Het is een gevalletje van 'taggen voor de render'.
De mapper in kwestie is aan het micro-mappen geweest (maar is er gelukkig
wel consistent in geweest), en heeft ze als highway = footway getagd,
terwijl dat helemaal niet nodig was.
Ik gok overigens dat (doordat de kleur vrij dicht aanleunt bij
Phillipe,
Ze zijn beschikbaar als open data:
https://data.stad.gent/explore/dataset/kaainummers-north-sea-port/export/?flg=nl
Je kan nog kiezen in welk formaat.
Op wo 21 okt. 2020 om 09:59 schreef Philippe Casteleyn <
philippecastel...@hotmail.com>:
> Dit is al mijn derde poging na Facebook
nt of view, two key rules make the ground for OSM as pointed
>>> out in several places of the documentation:
>>>
>>> 1. Think to end users
>>>
>>> 2. Map what really exists
>>>
>>> "Map what really exists" is visible in many p
I'm inclined to go by 'mapping verifiable ground truth'. Which means no -
don't add them unless signposted along the way.
Op di 13 okt. 2020 om 08:45 schreef s8evq :
> I do not think they should be in OSM, and I wouldn't mind deleting them. :)
>
> First of all, they are harder to keep up to date
F4a should remain yes, despite both implying the same speed limit, UNLESS
the local gov removed the F4a signs due to the 'fietszone' completely
overlapping with the 'zone 30'.
Ideally, for the 'zone 30', differentiate between 'normal' with F4a only
and 'school- zone 30' (F4a + A23)
If there's
Bijlage bleeft hangen wegens groter dan 80kb, maar hierbij even ter
illustratie hoe je ze kan traceren met de 'skyview' laag. Is een soort
hoogtemodelweergave op grondniveau, de bomen zie je dus niet.. en het pad
wordt zichtbaar.
https://framapic.org/r01ExtbzPorU/Z1Zri8oU24QM.jpg
(ik had al
As I understood from Jonathan, the process isn't fully automated yet. Was
supposedly to get updated on a near-weekly basis, but it must've slipped
from attention.
I'd guess that moving on towards a full automation of the process would go
a long way?
Op di 10 mrt. 2020 om 11:05 schreef rodeo .be :
Toch ook even mijn 'two cents' ertussen gooien.
Ik begrijp de sceptische insteek: moet je zo'n details gaan mappen, terwijl
er nog zoveel meer is wat ontbreekt?.
In geval van een BETAALDE dienstverlening, ben ik het er 100% mee eens dat
het een rommeltje is als je zo te werk gaat,
Een 'fietszone' is niet meer dan een fietsstraat een 'zonale geldigheid'
gegeven.
In geval van overlap lijkt me de meest strikte bepaling gelding.
Inhaalverbod op fietsers dus, maar met de maximumsnelheid op 20 km/u.
cyclestreet = yes en highway = living_street ?
Er zullen m.i. nog een aantal
Karel,
het is HIER te doen:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/31647365#map=16/51.2843/4.4347=N
https://assets.antwerpen.be/srv/assets/api/download/28cef7be-5225-474e-93ff-8d67322be61f/plan_tunnel.pdf
is wat er zou moeten uitgevoerd zijn.
En voor wie houdt van wat info over hoe ze zo'n tunnel
I'll agree with everyone else on the given selection here.
As for how I try to decide:
Ideally, you'd have the history of 'what came first'. Whichever level this
one is at goes as the 'baselevel'.
Either a new road / railway / .. goes:
OVER it, making that a bridge
UNDER it, making it a tunnel
AT
Ground truth is only as precise as where they can manage to put up a sign
though.
I know a nearby case there a 3-point-border lies in the middle of an
intersection between two secondary roads.
Overruling an existing border just because the sign may be off a bit, seems
pushing it, no?
Op di 21
Hi all.
New edition is up:
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=732083#p732083
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Hi all,
a bit later then usual (with the holidays and all):
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=731339#p731339
(going with the link this time, as it was pointed out in most replies the
history is copied along, creating overly large e-mails)
Point taken. Should it be desired among the mailing-list crowd, I could
just stick to sending a link to an external page with the info, rather then
including it all within the e-mail?
As a demo: Jonathan was kind enough to mirror it here:
https://openstreetmap.be/2018/12/17/weekly-riot.html
Op
First of all, a short introduction. Based on discussion in chat, we feel
it'd be good to open up about what's discussed in the Riot (or IRC) chat
channel, and distribute a summary of it (on a weekly basis) through forum
and mailinglist. For now this is a one-man-operation, we'll see how it
evolves
The problem is - whenever you try and get changes for the renderer - the
argument is they don't feel they should change the renderer to try and
influence the tagging. They care about rendering 'the tags that actively
get used'.
Be very carefull how you pitch the argument, or it'll instantly get a
There's always an inherit 'gap' between 'what does government intend the
road for' and 'how does the road actually look'.
Terms such as 'primary' and 'secondary' roads have meaning in planning
context.
In Flanders we have the 'Ruimtelijk Structuurplan Vlaanderen' which
classifies which roads are
I'll go with a 'no' here.
Let me explain why:
Both the main routes (fietsostrade, fietssnelweg, whatever you wish to call
it) and the 'BFF' ('Bovenlokaal functioneel fietstroutenet) are by no means
an indication of actual infrastructure being present, nor is it a measure
of quality for the
Pitching in for a second, as it's my initial tag that got the ball rolling.
The name 'Clintonpark' indicates the combined area of the buildings and
their respective parkinglots, and is actually used as such.
It's not a 'street name', as the buildings have house numbers referencing
'Ter Reigerie',
20 matches
Mail list logo
