I have idea about relative positioned node on the line (crossing,
bus_stop, railway stops) object with no direct relation to geometry,
but with topology relation.
Currently I describe it even in a step further.
Imagine that you could contraint lines based on these properties; for
example
2009/6/11 hanoj eha...@gmail.com:
I have idea about relative positioned node on the line (crossing,
bus_stop, railway stops) object with no direct relation to geometry,
but with topology relation.
Currently I describe it even in a step further.
Imagine that you could contraint lines based
Hi!
I have idea about relative positioned node on the line (crossing,
bus_stop, railway stops) object with no direct relation to geometry,
but with topology relation.
Legend:
x node
o relative node
way
IDEA object model:
x--o--o-ox
API 0.7
x-- x-
hanoj wrote:
I have idea about relative positioned node on the line (crossing,
bus_stop, railway stops) object with no direct relation to geometry,
but with topology relation.
Currently I describe it even in a step further.
Imagine that you could contraint lines based on these properties; for
Hi,
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
I guess you are talking about the pantheon (the parthenon is in Athens)
What an embarassment ;-) you're right of course. I was thinking of Rome
not Greece.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
2009/6/9 Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de:
Hi!
Dave Stubbs schrieb:
Which just tells you those aren't the appropriate tags of which matt
speaks.
Careful selection of tags means that nothing existing needs to change,
unless it's to make life easier for the user by adding filtering
features.
That is
I want to suggest the following feature to the next API :
valid_per tag supported
- API will return only data of which the valid_per argument evaluates to TRUE
- A standard delete action may just set the expire_per tag to expired per
today.
The tags will need some regular expressions
Hi,
ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:
I want to suggest the following feature to the next API :
The API must be kept simple. I agree that lifecycle support needs
improvement but the API is not the place to implement such specific
rules. The API is, and should remain, first
Whatever you say. I dont have the hacking chops needed to fully understand
the APi and how it works. But I am really interested in seeing some form of
lifespan feature implemented in OSM. So it would be grate if this
discussion makes some progress in getting closer to that goal.
Greetings, Peter
2009/6/8 Peter Dörrie peter.doer...@googlemail.com:
Whatever you say. I dont have the hacking chops needed to fully understand
the APi and how it works. But I am really interested in seeing some form of
lifespan feature implemented in OSM. So it would be grate if this
discussion makes some
as frederik says, it doesn't need to be implemented in the API - all
of it can already be done client-side using the appropriate tags*.
Well several Users made the point that this would break all applications
that exist today, as they would be useless in their current state. The
current JOSM
Hi,
Peter Dörrie wrote:
The current renderes wouldn't be able to handle it either and forcing 50+
applications to change would be unappropriate.
Why, we're doing that all the time ;-)
There are many unsolved questions here. For example: What happens if
parts of the ancient world transcend
2009/6/8 Peter Dörrie peter.doer...@googlemail.com:
as frederik says, it doesn't need to be implemented in the API - all
of it can already be done client-side using the appropriate tags*.
Well several Users made the point that this would break all applications
that exist today, as they
I thought of another wanter feature for 0.7 API
Retrieving deleted objects, similarly like it is done in potlatch.
Currently only potlatch can do this and since potlatch does not work
well with larger areas (it is way too slow) and does not support many
features that JOSM have (WMS, plugins,
MP wrote:
Currently only potlatch can do this and since potlatch does not
work well with larger areas (it is way too slow) and does not
support many features that JOSM have (WMS, plugins,
loading/saving to disk, gpx tracks, gpx waypoints )
Well, apart from the GPX tracks (which it
2009/6/8 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org
Hi,
Peter Dörrie wrote:
The current renderes wouldn't be able to handle it either and forcing 50+
applications to change would be unappropriate.
Why, we're doing that all the time ;-)
Yeah I thought so too, but this was one of the main
Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
Peter Dörrie wrote:
The current renderes wouldn't be able to handle it either and forcing 50+
applications to change would be unappropriate.
Why, we're doing that all the time ;-)
There are many unsolved questions here. For example: What happens if
parts of
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 3:17 PM, MPsingular...@gmail.com wrote:
I thought of another wanter feature for 0.7 API
Retrieving deleted objects, similarly like it is done in potlatch.
Currently only potlatch can do this and since potlatch does not work
well with larger areas (it is way too slow)
2009/6/8 Peter Dörrie peter.doer...@googlemail.com:
2009/6/8 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org
There are many unsolved questions here. For example: What happens if parts
of the ancient world transcend your fourth dimension, e.g. a
contemporary secondary road uses a few bits of an ancient Roman
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Frederik Rammfrede...@remote.org wrote:
I guess this has the potential to be hellishly complex but also fun.
i guess we've just got different ideas of what fun is... i agree
about the hellish part, though ;-)
cheers,
matt
But it opens a large can of worms if you are looking at
temporal
information. All SciFi books can tell you that.
What, like a child node might risk becoming it's own grandfather
node?
Ed
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 2:08 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I was actually trying to suggest that it might, in some cases, really
make sense for things to be shared between the then and the now. If you
take the Parthenon in Rome, then the geometry should be pretty much the
same
2009/6/8 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org:
I was actually trying to suggest that it might, in some cases, really
make sense for things to be shared between the then and the now. If you
take the Parthenon in Rome, then the geometry should be pretty much the
same between now and ancient times,
23 matches
Mail list logo
