On 21/3/20 11:02 pm, ael wrote:
On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 10:45:53AM +1100, Warin wrote:
On 18/3/20 1:42 am, ael wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 11:25:24AM +, Devonshire wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020, at 2:08 AM, Warin wrote:
On 17/3/20 8:02 am, ael wrote:
The inability to mark an object's
On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 10:45:53AM +1100, Warin wrote:
> On 18/3/20 1:42 am, ael wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 11:25:24AM +, Devonshire wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020, at 2:08 AM, Warin wrote:
> > > > On 17/3/20 8:02 am, ael wrote:
> > > The inability to mark an object's location as
On 18/3/20 1:42 am, ael wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 11:25:24AM +, Devonshire wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020, at 2:08 AM, Warin wrote:
On 17/3/20 8:02 am, ael wrote:
The inability to mark an object's location as "authorititive" has always seemed
like a massive shortcoming of the project
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 03:08:39PM +, ael wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 06:09:26PM +, ael wrote:
> > I have just noticed some new "Embankments" added around a fortnight ago.
> > These were added to some stone circles in Cornwall which I know well and
> >
> > I have added a changeset
On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 06:09:26PM +, ael wrote:
> I have just noticed some new "Embankments" added around a fortnight ago.
> These were added to some stone circles in Cornwall which I know well and
>
> I have added a changeset comment.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/81640861
The
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 11:25:24AM +, Devonshire wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2020, at 2:08 AM, Warin wrote:
> > On 17/3/20 8:02 am, ael wrote:
>
> The inability to mark an object's location as "authorititive" has always
> seemed like a massive shortcoming of the project to me. Stopping people
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 11:25:24AM +, Devonshire wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2020, at 2:08 AM, Warin wrote:
> > On 17/3/20 8:02 am, ael wrote:
>
> The inability to mark an object's location as "authorititive" has always
> seemed like a massive shortcoming of the project to me. Stopping people
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 01:08:52PM +1100, Warin wrote:
> On 17/3/20 8:02 am, ael wrote:
> >
> > I have only just got around to looking in more detail, and discovered
> > that it is much worse than I had realised: vandalism.
> >
> > I have taken waypoints on nearly all of the individual stones,
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 09:53:07AM +, John Aldridge wrote:
> On 17-Mar-20 02:08, Warin wrote:
> > A single GPS trace is fine if that is all there is, better to average many
> > GPS traces, in some locations I have 50+.
>
> Though, AIUI, once you've reached this level of precision, remaining
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020, at 2:08 AM, Warin wrote:
> On 17/3/20 8:02 am, ael wrote:
>> In cases like this I would use the source tag on the way so that others have
>> a very good chance of seeing it and respecting the previous work rather than
>> simply changing it to what they think it should be.
On 17/3/20 8:53 pm, John Aldridge wrote:
On 17-Mar-20 02:08, Warin wrote:
A single GPS trace is fine if that is all there is, better to average
many GPS traces, in some locations I have 50+.
Though, AIUI, once you've reached this level of precision, remaining
errors are likely to be
On 17-Mar-20 02:08, Warin wrote:
A single GPS trace is fine if that is all there is, better to average many GPS
traces, in some locations I have 50+.
Though, AIUI, once you've reached this level of precision, remaining
errors are likely to be systematic (e.g. satellites in a particular
On 17/3/20 8:02 am, ael wrote:
I have only just got around to looking in more detail, and discovered
that it is much worse than I had realised: vandalism.
I have taken waypoints on nearly all of the individual stones, and then
refined those positions with waypoint averaging on multiple visits.
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 04:18:02:PM +, Andy Townsend wrote:
> On 16/03/2020 15:36, ael wrote:
> >
> > There has now been had one short reply essentially admitting tagging for
> > the renderer. I haven't replied as yet, but Andy has.
>
> In this case it looks like the offending data's been
On 16/03/2020 15:36, ael wrote:
There has now been had one short reply essentially admitting tagging for
the renderer. I haven't replied as yet, but Andy has.
In this case it looks like the offending data's been removed, though the
tiles haven't rerendered yet (due to the site being busy).
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 04:08:45PM +0100, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
>
>
> Mar 15, 2020, 22:36 by witwa...@disroot.org:
>
> > On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 09:18:59PM +, David Woolley wrote:
> >
> >> On 14/03/2020 18:09, ael wrote:
> >> > I have just noticed some new "Embankments" added around a
Mar 15, 2020, 22:36 by witwa...@disroot.org:
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 09:18:59PM +, David Woolley wrote:
>
>> On 14/03/2020 18:09, ael wrote:
>> > I have just noticed some new "Embankments" added around a fortnight ago.
>> > These were added to some stone circles in Cornwall which I know
On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 09:18:59PM +, David Woolley wrote:
> On 14/03/2020 18:09, ael wrote:
> > I have just noticed some new "Embankments" added around a fortnight ago.
> > These were added to some stone circles in Cornwall which I know well and
> > have extensively surveyed. There is no
On 14/03/2020 18:09, ael wrote:
I have just noticed some new "Embankments" added around a fortnight ago.
These were added to some stone circles in Cornwall which I know well and
have extensively surveyed. There is no trace of any embankments. No
source was given and the user does not appear to
19 matches
Mail list logo
