To reply to your points:
1. Firstly I don't think I have ever responded in a "rant" style fashion on the
OSM mailing lists before, but could you please qualify your insulting first
comment? Are you simply a troll, are are you simply so pathetic and
small-minded not to realise that a) Freemap is a hobbyist project and is thus
inevitably subject to limitations in server power and b) any time I spend on it
is my own spare time, I am unable to work on it 24/7? If you think it could be
improved I suggest you check out the source code at
https://github.com/nickw1/Freemap and contribute, rather than pathetically
insulting and denigrating a lot of hard work? I do You are the first person I
have ever launched a "rant" at in eight years of contributing to OSM - well
done ;-) Come back when you have some positive suggestions as to how I can
improve Freemap without needing to invest more money in it, or when you have
some source code to contribute, otherwise....
2. I always thought lakes were simply represented as natural=water. Anything
special about these two which suggests they shouldn't? True, they have islands
in them but so does Derwentwater.
Nick
________________________________
From: Dave F. <[email protected]>
To: Nick Whitelegg <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 11:49
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Windermere and Rydal Water - missing
On 24/03/2013 11:38, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
>
1. Didn't appear on Freemap when I updated the data earlier today (first update
since the 64-bit ID issue in Feb)
Well, to be honest, there's your problem. Freemap, to me, is a bit
of a joke.
>
>2. Went onto Potlatch and the natural=water polygon seemed to be missing in
>both cases.
No, they're in the multipolygon.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Multipolygon
Dave F.
>
>Other lakes in the Lake District all ok.
>
>
>
>-----"Dave F." <[email protected]> wrote: -----
>From: "Dave F." <[email protected]>
>Date: 24/03/2013 11:11AM
>Cc: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Windermere and Rydal Water -
missing
>
>
>What do you think is wrong with them?
>
>They're visible in mapnik, & most ways haven't
been edited since
>January. There does appear to be a bit of pointless
overuse of
>multipolygons to represent riverbanks, but nothing
that makes them
>'missing'.
>
>Dave F.
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Talk-GB mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
