> For me, the new style is a pointless exercise since I NEED to retain a
> UK view of the data, and I am sure other countries would also prefer to
> retain their own road colour preferences so trying to provide an
> international style has a limited 'market'? If anything it simply drives
> us to pr
Is there a way to see the proposed colour changes for someone who isn't colour
blind and can't take the test?
Ben
On Sunday 07 October 2012 15:54:02 johannes.kroe...@hcu-hamburg.de wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I am a geomatics student currently working on my bachelor thesis (in
> Germany, not sure
On Friday 27 July 2012 04:56:43 Tirkon wrote:
> >Rue de
> >
> > Quelque Chose
> > Iets
> > straat
> >
> >With names it can be compacted as
> >
> >Avenue
> > John Doe
> > laan
>
> For me as a non native dutch/french this looks obfuscating.
>
> Is this the way you find it
On Thursday 26 July 2012 11:48:39 Jo wrote:
> Anyway, as far as OSM goes, it's the first mapper who maps something who
> decides on which order is being used.
Slightly more difficult: It's true that the first mapper decides for the
region of Brussels-capital, which is bilingual. But in the "munic
On Monday 12 March 2012 20:06:13 Alex Barth wrote:
> - Is there an official database rebuild schedule and where can I find it?
> - Until when exactly will the pre-license change OSM database be available?
While we're on the subject: is the algorithm that determines which objects
will be deleted o
Richard Weait wrote:
> After careful consideration, effective immediately Mikel Maron, Andy
> Robinson and Mike Collinson have access to the moderation system
> across the main OSM mailing lists. They will use their best judgment
> according to the href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Etiquett
Dermot McNally wrote:
> On 10 June 2011 22:16, TimSC wrote:
> > I think you are confusing "support the relicense" with "accept the
> > relicense" and that difference is significant.
>
> Not at all - I know of no form of democracy that distinguishes between
> grudging acceptance or evangelical zea
ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:
> To all active members of OSM !
>
> I found that only 250 or so OSM contributors out of 250.000
> are actually members of OSMF.
>
> That is about 0.1 %.
> Nevertheless it's that 0.1 % that actually decides what will
> happen with OSM in the clo
Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> Thomas Davie wrote:
> > Because it will show the genuine trend – at the moment, a quick glance at
> > the graph would suggest that the "no" vote is expanding at the same rate,
> > and at the same level as the "yes" vote. I agree that we can't clearly
> > show that they're
Toby Murray wrote:
> In my area it looks like a couple of small rural grass strips was
> added. The hospital helipad was initially duplicated but then
> re-deleted in a subsequent changeset by the same user. So it looks
> like there was at least SOME attempt at de-duplicating things, even if
> it w
Ed Avis wrote:
> Patrick Kilian petschge.de> writes:
> >http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bruxelles-Brussel.jpg
> >
> >See two names on the ground.
>
> To me that would suggest putting the French name into 'name'
I suggest you don't, or you'd end up in an edit war otherwise. Linguistic
iss
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 11:41 PM, Kai Krueger wrote:
> with all the talk about imports recently, I am wondering which countries
> have actually _not_ seen any imports so far? I.e. which communities have
> chosen to build all their data from "traditional" surveying and ignored any
> other available
Maarten Deen wrote:
> As highway=path means no motorized traffic, it might be a footpath or
> cyclepath or bridleway (or others). That's the "more specific" part.
highway=path doesn't mean no motorized traffic, if means no "wide" vehicles.
So no cars, but mopeds are still allowed.
Greetings
Ben
Felix Hartmann wrote:
> On 03.05.2010 21:47, Ben Laenen wrote:
> > Here's the thing: we just do not map unofficial routes. Only the ones
> > that are signposted. There are enough sites where you can submit your
> > route suggestions, and there's no reason why this sh
Felix Hartmann wrote:
> If in OSM we really want to get in more mountainbikers, we have to start
> with unofficial routes. I will think about it for the night, and put up
> a wiki page tomorrow, put some notices on this on the big forums
> (hopefully they will get ~5000 pageviews, put them in my fe
Andrew Gregory wrote:
> I'd been thinking for a long time that the OSM wiki needed a table with
> some common street name abbreviations (if it exists, I can't find it).
> When I started surveying I kept on finding weird abbreviations that took
> some searching to figure out (all the other online ma
Chris Hunter wrote:
> According to the WIKI and some discussions back in April (
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2009-April/000976.html)
> and again in September (
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2009-September/001597.html
> ), the US Interstate system was goi
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Dave F. wrote:
> > I don't why he feels the need to do this, it seems a pointless task, but
> > why do you think it reduces accuracy to remove trailing zeros?
> >
> > 2m =2.0m
>
> It reduces *indication of accuracy*.
>
> There's a differenc
Quick question for which I didn't find an answer in the wiki:
* is there a maximum length of tags (keys and/or values)? (I'm sure there was
one, but I don't know if there's still a limit today)
* if there is, what is it (and is in it number of bytes, or number of
characters)?
Greetings
Ben
___
Tobias Knerr wrote:
> Ben Laenen wrote:
> > So that's completely incorrect, bicycle:oneway=no already appeared on
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Access_restrict
> >ions a long time before the extended conditions for access tags proposal
Tobias Knerr wrote:
> Imo, this shouldn't be considered in isolation. There's a whole lot of
> situations where the value for a key, such as oneway, maxspeed,
> maxweight, access, is different depending on vehicle or other conditions
> - a common example is maxspeed:hgv (note that nobody is using
>
Richard Mann wrote:
> If there's a lane in the "wrong" direction, that'll be marked (as being on
> both sides). If there's a separate track adjacent to the road, that'll be
> marked. But cycle tracks don't get marked if they are attached to the road
> (so cycleway=track and cycleway=opposite don't
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Richard Fairhurst
>
> wrote:
> > highway=footway -> a path intended for pedestrian use
> > highway=cycleway -> a path intended for pedestrian and cycle use
> > highway=bridleway -> a path intended for pedestrian and horse use[1]
>
> Boy, I
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2009/10/12 Ben Laenen :
> >> I made a proposal:
> >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:planned
> >
> > So what's the difference with highway=proposed + proposed=...?
> >
> > I can't seem to find the wiki pa
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2009/10/10 OJ W :
> > multiple plans would overlap each other and look weird?
>
> look weird where? I guess these would not be rendered in standard maps
> (or just in advanced planning phases and for main plans like
> motorways, airports, etc.).
>
> I made a proposal:
Andy Allan wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 11:11 PM, Roy Wallace wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 12:42 AM, Valent Turkovic
> >
> > wrote:
> >> How do you differentiate from path and footpath tag? What is the
> >> difference between them? Can you show me an example?
> >
> > As the wiki says, b
Emilie Laffray wrote:
> 2009/9/11 Valent Turkovic
>
> > Hi there,
> > I'm wondering how to map different quarters of some city, town and
> > villages.
> >
> > Currently on wiki I only found place=suburb tag and I see that it is used
> > also for mapping city's quarters.
> >
> > Only issue is that
Shaun McDonald wrote:
> On 10 Sep 2009, at 11:21, Roy Wallace wrote:
> > I'd use highway=path; bicycle=designated; foot=designated
> > (foot=designated if you feel that the concrete on the left of the
> > divider has been "specially designated" for pedestrians, otherwise I'd
> > use foot=yes)
>
> T
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2009/8/30 Christoph Eckert :
> >> If a car can use it, it's a track, not a path.
>
> +1
>
> > Anyway, I have removed motorcar from the list of options, as tagwatch
> > does not show significant use (10 times motorcar=no in Europe). If the
> > removal triggers some compl
Roland Olbricht wrote:
> > I suppose this brings up all the stuff about path tagging again, but, how
> > do people in general tag vague, ill-defined countryside paths?
> >
> > The sort of things I'm talking about are either very narrow and
> > occasionally hard to follow paths through woods, or, fi
Vincent MEURISSE wrote:
> On Thursday 20 August 2009 12:28:07 pm Ben Laenen wrote:
> > Ach, dat is inderdaad niet erg consequent gedocumenteerd, maar wat die
> > map features pagina ook zegt, voor alles van
> > shop/amenity/sport/nog_een_paar dat je op een node kan zetten,
filip wolters wrote:
> Neen, ik begrijp het niet meer.
> In onderstaande link zie je dat voor bv. een cinema alleen een node kan
> gebruikt worden. En een plaats om een auto te huren kunnen zowel met node
> als area gemaakt worden. Waar zit de logica en waar vind ik een plaats waar
> alles goed bes
Greg Troxel wrote:
> John Smith writes:
> > It's most likely going to have to be jurisdiction specific, not just
> > country specific in some instances. Going the other way and dealing
> > with footway for example, NSW & Vic doesn't allow cyclists on
> > footpaths, but ACT does.
>
> This is a majo
Ulf Lamping wrote:
> Liz schrieb:
> > On Wed, 12 Aug 2009, Nop wrote:
> >> You cannot force anything but you can discourage putting presets for
> >> disputed tags in editors (if it is frowned upon as some sort of indirect
> >> vandalism and rolled back) and you can make an organised effort to bring
How do you select the people in the working group? You might have dozens of
people interested to do some work, so who would choose the "lucky ones", and
how would it be done without dropping into some popularity contest? Or would
you allow competing working groups working on the same problem? W
Joseph Booker wrote:
> It is still a route through (several?) roads though. The 'network' key
> allows you to differentiate between E-roads, tourists routes, other
> country route numbers, etc.
With that argument you should also tag bus, cycle and walking routes with
route=road.
I don't want to
Simon Wood wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 12:14:45 +0200
>
> Ivo van den Maagdenberg wrote:
> > Just noticed a marked scenic route for cars. Any suggestions for the
> > route tag fort the relation that could mark this kind of routes?
> >
> > name=..., type=route, route=car
>
> I have been using:
>
Peter Childs wrote:
> 2009/7/10 Stanislav Brabec :
> > Hallo.
> >
> > Is there a way how to map a street with access=destination valid just
> > only for one direction? In the reverse direction it is a standard drive
> > through street.
> >
> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/30764132
>
> Th
Tyler wrote:
> Rendering of SVG is done in browser,
No it isn't (here), it's done on the server by MediaWiki: it takes an svg and
converts it to png (using rsvg or some other program on the server) when the
image appears on a page, and it sends the png to the browser. The image used
on http://w
Hi,
can someone look at the svg rendering on the wiki? There are currently two
problems with it:
* they aren't rendered with a transparent background anymore (this used to be
the case until some time ago)
* the image page for some reason sometimes thinks the rendered image is a bit
smaller tha
Xav wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On this page :
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dmotorway_link
> it is implicitly written that the "ref" of a "link" should be the reference
> of the road from which the link depends. For example, a "motorway_link"
> to/from the motorway "A 1" will be refer
MP wrote:
> So currently, if I want to know "how was the way drawn in time T", I
> had to get history of the way, then find out which nodes were used by
> the way in time T, then get history from each of the nodes and pick
> appropriate node from the history, given the time. Then combine this
> int
On Thursday 28 May 2009, you wrote:
> Ben Laenen wrote:
> > It's clearly a public road so you shouldn't use highway=service
> > here.
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway says about
> highway=service: "Generally for access to a building, moto
On Tuesday 26 May 2009, Paul Johnson wrote:
> Ben Laenen wrote:
> > It's clearly a public road so you shouldn't use highway=service
> > here.
>
> Alleyways are clearly public roads, and those are highway=service
> service=alley...
But I think there's a
No idea who I should contact for issues with the Relation Analyzer at
http://betaplace.emaitie.de/webapps.relation-analyzer/
so I hope the right person will read this
The analyzer is now chopping the route up between parts with the same
member roles. That means the checker has become useless no
On Tuesday 26 May 2009, Jacek Konieczny wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 09:56:42AM +0200, Ivan Garcia wrote:
> > Hi Peter, which your approach, I believe that the render by osm
> > will be the same than a normal residential street
>
> No, I guess, it will have a red dashed transparent line drawn o
On Friday 22 May 2009, you wrote:
> For years and years of my professional career I had to listen to the
> stuff people (my customers) spouted about gathering data yet then had
> absolutely no real idea of how it would be used. That was some magic
> computers worked. Processing the data (of whic
On Friday 22 May 2009, you wrote:
> See if you think that my stuff was about rendering, then you are
> missing the point. It's all about data processing. Even the bit about
> translucent colouring is not about rendering (that's easy -
> opacity=0.7) it's about *processing* (unwinding relations into
On Friday 22 May 2009, Andy Allan wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Ben Laenen
wrote:
> > A typical city here would look like all roads inside the built-up
> > area inside one relation, and when there are roads inside it with
> > another speed limit, tag tho
On Thursday 21 May 2009, you wrote:
> On 21 May 2009, at 18:17, Ben Laenen wrote:
> > On Thursday 21 May 2009, Mario Salvini wrote:
> >> Even every relevant road for _ONE_ city in one relation won't
> >> work, because the membercount of a relation is limited since
On Thursday 21 May 2009, Radomir Cernoch wrote:
> Ben Laenen píše v Čt 21. 05. 2009 v 17:54 +0200:
> > So while it seems to be a polygon vs tags on ways discussion:
> >
> > I wonder what people have against using relations to combine all
> > roads in one built-up are
On Thursday 21 May 2009, Mario Salvini wrote:
> Even every relevant road for _ONE_ city in one relation won't work,
> because the membercount of a relation is limited since API 0.6.
> This methode won't create any benefit.
Well, apparently it isn't limited, and luckily it isn't. It would be an
in
On Thursday 21 May 2009, Guenther Meyer wrote:
> > relations are one of only three basic structures in OSM (node - way
> > - relation), can we please assume that someone mapping with OSM can
> > grasp three concepts? He already should be able to deal with them
> > now anyway.
>
> they are, but at l
So while it seems to be a polygon vs tags on ways discussion:
I wonder what people have against using relations to combine all roads
in one built-up area, or one maxspeed zone, or some other kind of zone.
It's really the cleanest option and allows for additional tags like a
name, and it allows
On Thursday 14 May 2009, MP wrote:
> > Except it's not a geographic area, but rather a set of streets with
> > that restriction. If a bridge or tunnel without the restriction
> > goes over/under a street with the restriction you'll have a
> > problem.
>
> In that case, that bridge can have differen
On Wednesday 13 May 2009, Dave Stubbs wrote:
> Where "zone" is a known geographic area?
> A bounding way with tags like:
> zone = restriction
> maxspeed = 20kph
> parking = no
>
> seems like the best way to do it to me if you don't want to just
> replicate the tags on everything (and I can under
On Thursday 07 May 2009, Tal wrote:
> Imagine that you plan a business trip to Tel-Aviv and want to print
> yourself a map of the city. Or maybe you'll be spending a week in
> Cairo. Can you not see the benefit in having a map with the street
> names in a different language than the one on the sign
On Thursday 07 May 2009, Maarten Deen wrote:
> That still does not solve completely the problem in dual-language
> areas like Brussels, but there both local names are in the name tag
> (as both local names are on street signs).
Streets in Brussels are almost all tagged with both name:nl and name:f
On Tuesday 05 May 2009, Emilie Laffray wrote:
> > What might be interesting and worth a discussion: A tag to describe
> > the default language of this object, e.g. "language=en". This could
> > als be several tags, e.g.
> > name=België - Belgique - Belgien
> > name:nl=België
> > name:fr=Belgique
>
On Thursday 30 April 2009, Andy Allan wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Richard Mann
>
> wrote:
> > I'd support that highway=path needs to be rendered in the cycle map
> > layer, especially now it's becoming clearer how it's being used
>
> Every time it gets discussed, it becomes *less* cl
On Thursday 30 April 2009, you wrote:
> So you assume that well-designed, liberally licensed (!= GPL) Open
> Source libraries will exist for all major programming languages and
> platforms soon? Well, until then, I'll continue to assume that the
> goal of OSM data being used in creative and unexpec
On Wednesday 29 April 2009, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx schrieb:
> > I'm looking for a way to map restrictions for a zone. This
> > includes things like maxspeed, maxweight and parking restriction.
> >
> > I want to avoid having to place those tags on all the roads inside
> > the zone, speci
On Sunday 26 April 2009, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> Renaud MICHEL schrieb:
> > I didn't find an answer in the wiki, how should I tag roads that
> > are one way for motorized vehicles but two way for bicycle?
>
> The documented and established way to do so is
> oneway=yes + cycleway=opposite,
> see http:
On Tuesday 21 April 2009, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
> MP wrote:
> > How large is the current delay before uploaded data became visible?
> > I've uploaded some changes in JOSM, provided a comment ... and when
> > I re-downloaded the area again, my changes were not there.
>
> The servers are *very, ver
On Thursday 26 March 2009, Richard Mann wrote:
> I thought a quick tagwatch of "footway/path/bridleway/cycleway" might
> be pertinent.
>
> Europe: footway 556k - cycleway 166k - path 66k - bridleway 11k
> Germany: footway 268k - cycleway 57k - path 45k - bridleway 1k
> Netherlands: footway 19k - cy
It looks like the t...@h rendering is horribly broken since yesterday. When
tiles are updated only a tiny amount of features are still rendered,
and the rest is just a gray field. For example
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.3755&lon=4.3508&zoom=12&layers=0B00FTF
Is this in the process of
On Sunday 15 March 2009, Tal wrote:
> name:local_lang="fr - nl" is indeed an interesting idea, that I
> haven't thought of.
> However, I ask myself if it's flexible enough.
> It seems that for just a little more coding you get the much more
> flexible "{name:fr} - {name:nl}" (with special escape co
On Saturday 14 March 2009, Pierre-André Jacquod wrote:
> Hi,
> great stuff...
>
> > With my first go a couple of weeks back for 8 languages I did do
> > fallback to at least 'name' using views as suggested on the wiki,
> > setting this up for 40 languages however was somewhat less trivial
> > and I
Will it be recorded?
On Saturday 14 March 2009, Mike Collinson wrote:
> This is an informal discussion about the ODbL license and adoption
> process where anyone can dial in on a phone.
>
> It's at 3pm UK time (15:00 GMT/UTC) on Saturday and will be held in
> English. Call one of the numbers at
On Wednesday 11 March 2009, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> It has been pointed out that Steve, apart from being a CM manager, is
> also the founder of the project and thus has to juggle various roles.
> Please then accept that besides running Geofabrik, I, too, am an
> active member of the OSM community an
On Thursday 05 March 2009, SteveC wrote:
> On 4 Mar 2009, at 23:51, Nop wrote:
> >>> 2. Provide translations of this in the major languages. Most
> >>> people speak English to some degree, but some don't and something
> >>> of this importance and with so much legalese involved does need
> >>> to be
On Wednesday 04 March 2009, Ed Avis wrote:
> The only sound rule that can be sure to stand up in court is to
> delete all data from the contributors who didn't give explicit
> permission, and all data that depends on it. Period.
I agree that the only legal sound way to do it is by removing all
d
On Saturday 28 February 2009, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> > My hope basically when starting this thread was that these
> > fundamental issues would have been cleared up by now in
> > legal-talk or wherever since you now made the schedule available.
>
> Seriously - who is this "you"?!!!
With "you" I
On Friday 27 February 2009, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Ben Laenen wrote:
> > As long as there's no answer to it [...]
> > I wouldn't even accept [...]
> > I would refuse [...]
> > I want a very detailed answer [...]
> > that's really not my concer
On Friday 27 February 2009, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Ben Laenen wrote:
> > I care about whether the database will still
> > be "clean" after a possible change (meaning, properly licensed).
>
> The current license is anything but "properly licensed&
On Friday 27 February 2009, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Lambertus wrote:
> > If we change to the new license then do we have a tool available
> > that will remind me of the bits that are going to be rolled back
> > because of my contribution being dependent on someone who did not
> > agree to the licens
On Friday 27 February 2009, Dave Stubbs wrote:
> And even if you take the ultra cautious approach and say all edits
> are deserving of copyright protection, you can still draw a line
> around minor edits both temporal and spatial ie: a single edit can
> only possibly infect edits made after it, and
On Friday 27 February 2009, Grant Slater wrote:
> Read the full announcement in all its glory:
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-February/001
>958.html
>
> Discussion is best on legal-talk or the avenues as per announcement.
I keep disagreeing. This is important enough to
On Friday 27 February 2009, Peter Miller wrote:
> Would it be appropriate to continue this conversation on legal-talk?
> Talk is very busy at the moment and we have a lovely list of our own
> :)
I think this discussion is important enough to take place on the talk
mailing list. If it's held on th
On Friday 27 February 2009, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'll comment on various other aspects later but:
>
> Ben Laenen wrote:
> > And what with the countless relations? If there's one way added to
> > it by someone that didn't give approval, t
It looks like we finally got some kind of "License plan" for the step
towards the new license, so everyone check
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan
Let me start with the obvious questions first:
* why don't you split between the votes whether you like lic
On Monday 23 February 2009, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Yann Coupin wrote:
> > Because it makes the data in it unusable. Next thing you know,
> > someone in Germany will tag doctors office "hartz"
>
> Arzt, more likely. And why not? There are enough Germans struggling
> to understand the tags th
, the boundary
relation polygon name above.
Ben
On Wednesday 18 February 2009, Ben Laenen wrote:
> Did someone break the boundary rendering on the Mapnik layers?
>
> It looks like all boundary relations on a given way are now
> rendering, and that means that if two or more rela
Did someone break the boundary rendering on the Mapnik layers?
It looks like all boundary relations on a given way are now rendering,
and that means that if two or more relations for different admin_levels
are on one way, different kinds of borders are rendered on top of each
other.
I guess th
On Sunday 08 February 2009, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Ben Laenen wrote:
> > OK, as long as there's no limit on the number of relation members,
> > I'm happy :-)
>
> I'm pretty sure there will be, it is not implemented yet but I
> believe we said i
On Sunday 08 February 2009, Shaun McDonald wrote:
> It will be a 2000 node limit. It is now quickly documented at
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Protocol_Version_0.6#New_Limit
>s
OK, as long as there's no limit on the number of relation members, I'm
happy :-)
Ben
_
On Sunday 08 February 2009, Gary68 wrote:
> in europe there are 202 ways with more than 1950 nodes. complete
> lists can be found here:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/SomeChecks
>
> or the europe file directly:
> http://www.gary68.de/osm/qa/some/len_europe.htm
Does this suggest that there wi
On Saturday 31 January 2009, Lester Caine wrote:
> Marc Schütz wrote:
> > 4) Split the roundabout as needed, tag all parts as
> > junction=roundabout (don't use a roundabout relation), and add only
> > the needed parts into the route.
>
> 5) Properly define a relation so that it does not need to kn
On Tuesday 13 January 2009, Ed Loach wrote:
> > the parentheses around "Oman" should be reversed.
> > problem in the UTF8 shaper (or lack thereof) ?
> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=22.08&lon=59.1&zoom=6&layers=
> > B000FTF
>
> It looks like they were removed yesterday from the node which I'm
On Thursday 08 January 2009, Patrick Kilian wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > The last days the administrative boundaries have been disappearing
> > and re-appearing on the t...@h tiles on new renderings, and now it
> > seems like they're not re-appearing anymore. Can this be looked
> > into?
>
> This in an inten
The last days the administrative boundaries have been disappearing and
re-appearing on the t...@h tiles on new renderings, and now it seems like
they're not re-appearing anymore. Can this be looked into?
Greetings
Ben
___
talk mailing list
talk@opens
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
On Wednesday 17 December 2008, Elena of Valhalla wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 5:11 PM, Peter Miller
wrote:
> > I wound be very interested to see the first time that a transport
> > authority took a person to court for promoting their services but
> > there may be a first time!
>
> actually, I
Hi all,
can someone please fix this up:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/28575357
it's a deleted way which is still belonging to two relations
The theory on how it happened is this: We were fixing up a relation with
two people at the same time in Potlatch, and when moyogo deleted a way,
On Tuesday 09 December 2008, Christoph Eckert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > But meanwhile - mostly because it is so easy to do in JOSM - many
> > people simply tag the whole shebang (addr:country, addr:town,
> > addr:post_code, addr:street, addr:house_number) onto every house
> > node.
>
> though I attended t
On Tuesday 02 December 2008, Gustav Foseid wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 12:14 PM, David Earl
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> > I think we could do with a richer hierarchy something like this:
> > metropolis> 500,000
> > city > 100,000
> > large_town> 25,000? 40,000?
> > town
On Monday 24 November 2008, David Earl wrote:
> I'm also reconsidering adding "in" as well as "near" (and comma) as
> the separator. The problem is that there are a couple of place names
> in England which have "In" in their names - Henley-In-Arden for
> example. (A second problem is that since it
On Friday 07 November 2008, Nic Roets wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 2:21 PM, Ben Laenen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > On Thursday 06 November 2008, Rainer Dorsch wrote:
> > > I like this idea of having country specific presets in the
> > > editors instead
On Thursday 06 November 2008, Rainer Dorsch wrote:
> > JOSM "could" be extended to ask in the install : are you mapping in
> > Germany or in Italy ?
> >
> > If germany, a track could be recorded as :
> > highway=track
> > motorcar=no
> >
> > In Italy, a track could be recorded as :
> > highway=trac
On Tuesday 04 November 2008, Rainer Dorsch wrote:
> For track I am in favor of defaulting to motorcar=no, but let's wait
> what others think
I always assumed highway=track allows cars, and we have highway=path now
for where they're not allowed...
It may be better to let each country decide f
1 - 100 of 178 matches
Mail list logo
