On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 10:35:22PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
The only thing I can think of as a source of this information is
the atlas der buurtwegen / atlas des chemins vicinaux. At least
it should cover all old borders, and is probably want we want to
use to mark the old borders.
The
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 02:11:33PM +0200, Glenn Plas wrote:
The only thing I can think of as a source of this information is
the atlas der buurtwegen / atlas des chemins vicinaux. At least
it should cover all old borders, and is probably want we want to
use to mark the old borders.
Yes, I
Kurt (a.o),
I checked the Rotselaar/Werchter setup and I made a single change to the
Rotselaar relation:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/214462
The only thing I think was missing is adding the Werchter boundary
relation as a 'subarea' to the Rotselaar one.
Did the same setup
I think that Werchter should have admin_level 9 (and not 8) as a
deelgemeente
Rotselaar is 8
And Leuven is 7. Leuven with 7 is not the city of Leuven, it is the
Arrondissement Leuven.Vlaams Brabant has 2 arrondissementen: Leuven and
Halle-Vilvoorde
Therefore Vlaams Brabant has admin_level 6.
On
But in the change, Werchter is given admin_level 8. I think it has to be
changed.
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Ben Laenen benlae...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday 16 June 2013 19:02:01 Glenn Plas wrote:
Kurt (a.o),
I checked the Rotselaar/Werchter setup and I made a single change to the
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/214462
There it is 8? Maybe I'm overlooking something
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 7:12 PM, Daan Bellefroid d...@idaan.be wrote:
But in the change, Werchter is given admin_level 8. I think it has to be
changed.
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 7:10 PM,
Don't think it'll make nominatim process it differently; it gets it input from
the admin_level and adds each different admin_level to the list it shows (9 =
Werchter, 8 = Rotselaar, 7 = Leuven, 6 = Vlaams Brabant, 4 = Flanders, 2 =
Belgium. Btw, you don't have to wait a few days for it to
Oops sorry was looking at Rotselaar
Everything OK ;-
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Daan Bellefroid d...@idaan.be wrote:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/214462
There it is 8? Maybe I'm overlooking something
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 7:12 PM, Daan Bellefroid
On 06/16/2013 07:14 PM, Daan Bellefroid wrote:
Oops sorry was looking at Rotselaar
Everything OK ;-
No problem, made me double-double the check, it's always possible I made
a mistake clicking back and forth and using copy/paste ninja techniques ;-)
I feel like we should add all of
On Sunday 16 June 2013 19:14:16 Glenn Plas wrote:
That's the theory indeed minute diffs, I know all about them... but
there is serious lag sometimes for nominatim, they have a nice lag graph
somewhere.
I love to be on the safe side when making claims I have no influence over
:)
The
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 07:02:01PM +0200, Glenn Plas wrote:
Kurt (a.o),
I checked the Rotselaar/Werchter setup and I made a single change to
the Rotselaar relation:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/214462
The only thing I think was missing is adding the Werchter boundary
On 06/15/2013 02:08 AM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 07:49:55PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 05:04:56PM +0200, Glenn Plas wrote:
http://www.vlaamsbrabant.be/binaries/kaart-vlaamsbrabant-fusiegemeenten-deelgemeenten_tcm5-11555.pdf
That's not even complete.
The fact that Rotselaar trickles up into Leuven can be explained
according to the current data:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/143580669
Still looking into that search problem..
Glenn
On 06/14/2013 12:17 PM, Daan Bellefroid wrote:
Beginners question:
In Nominatim: the search
Well, it is wrong. Can it be changed?
Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad
Op 14-jun.-2013 om 12:38 heeft Glenn Plas gl...@byte-consult.be het
volgende geschreven:
The fact that Rotselaar trickles up into Leuven can be explained according
to the current data:
Can you find for instance Wezemaal? Is also Rotselaar, so same situation as
Werchter.
Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad
Op 14-jun.-2013 om 12:48 heeft Glenn Plas gl...@byte-consult.be het
volgende geschreven:
Maybe it's me but I cannot find any administrative boundary concerning
Werchter inside
I foundation very recent boundaries but GML format.
Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone
Op 14-jun.-2013 om 15:44 heeft Glenn Plas gl...@byte-consult.be het
volgende geschreven:
I was just looking that information up in the forum.
As far as I can find out now, a boundary is a way with a tag boundary=*
But how do people know then where to put the administrative boundaries???
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Glenn Plas gl...@byte-consult.be wrote:
On 06/14/2013 03:57 PM, Daan Bellefroid wrote:
http://download.agiv.be/**Producten/Detail?id=10title=**
On 06/14/2013 04:43 PM, Daan Bellefroid wrote:
But how do people know then where to put the administrative boundaries???
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Mapping_resources
+ personal knowledge
+ local maps
+ ...
There are many sources. 'Deelgemeentes' aren't as
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 05:04:56PM +0200, Glenn Plas wrote:
http://www.vlaamsbrabant.be/binaries/kaart-vlaamsbrabant-fusiegemeenten-deelgemeenten_tcm5-11555.pdf
That's not even complete. For instance Haacht exists of Haacht,
Wespelaar, Tildonk, Wakkerzeel en Kelfs. You can find signs on
the
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 07:49:55PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 05:04:56PM +0200, Glenn Plas wrote:
http://www.vlaamsbrabant.be/binaries/kaart-vlaamsbrabant-fusiegemeenten-deelgemeenten_tcm5-11555.pdf
That's not even complete. For instance Haacht exists of Haacht,
20 matches
Mail list logo
