On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Don't tag for the renderer.
Don't tag *incorrectly* for the renderer.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Antony Pegg anttheli...@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is that currently we dont have a discrete tag for place=township
and all admin_level= are =8
so, half a question, half a statement of intent, unless someone argues me
down from the ledge...
I'm going to
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
On 10/18/2010 04:16 PM, Anthony wrote:
I guess renderers are going to be wrong or now.
For now shouldn't last too long, though. Just remove the ref info
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
Ways and relations are equally easy to break
Nope. They're not, because relation membership is not a tag on the
way. A way is always uploaded with its tags, but for various reasons
(editor bugs, huge relations causing timeouts,
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 7:32 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
Ways and relations are equally easy to break
Nope. They're not, because
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Zeke Farwell ezeki...@gmail.com wrote:
On the other hand no renderer or other data user I've heard of is
being negatively affected by the presence of bicycle=avoid so perhaps it
doesn't matter.
I don't know if he's had any success, but Paul has attempted to get
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:50 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 7:43 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 7:32 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com
wrote
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 9:29 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
What if the law is implicit? Is there consensus whether or not to tag
implicit laws?
Yes, we tag implicit speed limits (along with a source:maxspeed or whatever).
But there is a dispute between Nathan and Paul as to whether or
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 10:04 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 9:29 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
What if the law is implicit? Is there consensus whether or not to tag
implicit laws?
Yes
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Peter Budny pet...@gatech.edu wrote:
Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com writes:
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Peter Budny pet...@gatech.edu wrote:
Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com writes:
It's certainly a bad idea to add the auto-created relations
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
I wonder if it's worth the trouble and effort to maintain US-HISTORIC
routes, since their use is primarily recreational and are frequently
inconsistent in their continued existence, and frequently their historic
posted
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 1:41 AM, Peter Budny pet...@gatech.edu wrote:
This seems relevant to this thread, although it's not in reply to any
particular part of it:
As part of a school project, I'm creating a robot that will use the
TIGER metadata to automatically attempt to create route
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Mike N. nice...@att.net wrote:
If we're serious about starting to use exit_to, let's float this on the
talk list and get the JOSM preset changed. Eventually, all the existing
entries must be converted. (Hopefully no map data consumer is using the
name=
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Peter Budny pet...@gatech.edu wrote:
Here's one instance where this doesn't work as well as I'd like:
http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyze.jsp?relationId=271830
Michigan 3 (which I picked randomly off a list) alternates between
single- and dual-carriageway.
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Peter Budny pet...@gatech.edu wrote:
I'm not sure whether you're saying it's a good idea or a bad idea.
I don't know either. It's certainly a bad idea to add the auto-created
relations to the database, but I don't think this is what you're
planning.
It seems
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
There is one person in the US community - Paul Johnson a.k.a. baloo - who is
rather creative with his tagging. It seems to us that Paul has, in the past,
used the mere existence of a cycle route to tag neighboring
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Dear talk-us list,
we - the Data Working Group - have an issue that we hope you can help us
resolve.
There is one person in the US community - Paul Johnson a.k.a. baloo - who is
rather creative with his tagging. It
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
On 10/15/2010 03:04 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Ian Dees
ian.dees-re5jqeeqqe8avxtiumw...@public.gmane.org wrote:
Surely we're missing plenty of people by only having a discussion
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 6:02 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
On 10/15/2010 05:08 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Ian Dees
ian.dees-re5jqeeqqe8avxtiumw...@public.gmane.org wrote:
I don't think we should be storing any prefix as part of the network
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 7:02 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
I wonder if both of the named parties would consider waiting 72 hours
for the community to review and consider the edits involved before
commenting further?
Perhaps; I think I've said my piece (the main point being that
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
On 10/16/2010 06:02 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
So would you have no objection to my use of bicycle=avoid on roads
that have bike lanes?
That would be ambiguous in most cases, and I believe you're being obtuse
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Just to clarify our position in this regard: No matter which of the parties
is right or wrong, someone who puts his vision of correct tagging over
the project's wellbeing by starting or continuing an edit war can never be
Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 10:22:56 -0600
SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
Anthony is just trolling. He's been kicked out of wikipedia, as noted
multiple times. Ignore him.
That is untruthful.
Don't bother; Steve is just trolling.
--
View this message in context:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote:
Shield rendering has its own complications, though if it were implemented
we could basically stop caring about the aesthetics of the ref= tags. (If
you had to use US:UT 67 to get a shield, most people would do it that
way.)
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote:
* Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com [2010-10-15 13:32 -0400]:
Should we use the postal code everywhere for nationwide consistency or
should we use the prefixes that locals use? If we use postal codes, what
should we do
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote:
i have created a page for a US Tagging working group here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters/United_States/Working_Groups/US_Tagging
if you are interested in participating, add your name.
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
...discussions on the mailing list tend to wander all over the place and
lead to no conclusions or decisions being made. If we meet in a phone
conference call or even in a chat room then we can get more done. E-mails
are by
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Kate Chapman k...@maploser.com wrote:
There are some people where IRC is a higher barrier to entry than a
phone call. All that aside though I think key is just to have some
level of consensus and then have the information available in a clear
place.
New
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
and for county road HHH:
type=route
route=road
network=US:WI:CO
ref=HHH
Why CO? Doesn't Wisconsin use CTH (county trunk highway)?
___
Talk-us mailing list
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think we should be storing any prefix as part of the network=* or
ref=* tags (thus my suggestion for network=us_route/state_route/county_route
or similar). For example the I-x denotation shouldn't show up anywhere in
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
Relations are the only way to do routes correctly, period. Tagging
individual ways for things that overlap does not/will not work.
If clients break relations when a user splits a way then they should have
bugs filed against
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
That's why I briefly mentioned the is_in=* tag earlier. County road 1 in
Albany County would have network=county_road,is_in:county=Albany while
county road 1 in Rensselaer County would be is_in:Rensselaer.
NY 17 enters
Next time I go downtown to map I'd like a printout to take notes on.
But there's already too much mapped to all show up at maximum zoom:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=28.54212lon=-81.379046zoom=18layers=M
Are there any simple Windows programs or constantly-updated websites
that will give me
Peter Wendorff wrote:
While I miss a perfect map style for that, yet: walking-papers.org
could be your point.
That just uses existing styles, meaning it has nothing beyond zoom 18. The
ones hosted by Cloudmade are also out of date.
--
View this message in context:
Yeah, mapping routes between airports is a bad idea.
On the other hand, it might be feasible to map approaches to airports as
shown on official diagrams. There are also avigation easements that might
be relevant here.
--
View this message in context:
It seems that at least one of the Mapnik tile servers is down, as is the
wiki. This also affects Bing's mirror (which is apparently not a mirror?).
But http://mapper.acme.com/ seems to use only c.tile.openstreetmap.org,
which is up, so it will do if you need a map now (like I do, going downtown
Celso González wrote:
On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 01:49:04PM +0100, Patrick Weber wrote:
Here's another of these stories now common of drivers blindly
following their satnav, unfortunately this time, the driver drowned!
http://www.reghardware.com/2010/10/05/satnav_error_man_drowns/
I
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 7:37 AM, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote:
Are you happy with the rendering now? It looks like it matches what
you've described.
Well, the boundary=protected_area doesn't display at all, but that's a
rendering problem.
___
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
There's an iron rod in the ground in the
northeast corner of my property boundary. To the extent the position
of that iron rod currently differs with the lat/lon in the county
records (even with the lat/lon in the deed to my
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
I think it's pretty obvious that my property boundary can be surveyed.
I have a survey of it!
So is your point that everything (relatively permanent and worth
mapping?) can be surveyed, and thus there's no reason to have a
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm importing the USFS data for the Ocala National Forest boundary.
There's the actual forest boundary, and there are private inholdings
inside
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think you should imply that there is a natural=forest boundary
logically separate from the National Forest's boundary. Assuming you're
using USFS's shapefiles, there should be one thing in there: the boundary of
the
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the example. I would suggest using a border/boundary tag for the
national forest boundary area and a landuse tag for the national forest
land.
Yes, that's what I was thinking: boundary=protected_area for the outer
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote:
I think you two might be talking past each other.
I am slightly fuzzy on multipolygons, but I think the notion is that a
multipolygon has a number of outer rings, and a number of inner rings,
and it defines the area that
Anthony-6 wrote:
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 12:08 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Unless it connects to other things that do need to be edited, anyway
(boundaries which can't be obtained by surveying obviously don't
connect to things which can be surveyed).
I've found one big exception to
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Mike N. nice...@att.net wrote:
For those with interest in improving routing in your area, Skobbler now
offers a Geo-feed of reported bugs. You can subscribe to this as an RSS
feed.
http://www.skobbler.us/osmbugs
I have found this interesting to see the US
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Dale Puch dale.p...@gmail.com wrote:
It would be nice to have a procedure for finding these problems. Sometimes
they only show up at low zoom levels due to the scope of the problem. But
some of what I have seen may be due to other tiles not being updated (next
(copied to the talk-us list)
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Antony Pegg anttheli...@gmail.com wrote:
ok I can't figure this out and its driving me crazy!
please look at this map:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.024lon=-76.242zoom=9layers=M
In the middle of it you will see West
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Val Kartchner val...@gmail.com wrote:
The wiki says that hamlet is 1000. The only place possibly smaller
is suburb, but no population is given. There should be some place types
below hamlet.
Mapnik renders suburb in a larger font than hamlet/village, which
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 12:04 AM, Val Kartchner val...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 2010-08-31 at 23:56 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
For subdivisions and small planned communities I draw the border and
create a multipolygon with landuse=residential and no place=* tag:
http://www.openstreetmap.org
To me, the primary benefit of a free license is that the project has a 'life
of its own' beyond the host: if the host decides to stop hosting it, or
letting people edit, someone else can continue it as it had been. I don't
care about the viral effects of such a license except insofar as they
Chris Browet wrote:
As far as I understand the licenses, nobody is permitted to fork the OSM
data without permissions, and it is thus not truly open:
cc-by-sa (and almost? every viral license) allows for forking as long as
said fork is under the same license. Note the number of Wikipedia
Chris Browet wrote:
cc-by-sa (and almost? every viral license) allows for forking as long as
said fork is under the same license. Note the number of Wikipedia forks
and
mirrors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks
Ok, thanks. And it would still be possible under
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 7:04 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
cc-by-sa (and almost? every viral license) allows for forking as long as
said fork is under the same license. Note the number of Wikipedia forks
Brendan Morley-3 wrote:
On a similar topic...
What is the problem with duplicate nodes, exactly?
In general, there's no problem.
However many specific cases of duplicate nodes are problematic, for example
when roads should be connected at a node, but instead each ends at a
different
Jane Smith is probably the same person as fake Steve C. Lynch 'em.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 5:35 AM, Willi wil...@gmx.de wrote:
On 27. August 2010 09:10 Nathan Edgars II [nerou...@gmail.com]wrote
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?relation=1141252
Mapnik has no problems with it, but Osmarender won't fill the northern
part correctly. (It's not a delay
Liz-11 wrote:
to complicate matters, a culvert may cut through a road in rural
australia, making a small ford
I'm not sure what you mean by this. A culvert is a (usually) concrete
structure, topologically a cylinder, that one way (usually water) goes
through and the other goes over.
--
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 6:50 AM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
is that okay if I modify the wiki page and suggest to use
tunnel=culvert (and ford=culvert / bridge=culvert) instead of the
ambivalent culvert=yes ?
I'd like to know what ford=culvert means first.
Willi-2 wrote:
To describe a boundary you can use (change the current relation to)
Relation:boundary which isn't filled with a color:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:boundary.
I know how to map a boundary, and this isn't one. It's a semi-planned
mostly-residential suburban
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 8:55 AM, ed...@billiau.net wrote:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 6:50 AM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
is that okay if I modify the wiki page and suggest to use
tunnel=culvert (and ford=culvert / bridge=culvert) instead of the
ambivalent culvert=yes ?
I'd like to know
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 9:17 AM, ed...@billiau.net wrote:
In a town which does not have underground storm water management, the
gutters at the side of the roads have to cross one of the roads at an
intersection so you have a half-elliptical shaped culvert which traffic
crosses, making a
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 12:53 AM, Zeke Farwell ezeki...@gmail.com wrote:
As you know, Mapnik will render multipolygons
correctly as long as all the ways form complete rings and are tagged with
outer and inner as needed, but it turns out that Osmarender also needs
the ways making up each ring
Whey I load relation 1144866 in JOSM and run the validator, I get an
illegal tag/value combinations error with no details. Is there an
error here that I'm missing, or is it a bug in JOSM?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
The way I understand it, a culvert is just a tiny pseudo-bridge, physically
equivalent to a tunnel under an embankment. Culverts don't show up in the US
National Bridge Inventory, which is a database of bridges on public roads.
They normally carry water under roads, but may also carry a private
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 8:24 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 August 2010 10:04, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
The way I understand it, a culvert is just a tiny pseudo-bridge, physically
equivalent to a tunnel under an embankment. Culverts don't show up
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?relation=1141252
Mapnik has no problems with it, but Osmarender won't fill the northern
part correctly. (It's not a delay in rendering; I added the swamps
after creating the multipolygon.)
___
talk mailing list
Konrad Skeri wrote:
Good question. Why are we putting roads into relations?
It adds useful redundancy, making it possible to find errors in a route
(and, in the other direction, since it's easier to screw up a relation than
ref tags, having ref tags helps with correction). It also adds
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 9:03 PM, Alan Mintz
alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote:
At 2010-08-22 19:28, you wrote:
I wouldn't put too much stock in the fact that directionals on street
signs are often in smaller fonts. The people who are responsible for
such signs are trying to make them useful
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:05 PM, Antony Pegg anttheli...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Everyone,
First time mailing, probably overdue, but I've been reading for a while.
Got a question I'm hoping will spark some discussion:
What would you like to see done (or NOT see done) with TIGER 2010 as regards
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 11:24 PM, Alan Mintz
alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote:
Should imports make an effort to un-smooth such data to some extent, for
the benefit of editing and rendering performance, storage, etc?
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Dale Puch dale.p...@gmail.com wrote:
Is it really not part of the street name, what are the rules you use to
determine it is only part of the address?
In Orlando the city and county ground-mounted street signs have a
square at the end for the address block. The
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:40 AM, Kevin Atkinson ke...@atkinson.dhs.org wrote:
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010, Alan Mintz wrote:
So, the remaining questions are:
- When you look at official records, like assessor's and tract maps, is it
called South Westmoreland Dr?
Seems like they sometimes include
For messy imports in general, would something like this be suitable?
Import the data but with the tags somehow commented out like
import:highway instead of highway, and then let mappers uncomment
individual ways. We'd want a shortcut for uncommenting in the editors,
but everything else would fit
First, what's the US standard for incorporated places? Should the
actual form of government (town/city/etc) be used?
More importantly, how are unincorporated places handled?
With respect to boundaries, census-designated places are not really
suited for our use. Sometimes it's easy to define a
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 12:42 AM, Val Kartchner val...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 23:34 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
What place=* values should be used for unincorporated places? In some
states villages are incorporated; do we skip this value? Do we use
suburb at all
I can't speak for other states, but in Florida's Ocala National Forest
the trails, at least the ones you can drive on, are marked with
rectangular brown highway shields, so ref seems appropriate. But you
probably shouldn't leave out all prefixes - for example 43 is a
tertiary road, and with simply
Steve Bennett-3 wrote:
- Let's not tar all Australians with the same brush. Some of us are
supportive of the license changes, and pulling our heads in and just
mapping quietly.
I love the implication here that you're 'poisonous' if you don't support the
license changes (and vice versa).
(posted here rather than on legal-talk because it's at its core a
question about editing standards)
Let's say I'm mapping an area and I notice an existing way that I know
will not survive the relicensing process. (Part of the hypothetical
situation is that one can be sure about this.) Were I to
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 1:08 AM, Eric Wolf ebw...@gmail.com wrote:
Even though they are technically just hosting public domain data, the
nature of public domain is that they can claim copyright over it within the
context of their hosting service (just as people can print it in a book and
claim
Pierre-Alain Dorange wrote:
How data in my village disappeared ?
We've used totally legal sources compatible with OSM.
I'm one of the most quantity data creator (in my town) and i realesed
all my adds/modification as PD...
If any of the other people who mapped your village don't agree to
I'm wondering if anyone has any experience with the National Wetlands
Inventory: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
At first glance it looks like better-quality data than the NHD for
both wetlands and water.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
I think I figured out what's been specifically bugging me about this.
When I joined OSM about eight months ago, I knew vaguely that there was a
license change process going on, and assumed the OSMF knew what they were
doing. (I still think they know, but I now have concerns about what they're
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 4:14 PM, Peter Körner osm-li...@mazdermind.de wrote:
So the newbies have chosen to join this mailing list, so they at least have
seen the list of mailinglists. Why didn't they join legal? or dev= because
they're not interested in those topics, they have enough to do with
SteveC-2 wrote:
One quote from the talk in particular comes to mind: it's a technique
that poisonous people can use to derail a consensus-based community from
actually achieving consensus. You have this noisy minority make a lot of
noise and people look and say 'oh wow there is no
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 3:18 AM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote:
Nathan Edgars II writes:
If a way is tagged tiger:reviewed=no, JOSM puts a highlight behind it,
and when you select it the red is a lot fatter. How do I disable this?
Delete tiger:reviewed=no after you've reviewed a road
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 7:45 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
Let's do a shields BoF at Atlanta next weekend. I have some ideas
that make shields much easier and even solve shield concurrency.
Hopefully your idea recognizes the silliness of rendering the
individual state route shield
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Craig Hinners cr...@hinnersection.com wrote:
From: Kevin Atkinson ke...@atkinson.dhs.org
If a stretch of road has multiple numbered route, a semi-colon
should be used to separate them and I believe that the render _will_
recognize those.
In my experience,
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote:
I've written perl scripts in the past, but these ad-hoc changes I've done as
follows:
[snip]
Thanks - this worked perfectly. I've uploaded
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/5406539.
One thing I'm wondering about: how useful is a small piece of a future
larger import? For example, there's the National Hydrography Dataset,
import of which is apparently being coordinated on the wiki. I've
imported individual lakes and swamps from it, as well as all of those
in small areas (such
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the NHD import is a good example of a well-intentioned importer
(me) gone wrong. I had initially planned to import the whole darn thing in
one swoop, but various technical and life challenges came up before I could
get
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 6:10 PM, James U jumba...@gmail.com wrote:
I have to say that after importing a large amount of NHD data (most of NC
and MN) that it is of varying quality, as was the preexisting water related
data already on the server. In general, I agree with Ian that it is higher
Presently numbered county roads in Florida (and New Jersey) are tagged
using parentheses, for example ref=(535) for County Road 535. The
reasons for this are essentially a historical accident. I'm proposing
a semi-automated change from this to ref=CR 535. The present format is
likely confusing to
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 8:31 AM, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote:
We have a long history in the US of well-intentioned bots which end up
causing problems[1].
My question is Have you run your changes across the data to see what it
actually does and then reviewed the results?
Yes, I
Anthony-6 wrote:
http://www.bing.com/community/blogs/maps/archive/2010/08/02/bing-maps-adds-open-street-maps-layer.aspx
I may be wrong, but it looks like they've taken a static dump of the tiles
from earlier today, rather than a dump of the data. Some changes I just made
today
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 2:49 AM, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 1:18 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
How do you abbreviate Boulevard? Blvd or Bv? How about Parkway? Pkwy,
Pky, or Py? The same road (Central Florida Parkway) has all three on
signs
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
I see these abbreviation errors in other map products. I have a
navigation device that announces County Road 33 as Co-Road
Thirty-three Surely we can aspire to do better than propagating the
errors of other projects?
If a way is tagged tiger:reviewed=no, JOSM puts a highlight behind it,
and when you select it the red is a lot fatter. How do I disable this?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 4:37 AM, maning sambale
emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com wrote:
Use the wireframe mode
Ctrl-R
That's ctrl-W, and I don't want all that, just disabling the highlight.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 4:49 AM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/8/2 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com:
If a way is tagged tiger:reviewed=no, JOSM puts a highlight behind it,
and when you select it the red is a lot fatter. How do I disable this?
Use new JOSM filter feature
701 - 800 of 889 matches
Mail list logo
