Crud, I guess Tulsa's out...
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Rob Nickerson
wrote:
> Hi list members,
>
> State of the Map conferences are a great way to bring the community
> together, reach out to new members and promote innovation. I am delighted
> to see that the OpenStreetMap Foundation ha
Please, no. noexit=yes is wrong as there is an exit at least for foot.
Adding a short connecting path in between is the right solution.
The QA software should not report the case if there is a connection and
even if it is reported you would not change the situation if unsure but
rather get in touc
Because its the purpose of this particular software.
On 16 octobre 2014 17:10:03 UTC+02:00, Maarten Deen wrote:
>On 2014-10-16 15:43, SomeoneElse wrote:
>> On 16/10/2014 14:28, Maarten Deen wrote:
>>> On 2014-10-16 15:15, Dave F. wrote:
>>>
I had a footpath between them.
>>>
>>> So the pr
On 2014-10-16 15:43, SomeoneElse wrote:
On 16/10/2014 14:28, Maarten Deen wrote:
On 2014-10-16 15:15, Dave F. wrote:
I had a footpath between them.
So the problem is also that the check is wrong. Apperantly it looks at
major roads that are apart, but doesn't see that they are connected by
On 16/10/2014 14:43, SomeoneElse wrote:
On 16/10/2014 14:28, Maarten Deen wrote:
On 2014-10-16 15:15, Dave F. wrote:
I had a footpath between them.
So the problem is also that the check is wrong. Apperantly it looks
at major roads that are apart, but doesn't see that they are
connected by
2014-10-16 15:43 GMT+02:00 SomeoneElse :
> and the way to fix that is to bring all mappers (paid or otherwise) into
> the community, so that they can learn from the mistakes that we've _all_
> made in the past*
I think the fact that the mapper was paid to edit does make a difference.
People/Co
On 16/10/2014 14:28, Maarten Deen wrote:
On 2014-10-16 15:15, Dave F. wrote:
I had a footpath between them.
So the problem is also that the check is wrong. Apperantly it looks at
major roads that are apart, but doesn't see that they are connected by
another road.
IMHO these cases should n
On 2014-10-16 15:15, Dave F. wrote:
I had a footpath between them.
So the problem is also that the check is wrong. Apperantly it looks at
major roads that are apart, but doesn't see that they are connected by
another road.
IMHO these cases should not be shown at all.
Regards,
Maarten
___
Hi Marc
I had a footpath between them.
IMO users should be responsible for their own actions. Users should map
what they believe to be useful or important & objects with little
benefit just to prevent others adding errors. Especially when those
errors aren't "mistakes", but guesses made with
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Yes, in a case like the sidewalk separating them as a barrier though,
you can simply add a noexit=yes on the road end. All major error
checkers override the warning when this is present.
I think this is the obvious solution and am surprised this thre
2014-10-16 8:28 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis :
> IMHO the best way to avoid problems in that spot is to do what other
> suggested: add the footpath between the 2 street (thereby fixing the
> navigation for pedestrians) and/or adding the small piece of landuse=grass
> + the tree.
+0.95 (because "grass"
11 matches
Mail list logo
