Hi all,
Looks like the routing list doesn't get much traffic, so hope it's
ok to ask two routing questions here:
1) I've ordered a Garmin Oregon 550. Will it be possible to do live
routing with OSM data, including bike paths?
(I'm pretty sure the first part is yes. It's the second bit I'm
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 6:01 AM, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote:
(for UK only:) try CycleStreets: www.cyclestreets.net updated daily.
Whoops, should have specified. Melbourne, Australia.
Steve
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 8:01 AM, Craig Wallace craig...@fastmail.fm wrote:
Simple answer is yes. Set the Calculate routes for option to bicycle,
and it should create routes that use bike paths. Though I've not used
the Oregon, but on most Garmin's the bicycle routing is not very good
IME. It
Hi all,
(Apologies if this is the wrong list - still getting my head around
them all. Or this has been discussed extensively, please point me at
it)...
I'm doing a lot of mapping of pedestrian and bike paths around my
area, and am having trouble deciding when to use path, when footway,
and when
Thanks all, these are very good replies. I'll have to ponder for a
bit. One complication that I should perhaps have mentioned is at the
moment I'm doing a lot of the mapping based on NearMap aerial maps, so
I can't actually observe local practice to see what's going on. Which
is why I'm inferring
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Richard Fairhurst
rich...@systemed.net wrote:
highway=footway - a path intended for pedestrian use
highway=cycleway - a path intended for pedestrian and cycle use
highway=bridleway - a path intended for pedestrian and horse use[1]
Boy, I like this way of
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Richard Bullock rb...@cantab.net wrote:
For renderers:
* nearly all maps exaggerate road width except when really zoomed in. A
30-35 metre wide motorway would appear almost insignificant at z levels less
than 10 or 12 - but this is precisely the opposite
1) Re: connecting paths across small grass areas - don't mark a path
where there isn't one, and especially don't do it for the purpose of
trying to make routers work better. Map reality - that will always
work best in the long term. (just my personal preference)
IMHO accessible paths *must*
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 1:25 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
The whole point of using an area is that it doesn't behave like a
line, though. If all you have is a line with a width, use a line with
a width tag.
Is it? Perhaps I missed the start of the conversation. I had presumed
the whole
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote:
EVERY contradictory interpretation has a substantial number of followers
- that IS the problem. Richards view works only in the UK and fails
terribly in Germany and other countries. But sorry, I really am fed up
with the pointless
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
Nice idea, BUT then you are limited to a series of rectangles. In some
situations, I think that will be too restrictive for not much gain.
A series of quadrilaterals, perhaps. If width=10, then 50 metres
later, width =15,
I have a couple of recurrent scenarios:
1) After tagging a building, I want to define the property boundary
that the building sits in. In some cases, there's a landuse tag
(landuse=commercial, residential), but how to tag a non-profit bowling
club, a school, ...? Do you simply tag it
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
interpolation. But approximation with trapezoids or whatever is a bit
fudgye.g. what if you *do* want to represent an instantaneous
change in width?
I can think of several options, and I'm sure you can too :)
My
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Richard Fairhurst
rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Cartinus wrote:
It's fairly simple to put foot=no on all cycleways in what is probably
the only country with rules for cycleways that are so strict.
Indeed.
Yeah, but from the point of view of a resident of that
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 6:45 PM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote:
Yes, because there are two solutions to that problem.
1) Add an extra tag in that single country that differs from the rest of
the
world. But don't bother all the other mappers.
IMHO Don't piss off the whole world, just piss
Just had a look at MapMaker. One cute thing: I made a change, and when it
got moderated, I had a look at the comment. It had this:
Interesting notes about this edit:
This road is not smooth or has an unusual turn angle
User is very new
A mature feature has been modified
This is a very
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 7:32 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO Don't piss off the whole world, just piss off one country is a bad
solution, if there is no need to piss off anyone at all.
+1
I see your point, but WOW, that seems like a lot of extra STUFF to
maintain - and
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:03 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:
Just like the tagging, the rendering is easy to customise. It uses a
special form of CSS, called MapCSS, which lets you create
wonderful-looking maps with just a few lines of text. The tagging and
rendering together
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk
wrote:
Do you know whether bikes can access the path? If a designated bike path,
use highway=cycleway/bicycle=designated (optional). If you're not
sure, use highway=footway and leave the bicycle tag out or use
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:46 PM, Richard Mann
richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote:
The UK view appears to be: foot can go anywhere (except motorways) unless
you say foot=no
The German view appears to be: foot can go anywhere except motorways,
cycleways and bridleways
And we have
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:54 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
1) I told them that *the wiki recommends* that they do need to use
cycleway=opposite where appropriate.
1a) This is different to *me* telling them what to do - the wiki
carries more weight as it is the outcome of
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:58 PM, Jonathan Bennett
openstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
[...] I tend to
believe I can ride my bike wherever the hell I want unless there's a
sign saying otherwise.
That's fine for your personal decision making. However, for OSM we
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:11 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
Does it matter?? How hard is it to tag cycleways and bridleways with
foot=yes/no??
I would have no problem with that, if it helped give us consistency.
From a purely pragmatic perspective, the more repetitive tasks
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.comwrote:
I think it's critical that this stuff be summarised on the wiki.
Besides being highly relevant to those who want to know *how to tag
things*, it might help us find a way forward out of this mess.
Yep. Even if some of
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:28 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I think we should aim for a globally consistent database, because
1) I travel a fair bit (I've never been to Bulgaria, but maybe someday
soon)
2) I do NOT want to be limited to Noppia-compatible routing software
if I
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
Um...what??? That will not write itself. Do you expect us to
successfully digitize and maintain a database of all laws of all
countries?
What do you think? Work with me, here.
In a wiki, even? That's ambitious! I'd
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 12:54 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Steve Bennett stevagewp at gmail.com writes:
1) After tagging a building, I want to define the property boundary
that the building sits in. In some cases, there's a landuse tag
(landuse=commercial, residential), but how
Incidentally, what's the best way to map nothing. Big, empty blocks on the
fringes of the city. Again, I want to distinguish between unmapped and
unoccupied. Some of them may be farms/agistment, some may be greenfield,
some might be crown land, some might be owned but unoccupied.
(Or maybe I
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 3:08 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
What if I map the entire section of grass which is within the right of
way as a polygon with highway=path, area=yes? That's how we represent
infinite overlapping criss-crossing invisible-paths, like a
pedestrian mall.
I'm kind
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 4:03 AM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.comwrote:
I would class that as a causeway, rather than an embankment. I think wet
area in the Wikipedia definition would refer to boggy ground, or an
intermittently-flooded low-lying area, rather than to lake-bottom or
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 4:12 AM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote:
Map what you can verify:
* Often these are expanses of grass with the occasional bush -
landuse=grass
Not to be a pain, but that doesn't exist (or isn't documented).
landuse=meadow I guess. That would actually satisfy a lot
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 4:33 AM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.comwrote:
If you look at the photos on the web page, the feature in question is
definitely man made, not natural. It is a raised walkway between two
islands, made by piling up rocks.
Yep. Same with my example. I'm just going
Various comments:
I'm not sure that those roads (Hume Highway) should be marked as motorway,
but
got no comment on the talk-au list when i asked for comments.
The Hume *Freeway* is definitely a motorway. There are places between
Melbourne and Sydney where it's just a highway, but it's dual
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 5:42 AM, Dane Springmeyer bl...@hailmail.net wrote:
We're close on this with Mapnik, feedback welcome:
http://trac.mapnik.org/ticket/180
Wow, looks fantastic. There are so many obvious uses:
- bike lane
- multiple overlaping bus routes
- footpaths beside roads
-
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
A good routing application will lay this wealth of information out
before you, so that you can decide whether you'd rather risk injury,
penalty and being re-born as a rat, but save time and fuel, or whether
you prefer
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 5:39 AM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote:
I don't know about documentation, but it is in the list of presets in JOSM.
Yeah, I find this situation very weird. It seems there are four places to
check when considering whether a tag exists:
1) The wiki (where it could be
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
I vote for once for each jurisdiction. But I vote strongly against
doing so using a wiki.
Not quite sure what you're voting against. I would suggest using the wiki to
collect and organise information on jurisdictional varations,
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
but won't this operation make one island instead of 2 that they are?
That's a philosophical question. It sounds like they *are* one island :) If
there's a solid barrier between them, that water can't get
2009/12/1 Peter Dörrie peter.doer...@googlemail.com
I would like to plan my next trekking holiday with online tools. What I
have in mind is the following: A map (preferably osm) to mark tours and
routes and some form of note taking tool to pull together information on
accommodation, supplies,
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Interesting. I don't know if I agree with that or not. I certainly
don't want to be involved in a project which encourages people to
break the law, since encouraging people to break the law is in itself
against the law where I
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
My basic tenet is that we should be providing information, not guidance.
Guidance of the form You can't go down that path is annoying. Guidance of
the form Are you sure you want to go down that path, it's marked
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:41 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
The claim copyright on graphics and design and restrict just the map data
to cc-by-sa. IMHO that inhebits e.g. that I take a screenshot of their map
and put it on my website. Looking at the legal faq in the
Hi all,
Is it ever correct for two roads to cross physically, at the same level,
but not create a junction between them?
The situation I have looks like:
C
|
A---+---B
|
v
|
D
With apologies for ASCII art. Cars go from A
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 11:58 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
really?
Ja rly. If every website that wanted to use OSM data was forced to open
license the entire rest of their site, all their artwork etc, it would be a
massive disencentive to using it.
Also, don't
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 12:39 AM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.netwrote:
Alternatively the whole junction restriction could be accomplished as
konrad
said by a couple of only_straight_on restrictions
Ok, I've done that. About time I learnt how to create relations :)
Anyone want to check
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 1:21 AM, Lauris Bukšis-Haberkorns
lafr...@gmail.comwrote:
If I understand him correctly he is not talking about website or any
additional tools but about rastered MAP tiles!
but excluding the Map Data
It's pretty clear.
Steve
Thanks Pieren, that's the kind of answer I was looking for: NO it's never a
good idea to have two highways cross at the same level without an explicit
junction.
Steve
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 1:44 AM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Steve Bennett
Be careful
Just thought I'd ask - the Osmarender layer isn't displaying for me, as of
the last 24 hours or so, maybe more. I just get a white page that keeps
trying to load...
(This is through the normal openstreetmap.org view...)
___
talk mailing list
I think I might write up some cross-cutting wiki pages like vegetation,
pointing people in the right directions for the subtle distinctions between
natural= and landuse= etc.
Ok, I did it.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Vegetation
Lots of common bush/tree words link there.
Steve
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
Swap back to your pushbike, or your legs only, mentally.
On foot you can definitely and legally turn left or right.
So its a valid junction for pedestrian routing.
Ah yes, that's a very valid point.
Queens Rd is a horrible road
IMHO, the US English/Australian English issue here is spurious. Australians
certainly understand and use the word ford to mean a low water crossing.
We also use the word causeway to mean an embankment with a road on top of
it. We sometimes also use the word causeway to mean a ford (particularly
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
we have persistent trouble with the eurocentric view of the world projected
by
OSM
so when they are arguing about various terms, its important to let them
know
that UK English ain't what we use
Be grateful it's UK english and
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
no no no
a causeway need not have a road
the devil's causeway in eire and all the rest of those examples
This? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant%27s_Causeway
Looks like natural=coastline to me!
Again, are you not confusing the
How do you make a style that depends on two attributes? Eg,
highway=residential *and* cycleway=lane?
I know that this works:
way[highway=residentia] { ... }
way[cycleway=lane] { ... }
And the two will be combined, if that makes sense. But how do you make the
style depend on that specific
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Martin Fossdal Guttesen
mgutte...@hotmail.com wrote:
ok i know this is just provoking a little bit, but look at this
description
landuse
Also, what's the difference between z-index: 0; and not specifying z-index
at all?
I ask, because I tested it on the lake at about -37.845, 144.97. By default,
the water is green, and the islands in the lake are dark green. If I
add way[natural=water]
{ fill-color: blue; }, the water is dark
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
How do you make a style that depends on two attributes? Eg,
highway=residential *and* cycleway=lane?
Simply:
way[highway=residential][cycleway=lane] { ...}
Thanks, I tried every
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 5:41 AM, Peter Körner osm-li...@mazdermind.de wrote:
What the hell is official? This is a community driven project!
Hopefully there is a difference between a democracy and anarchy.
We need to get a world-wide usable description for it. If we can't get
one, we should
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Peter Körner osm-li...@mazdermind.de wrote:
If this page is meant to give an overview, then, in a international
project, it should only contain things that are useful all around the world.
I'm not sure that this actually matters, but I think your argument is
weak
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 7:55 AM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote:
The same meaning of greenways (paths on public land, allowed to pedestrians
and bicycles but motorized vehicles), is in use here in Nashville, TN, USA.
They are a part of the public park system, and, so far, are
Can I draw some attention to this:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Divided_road
I was going to propose exactly the same thing, pretty much. Maybe I'd
quibble with some of the naming.
I find the current practice of duplicating minor roads when there is a
median strip pretty
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 9:17 PM, Richard Mann
richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote:
That's a problem with the rendering, not with the mapping.
Unless you want to write routines for pre-processing two almost-parallel
ways back into a single way so it can be rendered neatly, I suggest
Sorry, one last example, also nearby:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-37.826282lon=144.947554zoom=18layers=B000FTF
This mess might be much more understandable if pairs of lanes that
were physically together were rendered as pairs (with a line between
them), and those that were on separate
Ok, I've mocked up what it might look like.
Complicated to show you though:
1) http://www.geowiki.com/halcyon/
2) Lat: -37.821995 Lon: 144.919573
3) Add these lines to the of end of the big edit box:
way[highway=service][!divider]
{ color: white; width: 3; casing-width: 5; }
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
it allows to define things like: there is a kerb between the footway and the
street, but on given nodes there is a lowered kerb to crossover.
Yes, it's certainly quite expressive, at the cost of complexity - and
Oops, I also meant to point out a screenshot of my mockup:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Image:Stevage_Divided_road.png
(And an earlier version:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/images/archive/9/9e/20091203113817!Stevage_Divided_road.png
)
Sorry for the spam.
Steve
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 12:40 AM, Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk
wrote:
Agreed, while it's sensible for two ways in a dual carriageway, it seems
OTT to have two ways for a road simply because it's got white lines down
the middle. It seems to me to be introducing unnecessary
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 2:40 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
I'm not sure how this would work without using areas, though. And
even then, it'll be complicated. I think the proposal at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Divided_road is
far too kludgy and temporary
What do
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 3:14 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
It doesn't seem to be general enough, but instead as an incomplete
lump of special cases.
It covers the small, but salient, case of divided roads. Nothing more.
We're just talking about one key here.
So routers are going to have to
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 4:21 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
And I think that's eventually where we're going. The distance between
the centerlines is only part of the equation, but I wouldn't want to
throw that information away. This is all moot, however, because I now
understand that you
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 4:46 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
I don't know. I read over the proposal again and I don't even get it,
actually. Is the way supposed to be split before and after each
intersection?
Maybe I should write up the proposal as I see it, but all I'm proposing is:
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 4:54 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com
wrote:
Well, put it this way: if this was implemented, I would duplicate far
fewer roads in future.
If it worked (and I really haven't delved into the details
(Weird, did this email not get sent before - so many emails going back
and forth. Oops.)
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 4:37 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
no, I think this is a big con: there are (and will always be) people who
change the map to different schemes, sometimes
Awesome, nice to finally get some proper criticism :)
I'll write up the proposal as I see it. I think most of these comments are
assuming that somehow a single divider=* tag is going to replace all split
roads, including dual carriageway motorways etc. That's not what I'm
suggesting.
I like the
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 4:28 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/12/4 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com:
Again, this proposal is not primarily about rendering. That's a nice
benefit
in some cases. The goals are:
1) More appropriate data structure
How is this more
Hi all,
I have rewritten the proposal, using the ideas from here. I've gone for
maximum simplicity, removing all the single-direction u-turn stuff and the
relations on adjoint roads.
Please have a read and comment:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Divided_road
Perhaps I
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 9:22 PM, Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org wrote:
I'm sure that the whole project would benefit if arguments could be
articulated in a demonstration that would convince the wondering newbies
such as me. There is surely not a single best way, but the need for a
correct
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 5:04 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
This opens up a can of worms about micro mapping.
You either need to split the way to accomodate your suggestion or some
other micromapping technique to accomlish this, in any case you are
adding almost nothing that a
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
1, 2. Dual carriageway
5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Dual carriageway
Alright, but let's be practical. It's a lot of effort to create and maintain
pairs of roads (let's not call them dual carriageways - that's really a
specific type of
Wondering if there is a site that overlays OSM data over GoogleMaps (or any
other site, for that matter)? Not for tracing, but for checking
completeness. It would be very interesting.
Steve
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
http://sautter.com/map/
with a transparent overlay.
That's really cool, thanks!
Steve
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
Many of the example pictures have end cases that need to be handled by
separated
roads, so why not just draw the reality on the ground?
Because, as someone else pointed out, drawing the reality on the ground
isn't the
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 12:30 AM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
I think my only problem with 'divided' is At what point do you apply it?
The
samples being shown are quite clearly - on the whole - dual carriageway
structures.
(Just on terminology, I'm used to dual carriageway only
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 1:03 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Is the benefit just so you can get more precise with area micromapping?
Let's assume, because it's true, that volunteer mapping time is limited, and
the use of areas to micromap roads is rare, and certainly not expected by
end
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 4:11 AM, Richard Bullock rb...@cantab.net wrote:
But to be completely honest, mapping out dual carriageways is really not
*that* time consuming. In JOSM you could just copy the way you have drawn
and drag the copied way a few metres to the side and reverse the direction.
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 2:31 AM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
grow from nothing to several meters. At what point do you change from
'divided'
to separate ways, which then begs the question
This is the same kind of question as when a road switches from tertiary to
secondary etc. Does
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
These aren't two atoms of data, just one. Unfortunately, there is the
technical requirement to provide two strings - key and value. A thingy
key (could be type or poi or whatever just as well as amenity) is
a method to
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 9:12 AM, Richard Bullock rb...@cantab.net wrote:
Maybe we should be mapping slipways, hopefully there's a better approach
than marking them all as fully fledged roads though.
Sliproads are tagged as highway=xyz_link
e.g. a sliproad to a motorway would be
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 12:06 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
You could easily choose to not show secondary_link at scales of your
choice. Whether that is an improvement in rendering quality or not
would be a judgment call and should consider the intent of your
rendering and the
Dunno about the rest of you, but I fantasise about the day that a taxi
driver takes me through a shortcut that I added to OSM... I map on OSM
because I want everyone to have the changes, not because I'm on an open
source crusade.
(I'll be quiet again.)
Steve
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
This doesn't necessarily mean that share-alike is *good* for business,
but I believe that the difficulties that share-alike brings are prone to
hit a law-abiding hobbyist individual harder than a business giant with
a
Thank you! Does the data is made available to the Mapnik renderer as
a large shapefile (processed_p) which is generated every few weeks
from planet dumps. still hold true?
Steve
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 3:11 AM, Peter Körner osm-li...@mazdermind.de wrote:
Steve Bennett schrieb:
So, my hard
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 3:38 AM, Peter Körner osm-li...@mazdermind.de wrote:
Fortunately, the coastline doesn't change that often ;)
Well, not physically, but I'm probably not the only one going around
improving it based on aerial imagery. Anyway, time to be patient I
guess.
Steve
Hi all,
I've been showing my progress on this task to the tag list, but now
that I have a pretty table, I'll show it here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Stevage/tagsupport
This table shows whether the main OSM stylesheets in each of Mapnik
and Osmarenderer support each of the given
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
This 'supports' needs clarifying.
For example you list bridge=aqueduct as yes, yet it doesn't render.
So what is the difference in meaning between support render?
The term recognises is probably better than supports. I
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 9:39 PM, paul youlten paul.youl...@gmail.com wrote:
James,
I am sure there are other examples of things that can't be easily
mapped by humans walking, cycling and kayaking around (drains,
underground tunnels and long lines of electricity pylons spring to
mind).
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 9:37 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
For the 340+ who replied, we have:
30% yes, I will accept the new license Odbl
45% yes and consider all my data Public domain (no restrictions)
3% no, I will not accept the new license Odbl but I will if the
license is reworked
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 1:01 AM, Lennard l...@xs4all.nl wrote:
Yes, it is. It falls under bridge=*, i.e. every occurence of the bridge
tag on certain highway types will render a bridge. This conveniently
catches other exotic instances, like bridge=swing, bridge=span, etc. But
as always, the
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 1:47 AM, Peter Childs pchi...@bcs.org wrote:
From having seen it in quite a few Open Source projects, it would be a
death sentence.
I'll have to take your word for it. From my point of view, I think I'd
rather see a 70% free project with 100% coverage, than a 100% free
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 1:51 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
Could you post the link to the stylesheet please
Ok, I'll give it a quick rinse first.
That seems a good idea
Could you list be extended to show for which element the likes of bridge
are/aren't rendered?
By element do you
1 - 100 of 930 matches
Mail list logo
