On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
Roy Wallace wrote:
The point I was making was that it should *not* be necessary to
*require* a database of all laws of all countries to know what
highway=cycleway means. There should be one definition that is
consistent
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
If a German cycleway is *different*
in some important way to a UK (or whatever) cycleway, it should
ultimately be tagged *differently*. I find this obvious.
what's the difference? Minimum width differs 5 cm?
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 5:27 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Without good editor support, mapping highways as areas is already
quite cumbersome.
It's not so bad, for areas with good aerial imagery (I wouldn't call
tracing cumbersome). And yes, not everywhere has good aerial
imagery, but then
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 3:03 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
A thought occurred to me, that people are only planning to use areas
because editors don't easily allow for widths to be entered
graphically.
To some extent, perhaps... but the real reason is because the inherent
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 8:29 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Nice idea, BUT then you are limited to a series of rectangles. In some
situations, I think that will be too restrictive for not much gain.
A series of quadrilaterals, perhaps. If width=10, then 50 metres
later, width
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
interpolation. But approximation with trapezoids or whatever is a bit
fudgye.g. what if you *do* want to represent an instantaneous
change
I have a couple of thoughts:
1) Re: connecting paths across small grass areas - don't mark a path
where there isn't one, and especially don't do it for the purpose of
trying to make routers work better. Map reality - that will always
work best in the long term. (just my personal preference)
2)
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:
I would strongly recommend reading the wiki carefully and using that.
but Roy, the wiki is written by committee and it is a good example of the
failure of the committee process
the minority
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
When is there a path and when is there not a path? I walk through an
area of grass every time I go to the park near my house. Isn't that a
path which is part of reality?
An area of grass is - to me - not a path. A path, IMHO,
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote:
So if consistency is the goal, you cannot rely on various personal
opinions that exist only in people's minds and in email discussions
from time to time (which no doubt only a small proportion of mappers
ever read). You must write
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
An area of grass is - to me - not a path.
Never? Or just not generally?
I'll rephrase. The following, IMHO, are not sufficient reasons to tag
an area of grass as a path: 1) you walk on it; 2) you think it would
help routing.
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
And what about JOSM? So far I've just been using Potlatch because it
just works. What do I have to do to get Nearmap going in JOSM?
As Leon said, first go to
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NearMap_PhotoMaps#JOSM. I
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
The bottom line is that while adding 'width' tags all the way along a road may
be a practical half way house, other area features are not handled the same
way
so why should roads be any different.
I think, because roads
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 5:47 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
I've been seeing this thread develop, and apart from trying to use
areas and relations in all sorts of weird and wonderful ways wouldn't
it be simpler from a logical point of view to treat ways as a grouping
of lanes
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
My point here is that the WAY information provides all of the direction
details.
[snip]
The area detail is simple defined areas 'grouped' with the way or ways that
make up the
route.
So in that case, you seem to be
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 6:47 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
But for people who want to do it [map areas], they should be able to. That's
what
this thread is about - giving them a way to map the world more
accurately
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 6:51 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Right now, what's stopping them?
Documentation. Or, in other words, at least some suggestions as to how
to do it. For example, you'll notice that Map Features states that
highway's are ways, not areas.
Weird.
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 7:32 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
Is a lane a directed area? If it isn't an area, then it's not really
relevant to this thread, is it?
That depends if you are you only after opinions that agree with yours,
or if you really want a solution to a
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org wrote:
Maybe lines and areas each serve a different purpose : areas describe
the physical layout of the world whereas lines describe navigation
paths. So maybe the debate should be re-framed as whether OpenStreetMap
wants to
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 1:51 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Isn't it better in most situations to have both (ways and areas)
rather than just one or the other?
At an intersection, yes, there is one squarish section of road that I
am capable of traveling on in any spot in any direction.
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 8:09 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Now, how are you going to indicate a direction of travel on an area?
I guess you could come up with some way to do it, but you'd basically
be defining a way.
Good point. Anyone got ideas on this? Maybe it is indeed necessary to
Nearmap (http://www.nearmap.com/) now has imagery available for the Gold
Coast, QLD area.
For further updates, follow http://twitter.com/nearmap.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 6:44 AM, Arlindo Pereira nig...@nighto.net wrote:
So, I was wondering: Isn't it time for a higher zoom level?
Yeah, that'd be great, of course :)
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 6:02 AM, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote:
Suitable channels?
suitable for what?
I think those complaining about list activity need to be more specific
about what is and what isn't acceptable. You can't just ask people
to stop being twitter-like.
Personally, I
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 2:06 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/10/3 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com:
Frederik's point is valid - if you want a tagging committee/working
group/whatever, start one. If you want an international tagging
committee, start one. If it's better
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 7:45 PM, James Livingston doc...@mac.com wrote:
The problem isn't tied to a particular mechanism, it's a social
problem where we currently don't have any form if power structure,
This isn't a problem in itself.
and the one mechanism we have for choosing stuff (voting
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I really do encourage you and all
those calling for leadership to get together, form your own advisory
board or tagging committee or whatever, create the structures you think
are required, and then offer them for
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 10:57 AM, ed...@billiau.net wrote:
Frederik said
All this is possible *within* the existing OSM framework and without any
strong leader telling us where to go. I really do encourage you and all
those calling for leadership to get together, form your own advisory
board
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 8:33 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
It shouldn't be too hard to hack up a quick db that can do a layer
over the top, I think people were suggesting to put this info directly
into OSM but that may over kill a simpler DB can do the same thing in
the same
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:05 PM, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote:
It shows visually which the main road is at the junction and is a good
model of the physical arrangement.
IMHO it does not *explicitly* show the continuations of roads at the
junction. And even if you do think it
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 9:35 PM, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote:
Ah, so are you saying that, in Martin's attached image, the red way
and the yellow way should/could meet at the junction? If so, then IMHO
it is even *less* clear that, e.g. traveling from the red to the grey
way is
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 7:35 PM, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote:
On 30/09/2009 10:20, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
you could model it like this (see attached, colours are just
indicating the ways, not highway-classes)
Yes, that's also what I typically do, e.g.
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com wrote:
What you and others simply fail to explain is why the success story from
three years ago with a fraction of mappers and data must be the best
solution for the situation we have today ...
This misses the point. If
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 8:59 PM, Mike N. nice...@att.net wrote:
Since I haven't heard any counter points of view, how do we proceed with
this? Based on previous comments, it should not just be Edit the wiki
page, or is this change small enough to just update the wiki?
If you're referring
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Roy Wallace wrote:
In that case, use a relation. Two options:
1) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Segmented_Tag
2) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Collected_Ways
Both don't go
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 10:11 PM, Mark Pulley mrpul...@lizzy.com.au wrote:
The obvious place to look at the wiki
is http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:source - however on this page even
source=survey is missing.
I'm with Mark - this should be cleaned up, preferably by someone who
has a
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 8:30 PM, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote:
ideas for subsets
gps_chip=antaris/sirfstar3/mediatek/trimble/
gps_model=
hdop=
pdop=
(precision would be some rough figure for the track, i wouldn't want to see
them on each single node)
May I suggest adding
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 8:02 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
just for fun I've printed out a walking-papers page and am going to see if it
is any use for tagging shops in a suburban strip shopping strip
and then how will I define the survey=
source=survey
survey=observation
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 6:58 AM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 8:02 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
just for fun I've printed out a walking-papers page and am going to see if
it
is any use for tagging shops in a suburban strip shopping strip
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Mark Pulley mrpul...@lizzy.com.au wrote:
In light of the recent discussion on this list, maybe we should decide
on which tag to use prior to making extensive changes like these,
I agree. IMHO extensive, (semi-)automated changes should be limited
*at least* to
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com wrote:
Tags that are not VERY clearly defined in the wiki (as a guide) should
be left alone. Given that source=survey and source=GPS are *both not
defined* on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:source, these
should have
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 1:20 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/9/24 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com:
If Mark wants to use source=gps rather than source=survey, because he
feels it conveys a different meaning, then in the spirit of using any
tags you like, I think he should
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com wrote:
In general, the two are inseparable. If author A says M and means X,
and author B says N and means Y, then changing N to M *does not lead
to consistency*. (note: in this example, M=source=survey,
N=source=gps, B=Mark).
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
Camp one is - single way with lanes=4 + bridge section
Camp two would prefer all elements mapped in which case the bridge WOULD
be a separate element.
Camp three: multiple ways representing paths of travel, grouped with a
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 11:15 PM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
Can I check? Are there people here who are suggesting that, in my case,
they want to draw all four ways (yes, I know the footpath hasn't been
mapped yet) as a single way specify the differences with lane tags?
Camp
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 11:32 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
John seems to combine everything into a single way and treat the individual
lanes (some of the substructures aren't even really lanes) as
substructures. Some people want to break every lane into a separate way,
and combine them
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:20 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
A bridge should probably have its
own geometry. And if a bridge has its own geometry (polygon or line and
width) and a layer tag you don't even need the relation, do you? Anything
in the area of the bridge with the same layer
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 6:55 AM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:
Camp three: multiple ways representing paths of travel, grouped with a
bridge relation to indicate they share a common bridge. This could
probably be seen as a compromise, and is (I think) a good interim
solution, if
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 7:20 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
Hi Peter
I can suggest to add bridge's physical form to this. Otherwise yeah,
why not. It would also help to indicate where bridge actually starts
and ends to help routing software logic.
Why would routing software need
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 7:17 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
Roy
Therefore, a
bridge relation would still be useful to indicate that multiple ways
share a bridge, for when the bridge geometry is unknown.
1. Why do the ways need to indicate they share a bridge?
No particular
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 6:30 PM, swanilli swani...@gmail.com wrote:
Given this inconsistency, I have been tagging fire trails and the like
(I ask myself if they are suitable for 4WD) as highway=track and
bushwalking tracks as highway=path.
Did you see the Bush Walking Tracks section of the
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
Some things I'd like to see us add to paths is to indicate which ones do have
available drinking quality water - do you have any ideas on that?
Add an amenity=drinking_water node where applicable.
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:24 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Because that's the primary purpose for which maps are created. To inform us
how to get from place to place.
Be careful...big assumption.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:27 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
it simply isn't treated that way in all
situation or each residential street would be 2 parallel ways, instead
we use a single way to indication a pair of lanes, so which is it
going to be do we need to split
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 4:09 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
If we are tagging lanes not ways then we need to do so en masse, not
have 2 different systems that exists at present.
First things first - 1) propose a way to tag lanes, 2) start using it
in parallel to the current
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 4:12 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 2:09 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
wrote:
2009/9/21 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
Define physically separated.
The road base finishes or there is a concreate barrier or other form
of barrier that
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 10:27 PM, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote:
There's a far larger issue, which I noticed on Garmin's proprietary map
data. When searching for A, how does one map the desire A to the
category scheme, and then enter it, and get the right answer? For
restaurants, is it
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
yes, but that's not the problem: straight parallel ways. The problem
arises when they change (become one more or less), on intersections,
etc. Try to imagine a situation like the one I posted above in a
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 1:37 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
I wasn't suggesting to map each lane separately, however an editor
could display lanes and it would be so much better to display them as
parallel ways which could be edited if they needed to be.
John, do you concede
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 12:42 AM, Valent Turkovic
valent.turko...@gmail.com wrote:
How do you differentiate from path and footpath tag? What is the
difference between them? Can you show me an example?
As the wiki says, briefly:
highway=path is a generic path (i.e. any path)
highway=footway
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 8:30 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/9/16 Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk:
Oh please don't reopen the debate about the highway=path tag. Please read
the archives, there are some very, very, very long topics on this recently.
I
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Marc Schütz schue...@gmx.net wrote:
Since they're buildings wouldn't using a building=* tag be more
accurate in describing them?
Sure, they're buildings - but that just means a building tag should be
used *in addition to* tags giving more details.
Not
I personally think new shop values should come from tagwatch, not from
proposals. I.e. to steer the crowd towards the tag already used by the
majority where necessary.
IMHO proposals can be useful for introducing new tagging schemes (for
a way to tag vacant properties, maybe), but not for
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 7:12 PM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:
What harm could come from defining them?
Oh, I have nothing against proposing new shop values. I just think
that method might not result in the best outcome.
The way I see it, tagwatch is the ultimate vote counter for
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 8:26 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
So its not that I'm disinterested in the wiki, I haven't got time to follow
every part through an undifferentiated feed and so just ignore wiki votes.
The calls for voting sent via the list work for me...
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 10:28 PM, Hugh Barnes list@hughbris.com wrote:
I guess this is one specific case of the broader problem of what to do
when two separate entities are co-located (i.e. nodes would be right
on top of each other).
Well, it depends what you're calling the bus stop. If
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 10:41 PM, Hugh Barnes list@hughbris.com wrote:
I'd like that, too. It's also been discussed regarding temporary
features like events and road closures and seasonal features. T-shirt.
I'm guessing you've seen the following proposal (early stages)?
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 6:02 PM, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote:
On 10/09/2009 01:11, Roy Wallace wrote:
But I would support any proposal that merges these and includes
complementary tags to explicitly specify differences as necessary.
Does it really matter? Just treat them
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Dan Karran d...@karran.net wrote:
2009/9/10 David Muir Sharnoff li...@dave.sharnoff.org:
Has anyone set a letter to Google's legal department asking for
clarification or permission?
I haven't asked their legal department, but Ed Parsons said in an
email
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 8:05 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/9/10 James Livingston doc...@mac.com:
Because of the presence of the bicycle symbol on the ground, I'd say
highway=cycleway;bicycle=designated;foot=yes. If that wasn't there,
I'd say footway=yes;bicycle=yes
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 8:25 PM, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote:
If you don't care, fine. But please don't suggest things that you
admit aren't good solutions.
I'm not suggesting it - that's the way it already is.
You said Just treat them as synonyms. It sounded like a
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Shaun McDonald
sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk wrote:
This isn't a highway=path since the surface is tarmac.
This is irrelevant. Highway=path does not make any implication on
surface: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 8:46 PM, James Livingston doc...@mac.com wrote:
Most of the arguments I saw in the previous debate stemmed from two
questions:
* If a path can be used by both cyclists and pedestrians but has no
signage (or has signage for both), should it be footway or cycleway?
*
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 10:40 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
By license agreement you mean the ToS? A ToS violation, which is not a
violation of copyright or database law, is between Google and the violator.
As long as OSM says don't do it, and doesn't encourage violations, it
really
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 9:59 PM, James Livingston doc...@mac.com wrote:
I don't really want to get into this argument again, but I believe
that either we're going to end up with local rules for the access
mappings, or some regions are going to have to tag every single
cycleway/footway with
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Ashley Kyd a...@kyd.com.au wrote:
(Also, I'm not going to stick around and work out where the attack
perimeter is. You can do that. They're nasty creatures. ;)
Don't forget it should be verifiable, too :)
___
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 8:33 PM, Jonathan
Bennettopenstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk wrote:
There's a difference between using one fact from a newspaper article,
and systematically extracting data from a database to reuse in another
database.
Is there a difference between
1) using one fact from a
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 11:39 PM, John Smithdeltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
Legal arguments aside, there is very few street signs I've seen on
google street view that I can read anyway, most of them seem to be
blurred out, either intentionally, due to motion blur or jpeg like
artifacts.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 5:06 AM, wynnd...@lavabit.com wrote:
Why not go straight into Edit and Save and then have a button to go to
Edit Live (one click to go there as now)?
+1
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 7:28 AM, andrzej zaborowskibalr...@gmail.com wrote:
in this case I agree we should stick to the schema the way it was
originally defined, good or bad, and I normally only use addr:street
on the nodes.
+1
Another argument for doing that is that the addr:interpolation
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Stephen Hope slh...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/9/10 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com:
By the way, I think a cemetery is better described as an amenity, not
a landuse, as I think it is a useful and important facility moreso
than an area of land used by people
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 7:40 PM, Valent
Turkovicvalent.turko...@gmail.com wrote:
Do you use source tag? Why and how, please explain? I read the wiki page
but I don't see many people use it and I'm wondering why.
Whenever I add a tag, e.g. TAG (could be name, or amenity for example)
to a
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 9:43 PM, James Livingston doc...@mac.com wrote:
I've been doing that for a while (well, except waste_basket=*), so
that's a +1 from me :)
Any objections (from anyone) to adding these to
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbus_stop ?
Gday,
For tagging highway=bus_stop 's, in addition to the existing shelter=yes/no,
I'm planning to also use bench=yes/no and waste_basket=yes/no, as these
features are often installed as part of the bus stop itself, in Brisbane.
Tagging separate nodes with amenity=* is not ideal, as 1) i
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Peter Millerpeter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote:
Personally I think the wiki is an under-supported resource and much
load would be taken off talk if it was better written but I do also
acknowledge that the traditional primary form of communication within
OSM is
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Anthonyo...@inbox.org wrote:
Whether this
grouping is done by a relation or a new table isn't something I'm going to
comment on beyond the fact that it obviously could be done by a relation.
Yup.
I have a great fear of the solution proposed by John, though,
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 7:39 AM, Anthonyo...@inbox.org wrote:
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
What do you mean by it allows nodes to be attached to individual
lanes? Do you mean you don't think a lane should be represented by a
series of nodes
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 4:36 AM, Anthonyo...@inbox.org wrote:
You want to have two completely different ways to tag stop
signs? What's your solution? Stop signs are directional, whether they are
lane based or not.
+1 - I agree with Tobias and Anthony. John, I know you feel that
solving the
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 4:18 PM, John Smithdeltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/28 Norbert Hoffmann nhoffm...@spamfence.net:
No, Roy wants to tag the semantics of the stop-sign. If this really
simplifies the task of the data consumers, it's all the better.
It seems the problem Roy is
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 5:21 PM, John Smithdeltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/28 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com:
Ok, I understand. Do you have any antibiotics?
If have an answer or not doesn't matter, the OSM community is more
than the sum of it's parts and some people may already
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Marc Schützschue...@gmx.net wrote:
Note that by requiring a junction, you make it impossible to model stop signs
don't involve a junction.
Yeah, I was thinking about this too You could argue that a stop
sign/requirement to stop should be modeled not by a
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 2:22 AM, Andrew MacKinnonandrew...@gmail.com wrote:
This is a proposal for a generic way of tagging a node which
represents an object which faces a certain way - e.g. a traffic sign
such as a stop sign. Note this is not a specific proposal on how to
tag signs of a
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 9:25 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
I tried to keep all of the text and change as little as possible, but
maybe at this point there could also be a complete redesign of the
page. I don't know. I wanted that the page somehow reflected the
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 7:22 PM, James Livingstondoc...@mac.com wrote:
On 26/08/2009, at 1:38 PM, John Smith wrote:
This brings up an interesting question, when you're finding the
nearest junction to use for stop key on a node, what counts as a
junction? It's going to be a node which belongs
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 7:31 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Wed, 26/8/09, James Livingston doc...@mac.com wrote:
If we are to use the stop key, I think those
conditions will need to be explicitly spelt out, so that
you can process the data.
Which is tagging for routing
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 1:15 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Thu, 27/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
You also seem to be saying that routing software should
work out
*for itself* which junction the stop sign applies to. I
disagree - the
mapper
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 2:06 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
Besides why should you care about needing this explicit information, if it's
rendered you will see a sign, you will also see the nearest junction and your
mind can put 2 and 2 together. A computer can do the exact same
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 3:14 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Thu, 27/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
Besides, I asked you personally why you cared, why do you care, or how will
it benefit you personally how a stop sign is marked?
My apologies, I
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 1:42 AM, Roy Wallacewaldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I see what you mean, but the stop sign does NOT apply to just an
intersection - it applies to a way(s) AND an intersection. This is
because the
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 7:31 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
This whole argument seems to be about tagging for routing software which is as
bad as tagging for render.
What's so bad about sticking a stop node 3-5m before the intersection, after
all how many junctions have a stop
201 - 300 di 465 matches
Mail list logo
