On 15/06/2011, at 3:15 PM, John Smith wrote:
The current boundaries will be removed in the near future, so if I
were you I wouldn't spend to much time fussing over them.
Some of these boundaries have been edited to include highway=* and
waterway=* tags (mainly in areas with (at the time) no
On 19 June 2011 19:32, Mark Pulley mrpul...@lizzy.com.au wrote:
Some of these boundaries have been edited to include highway=* and
waterway=* tags (mainly in areas with (at the time) no good imagery). How
easy is it to get a list of these ways? Now that better imagery is
available, now would
On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 19:32:58 +1000
Mark Pulley mrpul...@lizzy.com.au wrote:
On 15/06/2011, at 3:15 PM, John Smith wrote:
The current boundaries will be removed in the near future, so if I
were you I wouldn't spend to much time fussing over them.
Some of these boundaries have been edited
On 19/06/2011, at 7:56 PM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
most of those places don't have better imagery, certainly not the
places I did.
Some places do have better imagery, or in some cases GPS traces (I
noticed today some of the Barrier Hwy north of Burra is done on a
relation - I have too much
On 15 June 2011 06:15, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 June 2011 12:16, Gary Gallagher g.null.dev...@gmail.com wrote:
I've been working on my suburb (Brunswick East), and keep coming across
tangled messes of ways caused by the boundary data effectively floating
above
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 00:10:47 +1000
Mark Pulley mrpul...@lizzy.com.au wrote:
And as they won't be pulled from fosm why should I be concerned?
Did you get out of bed on the wrong side this morning?
Not everyone here has decided to give up on OSM. I'm going to decide
once I see what
Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
I was invited to join a CC-by-SA project, was aware of which
licence was appropriate for me at the time of joining, and will
not be part of the obscure and doubtbul licence project.
Fair enough.
As of today, contributions to OSM are ODbL+CT only.
Guess that's you
Quoting Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 00:10:47 +1000
Mark Pulley mrpul...@lizzy.com.au wrote:
And as they won't be pulled from fosm why should I be concerned?
Did you get out of bed on the wrong side this morning?
Rudeness won't get you anywhere.
Actually, my
On 20 June 2011 05:00, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
I was invited to join a CC-by-SA project, was aware of which
licence was appropriate for me at the time of joining, and will
not be part of the obscure and doubtbul licence project.
Fair enough.
As
On 20/06/11 11:49, James Andrewartha wrote:
Ah, that welcoming OSM spirit.
Yes, it's easy to forget sometimes that we're all friends here.
John H
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:42 AM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
That is the reason why very little effort has been expended mapping
Australia lately, until we know what skeleton of data we'll have left to
work with after the changeover.
If you want to map for OSM at the moment,
On 17 June 2011 18:38, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:42 AM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
That is the reason why very little effort has been expended mapping
Australia lately, until we know what skeleton of data we'll have left to
work with
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 3:15 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
The current boundaries will be removed in the near future, so if I
were you I wouldn't spend to much time fussing over them.
Oh? Do tell?
Steve
___
Talk-au mailing list
On Fri, 2011-06-17 at 11:14 +1000, Steve Bennett wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 3:15 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
The current boundaries will be removed in the near future, so if I
were you I wouldn't spend to much time fussing over them.
Oh? Do tell?
All ABS boundaries
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:42 AM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
On Fri, 2011-06-17 at 11:14 +1000, Steve Bennett wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 3:15 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
wrote:
The current boundaries will be removed in the near future, so if I
were you I
Gary wrote...
I've been working on my suburb (Brunswick East), and keep coming across
tangled messes of ways caused by the boundary data effectively floating
above different ways. Roads are being connected to the boundary instead
of the the road. The road or other way has been moved to create a
Thanks for all the comments, I think I'll hold off. It does seem
unfortunate that there is no basic work-flow to convert a boundary into
a relation containing the ways that make it up. From what you've said
Nick merging nodes still keeps them as separate ways just stacked on top
of each other -
On 16 June 2011 15:01, Gary Gallagher g.null.dev...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for all the comments, I think I'll hold off. It does seem
unfortunate that there is no basic work-flow to convert a boundary into
a relation containing the ways that make it up. From what you've said
Nick merging nodes
I've been working on my suburb (Brunswick East), and keep coming across
tangled messes of ways caused by the boundary data effectively floating
above different ways. Roads are being connected to the boundary instead
of the the road. The road or other way has been moved to create a clear
path for
On 15 June 2011 12:16, Gary Gallagher g.null.dev...@gmail.com wrote:
I've been working on my suburb (Brunswick East), and keep coming across
tangled messes of ways caused by the boundary data effectively floating
above different ways. Roads are being connected to the boundary instead
of the
20 matches
Mail list logo
