Hi everyone
Do we have a collective opinion about this proposed import circulated by
stephen.pete...@sky.com on the talk gb list?
Personally I wouldn't want it as I believe we decided not to include
ward boundaries
as
the present cartographic style clutters up and already busy urban map.
Hi,
This is kind of a tagging question, but is UK-specific and pretty
straightforward so I thought I'd post it here -- apologies happy to
re-post if felt inappropriate.
I've noticed a couple of roads in the UK being downgraded in OSM from
trunk to primary on the basis that they are not trunk in
the wiki is the long-accepted approach: use highway=trunk for green signs -
ie the primary (sorry) route network
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 2:44 PM, David Fisher djfishe...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
This is kind of a tagging question, but is UK-specific and pretty
straightforward so I thought I'd
On 22/04/13 14:44, David Fisher wrote:
I've noticed a couple of roads in the UK being downgraded in OSM from
trunk to primary on the basis that they are not trunk in the
County Council / DfT maintenance sense. They are, however, green-sign
primary routes and are clearly of greater importance
Ok. So I guess I should message users Trubshaw (re A354) and UltimateKoopa
(re A22), then.
Thanks guys.
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
On 22/04/13 14:44, David Fisher wrote:
I've noticed a couple of roads in the UK being downgraded in OSM from
trunk to
Yep, as others have noted, the Green Sign = Trunk Road is the age old
convention. If you want to add details about who maintains the road you can
use operator=Highways_Agency (the second highest use of the operator tag
apparently [1]). We don't have a tag for indicating that the signs are
green
6 matches
Mail list logo
