As you mention I can see these being useful for emergency services or
anyone who has been granted access to private roads/tracks.
If you're mapping based on what you can see from the aerial imagery, then I
see no issue with mapping these as access=private.
On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 at 09:46, Warin
I too stated that the way he perceives the mailing list and wrote about the
interface being poor that this might be due to the email client or settings he
is using. Unfortunately there was no reaction to this (as with most of the
other post).
I agree with Frederick that we should have more
I map them with access private because I can see them on aerial images and on
the ground. If the path is e.g. behind a high hedge I will limit to the visible
part or what I can see on aerial images.
I think mapping these roads adds value for everyone who is trying to get to the
particular
# Principle of tagging
1. Tagging should be consistent with the laws of the jurisdiction
2. Tagging should not be code but be explicit
3. Tagging should be useful
4. Tagging should be intuitive
5. Tagging should be easy (regional presets)
I will comment on the first two.
## Principle 1
ONE set
Hi,
I am in 2 minds about this ... these roads exist so they can be seen.
They might be usefull navigational features;
firstly to plot progress along a public road - you have just past this private
road so you must he here on the map.
secondly for any emergency services - mainly thinking of
Hola,
Aprovechando el día de las elecciones en Bolivia, vendría bien
animamos a mapillear lugares que no tiene fotos? o quizá añadir
algunas calles que no tienen datos como nombre, sentido, superficie? o
quizá la escuela y sus nombres?
Es ideal un día que no hay autos y hay poca gente en las
On 04/10/2019 20:28, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
On 10/4/19 20:51, Mark Goodge wrote:
The reality is that people expect postcodes to be a functional
search term on online mapping, at least in the UK,
You *are* ware that UK post codes are fully findable on the OSM
website and any site that
On 04/10/2019 15:41, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Twopenn'orth and not particularly a reply to any single message:
1. I'm not against them being in the OSM database, mostly for the reason
that it's unrealistic to expect every single app to do additional processing
for all 195 countries in the
On 04/10/2019 01:52, nd...@redhazel.co.uk wrote:
Besides, the main reason for importing these data is that we can get
_all_ postcodes in the database. This gives users confidence that when
they search for a postcode they will reliably get a result they are
looking for. This is not possible
Hi,
On 10/4/19 20:51, Mark Goodge wrote:
> The reality is that people expect postcodes to be a functional search term on
> online mapping, at least in the UK,
You *are* ware that UK post codes are fully findable on the OSM website
and any site that runs the Nominatim geocoder? It must have been
On 04/10/2019 01:52, nd...@redhazel.co.uk wrote:
This may not be a perfect solution but the information CPO/ONSPD
contains is still extremely useful for geocoding. Search for a postcode
and you are _guaranteed_ to get an address in a close vicinity to a
place you are looking for. How about
Thanks for this Chris,
I've just added about 100 addr:postcodes to some of my manor in no time at all.
It was mostly pretty easy to identify a good match for and existing building.
Then I went back and added a source tag as an afterthought.
Great stuff all round, I''l try to remember to make
Hi all.
For those interested in adding boundaries into OSM, I have developed a
small JOSM plugin to dissolve relations. Intent is to make it much easier
to create boundaries that are based on existing boundaries (e.g. townlands
or EDs). Brian has given v0.1.0 a good hammering and so far so good.
On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 8:16 AM Bill Ricker wrote:
> I would also be interested in how to use LAZ files with OSM tools or other
> FLOSS tools.
> (I note there's an open tool to uncompress LAZ to LAS.)
> I see some tutorials for extracting buildings, but I'm interested in
> traces of former
> Le 3 oct. 2019 à 23:13, Vincent de Château-Thierry a écrit
> :
>
>
> Je n'ai pas l'impression qu'on gagnera en pertinence en important des
> agrégats de parcelles nommées issues du cadastre (notre seule source
> surfacique) tant c'est un contenu partiel (on a bien plus de lieux-dits sur
On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 1:05 PM Kevin wrote:
> I use https://coast.noaa.gov/inventory/ quite a lot to see what elevation
> products (usually looking for lidar) are available for any given area.
>
> So LIDAR was flown in 2016 in the Bethel area.
>
Twopenn'orth and not particularly a reply to any single message:
1. I'm not against them being in the OSM database, mostly for the reason
that it's unrealistic to expect every single app to do additional processing
for all 195 countries in the world. Sure, it would be nice if Osmand and
maps.me
Op vr 4 okt. 2019 om 14:07 schreef Russ Garrett :
>
> On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 13:59, David Woolley wrote:
> > Although I don't have a primary source for this, my understanding is
> > that the median is snapped to the nearest actual delivery point within
> > the postcode.
>
> I was also under the
On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 13:59, David Woolley wrote:
> Although I don't have a primary source for this, my understanding is
> that the median is snapped to the nearest actual delivery point within
> the postcode.
I was also under the impression that they were mathematical centroids
of the postcode
On 04/10/2019 13:47, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:
No. The centre point is not associated with *any* delivery point. It is
an arbitrary mean, calculated mathematically. it could, in theory, be
located in the middle of a park.
Even postcodes unique to one property/business aren't accurate as their
On 04/10/2019 12:46, Andrew Davidson wrote:
I think at one point footway was assumed to be paved and path unpaved.
I think that it's actually a bit more complicated than that. The
"standard" style on OpenStreetMap.org changed to displaying footway and
path the same because it was clear
On 04/10/2019 01:52, nd...@redhazel.co.uk wrote:
On 04/10/2019 00:26, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:
I think you're missing the point. Most contributors believe postcodes
on buildings or property nodes, add quality to the OSM's database,
but object to the import of codepoint as it's just not
On 4/10/19 5:20 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote:
though for
something that's unpaved then highway=path and highway=footway mean the
same thing to me.
I think at one point footway was assumed to be paved and path unpaved.
The default now appears to be unpaved for both as they are rendered the
same.
My usual disclaimer that I have no great OSM expertise. Hopefully I can
give a newbie's/recently-a-non-editor's perspective.
This:
> How about not needing to start Google Maps
> when searching for a location on the go?
would be reason enough to bring in postcodes in this way.
Even if they're
On 04/10/19 17:20, Andrew Harvey wrote:
Fair points, so I agree to revert back the previous guidelines. I see
highway=path used a lot for unsignposted bush walking track (single
person wide, definitely not wide enough for vehicles), though for
something that's unpaved then highway=path and
Fair points, so I agree to revert back the previous guidelines. I see
highway=path used a lot for unsignposted bush walking track (single person
wide, definitely not wide enough for vehicles), though for something that's
unpaved then highway=path and highway=footway mean the same thing to me.
On
4 Oct 2019, 01:26 by talk-gb@openstreetmap.org:
> There's no point in importing to stand alone nodes as deliveries are destined
> for buildings.
>
Importing accurate and complete address
nodes on a suitable licence is certainly
helpful.
Not sure is it applying also to incomplete
set, but based
Am Do., 3. Okt. 2019 um 22:16 Uhr schrieb Friedrich Volkmann :
> > und die letzten Jahre hat es doch auch kein Problem damit gegeben
>
> Wenn du persönlich kein Problem damit hast, heißt das noch lang nicht,
> dass
> es keines gibt. Ich z.B. habe immer wieder Probleme damit, wenn ich für
> den
>
On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 4:30 PM Andrew Harvey
wrote:
> I'm mildly for reverting, although I'm happy to hear out arguments either
> way and be proven wrong.
>
Up until May this year path meant an unsealed "track" that was too small
for vehicles (or at least that's how mappers were using them) now
I'm mildly for reverting, although I'm happy to hear out arguments either
way and be proven wrong.
- The footpath which runs along side the road which is not explicitly
signposted for bicycles should be highway=footway + footway=sidewalk, even
in states where you can ride on the footpath, as it's
Yes it does - sorry - I read that incorrectly by not reading the second
part.
On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 16:17, Andrew Davidson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 4:13 PM Ewen Hill wrote:
>
>> Daniel,
>>I thought it was 250watts for e-bikes (a European standard now
>> basically global) so the book
On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 4:06 PM Daniel O'Connor
wrote:
> +1.
>
> Do have to amend the bits around not legal for SA cyclists to be on
> footpaths given
> https://www.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/23438/DPTI-Cycling-and-the-Law-Booklet.pdf
>
These days it might be easier to say everywhere
On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 4:13 PM Ewen Hill wrote:
> Daniel,
>I thought it was 250watts for e-bikes (a European standard now
> basically global) so the book may be incorrect anyway
>
>
Isn't that what it says on page 3?
___
Talk-au mailing list
Daniel,
I thought it was 250watts for e-bikes (a European standard now basically
global) so the book may be incorrect anyway
Ewen
On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 16:07, Daniel O'Connor
wrote:
> +1.
>
> Do have to amend the bits around not legal for SA cyclists to be on
> footpaths given
>
Herbert,
Having a look at your selection clauses below, the node and relation are
probably not required. You may also want to look at
way["highway"="cycleway"] and way["bicycle"="designated"] (regardless of
highway type)
I have also used styling so you can quickly see what the issues (real
+1.
Do have to amend the bits around not legal for SA cyclists to be on
footpaths given
https://www.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/23438/DPTI-Cycling-and-the-Law-Booklet.pdf
On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 3:31 PM Andrew Davidson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 3:09 PM Herbert.Remi via Talk-au <
On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 3:09 PM Herbert.Remi via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> There are almost no paths in the ACT compliant with Australian Tagging
> Guidelines
>
Thanks for bringing that to our attention. Turns out that a "helpful" wiki
user radically changed the suggested way
37 matches
Mail list logo
