> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:13 PM, wrote:
> > Risk assessment and hazards are also relevant.
> >
> > The grassy area next to a steel mill might not be plain old
> > grass, who knows what has been stored there and what kind
> > of hazards, from chemicals to rusty nails are left behind?
>
> Certai
I believe that if one is tagging an area to imply that there is
contamination, one should cite an authoritative source. Having your
property tagged as potentially contaminated could lead to difficulties
in selling or refinancing the property. Even if a property was
contaminated, it could be remed
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> These things need not be, and have never been, global in OSM. If one local
> community happens to have the manpower locally then it's great if they
> manage to record all that detail, and we should be very careful not to make
> decisions that
Hi,
On 02/02/11 11:24, Steve Bennett wrote:
Certainly that information is of use to someone, but I don't think OSM
should try and be all things to all people. For starters, we simply
don't have the manpower. In the Australian context, it looks like we
might be able to do better than Google Maps,
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:13 PM, wrote:
> Risk assessment and hazards are also relevant.
>
> The grassy area next to a steel mill might not be plain old
> grass, who knows what has been stored there and what kind
> of hazards, from chemicals to rusty nails are left behind?
Certainly that informat
>
> For some purposes the 'landuse=industrial' information will be more
> important, for other 'surface=grass'. These are different kinds of
> information.
Risk assessment and hazards are also relevant.
The grassy area next to a steel mill might not be plain old
grass, who knows what has been
Hi,
On 02/01/11 03:37, Steve Bennett wrote:
Furthermore, you might be reduced to categorising individual elements
of the factory. Would the administrative wing really be
landuse=industrial? Surely it should be landuse=commercial. etc etc.
Before long you'll be tagging the restrooms as
landuse
2011/2/1 Steve Bennett :
> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 12:48 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>> probably no. Landuse is describing the actual usage of the land. If
>> there is only grass, it cannot be considered industrial, regardless of
>> who owns the land.
>
> Problem with that ruling is you would
2011/2/1 :
> What about a grassy field that is being used for industrial storage? For
> example, one small company here in Nashville has stacks of steel beams,
> several wheeled cranes, and the like stored on a grass-covered vacant lot
> next to their office and parking lot. From the way the
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 12:13:54PM +1100, Steve Bennett wrote:
> I think a few of our tags aren't sufficiently well defined to be clear
> about which is correct. For example, say a steel manufacturer owns a
> large piece of land, at one end of which is a steel smelter. The rest
> is grass. Is the w
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 12:48 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> probably no. Landuse is describing the actual usage of the land. If
> there is only grass, it cannot be considered industrial, regardless of
> who owns the land.
Problem with that ruling is you would end up with tiny little
odd-shaped
around the wheels,
some of the equipment hasn't been moved in years.
---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] New tool in Potlatch 2 for areas that share a way
>From :mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com
Date :Mon Jan 31 19:48:14 America/Chicago 2011
2011/2/1 Steve Bennett :
>
2011/2/1 Steve Bennett :
> I think a few of our tags aren't sufficiently well defined to be clear
> about which is correct. For example, say a steel manufacturer owns a
> large piece of land, at one end of which is a steel smelter. The rest
> is grass. Is the whole land landuse=industrial?
probab
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 9:44 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> Yes, parallel ways are actually to be considered errors in the case
> that the polygons really do touch, while colinear ways are simply less
> elegant but not wrong. I fear though, that laziness will lead to
> people identifying feature
* char...@cferrero.net [2011-01-31 07:40 +]:
> I've noticed, however, that Osmarender doesn't render islands which
> are multipolygons (but Mapnik does).
Osmarender can be weird with multipolygons. I know from mentions on IRC
that Tiles@Home splits up OSM data in chunks the size of a single
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 11:02 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> 2011/1/31 Matt Williams :
>> The example that come to my mind is the case where an administrative
>> boundary is _defined_ by a river or stream for example.
>
>
> Yes, the same came to my mind. But what is the situation if the river
>
2011/1/31 Matt Williams :
> The example that come to my mind is the case where an administrative
> boundary is _defined_ by a river or stream for example.
Yes, the same came to my mind. But what is the situation if the river
changes? Will the boundary change, or will the boundary be at the
positi
On 31 January 2011 15:44, Anthony wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 5:44 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>> 2011/1/31 Steve Bennett :
>>> I think I agree with your earlier point that mp's are better than
>>> colinear ways, but colinear ways are still better than parallel ways
>>> for areas that d
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 5:44 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> 2011/1/31 Steve Bennett :
>> I think I agree with your earlier point that mp's are better than
>> colinear ways, but colinear ways are still better than parallel ways
>> for areas that do actually touch.
>
> Yes, parallel ways are actua
2011/1/31 Steve Bennett :
> I'd like to have a better understanding of support for multipolygons
> across different renderers and editors. For example, does mapnik
> support mp's on *all* tags, or is it case-by-case?
AFAIK they are conversed into single polygons on DB-import, so they
should work
I also fail to see how I should convert the patched blanket of
landuses into multipolygons. I try to use those multipolygons as
sparingly as possible.
Jo
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Daniel Sabo wrote:
> This is a really bad idea. Drawing collinear features by sharing
> nodes is NEVER a good idea beyond 1 or 2 shared corners,
> that's what multipolygons are for.
Disagree very very strongly.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:49 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I understand this is what your plugin does and I'd say it is ok for a couple
> of nodes (for simplicity) but if you really have something like an
> administrative area that ends at the coastline I'd not like to see someone
> "following" the c
Hi,
On 01/31/11 02:27, Steve Bennett wrote:
Does that apply for coastlines as well? Or do coastlines not even need
the multipolygon?
Coastlines do not use multipolygons. But if you have an area that is
bounded by coastline - say, a beach area - then you can create a
multipolygon for the beac
Daniel Sabo (daniels...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Jan 30, 2011, at 6:44 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Daniel Sabo wrote:
Right now Potlatch doesn't even render landuse multipolygons
though, so there's not much incentive for people to click a button
like that :).
On Jan 30, 2011, at 6:44 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Daniel Sabo wrote:
>> Right now Potlatch doesn't even render landuse multipolygons though, so
>> there's not much incentive for people to click a button like that :).
>>
>> I do appreciate that my pro-multipol
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Daniel Sabo wrote:
> Right now Potlatch doesn't even render landuse multipolygons though, so
> there's not much incentive for people to click a button like that :).
>
> I do appreciate that my pro-multipolygon perspective comes from working
> primarily with JOSM
On Jan 30, 2011, at 5:27 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Daniel Sabo wrote:
>> This is a really bad idea. Drawing collinear features by sharing nodes is
>> NEVER a good idea beyond 1 or 2 shared corners, that's what multipolygons
>> are for.
>
> Does that apply for
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Daniel Sabo wrote:
> This is a really bad idea. Drawing collinear features by sharing nodes is
> NEVER a good idea beyond 1 or 2 shared corners, that's what multipolygons are
> for.
Does that apply for coastlines as well? Or do coastlines not even need
the mult
This sounds great, especially for coastline work. I hope JOSM can get
something similar.
It seems the ContourMerge plugin for JOSM does something like this (though
I've not tried it myself).
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/ContourMerge
Thanks! Looks like that was released s
On 31/01/2011 00:32, John Goodman wrote:
Thought I would announce a new tool that is now available in
Potlatch 2 that makes it easier to draw ways that share nodes with
another way: "follow".
This sounds great, especially for coastline work. I hope JOSM can get
something similar.
It seem
This is a really bad idea. Drawing collinear features by sharing nodes is NEVER
a good idea beyond 1 or 2 shared corners, that's what multipolygons are for.
When the ways get attached to large objects (like an administrative boundary or
national park) it becomes impossible to edit them from an e
Thought I would announce a new tool that is now available in
Potlatch 2 that makes it easier to draw ways that share nodes with
another way: "follow".
This sounds great, especially for coastline work. I hope JOSM can get
something similar.
John
Hi all,
Thought I would announce a new tool that is now available in
Potlatch 2 that makes it easier to draw ways that share nodes with
another way: "follow".
Here's how it works. Say you want to map a golf course that shares
half its boundary with a landuse=industrial.
1) Start drawing the gol
34 matches
Mail list logo
