2009/10/8 Shaun McDonald :
> There is nothing wrong with mapping each lane even when it is two way, as
> that is effectively what it is as I doubt you'd be allowed to do a u-turn on
> most of those examples.
There is continuous discussions about this, and generally we agreed
that you shouldn't do
On 8 Oct 2009, at 10:39, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Gervase Markham wrote:
oneway=no might be useful in the very rare case that mappers for
some reason keep marking a road as oneway, but it's actually not!
But I'd expect a note= to be more appropriate. Other than that, I
agree it and noexit=no
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> http://www.pathetic.org.uk/
What a superb site. What t'internet was invented for. :-)
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>> oneway=no is useful for highway types which would usually imply
>> oneway=yes:
>> highway=motorway, highway=motorway_link and junction=roundabout. The
>> southern A601(M), that bonkers sliproad on the M50, and (depending on
>> interpretation) the Swindon Magic Roundabout are UK examples of each
Dave F. wrote:
> Do you know where are the Motorway Ends signs are located in you examples?
> OS define the links as M* classification, but Google shows them as A* &
> B*.
> http://osm.org/go/evhVzyiB
> http://osm.org/go/euwqKRNL
On the M50 (I was originally thinking about j3, which is our regul
ssage-
From: "Dave F."
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 12:43:40
Cc:
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] SteveC should decide
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Gervase Markham wrote:
>
>> e.g. maxspeed=no is the same as maxspeed=infinite
Although technically correct (some autobahns?) it seems posit
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Gervase Markham wrote:
>
>> e.g. maxspeed=no is the same as maxspeed=infinite
Although technically correct (some autobahns?) it seems positively
dangerous to label as such. (no).
> oneway=no is useful for highway types which would usually imply oneway=yes:
> highway=
Gervase Markham wrote:
> oneway=no might be useful in the very rare case that mappers for
> some reason keep marking a road as oneway, but it's actually not!
> But I'd expect a note= to be more appropriate. Other than that, I
> agree it and noexit=no seem pointless.
oneway=no is useful for hig
On 08/10/09 01:19, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> oh yes, there are. oneway=no, maxspeed=no, drinkable=no, building=no,
> area=no, noexit=no (really, it is just used 803 times, but we could
> add it to millions of ways), access=no, actually many tags do
> have some no-values in the db, also if i
2009/10/6 Gervase Markham :
> The "swimming pool" point is a slippery slope argument, but in fact the
> slope isn't at all slippery. Names are different to swimming pools.
> AFAIK, no-one has genuinely suggested swimming_pool=no, or in fact any
> other =no type thing apart from names.
oh yes, ther
be named.
--
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to
think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
-Original Message-
From: Gervase Markham
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 22:34:50
To:
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Ste
On 06/10/09 19:15, DavidD wrote:
> If you have 10 people in the same area chasing an unnamed road then a
> noname tag isn't going to solve the actual problem. A road in OSM that
> has been surveyed by a single person is tagged identically to a road
> that has a dozen gps tracks and has been checked
On 06/10/09 18:19, John Smith wrote:
> I have no idea about Europe/England to be honest, never been in any
> European countries.
Oops, sorry for the assumption there.
> Most roads in Australia tend to be named, even some basic concrete
> slab colvets that aren't even real bridges get named.
OK.
2009/10/7 Dave F. :
> Not necessarily more useful, but give a general idea of how the data was
> collected, yes. Unfortunately there's more to the accuracy of a GPX
> recording than the accuracy of the chip. Such as number of lock on
> satellites, weather, & geography
The number of sats doesn't ma
John Smith wrote:
> 2009/10/7 Dave F. :
>
>> The more uploaded GPX traces/checks of a route the better. Surely?
>>
>
> It would be more useful to know what created the traces also, some
> units are bound to be better than others and knowing this you would be
> able to weight the tracks rath
2009/10/7 Dave F. :
> The more uploaded GPX traces/checks of a route the better. Surely?
It would be more useful to know what created the traces also, some
units are bound to be better than others and knowing this you would be
able to weight the tracks rather than treat them all as equal.
___
Gervase Markham wrote:
> On 06/10/09 15:18, Dave Stubbs wrote:
>
>> a) what are you actually marking?
>> - no name in OSM -- we know that already
>> - the mapper didn't find a name -- so we shouldn't check again?
>>
>
> Probably not, no. Just as when a mapper adds a postbox, someone els
2009/10/7 DavidD :
> 2009/10/6 John Smith :
>
>> Yes and keep it to yourself, don't bother telling anyone else since
>> they really want to waste their time finding out there is no name,a
>> after the 10th person does this I'm sure someone has a right to be
>> upset.
>
> If you have 10 people in th
2009/10/6 John Smith :
> Yes and keep it to yourself, don't bother telling anyone else since
> they really want to waste their time finding out there is no name,a
> after the 10th person does this I'm sure someone has a right to be
> upset.
If you have 10 people in the same area chasing an unname
2009/10/7 Gervase Markham :
> On 06/10/09 05:37, John Smith wrote:
>> It sounds like he made it to see which roads needed surveying to
>> acquire their name, however I'm still confused why people use
>> noname=yes when the street does have a name but not a street sign, as
>> I posted before there i
2009/10/7 Gervase Markham :
> On 06/10/09 16:49, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
>> It's useful *as a guide*, or a tool. What some people seem to be unable
>> to grasp is that *it's OK for a road to appear in red on NoNames*. You
>> don't have to eliminate them completely. It's just a guide, not a gospel.
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> On 06/10/09 15:18, Dave Stubbs wrote:
>> a) what are you actually marking?
>> - no name in OSM -- we know that already
>> - the mapper didn't find a name -- so we shouldn't check again?
>
> Probably not, no. Just as when a mapper adds a
On 06/10/09 16:49, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
> It's useful *as a guide*, or a tool. What some people seem to be unable
> to grasp is that *it's OK for a road to appear in red on NoNames*. You
> don't have to eliminate them completely. It's just a guide, not a gospel.
A road appearing in red means th
On 06/10/09 05:37, John Smith wrote:
> It sounds like he made it to see which roads needed surveying to
> acquire their name, however I'm still confused why people use
> noname=yes when the street does have a name but not a street sign, as
> I posted before there is actually a few streets near here
On 06/10/09 15:18, Dave Stubbs wrote:
> a) what are you actually marking?
> - no name in OSM -- we know that already
> - the mapper didn't find a name -- so we shouldn't check again?
Probably not, no. Just as when a mapper adds a postbox, someone else
doesn't think "he's added a postbox. I sh
Gervase Markham wrote:
> So why did you make the noname map in the first place, if it's not
> important? Have you changed your mind about its usefulness?
It's useful *as a guide*, or a tool. What some people seem to be unable
to grasp is that *it's OK for a road to appear in red on NoNames*. You
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 2:10 PM, Russ Nelson wrote:
> Dave Stubbs writes:
> > I was convinced otherwise by some very persuasive arguments and now
> > think it's completely not worth doing and not at all important.
>
> I'm not convinced. Could you share them?
>
a) what are you actually marking?
Dave Stubbs writes:
> I was convinced otherwise by some very persuasive arguments and now
> think it's completely not worth doing and not at all important.
I'm not convinced. Could you share them?
--
--my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasa
Valent Turkovic writes:
> On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 19:17:37 +1000, John Smith wrote:
>
> > I thought this was anything goes, why are you dictating something can't
> > be done?
>
> I'm also puzzled why it can't be done by a comitee elected BY OSM
> mappers?!? Why not?
It could ... but that com
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 9:58 PM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> On 05/10/09 11:04, Dave Stubbs wrote:
>> As the person whose first came up with a no-names map for London
>> (well, actually it was a named map of London, turned into a nonames
>> map on SteveC's suggestion), I have an *official leadership
>
> Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, but you can't start writing nonsense or
> material that is not "encyclopedia type" texts. For example you can't
> start writing manuals there, you will be kicked out right away.
>
That's *exactly the same* problem though.
Who decides what is "encyclopedic" or "no
On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 10:33:40 +0100, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy
> for what Another Plaice thinks of that idea.
Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, but you can't start writing nonsense or
material that is not "
On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 20:29:30 -0400, Russ Nelson wrote:
> That's okay, too. What I want, what I REALLY want, is for SteveC to be
> able to exercise leadership without being told that he's evil for doing
> so.
Why only him? Let's choose a few people we all trust and let them come to
a agreement.
On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 19:17:37 +1000, John Smith wrote:
> I thought this was anything goes, why are you dictating something can't
> be done?
I'm also puzzled why it can't be done by a comitee elected BY OSM
mappers?!? Why not?
--
pratite me na twitteru - www.twitter.com/valentt
http://kernelre
2009/10/6 Gervase Markham :
> On 05/10/09 11:04, Dave Stubbs wrote:
>> As the person whose first came up with a no-names map for London
>> (well, actually it was a named map of London, turned into a nonames
>> map on SteveC's suggestion), I have an *official leadership
>> announcement* to make:
>>
On 05/10/09 11:04, Dave Stubbs wrote:
> As the person whose first came up with a no-names map for London
> (well, actually it was a named map of London, turned into a nonames
> map on SteveC's suggestion), I have an *official leadership
> announcement* to make:
>
> There shall be no tagging of unna
russ and i had a useful chat on IRC late last night and i think we've
cleared up the misunderstanding that lies at the root of this thread.
(russ - please correct me if i've misreported anything here).
apologies to anyone who's getting really tired of this thread.
hopefully we're at or near the end
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> 2009/10/4 Russ Nelson :
> ...that he's conducting bizarre breeding
>> experiments on cute little animals. Basically, SteveC doesn't find
>> this teasing at all funny.
>
> what's this breeding stuff about? Can anyone point to a relevant
2009/10/4 Russ Nelson :
...that he's conducting bizarre breeding
> experiments on cute little animals. Basically, SteveC doesn't find
> this teasing at all funny.
what's this breeding stuff about? Can anyone point to a relevant page?
Cheers,
Martin
__
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 4:24 AM, Russ Nelson wrote:
> Matt Amos writes:
> > forcing all mappers, editors and renderers to support it?
>
> Why do people keep saying that I want to use force? From where do
> they get this idea? Have I ever suggested the use of force? Gun,
> knife, sword, empty ha
2009/10/5 Russ Nelson :
> But if noname roads are rendered as such, then when you're looking for
> that street, you would expect to see a street without street signs.
If there is no street sign that doesn't mean the street has no name,
it just means you need another source for your data, like the
I had three replies to my message about nonames. Thank you.
Why do you assume that if the name=* tag is missing then this is an error?
Andrew
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Peter Miller wrote:
> I though it was the Führer who was meant to shout loudest in such
It's been a nice four years on this list, but now it's just
getting too stupid and way overloaded. The list would benefit
from some slight moderation or posting guidelines, but since that
doesn't happen
Matt Amos writes:
> On 10/4/09, Russ Nelson wrote:
> > No, that's not the sole purpose. See my reply to Andrew which you
> > should have already received.
>
> so the purpose is to indicate to other mappers, including via the
> nonames renderer and other debugging tools, that there is no na
On 10/4/09, Russ Nelson wrote:
> That said, I believe it a mistake to NOT have perfect consistency as a
> goal even though that goal cannot be achieved. If you don't know
> where you're going in the long term you'll likely go in circles in the
> short term. Like this discussion.
i'll keep this
2009/10/4 Peter Miller :
>
> On 4 Oct 2009, at 09:52, Rob wrote:
>
>> John Smith wrote:
>>> There will always be a vocal minority, it doesn't mean they are right
>>> or they are speaking for the majority, they are just shouting the
>>> loudest.
>> Very true, although I'm a bit unsure about which vo
On 4 Oct 2009, at 09:52, Rob wrote:
> John Smith wrote:
>> There will always be a vocal minority, it doesn't mean they are right
>> or they are speaking for the majority, they are just shouting the
>> loudest.
> Very true, although I'm a bit unsure about which vocal minority is
> shouting the lou
John Smith wrote:
> There will always be a vocal minority, it doesn't mean they are right
> or they are speaking for the majority, they are just shouting the
> loudest.
Very true, although I'm a bit unsure about which vocal minority is
shouting the loudest at the moment.
Is it the anti-Führer anar
Before we get too far, I want to say that I believe that OSM will
NEVER be completely correct or consistent. Its correctness and
consistency will fluctuate up and down depending on the expectations
of the viewer.
That said, I believe it a mistake to NOT have perfect consistency as a
goal even tho
Andrew Errington writes:
> 1) The street has no name (and you might hum a tune by U2)
> 2) The street has a name but it has not been recorded
>
> Either way, it doesn't matter.
E, no, it really does matter.
> If I am a map user then I can not intuit whether the name is missing, or
> th
2009/10/4 Matt Amos :
> no one is advocating for error. you seem to be advocating for a tag
> with the sole purpose of not rendering something in a single renderer.
> to me, that seems wrong.
I use a similar feature in JOSM to show me unnamed streets to know
which ones still need to be named, I th
2009/10/4 Russ Nelson :
> The OSM community is hostile to leadership even when that leadership
> merely renders advice. Frederick's advice to create a committee to
I think the problem here isn't the OSM community, but a vocal minority
that don't want anything but the status quo, and while techniq
2009/10/4 Roy Wallace :
> Do you realise that the only alternative to voluntary adoption is
> enforcement? Do you really want to force your idea on others even if
> they "think their idea is better"? /No thanks/.
That isn't the only alternative, you always have carrots not just
sticks. The carrot
On 10/3/09, Russ Nelson wrote:
> Matt Amos writes:
> > > I point to the +1 year age of the Noname proposal and recent
> > > inactivity and suggest that convergance isn't happening.
> >
> > maybe there isn't a need for convergence here? we've got a nonames map
> > to help mappers decide where
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 2:06 PM, John Smith wrote:
> 2009/10/3 Roy Wallace :
>>
>> Frederik's point is valid - if you want a tagging committee/working
>> group/whatever, start one. If you want an international tagging
>> committee, start one. If it's better than the current arrangement,
>> mappers
Matt Amos writes:
> > I point to the +1 year age of the Noname proposal and recent
> > inactivity and suggest that convergance isn't happening.
>
> maybe there isn't a need for convergence here? we've got a nonames map
> to help mappers decide where their time might be well-spent.
And well-s
On 03/10/09 09:24, James Livingston wrote:
> Just do what I and a lot of other people have done - give up on the
> wiki being useful, and just go ahead and tag it however you like,
> checking tagwatch and similar to see what other people are actually
> using.
tagwatch tells you what tags people ar
John Smith wrote:
> 2009/10/3 Apollinaris Schoell :
>
>> On 2 Oct 2009, at 21:06 , John Smith wrote:
>>
>>
>>> You do if you want a consistent data set.
>>>
>> And what if I don't want?
>> There are 1000s of mappers and not everyone thinks like you and agrees with
>> you. If you can'
2009/10/3 Matt Amos :
> it has to be said that, according to my german dictionary, the word
> "Führer" just means "leader" or "guide". i don't know if there are
> pejorative overtones to it in modern german use.
no, there aren't, it's the only word for "guide", used in alpine
tourism, for tourist
On 10/3/09, Russ Nelson wrote:
> Matt Amos writes:
> > forcing all mappers, editors and renderers to support it?
>
> Why do people keep saying that I want to use force? From where do
> they get this idea? Have I ever suggested the use of force? Gun,
> knife, sword, empty hand? Rejection of il
DavidD schrieb:
> If that isn't good enough what other method is there?
> How do you get from where OSM is now to the goal? Until someone starts
> coming up with ideas that have some connection to reality this will
> get nowhere. At the moment it is not much more than a bunch of people
> yelling "t
2009/10/3 Frederik Ramm :
> We have, time and time again, debated tagging rules. Some people,
> including you, tirelessly (well, more or less) campaigned for stricter
> rules, with a tight voting system and all. Others, including me, were of
> the laissez-faire disposition.
> I think that if some
2009/10/3 James Livingston :
> That mostly works because you're talking about code, not paragraphs of
> description of what a tag means. If they're knowledgeable enough to
> figure it out, two people reading a chunk of code should come up the
> same idea of what it does, which doesn't happen with t
2009/10/3 Gervase Markham :
> On 03/10/09 00:49, DavidD wrote:
>> Just start making the decisions and build the thing on top of OSM. It
>> wouldn't even be that difficult to start off. Just take planet.osm and
>> strip "unapproved" tags and build up from there.
>
> So OSM is in a state where it onl
ed...@billiau.net schrieb:
> Frederik said
>> All this is possible *within* the existing OSM framework and without any
>> strong leader telling us where to go. I really do encourage you and all
>> those calling for leadership to get together, form your own advisory
>> board or tagging committee or
Roy Wallace schrieb:
> On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> I really do encourage you and all
>> those calling for leadership to get together, form your own advisory
>> board or tagging committee or whatever, create the structures you think
>> are required, and then offer them f
On 03/10/2009, at 4:29 PM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Because sometimes, occasionally, a benevolent dictator (a phrase
> used by
> lots of open source projects) has to break deadlock and dictate.
> Things
> are working well when that power is used very, very rarely, but it
> needs
> to exist. M
2009/10/3 James Livingston :
> On 03/10/2009, at 5:02 PM, John Smith wrote:
>> This was not only highly frustrating but demoralising and as a result
>> I've not been bothered tagging any more school zones because I don't
>> see a point until there is a "One True Way" to tag school zones.
>
> Just d
On 03/10/2009, at 5:02 PM, John Smith wrote:
> This was not only highly frustrating but demoralising and as a result
> I've not been bothered tagging any more school zones because I don't
> see a point until there is a "One True Way" to tag school zones.
Just do what I and a lot of other people ha
On 03/10/2009, at 4:25 PM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Wikipedia has much less need for consistency than we do (e.g. it
> doesn't
> matter if one article is in American English and another in Australian
> English; articles are not machine-parsed) and yet they have all
> sorts of
> mechanisms for e
2009/10/3 Gervase Markham :
> Two reasons off the top of my head: because we don't want to spend ages
> developing consistent tag sets and putting them on the wiki only to have
> someone else mess around with them. And because we'd like to get some
> sort of consensus before starting off on what wi
On Sat, 3 Oct 2009, John Smith wrote:
> If there is a need for more granular committees then so be it, but
> there is some fairly fundamental things that need to be addressed,
> like street numbering, like foot paths/cycle ways.
and street numbering has been looked at on the committee basis and a s
On 03/10/09 05:16, Andrew Errington wrote:
> If you see a street on the map with no name displayed you might think one
> of two things:
>
> 1) The street has no name (and you might hum a tune by U2)
> 2) The street has a name but it has not been recorded
>
> Either way, it doesn't matter.
It darn
On 03/10/09 01:08, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> It may be your way to try and understand a conversation by looking not
> at what has been said, but at who said it and what that might reveal
> about their personal situation, upbringing, education, employment or
> other circumstances.
>
> I'm used to this
2009/10/3 Gervase Markham :
> My view is not that we should have one committee, but that groups of
> people with particular expertise should come together to develop the tag
> sets for particular areas (e.g. canals, mountain biking), those should
I was starting small, I thought if we could at leas
On 03/10/09 00:49, DavidD wrote:
> Just start making the decisions and build the thing on top of OSM. It
> wouldn't even be that difficult to start off. Just take planet.osm and
> strip "unapproved" tags and build up from there.
So OSM is in a state where it only becomes usefully consistent if you
On 03/10/09 04:00, Matt Amos wrote:
> are you suggesting that the best way forward is for some authority to
> decree that there is One True Way of tagging noname roads and forcing
> all mappers, editors and renderers to support it?
No, the best way forward is for some authority to decree that ther
On 03/10/09 06:00, John Smith wrote:
> No we need a committee to decide upon a core set of values that people
> should use where possible instead of naming the same "thing" 10
> different ways, the argument over boolean values just highlights the
> point.
OK, sorry, I thought that someone was sugg
2009/10/3 John Smith :
> 2009/10/3 Apollinaris Schoell :
>>
>> On 2 Oct 2009, at 21:06 , John Smith wrote:
>>
>>> You do if you want a consistent data set.
>>
>> And what if I don't want?
>> There are 1000s of mappers and not everyone thinks like you and agrees with
>> you. If you can't accept so m
On Sat, 3 Oct 2009, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
> On 2 Oct 2009, at 21:06 , John Smith wrote:
> > You do if you want a consistent data set.
>
> And what if I don't want?
> There are 1000s of mappers and not everyone thinks like you and agrees
> with you. If you can't accept so much freedom it's your
2009/10/3 Apollinaris Schoell :
>
> On 2 Oct 2009, at 21:06 , John Smith wrote:
>
>> You do if you want a consistent data set.
>
> And what if I don't want?
> There are 1000s of mappers and not everyone thinks like you and agrees with
> you. If you can't accept so much freedom it's your problem not
On 2 Oct 2009, at 21:06 , John Smith wrote:
> You do if you want a consistent data set.
And what if I don't want?
There are 1000s of mappers and not everyone thinks like you and agrees
with you. If you can't accept so much freedom it's your problem not
mine or theirs.
there are many things I
2009/10/3 Jeremy Adams :
> I'm just a regular old mapper, but it's my humble opinion that the data in
> the database must be consistent across the whole database. If different
> regions want to use the map for different purposes, display different tags,
> etc then they can apply their localization
2009/10/3 Elizabeth Dodd :
> I'm not in favour of a fork - I'm in favour of a consistent schema.
> There are significant regional differences and no means yet to deal with those
> within the multiple flavours of English spoken throughout the world. Spanish
> speakers will have similar troubles adap
2009/10/3 Roy Wallace :
> I think we are quite capable of (voluntarily) collaboration across
> country borders without needing an authority figure to enforce it.
You do if you want a consistent data set.
> Frederik's point is valid - if you want a tagging committee/working
> group/whatever, start
2009/10/3 Gervase Markham :
> On 01/10/09 04:26, John Smith wrote:
>> I still like Shaun's idea of a committee
>
> We really, really need a committee to decide what values we are going to
> standardize for binary true and false?
No we need a committee to decide upon a core set of values that peopl
On Sat, 3 Oct 2009, Jeremy Adams wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> > Liz,
> >
> > ed...@billiau.net wrote:
> > > This is likely to result in several insular communities. In particular
> > > I am considering that au mappers would write a tight set of guidelines
> > > f
On 03/10/2009, at 1:24 PM, Russ Nelson wrote:
> I suggest instead that in cases such as these, SteveC should bless one
> of them with his Holy Water of Antioch (and the number of the tags
> shall be 3, no more and no less). His blessing will tip the stable
> disconvergance in one direction.
For c
On 03/10/2009, at 1:16 PM, Andrew Errington wrote:
> If I am a map maker then I know whether or not the street has a name,
> because I've been there and seen it. I can look at the map and see
> that
> this street has no name, but I know that it does. So I will edit
> the data
> to make it rig
Matt Amos writes:
> forcing all mappers, editors and renderers to support it?
Why do people keep saying that I want to use force? From where do
they get this idea? Have I ever suggested the use of force? Gun,
knife, sword, empty hand? Rejection of ill-formed tags at the API?
Please, quote me
On 03/10/2009, at 12:53 PM, Jeremy Adams wrote:
> If different regions want to use the map for different purposes,
> display different tags, etc then they can apply their localization
> when they create their map.
It's not so much that there are different uses, but a lot of the
assumptions
On Sat, October 3, 2009 10:56, Russ Nelson wrote:
> Roy Wallace writes:
>
>> I think we are quite capable of (voluntarily) collaboration across
>> country borders without needing an authority figure to enforce it.
>
> Good! Collaborate on this and remove 8 of 9 proposals:
> http://wiki.openstreetm
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Liz,
>
> ed...@billiau.net wrote:
> > This is likely to result in several insular communities. In particular I
> > am considering that au mappers would write a tight set of guidelines for
> > mapping and, as an example, we wouldn't have to wo
On 02/10/2009, at 7:12 PM, Nigel Magnay wrote:
> That's fine, so long as the tags themselves are namespaced. Otherwise,
> just as now, the semantics get confused.
>
> I.E, It should be the case that if I tag as
>
> FredericRamm:interesting=true
Going this route is really just reinventing XML, with
Russ Nelson wrote:
> There's a set of people who feel that mappers shouldn't be given
> guidance, because if they accidentally don't follow it, they'll feel
> bad and might stop mapping. But there's also a set of mappers who are
> editing because they want to create the best map possible.
Russ, w
On 10/3/09, Russ Nelson wrote:
> Jukka Rahkonen writes:
>
> > You seem to believe that SteveC would make such a decision that
> > makes you happy. How about if he says that if you want people to
> > continue working with OSM "in creative, productive, or unexpected
> > ways" then true/false, y
Roy Wallace writes:
> I think we are quite capable of (voluntarily) collaboration across
> country borders without needing an authority figure to enforce it.
Good! Collaborate on this and remove 8 of 9 proposals:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Noname
I'm not holding m
Frederik Ramm writes:
> Because the leader is the intellectual visionary and the sheep cannot be
> expected to have the information or the intellectual capacity to
> understand.
I'm pretty sure you've gone off into the weeds, Frederick. Leadership
and followership in a voluntary organization
Frederik Ramm wrote:
> On the face of it, this true/false thing is really not a big deal and we
> would be truly stupid to waste so much time discussing it.
Frederik, why can't you understand?
The problem is /not /about the differences between True/False, but the
*similarities* between True/Yes
Liz,
ed...@billiau.net wrote:
> This is likely to result in several insular communities. In particular I
> am considering that au mappers would write a tight set of guidelines for
> mapping and, as an example, we wouldn't have to worry about "residential
> vs unclassified in rural areas" for any o
1 - 100 of 158 matches
Mail list logo
