On 12/14/2010 12:38 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 1:16 AM, Paul Johnson
baloo-PVOPTusIyP/sroww+9z...@public.gmane.org wrote:
On 12/13/2010 11:07 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
And US 169: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/83581697 was
missing a ref tag.
None
On 12/14/2010 08:21 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
On 12/14/2010 12:38 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 1:16 AM, Paul Johnson
baloo-PVOPTusIyP/sroww+9z...@public.gmane.org wrote:
On 12/13/2010 11:07 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
And US 169: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way
On 12/14/2010 08:47 AM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Paul Johnson
baloo-PVOPTusIyP/sroww+9z...@public.gmane.org wrote:
Besides that, when do you plan on citing a source that isn't copyrighted
when you're mapping? If that's your only source, you can't use it:
That's
On 12/14/2010 05:38 PM, Jeff Harris wrote:
As far as Creek Turnpike and US 169, pics or it doesn't exist.
Certainly, but given that stopping is prohibited and there is a minimum
speed limit, how do you propose these be taken?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 12/14/2010 05:44 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Thanks for joining in without any knowledge of the area or situation.
Same could be said of you; when was the last time you were in Tulsa?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
On 12/14/2010 10:53 PM, Bill Ricker wrote:
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org
mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
As far as Creek Turnpike and US 169, pics or it doesn't exist.
Certainly, but given that stopping is prohibited
On 12/14/2010 10:59 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
On 12/14/2010 10:53 PM, Bill Ricker wrote:
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Paul Johnson
baloo-PVOPTusIyP/sroww+9z...@public.gmane.org
mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
As far as Creek Turnpike and US 169, pics or it doesn't exist
Another thing I should mention, proof of surveying for the sign can be
found at
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Paul%20Johnson/traces/884510. As soon
as I find a suitable dash cam or volunteer to ride shotgun, I'll get video.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 12/14/2010 11:56 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Based on your addition of the sign (thanks for adding it) it's only
500 feet (150 m) from the exit ramp, which is where OSM currently has
US 169 ending (and where the relation has had it ending since well
before this little brouhaha). This is
You wrote US relation fixup etc as the changeset comment for this, and
it covers almost all of the lower 48. What is actually going on with
this changeset?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-us mailing list
On 12/13/2010 02:45 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Toby Murray
toby.murray-re5jqeeqqe8avxtiumw...@public.gmane.org wrote:
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Nathan Edgars II
neroute2-re5jqeeqqe8avxtiumw...@public.gmane.org wrote:
I fixed up some of the U.S.
On 12/12/2010 04:31 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Richard Weait
richard-gnthur35lhcavxtiumw...@public.gmane.org wrote:
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Ian Dees
ian.dees-re5jqeeqqe8avxtiumw...@public.gmane.org wrote:
It appears that User:NE2 has added a tag
I'm wondering if there's any good tags for whether a location allows or
prohibits panhandling. I've discovered a serious need for that in Tulsa
lately, as I would rather shop at places that bar the practice entirely
(including bell-ringers) than be bothered by vagrants who can't be arsed
to find
On 11/26/2010 12:52 PM, Ian Dees wrote:
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Nathan Edgars II
nerou...@gmail.com
mailto:nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
The WMS URLs on
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/National_Agriculture_Imagery_Program
don't have the latest imagery available from
On 11/23/2010 08:13 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 8:46 AM, Antony Pegg
apegg-QyUQbcD9tSJWk0Htik3J/w...@public.gmane.org wrote:
I agree with most of this.
One very useful thing I've found tho is the (off the top of my head)
tiger:name_type=aly
seems all the alley's
On 11/04/2010 03:22 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
If there's a specific intersection or stretch of road that's hazardous
to a law-abiding cyclist, consider cycle_hazard=* (like
cycle_hazard=door zone or cycle_hazard=bike lane to right of right
turn lane).
The problem with this answer is that it
On 11/04/2010 09:31 AM, Leroy E Leonard wrote:
The next step is tagging tricky intersections and sections of roadway
where cyclist should exercise extra caution. Any recommendations for
tagging these anti-features?
There's currently a tagging proposal with some live usage on access tags
for
On 10/28/2010 03:27 PM, Alex Mauer wrote:
I recently stumbled upon an article[1] about the new use of the divided
diamond interchange design in the US.
It seems that the first one[2] is here[3] in Missouri and as yet unmapped.
A second one in the same city is here[4], and it appears that
On 10/26/2010 06:42 AM, Phil! Gold wrote:
* Mike N. nice...@att.net [2010-10-25 21:44 -0400]:
Since I believe the name={signInfo] is a US-only convention and there
are no other strong opinions, we should look at changing this.
I like the idea of putting the immediately-connected road in the
On 10/26/2010 07:33 AM, Mike N. wrote:
I like the idea of putting the immediately-connected road in the exit_to=
tag and leaving the rest of the sign's text to destination sign
relations.
I fully agree that some people's current practice (including mine in the
past) makes for a very clittered
On 10/27/2010 10:45 AM, Peter Budny wrote:
Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org writes:
On 10/26/2010 06:42 AM, Phil! Gold wrote:
* Mike N. nice...@att.net [2010-10-25 21:44 -0400]:
Since I believe the name={signInfo] is a US-only convention and there
are no other strong opinions, we should
On 10/26/2010 09:17 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 8:36 AM, Adam Schreiber
sadam-pwfglq4rzxkvc3sceru...@public.gmane.org wrote:
I think that 4-way and 3-way stops can be handled unambiguously by
highway=stop. More complex stops should probably be modeled with turn
On 10/25/2010 08:43 AM, Zeke Farwell wrote:
For Michigan route 12:
ref=12
network=state
state=michigan
For Bennington County route 16 in Vermont:
ref=16
network=county
state=vermont
county=bennington
I like it, though it should be pointed out that this is more difficult
unless we're
On 10/23/2010 10:39 AM, Ian Dees wrote:
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com
mailto:nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Phil! Gold
phi...@pobox.com
mailto:phi...@pobox.com wrote:
Do you know whether other states have
On 10/18/2010 04:54 PM, Anthony wrote:
First of all, the ref tags aren't valid. The numbers are references
of *routes*, not of *ways*.
Seems like whenever I point that out, the counterargument is that there
should be different tags for refs that actually do have anything at all
to do with the
On 10/19/2010 05:00 PM, Ian Dees wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Mike N.
nice...@att.net
mailto:nice...@att.net wrote:
Tom Hughes, OSM contributor and infrastructure guru has written an
interesting summary of why some part of OSM can look strange.
On 10/19/2010 05:09 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 6:00 PM, Ian Dees
ian.dees-re5jqeeqqe8avxtiumw...@public.gmane.org wrote:
- Support for route relations
Why should this be US-specific? Canada certainly has the same sort of
route system as the US,
That was an
On 10/17/2010 04:23 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Tyler,
On 10/17/2010 01:57 AM, Tyler Ritchie wrote:
If we should continue to receive more complaints from or about the
individuals named in this posting, we will respond by banning both
accounts until they cool down.
How are you
On 10/16/2010 06:54 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Paul Johnson
baloo-PVOPTusIyP/sroww+9z...@public.gmane.org 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 have bike lanes
On 10/15/2010 11:47 AM, Val Kartchner wrote:
The standard should be something easy to parse. Perhaps, for the above
example, it would be US:UT:SR-67. This would allow an easy way to
parse which shield to use. For instance, a made-up Canadian route would
be CA:BC:12. The colons would
On 10/15/2010 03:04 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Ian Dees
ian.dees-re5jqeeqqe8avxtiumw...@public.gmane.org wrote:
Surely we're missing plenty of people by only having a discussion on the
mailing list? SoTM.US proved to me that there are orders of magnitude more
On 10/16/2010 06:24 AM, Richard Welty wrote:
On 10/16/10 7:12 AM, Mike N. wrote:
One thing I /haven't/ seen addressed yet is whether single relations are
preferred, or one relation for each way with a super-relation.
Currently both are in use, but I think it would be a lot easier for
future
On 10/15/2010 05:08 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Ian Dees
ian.dees-re5jqeeqqe8avxtiumw...@public.gmane.org wrote:
I don't think we should be storing any prefix as part of the network=* or
ref=* tags (thus my suggestion for
On 10/16/2010 05:38 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Frederik Ramm
frederik-vktbmbtyydudnm+yrof...@public.gmane.org wrote:
There is one person in the US community - Paul Johnson a.k.a. baloo - who is
rather creative with his tagging. It seems to us that Paul has
On 10/16/2010 06:02 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 6:52 PM, Paul Johnson
baloo-PVOPTusIyP/sroww+9z...@public.gmane.org wrote:
If bicycle=avoid were a valid tag, I'd use it on roads like this that
have unsafe bike facilities:
There's no such thing as an invalid tag
On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 17:55:17 -0700, Alan Mintz wrote:
If it's fatiguing for you, I'll accept that, even though I don't see
that myself when using Potlatch or JOSM. Let's modify whatever editor
you use to hide those tags for you if you want.
OK, fix JOSM then.
On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 18:13:18 -0600, Kevin Atkinson wrote:
On Sat, 7 Aug 2010, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 23:32:54 -0600, Kevin Atkinson wrote:
Rather than United Stated Highway 29 Frontage Road just U.S. 29
Frontage Road or maybe US 29 Frontage Road. Why. Because no will
say
On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 23:32:54 -0600, Kevin Atkinson wrote:
Rather than United Stated Highway 29 Frontage Road just U.S. 29
Frontage Road or maybe US 29 Frontage Road. Why. Because no will say
the formal out load.
Rather than Interstate 95 Frontage Road, just I-95 Frontage Road.
Why? Even
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:52:31 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
Please keep them. They're not hurting anything.
Mapper fatigue. I don't really see how anything beyond tiger:reviewed=no
and tiger:tlid= tags are useful at this point, save to make tags more
difficult to sift through by human editors.
On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 14:56:51 -0700, Alan Mintz wrote:
Yes. Last time, a couple of us (or maybe just me - I forget) argued that
it was OK to use common abbreviations for some well-known street types -
at least St, Ave, Blvd, Pl, etc. - but the opposition was significant,
and no change could be
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 21:05:10 -0600, Kevin Atkinson wrote:
To avoid this either:
1) A clear exception needs to be made 2) The official rule need to be
toned down.
I vote for
3) It's there for good reason. If you want abbreviations, tell your map
renderer to garble the data for you.
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 19:54:48 -0600, Kevin Atkinson wrote:
I would like to formally propose two things
1) An exception to the abbreviation rule for directional indicators
with the fully expanded name going into alt_name
2) New tags to record the presence of directional indicators
On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 00:04:31 -0600, Kevin Atkinson wrote:
Since when does a frontage road get a Highway shield?
There's some special cases in Oregon where I 84 and US 30 are
multiplexed. US 30 takes the frontage in every city except Portland,
Gresham, Wood Village and Troutdale. Granted,
On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 08:09:10 -0400, Richard Welty wrote:
On 8/4/10 7:45 AM, Richard Weait wrote:
North Service Road and South Service Road. Romantic names, I know. Are
these similar to what you are calling frontage roads?
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?
On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 15:42:52 -0700, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
I think typically this isn't part of a name at all. Are people using it
in an address for mailing? how is it written in official records? how
would anyone do a search for a street? there are many corner cases so
there is no simple
On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 08:17:43 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Presently numbered county roads in Florida (and New Jersey) are tagged
using parentheses, for example ref=(535) for County Road 535. The
reasons for this are essentially a historical accident. I'm proposing a
semi-automated change
On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 15:37:33 -0600, Kevin Atkinson wrote:
Or do people here really think everything should be expand to the
fullest.
Abbreviations are bad because they can't be easily automatically
expanded. However, it's easy to abbreviate in a renderer when you know
what the full word is.
On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 13:00:48 -0400, Stefan Brandle wrote:
I teach computer science at a university about half way between
Indianapolis and Ft. Wayne. I would love to have someone show us how to
get involved mapping precise data locally and submitting it to various
online data sets, or working
On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 18:28:26 -0700, Alan Mintz wrote:
Lastly, it matches the
overwhelming majority of print usage and signage.
If print usage and signage were consistent even between cities in the
same state, I'd tend to agree. Given that what areas abbreviate which
words and what
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 20:06:52 -0400, Phil! Gold wrote:
* Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org
[2010-07-21 00:19 -0700]:
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 07:15:18 -0400, Phil! Gold wrote:
I what way does OpenCycleMap get this right? As far as I can tell,
it doesn't render road shields at all
On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 18:43:33 -0600, Kevin Atkinson wrote:
I am unlikely to try too push this though any time soon, so the
abbreviation police have won again, for now.
Why so condescending? I can't say this attitude is likely to change
consensus in your favor, especially considering that
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 07:15:18 -0400, Phil! Gold wrote:
* Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org
[2010-07-20 00:51 -0700]:
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 17:09:35 -0400, Phil! Gold wrote:
In short, I'm okay seeing ref=K-10 on a road, because that's how
people refer to them, and because I'd prefer
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 09:18:43 -0500, Toby Murray wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 2:50 AM, Paul Johnson
ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
Curious why they use a starburst symbol that looks
like an explosion for the trailblazer shield, though.
It's a sunflower :)
I like my version better, the mental
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:23:28 -0500, Alex Mauer wrote:
On 07/19/2010 01:13 PM, Phil! Gold wrote:
The problem with using refs to render state shields is that it can be
difficult to get the right shield. Some states use the state
abbreviation in the road reference (so Maryland route 26 is
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 15:41:10 -0500, Toby Murray wrote:
I see at least one highway in Kansas has been tagged with K-10 - I'm
guessing most people would consider that flat out wrong? :)
Yes, even though Kansas does refer to state highways as K roads, even
on official signage. Curious why they
Does anybody have sources for license-compatible WMS servers in
Oklahoma? All I am aware of is the USGS data, which is very out of date
to the point of inaccuracy around Tulsa and OKC.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 23:36:11 -0600, Val Kartchner wrote:
Using USPS abbreviations is the convention used by all commercial online
mapping providers that I've seen. (i.e.: maps.google.com,
maps.yahoo.com, www.bing.com/maps ) I think that OSM should adopt the
same convention.
That's a
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:44:17 +, dion_dock-Wuw85uim5zDR7s880joybQ
wrote:
Forgive me if this has been brought up already, but Portland, OR seems
to be placing some of its data into the public domain. Is the license
suitable for inclusion in OSM?
http://www.civicapps.org/about/data-policy
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 22:25:40 -0400, Richard Welty wrote:
this discussion is triggered by a difference of opinion between myself
and NE2 about
the classification of US 301 FL A1A between Ocala, Florida and
Jackonsville, Florida.
Can we get NE2 blocked? He's been torquing the entire US map
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 05:16:44 -0500, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Paul Johnson wrote:
On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 13:58:38 -0500, Chris Hunter wrote: NE2 has been
making a number of questionable edits in the northwest Oregon area
recently; I wonder if it's possible to smack 'em upside the head with a
clue
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 22:36:36 -0500, Zeke Farwell wrote:
Part of Paul's original email:
* Many bridges and tunnels have signed references that would actually be
physical attributes of a way, but with the ref= tag on ways describing
the overlying route instead of the way itself, makes it
On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:31:19 +, Emilie Laffray wrote:
One of the national road that I used regularly
in France (N154) is very interesting as you go from what you would
consider to just a secondary road to a primary road and back to a
secondary road in some locations. The route is giving
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. Can you provide an example of an expressway
that isn't paved and isn't divided?
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'm pretty sure most would find to be absurdist.
___
Talk-us mailing
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 09:40:47 -0500, Anthony wrote:
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Anthony
o...@inbox.org 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
It's time to retire ref=* on highway=* ways to describe attributes
of the overlying route instead of the physical attributes of the way
itself. Using the ref= tag on ways to describe routes simply
creates more problems than it solves for many reasons.
* The ref=* tag on a way is describing
Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
On 8 Mar 2010, at 10:10 , Richard Welty wrote:
On 3/8/10 12:52 PM, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
fully agree we should keep this target in mind.
But first we have to resolve a long list of problems first.
there shouldn't be any time when the renderer or other data
Chris Hunter wrote:
Definitely a good idea! My only concern would be to make sure the way is
correctly included in the route relationship(s) before deleting the ref=*
tags.
A valid concern, and one in which I believe human intervention is
required.
Maybe a bot could do this?
I'd prefer
Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
fully agree we should keep this target in mind.
But first we have to resolve a long list of problems first.
there shouldn't be any time when the renderer or other data consumers will be
left with completely broken data because step2 was done before step1
osm
Anthony wrote:
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 3:28 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
I think it would be better if greater weight were given to what
network a particular road belongs to.
Freeway expressway
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 different. The maps, therefore, are going to be different. I
wouldn't expect the same map to work differently in
Bill Ricker wrote:
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 5:45 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org 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 ?
No, not outside Anchorage, and even then, barely
Richard Welty wrote:
probably a better example are the unpaved state highways that may be found
in some parts of New Hampshire. they do have signage, are they secondary
because they're state highways?
I would say so. There's the surface tag, too... surface=gravel,
surface=unpaved...
Alan Mintz wrote:
How should one tag the name signs at the entrance to a national forest
(e.g.
http://sites.google.com/site/am909geo/osm-1/DSCS5938_small.jpg?attredirects=0d=1
)?
boundary=national_park is an error according to JOSM rendering rules.
landuse=forest renders and icon in
Stellan Lagerstrom wrote:
We have a user (mk408) who seems intent on turning 3/4 of all
residential streets in the bay area into tertiary.
This seems excessive to me. Most of these are just residential streets,
not thoroughfares, etc.
Views?
Here's one changeset:
Matthias Julius wrote:
Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org writes:
Nobody uses the ZIP codes except the post office. Truckers
certainly don't use 'em, it's easier to look up the state, city, and
street in that order.
Many businesses offer to search for local branches by ZIP code.
Businesses
Jeff Barlow wrote:
Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote:
A Zip Code is a routing code. It doesn't represent geography any more
than you can do a 1:1 mapping of iP address to physical location.
You can do a Pretty good job by simplifying the data, but zip codes
are attributes of addresses,
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
How accurate are they?
If it's like the TIGER city limit data, I say no. (TIGER is radically
wrong about where
Anthony wrote:
On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Jeremy Adams mile...@king-nerd.comwrote:
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
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 government agency, but I see no reason
Randy wrote:
Zeke Farwell wrote:
access=seasonal makes sense to me in conjunction with the date_on, and
date_off tags on the wiki.
On and off aren't clear to me. Does on mean open or closed? Probably open,
but it isn't obvious, and might lose something in a language translation.
I think
Zeke Farwell wrote:
The Crown Point bridge is currently closed. Soon it will be demolished.
Then construction on a new one will begin. Because this is the usual
cycle, I think the rendering that is used for roads under construction (dashed
Richard Welty wrote:
On 12/3/09 11:27 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
On 12/3/09 11:00 PM, David Fawcett wrote:
I agree that it would be good to have a standard answer. I am
thinking that the tag should be used for both symbology and
connectivity.
i'm going to try out the suggested
David Fawcett wrote:
I am trying to figure out how to mark up a foot bridge that is closed.
The bridge is still standing, but it is gated off because it is
unsafe.
To me, it doesn't make sense to remove the bridge, like in the case of
a bridge that has been washed out. The bridge is still
Jeff Barlow wrote:
Zeke Farwell ezeki...@gmail.com wrote:
There are many roads through the mountains in Vermont that are generally
closed from Nov 1st through May 30th each year due to snow. These could be
tagged as:
closed = Nov-May
or
closed = yearly
closure_dates = Nov-May
The hard
Christopher Covington wrote:
On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 10:59 -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
Dave Hansen wrote:
2) The TIGER import violates one of the most basic principals of OSM:
Abbreviations: DO NOT DO IT.
I really don't understand this. If the United States Postal Service and
the Census
Dave Hansen wrote:
On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 15:05 +, Andy Allan wrote:
So please, turn away from imports and work on getting mappers in
charge, especially out pounding the streets. The outcome will be much,
much better in the end, and that end will come much, much quicker.
I think TIGER
Dave Hansen wrote:
If we can come up with a scheme for getting the addressing imported in a
sane fashion and the consensus is that people want it done that way,
it'll get imported. There are still quite a few squeaky wheels that
like to grumble about TIGER, but I haven't heard a single
Matthias Julius wrote:
I consider numbered tags to be messy. Nodes inside the building is not
better unless you are really producing a map of the building's
internals.
How do you figure? Strip malls typically only have one building but all
ammeneties are accessable from the outside. And
Owlman wrote:
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Dale Puch dale.p...@gmail.com wrote:
I would have to side with not tagging them. This is a timming restriction,
not a navigation one.
Navigation is not the only purpose of OSM
Alan Mintz wrote:
California being one of those more permissive states, I agree with the
annoyance at those who don't know it's legal to turn right on red (or the
other cases) unless specifically prohibited.
Because it is rare to see this prohibition, I believe it is important to
tag and
Alex S. wrote:
Paul Johnson wrote:
return-to-where-you-came-from [sign] (at
state lines to send you back out of Oregon), etc).
U-Turn Route - there are quite a few signed u-turn routes in
Washington state, too. I have questioned (myself) whether these should
be explicitly defined in OSM
Alex S. wrote:
Nakor wrote:
Anthony wrote:
Five other states, namely Alaska, Idaho, Michigan, Oregon and
Washington, allow left turns on red even from a two-way street.
Thanks. I had always wondered if this is allowed here in MI as only a
few people do it at the one intersection like
Anthony wrote:
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
Owlman wrote:
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Dale Puch dale.p...@gmail.com wrote:
I would have to side with not tagging them
Chris Hunter wrote:
Tag the first node of the offramp as highway=motorway_junction. As far as
the sign itself goes, there's a proposed relationship for signs in the UK
and EU at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:destination_sign that
may be of some help.
Note that destination
Dale Puch wrote:
Personally I do not think the signs should be put in OSM, just the actual
POI's are tagged.
Agreed. Another factor is that the US MUTCD only defines a very small
number of specific services nationwide (food, lodging, camping,
telephone, gasoline, diesel), while other states
Thea Clay wrote:
Hi,
I have a random question... does anyone have suggestions for how I would
correctly tag a Super Wal-Mart? I read through the wiki but there didn't
appear to be a tag that fit.
The store in question has a 1.) a full grocery store with
bakery/deli/produce/dry goods,
Randy wrote:
Dale Puch wrote:
Personally I do not think the signs should be put in OSM, just the actual
POI's are tagged.
There may be reasons to put in signs, I just do not think this is one of
them.
Dale
--
Dale Puch
Don't forget the intent of the requester's original question, i.e.,
Alan Mintz wrote:
How should one tag a no-right-turn-on-red-light restriction? Like other
turn restrictions, with restriction=no_right_turn_on_red?
I think this is going too far into depth for any real navigation
purpose, I'd say skip it as the restriction lasts for only seconds at a
time,
Richard Welty wrote:
On 10/30/09 6:59 PM, Sam Vekemans wrote:
Hi,
how are you tagging state-wide cycle routes?
I know we have
lcn= for local cycle routes (named not named)
rcn=for regional cycle routes (ie metro area)
then there's
ncn=for nation wide
but there's no
scn (state cycle
901 - 1000 of 1038 matches
Mail list logo
