane (unless that lane is
separated by barriers or maybe a wide striped-off
On 1/24/2012 9:20 AM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/24/2012 8:33 AM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com
wrote:
I don't know about Pennsylvania, but here in Florida a single
On 1/24/2012 7:07 AM, dies38...@mypacks.net wrote:
Thanks for your feedback, both positive and negative. The reason for the
complexity and seeming overuse of ways and restrictions is that I am mapping
legally binding pavement markings along with the actual travel ways. It is my
On 1/24/2012 2:13 AM, Bryce2 Nesbitt wrote:
I'm reading:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Vandalism
And looking at
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/63484547/history
But not quite sure what to think. Is there someone willing to take a
second look. I have never reverted anything,
and
On 1/24/2012 7:34 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 1/24/2012 2:13 AM, Bryce2 Nesbitt wrote:
I'm reading:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Vandalism
And looking at
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/63484547/history
But not quite sure what to think. Is there someone willing to take
On 1/24/2012 8:33 AM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know about Pennsylvania, but here in Florida a single white line
does not legally prevent crossing. But even if it did, we don't map a double
yellow as a median.
*You*
On 1/24/2012 8:45 AM, Anthony wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:20 PM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/23/2012 9:52 PM, dies38...@mypacks.net wrote:
Yuck. A separate way should not be used for a turn lane (unless that lane is
separated by barriers or maybe a wide striped-off
On 1/24/2012 9:20 AM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/24/2012 8:33 AM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com
wrote:
I don't know about Pennsylvania, but here in Florida a single
Presumably the answer is a mailbox. But we generally map buildings and
properties long before we map mailboxes, and when used as a location one
expects an address to be the actual location the mail is intended for,
not the location of the mailbox (which may be e.g. out on the main road
or in a
Is there any way to download all tainted objects in an area, so I can
easily filter out any I don't care about (e.g. lakes)?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Is there any way to download all tainted objects in an area, so I can
easily filter out any I don't care about (e.g. lakes)?
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
On 1/17/2012 6:28 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2012/1/17 Maarten Deenmd...@xs4all.nl:
On 2012-01-16 23:27, Robin Paulson wrote:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=-36.878407lon=174.741523zoom=19
the landuse polygon has an orange highlight on it, why does it do that?
Just a hint on
On 12/26/2011 6:50 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
I've updated the license change view on OSMI with new rules. It will
now
* treat untagged nodes as clean if moved by an agreeing mapper
I'm wondering why
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/382228026/history is showing up
as tainted.
On 1/18/2012 12:17 PM, ant wrote:
On 18.01.2012 13:30, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
I'm wondering why
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/382228026/history is showing up
as tainted. NathanDavidSeabury, as part of his edit, accidentally moved
a large boundary polygon. I reverted this move
On 1/17/2012 2:34 PM, Sam Iacullo wrote:
Dear All,
I am having a problem with the user NE2
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/NE2/edits). Since the beginning of
the year, he has been making massive, broad spectrum changes in Texas.
The edits he's done have been without regard to the appropriate
On 1/17/2012 2:50 PM, Josh Doe wrote:
NE2 is a well known and prolific user.
You left out bothersome, or maybe troubled, or even troll if you
want to go there :)
Please be more specific on what
he's doing that you disagree with, and link to specific changesets
and/or objects. I'm assuming
On 1/17/2012 3:39 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 02:46:24PM -0500, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
And if I messed with Texas, sorry. I'll go screw with Oklahoma instead :)
I believe you got burned for doing that, too. Could you please tread
lightly in territory where you have
On 1/15/2012 9:38 PM, Russ Nelson wrote:
The OSMF seems determined to avoid any edge cases by being very
conservative.
Maybe in some cases, but with respect to splitting and joining ways,
they're being extremely liberal and assuming that a new way ID is a new
way wrt licensing. That is,
Since there's been no response, I plan to start doing this.
On 1/13/2012 6:49 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
It's my view that odbl=clean is essentially a loophole - that is, if the
OSMF actually pays attention to it when mass-reverting. But given that
it seems to be accepted, I'm wondering about
On 1/15/2012 11:09 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
On 01/15/2012 05:03 PM, Floris Looijesteijn wrote:
in my opinion, obdl=clean is the ugliest thing in the whole license
change so far...
i can't believe this would be automatically accepted on april 1st.
I'm happy to debate the issue on
On 1/15/2012 3:00 PM, Russ Nelson wrote:
Frederik Ramm writes:
I am amazed at the constant disregard of legal-talk, a list that was
created *precisely* for license questions.
These questions have nothing to do with the law, and everything to do
with how the community edits.
Actually
On 1/15/2012 12:34 PM, Toby Murray wrote:
According to this, deletions will not be reverted:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/What_is_clean%3F#Deletions_are_not_tainted
Now that's just stupid. Can you imagine what a random town where an
ungood mapper has done some joining
On 1/15/2012 8:25 AM, Mike N wrote:
On 1/15/2012 8:01 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
and the script ignored the TIGER subtags and improperly expanded it to
West Avenue East
I'm not sure what you mean about ignoring the TIGER subtags, but this
street has tiger:name_direction_suffix = E, which
On 1/15/2012 12:31 PM, Hilton Long wrote:
SR9 in Hurricane UT, has either 4 or 5 lanes. Two in each direction and
the fifth a turning lane, that occurs for part of the road. Part of the
road is limited access, but you can make a U turn on the part with 5
lanes, and there is grade access from
It's my view that odbl=clean is essentially a loophole - that is, if the
OSMF actually pays attention to it when mass-reverting. But given that
it seems to be accepted, I'm wondering about the following case:
A non-agreeing mapper changes a bunch of roads from residential to
secondary, using
On 1/13/2012 12:39 PM, Peter Dobratz wrote:
I agree that it makes more sense to clean up the map after the deletes
from the license change have taken affect.
Except that the April Fools change will not preserve a lot of the
additions (if a non-agreer splits a way, and you add a maxspeed, how is
On 1/11/2012 10:30 PM, Nick Hocking wrote:
OSM inspector gives a pessimistic view at a distance because red is so
bright and (in Australia) one could be forgiven for thinking...
Oh dear, Sydney and Adelaide are goners.
However your CleanMap shows that there is a lot of hope for both
although
On 1/10/2012 10:24 AM, Toby Murray wrote:
Some of these ways haven't been touched since Bing imagery became
available. I'm guessing improvements are probably more the norm than
reductions in quality.
What probably gets lost most often is various improvements made such as
number of lanes,
On 1/10/2012 12:16 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
In short, this remapping exercise I'm doing actually leads to better
data quality. So I disagree with your assertion that the license
change is a disruptive change for little or no benefit.
So what you're saying is that you're only improving
On 1/8/2012 9:17 AM, Mike N wrote:
I could see both sides of this - receipts are likely printed Welcome to
Safeway #xxx, and so the map would appear correct and contain
additional detail. The disadvantage is that an exact match search for
Safeway would fail, depending on the search algorithm in
On 1/7/2012 8:03 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
Hi,
Apartment buildings imported from GNIS appear as 'place=hamlet' in
Salt Lake City (and quite possibly elsewhere). I think this is too
much honor for 99% of apartment buildings. My guess is there was no
way to distinguish these from other
On 1/3/2012 4:25 AM, Pieren wrote:
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 7:23 AM, Lester Caineles...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
This is the area that we still need to get some agreement on :(
Current rendering does not take any notice of start and stop dates ...
These tags have been created for periodic events,
101 - 200 of 889 matches
Mail list logo
