Can confirm. It's also occurring in Overpass Turbo.
An alternative to using Chrome is to:
Download an older version of Firefox from FileHippo
https://filehippo.com/download_firefox_64/
In your current FIrefox turn off auto updates Options>General (Scroll Down)
Uninstall Firefox
Load old
On 20/09/2018 19:44, Mark Goodge wrote:
Then get involved and put it in OHM.
I was involved, but the current OHM development is not going in a way
that works well with OSM so I gave up. I'd rather mirror OSM directly
and add my historic material to that local copy! Which is what I'm doing
On 20/09/2018 18:16, Lester Caine wrote:
On 20/09/2018 17:50, Mark Goodge wrote:
In fact, putting them in OSM isn't just damaging to OSM, it's damaging
to OHM. At the moment, OHM is a bit sparse, there are some well-mapped
areas but there are some pretty big blank areas. What it really needs
Stuart Reynolds wrote:
> I propose that we refer this to the OSM UK Directors and ask
> them to review the arguments for both sides and come to a
> firm decision. That’s what we elected them for, after all. Then
> they publish it, and that is what we all agree to accept,
> whether it matches
Hi,
If these boundaries were purely of historical interest I doubt that you'd
find many experienced contributors arguing for their inclusion in OSM. The
argument is that these areas retain a continued cultural geographic
relevance. People with no particularinterest in history can and do still
On 20/09/2018 17:50, Mark Goodge wrote:
In fact, putting them in OSM isn't just damaging to OSM, it's damaging
to OHM. At the moment, OHM is a bit sparse, there are some well-mapped
areas but there are some pretty big blank areas. What it really needs is
a group of enthusiastic contributors,
On 20/09/2018 16:37, Dan S wrote:
Op do 20 sep. 2018 om 16:31 schreef Mark Goodge :
However, historic administrative boundaries, by definition, are not
current. They're not an edge case. They are completely outside the
realms of what is current.
Your "by definition" seems to be about
Op do 20 sep. 2018 om 16:31 schreef Mark Goodge :
>
>
>
> On 20/09/2018 13:46, Martin Wynne wrote:
> > On 20/09/2018 13:12, Dave F wrote:
> >> See the OSM Welcome page.
> >
> > Thanks. The wording there is:
> >
> > "OpenStreetMap is a place for mapping things that are both real and
> > current."
>
On 20/09/2018 13:46, Martin Wynne wrote:
On 20/09/2018 13:12, Dave F wrote:
See the OSM Welcome page.
Thanks. The wording there is:
"OpenStreetMap is a place for mapping things that are both real and
current."
Unfortunately it doesn't define "real" or "current".
No, it leaves those to
Stuart wrote:
> I propose that we refer this to the OSM UK Directors and ask them
> to review the arguments for both sides and come to a firm decision.
> That’s what we elected them for, after all.
I didn't. I thought OSM UK was to promote OSM in the UK, not decide what we can
and can't map.
I’m all for debate and coming to a consensus, but my message counter has got to
108 mails in this thread, and I have to say that from where I am sitting it’s
all becoming rather tedious. The same arguments (albeit polite) are being
rehashed, nothing new is being said, and no-one is showing any
On 19/09/2018 23:01, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Frederik Ramm wrote:
It still is one today.
So there's no problem, then.
So:
Historic counties can and often do represent genuine, attested, useful
geographic information. If you're proposing to delete them, you need to come
up with a
On 20/09/2018 13:24, Colin Smale wrote:
On 2018-09-20 14:12, Dave F wrote:
See the OSM Welcome page.
Quoting the law does not make a person guilty.
Misunderstanding 'the law' doesn't prove 'innocence'.
If it were that simple these boundaries would have been removed long ago.
Being
On 20/09/2018 13:12, Dave F wrote:
See the OSM Welcome page.
Thanks. The wording there is:
"OpenStreetMap is a place for mapping things that are both real and
current."
Unfortunately it doesn't define "real" or "current".
What is a "real" bus stop? Does it need a physical marker post or
On 2018-09-20 14:12, Dave F wrote:
> See the OSM Welcome page.
Quoting the law does not make a person guilty. If it were that simple
these boundaries would have been removed long ago.
Are you offering to delete these boundaries then?
As far as I can see there is no "decision" in this case
See the OSM Welcome page.
On 20/09/2018 13:00, Martin Wynne wrote:
The argument against the historic county boundaries is that they
can't be verified on the ground.
No, Martyn. It's that they are not current.
Make up your minds!
Previously:
> > On 09/19/2018 06:38 PM, Martin Wynne wrote:
Sure (green tick):
https://www.openstreetmap.org/welcome
On 20/09/2018 12:52, Colin Smale wrote:
On 2018-09-20 13:22, Dave F wrote:
As I noted previously, many discussions have been had & a decision made.
The discussion is clearly ongoing Could you point me to the
"decision" please?
On 20/09/18 20:53, Martin Wynne wrote:
How can you verify it's the same stream?
I can't. I've deleted it.
This raises the question of the maximum length of a culvert under a
road, beyond which it is no longer permissible to map it as such.
Under a country lane is ok? But under a motorway?
I think Richard as usually eloquently summarised my position. Rutland is
perhaps an extreme example insofar as more-or-less the entire population
objected to the county disappearing. However such cases are not uncommon
across the world: of the top of my head, I can think of the city of
Allegheny
The argument against the historic county boundaries is that they can't
be verified on the ground.
No, Martyn. It's that they are not current.
Make up your minds!
Previously:
> > On 09/19/2018 06:38 PM, Martin Wynne wrote:
> > I'm puzzled by this insistence that we can map only that which
>
On 2018-09-20 13:22, Dave F wrote:
> As I noted previously, many discussions have been had & a decision made.
The discussion is clearly ongoing Could you point me to the
"decision" please?___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
On 20/09/2018 12:07, Martin Wynne wrote:
The argument against the historic county boundaries is that they can't
be verified on the ground.
No, Martyn. It's that they are not current.
Current boundaries aren't visible on the ground either. No one's painted
dashed lines across the fields,
Poohsticks.
(How did the conversation get to this...)
The argument against the historic county boundaries is that they can't
be verified on the ground.
I map lots of stuff that can't be verified on the ground. For example
rural bus stops often have no physical marker.
Martin.
On 20/09/2018 11:57, Dan S wrote:
Poohsticks.
(How did the conversation get to this...)
OSM threads *always* go off track, often from the first reply.
Could we all please /try/ to keep on topic, or start a new thread?
Cheers
DaveF
___
Talk-GB
Do we map pipelines? Or just the visible markers? What is the correct
tagging for this:
Sorry, forget that. I found:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:pipeline%3Dmarker
Martin.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
Op do 20 sep. 2018 om 09:46 schreef Colin Smale :
>
> On 2018-09-20 10:25, Martin Wynne wrote:
>
> But I can't verify that fact. Should I not map it at all? What is verifiable
> on the ground is the fact that the stream does not stop dead at one location
> and restart at another.
>
> How can you
How can you verify it's the same stream?
I can't. I've deleted it.
This raises the question of the maximum length of a culvert under a
road, beyond which it is no longer permissible to map it as such. Under
a country lane is ok? But under a motorway?
What is a stream? Even if it's the
On 2018-09-20 10:25, Martin Wynne wrote:
> But I can't verify that fact. Should I not map it at all? What is verifiable
> on the ground is the fact that the stream does not stop dead at one location
> and restart at another.
How can you verify it's the same stream? Taking your own flourescein
it is one of our basic principles and it's here to stay.
Usually people don't say "current or real" but "verifiable on the
ground". The fundamental idea goes like this: If two mappers disagree
about a feature, they can simply go there and the conflict can be solved
immediately.
"Verifiable on
On 20/09/2018 07:24, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Surely your argument which seems to be based on the romantic
"Rutland that people feel in their hearts" could not be applied as a
reason to store "Rutland County Council District Council in the borders
of 1997", plus "Rutland County Council District
Richard,
On 20.09.2018 00:01, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> From 1974 to 1997, the county of Rutland didn't exist.
It's nice to see such a passionate plea for one particular historic
boundary, and pleas like that are what can give rise to the exceptions I
was talking about.
These exceptions do
Hi Rob,
Sorry, it was late. The 1 inch maps don't explicitly show rural district
boundaries (though they do show the individual parishes) nor do they name
the areas, so might be of limited use to you. The nearest in date 6 or 25
inch map should be your best bet (the boundaries didn't change much
32 matches
Mail list logo
