On 28/09/2020 12.27, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 11:07 AM Matthew Woehlke wrote:
On 28/09/2020 11.42, Jack Burke wrote:
I'm willing to bet that most OSM editors who drive on either of those two
will think "this is a great freeway, just with occasional traffic
signals.&quo
On 28/09/2020 11.42, Jack Burke wrote:
I'm willing to bet that most OSM editors who drive on either of those two
will think "this is a great freeway, just with occasional traffic signals."
That's an oxymoron. Freeways are, by definition, limited access (no
crossing intersections, period) and
On 22/09/2020 17.43, GITNE wrote:
As far as I can tell no document covers changeset comments either
explicitly nor implicitly. The Contributor Terms state that
“…contributing data and/or any other content (collectively,
“Contents”) to the geo-database of the OpenStreetMap project (the
On 23/09/2020 00.52, Paul Johnson wrote:
In terms of Seattle, I don't think Ballard or Magnolia are a suburb.
They're more of a neighborhood, both subordinate to Seattle.
I admit this threw me at first also, but read
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Dsuburb. To wit: "OSM's
On 31/08/2020 15.56, Kevin Broderick wrote:
First, I'd like to point out that this discussion started off with the
question of removing "access=private" from Amazon-logistics-mapped
driveways. I still maintain that the mechanical edit would be a good thing,
because the tagging as added is based
On 31/08/2020 11.19, Greg Troxel wrote:
What I objected to was not "that is your opinion; many others disagree"
but "that is your opinion but *no one else* sees it that way". If you
didn't really mean that, sorry for overreacting.
Fair enough. I probably should have said something like "my
On 31/08/2020 10.54, Greg Troxel wrote:
Matthew Woehlke writes:
*You* may see it this way. The rest of the community does not.
A declaration that every other member of the community disagrees is
unreasonable.
I'm not sure if this is directed at me or at Mike. If at me, I'll point
out
On 31/08/2020 10.18, Mike Thompson wrote:
On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 7:46 AM Matthew Woehlke wrote:
The objection is that access=private currently *has* an understood
meaning, and that meaning is *no* access without permission, not what
you described above.
Sounds like my driveway. If you
On 30/08/2020 10.00, Greg Troxel wrote:
"Alex Weech" writes:
Another thing I just thought of over breakfast, in New Hampshire by
default private land has public access, and landowners have to post
that trespassing is not allowed. It could be that that's a quirk of
this part of the world, and
On 04/08/2020 11.08, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
On 4. Aug 2020, at 16:26, Matthew Woehlke wrote
Obviously, this would all almost surely be a temporary mode (maybe
it persists as long as JOSM is open, but isn't uploaded), but since
you usually draw once, that would be fine. (Bonus points if JOSM
On 04/08/2020 08.10, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
On 4. Aug 2020, at 13:58, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
but I would practically *kill* for JOSM to have FreeCAD's suite of sketch
constraints ;-).
you’re aware that there are sketch constraints for configurable
angles (90, 60, 45 etc) and projection
.
I want your JVM :-). I have yet to encounter a Java program (including
JOSM) that isn't sluggish. (JOSM could be worse, but it's nowhere near
what I'd expect from a well-written *native* application.)
Matthew Woehlke skrev: (3 augusti 2020 16:14:13 CEST)
(¹ iD can 'square up' individual
On 02/08/2020 06.05, Simon Poole wrote:
Extending this a bit further, you could just as well say, given that all
current and actively maintained general purpose editors require 1-2
FTEs, the OSMF should simply block all non-iD editors and tell the
developers to either work on iD or go home.
OSM surely incorporates data in Virginia which was not prepared by
suitably licensed entities (per
https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title54.1/chapter4/section54.1-402/).
According to Virginia law, OSM must therefore display the following notice:
Any determination of topography or
On 19/07/2020 18.47, tj-osmw...@lowsnr.net wrote:
Editing in Boundary County, Idaho in the Panhandle, I've been extending
the forest landuse area around Bonners Ferry and have come across a
difficulty in classifying forest roads.
It seems that many have been automatically imported and have
On 16/07/2020 21.06, Steve Friedl wrote:
On 16/07/2020 20.58, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us wrote:
Are wi-fi passwords and the IP number of a hot spot, located in MC Donald,
burger-king, Starbucks,
Answering a different question than what you asked: they don’t belong in OSM,
so any other
On 16/07/2020 00.44, Skyler Hawthorne wrote:
Reading up on the import guidelines, I can see that the license is
important. However, I am not able to see anything that explicitly states
one way or another what kind of license the data sets are distributed
under, and this whether or not it is
On 15/07/2020 21.16, Erwin Olario wrote:
Recently, some edits in the country came to the attention of the community
When you say "the country", what country are we talking about?
I guess from context you mean "the Philippines", but you really ought to
specify.
(I've been editing a bunch
On 13/07/2020 17.46, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us wrote:
Jul 13, 2020, 20:29 by mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com:
It is still required to use a separate account for manually audited changes?
Is it going to be "by comparing dataset X and OSM I found places to map roads
that I added
using aerial
On 14/07/2020 09.44, Alex Hennings wrote:
Regarding:
a driveway to a house should not be tagged access=yes
because a no trespassing sign cannot be seen. That is a complete
violation of verfiability, becuase the mapper has zero evidence that
access should be yes.
*Given our defaults, no access
On 13/07/2020 15.16, Kevin Kenny wrote:
I'll confess to having perpetrated a fair number - at a time when I
didn't know better.
Likewise. That said...
A few things, though:
The immediate curtilage of a house is presumed to be private; at least
in the US, one does not drive or walk directly
On 13/07/2020 14.22, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
If you are staying from manually reviewing
and editing based on this new data,
aerials and current data it should be
perfectly fine as long as you actually review
what you add.
For now, yes. For buildings (later, and I'll probably ping y'all
On 13/07/2020 13.44, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us wrote:
Are you sure that it is in public domain?
It is according to the government POC.
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports-us/2020-July/000954.html
--
Matthew
___
Talk-us mailing
(Repost to talk-us also.)
On 13/07/2020 10.44, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
I am working on a project that wishes to tentatively use OSM data from
Quantico and possibly surrounding areas. Unfortunately, OSM is somewhat
lacking in this area, especially within Quantico itself.
I would like to import
24 matches
Mail list logo
