http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/16078863
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/16080822
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/16495595
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/16497029
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/16540719
I've tried to be civil
What's your more specific concern, and what wording have you tried?
Is your concern the future shopping centers as a concept, or the way they
are tagged?
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:44 PM, Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.comwrote:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/16078863
They seem to put in a lot of future things using tags that imply
something is currently there. On top of that, they use the wrong tags
(landuse=industrial instead of landuse=retail). They've also screwed up a
bit of TX 71 and US 290, removing them from relations, in an erroneous
attempt to make
I'll let his comments here[1] on a note page speak.
- James
[1] - http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/note/3173
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
I have spent some time adding the ability to go to and from web
map URLs in my program for viewing tiled maps.
The source code is available at:
http://code.google.com/p/vataviamap/source/browse/trunk/VataviaMap/Shared/clsServer.vb
The part that parses web map URLs is:
Private Const
There seems to be some disagreement on how to handle the super-two (or
super-four s California has a few of) highways. These highways are two
lanes, one each way (or four lanes, two each way) with no central division
or median, but freeway-like connecting ramps. Examples would be long
stretches
* Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org [2013-06-24 09:11 -0500]:
network=US:I
modifier=Future
* James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com [2013-06-25 00:15 -0400]:
Now, I'm going to initially use the following to tag the Future
segments inside of relations: network=US:I:Future However, somebody else
On 6/25/13 10:40 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
I'm under the understanding that the consensus for a motorway would be
fully multiple (at minimum 2) carriageway with limited access, whereas a
trunk would be any motorway that doesn't meet that criteria (intersections,
single carriageway, etc). Could I
I prefer the modifier proposal, since it prevents Future from being
confused with a county level network.
On Jun 24, 2013 11:16 PM, James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com wrote:
Later tonight, I'm planning on splitting up the relations for the
following Interstates (I-26, I-73, I-74) in North
* Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org [2013-06-25 09:40 -0500]:
There seems to be some disagreement on how to handle the super-two (or
super-four s California has a few of) highways.
[snip]
I'm under the understanding that the consensus for a motorway would be
fully multiple (at minimum 2)
But that would not apply to the Interstate network, which otherwise has no
'children', right?
If the modifier paradigm also applies to State Routes, then there would be
the possibility of confusion between US:UT:Future as a future state route
and US:UT:Future as a county highway in 'Future
Not likely but not entirely out of the possibility given some regional
(above county, below state) names, which would be an issue if we were to
bring bike networks into the hierarchical scheme (which seems like a good
idea since the US has some rather complex hierarchy of bike networks that
don't
Oh, that is rich: NE2 saying that somebody ELSE has a history of
gun-jumping Wow, the mote in one's eye!
SteveA
California
I'll let his comments here[1] on a note page speak.
- James
[1] -
I'm a little late to the party here, but I am involved in this question.
I have marked US 169 between Iola and Chanute as Motorway because, although it
is a super-two, it is fully controlled access along this segment. I believe
this is consistent with the way most commercial map-makers would
Folks, talk-us@ is a place for discussion, not personal attacks.
If you have a problem with a particular user, contact the user and if they
don't respond e-mail d...@osmfoundation.org.
Do not come here to laugh at anyone or their contributions to our dataset.
-Your friendly talk-us@ mod
On
LOVE IT!!!
This should be a Chrome plugin. Open any map in OSM at the right zoom level
at a single mouse click or keyboard shortcut.
Just throwing this out there, I _have_ read the GitHub sign :-)
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 1:14 AM, Dale Puch dale.p...@gmail.com wrote:
Before I whine about what
Folks, talk-us@ is a place for discussion, not personal attacks.
If you have a problem with a particular user, contact the user and
if they don't respond e-mail
mailto:d...@osmfoundation.orgd...@osmfoundation.org.
Apologies to all. I did/do not wish to attack anybody, just note
what seemed
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote:
At SOTM-US (State of the Map US) I spoke to Steven Johnson of the Census
Bureau on the issue of what data USPS actually has internally (as the
Census Bureau has some special licensed access to this data).
Yes, just
SteveA,
This message is completely off topic and goes in direct contradiction with
my previous message.
You have been temporarily moderated as a result.
-Your friendly talk-us@ mod
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 2:55 PM, stevea stevea...@softworkers.com wrote:
**
Folks, talk-us@ is a place for
Steve,
On a more technical level ZIP Code Tabulation Areas (ZCTA5) are
statistical areas that are built using a predominant ZIP Code method.
The predominant ZIP Code for addresses within a Face (Faces combine into
Blocks) is assigned to the Face. Then a complex algorithm in-fills ZCTA5
Part of the reason that the USPS disavows a geographic boundary for ZIP Codes
is that they often keep residential delivery and commercial delivery and
high-rise delivery (having apts or suites) separate even when they are next
to each other on the street. This can be confusing if you
The USPS site referenced below has zipcode polygons and postal delivery
routes overlaid on an interactive map along with the number of
residences and business each route serves. Search for a zipcode or an
address to get started.
https://eddm.usps.com/eddm/customer/routeSearch.action
It looks
Paul Johnson writes:
Not likely but not entirely out of the possibility given some
regional (above county, below state) names, which would be an issue
if we were to bring bike networks into the hierarchical scheme
(which seems like a good idea since the US has some rather complex
hierarchy
I'm tagging some camp sites as boat=yes to imply water access only, but I
don't think this is right. Is there a water-only access tag?
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
In the most sincere way: apology accepted. I truly will be quite
careful to follow these (and all talk-us) guidelines in the future to
avoid misunderstandings.
SteveA
California
SteveA, I apologize for jumping on your post so quickly. I was
frustrated that you posted an off-topic comment
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:48 PM, richiekenned...@gmail.com wrote:
I have marked US 169 between Iola and Chanute as Motorway because,
although it is a super-two, it is fully controlled access along this
segment. I believe this is consistent with the way most commercial
map-makers would mark
On 6/25/13 8:49 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
It's not the number of lanes that makes the distinction, but the character
of the road. People don't expect an undivided motorway, but describing it
as a trunk will cue most renderers to go for something motorway-like but
not quite there. A super-two
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:29 AM, James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.comwrote:
I'll let his comments here[1] on a note page speak
Again, all I see is a well meaning user who very clearly is not yet
absorbed OSM culture.
There is no belligerence, just a bit of confusion.
The tools could
I agree that OSM needs to be more noob-proof than Wikipedia. Erroneously
changing one thing on Wikipedia won't make much of a difference, whereas
erroneously changing one thing on OSM could throw off a lot of software
that depends on the data being correct. There's only so far OpenStreetMap
can go
A true super two freeway, with no at-grade intersections whatsoever,
would be properly classified as a motorway under global OSM tagging
conventions. These may not be particularly common in the U.S.
(although they exist), but they are common enough around the world to
be consistent.
Sorta-I-93
30 matches
Mail list logo
