more as you would actually
> > drive. As such I don't see it as wrong.
> >
> > I would not add a turn restriction. For routers it is useless because
> > you never get that route anyway.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Maarten
> >
&g
> I'd map that place like that:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:ID_Screen_Shot_from_-32.0914374,_116.0129206.png
I agree. And a supplementary question... would you also add a
no-left-turn restriction from https://osm.org/way/581948344 at
https://osm.org/node/5680879176? I would, and have
> It is a CanVec import from 4 years ago
Is there subtext to this? I saw the weird natural=wood CanVec features
yesterday (polys cut up into quadtrees) and wondered about its validity. Is
the CanVec import notable for being problematic?
On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at 19:16, sandor wrote:
> Mateusz, thi
Your assumptions are spot-on. Thanks for the advice.
On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 at 20:12, Mateusz Konieczny
wrote:
> 29. Oct 2018 04:08 by jem.maw...@gmail.com:
>
>
> Re: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/634085262 and several more like it
> in the area.
>
> It seems that new, short ways have been intr
Re: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/634085262 and several more like it in
the area.
It seems that new, short ways have been introduced to replicate the purpose
of the existing barrier nodes. i.e. to prevent routing for vehicular
traffic. I believe it is incorrect and just adds complexity.
I pla
Putting aside the string of 0-day exploits on applet plugins (which
absolutely nobody uses) that we saw a few years ago, I'm finding it
difficult to get info that backs up the claim that Java is much less secure
than .NET. What I have found indicates they are on par. e.g.
https://www.veracode.com/
> One method might be to plot a path from each building to the health
centre by walking, car and bicycle then see how many can reach it within x
minutes. That is a lot of routing calculation to do but it can be done
overnight or even over a couple of days.
Consider using a reverse walk from the d
etmap.org/relation/2571440#map=19/51.15275/-2.05045
> The Islet, in this case, isn't included in the relation.
> There are no defined 'outers'
> There should be a complimentary tag to natural=water, such as
> water=stream/river etc.
>
> Cheers
> DaveF
>
>
>
Is there any problem with defining a water feature that is a mix of
polygons & lines? e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6447531
Should it be fixed, or is it ok?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listin
9 matches
Mail list logo
