On 09/02/2008, Iván Sánchez Ortega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> El Viernes, 8 de Febrero de 2008, wiseLYNX escribió:
> > <-- <-- <-- <-- <--
> > Tree Tree Tree Tree
> > <- <- <
> > > -> ->
> > Tree Tree Tree Tree
> > --> --> --> --> -->
>
> > Any suggestion about how to rend
On Fri, 2008-02-08 at 10:17 +, David Groom wrote:
> > Thanks to all for working on this! The River Clyde in Glasgow is almost
> > perfect now. I say almost because there seems to be an issue between
> > Bridge Street/A77 and the A74:
> >
> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=55.85324&lon=-4
Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Gervase Markham wrote:
> | Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote:
> |> It's been proposed by me several times in the past. I think it's
> |> essential. I don't know of a similar major project that doesn't do some
> |> kind of
- Original Message -
From: "Artem Pavlenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "David Earl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "David Groom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "talk Openstreetmap"
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 12:24 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Large Rivers in general, mapnik rendering in
Particular
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gervase Markham wrote:
| Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote:
|> It's been proposed by me several times in the past. I think it's
|> essential. I don't know of a similar major project that doesn't do some
|> kind of assignment. Wikipedia is the nearest, but Wik
El Viernes, 8 de Febrero de 2008, wiseLYNX escribió:
> bvh wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 04:52:55PM +, David Earl wrote:
> >> On 08/02/2008 16:43, Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:
> >>> <-- <-- <-- <-- <-- highway = service
> >>> Tree Tree Tree Tree amenity = park
> >>
> >> err... leisure=pa
El Viernes, 8 de Febrero de 2008, wiseLYNX escribió:
> can someone have a look at "Corso Massimo d'Azeglio"?
Coordinates?
--
--
Iván Sánchez Ortega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MSN:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jabber:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description:
Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:
> El Viernes, 8 de Febrero de 2008, wiseLYNX escribió:
>> <-- <-- <-- <-- <--
>> Tree Tree Tree Tree
>> <- <- <
>> > -> ->
>> Tree Tree Tree Tree
>> --> --> --> --> -->
>
>> Any suggestion about how to render all this? Even an example of an
>> alr
bvh wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 04:52:55PM +, David Earl wrote:
>> On 08/02/2008 16:43, Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:
>>> <-- <-- <-- <-- <-- highway = service
>>> Tree Tree Tree Tree amenity = park
>> err... leisure=park
>
> err... is a line of trees a park?
it ususally is just a line
On 08/02/2008 16:12, bvh wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 04:52:55PM +, David Earl wrote:
>> On 08/02/2008 16:43, Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:
>>> <-- <-- <-- <-- <-- highway = service
>>> Tree Tree Tree Tree amenity = park
>> err... leisure=park
>
> err... is a line of trees a park?
A bigg
On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 04:52:55PM +, David Earl wrote:
> On 08/02/2008 16:43, Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:
> > <-- <-- <-- <-- <-- highway = service
> > Tree Tree Tree Tree amenity = park
> err... leisure=park
err... is a line of trees a park?
cu bart
_
On 08/02/2008 16:43, Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:
> <-- <-- <-- <-- <-- highway = service
> Tree Tree Tree Tree amenity = park
err... leisure=park
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ta
El Viernes, 8 de Febrero de 2008, wiseLYNX escribió:
> <-- <-- <-- <-- <--
> Tree Tree Tree Tree
> <- <- <
> > -> ->
> Tree Tree Tree Tree
> --> --> --> --> -->
> Any suggestion about how to render all this? Even an example of an
> already done similar object could be usefu
Hi everybody,
my quest to map Torino continues, and yesterday I was gratified by
seeing the first update of the rendered map containing my work.
I have a question though. Torino is full of wonderful wide avenues, with
a central two way lane, and two one way lane on the sides. something
like this
Hello all,
In case anyone else finds it useful...
I've knocked up a short webform that enables you to upload tracklogs
to OSM in other formats than GPX. It does the conversion for you,
then uploads the resulting GPX file. It might be useful if, say, you
have a NaviGPS and have copied the NM
On 8 Feb 2008, at 12:05, David Earl wrote:
> On 08/02/2008 11:54, David Groom wrote:
>> You mean like
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relations/Proposed/Rivers,
>> which
>> would be my ideal,
>
> Ah, yes.
>
> I was suggesting putting in the connections across the river as well,
> but
On Feb 8, 2008 12:47 PM, David Groom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The rules are fairly simple: all areas must be closed, except for
> > coastlines. People may not like the results, but it's what works right
> > now.
> >
> My point was that while a tag is still only at the proposal stage is a bit
On 8 Feb 2008, at 11:50, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> I found the way term 'Multipolygon' is used in OSM context is
>> confusing.
>
> True. What we had been looking for was a term for "polygons with
> holes"; it seemed unreasonable to create a relation "type=polygon"
> as plain polygons,
On 08/02/2008 11:54, David Groom wrote:
> You mean like
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relations/Proposed/Rivers, which
> would be my ideal,
Ah, yes.
I was suggesting putting in the connections across the river as well,
but there isn't any reason why if the renderer is building its
You could do it as a relation.
The river bank would be a set of ways (each of which shares its end
nodes with the ends of one of the others), and you could have a role for
the one or two ways which close the loop which says "this is structural,
not really part of the river bank". The renderer w
On 8 Feb 2008, at 11:46, Andy Robinson ((blackadder)) wrote:
> Artem Pavlenko wrote:
>> Sent: 08 February 2008 11:42 AM
>> To: talk Openstreetmap
>> Cc: OSM-Dev Openstreetmap
>> Subject: [OSM-dev] Polygons and Multipolygons
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I found the way term 'Multipolygon' is used in OSM con
- Original Message -
From: "David Earl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Artem Pavlenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "David Groom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 11:27 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Large Rivers in general, mapnik rendering in
Particular
> You could do it as a
Hi,
> I found the way term 'Multipolygon' is used in OSM context is
> confusing.
True. What we had been looking for was a term for "polygons with
holes"; it seemed unreasonable to create a relation "type=polygon" as
plain polygons, without holes, don't require relations. But
multipolygon
On 8 Feb 2008, at 11:27, David Earl wrote:
> You could do it as a relation.
>
> The river bank would be a set of ways (each of which shares its end
> nodes with the ends of one of the others), and you could have a
> role for the one or two ways which close the loop which says "this
> is str
Artem Pavlenko wrote:
>Sent: 08 February 2008 11:42 AM
>To: talk Openstreetmap
>Cc: OSM-Dev Openstreetmap
>Subject: [OSM-dev] Polygons and Multipolygons
>
>Hello,
>
>I found the way term 'Multipolygon' is used in OSM context is confusing.
>
>Here are ISO 19125-1 definitions :
>
>1. Polygon
>
>A Pol
- Original Message -
From: "Martijn van Oosterhout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "David Groom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 11:10 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Large Rivers in general, mapnik rendering in
Particular
> On Feb 8, 2008 11:39 AM, David Groom <[EMAIL PRO
On 8 Feb 2008, at 11:26, Andy Allan wrote:
> On Feb 8, 2008 11:09 AM, Artem Pavlenko
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> We can make osm2pgsql or coastline tools to create polygons, but why
>> not create them in the first place ?
>> Can someone enlighten me, please ?
>
> If I wanted to draw the r
Hello,
I found the way term 'Multipolygon' is used in OSM context is confusing.
Here are ISO 19125-1 definitions :
1. Polygon
A Polygon is a planar Surface, defined by 1 exterior boundary and 0
or more interior boundaries. Each
interior boundary defines a hole in the Polygon.
The assertions
On Feb 8, 2008 11:09 AM, Artem Pavlenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We can make osm2pgsql or coastline tools to create polygons, but why
> not create them in the first place ?
> Can someone enlighten me, please ?
If I wanted to draw the rivers as light blue* with dark blue
riverbanks, wouldn't s
David Groom wrote:
>Sent: 08 February 2008 10:40 AM
>To: talk@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: [OSM-talk] Large Rivers in general, mapnik rendering in Particular
>
>The proposed tag waterway = river,
>http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Large_rivers ,
>has
>been at proposal stage f
On Feb 8, 2008 11:39 AM, David Groom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The main problem area seems to be that some people do not like the current
> proposal whereby a river is divided up in to separate closed areas. The
> reason being that the "segment" crossing the river to close the area marks a
> bo
On 8 Feb 2008, at 10:39, David Groom wrote:
> The proposed tag waterway = river,
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/
> Large_rivers , has
> been at proposal stage for over 18 months, which seems far too long
> for a
> tag which represents such an important feature.
>
>
The proposed tag waterway = river,
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Large_rivers , has
been at proposal stage for over 18 months, which seems far too long for a
tag which represents such an important feature.
The main problem area seems to be that some people do not lik
- Original Message -
From: "Keith Sharp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 8:52 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] New Coastline in Mapnik - Glasgow cIty center issue
>
> On Wed, 2008-02-06 at 22:41 +, Jon Burgess wrote:
>> I have switch the Mapnik layer over to use t
On Wed, 2008-02-06 at 22:41 +, Jon Burgess wrote:
> I have switch the Mapnik layer over to use the new coastline shapefiles
> for zooms 10-18. These files are generated by extracting all the OSM
> ways with natural=coastline.
>
> In most places these shapefiles are far better then what we had
35 matches
Mail list logo
