Le 25.10.22 à 19:45, Colin Smale a écrit :
Are underground pipelines and electricity transmission cables just as
controversial? They are covered over, built on, and completely
unobservable from the surface
in several European countries, the markers are visible from satellite
imagery and by
Le 25.10.22 à 20:26, Minh Nguyen a écrit :
If you have time to write up your experiences in OHM's central issue
tracker [1], it could have a concrete impact on the project.
https://github.com/OpenHistoricalMap/issues/issues/478
___
talk mailing
Hi,
On 10/25/22 19:18, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote:
In my experience, it is more often the opposite situation that happens.
A mapper, unaware of the lengthy debates on the topic of former
railroads, is mapping her house and removes the bit of abandoned rail
currently on the map in that spot,
Vào lúc 06:40 2022-10-25, Marc_marc đã viết:
when to migrate the data to ohm, I am convinced.
however, having tested it this month, it's horribly non-ergonomic
and I don't believe for a moment that it's within the reach of
an iD contributor nor of an average contributor with josm,
unless a
On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 1:45 PM Colin Smale wrote:
> Are underground pipelines and electricity transmission cables just as
> controversial? They are covered over, built on, and completely unobservable
> from the surface. They may also have been taken out of service many decades
> ago.
>
In the
> On 25/10/2022 19:18 CEST Brian M. Sperlongano wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 4:37 AM Frederik Ramm mailto:frede...@remote.org> wrote:
>
> > in the spirit of friendly collaboration I would say that a limited amount of
> > stuff-that-should-not-be-in-OSM can be *tolerated*. If
On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 7:46 AM Marc_marc wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Le 25.10.22 à 09:42, Warin a écrit :
> > why have the tags that mean there is nothing left of it?
>
> I'm using from time to time as a QA-tag to avoid that a mapper
> add it back
I do this as well. We have had some major wildfires
On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 4:37 AM Frederik Ramm wrote:
> in the spirit of friendly collaboration I would say that a limited amount
> of
> stuff-that-should-not-be-in-OSM can be *tolerated*. If someone does a
> lot of good work for OSM otherwise and would really like to record an
> ancient former
On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 4:37 AM Frederik Ramm wrote:
> If someone does a
> lot of good work for OSM otherwise and would really like to record an
> ancient former railroad that ran through where their house now sits - I
> shrug and let them do it. Only if someone starts to make it their
> mission
On 25/10/2022 08:42, Warin wrote:
If OSM is about mapping what exists today .. why have the tags that
mean there is nothing left of it?
The main OSM website/database shouldn't. it is for *current* data.
"OpenStreetMap is a place for mapping things that are both /real and
current/"
On Tue, 25 Oct 2022 at 12:36, Andy Mabbett wrote:
>
> Thank you; that's very helpful.
Unfortunately, on further examination, that map has this (other)
waterway, which we have as Churchill Brook, labelled as Langley brook:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/167796053#map=17/52.56693/-1.77186
Hello,
Le 25.10.22 à 09:42, Warin a écrit :
why have the tags that mean there is nothing left of it?
I'm using from time to time as a QA-tag to avoid that a mapper
add it back (and in fact, I don't care, for osm, if it's demolished,
removed or destroyed, because if you weren't there the day
On Tue, 25 Oct 2022 at 12:36, Andy Mabbett wrote:
>
> Thank you; that's very helpful.
Though it does beg the question of what happens to the water in the
south-flowing stream represented by this way:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4001187
which appears as though it may be connected -
Thank you; that's very helpful.
As it passes through "Langely Pool", I've assumed it is all known as
Langley Brook.
Elsewhere on the brook, the alignment of:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/485634449
and the immediate section downstream from there seems dubious; the
former is shown as a
Andy,
You can find it on https://maps.nls.uk/view/101584522 where there is a
"rises" note on the map.
Cheers
Andy
-Original Message-
From: Andy Mabbett
Sent: 24 October 2022 20:33
To: Mappa Mercia mailing list
Subject: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Langley Brook
I'm trying to determine the
As usual (nearly all of the time!), I appreciate and agree with your
well-stated clarifications, Frederik!
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Hi,
you are correct in all aspects, however in the spirit of friendly
collaboration I would say that a limited amount of
stuff-that-should-not-be-in-OSM can be *tolerated*. If someone does a
lot of good work for OSM otherwise and would really like to record an
ancient former railroad that
On Oct 25, 2022, at 12:42 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
a
> Question:
about mapping of old railway infrastructure.
Without "meaning to be mean," I say "oh, no, not again!" I say it like that
because OSM has had this discussion many, many times.
I'll be relatively brief here and have
Hi,
Question:
If OSM is about mapping what exists today .. why have the tags that mean
there is nothing left of it?
demolished:*=*
Not existing anymore because of active removal
removed:*=*
Not existing anymore because of active removal (possible duplicate
of demolished:*=*)
19 matches
Mail list logo
