On Tue, 13 Apr 2010, Gregory wrote:
What makes you think the Yahoo! imagery and/or the contour lines shown on
the Cycle Map(these contours are from SRTM data, not OSM) are more up to
date or more accurate/precise than the existing water body drawn in OSM?
Indeed. Also, ISTR the cycle map
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010, Gregory wrote:
I've always wanted to fix up a pole about 6-10ft with a secure GPS mount on
one end, and possibly a harness or neck strap to carry the other end on me.
Then walk along the side of a river/lake at a safe distance with my GPS
hovered above the line where the
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010, Andrew Errington wrote:
My GPS accuracy (reported
by the device itself) is at best 4m, but in mountainous regions or in cities
it is 5m or 6m at best, often worse. How accurate is my mouse when I click
on a pixel? Visually I am interpolating the (inaccurate) GPS trace
Some OpenPisteMap bits are changing and this may affect third party
software.
1. The tiles have moved to http://tiles.openpistemap.org. They are
currently being served from the old location as well, but this will be
discontinued in the following phases:
i) After a few weeks, tiles served
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010, Jason Cunningham wrote:
We can't trace over google/bing satelite imagery because contract/terms of
use, but it is tempting use the google satellite images to check what can be
traced from the 1:25K (still the chance google is out-of-date!). This
doesn't appear to go
On Wed, 19 Aug 2009, Yann Coupin wrote:
I once started a proposition to do just that but it didn't get much traction,
feel free to discuss it.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Relation:type%3Droute_instruction
I've not read the discussion page yet, but some initial
On Wed, 19 Aug 2009, Peter Körner wrote:
What's left to be clarified is how lanes are numbered.
I'd suggest to be the inner one to be 1, ascending the more you're going to
the border
The police tend to number them with lane 1 being closest to the footway
(i.e. the left lane in the UK,
I looked on the wiki but couldn't see anything...
Is there any suggested way of marking up turn restrictions for individual
lanes of a road to enable sat navs to provide lane guidance (e.g. keep
right, move into the left lane, etc)?
--
- Steve
xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009, Pascal Neis wrote:
please, could you try it again?
For me it works, http://bit.ly/HDgbO
The coordinates you've gone to there are different from the ones I gave in
my original report - you've gone to -4.1307375,53.1501034 whereas I used
-4.119322,53.145316. I have just
I noticed that there seems to be something odd with the rendering at
lat=0, lon=0:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=0lon=0zoom=14layers=B000FTF
At zoom 14 it tells me that it is the North Pole... Zoom in a bit mnore
and you get a bunch of parking spaces. Both Mapnik and Osmarender seem to
A recent purchase of an Android phone has lead me to play with AndNav2 and
OpenRouteService. However, in some cases I get some unexpectedly crazy
routes.
OpenRouteService doesn't seem to understand the highway=road tag. So
presumably if your destination is on a highway=road, it should be
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Greg Stark wrote:
Fwiw even (1) isn't necessarily true. The Magic Roundabout famously
has a counter-clockwise loop in the centre. And there are other such
roundabouts where the central loop isn't even one-way.
I wouldn't really consider the magic roundabout to be a
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009, Nicholas Barnes wrote:
Should, for example, the component ways making up the roundabout be
grouped in their own I'm a roundabout relationship?
Do we need to be able to tell which ways are part of a roundabout anyway?
I mean, on the ground a roundabout is just a one-way
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Donald Allwright wrote:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.936219lon=-1.24996zoom=18layers=B000FTF
How about this one:
http://osm.org/go/0EFYMXaIH--
which fulfills all of the above 5 criteria, but just has a 'short-cut'
across one side. In this case, each 'junction'
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009, Jack Stringer wrote:
Something that tells you that trick.
I'm not sure that clicking on your browser's print button in order to
print the thing you're currently looking at in the browser qualifies as a
trick does it? Seems like SOP for anyone using a computer to me?
-
On Thu, 2 Jul 2009, Peter Miller wrote:
Any chance of opengolfmap? I am needing a map to show the interaction between
an existing golf course and a proposed cycle route. I can add the data to the
map but I am not aware of anything that will render it.
I'm not a golfer, so don't have a lot
On Thu, 2 Jul 2009, Tom Hughes wrote:
You need to use OL 2.8 - either that or use an older copy of
OpenStreetMap.js.
Basically mixing our hosted file with your own OL is a bad idea - either pull
both from us or host both yourself. That way you won't get a mismatch.
It was the other way
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, WessexMario wrote:
A lowest level postcode (SN13_2PQ) is not unique for a node, as multiple
dwellings will have the same postcode, so this leads to having multiple
tags for what is essentially a single data item, a postcoded area of land.
It should be unique to a way (or
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Jack Stringer wrote:
Going by that theory how do you post code 2 farms that are 1mile appart but
have the same postcode and are on different roads?
Tag both roads with the same postcode?
that set out to remove the extra data (scripted) and put in the ways but for
now we
On Thu, 2 Jul 2009, Hurricane McEwen wrote:
I just went to visit openpistemap.org and I get a blank map. Anyone run
in to the same issue?
Errm.. yes, damn. :(
I am using the OpenLayers code hosted on the OSM servers - looks like this
has changed and it is now breaking. I'll try and have a
On Thu, 2 Jul 2009, Lars Ahlzen wrote:
It appears that the OpenLayers.Layer.OSM class now expects a full URL
template for the tiles, rather than just the directory... i.e. something
like:
Nope, that didn't fix it. :(
Looks like I'll need to do a bit more debugging.
- Steve
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009, Bruce Cowan wrote:
Also, on the A816 between Lochgilphead and Oban, there is a duck warning
sign [2]. Surely this would be ducks=yes (or indeed hazard=ducks).
Surely ducks=yes should be interpretted like hgv=yes - i.e. ducks are
allowed to use the road (I'm not aware of
On Mon, 8 Jun 2009, Russ Nelson wrote:
Is there a comprehensive listing of all Open*Map.* sites anywhere?
Not comprehensive, but there is a list on the Wikipedia page.
- Steve
xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/
Servatis a periculum, servatis a
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Peter Miller wrote:
I am certainly not proposing separate ways for separate lines. I think
there should either be one way for a bunch of parallel tracks or
alternatively one way per track if people are getting nerdy (surely
not!).
Tracing individual tracks might make
On Thu, 21 May 2009, Chris Jones wrote:
And with any luck Galileo should be up and running in a few years...
They are still claiming they will have 30 sats up by the end of 2013...
assuming that includes the 2 test sats they have in orbit already, they
are going to have to launch 28
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009, Shaun McDonald wrote:
It's interesting to see that there is a moderator stating there have been
quite a few comments on
here about the availability of administrative boundaries.
I wonder if they will get enough people saying the same thing to change their
plans.
The
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009, Brett Henderson wrote:
I've just checked now and unless I'm confused by timezones it seems to be
running 5 minutes behind as per normal.
Oops, slaps himself You're right - it looks fine, I was being an idiot
with respect to daylight savings. :)
- Steve
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
It could be that you get no warning when the upload fails under certain
circumstances. Hasn't happened to me on the latest SVN build, though.
I noticed the exact opposite to this on Tuesday - JOSM thought the upload
had failed, the OSM servers
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Shaun McDonald wrote:
The renderers are delayed until the minutely diff are working again.
There are some bugs there that need to be resolved first. Then there
will be a delay of a few hours/days once the diffs come back up.
Some curiosities/observations:
1. Is OSM now
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
...with API 0.6, Postgres and the new server. But everyone's uploading
at once, so don't expect to do much serious editing for the time
being. :)
The deltas in http://planet.openstreetmap.org/minute aren't being updated
at the moment - what's the
Thought this might be of interest - looks like OSM (and the cycle map and
piste map) got a brief mention in the spring British Mountaineering
Council Peak area newsletter:
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmcNews/media/u_content/File/your_bmc/newsletters/Peak%20Area%20Newsletter%20February%202009.pdf
On Tue, 7 Apr 2009, Tim Waters (chippy) wrote:
Ankh-Morpork (If any one is going to map that I'm not sure where we put
the data :)
You'd need a different projection since the disc is flat. :)
- Steve
xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/
On Sun, 5 Apr 2009, Steve Chilton wrote:
Because I wanted to know, and as an exercise in OpenOverLayerIng, I
have produced a map combining the extent of Yahoo aerial imagery
coverage in GB with an overlay of the significant places calculated to
be in most need of mapwork (from
On Fri, 3 Apr 2009, David Earl wrote:
In highway engineering terms in the UK a footway is always alongside a
road, and we don't tend to mark those separately anyway.
This is a slightly separate issue, but not marking them is a bit of a
problem in some cases because we end up with things like
On Fri, 3 Apr 2009, Ed Loach wrote:
I'm beginning personally to think that
highway=footway/cycleway/bridleway were all a mistake and that
highway=path and designation=public_footpath/etc, along with
suitable access keys (foot, bicycle, etc) would have been a better
starting point
I think
On Fri, 3 Apr 2009, David Earl wrote:
FWIW, I agree largely with the specific points on your wiki page, but I don't
think it will happen because of the effort involved.
The wiki page wasn't really supposed to be a this is how it needs to be
solution - the hope was to get people talking about
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Donald Allwright wrote:
It would seem that being used as a basis for just
about everything means that no-one else can ever use those data without
paying the OS a fee.
Must be a nice little earner for them. Of course OpenStreetMap imposes
similar restrictions,
except
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009, Andy Deakin wrote:
* Navigation whilst at sea (naval charts)
I've added a (very small) number of buoys to OSM over the past couple of
years. ISTR someone added a load of public domain data for Irish
lighthouses too.
- Steve
xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009, Simon Wood wrote:
I have tagged the trails a 'highway=footway' and 'piste:type=nordic' as
these trails are multi-use; cycling and walking in the summer and
groomed cross country trails in the winter.
At present OPM does not render these as ski-trails. Is this the
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Matthias Julius wrote:
Yes it's useful, but I don't see how this addresses the problems of
OSB being closed. Is this not a third party implementation of the OSB
JS interface which is not running on the main OSB site, and is the OSB
bug DB not still closed with no dumps
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009, Dave Stubbs wrote:
For the contours we haven't figured out how to prevent those
irritating joins on the srtm tile boundary yet. They're not that
noticable. If you figure it out do let me andy know :-)
This shouldn't be too hard - possibly even as a post-processing step
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009, Chris Andrew wrote:
I notice that people often mention the delay in map edits being
applied and made _live_.
On a related note...
For OpenPisteMap, I apply the diffs to the PostGIS DB every minute, so it
only lags behind the live data by a few minutes. However, it
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008, Peter Miller wrote:
google are saying is that if one places a layer of OS data on top of google
data then google don't claim ownership of that data
Is this actually different to the OS's rules? My take on the OS's
complaint was that the councils' data was actually
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, Peter Miller wrote:
I have been working on adding wiki pages for every County and Unitary
Authority in the UK (there are 140 in total) so that we have a
consistent place to add this sort of information. There were articles
for some and there are about 19 added so far.
On Mon, 8 Sep 2008, Ed Loach wrote:
I'd like a cheap digital camera to use when I'm out noting things for
mapping purposes; our existing camera eats batteries.
I have an old Canon IXUS 400 that I picked up off ebay, which I find is
pretty reasonable as a simple and small point shoot for
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008, Tom Hughes wrote:
He was referring to a combine using a DGPS system which has a base
station at a fixed point on the farm whose location is well known. It
then compares that known location to one calculated from the satellites
in the normal and broadcasts the difference
I noticed that a lot of waterways have recently been added with
source=NPE. Were these traced, or was this an automated import?
It seems that some of the existing (surveyed) work has been either ignored
or broken in the process. i.e.:
An existing section of stream with a bridge over it has
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, Steve Chilton wrote:
As Andy notes it is not always easy to see small sections of data at z14
in Potlatch (which you have to use for NPE work).
No problem - I just thought I'd mention that some on-the-ground review is
needed for these waterways at some point (although it
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, Frederik Ramm wrote:
* you suspect that the criticism you have is not shared by everyone
so you want to give them a chance to voice their opinion;
* you think that whatever you're unhappy with is not only done by one
mapper, but general practice (or might become general
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
* though with NPE the reasonably large area is pretty clearly going to
be talk-gb, not talk :p
Ok, good point :)
- Steve
xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/
Servatis a periculum, servatis a
On Sat, 12 Jul 2008, Gervase Markham wrote:
Well, there was a note on Map Features saying not to do it, but until
recently it didn't say what you _should_ do.
Until recently there was no approved tag to do it. A lot of people
promoted the idea of just never adding roads without knowing their
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
And that's fine: you seem to place more of an emphasis on the Gospel
According To Map Features than I do
If you don't go by the definitions in Map Features, what definitions do
you go by? As far as you are concerned, what is the difference
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
I don't want to be annoying, but what about the ordinary roads, which
don't fit in the above classification. With houses on both side but
limited to 50km/h for example.
Well, this is why I don't like the highway=residential tag.
Inside
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
But from the your description here, what do you tag
roads that are 30mph and don't have a centre line? i.e. the single
most common type here.
That's a bit of a judgement call depending on the situation I think. Most
of the streets on
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, David Earl wrote:
The equivalent here, to which the tag would be applied, is known as
Home Zone, and it has a specific sign:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tss/general/coll_newroadsignsandmarkingsleaf/dft_roads_022863-16.jpg
(which is taken from this page
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, David Earl wrote:
I don't see the problem in that example:
highway=residential
maxspeed=50
Yes, in that case. Although I think tagging roads lined with houses as
highway=tertiary, abutters=residential is better - really the only
difference between a tertiary road and
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, David Earl wrote:
At least the rules governing 20mph areas (not specifically Home Zones) have
been relaxed a bit to make them easier to implement (though Cambridgeshire is
till very reluctant, places like Hull and Portsmouth have been really
progressive on this).
To
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Er, I've driven past that one a handful of times (some friends used to
live in Pontardawe) and if it's the road I'm thinking of - down
towards the KFC - it _is_ unclassified. Well, either that or tertiary;
It can't possibly be unclassified - an
On Wed, 9 Jul 2008, David Earl wrote:
We've gone round and round the issue of what road classification means many
times before. With a few dissenters, the consensus has generally been that
you tag what you find on the ground. This sometimes contradicts the
official classification. Some
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, elvin ibbotson wrote:
If you believe they are wrongly tagged (I would avoid the word misclassified
when referring to an unclassified road ;-) presumably you have a good idea
what classification they are, so why not just re-tag them as primary, tertiary
or whatever?
I know
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:
But any automatic retagging would change those roads which are truly
unclassified (and maybe have been surveyed by others) to highway=road.
Yes, and they would have to be resurveyed because at the moment it is
impossible to tell
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:
You keep saying that but you haven't given a good example. Can you?
A dual carriageway that was tagged as highway=unclassified:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.67075lon=-3.91377zoom=16layers=B00FTF
A bunch of residential roads
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:
If you know they are truly residential roads, then why not retag them as
such?
Because they are part of a large number of roads that I know are not
unclassified, but were tagged as such. So I have retagged them to
highlight the
Following the approval of the highway=road tag, I've set about
aggressively changing a lot of the highway=unclassified roads around
Swansea, that I believe are misclassified, to highway=road, with the
intention that they can then be surveyed and reclassified correctly.
However, after starting
On Wed, 9 Jul 2008, Chris Hill wrote:
I would be strongly against a global change of highway=unclassified - all of
the roads I have tagged as unclassified deserve to be so. I have been
working partly on a very rural area, where many of the roads are unclassified
(country lanes). To have
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
Is there not a law against unauthorised reading of
emails?
It isn't exactly unauthorised if you agreed to the contract when you
signed up for the service... Whether they can read _inbound_ emails is a
quite different question though, since the
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008, OJ W wrote:
Would it be worth moving the introduction, links, wiki, shop,
conference advert, and donation buttons from the front page to an
about tab in the view/edit/export.. tab strip? The left-hand edge
of the main page seems to be getting quite long, so the search
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008, John McKerrell wrote:
Indeed, flickr's great and can do most of this stuff well. I like to
use this site[1] to geotag my photos on flickr just because it's
really nice and easy but there's lots of other ways to do it.
I use DigiKam to geotag my photos - it is about the
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:
From my experience you get lots of questions so best keep the presentation
simple and allow enough time to answer stuff. You might also find you get
questions regarding the free aspect of the project and the licence.
Yes, be
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008, SteveC wrote:
Isn't it easier with such a group to ask 'why not use windows?'
Quite possibly, but that isn't quite the same thing. Windows is not free
(as in beer), so a lot of people (even LUG attendees) often get hung up on
the zero cost side of things, so when faced
On Sun, 8 Jun 2008, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
Same with me too, though I might have gone somewhere else if I'd known! Guess
the lesson is to make sure you know what the others in your area are doing...
It is useful to have a wiki page for your area where people can state what
areas they are
On Thu, 5 Jun 2008, spaetz wrote:
Why should it work differently? If I want a tunnel under a forest, a
layer=-1 *should* draw the tunnel under the forest.
It isn't in a tunnel though - if it was, it would have tunnel=yes.
layer=-1 is often used for waterways for a couple of reasons:
1. It
The highway=road proposal has now been approved. It received 27 votes, 17
of which were approvals. The relevant wiki pages have now been updated.
- Steve
xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/
Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum -
On Thu, 5 Jun 2008, Dave Stubbs wrote:
If the 2nd area is meant to replace the 1st rather than just say
something extra about the land/water then you should probably make a
hole.
Hmm.. ok. Looks like I need to investigate the multipolygon relations
stuff.
osmarender rules pay attention to
I have created a number of landuse areas which are divided by ways.
E.g. a natural=wood area abutting a landuse=farm area with a
highway=footway running along the join. Where they join, the two areas
share the same nodes, as does the footway which goes along the join.
However, JOSM's
On Mon, 2 Jun 2008, Thomas Wood wrote:
Ignore the warnings, they were mostly as a warning to inform you that
there happen to be two ways there rather than as an error.
Ok, I thought as much, thanks. Would there be any bad side effects of the
validator never warning of overlapping ways where
On Wed, 28 May 2008, Ian Dees wrote:
Has anyone experimented with using the hourly, daily, etc. OSC files
available on planet.openstreetmap.org to update their live PostGIS
database? Ideally, I'd like to also kick off mapnik re-rendering of the
tiles that have changed.
I'm looking at it,
On Tue, 27 May 2008, Andy Allan wrote:
Now, if someone is volunteering to make a concise definition format
that can be pre-processed into the mapnik XML format (or mapnik python
code, or even just read by a modified mapnik directly, or whatever)
then I'd absolutely love to SEE THE WORKING
Please read and vote on the proposal at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Generic_road
Vote with {{vote|yes}} or {{vote|no}}.
Thank you.
- Steve
xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/
Servatis a periculum, servatis a
On Thu, 22 May 2008, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
(It's reasonably easily settled - either get Google to give the ok, or
rerectify against OSM. Better still, rerectify against OSM's GPS
traces alone, thereby sidestepping potential CC-BY-SA issues.)
Aren't OSM's GPS traces considered CC-BY-SA as
On Fri, 16 May 2008, Steve Hill wrote:
I'd like to draw attention to the highway=road proposed feature and
request comments:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Generic_road
Does anyone mind if I raise this for a vote? (Commenting seems to have
ceased)
- Steve
Does [EMAIL PROTECTED] pull the latest Osmarender styles from svn every so
often?
- Steve
xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/
Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence
___
Lester Caine wrote:
But it is an area that needs to be fine tuned in the guides!
In reality at smaller scales they are never in the same place
This depends what you are mapping. For example, I have used shared
nodes on beaches - below the high water mark I have mapped a beach with
a
Peter Miller wrote:
I agree. I think we need to adopt a Wikipedia concept of 'notability'. For
example... A wood is notable, a large established solitary tree in a park
might be notable, but a nettle is not. Is a rare plant notable? I would
suggest it is not notable in OSM itself.
I'm afraid
Nick Whitelegg wrote:
But that's what foot and horse are for.
highway=path could easily be used to distinguish public and permissive
footpaths and bridleways.
Would it be better to have something other than yes to mean legally
enshrined access permission to protect against people tagging
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. The area shares some nodes with the highway, creating overlapping ways.
2. The area shares no nodes and was drawn as close as possible to the road.
I couldn't find any recommendations in the wiki on which option to prefer.
I prefer sharing nodes.
Overlapping
I'd like to draw attention to the highway=road proposed feature and
request comments:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Generic_road
Thanks.
--
- Steve
xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/
Servatis a periculum,
On Wed, 14 May 2008, Shaun McDonald wrote:
I find it interesting that you use motorcar, as I generally just use
car, as that is what I think is on the wiki (unless someone has
decided to change it).
The wiki uses motorcar as the access restriction tag.
- Steve
xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 12 May 2008, Alex Mauer wrote:
IMO if it's sufficiently unknown that it will have to be revisited
anyway for more accurate classification, marking it as a road rather
than a complete unknown isn't really going to be helpful to anyone.
Sure it is - I know I can drive down a road, I
I've come across a problematic way near me: It is a reasonably wide
road, but the signs at each end say it is a bridleway. It has a gate
across the east end end so you can't drive along it from the east, but you
can drive along it from the west end. The west end has no restrictions
other
On Tue, 13 May 2008, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:
This is an example of confusing the physical space with the legal
administrative description.
Yes, but sadly the highway tag is defined in Map Features to encompass
that confusing mixture of physical and legal descriptions. :)
(It
On Tue, 13 May 2008, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
(The High Street in Oxford is nominally the A420, so we tag
ref=A420, but it's no good as a through-route - the bollards are a bit
of a giveaway - so we tag highway=tertiary.)
I'm left wondering why they haven't removed the A-road designation if
On Tue, 13 May 2008, Andrew Chadwick (email lists) wrote:
* If two ways cross at a crossing Node, access keys would logically
apply to both. Declaring that crossings are somehow special and that
access tags on them apply only to the crossing traffic is worse.
Ok, sounds like we would need
On Sun, 11 May 2008, 80n wrote:
highway=road
This is suitably vague, but has a clear enough meaning.
Ah, ok - does this get rendered? (It isn't on Map_Features - maybe it
should be).
- Steve
xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/
Servatis a
On Sun, 11 May 2008, Jeffrey Martin wrote:
Did we ever decide what to do when a road continues but
we didn't continue down the road?
I tend to do fixme=Road continues or fixme=Footway continues.
Although to be honest, in most cases for roads I either follow them as far
as they go (when I am
On Mon, 12 May 2008, 80n wrote:
Ah, ok - does this get rendered? (It isn't on Map_Features - maybe it
should be).
No. But you are welcome to add it to any of the rendering engines.
Ok, I'll look into doing so. What is the procedure for adding this sort
of thing? Just post a patch on the
On Thu, 8 May 2008, Brian Quinion wrote:
I like this - but would suggest a small change:
highway=crossing
crossing=zebra|toucan|pelican|...
No, get rid of the UK specific classifications of crossing completely -
they require too much background knowledge to interpret and are pointless
if
Brian Quinion wrote:
The only problems I can see is that because it
is centralised it is somewhat out of user control - so maybe it should
make sense to pull the list of presets from a wiki page (once a day?)
and there would be a small amount of server side load to implement it.
That would
Alex Mauer wrote:
Isn't a value of unknown in use on several other tags? It is at least
on the whole access series of tags
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Key:access)
So highway=unknown would make sense to me.
Something like road=unknown might make sense, but because the
Dave Stubbs wrote:
Some of us really couldn't care less either way. Frankly, please stop
talking about it -- you're not getting anywhere.
Actually, I think some fairly insightful suggestions have been made and
it is a useful discussion. You don't _have_ to read this thread if you
don't care
1 - 100 di 178 matches
Mail list logo
