Re: [Talk-us] perceptions of OHM and other similar projects

[Marc Gemis]

Sorry, but I'm not trolling. I just want to understand why the railway
people should get a different treatment.
If you're argument is to better understand why the landscape is like it is
now, then that is also true for razed streets [1]  where the road used to
come closer to the buildings in the north of it,
or razed buildings [2] where the open area in the forest used to be a
holiday center.

regards

m


[1] http://osm.org/go/0EpMcxF19--?m=&way=36566343
[2] http://osm.org/go/0Esv3v5q?m=&relation=2718260

On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Bryce Nesbitt  wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 10:30 PM, Marc Gemis  wrote:
>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Bryce Nesbitt 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The razed sections of the abandoned railway need not confuse anybody.
>>
>>
>> Will you allow razed buildings and razed streets as well in OSM ( just
>> curious) ?
>> What about previous swamps, forest, etc. that are now turned into ... ?
>>
>> Or are you requesting a exception for railways ?
>>
>
> I thought that was perfectly clear: railways are an exception.
> Or maybe you're just trolling.
>
>
> There's very little else that's like an abandoned railway.
> Though if a airelway or pipeline were dug up in parts, I'd have the same
> conclusion:
> keep the man made linear feature intact until it's completely gone.
> -
>
> Editors can be MUCH smarter about hiding clutter.  I see nothing at all
> wrong with hiding by default
> razed railroads, boundary relations, and even land use polygons.  Anyone
> who needs/wants to edit
> those features could turn them on.
>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] perceptions of OHM and other similar projects

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 10:30 PM, Marc Gemis  wrote:

>
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Bryce Nesbitt 
> wrote:
>
>> The razed sections of the abandoned railway need not confuse anybody.
>
>
> Will you allow razed buildings and razed streets as well in OSM ( just
> curious) ?
> What about previous swamps, forest, etc. that are now turned into ... ?
>
> Or are you requesting a exception for railways ?
>

I thought that was perfectly clear: railways are an exception.
Or maybe you're just trolling.


There's very little else that's like an abandoned railway.
Though if a airelway or pipeline were dug up in parts, I'd have the same
conclusion:
keep the man made linear feature intact until it's completely gone.
-

Editors can be MUCH smarter about hiding clutter.  I see nothing at all
wrong with hiding by default
razed railroads, boundary relations, and even land use polygons.  Anyone
who needs/wants to edit
those features could turn them on.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] perceptions of OHM and other similar projects

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 04/17/2015 07:30 AM, Marc Gemis wrote:
> What about previous swamps, forest, etc. that are now turned into ... ?

Careful there with the swamp enthusiast community ;)

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] perceptions of OHM and other similar projects

[Marc Gemis]

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Bryce Nesbitt  wrote:

> The razed sections of the abandoned railway need not confuse anybody.


Will you allow razed buildings and razed streets as well in OSM ( just
curious) ?
What about previous swamps, forest, etc. that are now turned into ... ?

Or are you requesting a exception for railways ?

regards

m
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] NPF is Using OSM

[Hans De Kryger]

Awesome! Thanks Clifford!

*Regards,*

*Hans*


*http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheDutchMan13
*


On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 10:16 PM, Clifford Snow 
wrote:

> The National Park Foundation is using OSM in the site
> http://findyourpark.com/ with attribution!
>
> --
> @osm_seattle
> osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] perceptions of OHM and other similar projects

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 9:08 PM, Russ Nelson  wrote:
> The problem, as I see it, is that railroads are a contiguous
> whole. Yet some people seem to think that a railroad should be shopped
> up along its length, with part of it appearing in OSM (where you can
> see it on the ground), and part of it appearing in OHM (where it has
> been bulldozed away)
>
> Relations are completely broken.

+10 on all this.

It seems the deletion argument is related to "clutter".  I prefer to
see the entire railroad
in "context".



> Michael DuPont wrote
>I still dont understand why we dont support multiple layers. It would seem to 
>be the most logical thing to do and the api could support that so simple 
>>clients could download a different layers each time.

There are editor solutions to this, short of layers.

Nothing says an editor can't hide all boundary relations or abandoned
railways, in order to ease editing.
The razed sections of the abandoned railway need not confuse anybody.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us