First, I'm not trying to start an argument or even a civilized
discussion about our policies in this matter. I just found this
interesting.
http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/f?p=gnispq:3:::NO::P3_FID:1196597
is Rosslyn Station, a former railway station in Pennsylvania. The
source cited for
Richard Welty wrote:
On 5/4/10 7:09 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
In southern Illinois -
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.777lon=-88.689zoom=10layers=B000FTF
- user bhj867 has added a number of new highways, most notably the
motorways at Murphysboro, Carbondale, Marion, and Harrisburg
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Tyler Ritchie tyler.ritc...@gmail.com wrote:
If someone is going going to truly vandalize a map I wouldn't expect them to
make the detailed map that is West Harrisburg. I would expect giant words
spelled out using streets, and changes to existing names and towns
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Just to be safe - this user has been active on 10 days between 13 September
09 and 22 April 10, uploading over 100 changesets altogether. All these
edits are to be removed, regardless of whether someone else touched the
Lord-Castillo, Brett wrote:
But another good one close to us is Old Olive Street Rd and Old Olive St
Rd (both official names for different sections of the road). These two
streets run parallel to Olive St, Olive Street Rd, and Olive Blvd (all three
of these are different roads).
So if Old
Lord-Castillo, Brett wrote:
The road that now bears all the Olive names was originally Plank Rd, the
major road through St Louis County when it was rural. The main road went
through several name changes (Plank Rd, Olive Rd, Olive St, Olive Street Rd,
Olive Blvd). But, it also was realigned,
Eric Christensen wrote:
The existing maps show abandoned railroad tracks in the area. That must
have been some time ago as there are no traces of these tracks left.
At what point do we remove those from the maps or should we keep them
there indefinitely?
railway=abandoned is, like old_ref and
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
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 'parentheses' idea for tagging county roads would be mine. I used it in
New Jersey, and then I applied it to county highways when doing fixup in
Florida. For some strange reason, NE2 liked my system so much that he used
it to tag county roads wherever he edited (including the whole of
Usually a CDP is simply an arbitrary area drawn by the Census Bureau
for statistical purposes. Does it sound reasonable that these should
at least not be treated as ordinary boundaries, if not (carefully)
deleted altogether where not based on actual administrative
boundaries?
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Brad Neuhauser
brad.neuhau...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
Usually a CDP is simply an arbitrary area drawn by the Census Bureau
for statistical purposes. Does it sound reasonable that these should
(note: I'm talking about boundaries that have stayed in the same place
during recent times, not those that change every year by annexations.)
While the TIGER data is pretty good for these boundaries, it has some
precision issues. For example, at
(sorry about the dupe - forgot to reply to all)
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Apollinaris Schoell ascho...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote:
How consistent are the US route relations? Should the relations with
network information in the
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 8:51 PM, David ``Smith'' vidthe...@gmail.com wrote:
In Ohio:
* Route relation tagging consistently is as described by the wiki
(with the exception of no clear agreement between network=US and
network=US:US)
* Interstate route relations offer nearly complete coverage
*
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 9:09 PM, vidthe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 15, 2010 9:02pm, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually all mainline (unbannered) U.S. Route relations are complete
It's been a while since I've done a lot of route relation work, so I haven't
really seen
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Apollinaris Schoell
ascho...@gmail.com wrote:
Do you mind posting your standard for discussion and then we should
discuss and agree on something easy to map and easy to ise by rendering,
Garmin maps, other navi systems and update the wiki. Changing existing
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 12:26 AM, Zeke Farwell ezeki...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 12:03 AM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net
wrote:
i think the rendered pseudo-shields probably need to show some reference
to the network
the highway is in, otherwise you'd not know what kind
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Alan Mintz
alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote:
A bug of some kind has caused there to be untagged, unconnected nodes to be
present, usually in the area and shape of an existing way, as though it was
deleted and added again in a slightly different place, but only
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 12:41 AM, Val Kartchner val...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there a way that we could get higher resolution county line
boundaries from anywhere? I expect not, but I figured I'd ask. I'll
plan to continue to correct these manually.
The TIGER county boundaries should be better
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=41.73928lon=-79.88822zoom=15layers=B000FTF
All around here there are missing ways. I can't tell exactly what
happened, but edits such as
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/3128411 and
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/3125973 (done at about
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Apollinaris Schoell
ascho...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe better to revert these whole changesets.
No can do - I don't have the programming skills to handle a revert,
and JOSM's changeset manager doesn't seem to be able to do it.
This can be tricky if people have
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 6:39 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Alan Mintz
alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote:
A bug of some kind has caused there to be untagged, unconnected nodes to be
present, usually in the area and shape of an existing way
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote:
* Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com [2010-07-09 16:19 -0500]:
Also, I see they are rendering highway shields. Didn't I see a big
discussion about that here recently? :)
Wonder if they are using the route relations to render
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 8:09 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
The trunk issue is just a matter of selecting one level in the
road-priority hierarchy. Being off by one is not the end of the
world. Get the verifiable parameters right, name, surface, one way,
single or dual
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 6:35 PM, Kevin Atkinson ke...@atkinson.dhs.org wrote:
Roadway classification in the United States is subjective, there is no
getting around that fact. No amount of discussion is going to fix that.
Guidelines which only focus on each road separably without considering
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 5:35 PM, Kevin Atkinson ke...@atkinson.dhs.org
wrote:
Roadway classification in the United States is subjective, there is no
getting around that fact. No amount of discussion is going to fix that.
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 7:08 AM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 5:35 PM, Kevin Atkinson ke...@atkinson.dhs.org
wrote
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 8:00 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 8:24 AM, McGuire, Matthew
matt.mcgu...@metc.state.mn.us wrote:
This looks like coding for the map rather than mapping
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com
wrote:
The problem is that the
European community has decided that the highway tags are shorthand for
physical qualities that usually only exist
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 6:35 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com
wrote
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:01 AM, McGuire, Matthew
matt.mcgu...@metc.state.mn.us wrote:
What you mean is that it can transcend usefulness and become a sea of
unclassified roads. Gotcha.
Your usefulness my usefulness. Therefore, I'm advocating objectivity vs
subjectivity.
Can you show me
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 9:40 AM, McGuire, Matthew
matt.mcgu...@metc.state.mn.us wrote:
Can you show me an area of the US that's tagged completely objectively?
For example: Interstate 99 near Altoona, PA is coded (AFAIK appropriately) a
motorway. Over the entire length of the Interstate, it
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Jim McAndrew j...@loc8.us wrote:
I-99 is a special case where a congressman wanted a road to go from the PA
turnpike to I-80, he threw a bunch of money at it, and made up a new number
to assign to it. The road never really was meant to be an interstate, and I
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Brad Neuhauser
brad.neuhau...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that's pretty much covered here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_Functional_Classification_System
And it's not polished enough in many areas (the individual states or
even the local metropolitan
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 3:33 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
The only tiger tag that is important to keep (to me) is the
tiger:tlid, all the other values can be pulled from the original TIGER
database provided the
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 6:36 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
Also note that once there's a photo on flickr that is tagged with an
osm object id and a foursquare.com venue id at the same time, you have
a link between OSM and foursquare.com, no need to duplicate this
information
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 8:11 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 July 2010 00:50, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 6:36 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com
wrote:
Also note that once there's a photo on flickr that is tagged with an
osm
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 8:28 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 July 2010 02:24, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 8:11 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 31 July 2010 00:50, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 9:40 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
So are you saying you or someone else will be checking all TLIDs
against the TIGER data and correcting errors and adding missing ones?
I can imagine someone making some clever scripts and then manually
verifying it
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 10:15 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 July 2010 04:06, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 9:40 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com
wrote:
I can imagine someone making some clever scripts and then manually
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 2:49 AM, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 1:18 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
How do you abbreviate Boulevard? Blvd or Bv? How about Parkway? Pkwy,
Pky, or Py? The same road (Central Florida Parkway) has all three on
signs
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
I see these abbreviation errors in other map products. I have a
navigation device that announces County Road 33 as Co-Road
Thirty-three Surely we can aspire to do better than propagating the
errors of other projects?
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 from this to ref=CR 535. The present format is
likely confusing to
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 8:31 AM, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote:
We have a long history in the US of well-intentioned bots which end up
causing problems[1].
My question is Have you run your changes across the data to see what it
actually does and then reviewed the results?
Yes, I
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote:
I've written perl scripts in the past, but these ad-hoc changes I've done as
follows:
[snip]
Thanks - this worked perfectly. I've uploaded
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/5406539.
One thing I'm wondering about: how useful is a small piece of a future
larger import? For example, there's the National Hydrography Dataset,
import of which is apparently being coordinated on the wiki. I've
imported individual lakes and swamps from it, as well as all of those
in small areas (such
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the NHD import is a good example of a well-intentioned importer
(me) gone wrong. I had initially planned to import the whole darn thing in
one swoop, but various technical and life challenges came up before I could
get
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 6:10 PM, James U jumba...@gmail.com wrote:
I have to say that after importing a large amount of NHD data (most of NC
and MN) that it is of varying quality, as was the preexisting water related
data already on the server. In general, I agree with Ian that it is higher
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Craig Hinners cr...@hinnersection.com wrote:
From: Kevin Atkinson ke...@atkinson.dhs.org
If a stretch of road has multiple numbered route, a semi-colon
should be used to separate them and I believe that the render _will_
recognize those.
In my experience,
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 7:45 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
Let's do a shields BoF at Atlanta next weekend. I have some ideas
that make shields much easier and even solve shield concurrency.
Hopefully your idea recognizes the silliness of rendering the
individual state route shield
I'm wondering if anyone has any experience with the National Wetlands
Inventory: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
At first glance it looks like better-quality data than the NHD for
both wetlands and water.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 1:08 AM, Eric Wolf ebw...@gmail.com wrote:
Even though they are technically just hosting public domain data, the
nature of public domain is that they can claim copyright over it within the
context of their hosting service (just as people can print it in a book and
claim
I can't speak for other states, but in Florida's Ocala National Forest
the trails, at least the ones you can drive on, are marked with
rectangular brown highway shields, so ref seems appropriate. But you
probably shouldn't leave out all prefixes - for example 43 is a
tertiary road, and with simply
For messy imports in general, would something like this be suitable?
Import the data but with the tags somehow commented out like
import:highway instead of highway, and then let mappers uncomment
individual ways. We'd want a shortcut for uncommenting in the editors,
but everything else would fit
First, what's the US standard for incorporated places? Should the
actual form of government (town/city/etc) be used?
More importantly, how are unincorporated places handled?
With respect to boundaries, census-designated places are not really
suited for our use. Sometimes it's easy to define a
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 12:42 AM, Val Kartchner val...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 23:34 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
What place=* values should be used for unincorporated places? In some
states villages are incorporated; do we skip this value? Do we use
suburb at all
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Dale Puch dale.p...@gmail.com wrote:
Is it really not part of the street name, what are the rules you use to
determine it is only part of the address?
In Orlando the city and county ground-mounted street signs have a
square at the end for the address block. The
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:40 AM, Kevin Atkinson ke...@atkinson.dhs.org wrote:
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010, Alan Mintz wrote:
So, the remaining questions are:
- When you look at official records, like assessor's and tract maps, is it
called South Westmoreland Dr?
Seems like they sometimes include
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 11:24 PM, Alan Mintz
alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote:
Should imports make an effort to un-smooth such data to some extent, for
the benefit of editing and rendering performance, storage, etc?
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 9:03 PM, Alan Mintz
alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote:
At 2010-08-22 19:28, you wrote:
I wouldn't put too much stock in the fact that directionals on street
signs are often in smaller fonts. The people who are responsible for
such signs are trying to make them useful
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:05 PM, Antony Pegg anttheli...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Everyone,
First time mailing, probably overdue, but I've been reading for a while.
Got a question I'm hoping will spark some discussion:
What would you like to see done (or NOT see done) with TIGER 2010 as regards
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Val Kartchner val...@gmail.com wrote:
The wiki says that hamlet is 1000. The only place possibly smaller
is suburb, but no population is given. There should be some place types
below hamlet.
Mapnik renders suburb in a larger font than hamlet/village, which
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 12:04 AM, Val Kartchner val...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 2010-08-31 at 23:56 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
For subdivisions and small planned communities I draw the border and
create a multipolygon with landuse=residential and no place=* tag:
http://www.openstreetmap.org
(copied to the talk-us list)
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Antony Pegg anttheli...@gmail.com wrote:
ok I can't figure this out and its driving me crazy!
please look at this map:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.024lon=-76.242zoom=9layers=M
In the middle of it you will see West
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Dale Puch dale.p...@gmail.com wrote:
It would be nice to have a procedure for finding these problems. Sometimes
they only show up at low zoom levels due to the scope of the problem. But
some of what I have seen may be due to other tiles not being updated (next
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Mike N. nice...@att.net wrote:
For those with interest in improving routing in your area, Skobbler now
offers a Geo-feed of reported bugs. You can subscribe to this as an RSS
feed.
http://www.skobbler.us/osmbugs
I have found this interesting to see the US
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm importing the USFS data for the Ocala National Forest boundary.
There's the actual forest boundary, and there are private inholdings
inside
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think you should imply that there is a natural=forest boundary
logically separate from the National Forest's boundary. Assuming you're
using USFS's shapefiles, there should be one thing in there: the boundary of
the
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the example. I would suggest using a border/boundary tag for the
national forest boundary area and a landuse tag for the national forest
land.
Yes, that's what I was thinking: boundary=protected_area for the outer
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote:
I think you two might be talking past each other.
I am slightly fuzzy on multipolygons, but I think the notion is that a
multipolygon has a number of outer rings, and a number of inner rings,
and it defines the area that
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 7:37 AM, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote:
Are you happy with the rendering now? It looks like it matches what
you've described.
Well, the boundary=protected_area doesn't display at all, but that's a
rendering problem.
___
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote:
Shield rendering has its own complications, though if it were implemented
we could basically stop caring about the aesthetics of the ref= tags. (If
you had to use US:UT 67 to get a shield, most people would do it that
way.)
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote:
* Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com [2010-10-15 13:32 -0400]:
Should we use the postal code everywhere for nationwide consistency or
should we use the prefixes that locals use? If we use postal codes, what
should we do
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote:
i have created a page for a US Tagging working group here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters/United_States/Working_Groups/US_Tagging
if you are interested in participating, add your name.
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
...discussions on the mailing list tend to wander all over the place and
lead to no conclusions or decisions being made. If we meet in a phone
conference call or even in a chat room then we can get more done. E-mails
are by
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Kate Chapman k...@maploser.com wrote:
There are some people where IRC is a higher barrier to entry than a
phone call. All that aside though I think key is just to have some
level of consensus and then have the information available in a clear
place.
New
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
and for county road HHH:
type=route
route=road
network=US:WI:CO
ref=HHH
Why CO? Doesn't Wisconsin use CTH (county trunk highway)?
___
Talk-us mailing list
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think we should be storing any prefix as part of the network=* or
ref=* tags (thus my suggestion for network=us_route/state_route/county_route
or similar). For example the I-x denotation shouldn't show up anywhere in
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
Relations are the only way to do routes correctly, period. Tagging
individual ways for things that overlap does not/will not work.
If clients break relations when a user splits a way then they should have
bugs filed against
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
That's why I briefly mentioned the is_in=* tag earlier. County road 1 in
Albany County would have network=county_road,is_in:county=Albany while
county road 1 in Rensselaer County would be is_in:Rensselaer.
NY 17 enters
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 1:41 AM, Peter Budny pet...@gatech.edu wrote:
This seems relevant to this thread, although it's not in reply to any
particular part of it:
As part of a school project, I'm creating a robot that will use the
TIGER metadata to automatically attempt to create route
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Mike N. nice...@att.net wrote:
If we're serious about starting to use exit_to, let's float this on the
talk list and get the JOSM preset changed. Eventually, all the existing
entries must be converted. (Hopefully no map data consumer is using the
name=
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Peter Budny pet...@gatech.edu wrote:
Here's one instance where this doesn't work as well as I'd like:
http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyze.jsp?relationId=271830
Michigan 3 (which I picked randomly off a list) alternates between
single- and dual-carriageway.
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Peter Budny pet...@gatech.edu wrote:
I'm not sure whether you're saying it's a good idea or a bad idea.
I don't know either. It's certainly a bad idea to add the auto-created
relations to the database, but I don't think this is what you're
planning.
It seems
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.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, in the past,
used the mere existence of a cycle route to tag neighboring
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Dear talk-us list,
we - the Data Working Group - have an issue that we hope you can help us
resolve.
There is one person in the US community - Paul Johnson a.k.a. baloo - who is
rather creative with his tagging. It
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
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 Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 6:02 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
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
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 7:02 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
I wonder if both of the named parties would consider waiting 72 hours
for the community to review and consider the edits involved before
commenting further?
Perhaps; I think I've said my piece (the main point being that
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.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?
That would be ambiguous in most cases, and I believe you're being obtuse
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Just to clarify our position in this regard: No matter which of the parties
is right or wrong, someone who puts his vision of correct tagging over
the project's wellbeing by starting or continuing an edit war can never be
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Peter Budny pet...@gatech.edu wrote:
Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com writes:
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Peter Budny pet...@gatech.edu wrote:
Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com writes:
It's certainly a bad idea to add the auto-created relations
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
On 10/18/2010 04:16 PM, Anthony wrote:
I guess renderers are going to be wrong or now.
For now shouldn't last too long, though. Just remove the ref info
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
Ways and relations are equally easy to break
Nope. They're not, because relation membership is not a tag on the
way. A way is always uploaded with its tags, but for various reasons
(editor bugs, huge relations causing timeouts,
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 7:32 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
Ways and relations are equally easy to break
Nope. They're not, because
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Zeke Farwell ezeki...@gmail.com wrote:
On the other hand no renderer or other data user I've heard of is
being negatively affected by the presence of bicycle=avoid so perhaps it
doesn't matter.
I don't know if he's had any success, but Paul has attempted to get
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:50 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 7:43 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 7:32 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com
wrote
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 9:29 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
What if the law is implicit? Is there consensus whether or not to tag
implicit laws?
Yes, we tag implicit speed limits (along with a source:maxspeed or whatever).
But there is a dispute between Nathan and Paul as to whether or
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 10:04 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 9:29 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
What if the law is implicit? Is there consensus whether or not to tag
implicit laws?
Yes
1 - 100 of 594 matches
Mail list logo
