Till Harbaum / Lists wrote:
> Am Montag 17 November 2008 schrieb Andrew Chadwick (email lists):
>> It'd be really cool if the dependency on Hildon,
>> osso, and various other Maemo-specific parts could be relaxed for users
>> of devices like Eee PCs, but I guess that's less of an immediate
>> requi
Till Harbaum wrote:
If you're zoomed out beyond the extent of the current project, it's
impossible to pan the map so that part of it is hidden beyond the canvas
edge. This might hinder new users [...]
??? I don't understand that. There's the area you downloaded. You can
see only that and work
2008/11/21 Stephen Gower <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 01:58:43PM -, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)
> wrote:
>>
>> The problem here is who says it's a public right of way. If you ask your
>> local authority they will bring out there plans which give the details and
>> refere
Pieren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Taging for validation is already a controversial subject.
> But some of your tags are even more controversial:
There are two levels of "tagging for the validator" (or any other
application):
- adding validator specific tags to give the validator a hint what t
> > validate:empty-tag-key
> > validate:empty-tag-value
>
> A tag with an empty key or an empty value is not possible/ not
> allowed. Simple delete or fix the tag if you find such. Don't say to
> maplint "well it's wrong, but don't care about it".
Agreed with pieren for the empty-tag-key, but are
Patrick Kilian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The patch at http://www.petschge.de/osm/ignore-tags/maplint.patch
> modifies the maplint checks to suppress the warning / error if a tag
> with validate:$testname=ignore is present on the object.
I have been wanting something like this.
> A tag of k="
> I guess the patch could be expanded to not expect a name for
> "internal:noname=yes"
The current proposal is "internal:name=noname" so we can also
have "internal:name=noname_sign" when it's unsure the object as a name, but
it is known that no sign gives this information and because both shoul
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 01:58:43PM -, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)
wrote:
>
> The problem here is who says it's a public right of way. If you ask your
> local authority they will bring out there plans which give the details and
> reference numbers but these of course exist on OS mapping.
Hi all,
see http://www.petschge.de/osm/ignore-tags/noname.patch for a dead
simple non-extensible alternative which only supports noname=yes.
Patrick "Petschge" Kilian
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/
Taging for validation is already a controversial subject.
But some of your tags are even more controversial:
> validate:empty-tag-key
> validate:empty-tag-value
A tag with an empty key or an empty value is not possible/ not
allowed. Simple delete or fix the tag if you find such. Don't say to
mapl
Hi,
> Whoops, looks like we are working on the same thing, with same goal and
> almost
> the same method
Looks like you want to formalize the note=* thing a bit. Which is a good
think.
I guess the patch could be expanded to not expect a name for
"internal:noname=yes". Alternativly you could exc
>I was also worried about the Council's own database copyright in its
>information. For a one off it probably wouldn't matter, but if we then
>started doing stuff from Council info, we might be contaminating things.
>I've generally tried to use only the evidence on the ground and approved
>sour
On Friday 21 November 2008 15:00, Patrick Kilian wrote:
> Hi all,
Hi alone !
> I want to propose a technically clean way to deal with unnamed streets
> and other false positives of the maplint checks.
(...)
> For a street which does not have a name (for whatever reason) one would
> you k="validate
Hi all,
> in the last couple if days the discussion of a POI layer appeared again.
> With the new server we should have enough disk space to store such a
> layer and I'm willing to resurrect the old stylesheets / create new
> stylesheets for that layer. But since I'm not scratching my own itch
>
Hi all,
I want to propose a technically clean way to deal with unnamed streets
and other false positives of the maplint checks.
The patch at http://www.petschge.de/osm/ignore-tags/maplint.patch
modifies the maplint checks to suppress the warning / error if a tag
with validate:$testname=ignore is
Hi ,
I am interested in knowing the exact way by which the automate gpx/shp
upload feature is implemented here... I too want to implement this feature
in my page...If someone can share the code or something with me ...it will
be great :) so that I can reuse it ..
Thanks,
Reena.
--
View this me
Well, that article defines on how to transform from DHG (Deutches
Heeres Gitter) Plukovo 1932 to UTM ED50 in zone 34, and that's a
start. Question is, is that (DHG Pulkovo 1932) the same as the
coordinates we have for the border which is described like this:
"Koordinatene er konforme , rettvinklete
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Andrew Chadwick (email lists)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What do people think of the latest iteration of
>
> http://www.cyclenation.org.uk/resources/mapping.php
> (formerly http://www.cyclecheltenham.org.uk/map_standard.html )?
>
> We should probably get our oa
What do people think of the latest iteration of
http://www.cyclenation.org.uk/resources/mapping.php
(formerly http://www.cyclecheltenham.org.uk/map_standard.html )?
We should probably get our oar in here and try to make the standard
base-map-neutral and colour-scheme-neutral. I shall have a w
Erik Johansson wrote:
> Oooh projection archeology, it's even more fun when you go down to
> local county databases they all have their own projections scheme for
> better fit to the grid. Reading in Proj4 projection definitions file
> there seems to be many "pulkovo" zones in 1995, maybe the same
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 9:32 PM, Gustav Foseid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I got the official coordinates for all the border stones and markers along
> the Norwegian-Russian border. The points are taken from the official
> protocol, and are in Pulkovo 1932 coordinate system.
>
> Does anyone have e
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> foot= might mean I can walk it. The word doesn't imply that it's a
> right-of-way. Much better to put the administrative designation on an
> access= tag
The world is calling the UK, it wants its foot tag
Am Donnerstag 20 November 2008 schrieb Mark Williams:
> Simon Ward wrote:
> > or a layer that allows you to select what POIs to display (although a
> > long list of POIs might be a little unwieldy).
> >
that's one of the main reasons I developed a category based poi scheme for
gpsdrive, which also
Sebastian Spaeth wrote:
> Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> All OS are doing is clarifying that a normal OS customer will probably
>> *not* have the right to grant others (Google) a "perpetual, irrevocable,
>> worldwide, royalty-free" license.
>>
>> This is true for OSM as well; my reading is that we must
Frederik Ramm wrote:
> All OS are doing is clarifying that a normal OS customer will probably
> *not* have the right to grant others (Google) a "perpetual, irrevocable,
> worldwide, royalty-free" license.
>
> This is true for OSM as well; my reading is that we must not display OSM
> data (say,
25 matches
Mail list logo
