Frederik Ramm wrote:
I think it's quite easy. If NE2 has been there to inspect the individual
intersection he has been changing, or at least thoroughly studied aerial
imagery or so for this particular intersection, then his idea of how it
should be tagged is as legit as someone else's and the
*The recent bot elimination of duplicate nodes. There's been a bit of
complaining but no action on reverting it.
That's because it was clearly a lost cause - between the validator
suggesting that blind mass fixing was the right thing to do, as well as the
Heroes VS Villains contest which
I totally disagree. When surveying, I look at the reality of the elevation
of the bridge compared to all the layer-0 features around it. If it is at
the same elevation, the bridge stays at layer 0 and whatever it crosses is
tagged as layer=-1. This correctly represents the ground truth. This
Hi,
Mike N. wrote:
This works only if the section tagged with layer = -1 only includes that
which is covered by the bridge. Tagging an entire road which happens to
pass under a bridge as layer = -1 does not match what's on the ground.
Correct. We have confounded many old-style GIS people
of Emergency Management
14847 Ladue Bluffs Crossing Drive
Chesterfield, MO 63017
Office: 314-628-5400
Fax: 314-628-5508
Direct: 314-628-5407
-Original Message-
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 03:02:19 -0400
From: Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com
Subject: [Talk-us] Changeset to revert (or defend
On Tue, 2010-05-25 at 08:33 -0500, Lord-Castillo, Brett wrote:
So, the real argument here is what is a bridge and what is a tunnel? Many
people considered depressed highways to be tunnels rather than the roads over
them to be bridges. I saw USGS topos mentioned earlier. Not all manmade cuts
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 3:02 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
We don't dispute the facts. (Taking the South Innerbelt example) the
freeway is in a shallow valley/cutting, with ramps between the freeway
and its frontage roads, and cross streets intersecting the frontage
roads and
I have found the changes in a particular changeset to be rather
unhelpful and in fact quite annoying:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/4363590
Belongs to: NE2
Tags:
comment = Removing negative layers from ground-level features.
created_by = JOSM/1.5 (3081 en)
Some examples of the
I'll repeat what I told him through the OSM messaging system:
First of all, how did you determine that these features were in fact
ground-level? Many times when I set layer=-1 on something it's at least a
few feet below the surrounding terrain, if not more.
That's still ground-level. Look
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
I'll repeat what I told him through the OSM messaging system:
I responded to those arguments already, in that same system. Rather
than rapid-fire replying in two places, I'll wait to see what other
people say.
--
i think i have issues with both sides of this argument:
as far as putting layer on a river, there's explicit language about
that here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:layer
as far as Nathan's editing goes, i think Nathan needs to back off a little
and be more cooperative when local
Well said.
Zeke
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 9:42 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.netwrote:
i think i have issues with both sides of this argument:
as far as putting layer on a river, there's explicit language about
that here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:layer
as far as
12 matches
Mail list logo
