atuurpunt and some of the local tourism offices already have
'virtual' hikes, where they only suggest which node numbers to combine. On the
ground, nothing is marked. I don't think this should be in OSM.
If I get this correctly, 'Randonnées en Boucle' (SGR) are hikes made out of
parts of existing GR
Hi,
There is a guideline or rule that only waymarked hiking/cycle/... routes should
be added to OSM. Not everyone agrees and there are some non-waymarked routes in
OSM because nobody, not even me, dares to remove them.
Anyway, that rule/guideline is getting in trouble because some official
And don't forget the superroutes. They're still lcn.
StijnRR
On Thursday, September 3, 2020, 04:55:24 PM GMT+2, Jo
wrote:
Yes, I'll look at those as well.
Jo
On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 1:00 PM Yves bxl-forever
wrote:
Hello,
Thanks for this.
@Polyglot, I saw you updated numbered
Hi,
A side step from the discussion of the previous days.
This page exists [1], but it isn't listed under the conventions here [2]. If
I'm not mistaken it once was, but has disappeared from that list after a while.
Does somebody know why? Or did it just fall off...
Or is it because it still has
Hi,
'Jaagpaden' are not always paved roads. Often compacted, gravel, earthen,
grassy, ... roads/tracks and then highway=track seems a better choice.
Sometimes the only thing that's left is just a path. Then the tag
service=towpath is rather odd. I use description=jaagpad.And what about similar
Hi,
I agree with both. I've been removing is_in tags here and there since a few
months as JOSM encourages to do so.By the way, I also noticed that at some
places streets (highways) have an is_in tag.
Regards,
StijnRR
Op woensdag 5 februari 2020 16:37:26 CET schreef Midgard
:
Dear
Hi,
There is this page (1), which has a wealth of interesting information for those
who want to waste their time updating, improving and correcting the railway
related things in OSM. As far as I can see the licence is OK, except for point
5.1.6 which requires us to mention the Open Data
Hi,
I don't understand why nobody else objects to the 'alternatives'. They're just
somebody's personal inventions, but they do not exist. If we allow Jo's
alternatives, then we have to allow anybody's alternatives, suggestions , etc.
for cycle highways or any other kind of hiking, cycle, ...
I didn't check all those tags, but that's probably how it should be done
indeed technically, as Lionel said. Drawing 4 parking spaces is much easier.
And easier to understand for less experienced mappers. Which is also a good
argument, IMHO. We don't want to create a database which is too
e than 500
Ik vind het not done om iemand zijn edits te dissecteren op een publieke
mailinglist.
On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 15:31:34 +0000 (UTC), Stijn Rombauts via Talk-be
wrote:
> Even terug naar de aanpassingen van Jakka en ook wat aansluitend op
>onderstaande opmerking van Marc. En ook
Even terug naar de aanpassingen van Jakka en ook wat aansluitend op
onderstaande opmerking van Marc. En ook omdat ik in alle stilte al wel wat werk
van Jakka heb verbeterd (en dan bedoel ik effectief: fouten corrigeren):-
parkeerplaatsen: Jakka heeft daar de individuele parkeerplaatsen gemapt;
Op zaterdag 12 oktober 2019 21:01:06 CEST schreef s8evq
:
>On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 19:24:35 + (UTC), Stijn Rombauts via Talk-be
> wrote:
>
>Thanks Stijn for taking the time to comment.
>
>> - An interesting change is the one from access=no/destination to
>
Hi,
Some comments:
- An interesting change is the one from access=no/destination to
vehicle=no/destination for the C5-sign, which I support, because it's more
correct. But a disadvantage is that e.g. access=no/destination shows on the
map, but vehicle=no/destination not. Would the proposal to
Hi,
First: the interpretations given here to 'tunnel' are much more strict than the
wiki, which leaves much more room for interpretation. A strict interpretation
of tunnel makes the use of tunnel=yes of tunnel=culvert for passages of rivers
underneath a road senseless, just as
Hi,
1. This is a bridge: no
doubt.https://www.google.be/maps/@50.9628551,5.0810297,3a,75y,328.21h,89.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXz43z9vWyUiOpCVTschIUQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl
2. This is a tunnel: sure
And if you look at this object and its source tag, OSM is in
trouble...https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/567560764
StijnRR
Op vrijdag 22 maart 2019 15:12:07 CET schreef Marc Gemis
:
Mogelijks zou ook OpenStreetMap een filter moeten installeren om te
kijken dat de data die we uploaden
Hi,
What are the opinions these days about landuse mapping: connect landuses to
highways or let space between landuse polygons and adjacent highways? Is there
a consensus or can everyone do whatever he/she likes?My opinion: I *hate*
landuse connected to highways.
Regards,
StijnRR
17 matches
Mail list logo
