Reusing Lars Aronsson's message, we can see that the new scale bar is wrong.
The buildings in this screenshot should be 32 x 11 m (attached example.jpg)
Cheers,
Lucas
-
[...]
I've never cared too much about that scale, but now I know that
these apartment buildings along Syrengatan
To anyone who can show me what I broke:
http://geo.topf.org/comparison/index.html?mt0=mapnik&mt1=tah&x=971&y=657&z=11
I worked on this pair of lakes in NW Ireland a few days ago. The
Osmarender output is broken, but I decided to wait for Mapnik to
re-render before panicking. Let the panic begin..
El Jueves, 17 de Abril de 2008, Frederik Ramm escribió:
> Hi,
>
> > The only exceptions apparently
> > being that self-intersecting polygons are allowed in OSM.
>
> The wiki page you cited says "In general, a 2D geometry is simple if
> it contains no self-intersection." - what do they mean by "2D
>
On Thu, 2008-04-17 at 00:07 +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> So much for OGC stuff in general. About Simple Features specifically,
> I guess there simply was nobody who wanted to do the extra work. I
> remember Artem complaining about self-intersecting stuff once and I
> think the offending items are
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 12:15:16AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > The only exceptions apparently
> > being that self-intersecting polygons are allowed in OSM.
>
> The wiki page you cited says "In general, a 2D geometry is simple if
> it contains no self-intersection." - what do they m
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 12:19:19AM +0200, Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:
> El Miércoles, 16 de Abril de 2008, Christopher Schmidt escribió:
> > On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 11:28:32PM +0200, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> > > yesterday a colleague approached me asking why OSM data doesn't comply to
> > > the Si
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 11:58:21PM +0200, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> Op 16 apr 2008, om 23:41 heeft Christopher Schmidt het volgende
> geschreven:
> >On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 11:28:32PM +0200, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> >It seems likely that the netherlands 'self intersecting polygons' are
> >simply
Op 17 apr 2008, om 00:07 heeft Frederik Ramm het volgende geschreven:
> Hi,
>
>> yesterday a colleague approached me asking why OSM data
>> doesn't comply to the Simple Feature specification[1]
>
> I guess the honest answer is very likely that most people invovled in
> designing anything at OSM hav
El Miércoles, 16 de Abril de 2008, Christopher Schmidt escribió:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 11:28:32PM +0200, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> > yesterday a colleague approached me asking why OSM data doesn't comply to
> > the Simple Feature specification[...]
> > Is this something that is being consider
Hi,
> The only exceptions apparently
> being that self-intersecting polygons are allowed in OSM.
The wiki page you cited says "In general, a 2D geometry is simple if
it contains no self-intersection." - what do they mean by "2D
geometry"? Specifically, would a self-intersecting *line* be allow
Hi,
> yesterday a colleague approached me asking why OSM data
> doesn't comply to the Simple Feature specification[1]
I guess the honest answer is very likely that most people invovled in
designing anything at OSM have no prior GIS experience. Most of us are
amateurs. We design stuff that we thin
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 11:28:32PM +0200, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The only exceptions apparently being that self-intersecting polygons
> are allowed in OSM. He found a couple hundred in the Netherlands' OSM
> data.
>
> Is this something that is being considered? I guess it would b
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Martijn van Exel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've been warming up as many of my colleagues to OSM as possible, and
> sometimes this comes back to me. Being GIS people, they have GIS
> requirements, and OSM was not devised specifically with GIS
> requir
Hi all,
I've been warming up as many of my colleagues to OSM as possible, and
sometimes this comes back to me. Being GIS people, they have GIS
requirements, and OSM was not devised specifically with GIS
requirements in mind. That said, yesterday a colleague approached me
asking why OSM dat
El Miércoles, 16 de Abril de 2008, Skywave escribió:
> Any news?
Nope, meeting was cancelled in the last minute. :-(
--
--
Iván Sánchez Ortega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Now listening to: St. Vincent - Marry Me (2007) - [9] Landmines (5:07)
(0.00%)
signature.asc
Any news?
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Iván Sánchez Ortega
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > Just read the following blog post:
> >
> http://spanring.eu/blog/2008/04/13/difusion-publica-de-la-informacion-geografica/
> >
> > Basically, following on from the INSPIRE initiative
>
> , and
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 7:05 PM, Ricardo Peironcely
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I've a problem with osm2pgsql and the last version of planet file.
>
> When I try to execute the process, always receive the same error: invalid
> input syntax for integer: "Breërivier"
>
> Any one knows something ab
Dermot McNally wrote:
>I became aware of the new scale bar on the slippy map through another
>thread over on dev. It's certainly nice to have one, and it was an
>obvious absence that google maps (and others) had but OSM didn't.
Shouldn't a scale bar change its length, when scrolling the map
"vert
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 08:32:13PM +0200, Norbert Hoffmann wrote:
> Dermot McNally wrote:
>
> >I became aware of the new scale bar on the slippy map through another
> >thread over on dev. It's certainly nice to have one, and it was an
> >obvious absence that google maps (and others) had but OSM di
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 07:01:01PM +0100, Dermot McNally wrote:
> I did say it was a quick look. FWIW, this is the reference i found:
>
> http://trac.openlayers.org/wiki/Addins/ScaleBar
>
> And as I say, it's great to have one.
The ScaleBar control is not the same as the control currently in use
On 16/04/2008, Tom Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> "Dermot McNally" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > From what I can tell based on a quick look at the Openlayers
> > documentation, not only does it support single unit scale bars, that's
> > actual
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Dermot McNally" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From what I can tell based on a quick look at the Openlayers
> documentation, not only does it support single unit scale bars, that's
> actually the default.
It's certainly not the default. I have done nothing
Hi,
I became aware of the new scale bar on the slippy map through another
thread over on dev. It's certainly nice to have one, and it was an
obvious absence that google maps (and others) had but OSM didn't.
However, we have copied an aspect of Google Maps that always annoyed
me. Paper maps freque
I've a problem with osm2pgsql and the last version of planet file.
When I try to execute the process, always receive the same error: invalid
input syntax for integer: "Breërivier"
Any one knows something about this?
Thanks in advance.
Rpr
./osm2pgsql -u -U postgres -d map planet-080409.osm.bz2
Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote:
> I note that near where I live, someone has traced the edge of the high
> resolution imagery and tagged it:
> Do people agree with this example? If so I'll add it to Oxford and any
> others I come across.
I'd disagree, and even go so far as to say tagging things like
If you're tagging it can I also suggest a resolution tag.
There are many areas in Canada with have images available, but there are
so low res they are next to useless for street mapping.
Mungewell.
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Martijn van Exel wrote:
> | Hi all,
> |
> |
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martijn van Exel wrote:
| Hi all,
|
| Yahoo announced the 'single biggest imagery update' update for Yahoo!
| Maps yesterday. See the post here -->
http://ylocalblog.com/blog/2008/04/11/see-more-on-yahoo-maps/
| It doesn't say anywhere specifically whi
hi,
Are we using the latest Openlayers in OSM? There's a pan and zooming
"transition effects thingie".
Nice!
maning
--
|-|--|
| __.-._ |"Ohhh. Great warrior. Wars not make one great." -Yoda |
| '-._"7' |"Freedom is still the most
If we did do boundary polygons, where would we put them for coastal
boundaries? e.g. along the coast? or along EEZ limits?
Do we also need country codes to say whose claim each border polygon is
representing?
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 11:05 AM, Hakan Tandogan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> On
29 matches
Mail list logo
