On May 11, 2009, at 11:46 PM, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
so it's (more or less) use(ful or less)
Yes. It means I looked at this, and see nothing that I think should
be changed, so in lieu of changing anything, I removed the
tiger:reviewed=no. The key value there is I. People's opinions
And yet Richard, Greg, and Dale all said that removing
tiger:reviewed=no implies pretty much two things: the name is right
(more or less) and the location is right (more or less). I think that
perhaps we can agree on that.
so it's (more or less) use(ful or less)
But I also think that we
On Mon, 2009-04-27 at 09:50 -0700, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
tiger data is that the quality is from excellent to really bad in
accuracy
tiger data is old and contains abandoned roads
tiger has no level info, no direction for oneways, no turn
restrictions, or any other fancy info which we
over all this is a complex topic, maybe I should summarize some
obervations
tiger data is that the quality is from excellent to really bad in
accuracy
tiger data is old and contains abandoned roads
tiger has no level info, no direction for oneways, no turn
restrictions, or any other fancy
Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
over all this is a complex topic, maybe I should summarize some
obervations
tiger data is that the quality is from excellent to really bad in
accuracy
tiger data is old and contains abandoned roads
tiger has no level info, no direction for oneways, no turn
Does anybody object to this? If not, I'll look at inserting special
case code which removes tiger:reviewed when the way or any node it
solely includes is edited in any way.
I'm also not in favor of automatic tag removing, for the same reason -
any change does not imply adequately
On Apr 24, 2009, at 10:31 PM, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
have already done my customize version and removed it from the style
file
Then what problem are you trying to solve with this discussion? You
seem to be the only person with negative feelings about this change.
I think that
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Russ Nelson r...@cloudmade.com wrote:
Okay, it's pretty clear that most people don't want this change
implemented.
but it's still the right thing to do.
--
Bill
n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com
___
Talk-us
and then what is this info good for? just because someone claims it's
correct? is it correct then? more correct than data with the tag set
to no? can you give a single example where this info is helping?
the tiger data is terrible wrong in some places. it's more important
to fix the data
and then what is this info good for? just because someone claims it's
correct? is it correct then? more correct than data with the tag set
to no? can you give a single example where this info is helping?
the tiger data is terrible wrong in some places. it's more important
to fix
On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 23:01 -0700, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
On 23 Apr 2009, at 14:25 , Russ Nelson wrote:
On Apr 22, 2009, at 11:02 AM, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
what is the benefit in doing this?
There is no other method for somebody to say I looked at this and
everything about it
On Apr 24, 2009, at 2:01 AM, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
the tiger data is terrible wrong in some places.
And how do you know this?
--
Russ Nelson - http://community.cloudmade.com/blog -
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:RussNelson
r...@cloudmade.com - Twitter: Russ_OSM -
Perhaps there should just be a view option highlight unreviewed
objects, and those that like this can turn it on and those that don't
can not.
if it's an option I wouldn't wast a second to write about the pro/con.
why does anyone try to force users to do it?
I have patched josm already
On 24 Apr 2009, at 7:14 , Russ Nelson wrote:
On Apr 24, 2009, at 2:01 AM, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
the tiger data is terrible wrong in some places.
And how do you know this?
1.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.379805lon=-122.166681zoom=18layers=B000FTF
compare wit Yahoo,
2.
apollinaris wrote:
Perhaps there should just be a view option highlight unreviewed
objects, and those that like this can turn it on and those that don't
can not.
if it's an option I wouldn't wast a second to write about the pro/con.
why does anyone try to force users to do
my java knowledge is 0. can't patch it to make it an option.
all I can is to remove the whole style and rebuild.
anyone is free to remove this tag and I have done it in the past too
but since then I realized it's just useless. why waste time if
there is so much to work on?
and I consider it
On Fri, 2009-04-24 at 09:40 -0700, Alan Millar wrote:
If you don't like the tag, you don't have to use it. But I have been
waiting for this highlighting feature for a long time, but never got
around to figuring out enough in JOSM, so I am happy to see it. To
each his own; there is room for
I'd also be very happy if JOSM flipped the tag for me when I edit a
tiger object. It seems reasonable enough that if I'm editing something
that we can consider it reviewed. I certainly don't want to have to go
flip it manually every time I go fixing some minor road details.
Good idea. (I
On 24 Apr 2009, at 9:40 , Alan Millar wrote:
can you give a single example where this info is helping?
It may not help you anywhere. It helps me everywhere, in my personal
mapping process.
good for you, osm is free and this a good thing that we can do things
the way we like it.
is that
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 4:12 PM, Russ Nelson r...@cloudmade.com wrote:
On Apr 24, 2009, at 12:59 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
On Fri, 2009-04-24 at 09:40 -0700, Alan Millar wrote:
If you don't like the tag, you don't have to use it. But I have been
waiting for this highlighting feature for a
Russ Nelson wrote:
On Apr 24, 2009, at 12:59 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
I'd also be very happy if JOSM flipped the tag for me when I edit a
tiger object.
Does anybody object to this? If not, I'll look at inserting special
case code which removes tiger:reviewed when the way or any node it
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Apollinaris Schoell
ascho...@gmail.com wrote:
2. http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=121u8tcs=5
this is a residential road imported from tiger. have fun to drive here
that does need surface condition and access tags. Maybe a bollard/chicane too.
but if it's a
On 24 Apr 2009, at 14:27 , Russ Nelson wrote:
On Apr 24, 2009, at 1:26 PM, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
forcing every josm user to accept it is somewhere between ignorance
and dictatorship
Your argument, if true, is an argument against ANY change to JOSM.
improvements are always welcome
First I would like to say I think the highlighting is a good thing.
As such I do not see why anyone is upset with it. But to make people
happy, perhaps making it an option that defaults to being turned on
would solve any issues people have. While this is tiger specific at
the moment, I would
On Fri, 2009-04-24 at 10:26 -0700, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
forcing every josm user to accept it is somewhere between ignorance
and dictatorship
Hi Apollinaris,
I'd be happy to code up a custom version of JOSM for you that doesn't
have the yellowness. I'd also be happy to looking into
Dave,
have already done my customize version and removed it from the style
file
It's just not everyone can do it and you need a working build
environment check out the source code ...
Not even java knowledge required, a simple grep and an editor is enough
this is definitely a feature some
On Apr 22, 2009, at 11:02 AM, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
what is the benefit in doing this?
There is no other method for somebody to say I looked at this and
everything about it is correct.
--
Russ Nelson - http://community.cloudmade.com/blog -
If you' re editing in the US using JOSM, and you find that many roads
now have a yellow tinge about them, it's all my fault. I'm on a
campaign to get every road in the USA reviewed, which means marking
them as reviewed, which means removing tiger:reviewed=no. There's a
lotta lotta roads
russ wrote:
If you' re editing in the US using JOSM, and you find that many roads
now have a yellow tinge about them, it's all my fault. I'm on a
campaign to get every road in the USA reviewed, which means marking
them as reviewed, which means removing tiger:reviewed=no. There's a
hi russ --
russ wrote:
On Apr 22, 2009, at 9:46 AM, Paul Fox wrote:
Hey there, Paul, I'm glad to see you working on OSM.
plug
i am, but in a somewhat tangential way. i've been maintaining
RoadMap for several years now, and added OSM support to it some
time ago. RoadMap can convert and
what is the benefit in doing this?
have done it earlier but it is a lot of work and I can't find any
reason in which use ore application it helps.
If you consider it a sign of completeness or accuracy then this is not
the way to go.
If you want to see if anyone worked on tiger data it is as
31 matches
Mail list logo
