On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 10:40:42PM -0400, Christopher Schmidt wrote:
in options, choose 'Aerial - OpenAerialMap' as background and you'll be
fine
hmm, i'm slightly baffled by that. the oam coverage for nz is
appalling at best and as an aside, i'd be very surprised if it was
better
Christopher Schmidt wrote:
Richard is likely limited by the Yahoo! Flash API: I expect that
there's
a fair chance that Yahoo! hasn't updated their Flash API to provide
the
new zoom levels that the main API added 2-3 weeks ago (Yahoo added
more
zoom levels worldwide at that time).
On 3 May 2008, at 03:40, Christopher Schmidt wrote:
On Sat, May 03, 2008 at 12:51:43PM +1200, Robin Paulson wrote:
In the majority of the world, OAM and Yahoo! imagery are the same --
both based on Landsat. The difference, in those areas, is that OAM
will
display tiles far above 1:1
On Sat, May 03, 2008 at 09:30:39AM +0200, bvh wrote:
On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 10:40:42PM -0400, Christopher Schmidt wrote:
in options, choose 'Aerial - OpenAerialMap' as background and you'll be
fine
hmm, i'm slightly baffled by that. the oam coverage for nz is
appalling at best
On Sat, May 03, 2008 at 08:03:16AM -0400, Christopher Schmidt wrote:
I am not local, but the openstreetmap.org data at the north side of the
canal does not seem to match what is on the imagery? More specifically
the raster of streets seems out of place.
The OSM data in OAM is 6 months out
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 7:38 AM, bvh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, May 03, 2008 at 08:03:16AM -0400, Christopher Schmidt wrote:
I am not local, but the openstreetmap.org data at the north side of
the
canal does not seem to match what is on the imagery? More specifically
the raster of
in options, choose 'Aerial - OpenAerialMap' as background and you'll be fine
regards
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
2008/5/3 micha ruh [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
in options, choose 'Aerial - OpenAerialMap' as background and you'll be fine
hmm, i'm slightly baffled by that. the oam coverage for nz is
appalling at best and as an aside, i'd be very surprised if it was
better resolution than the yahoo imagery anywhere on
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 8:51 PM, Robin Paulson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/5/3 micha ruh [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
in options, choose 'Aerial - OpenAerialMap' as background and you'll be fine
hmm, i'm slightly baffled by that. the oam coverage for nz is
appalling at best and as an aside, i'd be
On Sat, May 03, 2008 at 12:51:43PM +1200, Robin Paulson wrote:
2008/5/3 micha ruh [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
in options, choose 'Aerial - OpenAerialMap' as background and you'll be fine
hmm, i'm slightly baffled by that. the oam coverage for nz is
appalling at best and as an aside, i'd be very
You're right: that OAM imagery is very detailed. Unfortunately, it's not that
good where I'm mapping. In Oakland, California, Yahoo! has two zoom
levels beyond what Potlatch will display. It would be very helpful to me if
Potlatch would display those zoom levels. Google has one (or two)
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 8:19 PM, David Muir Sharnoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
You're right: that OAM imagery is very detailed. Unfortunately, it's not
that
good where I'm mapping. In Oakland, California, Yahoo! has two zoom
levels beyond what Potlatch will display. It would be very
On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 08:19:52PM -0700, David Muir Sharnoff wrote:
You're right: that OAM imagery is very detailed. Unfortunately, it's
not that good where I'm mapping.
Sorry, my comments were tongue in cheek. I don't expect there to be many
cases where OAM is the best choice for mapping.
13 matches
Mail list logo
