Phil! and Kevin, I like everything said!
"Huge are tough to edit," yes. "Tie them all together with a super-relation to
show that they are together with certain tags," yes, or maybe. I'm kicking it
around, we are.
The C Trail does make for an interesting case. We might agree that
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 9:36 AM Phil! Gold wrote:
> The "state at a time" pattern, as I have always understood it, exists to
> keep vastly distant objects from being linked with each other. It makes
> it much less likely for someone, say, updating I-95 in Florida to get an
> editing conflict
* stevea [2019-07-11 17:38 -0700]:
> I know it seems "like it just makes sense" to combine Maryland and DC
> relations, but there are rather deliberate reasons to keep these
> separate. One is state-level, the other is federal-level (is one), but
> the "state at a time for route relations" is a
Minh Nguyen wrote:
> As with the network tag on bus routes, what's important for both
> network and cycle_network is that the route is intended to form
> part of a coherent *network* (almost like a brand, but not quite).
It's also useful for those of us writing routers, as it means we can avoid
Yes, thank you, Minh. I forgot to mention the importance of using the
cycle_network tag, as it can both disambiguate routes which might be
named/numbered the same or similarly AND coalesce them together into a coherent
collection of routes which are clearly "all members of a single network."
On 2019-07-11 17:27, Greg Troxel wrote:
Thanks for the nice summary. I have one minor issue to raise a question
about:
stevea writes:
As for rail trails, very nice work, Richard! Rail trails are usually
classified as local (lcn) if they are for cyclists, although some are
sponsored at a
Phil!
I know it seems "like it just makes sense" to combine Maryland and DC
relations, but there are rather deliberate reasons to keep these separate. One
is state-level, the other is federal-level (is one), but the "state at a time
for route relations" is a fairly well-established method of
Thanks for the nice summary. I have one minor issue to raise a question
about:
stevea writes:
> As for rail trails, very nice work, Richard! Rail trails are usually
> classified as local (lcn) if they are for cyclists, although some are
> sponsored at a state-level: these are properly tagged
> Kevin Kenny wrote:
>> And route relations are important for sites like Waymarked Trails -
>> it totally ignores walking and cycling routes that are not indicated
>> with relations, which is why I wind up doing routes for even
>> relatively trivial stuff like
>>
* Richard Fairhurst [2019-07-11 01:56 -0700]:
> It would be good to have a distinct C Canal Trail relation over and
> above the USBRS 50 relation, for example.
You mean aside from these?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1392951
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9773990
I suppose
Kevin Kenny wrote:
> And route relations are important for sites like Waymarked Trails -
> it totally ignores walking and cycling routes that are not indicated
> with relations, which is why I wind up doing routes for even
> relatively trivial stuff like
>
Am 24. Juni 2019 19:18:26 MESZ schrieb Greg Troxel :
>One wonders how RTC squares this decision with their legal obligation
>to
>act in the public interest. Not sharing data at all to get "related
>income" to fund their operation is one thing, but sharing with Google
>while not with OSM
https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/us-mn-state-metrogis-trans-metro-colabtiv-trails-bike
Someone could go nuts with this data from MN.
Joe
-Original Message-
From: Kevin Kenny
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 11:15 AM
To: Richard Fairhurst
Cc: talk-us
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Mapping rail
Richard Fairhurst writes:
> Hi all,
>
> You might remember that back in March I wondered whether we could get
> access to the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy's data, which they've given
> to Google:
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2019-March/019266.html
>
> Helpful people on
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 10:50 AM Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> OSM was founded in 2004 on the principle of "if they won't give us the
> data, we'll make it ourselves" and that still holds true. I've started
> on making sure all rail-trails of a reasonable length (say, 5 miles
> upwards) are actually
15 matches
Mail list logo
