sent from a phone
> Il giorno 03 ago 2016, alle ore 08:55, Michael Tsang ha
> scritto:
>
> 1. There is a service identified by three different numbers, while in fact
> the
> three numbers belong to the same service with completely no differences. This
> is the case with minibus routes 52A/
Warin wrote on 2016/08/04 08:14:
On 8/4/2016 3:42 PM, Daniel Koć wrote:
but it appears we don't know how should we treat leisure=track: is it a linear
object or maybe kind of area?
I have seen it both ways.
Yes exactly. The source of the uncertainty was that is used to be filled in the
for
On 8/4/2016 1:42 AM, Daniel Koć wrote:
but it appears we don't know how should we treat leisure=track: is it a
linear object or maybe kind of area? Infobox in wiki article says one
thing ("lines only"), but the body of this article shows this is not
that easy.
I've done some of this also, beca
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 3:35 AM, Mike Thompson wrote:
> I tested out the proposed mapping/tagging scheme in my local area
> (http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/40.49192/-105.05655 - not claiming I
> did it perfectly). I didn't think it was especially difficult. Drawing the
> additional ways took
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 7:15 AM, markus schnalke wrote:
> The visibility is surely an advantage. (btw: Is there a map style
> that shows sidwalk=*?)
>
ITO World has a map for "walkable cities":
http://product.itoworld.com/map/126#fullscreen
regards
m
On 04/08/2016 02:35, Mike Thompson wrote:
I tested out the proposed mapping/tagging scheme in my local area
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/40.49192/-105.05655 - not
claiming I did it perfectly). I didn't think it was especially
difficult. Drawing the additional ways took a little more
On 04/08/2016 06:15, markus schnalke wrote:
The visibility is surely an advantage. (btw: Is there a map style
that shows sidwalk=*?)
I wrote about one here:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SomeoneElse/diary/38136
The basic idea is:
1) Split secondary, tertiary, and unclassified roads wit
