2009/10/8 Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk:
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
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 it
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
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:
F. dave...@madasafish.com
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 12:43:40
Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
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 positively
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 regular
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 case
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
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
John Smith wrote:
2009/10/7 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com:
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
2009/10/7 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com:
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
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. The
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 by
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] SteveC should decide
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
2009/10/6 Gervase Markham gerv-gm...@gerv.net:
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.
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
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 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
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 nonsense?
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 9:58 PM, Gervase Markham gerv-gm...@gerv.net 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
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 committee
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
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 2:10 PM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com 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
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 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
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
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 that
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Gervase Markham gerv-gm...@gerv.net 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
2009/10/7 Gervase Markham gerv-gm...@gerv.net:
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,
2009/10/7 Gervase Markham gerv-gm...@gerv.net:
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
2009/10/6 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com:
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
2009/10/7 DavidD thewi...@gmail.com:
2009/10/6 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com:
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
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 else
doesn't
2009/10/7 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com:
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
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 4:24 AM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com 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,
2009/10/4 Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com:
...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 Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/10/4 Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com:
...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
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
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 unnamed
2009/10/6 Gervase Markham gerv-gm...@gerv.net:
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*
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
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 loudest at
2009/10/4 Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com:
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
On 10/4/09, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com 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.
Matt Amos writes:
On 10/4/09, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com 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
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
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
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
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 there
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
2009/10/3 Gervase Markham gerv-gm...@gerv.net:
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
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 from
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 well
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
2009/10/3 Gervase Markham gerv-gm...@gerv.net:
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
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
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 have
2009/10/3 James Livingston doc...@mac.com:
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.
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. Mozilla
Roy Wallace schrieb:
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org 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
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
2009/10/3 Gervase Markham gerv-gm...@gerv.net:
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
2009/10/3 James Livingston doc...@mac.com:
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
2009/10/3 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org:
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
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 this
On 10/3/09, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com 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?
2009/10/3 Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com:
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,
John Smith wrote:
2009/10/3 Apollinaris Schoell ascho...@gmail.com:
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
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 are
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-spent
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 2:06 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/10/3 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com:
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
On 10/3/09, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com 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
2009/10/4 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com:
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
2009/10/4 Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com:
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,
2009/10/4 Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com:
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
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
there
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
Isn't it time that the governing board establishes a tagging council
of some sort (SteveC can't possibly have time to take all decisions),
with the mandate to maintain an official set of keys and values (for
applicable keys). Wouldn't also be a good idea to establish a
convention that keys that
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Markus Lindholm
markus.lindh...@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't it time that the governing board establishes a tagging council
of some sort (SteveC can't possibly have time to take all decisions),
with the mandate to maintain an official set of keys and values (for
Matt Amos wrote:
i absolutely agree. i'd also defend frederik's right to say this is
the Frederik Ramm approved tagging scheme without catching grief, or
andy to say it's the One True Gravitystorm way, etc... etc...
Now we're getting somewhere. This goes back to an idea floated a while
ago
2009/10/2 Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com:
I think you're on the wrong mailing list - this is the openstreetmap
mailing list and that's not how we will ever do things.
I thought this was anything goes, why are you dictating something can't be done?
Different people can then
experiment with different approaches to produce consistent datasets
tailored to their own needs. They don't need to be proprietary - in
fact, given the number of people around here talking about it I'd have
hoped someone would have stepped up and produced a tailored
On 01/10/09 04:14, Russ Nelson wrote:
I'm tired of this silly true/false 1/0 yes/no up/down left/right
in/out fore/aft port/starboard debate/debacle. It's trivial, it's
stupid, we could just as easily toss a coin as engage in any rational
debate about how binary values should be expressed.
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?
If that's true, we are doomed. How on earth are we going to make any
difficult decisions stick?
Gerv
On 01/10/09 10:40, Frederik Ramm wrote:
If we have open issues in the community that we cannot find a good
solution to, then the reason for this is not that we simply lack a good
Führer who tells us what is right and what is wrong;
Frederik,
I may be entering dangerous waters here, but I'm
On 02/10/09 10:10, Andy Allan wrote:
The alternative to forcing arbitrary rules of consistency on our
volunteers is to acknowledge that OSM is in fact inconsistently
tagged, and chill out about the whole thing. Different people can then
experiment with different approaches to produce
Gervase Markham schrieb:
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?
If that's true, we are doomed. How on earth are we going to make any
2009/10/2 Gervase Markham gerv-gm...@gerv.net:
If I were considering using OSM data in my business, I would consider it
laughable that after 5 years there had not yet been a decision on what
value or small set of values I needed to look for on boolean attributes
to see whether they were true
Gerv,
Gervase Markham wrote:
I may be entering dangerous waters here, but I'm wondering if this
comment of yours reveals quite a lot.
Before I discuss the contents of your message, a quick word about style:
It may be your way to try and understand a conversation by looking not
at what has
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org 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 for
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, yes/no, and 0/1 issue must be tolerated.
That's
On 03/10/2009, at 7:02 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
More examples from the Mozilla project: if one vocal group want
something one way, and another vocal group want something the other
way
in Firefox, the _worst_ thing you can do is make it a preference so
that
both sides can have what they
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 whatever, create the structures you
Gervase Markham writes:
Good leadership is not the same as makes decisions Frederik agrees
with. Good leadership is not the same as only making decisions which
are easy because everyone agrees. Good leadership is leadership which
furthers the mission of the organization.
+1
--
--my
Russ Nelson wrote:
Dave F. writes:
This is just wrong. If SteveC says that mountain=green means that
first there is a mountain, and that mountain=blue means there is no
mountain, then damnit, we should do it that way.
Sheesh, has Donovan lost all his currency?
Oh my Lord,
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 10:57 AM, ed...@billiau.net wrote:
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
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 other
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
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 my
On 10/3/09, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com 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
1 - 100 of 149 matches
Mail list logo
