If you're OK with using non-rendering tags you should use the
established boundary=protected_area instead of something US specific (
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area#Protect_classes_for_various_countries
). If you want it to render the convention I've been using
The new river rendering at z7 to z10 is a little extreme.
e.g.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.27lon=-123.61zoom=7layers=M
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.269lon=-123.611zoom=9layers=M
Are the lines supposed to be this thick?
___
talk mailing
On Feb 20, 2011, at 12:32 AM, David Murn wrote:
On Sat, 2011-02-19 at 19:40 -0800, Daniel Sabo wrote:
Maybe you don't like it, but you are not the entire OSM community. Yes,
in this case someone overwritten what I presume was good surveyed data
with an import was stupid. But in general
On Feb 20, 2011, at 1:03 AM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 10:40 PM, Daniel Sabo daniels...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 19, 2011, at 4:03 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
From what I can tell (talk-ca postings etc.) 'sammuell' is a fairly
inexperienced OSMer who presumably thinks
On Feb 20, 2011, at 3:16 PM, Felix Hartmann wrote:
Couldn't agree more to it. Imports kill community and scare novices away.
...
Most important things for OSM are good aerial photos coupled with large
community. Worst are imports. The United States are so bad, I don't think OSM
will ever
On Feb 20, 2011, at 3:58 PM, David Murn wrote:
On Sun, 2011-02-20 at 15:35 -0800, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
I find tracing endless residential subdivisions from aerials to be a chore
and no fun.
I know many who disagree, fortunately. Last year I was laid up in bed
for around 3 months
On Feb 20, 2011, at 4:03 PM, Felix Hartmann wrote:
On 21.02.2011 00:47, Daniel Sabo wrote:
On Feb 20, 2011, at 3:16 PM, Felix Hartmann wrote:
Couldn't agree more to it. Imports kill community and scare novices away.
...
Most important things for OSM are good aerial photos coupled
On Feb 19, 2011, at 4:27 PM, Nic Roets wrote:
On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 2:03 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net
wrote:
This is getting crazy.
Exhibit 1:
http://twitter.com/#!/maproomblog/status/39053538692698112
Whoever imported CanVec in Aylmer, Quebec obliterated hours of work
On Feb 19, 2011, at 4:03 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
From what I can tell (talk-ca postings etc.) 'sammuell' is a fairly
inexperienced OSMer who presumably thinks this is how things are done. It
isn't. How do we stop this impression taking hold? How do we explain that
imports are _not_
To map the boundary as a relation you should have:
Member way:
no boundary tags (that includes the boundary name)
Uh, no. Please, do add boundary=administrative + admin_level=n. Where n is
the highest order admin level that applies, so if two relations with
admin_level=6 and 8
This is probably a holdover from old style multipolygons that were defined by
the tags on the outer ways and had no tags on the relations. But putting tags
on both the way and the relation would be wrong anyways, because the renderer
can't know that boundary on the way is the same boundary on
Agreed.
What I mean is that if there are tags that apply to the multipolygon itself
they should be only on the multipolygon. In your example the monument would be
an inner way of the multipolygon and shouldn't have any tags related to the
public square, but it would also be a monument, and the
It's not really a bug, if you have the following setup:
Member way:
boundary = administrative
Relation:
boundary = administrative
admin_level = 6
What you're telling mapnik is that there are two boundaries, one is admin_level
6, the other is admin_level undefined. The admin 6 one will render
, Daniel Sabo daniels...@gmail.com wrote:
It's not really a bug, if you have the following setup:
Member way:
boundary = administrative
Relation:
boundary = administrative
admin_level = 6
What you're telling mapnik is that there are two boundaries, one is
admin_level 6, the other
On Feb 5, 2011, at 7:14 AM, Craig Hinners wrote:
Sure, relations get you an additional degree of normalization. And using
relations to carry route/network tags gets the job done, granted. But at what
cost?
I've yet to hear a convincing argument that justifies the additional
complexity
Using semicolons brings us back to impossible to query without string
manipulation.
I agree with you that multiple values per key would have been a better design
for many things, it still wouldn't solve the fact that there may be a set of
keys (e.g. names) associated with each ref rather than
What are you going to do when the route is part of more than one state highway
or bike route? You can't do a db query for ref:highway:ca:0, ref:highway:ca:1,
ref:highway:ca:n without doing expensive string comparisons, and you can't
explode a delimited list of refs without breaking the one key
This is a really bad idea. Drawing collinear features by sharing nodes is NEVER
a good idea beyond 1 or 2 shared corners, that's what multipolygons are for.
When the ways get attached to large objects (like an administrative boundary or
national park) it becomes impossible to edit them from an
On Jan 30, 2011, at 5:27 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Daniel Sabo daniels...@gmail.com wrote:
This is a really bad idea. Drawing collinear features by sharing nodes is
NEVER a good idea beyond 1 or 2 shared corners, that's what multipolygons
are for.
Does
On Jan 30, 2011, at 6:44 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Daniel Sabo daniels...@gmail.com wrote:
Right now Potlatch doesn't even render landuse multipolygons though, so
there's not much incentive for people to click a button like that :).
I do appreciate that my
Maps4Mac ( http://code.google.com/p/maps4mac ) is an on demand offline map
browser for MacOS 10.6. It allows you browse and search maps, load gpx file
overlays, track your position, and generate gps logs.
It uses Mapnik as the rendering engine, and in addition to osm data you can use
it to
I thought these got reverted? I just noticed a bunch of (bad) nodes from
changeset 3352521 still exist. I'm going to delete all the nodes from this
changset and the other 12 epa hazard site changsets if they are still at
version 1 unless there's a strong objection. These nodes were all imported
If you just want everything where they were the last user to modify it you can
use XAPI, just download:
http://xapi.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/*[@user=reimer]
http://xapi.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/*[@user=Acrosscanadatrail]
More info: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Xapi
On Jan 15, 2011, at
The problem I see with using protected_area right now (since it's not an
accepted/rendered tag), is that an object can't have two values for they key
boundary. National forest objects can be huge mulitpolygons (e.g.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1273907 ), having a
Thanks for your input to help sort this out.
So after more reading, I guess protected_area will work for these. When I first
looked at it protectedplanet.net was confusing me because it doesn't show
national forests, but at least according to wikipedia National Forests qualify
as Category VI.
boundary=national_park gets stretched around quite a bit mapping the US, it's
being used for:
National Parks
National Forests
National Monuments
National Preserves
National Recreation Areas
State Parks
State Forests (not sure if any of these have actually been imported).
I've seen admin_level
but the polygon is still a much better approximation that you would get with
just a node. While a node be able to tell you unincorporated the stuff
north of Arcata is McKinleyville it wouldn't convey that west of 101 and
south of the river is not McKinleyville.
Problem is if Arcata expends
I would oppose deleting them. They do have real world significance because they
represent community boundaries in unincorporated areas, and the name that you
would use to search for an address these communities. McKinleyville, CA
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McKinleyville,_California) is as
cases where the
tags are out of sync between point and polygon.
On Nov 11, 2010, at 9:21 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:23 PM, Daniel Sabo daniels...@gmail.com wrote:
I would oppose deleting them. They do have real world significance because
they represent community
29 matches
Mail list logo
