On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 22:59:41 +, LeedsTracker wrote:
>The accuracy is OK but I tend to need to nudge them a good few metres
>when surveying.
It's good, the vector files I was directed too, thanks for the
replies, are often better than Google and much is from NPE and I doubt
there have been man
On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 21:11:57 +, Andy Allan wrote:
>I'd like to promote the term "untraceable editing" or something
>similar. What we're left with is still anonymous, just that we
>(non-server-admin) people can differentiate between two anonymous
>accounts. We'll still have no idea who they are
80n escribió:
David
Was there a specific purpose you had in mind that needs to distinguish
between the main span of a bridge and it's ramps, or were you just
exploring the level of consistency in current tagging practices?
I wonder if we are approaching this problem from the right direction.
SteveC wrote:
> What I propose is a wiki hack day, co-ordinated on IRC to improve what
> we can. Especially from the point of view of a newbie. There are lots
> of things which would take more time to fix than to say what needs
> fixing. I propose we all list what we think needs help on the
Am 23.01.2009 um 03:02 schrieb SteveC :
> It's amazing how the wiki has grown and is really a living place with
> a community around it these days, but it's showing some strain. For
> example until I fixed it, it was pretty hard for someone typing
> 'addressing' to find out about how to do addre
> You can use the excellent Python script by Christopher Schmidt
>
> http://crschmidt.net/blog/354/polyshp2osm/
>
I had the same problem, I had whole city data import and I messed with
different tools. Well, result is quite nice actually:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Image:Tartu_osm_osmar
Hi,
AJH wrote:
>> I'd like to promote the term "untraceable editing" or something
>> similar. What we're left with is still anonymous, just that we
>> (non-server-admin) people can differentiate between two anonymous
>> accounts. We'll still have no idea who they are.
>
> The big benefits from OS
Roman Neumüller schrieb:
>> Edit the way slightly in potlatch, it'll save the correct version to
>> the database.
>> This inconsistency sometimes occurs when the server is under high load
>> due to the lack of transactions in the current API.
>> This should be fixed in API0.6
>
> What I really do
> So if something has been bugging you on the wiki please list
> it at
> that link.
>
> What do you think?
I wondered if anywhere there was a log of searches that didn't go
directly to a page, which might benefit from a redirect (or a page)
being created. I couldn't find one. But for ease of use
Dirk wrote:
> No. If the data is still different in the 2 editors, go back to
> potlatch, use the live edit mode and make a minor modification
> to both
> Carriageways, and deselect, wait a while before you close
> potlatch/the
> browser. Then try again in JOSM.
I just checked Potlatch and JOSM f
Looking backward into archives, it seems that only one or two persons
are blocking the change...
I know one friend who stopped contributing to the project when he saw
his work anonymously downgraded and how easy it was. Probably he is
not the only one in this case.
All arguments have been already
Hi there!
> im with Mattias here.
> if there is air under the way i tag it as bridge, leaving the ramps out.
That's what I would do, too.
> the layer of the way gives you the hint of the existance or not of ramps.
That's not what I'd suggest for the usage of the layer tag!
> if the way is "lay
> -Original Message-
> From: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-
> boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Tom Hughes
> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 4:04 AM
> To: SteveC
> Cc: Talk Openstreetmap
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] The Wiki
>
> SteveC wrote:
>
> > What I propose is a wiki
On Friday 23 Jan 2009 6:00:08 pm Sven Rautenberg wrote:
> > if the way is "layer=0" and the bridge is "layer=0" too
> > (the crossing way under is "layer=-1", digged)
> > then the bridge has no ramps.
>
> Something with negative layer has to be a tunnel. Bridges are useless if
> there is a tunnel.
> SteveC wrote:
>
> It's amazing how the wiki has grown and is really a living place with
> a community around it these days, but it's showing some strain. For
> example until I fixed it, it was pretty hard for someone typing
> 'addressing' to find out about how to do addressing in OSM. Yes I know
> > if the way is "layer=0" and the bridge is "layer=1" there is a ramp.
>
> A bridge crossing any other way should be always tagged with layer=1 (or
> higher). In fact, the renderers could easily take "layer=1" as a default
> for bridges, as they are usually on top of something.
>
> > if the way
Hi again!
Further investigation shows, that they are already publishing same
data (and more)
- with freely (as in beer) downloadable localized (Slovenian) version
of mapyx [1]
- in (payable) Slovenian map packs for mapyx in their store [2]
They want to include OSM support in mapyx (in localized v
Kenneth Gonsalves writes:
> On Friday 23 Jan 2009 6:00:08 pm Sven Rautenberg wrote:
>> > if the way is "layer=0" and the bridge is "layer=0" too
>> > (the crossing way under is "layer=-1", digged)
>> > then the bridge has no ramps.
>>
>> Something with negative layer has to be a tunnel. Bridges a
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
> On Friday 23 Jan 2009 6:00:08 pm Sven Rautenberg wrote:
>> > if the way is "layer=0" and the bridge is "layer=0" too
>> > (the crossing way under is "layer=-1", digged)
>> > then the bridge has no ramps.
>>
>> Something with negative lay
Thanks Peter.
That's a good summation of the reasoning for an evolving license.
And essential questions on the process. That process must be open and engaging.
There will be more details next week.
Best,
Mikel
From: Peter Miller
To: Licensing and other le
From: OJ W
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 9:59 PM, Mikel Maron wrote:
> > The license won't be perfect, but there will be a process for feedback and
> > improvements, and the license will get there.
>
> This phraseology sounds very businesslike. I'm sure I've
I am unable to remove way http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/4596756
from the relation http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/21359
I am thus also unable to delete way 4596756 which is overlapping
another way also beeing part of the relation.
I am using JOSM and get en error when I tr
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 6:24 PM, Steven Le Roux wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I announed some day ago that I could use data from my urban community
> (group of city). (if you want a preview of coverage :
>
> http://applications-internet.brest-metropole-oceane.fr/VIPDU40/aspx/HTDU401.aspx
> )
>
> After a r
> Hope to get some advice on how to fix this.
I'd be tempted to try using Potlatch. I've just tried in "Practice"
mode. There seem to be a strange combination of ways on that stretch
(4596756, 4596752 and 25612631 - where 25612631 seems to be longer
than the other two put together, but not as far
(Forwarding to list)
Am Friday 23 January 2009 17:28:17 schrieben Sie:
> As I understood the text of the wiki when I first started, layer 0 is
> the general level of the terrain, so levels 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 are above
> the ground on successively higher bridges, and -1, -2, -3, -4, and -5
> in successi
2009/1/23 Pieren :
> Looking backward into archives, it seems that only one or two persons
> are blocking the change...
> I know one friend who stopped contributing to the project when he saw
> his work anonymously downgraded and how easy it was. Probably he is
> not the only one in this case.
>
>
Gerda og Carsten writes:
> I am unable to remove way http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/4596756
>
> from the relation http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/21359
>
> I am thus also unable to delete way 4596756 which is overlapping
> another way also beeing part of the relation.
>
> I
Marc Schütz writes:
> (Forwarding to list)
>
> Am Friday 23 January 2009 17:28:17 schrieben Sie:
>> As I understood the text of the wiki when I first started, layer 0 is
>> the general level of the terrain, so levels 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 are above
>> the ground on successively higher bridges, and -1, -2
Marc Schütz escribió:
>>> if the way is "layer=0" and the bridge is "layer=1" there is a ramp.
>>>
>> A bridge crossing any other way should be always tagged with layer=1 (or
>> higher). In fact, the renderers could easily take "layer=1" as a default
>> for bridges, as they are usually on
Map Features as well as the info boxes on the individual pages list many
"building" amenities (cafe, cinema...) and other usually area-like
amenities (grave_yard) as node features, while others (brothel,
crematorium...) allow for node or area representation. In some cases,
areas are listed as possi
>
> > It might be helpful to know what the error is. The console output of
> > JOSM might be interesting, too.
> >
> >
>
I have placed Console end error out put here:
http://www.toensberg.homeip.net/osm/RelationProblem/JOSMout.txt
And a bitmap of the dialog I see can be found here:
http://ww
sergio sevillano writes:
> i did not meant to tag ramps with layers
> just that normal layer usage, gives a hint if there is a ramp
> i dont see important to tag ramps but if someone wants to do so
> is better to tag the ramp alone "bridge_ramp" instead of the 80n proposal
> of tagging all parts
Tobias Knerr writes:
> Map Features as well as the info boxes on the individual pages list many
> "building" amenities (cafe, cinema...) and other usually area-like
> amenities (grave_yard) as node features, while others (brothel,
> crematorium...) allow for node or area representation. In some c
> I am unable to remove way http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/4596756
>
> from the relation http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/21359
>
> I am thus also unable to delete way 4596756 which is overlapping
> another way also beeing part of the relation.
>
> I am using JOSM and get en er
"Richard Bullock" writes:
> In JOSM it gave a 412 Precondition Failed response - and didn't delete the
> way from the relation. So I opened Potlatch and it deleted it without any
> problem.
>
> I've deleted the duplicate ways - I hope that was what you wanted to do.
> Presumably if there are d
Tobias Knerr schrieb:
> Map Features as well as the info boxes on the individual pages list many
> "building" amenities (cafe, cinema...) and other usually area-like
> amenities (grave_yard) as node features, while others (brothel,
> crematorium...) allow for node or area representation. In some ca
Richard Bullock skrev:
> I've deleted the duplicate ways - I hope that was what you wanted to do.
>
Thanks, that was exactly what I wanted to do.
> Presumably if there are duplicate ways everywhere (and I found 11 duplicates
> on top of each other in the UK where the route relation E20 had
37 matches
Mail list logo
