graham wrote:
> 80n wrote:
>
>> In a sense I'm already doing this. The very last thing I do when I've
>> completed an area is to add landuse=residential (only where appropriate,
>> of course). I could easily add complete=level-n to this landuse boundary.
>>
>
> Surely completeness is relative t
Robin Paulson wrote:
>> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bildstock
> of course, i remember seeing these in austria now. yes, they are quite
> prominent aren't they and maybe map-worthy after all - would you be
> willing to put a proposal up on the wiki? unfortunately, i can't speak
> german or i'd do i
On 12/01/2008, Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 12, 2008 11:32 AM, Igor Brejc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That would be an interesting thing to implement. It would involve
> > creating a union of circles (with radius of 12 NM) and then determining
> > the border of that
Frederik Ramm wrote:
> As to where their data comes from - we don't really know
Most of it was based on NIMA data, with 1/10 minute precision
Much data has been added since.
I don't know how this data should be added best.
When you import everything, you will have lots of duplicate places.
On 13/01/2008, 80n <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 12, 2008 2:10 PM, Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Let's say I'm looking at a satellite image and I see a body of water.
> > Is it a lake/reservoir/dam/blah? I don't know. Yet the proposed scheme
> > forces me to choose one
On 12/01/2008, Marc Schütz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > After - I think - three questions over the last months about
> > historic=icon on this list - with no real response - I just removed it
> >
> > >from the map features page.
> >
> > If some one comes up with a good explanation what this is we
On 13/01/2008, Lukasz Stelmach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > according to wp, it was the range of a cannon in 14th c or something
>
> XIV c. ships would draw rather then carried a cannon that could
> shoot as far as 22.2 km. It must be something different.
i should say, i'm no expert on this,
On Sat, 2008-01-12 at 19:08 +, graham wrote:
> Surely completeness is relative to purpose? I have areas where all roads
> between settlements are filled in but not the settlements, other urban
> areas where all roads are filled in and named, others where all roads
> and footpaths are complete.
On Sun, January 13, 2008 12:09 am, ndm wrote:
> A primary route (in the UK) would be assumed to have a 112 kph speed
> limit?
I'm nitpicking, I know, but that would be a bad assumption, primary routes
certainly have speed limits of 30, 40, 50, 60, and 70 mph. I'd not be
surprised if one could fin
Hallo,
I've written a proposal for postal addresses:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relations/Proposed/Postal_Addresses
It covers more than house numbers, i.e. it includes streets, postal
codes, etc., even countries).
However, the proposal does not allow putting some house numbers on
mallok aragorn.de> writes:
> Marking a place as complete is one discussion. I have been "wasting" thoughts
on regular verification. How
> do we make sure that we always stay informed about changes over time, sort of
regular reviews?
I think what would be useful is to have a tool / filter to be
On 12/01/2008, mallok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Marking a place as complete is one discussion. I have been "wasting"
> thoughts on regular verification. How do we make sure that we always stay
> informed about changes over time, sort of regular reviews?
>
> mallok
>
By using the data we are
Robin Paulson wrote:
On 12/01/2008, Igor Brejc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just as a curiosity: 12 NM was chosen because it it the farthest point a
person can see from the shore (due to Earth's roundness). Or something
like that :)
according to wp, it was the range of a cannon in 14th c or some
On 12/01/2008, Igor Brejc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just as a curiosity: 12 NM was chosen because it it the farthest point a
> person can see from the shore (due to Earth's roundness). Or something
> like that :)
according to wp, it was the range of a cannon in 14th c or something
Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote:
[]
> Rather than creating special ways, just to show completeness, why not
> mark the ways that are already there with weather or not they are
> completely connected. I.e. I know that all the roads and footpaths that
> connect to my road are on the map, so I could put a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Morley wrote:
| David Earl wrote:
| > I've said before and I'll say again: we need a way of
| > asserting "this area is complete" (for one or more
| > definitions of completeness).
|
| Andy Robinson (blackadder) wrote:
| > The only way that w
Marking a place as complete is one discussion. I have been "wasting" thoughts
on regular verification. How do we make sure that we always stay informed
about changes over time, sort of regular reviews?
mallok
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Datum: 12/01/08 20:0
Chris Morley wrote:
> OSM really needs a measure for local completeness to demonstrate its
> progress externally. I hope enough people can be roused to discuss, and
> hopefully agree, the principles, before deciding on an implementation.
Would it make any sense at all to consider it from the oth
Andy Robinson (blackadder) schrieb:
> While we are talking about tags I want to thank all those who take the time
> and effort to put up proposals and make comments on them. The process is
> very useful in seeing what users need and wish to tag. Personally though I
> feel the process is more compli
graham wrote:
> Surely completeness is relative to purpose?
Sort of - I think you need definitions in terms of content rather than purpose,
just for clarity. But they could obviously be aimed at a purpose.
When I said 'multiple' definitions I definitely had in mind separately defined
levels l
Hi,
> I was going to ask the same thing... googling pops up a german wikipedia
> link... Frederik mind helping?
The matter had been discussed on talk-de; they call themselves a
"free" database and have their data listed as "Public Domain" on
Sourceforge so at least from their point of view inco
80n wrote:
>
> In a sense I'm already doing this. The very last thing I do when I've
> completed an area is to add landuse=residential (only where appropriate,
> of course). I could easily add complete=level-n to this landuse boundary.
>
Surely completeness is relative to purpose? I have area
On 12 Jan 2008, at 18:43, J.D. Schmidt wrote:
> Sven Anders skrev:
>> The OpenGeoDB Project has data about (many places of
>> *Germany,
>> *Belgium,
>> *Liechtenstein,
>> * Austria and
>> *Switzerland.
>>
>> There are 45873 places in this database.
>>
>>
>> You can find there data of:
>> * postal
Frederik Ramm wrote:
>>There are places in OSM where there is no data; these are
>>obviously incomplete.
>
>How would you know ;-) there are places which are complete with
>nothing on them!
Good point! Which makes it all the more important to have a
mechanism for marking it as such, if only to r
Sven Anders skrev:
> The OpenGeoDB Project has data about (many places of
> *Germany,
> *Belgium,
> *Liechtenstein,
> * Austria and
> *Switzerland.
>
> There are 45873 places in this database.
>
>
> You can find there data of:
> * postal codes
> * license plate codes
> * community identifica
Dair Grant wrote:
>Sent: 12 January 2008 4:10 PM
>To: talk@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging hierarchies (was: RFC - lake)
>
>Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
>>I'm not saying that "natural=water" should be deprecated. I'm just
>>saying that if someone wants to introduce a tagging for lakes
Hi,
> There are places in OSM where there is no data; these are
> obviously incomplete.
How would you know ;-) there are places which are complete with
nothing on them!
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00.09' E008°23.33'
___
Hi,
> OSM really needs a measure for local completeness to demonstrate its
> progress externally. I hope enough people can be roused to discuss, and
> hopefully agree, the principles, before deciding on an implementation.
I'm all for it but I would really try to deduce this completeness from
ex
On Saturday 12 January 2008, Tom Evans wrote:
> David Earl wrote:
> > I've said before and I'll say again: we need a way of
> > asserting "this area is complete" (for one or more
> > definitions of completeness).
>
> Chris Morley wrote:
> > A possible detailed approach is as follows. A completen
David Earl wrote:
> I've said before and I'll say again: we need a way of
> asserting "this area is complete" (for one or more
> definitions of completeness).
Chris Morley wrote:
> A possible detailed approach is as follows. A completeness boundary
> would be modelled on coastline: it would en
Chris Morley wrote:
>I have started a new thread with a measure for completeness in the
>title because this is an important topic for OSM. But the response
>to the recent posts quoted above, and my raising of it last July,
>has been only luke-warm.
I also think completeness is a very important id
Frederik Ramm wrote:
>I'm not saying that "natural=water" should be deprecated. I'm just
>saying that if someone wants to introduce a tagging for lakes or
>other *special* kinds of water, then there is no technical
>requirement to tag everything that is tagged with the new lake tag
>(say, water=la
On Jan 12, 2008 3:48 PM, Chris Morley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Earl wrote:
> > I've said before and I'll say again: we need a way of
> > asserting "this area is complete" (for one or more
> > definitions of completeness).
>
> Andy Robinson (blackadder) wrote:
> > The only way that we
David Earl wrote:
> I've said before and I'll say again: we need a way of
> asserting "this area is complete" (for one or more
> definitions of completeness).
Andy Robinson (blackadder) wrote:
> The only way that we are going to individually or
> collectively state the completeness of a speci
Hi,
> > I'm not saying that "natural=water" should be deprecated. I'm just
> > saying that if someone wants to introduce a tagging for lakes or other
> > *special* kinds of water, then there is no technical requirement to tag
> > everything that is tagged with the new lake tag (say, water=lake) as
> I'm not saying that "natural=water" should be deprecated. I'm just
> saying that if someone wants to introduce a tagging for lakes or other
> *special* kinds of water, then there is no technical requirement to tag
> everything that is tagged with the new lake tag (say, water=lake) as
> natural=wa
Hi,
>It should be possible to be vague about something when tagging it. There
>are several vague tags that I really like and use frequently
>(natural=water, natural=grass being my two favorites)
No problem with that at all. (Myself, I also use "landuse=residential"
for "from the low-res sat imag
The OpenGeoDB Project has data about (many places of
*Germany,
*Belgium,
*Liechtenstein,
* Austria and
*Switzerland.
There are 45873 places in this database.
You can find there data of:
* postal codes
* license plate codes
* community identification numbers
and some more.
I have writen a sm
On Jan 12, 2008 2:10 PM, Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 12, 2008 2:13 PM, Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > > The world has an infinite diversity and we can't go inventing new tag
> > > combinations for all of them. We need to think hierarchically
On Jan 12, 2008 2:13 PM, Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > The world has an infinite diversity and we can't go inventing new tag
> > combinations for all of them. We need to think hierarchically, start
> > with the real defining characteristics: land/sea/road/rail/etc and use
> >
Hi,
> The world has an infinite diversity and we can't go inventing new tag
> combinations for all of them. We need to think hierarchically, start
> with the real defining characteristics: land/sea/road/rail/etc and use
> subtags for the finegrained stuff.
While this is true, it would not be nec
On Jan 12, 2008 11:32 AM, Igor Brejc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That would be an interesting thing to implement. It would involve
> creating a union of circles (with radius of 12 NM) and then determining
> the border of that union. If only I had the time... :)
I thin you'd approach it from the o
On Jan 12, 2008 4:45 AM, Robin Paulson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >it seems a logical one to me, we need to differentiate between lakes
> > >and rivers, canals, etc.
> > duplicates natural=water which is very, very widely used - 9421 times
>
> no problem, they can all be changed very simply i
Robin Paulson wrote:
> On 11/01/2008, Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> - The border of a country is not the coastline, but (at the very
>> least) 12 nautical miles from the coastline and in some places, much
>> further than that.
>>
>
> ok, let's say i wanted to use th
Artem Pavlenko wrote:
>
> I've tried latest Kosmos and it works fine, though a bit slow. Are you
> planning to release source?
Are you referring to the slowness of generating reliefs or generally?
When generating reliefs the application first has to download the DEM
tiles from NASA FTP site and
Am Donnerstag, 10. Januar 2008 22:40 schrieb Ulf Lamping:
> Hi!
>
> After - I think - three questions over the last months about
> historic=icon on this list - with no real response - I just removed it
>
> >from the map features page.
>
> If some one comes up with a good explanation what this is we
46 matches
Mail list logo
