if you see a discrepancy between aerial imagery and OSM, before you
go adding/changing stuff, check on the history of the stuff that's there
and see if another mapper has worked on things recently (for some
value of recently.) i have done a bunch of work in the past month
adding in a new traffic
I also agree that putting notes in the tags are helpful to some of us that
are armchair mappers. I will see the tags sooner than the history data. I
tend to map around railroads using the imagery and Tiger data and tags.
-Nathan
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org
Thanks for the reply Martijn.
There is a lot of talk about capture unsigned/signed information in the
relation. And I've read some proposals of adding to the role field--delimiting
values by a pipe or semi-colon. I think that if there is interest to capture
information about a way/node's
These are based off of Lambertus's work here:
http://garmin.openstreetmap.nl
If you have questions or comments about these maps, please feel
free to ask. However, please do not send me private mail. The
odds are, someone else will have the same questions, and by
asking on the talk-us@
Putting notes in the tags may be helpful, but in the simple tagging mode
in P2 (does anyone still use that? I do, b/c I don't like iD), you can't
see them and some mapper might not get the message in the note. Personally,
pretty much all my edits are armchair mapping, but it's generally in my
i'm thinking maybe we need an agreed upon way of marking these
areas so that the usual editors (id, potlatch2, josm) can flag them
as places where aerial imagery is out of date.
also, Mike N had suggested highway:disused. instead, maybe
something like highway:removed=yes would work.
i'd
I believe at some point there was, or at least there was discussion of
implementing, a way to mark areas where the aerial imagery is out-of-date.
Unfortunately I'm drawing a blank on any further development from there,
but that would seem to be the best solution all-around (having cleaned up a
Imagery is only out of date if something was (de)constructed since the
imagery was collected that would affect how that area is accurately
mapped. Therefore to me it makes more sense to tag the newer objects
rather than entire areas with a specific tag that editors would pick
up and act upon
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
On 06.12.2013 22:51, Richard Welty wrote:
i'm thinking maybe we need an agreed upon way of marking these
areas so that the usual editors (id, potlatch2, josm) can flag
them as places where aerial imagery is out of date.
I have lost track of
Well, to add a second role to an item in a relation would require an entire
overhaul of relations, the editors, and even the OSM database I would think to
do it. That's why I suggested doing the ; or | because data consumers
already know how to deal with the ; at least in the ref tags on
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Joseph R. Justice jayare...@gmail.comwrote:
I see the eTrex 30 currently for $219 (down from $299) as a Black Friday
special direct from Garmin, and for $199 from GPSCity. (And the 199 price
is the same as Garmin retail for the eTrex 20, tho I'm sure GPSCity's
11 matches
Mail list logo
