On 7/12/2012 11:27 AM, Clay Smalley wrote:
I like this idea. That would encourage more people to TIGER-review
streets, as highway=road shows up pretty ugly on Mapnik, and people like
getting rid of ugly. What would be the drawbacks of doing this? It seems
like there would be some but I can't
On 7/12/2012 11:43 PM, Peter Dobratz wrote:
NE2,
So after I bring up that I don't think railways should be drawn through
buildings, and most people agree with me on that, you decide to do this:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.762886lon=-71.430509zoom=18layers=M
Does 86 Central Street,
On 7/12/2012 10:45 PM, Mike N wrote:
On 7/12/2012 4:21 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
This is a strawman, since there will rarely be more than one former line
across a small area. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone
wants to map all the former second tracks, sidings
On 7/11/2012 8:38 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
On 07/11/12 13:59, Mike N wrote:
The state capital region of Columbia, South Carolina will be a prime
test of the Do empty areas attract contributors? theory for some time
to come.
Why, is someone planning to remove the TIGER import in that
On 7/11/2012 9:31 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
On 07/11/12 15:20, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
The state capital region of Columbia, South Carolina will be a prime
test of the Do empty areas attract contributors? theory for some time
to come.
Why, is someone planning to remove the TIGER import
I've just ensured that the OSMF will do minimal damage to the U.S.
railway network outside the Los Angeles area. Most of the damage will be
moving nodes, meaning that geometry may be totally borked but topology
will be fine.
___
Talk-us mailing list
On 7/10/2012 5:40 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
I've just ensured that the OSMF will do minimal damage to the U.S.
railway network outside the Los Angeles area.
Oh, and South Carolina. Not going to touch that.
Most of the damage will be
moving nodes, meaning that geometry may be totally
On 7/10/2012 6:15 PM, Charlotte Wolter wrote: Nathan,
How did you ensure that the railroads will be damaged minimally
Using JOSM's license change plugin. If the OSMF uses a different
algorithm, we're all screwed.
(and why is poor old LA excluded)?
Because there's a lot of work and I can
On 7/9/2012 6:23 PM, Mike N wrote:
Is there a Wiki page that describes the best current highway tagging
scheme to document use of route relations and refs to support Mapnik
with shields and other data consumers?
No, because there is no current tagging scheme :)
On 7/8/2012 3:20 PM, Toby Murray wrote:
Just came across this while processing pictures from my bike across Kansas:
http://i.imgur.com/bmiV2.jpg
This is a sign for the Western Vistas historic byway. It even has a website:
http://www.westernvistashistoricbyway.com/
Closer to home I have also
On 7/3/2012 4:11 PM, Anthony wrote:
What if it's an abandoned railway which is adjacent to a not-abandoned
railway?
Then it's already tagged as a rail trail.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Note that if you have the desired surface level, you can use USGS topos
to place the shoreline on the correct contour.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
On 6/27/2012 10:46 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
Ideally a map of rail trails
should include them (e.g. the one in Trains magazine's May 2011
issue), but there's no easy way to determine if a trail is one.
I would map the ways independently when the trail is adjacent to the rails.
Duh? The
http://www.fuzzyworld3.com/3um/viewtopic.php?f=29t=3183
I suppose the question is whether OSM should have this place (assuming
someone verifies that the sign is gone). Currently it does as part of
the GNIS import: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/153418203/history
Currently it's simple enough to find most (correctly-tagged) rail trails
in the database: find anything tagged railway=abandoned and highway=[one
of the trail values]. These trails are usually flatter than roads, and
are therefore well-suited for long-distance cycling.
But another popular
On 6/19/2012 1:27 PM, Charlotte Wolter wrote:
Dear US folks,
I did a lot of work on the railroad that parallels I-40 across Arizona,
from Gallup, N.M., to Flagstaff, Ariz. There are two parallel tracks
with different names,
Not sure what you mean by this. The Gallup Subdivision (Belen-East
On 6/14/2012 9:31 PM, Alan Mintz wrote:
I'm not sure I blame him, in theory, for not
agreeing to something unseen, being solely at the mercy of the masses -
the same ones that approved this change to begin with.
Actually there wasn't even that level of approval. The current license
change
On 6/11/2012 7:17 PM, Mark Gray wrote:
On one hand, I share the frustration of having lots of new data in
an area making some of our tools slower and more difficult to use.
In my area a building footprint import slowed down most of the
mapping tools and land use polygons can get in the way of
I forgot to mention that you can also use Potlatch 1. Hit U to view
deleted ways, select the way, and unlock. This is probably the easiest
for a simple undeletion like this.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
On 6/5/2012 3:42 PM, Mike N wrote:
On 6/5/2012 2:56 PM, stevea wrote:
But socially, or more properly stated, in the context of reaching OSM
consensus, what does our community think of (rather wholesale) reverts
of a contributor who has not agreed to the CT? Are we OK with that?
This nearly
On 5/31/2012 11:33 AM, Brian May wrote:
Hi All,
I just noticed in Gainesville, FL user AMPINTERMEDIA
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/AMPINTERMEDIA recently deleted a
chunk of streets from one section of town. Doesn't look sinister - they
are a new user and probably didn't realize what they
On 5/29/2012 6:04 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
The landuse import for Georgia (which IMO is poor-quality and should be
deleted, but that's not going to happen) has a bunch of areas tagged as
note = Forested Wetland with no useful natural=* tags (since
natural=wood and natural=wetland both apply
On 5/30/2012 6:19 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
There's absolutely no reason to rush. Data that's been sitting in OSM
for *years* without even being noticed as a problem
I noticed it as a problem about a year ago.
___
Talk-us mailing list
I've noticed some odd things on OpenCycleMap and other renderings, and I
think it's due to a difference in how things are in the UK vs. here.
*Most railways have passenger service. Thus OCM (and the transport map)
show all rail lines.
*Tracks are useful for cycling. When you zoom in on OCM,
The landuse import for Georgia (which IMO is poor-quality and should be
deleted, but that's not going to happen) has a bunch of areas tagged as
note = Forested Wetland with no useful natural=* tags (since
natural=wood and natural=wetland both apply). Example:
On 5/29/2012 10:00 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
On 05/29/12 11:57, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
*Most railways have passenger service. Thus OCM (and the transport map)
show all rail lines.
But isn't a railway an obstacle for cyclists no matter what services
they support?
Sure. But that would
On 5/28/2012 1:58 AM, Russ Nelson wrote:
Do we have a new source for WMS topo maps now that Terraserver
(msrmaps.com) has been shut down? Can I get a working URL from
somebody?
On 5/20/2012 8:22 PM, James Umbanhowar wrote:
I'm guessing that if you remove all the (superfluous) NHD:xxx tags, they
will then become duplicate nodes in waterways, which I think can still
be fixed in JOSM.
Nope - removed all but waterway=* and I have the same problem. I've
noticed boundary
On 5/15/2012 2:23 PM, Alan Mintz wrote:
At 2012-05-15 11:19, Clifford Snow wrote:
I tag culs-de-sac as turning_circles and only draw a circular way when
there is an island in the middle. But I have a question. Where should
the turning_circle node be placed? In the middle of the culs-de-sac or
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/ZeGermanata/edits
Vandalism includes the following:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/21523281/history changing ref=US
41 to US 241
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/163035927/history fake motorway
bypass
Is anyone familiar with the regulations governing the U.S. inland
waterways (such as the Mississippi River and the Intracoastal Waterway)?
From my brief look, it seems to be less these barge configurations are
allowed and more you can go anywhere but don't crash. Is this
correct, or are there
On 5/16/2012 1:06 AM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
In either case, any idea what the suitable tags might look
like (other than the generic boat=yes ship=yes)?
I guess that depends on what you're trying to do... If you are trying
to tag the largest possible vessel that can navigate a waterway (under
On 5/12/2012 12:41 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
What error rate is acceptable?
As low as possible, but I've been generally able to handle the edge
cases I've seen, either by doing the right thing, or by punting and
doing nothing at all.
It's worth noting that any errors are already there as
The process seems obvious to me: check that the name is still what it
originally was (from the tiger:name_base etc. tags), and if so, use
those tags to expand abbreviations. (Ignore any with semicolons/colons
from joining.) If not, set it aside for semi-manual checking. The only
false
On 5/7/2012 10:03 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com wrote:
Same here. I'm ignoring this wiki-fiddling:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:highway%3Dmini_roundaboutdiff=747981oldid=689543
Both edits you mention seem to
On 5/7/2012 11:02 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
On May 7, 2012 7:06 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com
mailto:nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/7/2012 9:59 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 6:51 AM, Ian Deesian.d...@gmail.com
mailto:ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
I've mapped
On 5/7/2012 12:41 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com wrote:
It vaults right over any supposed definition of mini-roundabout.
I suppose if you ignored the whole traversability or vertical
clearance requirements the wiki's had since the
On 5/7/2012 1:02 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
Still, the diverging use overlaps improperly with the actual
roundabout correctly as a ring using junction=roundabout. ;o)
You're assuming that each real-world situation has only one correct way
of mapping.
On 5/7/2012 1:16 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/7/2012 1:02 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
Still, the diverging use overlaps improperly with the actual
roundabout correctly as a ring using junction=roundabout. ;o)
You're
On 5/7/2012 4:28 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:
So this is not/should not be a mini_roundabout? It seems a little silly
to call it anything else, since the city just dug a hole in the center
of the existing intersection, built a circular curb, and planted a tree:
http://g.co/maps/e2gsv
Even sillier:
The problem seems to be that mappers needed a tag for a small roundabout
on a node. Since all that was available was mini_roundabout, that's what
we used. Had there been another tag, e.g. highway=roundabout, we
wouldn't have this discussion. But mini_roundabout is now in use for a
large number
On 5/6/2012 1:39 PM, Nathan Mixter wrote:
2. Align the shapes to match what is on the ground. I plan to either get
rid of or modify them so they match what is on the ground.
I'm not sure how you plan on doing this. Many times a fence will be on
one side of the property line, to avoid dealing
On 5/4/2012 2:42 PM, Apollinaris Schöll wrote:
any import should be treated like this. if it's not edited and the data
isn't used then it should be removed after some time.
That's a silly statement. If something isolated gets imported, e.g. a
water political boundary, it probably won't be
On 5/1/2012 1:23 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/1/2012 12:59 PM, Anthony wrote:
Automatically expanding abbreviations is a terrible idea. If an
abbreviation is unambiguous, then it can be expanded during the
preprocessing
It's the standard to draw a waterway in the direction of flow. I've
questioned this several times, but it's an ingrained default.
My question is more specific: what happens to a drainage canal that
reverses direction? I offer the Everglades and surrounding agricultural
land as an example.
On 4/26/2012 2:54 AM, Paul Norman wrote:
I happened across an import of Fresno castradal data from mid-2010 in the
Fresno area. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=36.77lon=-119.81zoom=15 is
the general area but I haven't fully explored the extents. For a view of the
data, see
On 4/24/2012 2:38 PM, Josh Doe wrote:
Yes, there should be only one feature for each real world object, and
the way/multipolygon has more spatial information, however the nodes
might have other useful information like the GNIS feature ID.
For this matter, why are there county nodes all over
On 4/24/2012 10:21 PM, Toby Murray wrote:
I think the reason they exist is the same reason why cities always
have a node in addition to their administrative boundaries. And
states/countries too far that matter. Most renderers render the name
from the nodes, not the admin boundaries.
This makes
On 4/17/2012 3:29 AM, Werner Poppele wrote:
I totally agree with Frederik. Yes - imported data turns down new
mappers. Have you ever seen those monster
multipolygons ? I am sure a new mapper says: Forget that
I personally tend to stop my contribution to OSM because of the very bad
stuff I see
On 4/17/2012 4:26 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
And now assume there's a third city
of equal size where *nothing* has been mapped at all... maybe I
shouldn't speak for everyone but for me (and virtually every mapper I
know) surely the city with data-but-no-mappers would be least appealing,
far below
On 4/17/2012 8:18 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
If a user manually surveys data, there is an assumption of timeliness
and accuracy of that survey. That's not the case with imported data,
despite oftentimes being stamped official.
When I joined OSM I went through photos and notes I had taken
I'm wondering what the best way would be to tag a good-quality shoulder
that acts essentially as an undesignated bike lane, in that you can use
it but it is not required. Current Florida DOT policy is to use these on
rural roads, with marked bike lanes only when there is a lane to the
right.
On 4/17/2012 9:23 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 8:52 PM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com wrote:
When I joined OSM I went through photos and notes I had taken since the late
1990s. There's no guarantee of timeliness here either. Certainly not as much
as an import of
On 4/17/2012 9:43 PM, Kristian M Zoerhoff wrote:
Alternatively, maybe cycleway needs an unmarked lane setting for these
situations, though that would imply the local authorities are intending for
cyclists to use the shoulder, rather than just tolerating their presence
(the usual situation).
I
On 4/16/2012 8:56 PM, Alan Mintz wrote:
So, we're basically duplicating the existing way and then blessing it.
Is this really sufficient - to verify the tainted geometry instead of
re-drawing it?
Only if the nodes are clean.
Another point, at least in SoCal, is that many of our tainted ways
On 4/16/2012 9:18 PM, Alan Mintz wrote:
At 2012-04-16 14:06, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Or you can simply add odbl=clean if there's nothing ungood about the
object (e.g. it was split from a TIGER way and the splitting is
something you would have done anyway).
Is this really sufficient? Can
On 4/16/2012 11:04 PM, James Mast wrote:
I just saw this post on the rebuild list, so you guys might want to be a
tad careful when you're doing cleaning work by creating a new way and
keeping the old tainted nodes in it.
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/rebuild/2012-April/000206.html
One possible enhancement: add a border of the same color as the highway
(e.g. red for primary). This would make it easier to identify which
highway the shield refers to, which isn't always clear. This may of
course be very complicated, in which case never mind.
On 4/14/2012 2:38 PM, Phil! Gold wrote:
If you count out all the emails on the subject, there are probably more
emails opposing the network-classification-per-banner approach, but if you
count the people expressing opinions on the matter,
network-classification-per-banner has a strong majority.
In the U.S., a gated residential community usually allows anyone in who
has a legitimate reason to be there (e.g. visiting a friend, delivering
a package, repairing a TV). It seems that this fits access=destination
as well as private. Would it be reasonable to tag it as such, and leave
On 4/13/2012 8:42 AM, Phil! Gold wrote:
First off, I still feel that there was a consensus last year on using the
network tag for distinct network subsets as well as for mainline roads and
you, despite being the only dissenter, continue to argue against something
the rest of community more or
On 4/12/2012 2:59 PM, Phil! Gold wrote:
* Minh Nguyenm...@1ec5.org [2012-04-12 10:06 -0700]:
There's an ALT I-75 that needs its own sequence file
I had no idea there were alternate Interstates. I added it under
network=US:I:Alternate, ref=75. (Right now, it's rendering as regular
I-75.)
On 4/12/2012 3:52 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
There's also an I-278 Truck in New York City that avoids a piece of the
Grand Central Parkway that's closed to large trucks:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2131889
Also I-270 Spur in Maryland, which *is* part of the Interstate Highway
On 4/11/2012 7:23 PM, Phil! Gold wrote:
We're putting the shield images in the public domain (well, we're putting
them under a CC0 waiver, which amounts to the same thing semantically), so
I don't think the Kentucky Unbridled image would be compatible with
that.
You might have a problem with
On 4/10/2012 10:39 AM, Peter Dobratz wrote:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dturning_circle:
There is no central island/reservation to a turning circle—it's
simply a wider bit of road.
There was a recent discussion on tagging@ in which the 'old guard'
refused to accept that it
On 4/10/2012 1:53 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
On 4/10/2012 11:31 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Another case is with a mini_roundabout - supposedly the center must be
flat. But many small circles that fit inside intersections are tagged as
mini_roundabouts even if they have a raised island
On 4/10/2012 2:23 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
If there's an island in the middle, create a circle around the island,
set one-way in the direction of rotation (almost always anticlockwise
in North America), intersect with outlet way, copy outlet's tags to
the ring (think one-exit roundabout minus the
I've noticed that the only one of the four maps on the OSM main page
that has been updating since April Fools has been the 'standard' Mapnik.
ITO has also not updated their renderings due to an apparent lack of
planet files.
Does anyone have information about what's going on here?
On 4/10/2012 7:39 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
I was planning to just use what I know which is highway=bus_stop for the
bus stops, and railway=tram_stop for the light rail stops. But now I see
that using highway=bus_stop is *very controversial*[1]! If it weren't so
blatantly untrue I'd think it
Is there a reason there are no shields or fallback ovals here on Nocatee
Parkway?
http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/?zoom=15lat=30.12344lon=-81.39063layers=B0
The way is tagged ref=CR 210 and the relation is network=US:FL:CR:St.
Johns ref=210.
___
On 4/9/2012 11:01 PM, Russ Nelson wrote:
Nathan Edgars II writes:
It's not as bad as it seems. Imagery is adjusted using an elevation
dataset. Since this data doesn't (and shouldn't) include buildings and
bridges, these appear distorted. You'll also see problems where recent
On 4/8/2012 10:27 AM, Craig Hinners wrote:
Chris Lawrencelordsu...@gmail.com:
modifier=* would represent MUTCD-type banners attached to the shield
This is the first I've heard of this tag. I don't recall it being
discussed when we were hashing ideas around on this last summer. (Not
that that
If you have any questions about real-world shields that aren't answered
here, you can sign up for http://www.aaroads.com/forum/ and ask.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
On 4/5/2012 8:14 AM, Phil! Gold wrote:
New York's parkways have a similar problem with legibility. One of my
plans for dealing with them is to use larger shield images at high zoom
levels.
The Long Island parkways are nice and legible:
http://alpsroads.net/roads/ny/ocean/e3.jpg
Most other
I think it's clear from this discussion that we *don't* have any
consensus on how best to tag relations for bannered routes.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
On 4/2/2012 11:35 AM, Phil! Gold wrote:
For things like Florida's toll roads, we currently treat that as a
separate network, so a route relation tagged as network=US:FL:Toll,
ref=528 would get the toll shield.
I've done this: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/11177509
On 4/4/2012 11:49 AM, Phil! Gold wrote:
* Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com [2012-04-04 10:41 -0400]:
On 4/2/2012 11:35 AM, Phil! Gold wrote:
For things like Florida's toll roads, we currently treat that as a
separate network, so a route relation tagged as network=US:FL:Toll,
ref=528 would
On 4/4/2012 12:14 PM, Craig Hinners wrote:
Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com:
It seems that many people see the network tag as not representing a
network but a shield design. Does this sound accurate?
No, because, where shield designs differ by agency for the same logical
network
On 4/4/2012 1:05 PM, Richard Weait wrote:
By analogy, you could map a business by placing a node: amenity=fuel.
Or by tracing a building=yes, amenity=fuel. Same thing: you want a
generic lozenge shield? ref=123 You want a right, clustered shield?
network=US:US:Business:MD, ref=123
And you'd
On 4/4/2012 1:38 PM, Richard Weait wrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com wrote:
And you'd specify the type of fuel using a different tag, not
amenity=fuel:diesel.
name= would be a separate tag, so would fuel.
Indeed. How this is a valid analogy for
On 4/4/2012 2:43 PM, Chris Lawrence wrote:
Renderers can fallback to the longest
left-anchored substring they understand for weird things they don't
understand.
Bad idea. Google Maps does something like this and it results in
'bannered' routes appearing without banners.
There seems to be a problem here with US 17-92:
http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/?zoom=12lat=28.96029lon=-81.31906layers=B0
Change over to sign style and a bunch of shields appear.
Example tiles (to avoid loading the whole thing):
http://elrond.aperiodic.net/mtiles/cutouts/12/1122/1704.png
On 4/4/2012 10:23 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
There seems to be a problem here with US 17-92:
http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/?zoom=12lat=28.96029lon=-81.31906layers=B0
Change over to sign style and a bunch of shields appear.
Example tiles (to avoid loading the whole thing):
http
On 4/3/2012 10:21 AM, Chris Lawrence wrote:
- Secondaries (network US:VA:secondary) don't seem to be rendering at
all, and the fallback shields aren't showing up even where there are
ref tags (just seems to be using Mapnik style). Simple rule for VA:
if the ref= 600, or it has a letter in it,
On 4/3/2012 10:54 AM, James Umbanhowar wrote:
I don't know if they use Mapnik, but I like the way Stamen places their
shields along concurrencies. e.g.
http://maps.stamen.com/terrain/#15/39.7542/-86.0373
The problem with this one is that only one shield shows up when the two
shields would be
On 4/3/2012 11:19 AM, Phil! Gold wrote:
A lot of those still don't render because they duplicate the
subnetwork in the ref tag, so Loop 5 (picking an arbitrary number) might
be represented as network=US:TX:LOOP, ref=5 Loop. Once the ref is changed
to a plain 5, it would be rendered properly.
On 4/3/2012 11:57 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
FM and RM should render identically (obviously since they're actually
the same network)
Er no. On roadside assemblies the text FARM ROAD and RANCH ROAD
appears, and on green guide signs the shields have FM or RM up top.
On 4/3/2012 11:59 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
That just reminded me... Chicago and Tulsa have city routes.
I'm not aware of any such routes in Chicago. Are you thinking of the
address numbers that are prominently posted on signs?
___
Talk-us mailing
On 4/3/2012 12:06 PM, Phil! Gold wrote:
We're looking for US Business routes under a network of US:US:Business.
It probably isn't tagged that way. Once it is, it'll show up.
Again, you mean if, not once. It's not the job of renderers to force
a choice between equally-valid existing tagging
On 4/3/2012 12:52 PM, Phil! Gold wrote:
* Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com [2012-04-03 11:44 -0400]:
On 4/3/2012 11:19 AM, Phil! Gold wrote:
A lot of those still don't render because they duplicate the
subnetwork in the ref tag, so Loop 5 (picking an arbitrary number) might
be represented
On 4/3/2012 5:19 PM, Phil! Gold wrote:
If you want to tag your local routes that way, I won't stop you. But I
don't want to have to deal with multiple tagging standards and it seems to
me that there's a consensus on this list that network=US:US:Truck, ref=17
is the better approach, so that's
On 4/3/2012 8:49 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Apr 3, 2012 3:15 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com
mailto:nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
That tagging is nonsense. There's no Truck U.S. Highway network,
only a U.S. Highway network that includes truck-bannered routes.
Correct me if I'm wrong
On 4/2/2012 8:25 AM, Phil! Gold wrote:
Business and
similar variants are expected to be in the network tag, since that's the
closest thing I've seen to a consensus on the topic. If there's no route
relation or the tagging was not understood, we fall back to rendering the
ref= tag on the way
On 4/2/2012 8:25 AM, Phil! Gold wrote:
I'm not an expert on every state, so I'm particularly interested in
whether things look good to the natives of each state and, if not, what
could make them look better.
Florida has special toll shields. These are not represented by relations
since, for
On 4/2/2012 11:17 AM, Phil! Gold wrote:
* Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com [2012-04-02 09:18 -0400]:
On 4/2/2012 8:25 AM, Phil! Gold wrote:
Business and similar variants are expected to be in the network tag,
since that's the closest thing I've seen to a consensus on the topic.
You know
On 4/2/2012 11:40 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 4/2/2012 11:17 AM, Phil! Gold wrote:
* Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com [2012-04-02 09:18 -0400]:
On 4/2/2012 8:25 AM, Phil! Gold wrote:
Business and similar variants are expected to be in the network tag,
since that's the closest thing I've
On 4/2/2012 12:18 PM, Richard Weait wrote:
I think imports (taking a large number of objects from an external
source and placing them in OSM all at once) is bad for the community.
Most of you have heard me say this before. I still have no hard
evidence to prove it. There is also no hard
On 4/2/2012 2:27 PM, Phil! Gold wrote:
I'm deliberately leaving county routes for a second phase and focusing on
state routes for the moment. (New Jersey is an exception, but it was an
experiment and I don't actually believe we're using the proper shields for
all of its counties.)
As far as I
On 3/30/2012 12:55 PM, Paul Norman wrote:
From: Jeffrey Ollie [mailto:j...@ocjtech.us]
Could this be mitigated somewhat by the use of super relations? IE on
relation each for the US-Canada, US-Mexico, US-Pacific, US-Atlantic
borders tied together with one super relation?
Do any of the tools
On 3/30/2012 3:59 PM, Paul Norman wrote:
Yikes, that's complicated. I'm not sure that hatching will help much with a
situation like that in general - what if the boundary between two cities is
like that? Both would be inside a boundary and have the same shading.
It's much less likely that the
1 - 100 of 594 matches
Mail list logo
