On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Anthony wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Alex Mauer wrote:
>>>> On 10/18/2010 04:16 PM, Anthony wrote:
>
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Anthony wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Alex Mauer wrote:
>>> On 10/18/2010 04:16 PM, Anthony wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I guess renderers are going to be w
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Alex Mauer wrote:
>> On 10/18/2010 04:16 PM, Anthony wrote:
>>>
>>> I guess renderers are going to be wrong or now.
>>>
>>> "For now" shouldn't last t
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Alex Mauer wrote:
> On 10/18/2010 04:16 PM, Anthony wrote:
>>
>> I guess renderers are going to be wrong or now.
>>
>> "For now" shouldn't last too long, though. Just remove the ref info
>> from the ways, and
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Alex Mauer wrote:
> For relations I agree, but for ways this doesn’t work. And as renderers can
> only handle ways for now…
I guess renderers are going to be wrong or now.
"For now" shouldn't last too long, though. Just remove the ref info
from the ways, and th
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 8:17 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On 10/16/2010 06:54 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Paul Johnson
>> wrote:
>>> On 10/16/2010 06:02 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
So would you have no objection to my use of bicycle=avoid on roads
that
Regarding TIGER, On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð
Bjarmason wrote:
> I mean that we don't have *anything* currently that can take:
>
> 1) A foreign database as it was X years ago, each object having
> some UID.
>
> 2) A foreign database as it is *now*, each object having
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 7:12 PM, Ian Dees wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Anthony wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Lord-Castillo, Brett
>>> wrote:
>>> > TIGER 2010 is
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 7:12 PM, Ian Dees wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Anthony wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Lord-Castillo, Brett
>> wrote:
>> > TIGER 2010 is a different beast from past TIGER products. Each county
>> > was r
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Lord-Castillo, Brett
wrote:
> TIGER 2010 is a different beast from past TIGER products. Each county was
> required to respond to the Census bureau with their addressing and centerline
> data to build it. So, it is a year or more out of date, but also it is
> der
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Mike N. wrote:
>> On a smaller scale, I don't know. Pretty much all the TIGER data I've
>> ever seen is surpassed in quality by local county/state data. So if
>> you're going to import county by county, why bother with TIGER?
>
> Not all states / counties releas
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:05 PM, Antony Pegg wrote:
> What would you like to see done (or NOT see done) with TIGER 2010 as regards
> OSM when it is released?
Nothing on a grand scale. A TIGER import into a pretty much blank map
is a great thing. A TIGER import into the current OSM, isn't going
> At 2010-08-17 12:52, Dale Puch wrote:
> Because your losing information.
> If your separating the elements to different tags... if truly not part of
> the name, it can be used for part of the address instead of street.
> Is it really not part of the street name, what are the rules you use to
> d
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Dale Puch wrote:
> Well, personally there is what is, what should be, and what is practical.
>
> The directional prefix/suffix absolutely should not be dropped from any
> streets. Even ones that are simple straight lines that change N/S or E/W at
> a point along i
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 2:25 AM, Val Kartchner wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 15:00 -0400, Anthony wrote:
>> Basically, the only tag I can imagine worth keeping would be the
>> name_type, name_base, name_* ones, and those should be removed from
>> the tiger:* namespace. B
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 9:25 PM, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
> On 31 July 2010 03:02, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>> But road A has been rerouted since the TIGER data was created and now
>> ends at road C, without touching road B. You can't use shortcuts like
>> this.
>
> Sure it can be outdated same a
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Alan Mintz
wrote:
> There's another, very important use for the "tiger:reviewed" tag.
As I've said above, that's the one tiger tag I don't remove (until
I've reviewed the way, of course).
You don't seem to have read that message. In it I went through each
of the
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 12:24 AM, Alan Millar wrote:
> I haven't seen a conclusion on what people want to see in the naming
> convention (see for example the thread at
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2010-April/003138.html).
>
> Just because the conversation is ongoing, that doe
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Anthony wrote:
> If the tlids represent "the original set of data from
> which the bridge might have come", then it's best off in the history.
And sticking with the theme of "creating a general solution" rather
than "mai
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 8:45 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 20:26 -0400, Anthony wrote:
>> But as I've shown (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/44945783)
>> the tlids don't even make sense. "tiger:tlid =
>> 86486485:86486486:86486387;
&g
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 8:30 PM, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
> On 30 July 2010 02:26, Anthony wrote:
>> But as I've shown (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/44945783)
>> the tlids don't even make sense. "tiger:tlid =
>> 86486485:86486486:86486387;
&g
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 8:04 PM, Mike N. wrote:
> Better start putting them all back. They are documented in the wiki.
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/TIGER_to_OSM_Attribute_Map
That's an explanation of how to convert the tiger fields into OSM
keys. The only preserved data is:
"The Tig
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 8:09 PM, Jim McAndrew wrote:
> It would be great if attributes could be assigned to a number of ways, at
> least from a normalization standpoint.
> From a UI standpoint, I don't really know how it would be done, but it could
> be possible.
> Modifying all the existing OSM d
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 8:09 PM, Alan Millar wrote:
> Specifically, RIGHT NOW, you are screwing with my ability to improve
> mkgmap. Stop deleting them until you provide a better replacement
> functionality.
What is it that you are using this info for in mkgmap? Or is this theoretical?
Let me
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> Leave
>> the hard work of the people that laid the groundwork before you *alone*.
>
> Let's look at an example of what it means to leave that work alone.
>
&
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Alan Millar wrote:
>> Furthermore, don't store redundant data in the OSM database. There's
>> absolutely no excuse for having 200 ways which all say name=Cain Rd,
>> name_base=Cain, name_type=Rd. It's absolutely terrible design.
>
> Patches welcome. Please contr
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 7:40 PM, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
> On 30 July 2010 00:58, Anthony wrote:
>> Please define them in the wiki, and I'll keep them. Unless I have a
>> definition, I have no way of determining if they're correct or not.
>
> So you'r
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> Leave
> the hard work of the people that laid the groundwork before you *alone*.
Let's look at an example of what it means to leave that work alone.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/44945783
A bridge split from the Florida Turnpike.
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 7:06 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 18:58 -0400, Anthony wrote:
>> Just look in the history for when the way was originally added.
>
> With way combination and splitting, _this_ isn't feasible, either.
> TIGER didn't have any br
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 6:52 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 18:44 -0400, Anthony wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Alan Mintz
>> wrote:
>> > A couple of different users have recently been removing all the tiger:*=*
>> > tags from roads
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 3:33 PM, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
> The only tiger tag that is important to keep (to me) is the
> tiger:tlid, all the other values can be pulled from the original TIGER
> database provided the TLID.
Unfortunately, that's also one of the hardest ones to keep, because it
do
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Alan Mintz
wrote:
> A couple of different users have recently been removing all the tiger:*=*
> tags from roads in the process of other edits to them.
I'm among them. Mostly because they are not documented in the wiki.
> However, they also contain the original
>
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Ian Dees wrote:
> My point is that there should be no tagging for renderers of any kind:
> "correct" or "incorrect".
Huh? What does that mean? Who/what are you supposed to tag for if
not for renderers of any kind?
___
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 8:59 PM, David ``Smith'' wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 8:37 PM, Anthony wrote:
> > As an aside, I wish I could find the source of the Google Maps imagery
> here
> > in Tampa. It was either taken in 2009 or 2010, and it looks like it wa
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 8:20 PM, Greg Troxel wrote:
> I am not an expert with WMS URLs. I have noticed that recently (1-2
> months?) the JOSM WMS config that I had for the 15cm and 30cm massgis
> imagery (I think same pictures, but massgis hosted) stopped working.
> It's possible there is somethi
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 6:52 PM, Mike N. wrote:
> > I sure hope not, because I use it all the time.
>
> It's very new here - much newer than the 2007 Yahoo imagery - it looks
> like
> it was taken in 2010. What is your JOSM WMS URL?
>
To clarify, I use the USGS imagery for Hillsborough County
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Lars Ahlzen wrote:
> Does anyone see a reason why this data couldn't be used for tracing, as
> long as proper attribution (USGS and MassGIS, to be safe) is given? It
> certainly beats Yahoo!
>
I sure hope not, because I use it all the time.
___
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 7:39 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
>
>> What if a new contributor reverts it? Would the revert then be considered
>> ODBL?
>>
>
> A revert is an edit like any other.
>
What does that mean?
The contributor terms require contr
ter all. So deleting
> "your" data is vandalism just as it would be if someone else deleted
> your data, and such vandalism will usually & rightfully lead to the
> community reverting it.
>
What if a new contributor reverts it? Would t
On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Shaun McDonald wrote:
> I think that would be mapped as a separate parallel way, with the one way's
> causing it to prevent it using the exit that you can't use, thus producing
> correct routing.
>
> Shaun
Well, it wasn't. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/rela
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Brad Neuhauser
wrote:
> The bigger issue with it being
> imported into OSM is the currency, because municipal boundaries are
> always changing, and as has been mentioned, boundaries are not usually
> something that is easily verifiable "on the ground"
>
I'd say t
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Lord-Castillo, Brett <
blord-casti...@stlouisco.com> wrote:
> While I understand the mantra of TIGER=Bad because of the state of the road
> data, this is not true for the boundary data.
I assume you're talking about the county/state boundaries, which I can't
vou
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 10:24 PM, Alan Mintz
> wrote:
> "map what's on the ground" is the wrong thing to do so often that I don't
> really understand why it was decided upon, nor why people continue hold it
> up on a pedestal, despite continuing problems with it.
>
It's the OSM equivalent of Wik
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 8:52 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 3:45 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 21:37:17 -0500, Anthony wrote:
>>
>> > How so? I said "motorway and/or trunk roads". Any roads which don't
>> &
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 3:45 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 21:37:17 -0500, Anthony wrote:
>
> > How so? I said "motorway and/or trunk roads". Any roads which don't
> > qualify as motorways would be trunks.
>
> But expressways are trunks.
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 3:47 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 21:39:15 -0500, Anthony wrote:
>
> > If bicycles aren't prohibited, it's not a
> > motorway.
>
> Then most of the US doesn't have motorways, by your definition; an idea
> I
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Apollinaris Schoell
> wrote:
> >
> > but a us highway can't have an y node with lat/lon in another country.
> > this has been said many times here. we have boundary polygons and this is
> 100% defined where
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 17:21:17 -0500, Anthony wrote:
>
> > Yeah. Motorway is simple. A road designated exclusively for motor
> > vehicles.
>
> That's not true for most of America (as only 23 states prohibit
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 5:32 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 09:40:47 -0500, Anthony wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Anthony
> > wrote:
> >
> >> The important, worldwide criteria that I'd expect is this: *Motorways
> >>
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Anthony wrote:
> The important, worldwide criteria that I'd expect is this:
> *Motorways are exclusive to motor vehicle traffic.
> *trunks are the most important roads in a geographic area which aren't
> motorways.
>
As a corollary to
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
>
>
> > I'm not sure what you mean by "work differently". The laws of different
> > states are different, so the information which needs to be presented by
> the
> > map is dif
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Bill Ricker wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 5:45 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
>> I can think of several interstates that are unpaved and undivided,
>> though all of them are in Alaska.
>>
>
> wow that's news to me. Are they limited access ?
>
http://en.wikipedi
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 5:46 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
> > Yeah. Motorway is simple. A road designated exclusively for motor
> > vehicles. The rest should probably be handled on a state by state basis.
> > Europe doesn't have a single tagging scheme f
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Richard Weait wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 3:28 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > I think it would be better if greater weight were given to what
> > network a particular road belongs to.
> >
> > Freeway expressway = motorway or trunk, otherwise...
> > US highway = p
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
>
>
By the way, what is the datum for the elevation figure?
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
>
>
> v="
> http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrSearch/asrRegistration.jsp?regKey=2645662
> "/>
>
I'd say this is redundant, and would lose the url (doesn't seem very
permanent anyway).
___
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 10:13 PM, Alan Mintz
> wrote:
> Columbus Blvd is more puzzling. It may be layer=-1 through this whole area,
> or the whole waterfront may be lower than the street level is to the west of
> I-95. This is where I think a local survey of the actual elevations, and
> tagging o
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 9:39 PM, Dale Puch wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 7:53 PM, Anthony wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 7:39 PM, Dale Puch wrote:
>>
>>> Is it just a (very wide) road above? (layer 0) The road above would be
>>> Bridge=yes laye
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 7:39 PM, Dale Puch wrote:
> Is it just a (very wide) road above? (layer 0) The road above would be
> Bridge=yes layer=1
> Is it building or park above (with or without roads)? Tunnel=yes layer=-1
> and the stuff above would be layer 0
>
I'm not sure which is in the pic
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 6:35 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 6:14 PM, Dale Puch wrote:
>
>> I feel a script applying layer=1 to any bridge without a layer tag should
>> be ok IF it also checks for bridges that cross it and increment those layer
>> numbers
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 6:35 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 6:14 PM, Dale Puch wrote:
>
>> So a bridge over a river or dug ditch is layer 1, and the water would be 0
>>
>
> What about a dug ditch without a bridge over it? Is that layer=0? It's
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 6:14 PM, Dale Puch wrote:
> Looking at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Layer My take is that the
> open to the air surface is layer 0 Ground or water.
>
That seems to be the intention, but it doesn't always work in the real
world, mainly because the surface of the ear
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 2:34 PM, wrote:
> Maybe I should rephrase my question: is there any harm in adding a layer=1
> tag to something that is already tagged bridge=yes?
>
In some cases, yes. No layer tag implies layer=0. For example (and it's
only a single example which came to mind), if the
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Bill Ricker wrote:
> What we can't tell without checking satellite view is whether the bridge is
> at grade level with the Railroad in a ditch, or if the bridge pitches up
> over the RR.
>
Or both. Or maybe halfway between the two (think "retaining wall").
_
On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Still, the post codes are *commonly* used as a shortcut geo reference; it
> is a very popular way of doing e.g. a store finder on a web site - enter
> your post code and we'll show you the nearest store. Because of this, there
> is high dema
On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Jeremy Adams wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 12:41 PM, Anthony wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Jeremy Adams wrote:
>>
>>> One can easily figure out what town someone is from based on their ZIP
>>> Co
On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Jeremy Adams wrote:
> One can easily figure out what town someone is from based on their ZIP
> Code. Is this not the case everywhere?
>
Certainly not. There are lots of zip codes which represent multiple towns,
and lots of towns which represent multiple zip cod
On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 11:47 AM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com <
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> please just take a look at the OSM file i uploaded they are regions of
> NJ all split up into approximate regions. It looks pretty good.
>
> Even if they are not the real zipcode, but approx
On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Jeff Barlow wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
>
> >No. Zip codes do not represent geographic regions. They should not be in
> a
> >the map data, but in a separate database.
>
> Please explain your reasoning. This claim seems quite
> cou
On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 7:57 AM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com <
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I have found a nice source of ZipCode boundries,
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/h4ck3rm1k3/diary/8994
>
> do you want to import them?
> mike
>
No. Zip codes do not represent geographic
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 2:38 AM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com <
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I have updated the map with the building that I think it might be, but
> also added a FIXME,
>
FWIW, I fixed it according to
http://www.sembler.com/pdfs/Shoppes%20Of%20Citrus%20Park.pdf
I s
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 1:06 AM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com <
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> What urls dont work?
>
Every one I've tried so far. Here's one:
http://iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/national_kml.registry_html?p_registry_id=110038277664
See http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/n
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 2:40 PM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com <
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 8:27 PM, David Fawcett
> wrote:
> > I also don't think that man_made=envionmental_hazard is an appropriate
> > tag.
>
> That is easy to fix.
>
Not automatically. I'
The only thing I can think of is if you're traveling by car near the Tampa
International Airport, try to get a GPS trace and check it against the
current map. I'm sure the roads have changed somewhat since I last mapped
them a couple months ago, as that area has been under ongoing construction
for
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Matthew Luehrmann <
matthew.luehrm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just as a note for those interested in mapping streams and rivers, "the
> riverbed and banks, up to the ordinary high water mark, are state land,
> held
> in trust for the public for navigation, fishing, and
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 7:12 PM, Shaun McDonald wrote:
> Why oh why oh why do some people insist on wasting time trying to import
> loads of data?
>
Why do some people insist on wasting time surveying data that someone else
has already surveyed?
Probably much the same reasons. It can be fun :).
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Zeke Farwell wrote:
> Here are all the reasons for a road existing but being closed
> (distinguished from private) that I can think of:
>
>- Under construction (this already has a tagging sytem)
>- Damaged or blocked by disaster. Re-construction or cleanu
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Anthony wrote:
> There are perfectly safe roads which are in perfect condition, but which
> are closed.
>
For example, the bridge between Ellis Island and the mainland of New
Jersey. Should that be tagged with access=private, access=no,
access=close
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Zeke Farwell wrote:
> In this case, I'd say the renderer is right. Both access=private and
>> access=no mean essentially the same thing - you aren't allowed there without
>> explicit approval. In the case of access=no, that approval happens to come
>> from a gove
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Matthias Julius wrote:
> Richard Welty writes:
> > and now that i've seen it, the mapnik rendering is not distinguishable
> > from access=private
> >
> > on the other hand, we don't tag to get a specific rendering effect from
> > an existing renderer.
>
> Exactly!
What's wrong with access=no?
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 9:58 PM, Jeff Barlow wrote:
> Some of the local bogus "roads" seem to at least roughly
> correspond to irrigation canals.
One of the ways TIGER segments were generated is by scanning satellite
photos and/or old maps for things that looked like roads. That's
likely where th
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Jeff Barlow wrote:
> Others, all unnamed, I'm less sure how to handle. Many are not
> roads at all. Some just simply don't exist. I'm not sure where
> they came from. Others seem to roughly correspond to irrigation
> canals.
If it's unnamed, says tiger:reviewed=no,
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 1:34 AM, David ``Smith'' wrote:
> I'll concede that there's a "me too" aspect involved with trying to
> make OSM work for geocoding like the big names do. But that doesn't
> mean there aren't legitimate motivations. OSM's street map is
> arguably better than the big names
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Greg Troxel wrote:
>
> Alan Mintz writes:
>
>> With regard to apartment complexes, condo complexes, mobile home complexes,
>> and gated single-family-home complexes, I usually tag:
>>
>> - The ways that cross the boundary line from public street into the complex
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Greg Troxel wrote:
> Well, that's how I would tend to see it, but it being in practice street
> like and large and having a name makes it feel like it's fair to label
> it as if it were a private way. I wonder if it really is a private way
> and the parcel data is
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Greg Troxel wrote:
> Anthony writes:
>> But I've come across situations where the unnamed road is not a
>> roundabout, though. In one of these cases I used
>> highway=unclassified, because it was just a dirt road that was really
>>
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Bill Ricker wrote:
> Oregon GEO is quite possibly as enlightened about licensing as MassGIS
> too -- if their data are better than Tiger and compatibly licensed
> with OSM, it's worth importing as replacement for unfixed Tiger or
> Tiger that only you have only un-
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 10:12 PM, Kate Chapman wrote:
> I was wondering if anyone set-up a wiki page for the "US Conversion Team" as
> was proposed in another thread.
We've changed our name to the "US Conversion Cabal", and cabals don't
like to advertise their existence :).
_
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 12:07 PM, SteveC wrote:
>
> On Nov 15, 2009, at 8:23 PM, Anthony wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 10:05 PM, SteveC wrote:
>>> So you put the house numbers on the nodes and then what happens with them
>>> all when you switch the
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Lord-Castillo, Brett
wrote:
> I'm still getting a handle on the schemas in use for OSM, and noticed that
> concept of matching address nodes to ways when doing imports.
> I'm not so sure this will be very functional for floodplain counties or heavy
> agricultural
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 9:59 AM, am12 wrote:
>
>> Go click on Mushinski Road and reverse it. Nothing happens to the
>> nodes. They stay right where they are, and they keep the same exact
>> numbers on them.
>
>>>From 6501 to 6513 Mushinski Road runs west, so right is North,
>> regardless of the
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Andy Allan wrote:
> I'd love to know which map has an
> accurate pedestrian routing network that is collected as such and not
> a derived interpretation of other base maps.
C'mon, this is the United States. A blank map is an accurate
pedestrian routing network.
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 10:05 PM, SteveC wrote:
>> So you put the house numbers on the nodes and then what happens with them
>> all when you switch the way
>> direction?
>
> Nothing.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?l
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 10:05 PM, SteveC wrote:
> So you put the house numbers on the nodes and then what happens with them all
> when you switch the way
> direction?
Nothing.
> Every editor has to know to reorder the left and right hand numbers?
Nope. Up/Forward is defined as the direction i
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 9:58 PM, Peter Batty wrote:
> I think the Karlsruhe schema is good where you are trying to model addresses
> pretty precisely and you're not expecting major updates to the street
> network. But I think with the TIGER data we have a different situation. And
> like I said, th
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 9:22 PM, Peter Batty wrote:
> When I said "messy", I guess I was thinking of two things - one is doing the
> import, as you mention here (which is sort of where the discussion started).
> This seems quite a bit more complex if you have to split ways and insert
> nodes.
You
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Peter Batty wrote:
> If you have two streets intersecting and put a number on that node, it isn't
> clear which street that applies to. You could add an artificial node close
> to the end of the street, but that seems a bit more messy to me.
If you're adding the n
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Dale Puch wrote:
> Split each intersection, then build relations for the streets.
Do you even have to split? Just add a node, and put the house number
on the node.
> One of the problems has been which side is left if the way is reversed.
Put the house number on
forms could exist,
> and you search for the more precise form before the more approximate form.
As much as I hate the meme of saying +1 when you agree with someone, I
have to say +1. Or maybe "AMEN".
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Dale Puch wrote:
> I personally favor having the possi
201 - 300 of 346 matches
Mail list logo
