On Sun, 26 Apr 2009, Liz wrote:
1433 nodes
split it into 600+ and 700+, still couldn't upload the change.
I wait on the bug report - someone has another problem with relations and
they may be related problems
Merkaartor let me bypass the problem
and split the way
however, now one length has
I'll give some thought to how to fix this. If we have find that there are
still issues after the bug fixs (i.e the editors can't split them in to
smaller bits), I think I can work out how to delete the way, upload
replacement shorter ways and link them back in to the relation
cheers
On Mon, Apr
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 22:40:04 +1000
Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009, Liz wrote:
1433 nodes
split it into 600+ and 700+, still couldn't upload the change.
I wait on the bug report - someone has another problem with
relations and they may be related problems
Merkaartor
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009, Darrin Smith wrote:
I'm working on 2 relations like this on KI that sound like they are
having the same kind of issue. ANY edit of any form to the relation
would cause an error - EXCEPT deleting I eventually tried on one of
them. So I've just kept a copy of all the details
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009, Franc Carter wrote:
Hmm, one thing that I forgot to check is the number of nodes in the ways
- I seem to remember that 0.6 was going to introduce a limit on this . .
. .
cheers
The limit is 2000, and the involved way
Thanks for the comments on this.
It appears that the practice is that when it is apparent to a knowledgeable
mapper that the ABS data should align with another OSM way, we apply the
relation to the OSM way and alter the OSM way if required, after giving due
consideration to the accuracy of the
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009, Liz wrote:
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009, Franc Carter wrote:
I'm currently wrestling with trying to get a handle on how we can tell
whether the ABS data is more geographically
accurate than yahoo or other data (not necessairly whether it is an
accuate reflection of the
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009, Franc Carter wrote:
Hmm, one thing that I forgot to check is the number of nodes in the ways -
I seem to remember that 0.6 was going to introduce a limit on this . . . .
cheers
The limit is 2000, and the involved way 1,400 or so, but it might be a clue;
if i break the
Hi.
I think I'm with Darren on all counts.
I think the only thing I'd add is where local knowledge tells you that the
ABS data aligns to some previously unmapped feature (e.g. a river) that
cannot be made out on Landsat (no Yahoo coverage). There I'm tempted to add
the natural feature data to
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 19:47:04 +1000
Ben Kelley ben.kel...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi.
I think I'm with Darren on all counts.
I think the only thing I'd add is where local knowledge tells you
that the ABS data aligns to some previously unmapped feature (e.g. a
river) that cannot be made out on
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009, Darrin Smith wrote:
Know that feeling, I have several days of Easter holiday traces to go
in also. *twiddles*thumbs*
we were just catching up from December in our house, now the days are shorter,
and have stuff waiting for upload
more thumb twiddling
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009, Franc Carter wrote:
I'm currently wrestling with trying to get a handle on how we can tell
whether the ABS data is more geographically
accurate than yahoo or other data (not necessairly whether it is an accuate
reflection of the boundaries)
So, yes - thoughts please
ABS
I totally agee that it's a good idea to work this out, I've been silent on
the matter because I'm far from clear
as to what is a good approach.
I'm currently wrestling with trying to get a handle on how we can tell
whether the ABS data is more geographically
accurate than yahoo or other data (not
13 matches
Mail list logo
