Who, what, where, and how are all open
questions. Why is simple … OpenStreetMap has demonstrated incredible
value in Haiti and we need to make sure we are prepared for the long
run there, and for future disasters. A couple weeks ago, Nicolas and I
started digesting the Haiti response, and years of
On Tue, 9 Feb 2010, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
> see the difference is I have done such edits and many others have done it.
> We know what we are talking about. do it and you will never write
> something ignorant and stupid as this.
>
flamewar commences
and this comment is extremely unhelpful
s
On 9 February 2010 14:14, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
> see the difference is I have done such edits and many others have done it. We
> know what we are talking about.
Then why didn't you report a bug so less information is attempted to
be returned? You still have the problem, breaking it up into
On 9 February 2010 14:14, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
> see the difference is I have done such edits and many others have done it. We
> know what we are talking about.
> do it and you will never write something ignorant and stupid as this.
As I said, the problem seems to be too many changes, not
On 8 Feb 2010, at 20:03 , John Smith wrote:
> On 9 February 2010 14:00, John Smith wrote:
>>> Yes, all you are doing is coming up with work arounds to current
>>> issues, the issues should be fixed properly.
>>
>> Apart from the obvious you aren't uploading/download every single
>> object refer
On 9 February 2010 14:00, John Smith wrote:
>> Yes, all you are doing is coming up with work arounds to current
>> issues, the issues should be fixed properly.
>
> Apart from the obvious you aren't uploading/download every single
> object referenced by the relation every time you edit it, and the
> Yes, all you are doing is coming up with work arounds to current
> issues, the issues should be fixed properly.
Apart from the obvious you aren't uploading/download every single
object referenced by the relation every time you edit it, and the
references to objects in the relation should still b
On 9 February 2010 13:47, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
> 1) theory: tags on the super relation will always supersede tags lower in
> hierarchy. conflicting tags don't matter.
Actually this is disjointed, ways should override relations and
relations should override super relations.
> 2) practical
On 8 Feb 2010, at 18:28 , John Smith wrote:
> On 9 February 2010 12:20, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
>> what is wrong with 2 relations?
>> I didn't say 2 are needed but why do you think 2 is bad?
>
> It creates redundant data, and makes it easier to get conflicting data
> if both aren't updated c
On 9 February 2010 12:20, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
> what is wrong with 2 relations?
> I didn't say 2 are needed but why do you think 2 is bad?
It creates redundant data, and makes it easier to get conflicting data
if both aren't updated consistently.
It also gives people the opportunity to me
what is wrong with 2 relations?
I didn't say 2 are needed but why do you think 2 is bad?
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 5:38 PM, John Smith wrote:
> On 9 February 2010 11:21, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
> > besides editing convenience a relation is directed and sorted since API
> 0.6
> > You can see it a
On 9 February 2010 11:21, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
> besides editing convenience a relation is directed and sorted since API 0.6
> You can see it as a route to follow from start to end. For bus routes this
> is a must. 2 relations may use the same road in different directions. on a
> highway ref
On 9 February 2010 11:14, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
> One can always create a super relation to collect both directions into one
> relation.
Why do you need a super relation just to apply roles?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://list
On 02/08/2010 08:14 PM, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
> same for me, Josm has good support for sorting and relations and
> checking for gaps. also the relation analyzer will flag them without
> errors then. this helped me so much when I tried to fix routing problems
> and a road is disconnected becau
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 8:21 PM, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 5:07 PM, John Smith wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Why does there need to be 2 relations for this?
>>
>> besides editing convenience a relation is directed and sorted since API
> 0.6 You can see it as a route to follow from
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 5:07 PM, John Smith wrote:
>
>
> Why does there need to be 2 relations for this?
>
> besides editing convenience a relation is directed and sorted since API 0.6
You can see it as a route to follow from start to end. For bus routes this
is a must. 2 relations may use the same
>
> I'm happy to use either method, but one of the reasons why I prefer the
> 1-relation-per-direction method is that it lets me quickly find areas that
> need to be split into dual carriageways.
>
same for me, Josm has good support for sorting and relations and checking
for gaps. also the relatio
On 9 February 2010 11:01, Chris Hunter wrote:
> Moving back to one of my original questions, I think Nakor was the only one
> to respond to the 2 relations per state (1 relation each way) vs 1 relation
> with rolls per state question.
Why does there need to be 2 relations for this?
_
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
>
> there is a major disconnect between what people think is "right" and what
> the wiki calls for. from
>
>
Agreed. One of the reasons I started this discussion was to make sure that
what the wiki calls for is still "right". As far as renderi
Hi,
I just found this very interesting site, with guys working on an open
source streetview photographing system:
http://www.diy-streetview.org/
Yes, I know of Openstreetview etc., but it's hard to find people
building the camera rigs.
Cheers,
Erik
___
JERUSALEM (AFP)--Israel has banned a Palestinian cartographer
specialized in Jewish settlement growth from traveling abroad for six
months for security reasons, the Shin Bet internal intelligence service
said Monday.
The ban applies to Khalil al-Tafakgi, a cartographer at the Arab Studies
Socie
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010, SteveC wrote:
> > I realize most people have fallen asleep on this thread, but did anyone
> > get a detailed report on why OSM was rejected?
>
> It's like Encyclopedia Britannica looking to move to Wikipedia in 2004 or
> something, printing out a lot of books and getting expe
22 matches
Mail list logo
