Re: [OSM-talk] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying Interstate Relations
Brad Neuhauser (brad.neuhau...@gmail.com) wrote: Paul, I believe this is what you said on another thread. Have you tried it yet? You can contact the person through the website (change your name in the URL when you look at your profile with the person you're trying to contact). I'm also pretty sure NE2 is on talk-us. See the thread proposed first principles for United States road tagging A user with the handle NE2 also posts regularly to http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=10 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying Interstate Relations
On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 13:58:38 -0500, Chris Hunter wrote: Last night, user NE2 cleaned up the interstate system by merging all of the states with 2 relations per interstate back into 1 relation with direction-based roles. I've already requested a roll-back on the area I was working on, but I wanted to check if we still have a consensus on splitting each interstate into separate directions at the state line. NE2 has been making a number of questionable edits in the northwest Oregon area recently; I wonder if it's possible to smack 'em upside the head with a clue-by-four somehow... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying Interstate Relations
Paul, I believe this is what you said on another thread. Have you tried it yet? You can contact the person through the website (change your name in the URL when you look at your profile with the person you're trying to contact). I'm also pretty sure NE2 is on talk-us. See the thread proposed first principles for United States road tagging Regards, Brad On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 13:58:38 -0500, Chris Hunter wrote: Last night, user NE2 cleaned up the interstate system by merging all of the states with 2 relations per interstate back into 1 relation with direction-based roles. I've already requested a roll-back on the area I was working on, but I wanted to check if we still have a consensus on splitting each interstate into separate directions at the state line. NE2 has been making a number of questionable edits in the northwest Oregon area recently; I wonder if it's possible to smack 'em upside the head with a clue-by-four somehow... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying Interstate Relations
According to the WIKI and some discussions back in April ( http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2009-April/000976.html) and again in September ( http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2009-September/001597.html), the US Interstate system was going to be moved into a new schema where each direction of each interstate would be split at the state border to avoid hitting API 0.6's 1000-member hard-cap on relationships. Last night, user NE2 cleaned up the interstate system by merging all of the states with 2 relations per interstate back into 1 relation with direction-based roles. I've already requested a roll-back on the area I was working on, but I wanted to check if we still have a consensus on splitting each interstate into separate directions at the state line. Chris Hunter DiverCTH ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying Interstate Relations
Chris Hunter wrote: According to the WIKI and some discussions back in April ( http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2009-April/000976.html) and again in September ( http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2009-September/001597.html ), the US Interstate system was going to be moved into a new schema where each direction of each interstate would be split at the state border to avoid hitting API 0.6's 1000-member hard-cap on relationships. AFAIK there's no 1000 member-limit on relationships (and there shouldn't be a limit anyway). I've already handled a walking route relation with over 1000 members and the API never complained. Greetings Ben ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
