Well then, we can use them to hide the parking lot symbols in DC. d.
On Jun 14, 2013, at 15:11, alyssa wright <[email protected]> wrote: > Don't knock the unicorn viewing sites. They are everywhere. > > On Jun 14, 2013, at 5:55 PM, Darrell Fuhriman <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Please for the love of god, I see no one here in favor of it but you. They >> are imaginary, let's delete them and move on. >> >> They have no more place in OSM than unicorn viewing locations and alien >> landing sites. >> >> d. >> >> On Jun 14, 2013, at 14:43, Paul Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Again, I'm still not hearing a suggestion that would keep this valuable >>> information in OSM, or a compelling reason not to keep it. We do map >>> proposed routes, we don't map for the renderer. It still sounds like the >>> core issue is some proposals are mapped more specifically than they are on >>> paper. I don't think this is an insurmountable problem to fix within the >>> boundaries of not tagging for the renderer. With that in mind, I would >>> love to hear ideas how to tackle the proposed corridor issue so that they >>> may be more properly mapped, not outright excluded over cyclemap rendering >>> issues. >>> >>> On Jun 9, 2013 7:25 AM, "KerryIrons" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Paul, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> You explicitly said that putting 50 mile wide corridors on OSM “would be >>>> an important advocacy tool.” >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> That does not sound at all like “mapping reality.” >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I spend hundreds of hours a year on the phone, corresponding, and >>>> attending meetings to make the USBR a reality. I’ve personally been >>>> involved in getting over 2,000 miles of USBRs approved. Don’t give me >>>> stuff about being obtuse and saying the USBRS is a pipe dream. Personal >>>> insults are not the path forward. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Kerry Irons >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Paul Johnson [mailto:[email protected]] >>>> Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2013 11:24 PM >>>> To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list >>>> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Removing US Bicycle Route tags >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 3:18 PM, KerryIrons <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> So Paul, what you really want is advocacy mapping. Not mapping reality >>>> but mapping what you want to have. It comes as a great surprise to me >>>> that this is what OSM is all about. Do you think this is the consensus of >>>> the OSM community? I thought OSM’s goal was to “accurately describe the >>>> world” but you are saying it is also advocacy. >>>> >>>> >>>> No, that's not what I'm advocating, and honestly, the way you're >>>> approaching this now, I really have to be wondering if you're being >>>> deliberately obtuse. Because if that's actually where you're coming from, >>>> you're essentially saying that the USBR system is a pipe dream. I'm not >>>> ready to buy that argument because the premise is fundamentally flawed on >>>> a level amounting to argumentum ad absurdum. >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Talk-us mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-us mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
