On 10/3/2011 9:06 PM, Kai Krueger wrote:
Hi everyone,
I have just seen on the blog of Geofabrik ( http://blog.geofabrik.de/?p=96 )
that the awesome OSM-Inspector routing debug layer is now available for the
US as well.
It can be found at
On 10/1/2011 7:53 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 10/1/2011 6:22 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
Isn't this NCN 1?
No. They're pretty close in NH-Maine, but differ in several places (the
ECG uses unpaved trails while USBR 1 sticks with paved roads).
The bike rendering has (mostly) updated, so you
On 10/1/2011 6:22 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
Isn't this NCN 1?
No. They're pretty close in NH-Maine, but differ in several places (the
ECG uses unpaved trails while USBR 1 sticks with paved roads). The
routings are very different in Virginia and North Carolina (compare the
cycle map rendering
On 9/30/2011 7:51 AM, Metcalf, Calvin (DOT) wrote:
I'm actually in the process of doing this for MA and was trying to figure out
the correct tagging, I take it in the US we don't use the local regional
national bike route scheme?
We do, but I don't know if I'd say that the ECG fits into it.
On 9/30/2011 7:37 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
What if anything can we learn from Wikipedia?
That consensus is very hard to reach :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:State_route_naming_conventions_poll/Account
___
Talk-us mailing list
On 9/29/2011 11:20 PM, Peter Dobratz wrote:
Has anyone attempted to start mapping the East Coast Greenway as a
cycle route? http://www.greenway.org/
This is a project to create a bicycle route along the east coast from
Florida to Maine. I think the goal is to get everything off-road, but
On 9/22/2011 4:11 PM, Dale Puch wrote:
land use
admin boundaries
These two will generally share nodes (if mapped properly, e.g.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=28.6015lon=-81.419zoom=16layers=M
rather than TIGER's horrible approximations) and so should be combined.
Most of the others you
On 9/16/2011 9:07 PM, Greg Troxel wrote:
The disney employee discussion points out that while
access_permission=customer is a relatively straightforward concept,
access_permission=private conveys only
If you don't have some special agreement, you can't go here.
but doesn't encode the set of
On 9/15/2011 10:19 PM, Anthony wrote:
Also, I couldn't find any such sign going in the other direction.
Even if this were access=destination, it would be a unidirectional
access=destination.
If you go the other direction you have to either pass through the main
gate on World Drive or pass one
On 9/14/2011 10:50 PM, Bill Ricker wrote:
And the sweep of Victory makes it not a useful shortcut to anywhere.
I assume you mean Vista? Anyway, it could be used as a shortcut, but not
much shorter than CR 535: http://g.co/maps/6uzx9
___
Talk-us
On 9/15/2011 8:25 AM, Bill Ricker wrote:
Right, from almost everywhere to almost everywhere, 535 would be better
than Vista. As long as the marked cast-member-only section of World Blvd
is access=private, routing should avoid it.
Is this still marked cast only? I haven't been on World Drive
On 9/15/2011 9:50 AM, Anthony wrote:
The sign does not say you may use the road so long as you need it to
get to your destination (access=destination). That would preclude
cast members as using it as a cut-through alternative to World Drive.
And it would permit its use by solicitors,
On 9/12/2011 10:04 PM, Metcalf, Calvin (DOT) wrote:
- more road colors just because its a state highway tthat could mean something
unpaved or divided limited acces
If it's divided limited access it should be trunk or motorway. If it's
unpaved it should probably be tertiary unless unpaved is
On 9/13/2011 8:34 AM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 4:29 AM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/12/2011 7:17 PM, Anthony wrote:
The fact that the land is owned by Walt Disney Parks does not preclude
the fact that they have granted a right of way through it.
According to
On 9/13/2011 8:58 AM, Bill Ricker wrote:
The thru-roads across WDW property might or might not be registered as
Public Right of Way against the deeds, but have been open to the public
for up to 40 years.
Not this one. There was a guard booth on Vista Boulevard near the
present location of the
On 9/13/2011 12:47 PM, Toby Murray wrote:
Hmm I think that page on the wiki has changed since I last looked at
it. The county seat bit is probably a good idea. But even then, there
have been a couple of previous discussions about place name renderings
in the US so I think we can still leave it
On 9/11/2011 6:12 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com wrote:
(As opposed to
On 9/12/2011 5:57 PM, Richard Weait wrote:
A few of us were just asking on irc what a US-style tile theme would
look like?
Many printed US maps emphasize divided highways (often including
undivided multilane highways). Perhaps a thicker line style at low zooms
where lanes=4 or oneway=yes
On 9/11/2011 3:26 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Sun, 2011-09-11 at 02:12 -0500, Toby Murray wrote:
Re: Kansas
Every person riding a bicycle upon a roadway shall be granted all of
the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the
driver of a vehicle ...
Interesting...where
On 9/11/2011 4:25 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
Beaverton, Oregon, in all their wisdom, likes to post roads as DEAD
END or NO OUTLET when it clearly does have an outlet, just not for
motor vehicles.
I'm not sure what this has to do with access tags, since these are
advisory (yellow) signs. Only a
On 9/11/2011 7:53 AM, Anthony wrote:
The no thru traffic sign is nonstandard and very jurisdiction
specific. In general there is no letter of the law, as the law
generally does not mention such signs.
You seem to be right (at least in Florida):
On 9/9/2011 7:36 PM, PJ Houser wrote:
In OpenTripPlanner's case
(http://opentripplanner.com/), if it is given a starting destination
within an apartment complex tagged with access=private, the router will
try to snap that location to the nearest permitted road, which in some
cases, may be an
(crossposted to talk-us)
On 9/2/2011 3:30 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
On 09/01/2011 12:01 AM, Stephen Hope wrote:
On 1 September 2011 11:41, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com wrote:
In the US, the problem is that address place names depend on which post
office serves the area, and there is no
On 9/8/2011 8:34 AM, Carl Anderson wrote:
In the US if you get records through a FOIA they are public records of
the US Govt.
I don't think so:
http://www.justice.gov/oip/foia_updates/Vol_IV_4/page3.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/od/foia/policies/copyr-f.htm
On 9/8/2011 6:19 PM, PJ Houser wrote:
In Portland, Oregon, we have been tagging certain ways with access
restrictions as access=no and then explicit exceptions, like psv=yes,
foot=yes, bicycle=yes.
In the wiki, for the access key, it states Use the *access*=* key to
describe a general access
I've completed the import outside the Tampa area.
I noticed when working on it that it seems to not include recent
changes. So it's as if someone surveyed the roads for OSM several years ago.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
I've finished with the mainline U.S. Highways and Interstates and the
major grid of state roads (1-2 digit and multiples of 100). You can see
progress (lagged by a bit over a day) here:
http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=5lat=29lon=-83zoom=8
The one area I'm skipping is
On 9/3/2011 3:39 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
Hi all,
I just stumbled upon this rail yard (?) near Eudora, KS.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.9233lon=-95.0096zoom=14layers=M
Does anyone know what this is? Bing imagery shows most of the tracks
(long) gone. I'd delete them if I knew more
On 9/3/2011 11:23 PM, Josh Doe wrote:
58: have you considered putting an RFC out on cycleway=shared_lane to
get some discussion going around the tag?
Every main lane where bikes are allowed is a shared lane. Presumably the
intent is the indicate where there's a shared lane *marking*, i.e. a
On 9/1/2011 2:16 AM, Toby Murray wrote:
http://ni.kwsn.net/~toby/OSM/FL_maxspeed.osm.gz
If you have trouble dealing with the extra spaces I can clean it up
tomorrow. Bed time now. But it looks like it is just putting in the
same number of spaces in front of the numbers for some reason.
On 9/1/2011 2:23 AM, Toby Murray wrote:
Hmm I just noticed that it was a little eager about creating relations
so some ways don't have any tags but are only members of a relation
which is tagged. Not sure if this will work with the routes plugin or
not.
It actually works fine. There are ways
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/statistics/gis/roaddata.shtm
This is public domain per Microdecisions, Inc. v. Skinner (though I'm
waiting on a reply from FDOT confirming that they agree).
After checking all current maxspeed tags against the data to ensure
accuracy, I plan to use this as
On 8/31/2011 9:57 PM, Dale Puch wrote:
Anyways that is why I am interested in how you plan to attack it.
I haven't started, but I plan to convert to .osm using gpsbabel and then
use the JOSM 'routes' plugin to color the maxspeed values of the background.
On 8/31/2011 9:57 PM, Dale Puch wrote:
For me it was partly an issue of the data covering a large land area,
then only able to download small chunks from OSM to edit.
For this, a xapi query of relation[network=US:FL] gets all the state
road relations.
On 9/1/2011 1:02 AM, Dale Puch wrote:
If a way with [network=US:FL] is NOT in a relation, will it be returned
by this?
I don't think any ways have this tag.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
On 9/1/2011 1:19 AM, Toby Murray wrote:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 8:58 PM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/31/2011 9:57 PM, Dale Puch wrote:
Anyways that is why I am interested in how you plan to attack it.
I haven't started, but I plan to convert to .osm using gpsbabel and
On 8/24/2011 6:25 PM, Craig Hinners wrote:
FWIW, I agree with all of Jason's suggestions, below, for the
relation-level network tag values. It mirrors my thinking on the
matter exactly.
I disagree with putting alternate and business in the network. These
modifiers are part of the designation,
On 8/24/2011 7:25 PM, Craig Hinners wrote:
I see what you're saying about Arkansas, in that their treatment of US
business routes on signage feels more like a different designation.
On the other hand, Maryland uses a totatally different shield design for
business US routes (basically a
On 8/22/2011 12:05 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Exactly my point. Great Britain is fine with ref=M1 despite there
being an M1 in many other countries - and even in Northern
Ireland, part of the same country.
There are some little-known fields in OSM data called
On 8/21/2011 4:34 PM, Ian Dees wrote:
I really don't understand this logic. I have never run into a case where
JOSM has broken a relation in a way that wasn't obvious to me. Obviously
I don't get around as much as you, Nathan, but can you remind me of a
specific case where a relation breaks over
On 8/22/2011 5:47 PM, Richard Weait wrote:
If there is no overlap, a single network / ref pair will work just
fine. Why wouldn't it? What breaks is multi-values in network / ref
tags. Don't do that. We have better ways to do this; relations.
Relations break. Hence ref tags are there as a
On 8/22/2011 5:53 PM, Ian Dees wrote:
Ways break too, it's just that editors sometimes remember to fix them
during their edit session (e.g. by copying the tags when they
dual-carriage a way). If we get people to fix the relations too, then
they won't break.
So how will we do this? I've
I and some other mappers have noticed that relations are more prone to
breaking than equivalent tags on ways.
(For a simple example, imagine two people simultaneously editing
different parts of a route and each splitting a way, e.g. to add a
maxspeed to a portion. If the route is stored as a
On 8/21/2011 1:57 PM, Henk Hoff wrote:
Putting every single route-label in the ref-tag is not a good idea.
Putting every single route-label in the ref-tag is the way we do things.
If you don't like it, you can always find a different country to
armchair-map (most countries don't have route
On 8/21/2011 2:22 PM, Alan Mintz wrote:
As someone pointed out, once you put them in a relation, the tags on the
ways become duplicative. While this is generally bad database design,
it's also true that many consumers don't deal with relations, and so we
need the duplication and the problems
Sent again; sorry to people who receive multiple copies due to moderation.
On 8/21/2011 4:34 PM, Ian Dees wrote:
I really don't understand this logic. I have never run into a case where
JOSM has broken a relation in a way that wasn't obvious to me. Obviously
I don't get around as much as you,
On 8/20/2011 12:01 PM, Val Kartchner wrote:
What about another field for the network. For instance US:UT:SR for
Utah State Routes then the ref tag will be just the number. I'd like
to put it all into the ref field, but the renderers just don't parse
this field and render the whole string.
On 8/20/2011 6:04 AM, Henk Hoff wrote:
User Nathan Edgars is now changing all State Highway ref-tags in
Arkansas from AR ## to Hwy ##
False. I'm using Hwy x on ways that lacked ref tags.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
On 8/20/2011 12:42 PM, Metcalf, Calvin (DOT) wrote:
It doesn't matter if a state like MA uses SR internally we just use that
because we deal with only one states routes. Postal code prefixes for all
routes makes the most sense.
So how do you distinguish California from Canada? Or Delaware
On 8/20/2011 1:29 PM, Metcalf, Calvin (DOT) wrote:
From: Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com
On 8/20/2011 12:42 PM, Metcalf, Calvin (DOT) wrote:
It doesn't matter if a state like MA uses SR internally we just use that
because we deal with only one states routes. Postal code prefixes for all
On 8/20/2011 1:50 PM, Val Kartchner wrote:
On Sat, 2011-08-20 at 13:39 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Meaning? How would you add more detail? US:MA:2? US:FL:ORA:535? UK:GB:M1?
And once we set our standard here in the US, how do we get it adopted
world-wide?
Exactly my point. Great Britain
On 8/20/2011 2:13 PM, Henk Hoff wrote:
The difference with the UK example is that there is a consistency: M1 =
M1. In the case of Arkansas we're talking about AR 26, Hwy 26 and
possibly in the future also 26. All being a ref for the same State
Highway. That is the problem.
I agree with this,
On 8/20/2011 2:41 PM, Toby Murray wrote:
I still see a lot of messages coming through about a network tag. This
tag is already used on route relations so I'm not sure why it is still
being discussed. The ref=* tag on ways is primarily just duplicating
data from the relation and tagging for the
On 8/20/2011 2:56 PM, Phil! Gold wrote:
* Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com [2011-08-20 14:24 -0400]:
I agree with this, and will abide by any reasonable consistent convention.
The wiki has long recommended using the two-letter state abbreviation, a
space, and the number. Is there any
On 8/20/2011 3:29 PM, Val Kartchner wrote:
Because some states officially designate the road as SR-26, for
instance.
Not to mention states like Texas, which have, for example:
State Highway (SH) 121
Loop 12
Spur 408
Beltway 8
Farm to Market Road (FM) 1960
Park Road (PR) 27
and probably a few
I created a table of most of the different state-level route markers
(not counting West Virginia's county routes, which are actually
state-maintained): http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:NE2/routes
This can be used as a basis for a table of abbreviations.
On 8/13/2011 6:58 PM, Carl Anderson wrote:
They appear to be descriptive names in general use within Oklohoma.
Oknoname reservoirs are referenced in these, so the names are at least
in use.
[snip]
Interesting. Yes, the names do appear to have become used. I wonder if
the bureaucrat
This will require objective criteria for grading a route. Does SRTS
ignore complications, such as badly-designed bike lanes and especially
sidepaths decreasing safety, and kids choosing the sidewalk over even
well-designed bike lanes? How is safety of crossing a street determined?
How about
https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/6601
https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/6667
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
On 8/8/2011 2:17 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
Nathan Edgars II wrote:
https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/6601
https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/6667
Now that this one has been cleared up,
No it hasn't. It's possible for an individual mapper to set additional
values (assuming they find
On 8/4/2011 7:06 PM, Mike Thompson wrote:
Here is another, somewhat related, question. Fort Collins CO is
represented by two separate relations: 112524 and 253754, neither of
which matches the 2008 TIGER data that they claim to be derived from,
although 253754 is a much closer match. What is
Many toll plazas now have high-speed electronic toll lanes. Tagging
seems haphazard. As I see it, the choices are:
*What gets tagged as motorway vs. motorway_link?
*What gets the name, ref, and relation membership?
Note that some plazas have the cash lanes marked like an exit:
On 7/16/2011 4:04 PM, Val Kartchner wrote:
Hello,
I've been mapping Scofield Reservoir in Utah. I've also been aligning
roads with satellite images. SR-96 has partially disappeared after my
edit. It was there before.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=39.78855lon=-111.12483zoom=17layers=M
The MassGIS import included a condition tag:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/9602415
Presumably this is something in their data, but what use is it to us?
There's no definition of what 'intolerable' means, and no way to know
what value to use if the road is repaved.
On 7/15/2011 8:15 PM, Greg Troxel wrote:
Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com writes:
The MassGIS import included a condition tag:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/9602415
Presumably this is something in their data, but what use is it to us?
There's no definition of what 'intolerable'
On 7/15/2011 9:13 PM, Greg Troxel wrote:
I would say that if you know a road has been repaved, you might set it
to 'good' or whatever the appropriate value is.
This has pointers to the mass spec, I think:
http://www.mass.gov/mgis/eotroads.htm
According to the linked PDF, the field measures
On 7/13/2011 2:47 PM, Josh Doe wrote:
Has anyone looked at the NOAA Composite Shoreline? It seems to have much
better accuracy (as in orders of magnitude better) than the PGS
shoreline that was imported, at least for the small portion I checked in
Virginia. Unless there are better sources, I'll
On 6/10/2011 5:31 PM, James Umbanhowar wrote:
The state of North Carolina has released 6 inch resolution orthoimagery for
the entire state that was taken during leaf off time in 2010. These are great
quality for all types of mapping. The information about the service is at:
I've started using forward/backward roles rather than
north/south/east/west on relations for state highways, due to JOSM's
relation editor supporting sorting by them and Nakor's tool (which was
already less convenient, given that you had to upload to OSM and get the
relation number) being
On 6/29/2011 2:49 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:
My personal preference is to use directional roles so that they match
what is written on signage. It also avoids the inevitable which way is
forward and which is backward question.
How would you suggest ensuring that relations are and remain complete?
On 6/29/2011 2:49 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:
It also avoids the inevitable which way is
forward and which is backward question.
Forward is the direction of the way. If a way carries both directions of
the route, it gets no role (as with directional roles).
On 6/29/2011 3:28 PM, Josh Doe wrote:
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com
mailto:nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/29/2011 2:49 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:
It also avoids the inevitable which way is
forward and which is backward question
On 6/29/2011 3:47 PM, Toby Murray wrote:
For bike/bus routes that makes sense since they may go against the
directionality of the way. For highway routes this doesn't seem to
make sense and as Josh pointed out is just duplicating oneway
information whereas the signed direction of the highway
On 6/29/2011 4:50 PM, Richard Weait wrote:
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com wrote:
I've started using forward/backward roles rather than north/south/east/west
on relations for state highways, due to JOSM's relation editor supporting
sorting by them and
On 6/29/2011 5:03 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
FWIW, and you should absolutely not listen to me because I'm a long way away
and it's up to you guys to sort yourselves out... but I'd create a separate
relation for each direction (i.e. one northbound relation, one southbound
relation) and not
On 6/2/2011 3:17 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
To this end, I've been systematically going through trunks in
the US and adding lanes=* tags. This is of course useful even if nothing
is done rendering-wise.
Thanks to PeterIto, we can see the fruits of this:
http://www.itoworld.com/product/data
On 6/10/2011 5:31 PM, James Umbanhowar wrote:
The state of North Carolina has released 6 inch resolution orthoimagery for
the entire state that was taken during leaf off time in 2010. These are great
quality for all types of mapping. The information about the service is at:
On 6/9/2011 3:54 PM, David ``Smith'' wrote:
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 4:08 AM, James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com
mailto:rickmastfa...@hotmail.com wrote:
I just happened to notice this guy tonight was going around and
editing the ref tags on highways in the US just to replace
the
On 6/8/2011 2:29 PM, Lord-Castillo, Brett wrote:
This shot shows the road as all 4 interstates and US-40 at once.
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8ll=38.617642,-90.181049spn=0.00824,0.013078z=17layer=ccbll=38.617746,-90.181461panoid=etjY4kn9oqoecsdYSjoXqwcbp=12,285.92,,0,5.98
(This shot is
On 5/29/2011 4:08 AM, James Mast wrote:
I just happened to notice this guy tonight was going around and editing
the ref tags on highways in the US just to replace the space and put
in the hyphen. (I noticed this when going to load the I-77 NC relation
to add in speed limits I saw and wrote down
On 6/7/2011 12:55 AM, Dion Dock wrote:
On 6/3/2011 9:43 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Oh wow. http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SimonSquare/edits contains the
following:
landuse=military on the US border
religion=christian denomination=anglican landuse=cemetery on the UK
leisure=park on France
On 6/7/2011 9:30 AM, Lord-Castillo, Brett wrote:
I-64, I-70, I-55, I-44, US-40
AKA, the Poplar St Bridge in St Louis, MO.
It is the only quad Interstate route in existence. I-70 will reroute in 2015
and it will go down to a tri route.
It also carries the designation Historic Route 66 and has
On 6/4/2011 7:06 PM, Chris Lawrence wrote:
Reminds me, we need to add some notation for unsigned routes in
relations (the only approaches I can think of are either to tag it as
roles on each member, with things like unsigned;west sometimes -
which is icky but would work - or having separate
On 6/4/2011 9:46 PM, James Mast wrote:
Also, are you going to try to add proper Future Interstate shields?
Currently in Google, they just show a normal Interstate shield. It might
give people a proper reason to tag these posted Future Interstate
correctly instead of without the Future tag. I've
On 6/5/2011 12:15 AM, nat...@nwacg.net wrote:
In Arkansas, routes are not unsigned or (except in very rare cases) cosigned.
The route ends where it meets a route of higher priority and begins again as a
new segment elsewhere.
There are a lot of states that do this internally. But most sign
On 6/5/2011 12:22 AM, Richard Welty wrote:
however, there are unsigned routes in NY; state maintained routes which
have designations but which do not have signage, and some county
routes.
Three states - Florida, Alabama, and Tennessee - have an unsigned state
designation for every segment of
On 5/29/2011 4:08 AM, James Mast wrote:
I just happened to notice this guy tonight was going around and editing
the ref tags on highways in the US just to replace the space and put
in the hyphen. (I noticed this when going to load the I-77 NC relation
to add in speed limits I saw and wrote down
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=41.722lon=-75.094zoom=10layers=M
I'm currently looking for the source; please report here if you find and
fix it first.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
On 6/3/2011 9:43 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=41.722lon=-75.094zoom=10layers=M
I'm currently looking for the source; please report here if you find and
fix it first.
Oh wow. http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SimonSquare/edits contains the
following:
landuse
On 5/29/2011 3:32 AM, Nathan Mills wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2011 03:00:03 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Perhaps the best way to handle it would be to render a wider line if
oneway=yes and not lanes=1 or if oneway=no/unset and lanes=4 or more.
Thus divided highways would not need a lane count
On 5/30/2011 4:06 PM, Steve Coast wrote:
... or does this map look like an older Texas osmarender layer
screenshot plus a tilt-shift blur added?
http://www.wm.com/contact-us.jsp
The use of name=Interstate Highway 45;Gulf Freeway is a dead giveaway:
On 5/29/2011 1:50 AM, Nathan Mills wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2011 01:00:25 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 5/29/2011 12:37 AM, Nathan Mills wrote:
US-441 between St. Cloud and Yeehaw Junction could easily be trunk by
NE2's definition
Nope, since any through traffic will be on the Turnpike. US
On 5/29/2011 2:30 AM, Nathan Mills wrote:
I think that trunk is more useful if it's prescriptive, more along the
lines of a motorway than primary and below. If we aren't going to do
that, we need to come up with another value for highway and get it
rendered by default. It's something that map
On 5/29/2011 5:16 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
subtle mass vandalism
This is why I ignore Paul.
Though I really wonder about this edit:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/14751094/history
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
On 5/29/2011 8:09 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:
FSM knows the aerial imagery around here is outdated, to put it mildly.
Try the NAIP imagery:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/National_Agriculture_Imagery_Program
___
Talk-us mailing list
On 5/28/2011 3:39 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:
On Sat, 28 May 2011 15:19:03 -0400, Anthony wrote:
In my experience the difference between primary and trunk is generally
very minor, to the point where I'm not sure there'd be any advantage
at all in a router using it as a hint.
But maybe that's just
On 5/28/2011 9:13 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:
So you continue to assert that trunk is most useful if it essentially a
duplicate of primary?
Maybe a duplicate of your version of primary, but not mine.
Take, as an example, US 84 in western Alabama. Why on earth did you
change it to trunk when it's
On 5/28/2011 9:47 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:
Another example is US-71 between Fort Smith and Texarkana. It is in fact
the fastest route between Fort Smith and Texarkana, but it is terribly
slow going. The fact that it is the fastest route between those two
regionally important cities is adequately
On 5/28/2011 10:52 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:
Only if trunk has a meaning that implies that a road tagged trunk is
somehow better than a road tagged primary, which it apparently does not,
at least in some people's minds. If you're going to waste trunk on curvy
two lane roads, a router may as well
On 5/27/2011 12:32 AM, Nathan Mills wrote:
Would I be correct in stating that tagging an undivided 2 lane (one lane
in each direction) highways would be improper, even if a state calls the
highway a trunk for planning purposes? Especially if it's in the
middle of a town with a low speed limit. I
201 - 300 of 594 matches
Mail list logo
