OK, I have more or less figured out what you are trying to do. I hadn't paid
close attention to the various emails that flew by.
I wont vote on whether to have this or not, I just hope you guys have your
finger on the pulse. It all automatically went into my too hard basket.
I would
2009/10/27 Graeme Wilson wandere...@live.com.au:
I would definitely agree with highway=disused, I find plenty of them, but if
it is to be displayed, then can it be a significant colour and/or thickness
and/or dashed line or whatever to indicate disused.
You'd have to work how how these should
isn't problem with all this the word in the tag 'nonexistent' is
ambiguous in that it could refers to (at least) three things:
. A road that has never never existed but is/was 'planned' - e.g.
Monash Dr in Canberra
. A road that used to exist but is now 'overgrown', 'rerouted', washed
away, etc.
2009/10/27 Jim Croft jim.cr...@gmail.com:
. A road that has never never existed but is/was 'planned' - e.g.
Monash Dr in Canberra
Since getting access to some data sources we can now map these without
infringing copyright, in future we may actually be given access to
data that actually has
The current suggestion in
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines is that
roads that do not yet exist be tagged highway=nonexistent.
There are two key questions to be answered:
1. Should such roads be entered into OSM?
2. If they are to be entered, should they be
5 matches
Mail list logo
