On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 12:24 PM Jack Burke wrote:
> While some counties just attach a number to a pole (e.g., many counties in
> Georgia), there are some that put up signs saying "CR 123" (Jasper County,
> Mississippi) for unnamed county roads. However, Clarke County, Mississippi
> signs
Asking for thoughts & opinions...
While some counties just attach a number to a pole (e.g., many counties in
Georgia), there are some that put up signs saying "CR 123" (Jasper County,
Mississippi) for unnamed county roads. However, Clarke County, Mississippi
signs (with shiny new
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 2:35 PM Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> Just ref=CR 123. The name should not be redundant to the ref, so if it's
> signed as Clark Co. 123 and that's it, then add noname=yes as well. The name
> is only the name, name is not ref.
I'm fine with an unnamed way having just a ref
I realize that my last couple of messages were sent from the wrong
return address and didn't go to the list. Oops. Apologies to anyone
who's getting this twice.
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018, 11:24 Jack Burke wrote:
>> While some counties just attach a number to a pole (e.g., many counties in
>>
On 8/12/2018 4:26 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote:
On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 1:05 PM OSM Volunteer stevea
wrote:
I'm not an attorney, though were I to attempt to sharpen focus on these two replies, I'd say that in
California, it's more like this: data produced by state agencies (by our state government
Thank you very much for these additional clarifications, Brian. It may take
years, it may take several court cases, it may take fifty state legislatures
and courts and federal appeals and circuits to assert this, it may take
Attorneys General educating county clerks who try to assert copyright
Just ref=CR 123. The name should not be redundant to the ref, so if it's
signed as Clark Co. 123 and that's it, then add noname=yes as well. The
name is only the name, name is not ref.
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018, 11:24 Jack Burke wrote:
> Asking for thoughts & opinions...
>
> While some counties
I'm referring to when ref tagging on a way, which yes, is dinosaur tagging
obsoleted the moment route relations became a thing. On a relation, I
could go either way on the relation being named, network would be
US:MS:Clarke and the ref would be 123 in this example.
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018, 14:08
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 2:19 PM, Kevin Kenny
wrote:
> I realize that my last couple of messages were sent from the wrong
> return address and didn't go to the list. Oops. Apologies to anyone
> who's getting this twice.
>
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018, 11:24 Jack Burke wrote:
> >> While some counties
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 4:31 PM Brian May wrote:
> This may have been stated already, but just wanted to make it clear -
> State laws on public records filter down through all regional and local
> governments operating within the state. So if state law doesn't
> explicitly give a county
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 5:46 PM, Mike N wrote:
> On 8/14/2018 6:33 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
>> Yeah, even then I'd be more inclined to go with ref=CR 1400W, noname=yes
>> on the way itself.
>>
>
> How should we handle addressing for noname roads? What should addr:street
> contain for addresses
Again, one of the most important things that might be said (in talk-us) about
"State Open Data" is that there are at least fifty different sets of rules.
"Check your state laws and county practices" remains excellent advice. Yes, it
can be complex, but if in a state like California, we're in
12 matches
Mail list logo
