Volker, in the last year, I have been busy
hiking, mapping and updating national forest and
wilderness areas in and around Big Sur (the whole
of Monterey County, or MoCo, actually). Not only
did another prolific mapper and I complete a
careful import (Farm Mapping Project from State
of
Martijn,
I think it would be conceptually clearest for all the 2-way single
carriageway ways to point the same way and would suggest that this should
normally in be the direction of increasing milepoints/pointes kilometriques
(usually northwards or eastwards). At Castle Rock we call this the
Martijn
I, too, await your clarification for KristenK, as I'm a little confused
too.
We need to keep in mind that positive and negative GIS Linear Reference
directions (which are handy as global solutions applying everywhere in the
US at least) beginning at milepoint 0.0, usually on the southern
When I typed The cost of reporting the whole route is usually
prohibitive. below I meant The cost of reposting the whole route is
usually prohibitive. By posting I mean signing.
Peter Davies, Castle Rock
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 2:08 AM, Peter Davies peter.dav...@crc-corp.comwrote:
Martijn
On 01:11 2013-11-27, Peter Davies wrote:
Martijn,
I think it would be conceptually clearest for all the 2-way single
carriageway ways to point the same way and would suggest that this
should normally in be the direction of increasing milepoints/pointes
kilometriques (usually northwards or
On 23:12 2013-11-26, Florian Lohoff wrote:
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 03:46:47PM -0700, Martijn van Exel wrote:
So the relation between the east--west and north--south member roles
is equivalent to the relation between forward--backward.
Because the cardinal direction is commonly included on the
I recently hiked a very small section of the Appalachian Trail, and
was shocked to see the section hadn't been mapped yet in OSM. Looking
at what's in the relation, only 2689 km of the 3504 km trail are
mapped. Granted, there's very likely some sections that have been
mapped but not added to the
Josh,
A while ago, I had imported and simplified the ATC centerline data
from the trailhead in GA through part of VA. I stopped there as that
was where individual mappers had started to trace GPS data. This work
was done by sadam-AT.
Regards,
Adam
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 7:44 AM, Josh Doe
On 11/27/13 7:44 AM, Josh Doe wrote:
Massachusetts, 2991960, 8.3, 145.2
Connecticut, N/A, 0, 83
New York, 2007688, 78.4, 142.3
i'm willing to take a look at NY/CT/MA over the next
couple of months
richard
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 11/27/13 8:26 AM, Richard Welty wrote:
On 11/27/13 7:44 AM, Josh Doe wrote:
Massachusetts, 2991960, 8.3, 145.2
Connecticut, N/A, 0, 83
New York, 2007688, 78.4, 142.3
i'm willing to take a look at NY/CT/MA over the next
couple of months
looking at the gap from NY 17 west now. this is
Thanks for raising this-- I just took a look at the PA relation which
apparently was last edited by me (what?). There's a gap in my hometown
(which I may or may not have created). Fixing now!
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.netwrote:
On 11/27/13 8:26 AM,
On 11/27/13 9:09 AM, Richard Welty wrote:
On 11/27/13 8:26 AM, Richard Welty wrote:
On 11/27/13 7:44 AM, Josh Doe wrote:
Massachusetts, 2991960, 8.3, 145.2
Connecticut, N/A, 0, 83
New York, 2007688, 78.4, 142.3
i'm willing to take a look at NY/CT/MA over the next
couple of months
looking
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote:
[...]
the data appears pretty good, the segment in Orange County
NY that i just filled in meets up appropriately with previously
mapped sections (presumably the result of OSM hikers with
GPS units and where i looked
On 11/27/13 10:51 AM, Josh Doe wrote:
I agree with you. What about attributes, anything useful
we should import when possible? I can't view the data now,
but I believe I saw SURFACE and CLUB which might be
useful. A whole lot of unneeded GPS info.
i'm not keeping any of it, the source tag
There used to be a shelters/springs data set that would probably be
useful to include.
Cheers,
Adam
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote:
On 11/27/13 10:51 AM, Josh Doe wrote:
I agree with you. What about attributes, anything useful
we should import
Richard Welty wrote:
Josh Doe wrote:
I believe I saw SURFACE and CLUB which might be
useful.
i'm not keeping any of it, the source tag points back to
the original data set and that should be sufficient. [...]
i don't know that i see a mapping from the AT surface
attributes to our surface
On 11/27/13 12:11 PM, Adam Schreiber wrote:
There used to be a shelters/springs data set that would probably be
useful to include.
i saw that set, it's on the same download page, along with a parking
area set. i figured it could wait until the trail proper was complete.
richard
On 11/27/13 1:00 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
If you can find a mapping from the Trail surface to OSM surface= tags, or
even to tracktype= at a pinch, that'd be superb. I've just built a cycling
router (using OSRM) and surface tags make _all_ the difference. They're
something OSM greatly
On 11/27/13 10:59 AM, Richard Welty wrote:
if we want
club info, i'd suggest breaking up the relations where
needed and adding the clubs to those rather to the ways.
now that i've thought about it, i would like to suggest redoing
the relations by the responsible clubs, as the division by
On 11/27/13 2:03 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
On 11/27/13 12:11 PM, Adam Schreiber wrote:
There used to be a shelters/springs data set that would probably be
useful to include.
i saw that set, it's on the same download page, along with a parking
area set. i figured it could wait until the trail
since there haven't been any objections, i'm going to upload what i did
this morning.
single focused changeset so it can be reverted easily enough.
richard
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-us mailing list
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote:
On 11/27/13 10:59 AM, Richard Welty wrote:
if we want
club info, i'd suggest breaking up the relations where
needed and adding the clubs to those rather to the ways.
now that i've thought about it, i would like to
Tod Fitch t...@fitchdesign.com wrote:
On Tue, November 26, 2013 1:57 pm, Ian Dees wrote:
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de wrote:
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 12:30:25PM -0700, Martijn van Exel wrote:
Hi all,
I'm new to this list so please bear with me.
The
On 11/27/13 2:46 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote:
You also have compass-point letters used to distinguish between
branches of the same route. For example, US 31 runs north/south. A
portion of it branches off as US 31W, which runs roughly parallel,
some miles westward of US 31, and eventually merges
test
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
NY is more or less done. will wait a day or two before starting CT in
case some CT mapper steps forward.
On 11/27/13 2:28 PM, Josh Doe wrote:
And agreed about mass import, we need to do QC. I did notice there are
some sections which have been rerouted and need to be updated, and
some sections
The same applies for I-35 in the DFW area; I-35E runs through Dallas
while I-35W runs through Fort Worth.
Saikrishna Arcot
On Wed 27 Nov 2013 03:56:51 PM EST, Richard Welty wrote:
On 11/27/13 2:46 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote:
You also have compass-point letters used to distinguish between
However, with the split Interstates (I-35W/I-35E in both TX and MN
I-69E/I-69C/I-69W in TX) US Highways (and a few state highways), the letters
are part of the route number. So, they wouldn't have any effect on the role
part for relations. When given routing info, they'd act just like
28 matches
Mail list logo
