On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Sven Rautenberg wrote:
> Elena of Valhalla schrieb:
>> not so true everywhere: in mountain areas rivers are usually at the
>> bottom of valleys,
> The bottom of a valley is layer=0.
if it is a wide valley with other features of course yes; if it is a
narrow strip
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 05:45:00PM -0500, Matthias Julius wrote:
> Maybe we could consider to integrate other map layers into t...@h. All
> the render job handling could be done by the t...@h server and either the
> clients upload each tileset to a server as specified in the config or
> tah hands
I wrote:
> From that I've so far used
> amenity=dog_bin
d replied:
> I don't like the sound of that one... Is it for dogs to
> use or where you put your used dogs? :/
I'm not sure whether this is tongue in cheek, or where you are, but in the UK
(or at least this bit of it) it is an offence for
2008/12/20 Hugh Barnes :
> On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 22:53:54 +0100
> Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
>>
>> Hugh Barnes wrote:
>> > It's a shame. You have to admit it's a useful device and would
>> > reduce duplication of work (creation and maintenance) and storage
>> > significantly.
>>
>> Sure but it's not som
Doesn't layer=-1 mean that something should be 'below' the landuse
polygons when rendering? So if you have a river at level=-1 on a
landuse=farm, then you will never see the river because it's under the
(default layer=0) ground.
In fact, I'm surprised the robot didn't automatically add a tunnel=y
2008/12/21 D Tucny :
>
> What makes an optician's a shop whereas a dentist is an amenity? NHS?
> Opticians selling sunglasses?
>
Because an opticians tend's to look a shop, and I can go in, buy
something (new frame, glasses case, cleaning materials) without an
appointment or seeing an optician at
Hi,
OJ W wrote:
> Doesn't layer=-1 mean that something should be 'below' the landuse
> polygons when rendering? So if you have a river at level=-1 on a
> landuse=farm, then you will never see the river because it's under the
> (default layer=0) ground.
Well tunnels are (and should be) visible ev
2008/12/21 Stephen Hope
> 2008/12/21 D Tucny :
> >
> > What makes an optician's a shop whereas a dentist is an amenity? NHS?
> > Opticians selling sunglasses?
> >
>
> Because an opticians tend's to look a shop, and I can go in, buy
> something (new frame, glasses case, cleaning materials) without
2008/12/21 Ed Loach
> I wrote:
> > From that I've so far used
> > amenity=dog_bin
>
> d replied:
> > I don't like the sound of that one... Is it for dogs to
> > use or where you put your used dogs? :/
>
> I'm not sure whether this is tongue in cheek, or where you are, but in the
> UK (or at least
2008/12/21 OJ W
> Doesn't layer=-1 mean that something should be 'below' the landuse
> polygons when rendering? So if you have a river at level=-1 on a
> landuse=farm, then you will never see the river because it's under the
> (default layer=0) ground.
>
> In fact, I'm surprised the robot didn't
On Sunday 21 December 2008, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> OJ W wrote:
> > Doesn't layer=-1 mean that something should be 'below' the landuse
> > polygons when rendering? So if you have a river at level=-1 on a
> > landuse=farm, then you will never see the river because it's under
> > the (default
> Doesn't layer=-1 mean that something should be 'below' the landuse
> polygons when rendering? So if you have a river at level=-1 on a
> landuse=farm, then you will never see the river because it's under the
> (default layer=0) ground.
>
No, landuse isn't a physical feature, but a logical one.
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 1:11 PM, "Marc Schütz" wrote:
>> Doesn't layer=-1 mean that something should be 'below' the landuse
>> polygons when rendering? So if you have a river at level=-1 on a
>> landuse=farm, then you will never see the river because it's under the
>> (default layer=0) ground.
>>
> On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 1:11 PM, "Marc Schütz" wrote:
> >> Doesn't layer=-1 mean that something should be 'below' the landuse
> >> polygons when rendering? So if you have a river at level=-1 on a
> >> landuse=farm, then you will never see the river because it's under the
> >> (default layer=0)
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 12:50 PM, D Tucny wrote:
> I've never heard of them called dog bins before... There was a certain
> amount on tongue in cheek in my reply... A waste bin is for putting waste
> in, a waste paper basket is for putting waste paper in, a recycling bin is
> for putting recycling
2008/12/20 Simon Ward :
> On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 10:42:01PM +0200, Nic Roets wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 9:35 AM, Erik Johansson wrote:
>> > Why do people use "_" instead of " ", seems very cumbersome really.
>>
>> Because
>> * it's been an OSM convention (standard) since 2006. No one voted
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 3:25 PM, elvin ibbotson
wrote:
> I was taught that apostrophes should be used in two cases: to indicate a
> missing letter and to indicate possession,
The 3rd common usage being to catch anyone who forgets about escaping
in their parser or when generating xml files...
hav
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Daniel Taylor
wrote:
> ps. maybe 'practice' would be better (doctors-practice,
> veterinary-practice)? i
Let's not *encourage* the creation of invalid tags by choosing a word
with so many options for how to spell it ;) (practice/practise)
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 09:44:56AM -, Ed Loach wrote:
> I wrote:
> > From that I've so far used
> > amenity=dog_bin
>
> d replied:
> > I don't like the sound of that one... Is it for dogs to
> > use or where you put your used dogs? :/
>
> I'm not sure whether this is tongue in cheek, or wher
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 08:50:10PM +0800, D Tucny wrote:
> > In the area I was in yesterday, and the recreation ground I was looking at,
> > the dog bins are more numerous than the litter bins.
> >
> I've never heard of them called dog bins before...
Oh, we have some “colloquial” councils; he’s no
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 03:17:35PM +, OJ W wrote:
> having a tag like amenity=doctor's would at least cause such systems
> to fail earlier, by putting quote marks into a tag in common usage ;)
Oh, I can see Little Bobby Tables coming. ☺
Simon
--
A complex system that works is invariably foun
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 02:46:07PM +, Dave Stubbs wrote:
> > Same goes for trying to encode hierarchy into keys and values really.
> > It's quite cumbersome. We're using XML, it's good for structuring data
> > (eye of the beholder thing there), and instead of trying to encode
> > structure in
hi,
currently i generate reports of unmapped / sparsely mapped places (in
germany) here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Unkartografiert
i am using the program:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Unmapped_Places
from my point of view it is only a matter of (short) time until we don't
get us
Hi folks!
As I liked the features of the cycle map but rather missed a hiking map
based on a similar design, I started working on one.
Or rather, as I am doing my mapping on horseback, I am working on a map
that some day should be suitable for trail riding. But as the
requirements for a hiki
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 11:06:04PM +0100, Nop wrote:
> As I liked the features of the cycle map but rather missed a hiking map
> based on a similar design, I started working on one.
[…]
> You can have a look at an early draft here: http://www.nop.onpw.de/.
That map looks great, especially noticin
If you want some hosting for the tile images, I'd be happy to host any image
you want (and give you rsync/scp/ssh access) for either of these
(Freemap/OpenFootMap and hiking maps).
Reply directly to me for more info.
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 4:52 PM, Simon Ward wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 1
Hello!
Simon Ward schrieb:
>> You can have a look at an early draft here: http://www.nop.onpw.de/.
>
> That map looks great, especially noticing the lovely hill‐shading there.
Thank you. Suggestions for improvements are always welcome.
>> So do you have any recommendations for me on where to f
27 matches
Mail list logo
