he red zone" when reading
this, perhaps it should have. Something smells absolutely terrible about this
and on many fronts. Please be cautious about everything having anything to do
with it.
Simply my opinion,
SteveA
___
talk mailing lis
n be slow.
With less wordiness, I know. It's a big country, a big map, a big planet.
Let's do our best, especially when talking with each other about how we agree
things are built. It's been chaotic, it has always a little chaotic, nothing
wrong with a little order understood amongst us.
Ste
I know a whole lot about right now, but I
am curious for more real-world data to emerge about that. Here? Sure. In the
map? (as in actual OSM cycle_network tagging)? Yes, that works, too. Try
clicking that link above, then its "taginfo" link to get a f
come to agreement about what it
means to "promote to rcn" (and we clearly express those rules/methods of
determination) in our wiki, with consensus, we'll continue to be doing the best
job of this that we can.
Sometimes things ARE fuzzy. Sometimes, with a little discussion, we c
chard did) at the local (lcn)
level. If network=rcn is actually a better value, this is likely to emerge
with strong consensus at a more-local (state) level within OSM.
Thanks for improving bicycle routes and especially rail trails in the USA!
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Excellent suggestions, Blake!
SteveA
> On Jul 8, 2019, at 1:25 PM, Blake Girardot wrote:
>
> You could convert them all to centroids, points are a valid and
> correct building mapping object type as well.
>
> That would retain the key information, the location of the build
th improper rotation orientation.
That's not a terrible error, and yes, correcting those would be a great deal of
effort with relatively small benefit in correctness for the map (in my
opinion). However, "better is better," so spend your time a
ment a bit.
It looks like it's a pretty large (ahem) mess to clean up; good luck. Please
be careful not to delete data which might actually be real (good data). For
example, you might add a satellite imagery layer to your JOSM session, so you
can see what's "really"
r disagree with the tagging
schemes that are there, feel free to edit them if you disagree, they are sort
of "wet ink."
Thank you,
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
ght align
perfectly with Joseph's suggestions (though he doesn't appear to advocate for
deprecation of national_park), or they might not. I listen.
Thanks,
SteveA
> (what Joseph Eisenberg wrote):
>> I would recommend starting to use boundary=protected_area for State
ar those. Including deprecating the national_park tag, while I listen as you might suggest with what we might replace it, and how. These might align perfectly with Joseph's suggestions (though he doesn't appear to advocate for deprecation of national_park), or they might not. I listen.Thank
Thanks, Kevin. I believe it will be sorted in a month, but you never know.
Great to have a dedicated mapper like you so willing to help, I will mention it
if isn't sorted by then. Kerry Irons (ACA volunteer) believes the AASHTO
ballot process will be around "month's end" so that sketches a
I appreciate it! I'm now/soon scouring more aerial/satellite imagery before I
MIGHT (with trepidation) enter this. I do think it would be better if locals
who are more certain about this were to enter it. Though if MassDOT asserts a
USBR 7 re-route through here, "it must exist.&quo
Oops, USBR 7 (not 1) through the area.
SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
nal_park anytime soon, as even though this shouldn't have
mattered, it did: this was a tag that rendered, so people used it. (How
rendering — presently, eventually, politically-within-OSM... — gets coupled to
tagging is another chewy topic).
SteveA
_
definition to many, especially in the
USA, where American English is used and its word "park" shaped the lack of
precision definition in our wiki for the first 15 years of OSM).
Well, about there, anyway. I think most or even all of us know this, I wante
_game_land, state_recreational_area, private_park...) might help us better
characterize and improve USA park tagging, please take a look at the brief
discussion initiated there. You are invited to participate.
Thank you,
SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing li
ld love to see clarity
emerge, yet it seems elusive. Though I'll say it again: talk, talk and more
talk, while tedious and even exhausting sometimes, seems it's better than not
talking, as sometimes a kernel of better understanding shakes out. I continue
to h
.
I know: this gets chewy quickly. Park tagging is difficult when we put things
into categories. We now use four tags to contain a vast universe of parks and
park-like things, MANY of which are quite different from one another. Can we
improve upon this or am I simply barking at a tree?
SteveA
_
Oops, I meant landuse=recreation_ground. (Not landuse=recreation_area). My
apologies.
SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Or maybe we don't need any new tags (maybe values?)
and we simply need good "rules" (rough logical mappings, maybe tightened up
over time, or state-by-state) to apply the Existing 4 or 5 that mappers in the
USA agree are crystal-clear, if that's possible.
SteveA
s correct to use
the Existing 4 INSTEAD of solely leisure=park when appropriate.
Simultaneously, it is inevitable that many now-tagged-leisure=parks will have
that tag changed to one of the other Existing 4. Yes?
Onward,
SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
e as ten
feet wide but go on for hundreds of feet, and this is called a "park."
Does OSM tag these leisure=park? "We" (the people, the Departments of
Parks...) do, yet should we in OSM? This IS talk-us; a major reason I brought
this up here is that USA park tagging dr
On 4/25/2019 8:39 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:
>
A hazy sort-of-emerging along with this is wider recognition that a proto_park
thingy exists.
And on Fri Apr 26 22:44:56 UTC 2019, Jmapb replied:
Sounds like a good case for some lifecycle prefixes -- proposed:leisure=p
vor to be laser-focused. I seek clarity, and slowly we appear to be
getting there. This won't get fixed overnight or soon, though, that is
obvious, although I do believe that longer-term, things will heal towards
better, more consistent tagging.
SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
eisure=park tagging going away from
where it doesn't belong), the more it feels like consensus.
SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
r, as I thank you for your prodigious
contributions to the discussion and my resulting (somewhat better)
understanding. The conundrum continues, the fog is still there, though maybe
it has lifted a bit with "Tag the land use," which I already know to do. And I
am better untangling the
n) park:type wiki, which seems that while
it may live on as a "crutch" tagging style (there are thousands of examples in
use), park:type should eventually move towards deprecation as better consensus
emerges.
Please at least read this brief wiki and think about how we might b
sting on a lot of county_parks for some time
(forever?), yet it seems OSM's worldwide view of "park" excludes them (and we
tag boundary=national_park on state and national parks).
This could get tedious, but it seems it has to be discussed.
SteveA
California
nationwide building data to properly and further enter OSM. Good luck with your efforts, I genuinely mean that.Best regards,SteveA
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
. One province at a time.
Pretty soon, after a few revisions of data and back-and-forths between
municipalities and province-wide data checking, you've got something. There,
you go.
SteveA
> On Mar 27, 2019, at 8:23 PM, keith hartley wrote:
>
> The patchwork of municipalities is
be doing so). Hence, my
logic-outline instead. If they are essentially useless — and many seem to
agree they are — I believe it is prudent to remove them.
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetm
ly stopped arriving.
Fingers crossed this request goes somewhere, these really are choice data and
will help OSM in the USA be a map containing yet more excellent hiking and
biking trails.
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap
let us know (here?) the zoom credentials and/or a conference call phone #.And, I look forward to the camaraderie of a mappy hour! Fantastic this is cranking back up!SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org
an exception, for example), I believe that "caters
to motorists" is the defining difference for motels.
SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
While I'm not sure the email address from their website I used is exactly
correct, I did make this request to RTC (and cc'd Richard). I'll let people
know here if or how they reply.
Cheers,
SteveA
California
On Mar 6, 2019, at 4:00 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I see t
hough I agree that achieving consensus
on a nationwide import can be (and often is) quite difficult. I'm not trolling
here, I wish to be encouraging and have decided to go crawl back under my rock
for awhile to pursue other OSM endeavors (south of our border).
C
us results. Be heartened and courageous, be optimistic and
visionary. If or as you don't, others will (and already have). Keep up the
good work, everybody!
SteveA
(who usually doesn't like to be simply a cheerleader, though sometimes it helps)
> On Mar 2, 2019, at 4:33 PM, John Whelan wrot
ple "step up" like that, wider, open communication (here in talk-ca, the
wiki page, the wiki's Discussion tab / talk page...) is also to be encouraged.
In short, you can't cast the net too wide, so be broad in the reach to do so.
De-centralize while developing both breadth and wid
for letting us know
here that the data are ODbL and therefore OSM-compatible. (One down, perhaps a
bit more to go).
SteveA
> On Mar 2, 2019, at 2:40 PM, john whelan wrote:
>
> Why are you planning to import it?
>
> Cheerio John
>
> On Sat, Mar 2, 2019, 5:26 P
A responsible complement to this would be a link to license information, a wiki
page about these data, and perhaps an Import Plan should those data actually be
asserted to be worthy of being responsibly imported into OSM.
SteveA
California
> On Mar 2, 2019, at 2:17 PM, john whelan wr
talk page and
community communication. OSM has every reason to support such excellent
suggestions/proposals.
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
hn, Danny, so many others here unnamed have shown leadership. Many
Canadians seem on the road to "how" and "talk amongst yourselves." Good is not
the enemy. Good are good enough as they are included with "how." Thumbs up
from here
I dislike sounding simply "like a cheerleader," here however, I am deeply
encouraged by what I see as substantial progress. This sort of discussion
bodes very well for the future of the import. Keep up the good work!
SteveA
On Feb 3, 2019, at 3:26 PM, john whelan wrote:
> I
John) peut offrir ce type de
caractérisation.
SteveA
On Feb 3, 2019, at 11:42 AM, Pierre Béland via Talk-ca
wrote:
> De tes exemples sortis du chapeau ne font pas avancer la discussion.
>
> J'attends la démonstration de John que les données d'import pour Ottawa
> représente
r encouragement to this process, it
does appear to continue here and can likely bear fruit in the near future.
Keep going! Consensus is ahead!
SteveA
On Feb 3, 2019, at 10:55 AM, john whelan wrote:
> So I suggest that you name yourself as the coordinator on the wiki page for
> Toronto
hey will
(slowly, there are a LOT!) begin to be imported into OSM. Or not.
It is a maxim of good project management which is often unstated, yet now is
the time to say it: "Lead, follow or get out of the way."
SteveA
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
ort: "what's wrong with these data, how might they get fixed?" (Then
they might get imported). It doesn't seem to me to be a whole lot more
complicated a discussion than that.
SteveA
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
tinues to Newhall and Monroe, where as it follows the
southern boundary of Santa Clara Mission Cemetery, it is correct (enough for
now).
The ways I changed have IDs 166659029 and 97341711 (recently reverted by Andy
Townsend), part of the Santa Clara (city) municipal boundary relation. I
believe
ow quite
who to call, exactly, if somebody wants to "release to me" ODbL-compatible data
which need to be harmonized with what are now in OSM, I'll volunteer to be the
"nexus of citizen entry" to assure they find their way into our wonderful map.
Send me a pointer to the data, assur
ab ("Talk
page") of the link above seems more appropriate. (And, I'd prefer to "get out
of the way" here, if anybody were to go so far as to feel "get lost, already,
SteveA," I wouldn't be offended, though I remain watching this Import for that
grea
positively drive forward this import.
SteveA
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
rt wiki, part community building, mostly discussion,
agreement and therefore, consensus.
> California Steve has put forward some proposals in the 2020 page of the wiki
> which to me amount to minor variations on what we were doing. The intent
> always was to involve local mappe
Hold" or "Stopped" status.
Nice going, Canada!
See you later,
SteveA
California
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
ide" is something to
consider. This isn't alway black-and-white, nor easy. As we "do our best,"
things eventually emerge as correct, though it usually takes some time and
effort to get there. (Consensus does).
SteveA
___
Talk-ca
ken scheme is to tag Harriston and Palmerston as place=suburb, and
> create a place=town node for Minto.
In addition to me posting this, I'd simply say "read existing wiki
documentation," as well as "keep talking about it" (whether in private emails,
the Discussion tab on
t;don't do this in talk-ca" I am saying "there are often
more-appropriate (vs. less-appropriate) places to have a discussion to achieve
consensus." Sometimes, it makes sense to have an off-list email conversation
in a one-on-one or one-on-many fashion. Thanks.
SteveA
California
> On
with memory options
> (Xms, Xmx), or it will crap out at 3.5GB
>
> On Sat., Jan. 19, 2019, 5:13 p.m. OSM Volunteer stevea
> On Jan 19, 2019, at 2:01 PM, James wrote:
> > Is there no one that will analyse the data I've posted here?
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d
s monster.
Maybe some of ARE email thread warriors, but I am not "just" an email thread
warrior.
SteveA
California
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
On Jan 19, 2019, at 1:22 PM, john whelan wrote:
> As a point of information the 2020 web page I think was started by Julia and
> very heavily edited by Stevea.
Sure I did, because it seriously lacked in the technical direction anybody
would need to "map going forward" in the pr
w these to the provincial level
with good communication coordinating (wiki, Discussion pages within them, Task
Manager, and talk-ca if necessary). Especially as the data are now "in the
wild," the snowball is starting to roll downhill, gathering mass and speed.
Course-correct when necessary and GROW this process as and how it is
successful. Voila, a successful, nationwide massive import (project). It will
be messy, it always is, but "deal with it" and you can get there. Good luck,
Canada. Many believe in this and want to see it succeed (me included, despite
what some might think is a sour or exasperated tone).
SteveA
California
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
f it as "a solid B" which might be "passes the
class for now" without failing. And it's good we develop a "meanwhile
strategy" to take it to 99% and then 100% in the (near- or at most mid-term)
future. This isn't outrageously difficult, though it does take patience and
The thread link is:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/2019-January/005878.html
SteveA
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
(Again). This starts with good, open communication. Nothing less will do, or
you consign your project to a whispered hope upon the wind, and that won't do
it.
SteveA
California
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
_reserve and related
areas. Denoting where these are with recent federally published data is in
complete harmony with other sorts of boundaries in OSM. But there is wishing
or agreeing that the data belong, then there is doing a high quality job of
importing and maintaining them.
On Dec 21, 2018, at 4:17 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea
wrote:
> (Hawai'i, our national page says light_rail is "westerly portion is under
> construction." Updates?)
OK, I updated our Hawaii wiki so it has a Railroads section and table. A
dedicated Hawaii/Railroads wiki seemed a
r their wiki (should those get written or not).
Almost a decade in OSM, chugging along, workin' on the railroads, maybe a third
of states roughed out, we're doin' fine, volunteers are welcome, maybe you'll
help make it three years instead of five or ten,
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
nd where 17 ends at signalized Ocean Street
(highway=primary). At first I was nonplussed about this being so tagged in
OSM, but as I remembered where the regulatory (therefore, by law) "End Freeway"
sign is (confirming it today), it actually is tagged correctly.
So, Eric is correct on b
.) and one fine day we will drive the last wooden stake into its
heart. TIGER data were and are helpful, yet they continue to need tender,
loving mapping from our awesome community, likely for years to come. A fresh
cat box is a beautiful thing, ask any cat.
SteveA
California
> On Nov 14,
o verbose, however, the consensus such wiki express is not easily
conjured.
Where I agree with Martijn is "I guess we have some work to do." "Clean the
catbox" indeed!
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
endly wiki. Thank you
to all of them. I know my OSM experience would not be anywhere near as rich if
I didn't have so much excellent wiki to read.
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
all helpful towards that goal, but nobody wins or
loses here.
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
s"), agreeable by many, a
political reality right now, mostly straight along a similar latitude line and
already somewhat harmonious among the relatively small sample of people here on
this list who have something to say about it. (Not that we're definitive, nor
am I, personally). But, l
c, je choisis de partager un "lien de partage OT:"
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/DrG
Good luck / bonne chance,
SteveA
California
> As Overpass Turbo allows named area geocoding, try this:
> Comme Overpass Turbo permet le géocodage de zone nommée, essayez ceci:
>
> [out:x
codeArea:Quebec}}->.searchArea;
(
way["service"="emergency_access"](area.searchArea);
);
out meta;
>;
out meta qt;
You can modify what is inside the "way" part of the query any way you like.
Vous pouvez modifier le contenu de la partie "way" de la req
edges
of San Luis Obispo, Kern and San Bernardino counties.
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
line rather
neatly divides California into two, a northern and southern, and simply with
the designation of "those ten counties" as the method to do so. It isn't
"perfectly straight" but it is "perfectly suited" to do this division of
California, in my opinion.
I hop
yes, I do know that "you catch more flies with honey than you do with
vinegar." (No, that isn't a slight at calling anybody "flies," rather a saying
that means "positive encouragement works much better than throwing rocks").
SteveA
California
__
dataset, to do so would be
overwhelming) which overlap with the "official datasets" will be conflated.
That is a critical step.
SteveA
California
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
chiers de formes de construction
sont déjà téléchargées vers OSM, à quelques rares exceptions près ou lorsqu'un
très faible pourcentage de les bâtiments existants ne diffèrent que d'un mètre
ou deux. Tout plan d'importation doit tenir compte de la manière dont ces
données seront regroupées.
Cordialement
dicated
and high-skills leadership within the crowd and directly supporting these
(usually quite few) people, enabling them with the ability to slightly modify
rules, offer seminars/educational curricula or even direct towards them
carefully-identified financial support
ibes the project in general or stands on its own as a separate wiki.
But it is required.
SteveA
California
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Additionally, the greater OSM community looks forward to your Import Plan that
follows our Import Guidelines (
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines ).
Regards,
SteveA
California
> On Nov 1, 2018, at 11:22 AM, John Whelan wrote:
>
> I think on the OSM side we prob
and many other sources of
advice/documentation/help are available, too.
Regards.
SteveA
California
> On Nov 1, 2018, at 9:40 AM, john whelan wrote:
> I've discussed the Open Data side with them but I think they could do with a
> bit of guidence on the tagging side. Could someone ideally m
"triple-check" of these
data, or even a comprehensive effort at statewide TIGER Review with state- and
county-level road naming/numbering authorities. Thank you in advance!
SteveA
California
> On Oct 27, 2018, at 2:30 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea
> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Greg,
Thanks, Greg, I'm now "double-check reviewing" USBR 23 in Kentucky. Thanks for
your reciprocity on 21 (when/as you get your 'net back, of course).
SteveA
California
> On Oct 27, 2018, at 11:38 AM, Greg Morgan wrote:
>
> I will be happy to review your implementation of
Sorry, I should use the abbreviation of KYTC as Kerry does, not KDOT.
SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
will say that. I'm not
laying blame or pointing fingers, simply observing that entering route data
from a state DOT was frequently perplexing given the need to match highway
infrastructure of current TIGER data there.
SteveA
California
> On Oct 26, 2018, at 3:48 PM, Kerry Irons wrot
f course; email one or both of us if you are interested in
helping.
SteveA
California
> On Oct 26, 2018, at 10:51 AM, OSM Volunteer stevea
> wrote:
>
> Wow, Greg, you are quick. Thank you!
>
> Additionally, (a major reason I'm including Kerry in this missive), I removed
> from O
our minds and hearts
that we are a data project, and that it is out of our data (first and foremost)
that we enjoy so many wonderful "creative, productive, or unexpected"
derivations from them.
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
T
latforms in the world. Like "E pluribus, unum" in the USA, "Ex data,
multum" in OSM: "From data, much." (Yes, I did just make that up!)
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
ple" bicycle relations from which proper route structure can be
learned are found in nearby Plano and Dallas, Texas.
Thank you for making OSM (and its OpenCycleMap renderer) one of the most
comprehensive (and widely used) bicycle route mapping platforms in the world.
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
et better. It takes
time, it takes dedication, it takes good communication, it takes people working
well together. Largely speaking (and Canada isn't large, it's HUGE!), so far,
so good.
Encouragingly,
SteveA
California
> On Sep 27, 2018, at 4:42 PM, john whelan wrote:
> Besides bus
Well, I'm no longer seeing the Lua errors I saw, so "caches cleared" (all the
way down) and the problem seems to be "fixed" now.
Steve
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
y addressed to our OSM Operations Team, I
don't really know how to do that (and it isn't clear, so perhaps we want a
"more clear" way to report minor errors like this).
Thanks for directing this to the right people if anybody reading this can do so,
SteveA
No hijack seen as actual or intended: great idea, Martijn!
Trains, transit, our map: these really do keep getting better and better.
SteveA
> On Sep 18, 2018, at 12:01 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
>
> To branch out a little bit — sorry to hijack the thread Steve — it would be
>
the importance of rail travel almost exploding
across our country as new light_rail and suburban train routes are being added
almost faster than our mapping speed (and certainly faster than our
wiki-writing speed), we have some work to do to catch up!
Happy mapping (and wiki-do
like
that." Like learning to walk, it is a process, it isn't that hard, and it does
come naturally.
SteveA
On Sep 17, 2018, at 12:16 PM, john whelan wrote:
> Just a comment Alessandro is not a dedicated project manager but rather the
> person that the project manager reports to. Currently in a
and should continue this dialog. Please, let's do our best
to keep it civil.
SteveA
> On Sep 17, 2018, at 8:31 AM, Alasia, Alessandro (STATCAN)
> wrote:
(a reply to my missive)
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Matthew, I personally thank you for sharing Alessandro's missive with talk-ca (an OSM-based list).However, Alessandro mentions "BC2020i" (and even "BC2020i-2"), initiatives which "used" (or proposed to "use") OSM as a data repository. Not wishing to rehash history about this yet again, the
401 - 500 of 963 matches
Mail list logo
