John Smith wrote:
On 22 March 2010 12:24, Mike N.nice...@att.net wrote:
In your point b), do you mean that if we did use boundary relations that
there would not be an issue with boundaries and roads being co-mingled and
mis-edited?
The problem with this is when boundaries or roads move
On 22 March 2010 17:32, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
There has to be a very good reason for REMOVING any data, and the assertion
that
we can in general 'remove multiple ways' is only acceptable if the project is
also going to adopt the rule 'we will never map detail'? Perhaps it is
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 3:32 AM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
We NEED as a mater of
urgency an agreed method of MANAGING groups of ways that at a low zoom
level
define a single linear object, but at higher zoom levels show that the
'boundaries', carriage ways and structure are
Hi, all,
Many of the administrative boundaries in my area follow roads (or vice
versa). (E.g. http://osm.org/go/Zcll6ubE?layers=B000TTF ) It seems
like the TIGER import has a separate list of nodes for the two ways
(one administrative and one road), but the nodes are at identical
locations.
Hi,
Many of the administrative boundaries in my area follow roads (or vice
versa). (E.g. http://osm.org/go/Zcll6ubE?layers=B000TTF ) It seems
like the TIGER import has a separate list of nodes for the two ways
(one administrative and one road), but the nodes are at identical
locations.
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Jeff Spirko spi...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, all,
Many of the administrative boundaries in my area follow roads (or vice
versa). (E.g. http://osm.org/go/Zcll6ubE?layers=B000TTF ) It seems
like the TIGER import has a separate list of nodes for the two ways
(one
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Jeff Spirko spi...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, all,
Many of the administrative boundaries in my area follow roads (or vice
versa). (E.g. http://osm.org/go/Zcll6ubE?layers=B000TTF ) It seems
like the TIGER import has a separate list of nodes for the two ways
(one
How about 4: delete the TIGER imported administrative boundaries?
In my experience a) they're not very good, and b) we should be using boundary
relations anyway.
How will boundary relations help? They must still refer to a closed way in
order to define the administrative boundary.
How about 4: delete the TIGER imported administrative boundaries?
In my experience a) they're not very good, and b) we should be using boundary
relations anyway.
How will boundary relations help? They must still refer to a closed way in
order to define the administrative boundary.
On 22 March 2010 10:12, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
browsers to reduce problems, especially with newbies that don't get
editors, now browsers...
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
On 22 March 2010 07:35, Mike N. nice...@att.net wrote:
How will boundary relations help? They must still refer to a closed way
in order to define the administrative boundary.
Maybe he meant re-use the road as part of a relation, instead of
having 2 ways that share the same path...
Due to
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 8:12 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 March 2010 07:35, Mike N. nice...@att.net wrote:
How will boundary relations help? They must still refer to a closed way
in order to define the administrative boundary.
Maybe he meant re-use the road as part
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 5:35 PM, Mike N. nice...@att.net wrote:
How about 4: delete the TIGER imported administrative boundaries?
In my experience a) they're not very good, and b) we should be using
boundary relations anyway.
How will boundary relations help? They must still refer to a
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
How will boundary relations help what?
If you were asking how they help in general, see
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:boundary
In particular, they Make it easier to stitch all the parts of a border to
each other and
In your point b), do you mean that if we did use boundary relations that there
would not be an issue with boundaries and roads being co-mingled and mis-edited?
From: Anthony
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2010 8:41 PM
To: Mike N.
Cc: Jeff Spirko ; OSM Talk
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Administrative
On 22 March 2010 12:24, Mike N. nice...@att.net wrote:
In your point b), do you mean that if we did use boundary relations that
there would not be an issue with boundaries and roads being co-mingled and
mis-edited?
The problem with this is when boundaries or roads move independent of
each
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 10:24 PM, Mike N. nice...@att.net wrote:
In your point b), do you mean that if we did use boundary relations that
there would not be an issue with boundaries and roads being co-mingled and
mis-edited?
The use of boundary relations doesn't prevent people from
On 22 March 2010 13:31, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
1) How so? In the worst case scenario you have an equal-sized mess. Can
you give an example?
Because you are trying to hit a moving target...
2) In most cases of road-realignment you generally *want* to move the
boundary at the same
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 11:40 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
On 22 March 2010 13:31, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
1) How so? In the worst case scenario you have an equal-sized mess. Can
you give an example?
Because you are trying to hit a moving target...
What does
On 22 March 2010 13:53, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
What does that mean?
It means you probably haven't done much with boundaries and have yet
to experience the pleasure of people screwing them up repeatedly
because they're linked to other objects...
Postcodes are a whole different story. At
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 11:59 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
On 22 March 2010 13:53, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
True. What's your point?
That you haven't actually done much work on boundaries to figure this
all out for yourself and the pitfalls of some of the suggestions
On 22 March 2010 14:15, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
YOU said that I meant re-use the road as part of a relation. But in fact
I did not. My position on that is that sometimes that is a good idea. And
sometimes it isn't. It's really case-dependent. If a boundary is legally
And how would
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 12:28 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
On 22 March 2010 14:15, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
YOU said that I meant re-use the road as part of a relation. But in
fact
I did not. My position on that is that sometimes that is a good idea.
And
On 22 March 2010 14:32, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
By reading the legal definition, of course. Same way I'd determine what the
border is in the first place.
How many borders in the US are there exactly?
___
talk mailing list
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 12:42 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
On 22 March 2010 14:32, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
By reading the legal definition, of course. Same way I'd determine what
the
border is in the first place.
How many borders in the US are there exactly?
3.
On 22 March 2010 14:51, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 12:42 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 22 March 2010 14:32, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
By reading the legal definition, of course. Same way I'd determine what
the
border is in the first
26 matches
Mail list logo
