[OSM-talk] OSM Carto not updating
Is something wrong with the OSM Carto servers? I have uploaded several changesets in the last few hours, and none of them are showing up in OSM Carto. Mark ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?
Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 14:02:47 +1000 From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist? On 27/5/20 9:40 am, 80hnhtv4agou--- via talk wrote: then why are there tags ? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Demolished_Railway and if the platform posts are still there ? Those tags are for things that are still there, if what remains is still identifiable as a building/railway/road/bridge then that should be mapped in OSM. Historic things should be mapped into OHM, even if they are no longer there or still remain ( a start and end date are usefull in OHM as a date slider can be used to revel what is there at that date). Tuesday, May 26, 2020 4:52 PM -05:00 from Jack Armstrong : Thanks. I'll try that. From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com > Advise them to enter the historic railway into OHM ... or any historic object for that matter. This satisfies them that the object is mapped and frees OSM from it. I like to download portions of the OSM database from Geofabrik and make custom maps for my GPS. I also understand we're not supposed to map historic objects in OSM, and why some people don't want to see dismantled/razed railroads in the OSM database. Being a railfan, I am one of those that do want them. Assuming all the dismantled railroads in OSM were transferred to OHM, is there a way to take my OSM extracts from Geofabrik and add in the dismantled railroads from OHM, so that the resulting map would contain what I want? I know I can use JOSM to copy data from OHM to OSM, but for a large geographic area I don't think that would not be practical. Mark ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] talk Digest, Vol 188, Issue 19
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 01:12:19 +0200 From: François Lacombe To: osm-talk Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re[2]: Tag:manhole=telecom Given problem is you argue with pictures showing what is under the cap. On the tag page picture - and on the ground - we can't say what is under and if a man can't get down a ladder into a room. I think all this stuff would require a formal proposal to discuss about vocabulary and have opinions of several people. We need standard definitions more than legal actually. All the best Le lun. 20 avr. 2020 à 01:02, <80hnhtv4a...@bk.ru> a écrit : I am trying to say the tag page is wrong, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:manhole=telecom the picture is a fiber optics splice enclosure not a manhole https://www.multicominc.com/product/pencell-pem-2436-24x36x24-buried-cable-enclosure/ https://www.thefoa.org/tech/ref/install/Microtrenching/Pages/25.html https://www.thefoa.org/tech/ref/appln/Prefab-underground.jpg this is a fiber splice manhole, https://www.jensenprecast.com/AT-T-Northern-California-a840/Telecom-Utility-Structures/Manholes-p14890/AT-T-4-x4-x4-fiber-optic-Intercept-Manhole-Page-1-of-2-d2315.pdf can we change the picture or put both on the same page with the legal industry names. https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/manhole ( a man goes into the hole) [manhole] [...] I have to argue with the Lexico definition of a manhole. I worked in the highway construction industry in the United States for 14 years, and in the industry the word "manhole" refers to the entire underground chamber that sewers are connected to. We referred to the access on the top as a "manhole cover." Mark ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
