bility" or
"bicycle usability." I wish the very best to Canadian OSMers in doing so!
Regards,
SteveA
OSM Volunteer since 2009
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
port.
Quality above quantity or speed.
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
speaking personally, I don't know.
We are a know-it, see-it, tag-it project. Local knowledge is helpful and often
preferred. Please let those guide us here.
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetm
d" as the mayor and
residents wish. With the right tags, the apps' routing algorithms won't
include these streets, and the problem (as it is perceived as coming from
"navigation apps") is effectively solved.
SteveA
California
___
Ta
t; things happen as our project grows and improves.
Once again, I believe us to be more in agreement than disagreement, and ask
that many here who wish to make bold steps forward continue to do so, though we
do well to consider our histories even as we
it
of this, and we can even talk about the more subtle aspects of doing so in a
forum like talk-us.
Our tag of park, I continue to assert most assiduously, is vast and elastic.
We might improve it with a rich schema, but until then, it is correct to tag
park entries with this tag.
Stev
I know that there are
posters on 'tagging' who believe we all live in a world of neat regimentation
of perfect information, precisely fitting a schema. Mmm, no. Not always.
Language can be ambiguous, in which case it must be disambiguated so we may
better understand each other. Some
ething
as we use the word "park" together in wide harmony. That is (at least partly!)
why we tag with the word "park."
Yes, there are "local parks with benches and grass in our city." Yes, there
are "national parks." We're only up to two, right there.
cipal" (as we explicitly say so) and that seems to largely settle
JDG and parks like it (a subsequent paragraph on National Parks
notwithstanding). And (much lower temperature) we can do BETTER than "solve"
these issues by reducing or eliminating ambiguity by taking the extra step of
bolstering those firm definitions with beautiful renderings (as I suggested
almost a decade ago). This could make OSM a BETTER map than most (perhaps all)
others, and there isn't anything wrong with efforts to do that!
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
x. Let's streamline towards elegant syntax where we can.
SteveA
California
> On Dec 31, 2017, at 6:37 PM, Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> wrote:
>
> Routes tagged as refs on ways instead of relations is a dinosaur that needs
> to go extinct already (much like the ex
gt; On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 10:40 PM, Albert Pundt <roadsgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It also allows for ref:legislative to be used (much like ref:penndot
> throughout Pennsylvania) in states that still use these separate legislative
> routes.
>
> On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 8
ous
solution space to include parks.
2) Landuse is not landcover and vice versa.
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
e there any objections?
If by "regular edits" you mean adding NEW data, no, I have no objection. If
you want to "convert" existing polygons to multipolygons, yes, I (and others)
object.
Thank you once again for good, productive dialog!
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
n get over
that, as I can be convinced that "once done, the time investment is worth it"
for the future benefits that multipolygons bring.
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
en
the only way to do something. One "better" than the other? I'm not sure it is
ALWAYS true that multipolygons are better. Usually, often, mostly? Yes,
especially in the use cases that Kevin noted (and more). Always? No.
Converting from one to the other when an import or curated data are involved?
Mmmm, not by me, unless a great deal of effort is expended to do what amounts
to a complex data translation. This is often a difficult nightmare of editing,
and we shouldn't discourage updating imported data.
Good dialog, even if it is tedious! (I don't know if we're solving anything,
but I appreciate that there is more light than there is heat).
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
ease be aware that existing NON-multipolygon
data (especially imports and other "curated" data) may very well suffer from
the process of being "multipolygonized." There is a balance to be struck, and
I would be very disheartened to see our map become "dumbed
editing
them. OSM gets better at this, though it is taking some time to get there.
I believe a most important result from this thread is that there are many use
cases where either polygons OR multipolygons are correct. Really, we are not
very far apart from rather ful
heir polygons may be part of imports." Yes, it can be hard to
know which data are imported and which are not. Yes, it can be hard to know
when data should be "properly" multipolygonized and when not. We only ask that
you listen and consider, and it looks like you have and do.
Thank you,
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
sn't wrong, it is far easier to understand and maintain, especially for
novice mappers, and ESPECIALLY when updates to imported data essentially rely
on the "simple polygon" paradigm which already works so well in our map.
With respect,
SteveA
California
Douglas Hembry <
ta" seems about right.
SteveA
California
> On Oct 26, 2017, at 10:50 AM, Tod Fitch <t...@fitchdesign.com> wrote:
> In the area I now live in California, my first impression looking at this is
> that the data is garbage. It looks to me that blindly importing would
> re
w any new TIGER
dataset "easy entry" into our map.
In short: eyes very wide open, slow going (if any going at all) ahead. If
your state is included in the list, and you can zoom into your county or city,
I'd be curious to hear what others might say after they take the half-hour or
so I did
two waterway ways join), assure the ways connect
with a node, this makes a more correct waterway network.
I welcome any or all of these as MapRoulette waterway improvement challenges!
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Utah has many) are different than
route=bicycle. Please assure such routes are tagged accordingly.
GO Utah bicycling, and find out how taking OSM with you (on your smartphone or
GPS as a map or route, for example) is awesome!
SteveA
California
___
Ta
stare decisis,
which neatly mesh with ODbL — it's pretty cool if you enjoy the intricacies of
legal stuff like copyright and license compliance. From an OSM perspective, I
suppose it can be said we are fortunate to have as much state (of California)
published g
continues to become better-defined in the USA, and I am pleased to see us
continue to discuss it well right here.
SteveA
California
(a big fan of "let's get admin_level as correct as we can in the USA")
> From: Peter Dobratz <pe...@dobratz.us>
> To: Albert Pundt <roadsgu..
sh, I additionally invite anybody to contact me off-list
to ask about this topic should you care to know further details, though Nathan
is the primary importer of these data.
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Hi again, Nathan:
Clifford Snow is working on this, too, at least
identifying Washington State ferries without a duration tag. I know you two
know each other (he did introduce us last summer!), so a heads up that you
might want to coordinate with him to not overlap effort.
While it is
p them
frequently, if at all).
Thanks for bringing this up, allowing a wider discussion of these corner cases
and how OSM has been characterizing them.
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
what might be a better structure, you might use the same
text-based structure that I do above. We want to better channel what is really
"in" Pennsylvania and how it maps to OSM's admin_level tagging. Your input is
important, even it is just more questions of "why do we do it thi
versial, I believe a strong argument can be made that if we are
defining and mapping admin_level=2, 4, 6 and 8, because we also define 10, we
might as well map 10 where it really exists (often, big-city neighborhood
councils are real things, with real bound
(to wit). Some minor discussion/tune-ups (like this) should not
surprise or alarm us.
The good news is that the Big Table can be said to be believed by OSM consensus
to be "very nearly correct." I'd guess only very minor changes to it will be
require
and the "next one bigger"
(place=village) both seemed too large and could create confusion or ambiguity
with the now-entered "Villages," which are properly named with the word
"Municipality" at the end of their name.
Thanks, everybody! (This thread now really
Josh Lee writes:
"TIGER Line gives these village boundaries in the "County Subdivisions" file."
Thank you, I'm taking a look now.
Effectively closing this thread,
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@ope
Thank you, Nelson. Per the link (and a further link, which points to Simon Poole for the OSMF License Group):"But while neither CC nor the OSMF has undertaken a complete compatibility analysis, we have identified at least one point of incompatibility and one possible challenge regarding
A 4.0. Does OSM have a problem with that?
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
o
we can correctly tag Guam's municipalities.
Are there any Guam-savvy readers on talk-us? Håfa ådai!
Puedi ha' todu maolek,
Nå'ån-hu si SteveA
Taotao California yo'
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
I like the idea of adding ferries without duration to MapRoulette — great idea!If you don't, I will! (Well, it might take me a while).I'll check in a week or so and if nobody has, I'll give it a go.(Last ferry I rode in BC was to Bowen Island to attend a wedding of some friends who grew up
ds.
This is a big thread.
It might be obvious, but I don't mind talking about this. We do remain civil
here, I appreciate that. And I agree I can be loquacious. Yet, this is
medium-large important, taking more than a few words, I think.
SteveA
California
n pretty
good, but certainly not perfect), there ARE exceptions, and there will be
places where it simply breaks down and we can't fit parts of the USA into a
hierarchy. I do accept that, but I continue in my quest to do what we can
where we can to utter (tag) our very best where we can do so.
Again, thank you for great dialog and the additional clarification,
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
es from
which i can and do learn, to stand in my way. I hope others feel similarly.
Onwards,
SteveA
California
> Kerry Irons wrote:
>
> If all of you want to have some fun with jurisdictional boundaries, take a
> look at College Corner, OH/IN. It is a village purposefully str
ers might guide us on a number of
these situations, not just "Gores" (et al) but other kinds of "hole" tagging
without multipolygons. We do strive to do this correctly!
Thank you,
SteveA
California
Adam Franco writes:
On the "Gores" point: In Vermont, while th
it. Knowing that the progress we make in sharpening up our focus on the
topic is incremental, I welcome every little bit (or even lots!) of it we can
achieve in OSM. I continue to seek light and avoid heat.
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us
consensus to do so).
Peter, I'd be curious what you think about demoting Precinct in Town from 9 to
10 in Massachusetts.
Thanks, everybody: great dialog!
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
and
hash this out in our community. In that context, one topic to have clearly
emerged is that for "unincorporated areas," OSM is better served by a node with
place=* tagging, rather than a (multi)polygon with boundary=administrative +
admin_level=* ta
or special-purpose districts, as for
water/sewer), however be aware that when such entities are "incorporated" they
most likely rise to the level of deserving of an admin_level tag. Adam, if any
of that is not OK, please chime in.
SteveA
California
___
tly realigned the New York row to harmonize with their dialog, I
believe their final "I guess is exactly my question, more succinctly" is now
moot. But if you guys still have more to say about it, I'm all ears!
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mail
wrong
or misled here, if indeed I am.
Hope that our community engagement here will "result in a more accurate wiki,"
well, yes, of course. Obviously I wish that and a more accurate map, too.
Especially as the wiki informs and guides us to help make a better map. But,
both. Not one at the expense of the other.
Long enough, already.
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
prove it" (as
it is asserted it "should be" in US_admin_level).
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Kind of long and complex ahead; apologies in advance for the length.
I've been documenting our
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_admin_level wiki over much of
the last year with careful research on how US states and territories carve
themselves up into administrative
Hi Kevin:It may be that more than one relation is warranted because of multiple trail uses. I can see how there might be one tagged route=hiking and another tagged route=bicycle, although if the trail is largely unpaved, route=mtb is preferred instead of the latter. Of course, these would likely
And then there were six!
WikiProject_United_States_railways is delighted to announce that we have just
grown from five states to six with the addition of South Carolina by an
enthusiastic OSM volunteer. Brick by brick, everybody!
SteveA
California
d above and perhaps even start a statewide effort in YOUR state: the USA
has five (Alaska, California, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico) statewide rail
WikiProjects underway now, so only 45 to go!
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
T
Andy Townsend <ajt1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 22/05/2017 20:50, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:
>> In a word, "yuk."
>>
> It was a rendering faux pas rather than deliberate, and should (shortly) be
> fixed:
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/
Thank you!
If there is some other appropriate venue where I might offer these remarks
(this request), I'm happy to take it there, please simply inform me.
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
at
https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_States_railways and begin to fall
down the rabbit hole. Rail mapping is fun!
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
aring your experiences, too!
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
consensus, I think we can get there. But again, it is a gigantic project, and
it goes without saying once again that it must be done correctly within OSM's
community (import) guidelines.
Very much in listening mode,
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing
ook like (both before and after upload to OSM) is
absolutely essential to anybody acting in a leadership capacity during an
import.
Spirited discussion!
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
he same size as the
original. It's almost like the other data is still there even though it shows
only the Bay Area shapes. Maybe some one else has a better way to split up the
file. The Bay Area data all runs together so it is hard to see where natural
splits occur. Maybe you (stevea) or some on
el, in a sane way. You may as well save
them as .osm files (and host them on some other place besides a Microsoft
cloud), as shapefiles still remain a "foreign" (though importable) format
within OSM.
SteveA
California
> On Mar 28, 2017, at 5:00 AM, talk-us-requ...@openstree
etmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_U.S._Bicycle_Route_System and
scroll down to USBR 41, clicking on a link to find official AASHTO route data,
which OSM has explicit permission to enter. Whether you enter a single mile or
all 300+, this is the final USBR before the next round at AASHTO.
he event of a driverless car "stuck" with these data, it will
be more than its routing software that will be looping!
Seriously, this almost feels like a classic case of trying to tag too
precisely, then the real world simply intervenes with a "screechi
On Mar 19, 2017, at 5:00 AM, Kevin Kenny via talk-us-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:Thanks to anyone that read this far!Oh, I'm reading, all right! Kevin, please don't sweat too much more the seriously yeoman work you've done to clean up an "unholy mess."I do recall
to that page rather than here in the talk-us pages.
Thank you,
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
rt of US Forest Service (multi)polygons that include the
process necessary to do the coordinate system translation. Just ask!
Good luck with your import, (and yes, "herding cats," um, "finding helpful
additional volunteers to help you" can be the hardest part),
SteveA
California
It is not a toy or game. The OSM community has been watching your
edits closely and it looks like you are adding erroneous entries to our shared
map to further your enjoyment of a video game. Please stop this. This your
first and only warning."
Your mileag
sified, unless you know Local to be explicitly abutted by
residences in all cases, then highway=residential is distinctly correct.
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
1. iD news: v2.1.0 released (Bryan Housel)Congratulations, Bryan and the entire iD team! I have recently used the new(er) iD and agree it is "smoother, nicer, better." Great job!SteveACalifornia
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
glad we got here!
Consensus can be such a beautiful thing,
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
te
wilderness areas, and that we can tag similarly (to how nation-states do so)
with "states" as we know them in the USA. And I think I, Kenny and the list
largely got there.
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
T
ey are,
> in effect, the local government for tens of thousands of people who
> live on inholdings within the parks - surely more visible to the
> locals than their county governments or the hypothetical governments
> of their unincorporated townships.
No argument from me: to repeat, sovereign states can designate wilderness and
similar entities (whether nominally "national" or not).
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
protect_class=2 tag. The exclusionary geometry might be properly done with
multipolygons, but the question remains: what is/are correct protect_class(es)
for the excised "unit" entities?
Respectfully,
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
AASHTO has completed its Autumn 2016 round from state Departments of
Transportation (DOTs) for new routes in the United States Bicycle Routing
System (USBRS), like “Interstates for bikes” (network=ncn in the USA). For
details, please see OSM’s WIkiProject USBRS,
Thanks, Paul, that's a big task. OSM (and I) appreciate it.
SteveA
California
> On Dec 5, 2016, at 4:00 AM, talk-us-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
>
> Send Talk-us mailing list submissions to
> talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Wor
actually) "managed timberland" and natural=wood is
"more like" (but necessarily so) "primeval forest." OK, natural=wood might be
tagged on second- or third-generation trees, but if they are now left alone and
are intended to be left alone, na
op of our California/Railroads wiki
page?
Also, if OSM's "layer" control (stack icon) added OpenRailwayMap, (to
complement our Transport layer; thank you, Andy), that would be GREAT!
Thanks in advance to whomever might get this or these "stitched in&q
Dang: "on-the-ground truthing." I must turn off spell-check.
SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
shoulder into a well-structured
project because you built all the pieces to support them to do so. A sort of
organic growth results, so skipper that ship.
I could say more, that's plenty, so I'll stop here.
SteveA
California
OSM Volunteer
Coordinator
How about it, Dave? Might we see a truly complete North (+ Central) American
version fitting into 8 GB in the future? Please?
Thank you,
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
ought, I'm not sure they are there, though. The imagery
layer used here is excellent, especially at very high zooms.
Good work, everybody, now all we need to do is finish validation.
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap
!
Regards,
SteveA
California
> Ha! Ha! I looked at the data last night because I drove through the
> area on I-15 in early February...well it was near by Teton Idaho.
> Then in May of this year I drove through Wyoming...well it was near by
> Teton Wyoming. I am familiar with both ar
l (nearly always) determine that the
node is spam." In other words, they are trying hard to fly in under our radar,
but we (experienced OSM editors, AND the DWG's diligence) have pretty good
radar.
So, good discussion, everybody, thank you to all concerned for
e data you wish to see. MORE
important is that the data are "there" as they should be. Let's capture what
is important with good tagging.
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
best map for United States Bicycle Routes.
To add or improve national bicycle route(s) to OSM, whether segments of USBR 7
in Western New England, spurs in Georgia, or improvements in Alaska, please,
“just read our wiki and GO!”
Regards,
SteveA
WikiProject USBRS c
Google maps in OSM. Peeyew, just
saying it out loud feels kind of sour. But that will linger just for a bit,
it’ll blow away quickly. Thanks, no offense, anyone.
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https
these will match each other.
If I/we STILL don’t have this right, I sure would like to hear about it!
Thanks to everybody for the joint effort at getting this corrected.
SteveA
California
> On Jun 19, 2016, at 9:29 AM, Kerry Irons <irons54vor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Not sure how
is! (Ah, rural Maryland, so pretty).
> This tiny one is my favorite. It's so small compared to the massive BGS:
> http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/8I80lkxdGCOgfsOCKDyYSg/photo
Wow! Where is my magnifying glass?! Even being right ON TOP of this, I’ve
never seen a “Bike Must Exit” sig
i and GO!”
Regards,
SteveA
WikiProject USBRS coordinator
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
to play around with it, and
indeed “play” is how this feels: bravo!
SteveA
California
> On May 26, 2016, at 5:00 AM, talk-us-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
>
> Re: [Talk-us] New MapRoulette now in early public beta
___
Talk-us mailing lis
> As it is now spring (or fall), it’s that national biennial bicycle routes
> time of year!
Whoops, semi-annual, not biennial: AASHTO approves state DOT ballots for new
USBRs every spring and autumn.
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing lis
As it is now spring (or fall), it’s that national biennial bicycle routes time
of year!
Yes, AASHTO has ballots pending from state Departments of Transportation (DOTs)
for new routes in the United States Bicycle Routing System (USBRS), like
“proto-Interstates for bikes” (network=ncn in the
. But a national forest is a national forest is a national
forest.
I am an adult am the owner of these lands, along with millions of others.
Impassable trails and starting a fire don’t scare me.
Go ahead and consider landuse=forest as useless, that will go down like the
Hindenburg.
SteveA
ownership that makes the determination, it is the primary
use of the land which should guide our choice for the value of the landuse tag.
SteveA
California___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
trees have to be, and
> whether standing deadwood counts as “trees"
Again: GOOD! This is awesome discussion, and I want to declare my ridiculous
enthusiasm for this project and how I see it continually progressing.
SteveA
California___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
large cities are found WITHIN the boundaries of US
National Forests: I strongly believe they are not, regardless of whether OSM
tags them that way. Do we have errors in our map? Yes. Can and do we correct
them? Yes, we do. OSM simply continues to get better and better. Partly due
to discussions like these.
St
> a more specific definition for landuse=forest - see above.
It is entirely possible that landuse=forest to denote timberland is just a
starting place. (But it is an important one, and crucially, it is
well-established within the semantics of OSM tagging).
Good, GOOD!
SteveA
Californ
wood is the correct tag. I don’t need to have a degree in forestry
(nor should I) to determine whether to tag natural=wood or landuse=forest.
Start with the former, and if you or someone else learns of or knows it to be
timberland, change it to t
dentifying
them as such actually can help us achieve more clarity.
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
h start. Land use
and/or land cover still need to be better defined as to their usage in these
areas as the consensus about their semantics remains muddy, and conflated
rendering does not seem to be helping.
SteveA
California___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
, and examine
whether that is the right approach — it likely is not, but it may be, too.
THEN we might discuss if the mapnik renderer has problems.
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org
601 - 700 of 963 matches
Mail list logo