Cartinus, thanks for pointing out the link.
It'd be interesting to see OpenRailwayMap as a Featured Layer. I'll suggest
that on ORM's mailing list.
Cheers,
Arlindo
On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote:
On 04-07-14 20:45, Arlindo Pereira wrote:
Perhaps the
On 23/06/2014 22:12, Rob Nickerson wrote:
Andy,
I think there is a lot of positives in the new rendering as well. I
for one am delighted to see some life back in the standard map
style, this way new tags can be (and have been) added to the rendering
rules. So it's a mix - some things are
Perhaps the question should be: what could we do to have different map
styles (OpenRailwayMap and OpenPisteMap comes to my mind, but I'm pretty
sure you can think in others) appearing as layers on openstreetmap.org
website?
We could come up with a process to do so, even if the rendering itself
On 04-07-14 20:45, Arlindo Pereira wrote:
Perhaps the question should be: what could we do to have different map
styles (OpenRailwayMap and OpenPisteMap comes to my mind, but I'm pretty
sure you can think in others) appearing as layers on openstreetmap.org
website?
We could come up with a
Hi,
I agree that the render-all-approach is useful in some cases, but - on
which ones?
In low zoom levels (z0-15) it tends to get overwhelmingly cluttered by
features while on the other hand lots of them have to be dropped at
random because of geometric restrictions - there's limited space on the
I second this. Even some form of SVG would be an improvement over nothing
or having to load something through JOSM for some glancing by area...
On Jul 3, 2014 6:51 AM, Peter Wendorff wendo...@uni-paderborn.de wrote:
Hi,
I agree that the render-all-approach is useful in some cases, but - on
Elena ``of Valhalla'' writes:
The right solution to this kind of complaint is to help them set up
their own thematic map.
No. The right solution is to stop having a map. We need to bring
opencyclemap, openrailwaymap, openpistemap, and opencanalmap back into
the fold, and offer all of them as
On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 12:00:32 +0100,
Philip Barnes wrote:
Abandoned railways are also potential footpaths, cycleways, again not
showing them makes locating potential useful rights of way claims more
difficult.
I'd assume that mappers who have surveyed the abandoned railways would
add
On Thu, 2014-06-26 at 13:52 +0200, malenki wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 12:00:32 +0100,
Philip Barnes wrote:
Abandoned railways are also potential footpaths, cycleways, again not
showing them makes locating potential useful rights of way claims more
difficult.
I'd assume that mappers
On 2014-06-23 20:14, Russ Nelson wrote:
The only complaints I see about the standard map are the ones coming
from railfans who want to see the abandoned railroads put back.
I'm still holding my breath for landuse labels at z14... [1]
[1]
Michael wrote:
This reminds me to the good old times in OSM. Can anybody
remember
that the sand bunkers on some golf courses had beeen tagged as
natural
= beach to get them rendered? :-(
Not everything was good in good old times...
You're trolling, yes? golf=bunker still isn't rendered,
2014-06-24 9:53 GMT+02:00 Ed Loach edlo...@gmail.com:
You're trolling, yes? golf=bunker still isn't rendered, e.g.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/133025922
(Perhaps of interest is this related blog post by rweait from August
2009
http://weait.com/content/golf-course-style-openstreetmap
)
Am 24.06.2014 10:57, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
this obviously belongs to [tagging],
[...]
Please check the detailed description on
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgolf_course
how to tag e.g. bunkers (also by surface!)
And if it is not rendered please add a feature request
On 2014-06-23 at 23:14:36 -0400, Russ Nelson wrote:
The only complaints I see about the standard map are the ones coming
from railfans who want to see the abandoned railroads put back. Can we
not admit to error?
Rendering a feature because its fans complain loud enough doesn't sound
like a
2014-06-24 11:37 GMT+02:00 Michael Kugelmann michaelk_...@gmx.de:
And if it is not rendered please add a feature request (or better submit a
patch).
FWIW, I am not a golf player, but as this is a returning issue decided to
create a ticket nonetheless to avoid tagging for the renderer:
2014-06-24 12:46 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:
Would adding an hstore-column be an option for the main rendering db? This
would give us all the flexibility we are currently missing because of
missing keys, but will have some performance penalty.
maybe it could be an
On Mon, 2014-06-23 at 23:14 -0400, Russ Nelson wrote:
The only complaints I see about the standard map are the ones coming
from railfans who want to see the abandoned railroads put back. Can we
not admit to error? Y'all should try it -- it puts hair on your chest
and makes your boobs bigger
There have been lots of changes to the standard style sheet recently
(e.g. [1]). The resulting map looks much nicer (farmland and other
landuse much less glaring, names that really make no sense to be shown
on a general map aren't).
There have however been some unintended consequences of the
SomeoneElse lists at mail.atownsend.org.uk writes:
There have however been some unintended consequences of the changes. A
number of abandoned railways near me were edited from abandoned to
disused; I'm guessing that it might be because of the recent changes.
Changeset comments along the
Or directed them toward Openrailwaymap ?
I don't think a show-them-all map makes sense these days. Everybody should be
able to find a map that fits his / her needs.
Yves
On 23 juin 2014 18:33:01 UTC+02:00, Andrew Hain andrewhain...@hotmail.co.uk
wrote:
SomeoneElse lists at mail.atownsend.org.uk
Andrew Hain wrote:
Have you talked to them or reverted their edits?
Re the disused railway, I did talk to the person who changed it - and
attached a photo (which showed it to be very much abandoned).
Re the most recent time that I saw I know we shouldn't tag for the
renderer but in
Yves wrote:
Or directed them toward Openrailwaymap ?
I'd have suggested that (in fact it's the first place I looked), had any
of the renderings there been at all useful. There do seem to have been
some odd choices in terms of what gets rendered and what doesn't.
Here's an area not far
on 23.06.2014 13:56, SomeoneElse wrote:
A number of abandoned railways near me were edited from abandoned to
disused; I'm guessing that it might be because of the recent
changes. Changeset comments along the lines of changed to X so that
it renders and I know we're not supposed to tag for the
However this off-topic illustrates one point: topic map are good to show
topical features: you can fill bugs that the maintainer will have a
pleasure to fix :)
Andy, you are well placed to know that rendering a particular topic well
requires a good understanding of the tagging scheme, but
The only complaints I see about the standard map are the ones coming
from railfans who want to see the abandoned railroads put back. Can we
not admit to error? Y'all should try it -- it puts hair on your chest
and makes your boobs bigger (those would be gender-specific
enhancements. I'll let you
On the other hand (reaching into my economist's bag of hands), I'm not
friends with too many hydrantfans, churchfans, mountaintopfans,
islandfans, or wetlandfans. So maybe I have a biased view. How many
complaints are we getting from them, now that their favorite feature
is no longer visible?
I
26 matches
Mail list logo
