Re: [talk-au] Adelaide out of copyright street directory
--- On Sun, 18/1/09, i...@4x4falcon.com wrote: > > source=* is different, since just because you tweak a few road bends > > from a GPS track doesn't mean it wasn't derived from Yahoo tracing. > > I'd suggest source=yahoo;gps in that case. > > Of course I'm not a copyright lawyer, but that seems to make sense to > > me. > > I can't imagine a scenario where is would be ok to change the source on > > a road from a government import, just because someone drove down the > > road wih their GPS. It still is derived from the Government data. > > Not if you delete the way and replace it completly with the gps derived > data. > > Have look at the Mackay Qld where there is some gps sourced ways in place > and compare it with the yahoo images in potlatch. > > If someone had traced the images before I put the gps data in then I > would have just deleted the way and used the gps data as any traced way > would have been significantly out. > > Cheers > Ross Yeah, I was just thinking of this situation after I had sent to the list :P I concur. Early on in my OSM career, I changed a freeway that was from a GPS but the track wasn't accurate compared to nearby tracks/traces. So I deleted it and traced from Yahoo, with lots of nodes along bends to make them smooth. I found it easier to delete the old way than moving a stack of nodes in Potlatch, especially since it was a dual carriageway. BTW, you can align Yahoo imagery in Potlatch, as long as you have a few good points to align with (like an accurate GPS track of a curvy road). BlueMM Stay connected to the people that matter most with a smarter inbox. Take a look http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/smarterinbox ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Adelaide out of copyright street directory
I too "found the light" after following the Talk mailing list, but had already done ~8 months of tracing :-( Slowly fixing that up now. I too think that data that has no source/source:name/source:ref tags etc. is not trustworthy, but is better than nothing (because someone can now see that it needs to be verified, & goes out and does a survey). Your example is a bit tough, I don't think there is consensus yet on how to mark up the extra details. Given that, I'd expect: source=yahoo name=blah source:name=MMBW then something like: oneway:source=knowledge traffic_calming:source=gps Smushing all sources into the one source=* tag is probably the worst way of doing it PS. It seems it's an anomaly that source:name isn't name:source, I think it was for grouping source tags when sorted alphabetically. Looking at Tagwatch, both are popular, but source:name is more so. I believe some tools handle either format. IIRK, one of the OSM founders said on Talk, source=gps is better than source=survey, as survey implies a professional survey with surveying equipment, for example from public domain government data. BTW, Potlatch has source=* shortcut keys, JOSM & Merkaartor probably do too. I don't think it's intractable problem, with crowdsourcing, good tools & leadership on "best practices" by the experienced, it's solvable. I think of source:name as a series of levels, where you can overwrite a source with a higher one: 1. source:name=image (GPS tagged photo's the best) 2. source:name=voice 3. source:name=survey (poorly named, but for a notepad etc.) 4. source:name=knowledge 5. source:name=MMBW/Collins1936 (Out-of-copyright) 6. source:name=historical I use survey, writing in my PDA's notepad application & save as PNG's on my computer as an evidence trail. I should probably use source:name=notepad to be explicit. When you think about it, almost all could be doctored (from a copyright source) except for photo's, so I think that's the ultimate goal (all street signs/POI have a corresponding GPS tagged photo of them), yep, a lot of work. Maybe I should get around to buying a GPS :-) source=* is different, since just because you tweak a few road bends from a GPS track doesn't mean it wasn't derived from Yahoo tracing. I'd suggest source=yahoo;gps in that case. Of course I'm not a copyright lawyer, but that seems to make sense to me. I can't imagine a scenario where is would be ok to change the source on a road from a government import, just because someone drove down the road wih their GPS. It still is derived from the Government data. Cheers, BlueMM --- On Sun, 18/1/09, Matt White wrote: > I'm also a serial offender for not using the survey tag, but again, I > upload all my traces. > > I do a bit of yahoo tracing as well, and don't directly mark that > either... > > But then again, I don't go and screw around with any existing nodes and > ways unless I've been there... however I have been known to add the > road way in off a random trace that wasn't mine if I've been in the > area (sans name generally) and the trace quality is good enough. > > It's an intractable problem - forcing a source=survey/yahoo/made_up tag > still won't solve the issue as the source tag needs to be kept up to > date, and you can link the source tag to the individual tag within a > node (eg: the way is yahoo sourced, the name comes from the MMBW maps, > a local marked it one way through local knowledge, and someone added > speed humps using a GPS trace/waypoint setup. > > So the source tag contains a variety of sources, and no way of > determining what applies to what. > > In the end, the crowdsourcing approach *should* sort out the wheat from > the chaff eventually, but no doubt there will be some hiccups along > the way. > > Matt > > Nick Hocking wrote: > > "There is a substantial amount of data with no source tag. I'd really > > like to > > know whether it was traced or surveyed, because then I'd know whether > > to go > > down that street or not." > > > > Liz, > > > > I think there was a recent discussion about this and there was a > > school of thought that said that if there > > were public gps traces for a way then source=survey was unnecessary. > > > > I'm a serial offender for not adding source=survey tags but if the > > general consensus is that it should be added > > then I will manually add this tag to any ways that I have edited - I > > could take a while though.. > > > > I do upload public gps traces for all roads that I tag but I guess > > that this is not a guarantee that the resultant way was > > properly surveyed. E.G I have about 6 thousand miles of interstate > > traces in USA that I have stopped > > editing in because there is about to be another TIGER ravage. > > > > Eventually someone may use these traces without knowing if I was > > actually driving on the road the whole time. > > ---
Re: [talk-au] What gives with roundabouts?
--- On Sat, 13/12/08, Darrin Smith wrote: > I'm totally on your wavelength with respect to the making our usage > match the worlds usage, and making a new tag when we have something > different, and I get the impression a couple of others on here have > similar opinions in a general sense. > > However (isn't there always a However, or a But or some such thing ;)... > > I've been thinking about my stance with this and I think I've distilled > why it's been bugging me. I tend to make sure that any reasonably size > island of any sort is represented by separating the ways since > said island is blocking normal traffic movement between the 2 > carriageways (about the only ones I skip are the small lane separator > islands you get on the side roads in some small T-junctions, but I'll > clock that up to my laziness ;). So given even the smallest > roundabouts are islands of quite a large size I like to see them > represented on the map as a separating of the ways. > > So after realising this I can't actually stand in support of > junction=roundabout on a point (or some other similar proposal) as a > permanent fixture, but would fully support it as a 'temporary' tag to > indicate at some point someone with my kind of island obsession comes > along and puts in the details. I thought the same when I first started mapping, as I wanted to show centre & pedestrian islands like in the Melways. But the wiki is very specific http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Tag:junction%3Droundabout It says that normal pedestrian islands aren't meant to be drawn as two separate ways (flares). I guess you need to add a comment to the discussion page or on Talk mailing list to propose something different. Therefore given the wiki definition, there isn't anything gained by having 4+ nodes when compared to a point and some kind of diameter value. BlueMM Start your day with Yahoo!7 and win a Sony Bravia TV. Enter now http://au.docs.yahoo.com/homepageset/?p1=other&p2=au&p3=tagline ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] What gives with roundabouts?
--- On Fri, 12/12/08, Ian Sergeant wrote: > From: Ian Sergeant > Subject: Re: [talk-au] What gives with roundabouts? > To: bluemm1975-...@yahoo.com > Cc: Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > Received: Friday, 12 December, 2008, 9:10 AM > bluemm1975-...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > I completely agree with all of Darrin's points. > > Fair 'nuff. > > > I'm a big fan of "mapping what's on the ground" and "don't tag for > > the renderers/routers". > > As is everyone - but we can't forget that a linear road is always going > to be a representation of a 2 dimension road surface, and currently that > is what we have to work with in OSM. If you were drawing the full road > width in OSM, the road wouldn't actually deviate at all for a > mini-roundabout, it would just be drawn within the width of the road. > Mapping a 4-node deviation in the road for a mini-roundabout isn't > actually what is on the ground, either. The question remains, how to > best represent what is on the ground. True about abstract linear vs 2D. I think of it as we draw the centre line of a lane (or lanes), and that lane will deviate around a roundabout, as opposed to a mini. Maybe the fact that there is a centre island is the best test. Has anyone ever seen a proper mini in Australia? > > I plan on submitting a proposal for the roundabout tag, where you > > can add it to a node like a mini_roundabout, for use in simple > > suburban type roundabouts. Something like junction: > > inner_width=3mcould specify the island size, making it possible for > > pretty rendering. Weird intersecting ways or large roundabouts would > > have to continue as is. > > Oddly enough, these seems almost completely contrary to what Darrin is > arguing, and aligns well with that I would like to see happen. I really > don't care whether the tag is called mini_roundabout or something else, I > think the junction is best represented by a single node. > Darrin believes that it is better represented by have a loop. > > Ian. Not wanting to put words in Darrin's mouth, but I think we are on the same page. I'm arguing that it is a conceptual mismatch, we are redefining what a mini is just for Australia. That makes it hard on all users of worldwide data. If one of the current features don't match our reality, then it's our job to propose a new tag, and assist with coding renderers/routers if it's important to us for it to show up on maps etc. In some ways, the state/federal governmental definition of types of roundabout junctions is irrelevant, I think it's more important to match whatever has been decided by the OSM community. Of course if it doesn't match our needs, then propose a new tag. BlueMM (opinions are my own) Start your day with Yahoo!7 and win a Sony Bravia TV. Enter now http://au.docs.yahoo.com/homepageset/?p1=other&p2=au&p3=tagline ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] What gives with roundabouts?
+1 I completely agree with all of Darrin's points. I was unaware of the decision on the mailing list when I started mapping a about 1.5 years ago. I read the descriptions on the wiki and went with a proper roundabout for suburban roundabouts, since they don't fit the definition of the mini-roundabout. I don't even recall seeing one in Melbourne, you always have to deviate around even small ones. As a Potlatch user, it sucks a bit to add them, but Merkaartor & I think JOSM have a tool to make it easy. I'm a big fan of "mapping what's on the ground" and "don't tag for the renderers/routers". But I like the idea of global consistency, it makes it easier on all users of the raw data. That's what I hope Map Features will provide (consistency), but the voting has it's issues as well. There's talk on the Talk mailing list of having a Core Features page. So for eg. I'd be in favour of using the wiki definitions of place=* tags. I plan on submitting a proposal for the roundabout tag, where you can add it to a node like a mini_roundabout, for use in simple suburban type roundabouts. Something like junction:inner_width=3mcould specify the island size, making it possible for pretty rendering. Weird intersecting ways or large roundabouts would have to continue as is. Anyone have any suggestions before I create the proposal? PS. Was it me adding turning_circle to courts? The wiki page description seems to match my use of it (I waited many months for it to be proposed/accepted/added to renderers). Cheers, BlueMM --- On Thu, 11/12/08, Darrin Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Darrin Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [talk-au] What gives with roundabouts? > To: Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > Received: Thursday, 11 December, 2008, 3:10 PM > On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:55:13 +1100 > Ian Sergeant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I've looked back through the logs, found the one discussion, noted > > > that it was basically a 4-3 split of contributors and since every > > > discussion on it has been "we discussed it and decided this". > > > Hardly a consensus in my mind. > > > > Since you made the effort to go back through the logs, and re-read the > > discussion that took place then, I'm surprised you would reach the > > conclusion that peoples position was solely related to effort. > > I suspect that's because you were in the discussion and supported the > views of the first poster, hence you didn't look at how he expressed > it. (see below) > > > I disagree that there hasn't been consensus on its use. There always > > have been differences of opioion, but as you say, most people have > > been happy to accept that it is the way it is. That is consensus. > > Ok I'll pay that in the technical definition of the word you are > correct. However given that all new people approach a project > like this with some trepidation (For example it's taken me 10 months > and someone altering work I've done to make me raise this issue which > I've thought was wrong almost as soon as I found out about it) > it's not surprising the 'consensus' has been maintained. > > OSM is littered with cases of things done badly to start with (which is > not a problem in one sense because something needs to be started > somewhere) and then carried on forever after (this is where it's a > problem) in what appears to be consensus because no-ones been motivated > to change it (The hideous is_in tag comes to mind). > > > I feel the approach you are taking is wrong. There are reasonable > > arguments to use a mini-roundabout tag in Australia where it is > > currently being used. If you want to convince people to not use it, > > and to map using junction, take the time to understand and address > > those arguments, and convince people that the best way is the way you > > are suggesting. Don't dismiss its proponents as lazy, or worse still > > as disruptive. Many of its these people have been valuable > > contributors to getting the map done. > > Ok, I could have approached it a better way I'll admit that. But this > issue boils down to the fact there are no actual reasons given for why > mini_roundabout should be used! The discussion just seems to assume that > every roundabout is a mini until it has reason to be bigger, it's not > even discussed whether this is valid. > > The discussion resolves around what benefits the roundabout tag offers > OVER the mini_roundabout tag, ignoring the fact they actually imply 2 > quite different things in the first place. > > Historically the roundabout tag predates the mini-roundabout tag by at > least 10 months in the wiki pages. So in effect the original > mini_roundabout tag was devise to handle a very special case of > roundabout that doesn't fit well with the normal definition in size, > shape, signage and the fact you can drive straight over it in > extenuating circumstances (I can't help but wonder if mini is > referring more to it's HEIGHT that it's radius). > > But here i
Re: [talk-au] Edits in and around Mt Barker, SA
- Original Message > From: Kim Hawtin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > Sent: Tuesday, 21 October, 2008 5:49:42 PM > Subject: Re: [talk-au] Edits in and around Mt Barker, SA > > hi guys =) > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> Kim wrote: > >> I've been busy uploading traces and mapping around Mt Barker > >> and Littlehampton a bit lately. I have a couple of questions > >> I was hoping folks could clear up; > >> > >> - Are the rail and road under passes right? I have set them as > >> tunnels, because it makes more sense than the freeway being a > >> bridge, how ever what do other folks use? > > > > Use a tunnel if it is one, or a bridge if that is what is there. I'm sure > > there are some weird hybrid examples, but if it is a culvit for > > streams/drains, > > I use a tunnel. If I'm not sure what is there, I leave it with the ways > > overlapping without any bridge/tunnel tags (I think the validator in JOSM > > warns > > about it), so I or someone else can fix it when visiting it next. > > ok, its not a bridge, but a built up embankment with a tunnel in it. > there are a couple of bridges further east, but wasn't sure if there > was a standard or my miss-interpretation I have an example of an embankment situation. See http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-37.72361&lon=144.86789&zoom=17 The freight rail line is on an embankment over Steele Creek, which goes through a "tunnel" (culvert) under the embankment. The Western Ring Road motorway just to the NW is instead two bridges over the creek. I could swear it used to show up on one of the renderer layers, but not now. Might be because of all the Mapnik style changes they have been working on. BlueMM Search 1000's of available singles in your area at the new Yahoo!7 Dating. Get Started http://au.dating.yahoo.com/?cid=53151&pid=1011 ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mapping bushwalks
Hey Peter, Really nice work!! BlueMM - Original Message > From: Peter Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Gordon Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org > Sent: Thursday, 23 October, 2008 10:52:30 PM > Subject: Re: [talk-au] Mapping bushwalks > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 6:06 PM, Gordon Smith wrote: > > This example of the use of OSM may be of interest to a few people. > > I've been mapping bushwalks and fire trails in the gorge country > > around where I live: > > > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-30.7427&lon=152.016&zoom=14&layers=B000FTF > > > > It comes alive, though, if you add the Cycling Map layer: > > > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-30.7427&lon=152.016&zoom=14&layers=00B0FFF > > > I agree, it is where I've concentrated my mapping. Every now and > again I add to Melbourne using the yahoo imagery, but for me the > greatest use has been to map mountain bike trails and bush walks. > What I love is that I can add them to OSM and then upload the garmin > map version of the things that I've added back to the gps. So next > time I'm back out that way there it all is ready to use on the gps, > and I hope that it will help others as well when they head out back > country. > > For me it certainly is my favourite part of osm. > > Now you've inspired me to send some links to the bits I've contributed > to the map over the last year. > > Lysterfield state mtb course in Melbourne > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-37.965788841&lon=145.304017067&zoom=14 > > Werribee gorge walks west of Melbourne > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-37.6643&lon=144.33877&zoom=15&layers=00B0FTF > > The ride/walk up kozzie (hit 75kmph on the way back down on the tarmac, > woohoo) > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-36.4554&lon=148.3591&zoom=13&layers=00B0FTF > > Glenrock state forest mtb trails in Newcastle > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-32.96075&lon=151.72731&zoom=15&layers=00B0FTF > > Anakie gorge west of Melbourne (the gorge itself was already done, I > just turned it into a loop) > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-37.8617&lon=144.25308&zoom=15&layers=00B0FTF > > Wombat mtb track north of Melbourne > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-37.4146&lon=144.4972&zoom=14&layers=00B0FTF > > Cavanga road mtb track in Bendigo > http://openstreetmap.org/?lat=-36.8692&lon=144.3403&zoom=14&layers=00B0FTF Search 1000's of available singles in your area at the new Yahoo!7 Dating. Get Started http://au.dating.yahoo.com/?cid=53151&pid=1011 ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] diary entry with interesting visualization of users contributions
Hi geharper, I just found out that you can setup the RSS feeds so they ignore all of your own changes (why do I want to be notified of my own changes??). Go to any area, select users, select yourself and then "Add opposite". Then the RSS links will of changed to filter out yourself. BlueMM > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [talk-au] diary entry with interesting visualization of users > contributions > To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org > Received: Tuesday, 14 October, 2008, 4:55 PM > Thanks for sharing these links! > > I've added a RSS feed of edits for a couple of > particular locations I > am concentrating on, so it is nice to see if any new > contributors pop > up, and to see what they have done, and to watch the tag > use. Search 1000's of available singles in your area at the new Yahoo!7 Dating. Get Started http://au.dating.yahoo.com/?cid=53151&pid=1011 ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Edits in and around Mt Barker, SA
Hi Kim, - Original Message > From: Kim Hawtin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > Sent: Tuesday, 21 October, 2008 11:33:25 AM > Subject: [talk-au] Edits in and around Mt Barker, SA > > Mornen all, > > I've been busy uploading traces and mapping around Mt Barker > and Littlehampton a bit lately. I have a couple of questions > I was hoping folks could clear up; > > - Are the rail and road under passes right? I have set them as > tunnels, because it makes more sense than the freeway being a > bridge, how ever what do other folks use? Use a tunnel if it is one, or a bridge if that is what is there. I'm sure there are some weird hybrid examples, but if it is a culvit for streams/drains, I use a tunnel. If I'm not sure what is there, I leave it with the ways overlapping without any bridge/tunnel tags (I think the validator in JOSM warns about it), so I or someone else can fix it when visiting it next. > - I've put in a few round'a'bouts ... they are messy critters. > is it the right thing to draw them out with little link roads > or should they be put up as where the roads intersect with > the joining node and tag that node as a round about? > especially larger ones, like the end of Gawler street near the > bus interchange? Bane of my existence!! The OSM wiki says you should only draw the connecting ways as split (which form triangle islands) if it is a large roundabout. A normal suburban roundabout should just be a circle (I use 8 corners) with the 4 ways connected. Merkaartor has a roundabout tool where you click a crossing, select the diameter of the roundabout and it creates a circle with the ways cropped off to it (JOSM might have something similar). Some people mapping Melbourne use mini-roundabout's to save time, but it's only for mini UK style ones with a tiny white painted circle in the middle of the intersection. I'd personally like the junction=roundabout tag to apply to a node, with a eg. junction:width=5m tag, so renderers could draw the circle road & inner island all by themselves without lots of extra effort. Looking at your B37 & Alexandrina & Flaxley Rd roundabout, you don't need oneway=yes(it's implied), clockwise(just draw it in a clockwise direction), ref(roundabout's don't inherit route numbers, it's for when roundabout's have specific ref numbers [in Europe I think]). The incoming split lanes for B37 should be primary (as it's still the road, not a link, just split into oneway's), as the north ones are, but the south ones are primary_link. Conversely, the East & West split's should be secondary. Split's should have the same tags as the road it splits from, but split's add oneway=yes. Only *_link's and roundabout's don't have ref's or names (except when specifically signposted, UK has examples of this). The Alexandrina Rd & Fletcher St one is missing the junction=roundabout circle for the roundabout, and missing oneway=yes tags for the split ways. > - I have been seeing lots of roads and other objects get a blue > halo ... there seems to be an attribute against each of these > that I didn't mark up, but by my reading, isn't supported by > the renderer? especially "ref" and "street" ... They are "relations" to tie different ways together to form logically-connected ways, eg. routes. They are relatively new to OSM and I haven't played with them much, but others have added them in my area. The only strange thing I can see is that the motorway_link for the B37 & M1 are added to the relations, which I believe is wrong because they are on/offramps, not the actual freeway that the route follows. > - My edits seem to be taking around two weeks to hit the OSM > normal map ... isn't this normally happening weekly? The main map grabs data on Wednesdays UK time, and then spends a day or two creating new tiles for the map, therefore if you updated OSM on Wednesday our time, it could be a week & a bit before the updates appear. And if you browser (or ISP) has the map tiles cached, you might need to Ctrl+F5 to force a reload from the tile server. Miss match of old & new tiles usually means a caching issue. > cheers, > > Kim Tags suggestions Looking at Mt Barker township, you've done a fantastic job. I noticed a few tagging schemes different to mine:- * Lots of the area's don't need area=yes, like parking/schools/landuse etc. * Parking/school doesn't need a separate POI node in the middle, the renderers are now smart enough to stick an icon in the middle. * Landuse doesn't need to be bounded by streets (cookie cutter'ed), just draw around the outside of the area (landuse is always rendered at the bottom, so no need for layer=-1, which is only used if you can "walk under" something). That should save you tonne's of effort :) * Similarly, the pitch & parking in the recreation_ground don't need layer=1 (as you can't walk under the parking!!) * There's streets in the East that are only sourc
Re: [talk-au] How to merge existing ways with Potlatch?
[Sorry, first post went to Thomas directly, seems the list doesn't set reply-to field to the talk-au list :( ] Hi Thomas, It works for me like this (it's hard to put in words, but here goes)... * Have two separate ways, that you want to join into one way (not for a T-intersection or a crossing) * Select an end node of way1 (selecting end nodes puts you in a mode to extend the way by further clicking) * Hover the mouse over the end node of way2 where you want them to join (way2's nodes will show as bigger blue squares) * Hold the Shift key while clicking on way2's end node * Way2 now becomes part of Way1 I've gotten the "The ways do not share a common point" message before, when I had way1 selected (but not an end node), and shift clicked in between 2 nodes on way2. I was doing this to add more nodes to way2 to smooth curves of a freeway, but you can only do this if way2 is selected, but I had the other side of the freeway selected. Hope that helps, BlueMM - Original Message > From: Thomas Schroeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org > Sent: Thursday, 9 October, 2008 11:42:44 PM > Subject: [talk-au] How to merge existing ways with Potlatch? > > Hi, > > I try to merge two existing ways with Potlatch, but it does not work. > I followed the documentation: > cite-start--- > To merge two ways into one: > > * Draw your way as normal. > * When you move your mouse over another way, the points light up blue. > * Shift-click the blue point at the start or end of the other way. > * Or: if the ways are already drawn, select one, then hold Shift and > click > the other. > cite-end > > Selecting one and Shift click the other always results in the > error/message "The ways do not share a common point". > > How do I create a "common point" or merge points? > > tschuess > Thomas > > > -- > Thomas Schroeder > eMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au Make the switch to the world's best email. Get Yahoo!7 Mail! http://au.yahoo.com/y7mail ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
