On Monday 22 July 2013 22:24:09 Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 09:22:47PM +0200, Marc Gemis wrote:
The only good solution is to create post code polygons. This is stated
e.g. on the nominatim FAQ page:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Nominatim/FAQ#postal_codes
I don't know
On Wednesday 31 July 2013 15:23:18 Joren wrote:
As you can see for the Duffel-node, I tried to fix it by taking the
is_in tags from Lier as example (instead of all those double tags like
Mechelen,Mechelen,Antwerpen,Antwerpen, ...).
Those double names in the is_in tag are still remnants of some
On Tuesday 10 September 2013 14:10:37 Ben Schalley wrote:
Louis, zoals lodde1949 dus heet, gebruikt zoals we al vermoedde Bing als
zijn enige (?) bron. Ik zal hem in mijn antwoord bedanken voor zijn
antwoord en ook deze mailing list aanhalen. Verder denk ik dat het ook
raadzaam is om hem
On Wednesday 18 September 2013 17:58:36 Guy Vanvuchelen wrote:
Daardoor wordt mijn fietspad te gemakkelijk vastgeklikt aan die landuse en
dat is natuurlijk niet de bedoeling.
Om te vermijden dat je nieuwe lijnen worden vastgemaakt aan bestaande lijnen,
moet je control ingedrukt houden terwijl
On Thursday 19 September 2013 14:22:01 Jean-Louis Stanus wrote:
Ik ga akkord met je glenn
dus ik gebruik dat:
no highway key
maar alleen deze: designation=public_footpath
designation=public_footpath doesn't mean anything on itself (that tag doesn't
have a definition in Belgium anyway),
On Friday 27 September 2013 05:49:26 Marc Gemis wrote:
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Kurt Roeckx k...@roeckx.be wrote:
http://gisgeoloket.provant.be/SilverlightViewer_1_9/Viewer.html?Viewer=Atl
asBuurtwegen
Thanks for the link Kurt. Sorry that I was too lazy to look it up myself.
I must
On Monday 30 September 2013 14:36:44 Guy Vanvuchelen wrote:
Regelmatig kom ik op wandelingen het bord C3 tegen. Een rond wit bord met
rode rand. Verboden toeging in BEIDE richtingen, voor iedere bestuurder.
Onderborden zijn mogelijk. Dikwijls staat er een onderbord Uitgezonderd
fietsers
On Tuesday 01 October 2013 10:38:41 Stijn Rombauts wrote:
Hoi,
't Was redelijk amuzant maar toch ook wat schrijnend om vast te stellen dat
een simpele vraag tot een heel gekakel leidt, zonder dat daar ergens iets
bij zit wat op een antwoord lijkt. Guy laat zich daar misschien niet door
van
On Tuesday 01 October 2013 22:56:33 André Pirard wrote:
vehicle=no alone is wrong because it allows access to horses.
access=destination is wrong because it does not allow access to
pedestrians and to horses, and delivery and emergency vehicles must be
added.
Here's the flaw in this: no-one
Trying to reply to an HTML message is going to be fun, but here goes...
On Tuesday 01 October 2013 23:00:33 André Pirard wrote:
I agree with you that, in contrast with what OSM seems to want to do (on the
wiki and on the tagging list), we cannot map everything down to the
slightest detail.
On Wednesday 02 October 2013 12:26:27 Marc Gemis wrote:
2013/10/2 Stijn Rombauts stijnromba...@yahoo.com:
https://maps.google.be/maps?q=lummenhl=nlll=51.018767,5.185422spn=0.023
082,0.066047sll=51.09623,4.227975sspn=1.474765,4.22699hnear=Lummen,+Lim
On Thursday 03 October 2013 05:47:10 Marc Gemis wrote:
From the page mentioned by Gilbert, I discovered
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions
#Belgium. It states e.g. that the key designated is useless in Belgium:
There's no reason for a designated
On Thursday 03 October 2013 12:53:20 Guy Vanvuchelen wrote:
Groot gelijk.
Zo zijn oude tram- of spoorwegen volgens mij fietspaden (cycleway) of er nu
een bord staat D7 of C3 (met of zonder onderschrift) of helemaal niets maar
met een paal in het midden van de weg.
't is één ding van dat te
On Thursday 03 October 2013 13:53:16 Marc Gemis wrote:
hoe tag je
Uitgezonderd diensten
Uitgezonderd aangelanden
Uitgezonderd bewoners
Die laatste lijkt me strenger dan access=destination. Ik weet ook
niet hoe die mensen daar ooit een verhuiswagen of zo voor hun deur
kunnen krijgen.
On Friday 04 October 2013 15:39:15 Wouter Hamelinck wrote:
Ik geef toe dat rendering een deel van de oorzaak is, maar het daartoe
herleiden is wat te simpel.
Naar mijn mening (warning: just an opinion) ligt de nadruk nu te veel
op toegangsrestricties. Dit is perfect logisch in Engeland (waar
On Sunday 06 October 2013 17:48:05 Glenn Plas wrote:
I'm in the process of creating a Belgian settings file for this great
plug-in. It would be a perfect tool to distil the common knowledge and
tagging habits in our little country. I've done this in the past
already (but half-assed ) but
On Sunday 06 October 2013 19:31:47 Glenn Plas wrote:
What plugin ? I know of none that do what this does.
I know none exists right now, but if you start making some controversial
decisions other plugins can appear. I once tried making a webpage once though
where you could just click the signs
On Monday 07 October 2013 14:00:36 Dennis Bollyn wrote:
For example, I'm tending towards xx=designated where it is a F99x sign and
xx=yes when a sign indicates a additional right that is not normally
present (eg. uitgezonderd .../excepte ...), but this is not consistently
used throughout the
On Monday 14 October 2013 22:13:09 Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 09:59:29PM +0200, Ben Abelshausen wrote:
The source is wrong obviously and I guess we should also add postalcode
and
commune name??
Adding postal code and commune name doesn't make sense to me in
most cases.
On Saturday 19 October 2013 14:00:12 Ben Abelshausen wrote:
Hallo,
Wat zeg ik nu om de adressen te importeren?
Het is het één of het ander:
- Alles op de node.
- Alles op relatie behalve nummer.
relatie +1
Ben
___
Talk-be mailing list
On Saturday 26 October 2013 17:45:04 Jo wrote:
Tag the part of the street until the first crossing (or the first garage
door/driveway) as oneway=yes. The rest of the street as oneway=no
explicitely.
And, of course, if it doesn't apply to bicycles or buses oneway:bicycle=no
and/or
On Saturday 26 October 2013 17:31:08 Gilbert Hersschens wrote:
Ik krijg er een punthoofd van om de mail threads proberen te volgen met al
die voorgaande mails die er telkens weer in verweven zitten. Op den duur
zie je niet meer wie wat waarop geantwoord heeft. Heeft er al iemand aan
gedacht om
On Wednesday 13 November 2013 16:27:11 André Pirard wrote:
The issue seems clear to me, especially in French.
We have 3 kinds of persons according to the official language they
speak, but we have *4 territories* one of which is bilingual in the
sense that their people can choose between two
On Monday 25 November 2013 23:37:41 Kurt Roeckx wrote:
There should be a hole in the language area (which we don't have)
and the region
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/53134), which seems
to be the case, and you can argue about the communitie
On Wednesday 04 December 2013 13:49:56 Marc Gemis wrote:
Today, I did my first attempt add adding a boundary. The boundary is for
the deelgemeente Muizen near Mechelen. The changeset is
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/19271107
I used http://gisgeoloket.provant.be/ to export a jpg file
On Friday 06 December 2013 09:09:12 Wouter Hamelinck wrote:
OK, I'll bite.
- If it is not in the Moniteur/Staatsblad it is definitely not a law.
(reaction to the use of e.g. and normally)
- Yes, you can use the Staatsblad/Moniteur to map things. Not sure how
you would do that.
- I am
On Friday 06 December 2013 13:26:25 Wouter Hamelinck wrote:
I know, but I was mainly interested in the way the borders were
defined in 1830. Say I take a certain point. Which law defines it to
be a part of community X? Is there such a law? It is more curiosity
from my side, than practical use
On Tuesday 25 February 2014 20:47:59 Gilbert Hersschens wrote:
Ik krijg alleen nog error tiles. Als ik de oorspronkelijke WMS link
(*http://wms.agiv.be/ogc/wms/omkl
http://wms.agiv.be/ogc/wms/omkl?) *opnieuw wil installeren krijg ik
foutmeldingen en als ik rechtstreeks op de AGIV site ga werkt
On Monday 10 March 2014 13:57:44 Andre Engels wrote:
Primary/secondary/tertiary/unclassified distinctions are not absolute for
Belgium, there is some degree of subjective judgement in that. Having said
that, N-roads are usually secondary (or primary), so I'd say that one
should have a good
On Monday 10 March 2014 17:48:06 André Pirard wrote:
According to IGN/NGI and the reasoning below, Benedestraat N211a is
(officially) a secondary road.
The first question is; what is a primary/secondary/tertiary road?.
And why is it useful to know? To make better GPS routing?
The current
On Friday 14 March 2014 11:26:51 Stijn Rombauts wrote:
Ik ben al een paar nieuwe en verplaatste
knoopunten tegengekomen. De fietsers onder ons gaan weer weten wat doen.
Ook in de provincie Antwerpen worden er deze maanden heel wat routes
aangepast, dus nog meer werk :-)
Ben
On Friday 30 May 2014 12:29:54 Glenn Plas wrote:
Stukje proza : definitie van jaagpad in het nederlands:
http://www.descheepvaart.be/Rubriek/Recreatie/Jaagpaden.aspx
Jaagpaden zijn de verharde of onverharde trekwegen langs weerszijden
van de kanalen. Het gebruik van het jaagpad is geregeld
On Monday 02 June 2014 11:22:46 Marc Gemis wrote:
lijkt me inderdaad goed. de yes @ permit_holder had ik nog niet eerder
gezien. Ik gebruik dan access = permissive. Is er veel verschil tussen
beiden ?
access=permissive is eerder voor privéwegen die door de eigenaar zijn
opengesteld voor het
On Friday 04 July 2014 01:59:26 André Pirard wrote:
So, apparently personal
hiking routes which are not signposted shouldn't be added to OSM...
OK, but
does that really mean that in regions where no one cares to signpost hikes
and where those WL people find very nice ones, OSM would be
You may not realise it but Openstreetmap is 10 years old next weekend, and to
let all you newbies know what the map looked like when everything was still
new and fresh, they released a map to compare the situation in the end of
March 2007 with now, about a month after I got into the project
On Monday 18 August 2014 14:58:22 Erik Beerten wrote:
I was looking on some OSM based maps for a precise location of a castle
but I couldn't find it.
I checked another one that couldn't be found either.
Both are the type of castles surrounded by water but the map only shows
the water not the
Voor mij is het even goed om het hier apart te tekenen. Al was het maar om het
geen ratjetoe te maken met bijvoorbeeld de bushaltes een beetje verder naar
het noordwesten waar dan wel weer scheiding moet zijn, en dan de kruispunten
waar het ook apart van de weg is. Laat het er gewoon opstaan nu
On Tuesday 09 September 2014 07:06:46 Marc Gemis wrote:
Een afzonderlijk fietspad is voor mij ok, als alle verbindingen met de
zijstraten en opritten opstaan en bicycle=no of use_sidepath op de
hoofdbaan.
Geen bicycle=no, daar hebben we al vaak genoeg over gediscussieerd dat dat
niet correct
On Tuesday 09 September 2014 14:32:25 Glenn Plas wrote:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/5073848
hangt aan:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/217844106
Yup, een highway aan admin level 7 ... die de weg volgt. Persoonlijk
geef ik dit soort miskleumen de voorkeur. Ben nog steeds bezig met
On Tuesday 09 September 2014 22:14:25 Johan C wrote:
In Nederland heb ik de snelwegen op veel plaatsen voorzien van
bestemmingen. Als bijrijder ben ik in de gelegenheid geweest om afgelopen
maand de bebording op de route Breda-Antwerpen-Gent-Kortrijk-Lille vice
versa te fotograferen. Die wil
On Wednesday 10 September 2014 23:30:44 André Pirard wrote:
Shouldn't the same ref=* http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ref as
of the motorway be used on allhighway
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway=motorway_link
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dmotorway_link?
On Thursday 25 September 2014 07:05:29 Marc Gemis wrote:
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 2:08 AM, André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com
wrote:
I added destination:ref=E25 on a link and Osmand kept silent while going
onto it.
I added ref=E25 on the next link and Osmand said turn right onto E25.
On Friday 26 September 2014 13:16:35 André Pirard wrote:
On 2014-09-25 12:00, Ben Laenen wrote :
Yeah, I object. Again, it's not the ref of the link, which is usually in
the form of A.001.123, which we don't map currently.
You seem to be really the only person to use that kind of id
On Friday 26 September 2014 13:16:35 André Pirard wrote:
Yourself wrote that they should be tagged as admin_ref=A.001.123, which
is a number for motorway maintenance personal and certainly not the
general public.
Sure, but it doesn't mean it's not available to us, the signs are there, like
On Wednesday 01 October 2014 12:30:24 Glenn Plas wrote:
Ik kom ook soms interessante tags tegen van openGeoDB, bv op Deurne..
openGeoDB:auto_update=population,is_in
openGeoDB:is_in=Antwerpen,Antwerpen,Antwerpen,Antwerpen,Antwerpen,Antwerpen,
Vlaanderen,Vlaanderen,Belgique,Belgique,Europe
On Saturday 25 October 2014 17:12:01 Marc Gemis wrote:
Er is onlangs even wat discussie geweest over dit topic op de Engelse
mailing list. De vraag was of ze met punten of gebieden moesten werken.
Gebieden is het enige correcte, maar dat kan je niet ter plaatse
controleren. De enige source die
On Monday 08 December 2014 10:58:58 Kurt Roeckx wrote:
access=private
foot=yes
bicycle=yes
If we go this way, I'd prefer to stay closer to the signs and have it
vehicle=private + bicycle=yes
For the paved roads I guess it would then become highway=service, should we
add a service=towpath
On Saturday 20 December 2014 15:33:35 Jakka wrote:
Is there a demand for Belgian_road_sign_ in .png or .??? for use in
osm plug-ins. Like road-sign restriction relations selector or place
them near the highway as node icon (like give_way, stop) for better
overview in a second layer, ???
On Tuesday 30 December 2014 11:09:12 Maarten Deen wrote:
I drove across the N60e near Peruwelz [1] which has a autoweg (route
pour automobile) sign. According to the wiki [2] this should be mapped
as trunk. Currently it is a secondary road.
What is the best option here? Make it trunk or add a
On Wednesday 19 December 2007, Dave Stubbs wrote:
OK, so doing a few tests with doing:
Nodes:
ncn_ref -- render red number
rcn_ref -- render cyan number
lcn_ref -- render blue number
Ways:
as before
I find that as long as the ways don't have refs of their own it works
pretty
Hi all,
We're trying to find some way to tag some oddities for places in
Belgium, so I hope if some of you could give some insight in how best
to tag these.
Some little history: In the 1960's till the 1980's a lot of
municipalities merged with other municipalities. Many were subsumed
into
On Tuesday 01 January 2008, Alex S. wrote:
Maning Sambale wrote:
But no option for selection one or series of segments in way?
Using josm 486 version.
There are no more segments as of API v0.5. You reuse nodes, instead.
Am I btw correct in thinking that with the new three-layered way of
On Thursday 03 January 2008, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
Also the other problem with
splitting and merging of roads needs attention. Rather urgently I
would say.
I agree. It is however again one of the problems where different
relations will need different actions - when a way in a route
On Monday 21 January 2008, Johan Huysmans wrote:
I checked this out on
http://informationfreeway.org/?lat=51.013361068022284lon=4.29214993
01165795zoom=12layers=B000F000F but no extra placenames showed up,
even not after a rerender.
I investigated it with josm and it shows that the place= tag
Hi all, and Andy in particular,
as the past weeks went by while entering cycle routes for Belgium into
OSM, I've come across several issues. It's a big mash-up of needed tags
and improvements, so here goes...
* Tagging of alternate routes:
Some routes have shortcuts, or in general alternate
find any info about that on the wiki.
And if it's possible, can the rendering rules for the cycle map be
downloaded somewhere to use as a starting point?
Greetings
Ben
On Tuesday 05 February 2008, you wrote:
On Feb 5, 2008 4:43 PM, Ben Laenen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All the better if there's
On Wednesday 06 February 2008, Chris Jones wrote:
For mapnik see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Mapnik
For sections of the planet see
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Planet.osm#Extracts
Thanks, it was also possible by just downloading an area with JOSM.
Anyway, my Mapnik
On Wednesday 06 February 2008, Artem Pavlenko wrote:
Are you using template ? You should have replaced all occurrences of
%params% with real things
I don't have to do that manually, do I? I just enter the variables in
set-mapnik-env, call customize-mapnik-map which replaces all %param% in
On Monday 11 February 2008, Karl Newman wrote:
That seems like a reasonable approach--see my reply to Bernd's email
in another forked thread. The way should be long, but not
unreasonably so, and if the name or highway type changes, that seems
like a logical place to split it.
I thought with
On Tuesday 12 February 2008, Artem Pavlenko wrote:
Anyone know what to do about this?
Yes - Talk to Artem about adding support to mapnik for fallback
fonts, or find us a font we can use instead of DejaVu which is
known to support every possible glyph for every character set.
Yes, talk
On Monday 11 February 2008, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
If we add a thing like segment relations as is proposed, we'll
effectively end up with another level next to points, segments and
relations (since things like route relations will again have these
segment relations contained in them),
If the person who's in charge of the planet extracts at
http://download.geofabrik.de/osm/europe/ is reading this: they're not
in sync anymore with the current OSM data since yesterday (well, at
least those of Belgium are out of sync, haven't tested the other ones).
It looks like the data
On Tuesday 19 February 2008, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
Can this be fixed please? It's by far the easiest method to
download big areas at once.
There's osmxapi if you really need it?
osmxapi isn't an option for me, as it doesn't return the relations, and
that's exactly what I'm playing
On Wednesday 20 February 2008, Steve Chilton wrote:
For mapnik rendering I was thinking of moving tram and light_rail to
a new rendering layer which would be placed just after roads and thus
draw them after roads - which is probably the norm.
Cheers
STEVE
Wouldn't that mean that when a tram
Can someone tell me if this is the correct url to get the complete
history of a relation from the OSM API:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.5/relation/5286/history
since it only returns Application errors to me.
Thanks,
Ben
___
talk mailing list
Hi all,
I keep having 412 errors when trying to modify a certain route relation
(id=3964, runs from Antwerp to the Netherlands in Belgium). It's quite
a long route relation so I don't immediately see where the problem is,
just the 412 error on the terminal (which JOSM doesn't detect btw, it
On Monday 24 March 2008, Andy Allan wrote:
I think a lot of the physical cycleway tagging is ambiguous at the
moment, especially with the cycleway= tag. I think cycleway=track was
intended only for adding to highway=* (not highway=cycleway), but I
would advise that all off-road cycle paths,
On Monday 24 March 2008, Alex Mauer wrote:
Cartinus wrote:
The first won't fly because everytime anybody mentions namespaces
it gets boo-ed away as being too complex. The second one is
absolutely no fun to write stylesheets for (or the renderer needs a
preprocessor to split them). Neither
On Monday 24 March 2008, Dave Stubbs wrote:
Personally I'd start to way tracks separately when they have a clear
separation. That's deliberately ambiguous because I think it varies.
But yeah a 10m gap would certainly do it, but even a 1m gap if it's
made of something very solid.
OK, I've
On Friday 28 March 2008, Andy Allan wrote:
I'd tag every one of those as highway=cycleway on a separate way, if
I had the time and the patience. If I was busy, I would see
cycleway=track as being a stop-gap, and someone else could model them
as separate ways when they had the time (in the same
A question to the person who's in charge of the extracts at
http://download.geofabrik.de/osm/europe/ :
is it possible to add an extra 10km wide strip outside the country
borders? The borders data which is now used is apparently quite low
resolution, so it cuts off some big pieces of the
On Thursday 17 April 2008, Chris Hill wrote:
namespaces: -1
I see a good use for the kind of namespaces as mentioned in
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/access:_name_space
A restriction which often occurs here is for example: no goods vehicles
with mass over 3.5 tons
On Friday 18 April 2008, Tom Hughes wrote:
If we can agree on the rendering rules and get both Mapnik and
osmarender sorted out for the USA then people will be incentivised
to tag appropriately. The moto 'render and they will come' probably
applies here as elsewhere.
Agreeing on the
On Saturday 19 April 2008, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
IIRC, Mapnik supports bezier hinting for quite a while now, just
no-one has gone and updated the stylesheet to use it.
Well, before using it, I'd like to ask to have a way to disable the
curves as well (and I'd even prefer to see nice
Hi all,
Could someone give a proper definition of what vehicles are included
with psv (public service vehicle). I always thought it was all kinds
of public transport (including trams, taxis, trolleys, buses -- but no
coaches for example), while some pages on the wiki seem to suggest it's
a
On Thursday 24 April 2008, Lester Caine wrote:
It is the same problem where the tram way and the road share the same
way, but isn't it more normal to find that there is a way for the
tram track in the same way as the separate carriage ways of a two
carriage way road?
I've certainly been
On Thursday 24 April 2008, Lester Caine wrote:
I just look at the Relations page and see lots of 'Proposed' ...
At the end of the day 'is_in' IS a relation so we are probably
actually talking about the same thing, but there is a lot of 'talk'
but no practical examples of actually using
On Friday 02 May 2008, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
OJ W wrote:
Is there a way to turn off map data on potlatch, for when you want
to zoom-out and look at something on the satellite photos, but
don't want to trouble OSM with downloading an entire town's data
that you're not planning to use?
On Monday 12 May 2008, Andy Allan wrote:
Oh, I can think of a way. Yep, I can definitely think of some
shorthand tags for the most common crossing types. Trouble is, as
soon as I mention it, everyone starts uncontrollably ranting.
But that's the problem right? That no-one outside the UK
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Tag:highway=track and the map
features mentioned track is only for unpaved/unsealed roads. To me it
looks like it was approved like that, so please don't fix approved
descriptions before having a discussion and a vote first...
Greetings
Ben
On
On Monday 16 June 2008, Jo wrote:
What is a bit problematic with how it is done now, is that when one
splits a road that is already part of a relation. This other relation
becomes broken, so one should be careful to fix it/them as well.
If you split a way which is a member of a relation in
On Wednesday 18 June 2008, Dylan Semler wrote:
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Martijn van Oosterhout
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
- admin_levels nest, so that the area covered by an admin_level=X
is also covered by areas with admin_level X
I just want to verify that I interpret this
There's still this proposal
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/access:_name_space
which will solve your problem with access:psv:oneway=no
Ben
On Thursday 26 June 2008, Charlie Echo wrote:
Hello,
When mapping, I noticed numerous one-way streets for cars have a
On Thursday 26 June 2008, Charlie Echo wrote:
The proposal you mention is a radical change in the way we would tag.
We would move from tag=value to tag:subtag:subtag=value.
Sure, it's very different to current tagging, but we need to think about
more complex access restrictions.
The proposal
: Ben Laenen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
À: talk@openstreetmap.org
Cc: Charlie Echo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envoyé: Jeudi 26 Juin 2008 16:08:36 GMT +01:00 Amsterdam / Berlin /
Berne / Rome / Stockholm / Vienne Objet: Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging]
Feature Proposal - RFC - (PSV_directions)
On Thursday 26 June 2008
On Friday 27 June 2008, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
a) Get the user to click each way in turn on the slippy map. Each way
then gets highlighted (possible via OpenLayers Vector layer). When
finished, user clicks Done and can add any further comments. This
should be fairly easy to implement - and some
On my brainstorming page to improve the access restrictions scheme at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Access_restrictions
I was more thinking about a access=twoway or similar tag, so what you
want to do becomes: oneway=yes; psv=twoway
Greetings
Ben
On Friday 27
of the namespaces like bicycle:oneway=*
Greetings
Ben
On Saturday 28 June 2008, Jo wrote:
Ben Laenen schreef:
On my brainstorming page to improve the access restrictions scheme
at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Access_re
strictions I was more thinking about a access
On Saturday 28 June 2008, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 02:10:54PM +0200, Ben Laenen wrote:
* without making use of the namespaces like bicycle:oneway=*
This is slightly tangential to your question but I take exception
to the way people use the term namespace over
On Saturday 28 June 2008, Dave Stubbs wrote:
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Ben Laenen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I'm getting issues with the fact that access rules are never
formally defined. For example, does this make a oneway road
accessible for bicycles in two directions
On Thursday 03 July 2008, Andy Allan wrote:
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Michael Collinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I certainly agree that the default for foot access should be one or
the other for highway=cycleway.
My own preference is for default foot=yes.
I disagree - I think the
On Tuesday 05 August 2008, Karl Newman wrote:
Sounds like you're looking for this:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relations/Proposed/Segmented_
Tag
Segmented tags doesn't solve data duplication for dual carriage ways, or
a set of roads with lots of cul-de-sacs with the same name, and
Hi all,
I was wondering if it's possible to download data from the API in a
(bz2/g)zipped format? This would be much more kind to bandwidth since a
10MB file for the plain data can be easily compressed to under 1MB.
Greetings
Ben
___
talk mailing
On Sunday 10 August 2008, Tom Hughes wrote:
Ben Laenen wrote:
I was wondering if it's possible to download data from the API in a
(bz2/g)zipped format? This would be much more kind to bandwidth
since a 10MB file for the plain data can be easily compressed to
under 1MB.
It is compressed
On Wednesday 20 August 2008, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Multipolygons
-
[...]
The no segmentation rule is important because there are renderers
already which use different colours for an area boundary than for the
area itself, and such segments will then show up on the maps.
On Wednesday 20 August 2008, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Routes
--
Routes are most prominently used for cycle routes which are rendered
on Andy Allan's cyclemap. Generally ways which are part of a route
don't have a role, they're just part of it. But sometimes you have
ways in the roles
On Saturday 30 August 2008, Hugh Barnes wrote:
So, just to clarify, if I want apply more properties to the bus stop,
is it like this:
left:highway=bus_stop
left:name=Park Road
… etc?
Have I missed something?
Since this shows that we need an entity to put all data on which
wouldn't
On Wednesday 13 May 2009, Dave Stubbs wrote:
Where zone is a known geographic area?
A bounding way with tags like:
zone = restriction
maxspeed = 20kph
parking = no
seems like the best way to do it to me if you don't want to just
replicate the tags on everything (and I can understand why
On Thursday 14 May 2009, MP wrote:
Except it's not a geographic area, but rather a set of streets with
that restriction. If a bridge or tunnel without the restriction
goes over/under a street with the restriction you'll have a
problem.
In that case, that bridge can have differen speed
So while it seems to be a polygon vs tags on ways discussion:
I wonder what people have against using relations to combine all roads
in one built-up area, or one maxspeed zone, or some other kind of zone.
It's really the cleanest option and allows for additional tags like a
name, and it
201 - 300 of 523 matches
Mail list logo
