Re: [OSM-talk] talk Digest, Vol 77, Issue 26
On 1/10/11 12:59 PM, John Smith wrote: On 11 January 2011 03:21, Richard Welty wrote: umm, i just provided a concrete example why the adjective "theoretical" was not correct in characterizing Nathan's concern. I never said there were no exceptions, however they are just that, exceptions not the rule which is what Nathan seemed to be getting at. umm, the original discussion was about automated consolidation of nodes with the same coordinates, either by bots or by routing algorithms. Nathan was pointing out cases where this type of consolidation was flawed in that correct mapping required nodes with the same coordinates. you dismissed this as theoretical. i pointed out that it is not. now you're transforming this from "theoretical" to an exception, which is a different argument. i really don't see how you're getting from Point A to Point B here. Based on comments you made in another thread where you were promoting mass changes rather than just tagging exceptions. not knowing which thread you're referring to, i have no way to respond to this. richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] talk Digest, Vol 77, Issue 26
On 11 January 2011 03:21, Richard Welty wrote: > umm, i just provided a concrete example why the adjective > "theoretical" was not correct in characterizing Nathan's > concern. I never said there were no exceptions, however they are just that, exceptions not the rule which is what Nathan seemed to be getting at. > i really don't see how you're getting from Point A to Point > B here. Based on comments you made in another thread where you were promoting mass changes rather than just tagging exceptions. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] talk Digest, Vol 77, Issue 26
On 1/10/11 12:19 AM, John Smith wrote: On 10 January 2011 02:04, Richard Welty wrote: not just in theory: George Washington Bridge, connecting NYC with New Jersey. and it's not a minor bridge, it is rather a pretty significant one in the traffic grid. so you can't really dismiss the case as purely theoretical. Is this another case of you trying to encourage tagging everything instead of just the exceptions? umm, i just provided a concrete example why the adjective "theoretical" was not correct in characterizing Nathan's concern. i really don't see how you're getting from Point A to Point B here. richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] talk Digest, Vol 77, Issue 26
On 10 January 2011 02:04, Richard Welty wrote: > not just in theory: George Washington Bridge, connecting NYC with > New Jersey. and it's not a minor bridge, it is rather a pretty significant > one in the traffic grid. > > so you can't really dismiss the case as purely theoretical. Is this another case of you trying to encourage tagging everything instead of just the exceptions? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] talk Digest, Vol 77, Issue 26
On 1/9/11 6:18 AM, David wrote: I guess in theory, having a double decker bridge, directly over a state line is possible. But why write routers for the one case thats theoretically possible, instead of the millions that are not only possible, but already in existance? not just in theory: George Washington Bridge, connecting NYC with New Jersey. and it's not a minor bridge, it is rather a pretty significant one in the traffic grid. so you can't really dismiss the case as purely theoretical. richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
