Hi,
On 5 September 2010 05:40, Zeke Farwell wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 3:32 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>>
>> yes, but it get's even harder when the information is split over
>> several layers and you do edits without even seeing the data, because
>> it is on a different layer. How cou
On 05.09.2010 11:03, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
integrity. IMHO it is the strength of OSM in respect to GIS that we do
not have layers. Layers do structure the data in a different way that
tags do: tags allow to structure as you like in the processing of the
data, while layers force you to divid
2010/9/5 Zeke Farwell :
> ...For this reason I would want layers to be
> completely separate. As long as they are separate and represent different
> types of objects that don't need to be connected then I don't really see any
> problems.
besides boundaries: for which other objects do you think t
hi,
the ArcGIS osm editor can handle layers, and from what i heard (wiki
page review) that is works well.
IMO generally, osm works as a flat sheet of paper, were people of all
skill levels can work on the map at the same time.
So having osm like a complex arcgis editor, makes it harder for the
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 3:32 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> yes, but it get's even harder when the information is split over
> several layers and you do edits without even seeing the data, because
> it is on a different layer. How could you maintain integrity and
> topology?
I think it could be
Sure do. Quite useful.
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 12:59 PM, John Smith wrote:
> On 5 September 2010 02:04, Zeke Farwell wrote:
> > I've been thinking about layers for a while. In OSM we do not use layers
> > for different types of features as one would in traditional GIS. I
> suppose
> > the bene
2010/9/4 Zeke Farwell :
> I've been thinking about layers for a while. In OSM we do not use layers
> for different types of features as one would in traditional GIS. I suppose
> the benefit of this is simplicity, but in very dense areas, things can get
> very cluttered and hard to edit.
yes, bu
On 5 September 2010 02:04, Zeke Farwell wrote:
> I've been thinking about layers for a while. In OSM we do not use layers
> for different types of features as one would in traditional GIS. I suppose
> the benefit of this is simplicity, but in very dense areas, things can get
> very cluttered and
Replying to a Newbies thread, but beyond the scope of that list so I moved
here.
I've been thinking about layers for a while. In OSM we do not use layers
for different types of features as one would in traditional GIS. I suppose
the benefit of this is simplicity, but in very dense areas, things
9 matches
Mail list logo
