Kerry Irons wrote:
Nathan,
[...]
Please advise when you will remove these tags.
Nathan (NE2) has been given an indefinite ban from OpenStreetMap on
account of his inability to work with others on what is a crowd-sourcing
project: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/347
It'll therefore
Kerry,
NE2 has been indefinitely banned (see
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2013-May/010867.html ) so
if you want these changed, have at it.
Cheers, Brad
On Wednesday, June 5, 2013, KerryIrons wrote:
Nathan,
3 months ago we discussed the existence of US Bicycle Route
2013/6/5 KerryIrons irons54vor...@sbcglobal.net
3 months ago we discussed the existence of US Bicycle Route number tags in
the Midwest. The OSM consensus was clear: only approved US Bicycle Routes
should be tagged in OSM.
Since those routes (21, 25, 50, 80, 84 and 35 in Indiana) have not
Hi,
On 05.06.2013 14:29, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
I am mostly not mapping in the US,
me neither...
but I'd like to raise awareness that
in Europe proposed bicycle routes are often mapped, and I don't see a
problem as long as they are mapped as proposed and not as in place.
AFAIK,
This creates major issues for many routes in the US, especially bike
routes, US Historic 66, US Historic 30, and US Historic 666, which due to
regional significance, unique and interesting signage, or both, frequently
are missing trailblazers, confirmation signage or way finding signage in
part or
Am 05.06.2013 um 19:20 schrieb Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org:
The usual OSM approach would be that if a route is signposted, then it can be
mapped - if not, then not.
Somehow the on-the-ground rule was extended to include what is verifiable on
paper as well. See administrative borders
Some clarification is needed.
It is not that these roads might be good bicycle routes or even that they
are perhaps part of existing or proposed bicycle routes. But they are not
approved US Bicycle Routes and therefore do not have a USBR route number.
The maps show them as having a USBR route
Kerry,
On 06.06.2013 00:40, KerryIrons wrote:
It is not that these roads might be good bicycle routes or even that they
are perhaps part of existing or proposed bicycle routes. But they are not
approved US Bicycle Routes and therefore do not have a USBR route number.
The maps show them as
Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org writes:
An argument *against* having proposed routes is the verifiability - we
usually try to have data where someone on the ground could easily
check the correctness by looking at signs. Since proposed routes are
unlikely to be signposted, having them in
On 5 June 2013 23:50, Martin Koppenhöfer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
Am 05.06.2013 um 19:20 schrieb Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org:
The usual OSM approach would be that if a route is signposted, then it
can be mapped - if not, then not.
Somehow the on-the-ground rule was extended
I’m confused: is the issue tagging a bike route with some sort of official
number when it really doesn’t have one,
or just tagging any way as a “bike route” without including an official number?
From: andrzej zaborowski [mailto:balr...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 7:03 PM
To:
Thomas Colson thomas_col...@nps.gov writes:
I'm confused: is the issue tagging a bike route with some sort of
official number when it really doesn’t have one,
The current discussion is about tagging a proposed bike route with a
number in USBR namespace, when the USBR naming authority has not
On 05.06.2013 14:29, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
I'd like to raise awareness that
in Europe proposed bicycle routes are often mapped, and I don't see a
problem as long as they are mapped as proposed and not as in place.
Proposed bicycle routes rendering as dashed lines are VERY useful to
us
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 5:40 PM, KerryIrons irons54vor...@sbcglobal.netwrote:
I have no problem with OSM mappers putting proposed bike routes on maps but
they should not be assigning USBR route numbers to them when they are not
approved USBRs. In some cases there is a process underway to get a
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 6:14 PM, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote:
The current discussion is about tagging a proposed bike route with a
number in USBR namespace, when the USBR naming authority has not put
that router/number into proposed status.
Then the relevant bodies need to stop bandying
I just wanted to add that the CycleNet proposal I mentioned in my
previous post is simply a numbering protocol added to ALREADY
EXISTING (Class I, II and III) bicycle infrastructure. All of the
proposed routes are actual bicycle infrastructure out there
today. What is being proposed is
Not so long ago the maps used on AOL's patch properties were
OpenStreetMap based.
It really worked out well since so much of the content was locally
generated, wiki content
matched the wiki maps.
That changed... anyone know when or why?
___
Talk-us
On 6/5/2013 10:27 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
Not so long ago the maps used on AOL's patch properties were
OpenStreetMap based.
It really worked out well since so much of the content was locally
generated, wiki content
matched the wiki maps.
That changed... anyone know when or why?
My local
What's the source for this system? Is it widely adopted?
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 7:01 PM, stevea stevea...@softworkers.com wrote:
I just wanted to add that the CycleNet proposal I mentioned in my previous
post is simply a numbering protocol added to ALREADY EXISTING (Class I, II
and III)
part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20130605/e134824d/attachment-0001.html
--
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 14:29:19 +0200
From: Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
20 matches
Mail list logo
