Peter Miller wrote:
The new feature in 0.9 that I don’t think is quite right is the
ability to easily drag a way. In my experience it will be done in
error 99 times out of 100. If that mistake is done by someone who
doesn’t notice or who don’t know about undo then the data is
damaged.
Hi all,
I didn't post about 0.9 here but naturally some of you have
discovered the changes already... so here's a belated 0.9a update.
First of all, as already noted, you can now drag whole ways.
So that you don't accidentally drag them, as of 0.9a, you need to
click, _hold_ for a very
Axel von Matern wrote:
Just got an issue with the new feature. Its really dangerous to be
able to shift whole ways that easy.
That should be fixed in 0.9a - it's more reluctant to move ways than 0.9 was.
What happens is I accidently moved a large lake and then polatch
bugged out due to
Steve Hill wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2008, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:
This is an example of confusing the physical space with the legal
administrative description.
Yes, but sadly the highway tag is defined in Map Features to encompass
that confusing mixture of physical and legal
Steve Hill wrote:
I'm left wondering why they haven't removed the A-road designation if
they put bollards in... Anyway, I'm going a bit off topic now. :)
We had a thread about it on talk-gb which I think concluded it would
have been better designated as the WTF420.
horse=yes seems as
Andy Robinson \(blackadder-lists\) wrote:
Both are created by man. A canal is normally navigable and a drain is not. A
canal is for carrying goods and people, a drain is for transporting water
much like a river but the drain has been dug by man rather than nature.
Indeed.
Sometimes drains,
Nic Roets wrote:
If someone made the effort to physically survey it and properly tag
it, I think it's OK.
Maintainability is probably a bigger issue than notability. Roads,
railways and canals don't move much, rivers hardly at all - we can
cope with maintaining that sort of database.
But
Gervase Markham wrote:
Both of these things can be true of normal bridges, and there are
various tags and additional icons which can be used in those cases. My
question is: why does a viaduct need a different rendering *just because
it's a viaduct*? I've not seen generalist maps which
OJ W wrote:
A path with horse,foot,cycle=yes still isn't a bridleway though (e.g.
on a bridleway, cycles are permitted but the surface doesn't have to
be suitable for cycling - a situation more complex than just
cycle=yes). The legal bridleway has more attributes than just who is
allowed to
Inge Wallin wrote:
2. Marble is fully plugin-based, so anybody who knows some C++, can create a
simple editor á la potlatch.
Absolutely - those 7000 lines of code just write themselves. It's kind
of the next step after Hello world.
(That said, the Marble screenshots look lovely - nice
Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:
Here, here:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/30c9d66a-279b-11dd-b7cb-77b07658.html?nclick_check=1
And there are some quotes on yesterday's:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/83390706-2753-11dd-b7cb-77b07658.html?nclick_check=1
Could someone perhaps post them here? I'm
Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:
You can also get access if you register (free). I had the same issue
and
registered, which is basically just an email address so they can
spam you
;-)
Ah, ok. Thanks for the transcripts and links, all.
cheers
Richard
[cc:ed to legal-talk]
Andy Allan wrote:
That's pretty clear cut - i-Cubed own copyright over the imagery, and
haven't given anyone any rights to do stuff with them - unless they
explicitly say otherwise. Public Domain isn't viral for derived
works.
Probably the biggest thing I've learned
Steve Hill wrote:
Aren't OSM's GPS traces considered CC-BY-SA as well? I haven't seen
anything specifically licensing them, but they are in the OSM database,
accessible via the OSM API so I err on the side of assuming the
CC-BY-SA licence applies to them too.
They're not explicitly licensed
Stefan Baebler wrote:
Simplify way in JOSM does it (lowermost icon on the left toolbar, if
memory serves me well).
Similarly, if you load the track directly into Potlatch (by clicking
on 'edit' in the 'GPS Traces' page), you can then click the 'Track'
button to convert it directly into a
elvin ibbotson wrote:
I for one do not want to have to be flicking backwards and forwards
between wiki pages looking up the correct tagging convention when I am
trying to edit the map. I much prefer simply choosing from the options
Potlatch or JOSM present to me. Unfortunately, all to
Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:
mandatory slashdot joke
I, for one, welcome our new german overlords.
/mandatory slashdot joke
Though we can only 100% definitively prove that the new arrivals are
Germans if the number of complaints about Potlatch triples, too.
cheers
Richard
Frederik Ramm wrote:
Later I had a situation where
Potlatch continually complained that I wasn't logged in while the
screen still showed my user name in the top right corner - session
expiry perhaps?
Were you using the same login on two machines? Potlatch uses the same
token as the rest of
Jochen Topf wrote:
On a related note: I created the current openstreetmap.de website which
lacks edit support. Does it make sense to integrate Potlatch into that
web page? Would it be hard to do?
Sounds really good.
There are three potential issues, I think.
One is that Potlatch calls its
Thanks all for the offers of help! Really encouraging.
I'll spend a bit of time bringing the text together and will create a
wiki page for it. We can then maintain the translations through svn.
More soon, hopefully.
cheers
Richard
___
talk
Dave Stubbs wrote:
The good point about name=__none__ is that I can bet large amounts of
money that no street is actually named __none__ -- the bad points
are that renderers that don't know about it are going to write it in
the street name
So maybe named=no (or unnamed=yes)?
cheers
Richard
Alex Mauer wrote:
That said, I still doubt the utility of a no name meta-value. No
conscientious mapper should be putting in roads with no name if they
have a name
Wuh?
That statement is just... wrong. Really, really flabbergastingly wrong.
I cycled 420 miles recently, to do the Pennine
Alex Mauer wrote:
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
That statement is just... wrong. Really, really flabbergastingly
wrong.
Well, it's my opinion. You're going to have to revisit the route
anyway
to find out the road names, so why not kill 2 birds with 1 stone?
It's not you're going
Eduardo Habkost wrote:
relation id=14680 visible=true timestamp=2008-05-27T00:36:30
+01:00 user=Eduardo Habkost
member type=node ref=0 role=/
[...]
It looks like it is the ref=0 node above. I will try to upload the
relation without the bogus node.
Anyone who's really bored could do worse
Frank Sautter wrote:
i agree with you!
my idea of how this should be rendered is:
grade1: just like highway=service
[...]
It's worth noting that tracktype is not a universally welcome tag - a
lot of people think having an arbitrary scale isn't very OSM-like,
and that it's better to tag
Rory McCann wrote:
Personally I think it'd be good to tag the road as primary *and*
secondary, i.e. that we should have 'highway=primary;secondary'. This
makes it possible to see how many km of secondary roads there are
in an
area, or to highlight only road 172.
I'm slightly bemused how a
Steven Le Roux wrote:
d'un point de vue strictement technique, il faut reconnaitre que
l'approche de map maker est meilleure que potlatch qui lui n'est pas
utilisable sur une machine légere sous linux. (merci flash)
Mais si vous detestez Flash, OpenStreetMap a un API, alors vous pouvez
Andy Allan wrote:
I'd define it slightly differently - its do we want *subjective*
routes in OSM? I don't think anyone is arguing that notable
*objective* routes, like the Pennine Way in the UK or the Appalachian
Way in the US can certainly be included as a route.
(...or the entire National
Hi all,
We've put together a press release with OSM (strictly speaking OSMF)'s
reaction to Google Map Maker.
You can get it in PDF or RTF format at:
http://svn.openstreetmap.org/misc/pr_material/releases/
The OSMF board is sending it to a few of the big tech blogs, but in
true OSM fashion,
Frederik Ramm wrote:
I know that dealing with the press requires a certain amount of
dumbing
down, but I do object to the phrase:
Volunteers for OpenStreetMap, the Wikipedia-like website which is
mapping the world, say ...
We are not a website.
Sure. It depends who you're sending the
Nic Roets wrote:
We're bigger than them in this space, so why give them free
publicity ?
Again, it depends on the media, I think. It's very plausible that Big
Media will want to report on Google Map Maker - Google is sexy in news
terms right now; there seems to be a story about them
John McKerrell wrote:
One thing I'd say about the release is we might want to mention non-UK
places too, it mentions Brighton and pubs of England. There's the
wikiguide of Paris too isn't there which might be worth a mention?
Good point - feel free to localise.
cheers
Richard
Simon Huggins wrote:
they can all use our data in any way they like
Did we do the sane thing and relicense under a BSD style license
whilst
I wasn't looking?
:)
For the avoidance of 9873454567 following mails, could I please point
out that a mass-market press release is not meant
Edward Johnson wrote:
This looks like quite a good system and at least it breaks it down
into which categories are complete and which not. This system though
relies on users verifying whether an area is complete. I would
really like it if we could have a model/algorithm that could
From
http://apb.directionsmag.com/archives/4449-Tele-AtlasGoogle-Deal-TA-Gets-User-Generated-Markups.html
:
MONDAY, JUNE 30. 2008
Tele Atlas/Google Deal: TA Gets User Generated Markups
Update 2:It's not exclusive: TeleAtlas already has an agreement with
Google for which details aren't
Andy Allan wrote:
I found a bit in Hyde Park where there was a one-way road with cycle
lanes on both sides - with all three lanes going in the same direction
- and I don't know how to model that in OSM either.
My experience from a year of cycle-commuting through Hyde Park is that
Steve Hill wrote:
However, after starting to do this, I've realised just how many of the
roads are misclassified - I'd estimate that well over 80% of the roads
tagged as highway=unclassified are, infact, not unclassified roads.
That 80% figure surprises me, a lot.
Most roads _should_ be
Steve Hill wrote:
You misunderstand the problem - the problem isn't that the classification
on OSM doesn't match the official classification. The problem is that
until highway=road was approved, there was no classification for it's a
road but I can't remember what type, so people have used
Good news from the Gnash developers:
Begin forwarded message:
From: Sandro Santilli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 11 July 2008 13:17:18 BDT
Subject: [bug #21756] Potlatch OpenStreetMap editor displays
heavily offset
Follow-up Comment #21, bug #21756 (project gnash):
Since you got distracted by
Juan Lucas Dominguez Rubio wrote:
lol, I agree with your colleagues: those pint glasses are
unacceptably bad taste
Someone should tell the Ordnance Survey - they have them all over
their Explorer maps...
cheers
Richard
___
talk mailing list
Steve Hill wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Er, I've driven past that one a handful of times (some friends
used to
live in Pontardawe) and if it's the road I'm thinking of - down
towards the KFC - it _is_ unclassified. Well, either that or
tertiary;
It can't
Steve Hill wrote:
If you don't go by the definitions in Map Features, what definitions do
you go by? As far as you are concerned, what is the difference between an
unclassified and a tertiary? If we don't have some agreed definition, the
tags become meaningless since the meaning will vary
Daniel Glassey wrote:
fwiw location-wise I would prefer somewhere more easily and cheaply
accessible by most people that would like to come than I expect GC
would be.
Being a bit of a tree-hugger at heart, I'd prefer somewhere in
mainland Europe easily accessible by train.
cheers
Richard
Hi all,
Really pleased to announce Potlatch 0.10 - hopefully something for
everyone.
If you're a map editor, the biggest change is that tagged nodes in
ways are now indicated with a little black circle - so you can see
traffic lights, mini-roundabouts, railway stations, gates etc. etc.
If
[snip]
On a slight etiquettey note I'd suggest that using the messaging
system, rather than public lists, is a really great way to get in
contact with people about their mapping work.
Steve Chilton wrote:
Finally, it is my view that source=NPE is implicitly tagging for
review.
+1
Steve Hill wrote:
Something that would be very useful in Potlatch would be the ability to
have the background zoom beyond it's highest resolution and just get
interpolated to fit - the yahoo images are virtually unusable in Wales and
over-zooming them might make them a bit more useful.
This
Barnett, Phillip wrote:
From my local knowledge of some parts of Wales, I'd agree strongly
that NPE names are _frequently_ incorrect compared with modern
labelling of towns/villages and other features, and are hence Not To
Be Trusted
Though if you understand something about Welsh
Steve Hill wrote:
* the changes cover a reasonably large area and thus a large number of
editors are affected and may wish to contribute to the discussion.
* though with NPE the reasonably large area is pretty clearly going to
be talk-gb, not talk :p
Seriously, it wasn't solely directed at
Jukka Rahkonen wrote:
It would be nice to have a mouse over function in Potlatch editor at
least for
point features. Is it possible? Now you must click on each POI in
order to see
what it stands for and this is both slow and leads to unintentional edits.
One of those things I've been
Gervase Markham wrote:
If you label all three ways with name=Foo Street, you get Foo Street
rendered 3 times along a fairly short length, at least in Osmarender. If
you leave the name off the outer ends, then those ways are incorrectly
assumed to be unnamed streets when they have a name. In
Gervase Markham wrote:
If you label all three ways with name=Foo Street, you get Foo Street
rendered 3 times along a fairly short length, at least in Osmarender. If
you leave the name off the outer ends, then those ways are incorrectly
assumed to be unnamed streets when they have a name. In
Inge Wallin wrote:
* Distinctions between roads. In opposition to the case for names, there are
too many roads on the large scale maps. Here is what the current map looks
like around my home city:
http://www.openstreetmap.com/?lat=58.33lon=15.408zoom=10layers=0B0FTF
There is too little
Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:
Steve, you and everyone else whose worked hard on the cartography
aspects of
the Mapnik layer deserve a big pat on the back. But your note clearly
demonstrates that we really should not have the Mapnik stylesheet
maintained
and managed by one or
Lars Aronsson wrote:
Frederik Ramm wrote about OSM vs. Wikipedia:
Wikipedia does not collect
raw data, it collects/creates an end product.
This description of Wikipedia is wrong.
It's not, because...
It would be better for Wikipedia if more readers went to other
mirror websites
...is
Dave Stubbs wrote:
Because unless something has changed recently this isn't how potlatch
works -- if you drag around nodes then potlatch still touches the way.
So if the person used Potlatch you /would/ see a way edit.
I just had a quick look at the code and it looks to me that it still
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) Is it possible to include more information with the PIOs. Such as
contact numbers ('phone' tag), which would be for restuarants/etc?
If you don't mind a bit of Perlery, I preprocess the .osm file to
make a cycling version of the map, essentially by rewriting the
Hello all,
I'm adding a feature to Potlatch whereby you can select a way, choose
'Offset way', and a new, parallel way will be created a certain
distance away.
Obviously you'll be able to specify any distance you like, but I'd
like to offer some presets in metres - for dual carriageways,
Frederik Ramm wrote:
Can you perhaps also find a way to encode this information - either by
way of a relation grouping both ways, or a special tag or whatever - so
that if the master way is changed later, the parallel way can be
changed accordingly? Or would that then be too much magic?
I
David Groom wrote:
Whilst reviewing data I've noted recently a large number of duplicated
nodes. These occur where one way joins another.
http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/915
In short, the issue is that Potlatch creates a node with an (internal)
negative ID. When the way is written to
Peter Miller wrote:
Also, when manipulating ways which are parts of relations it seems
to be
possible to break the Potlatch/Server link and end up with duplicate
ways. I
think the best way to do this is to split and join and delete ways
which is
part of a relation. I haven't worked
David Groom wrote:
Does thtis mean that in theory when creating a T junction it would
be
better to start from the existing way, insert a node, and then draw
the new
way away from the exisitng way, rather than to start a new way and
move
towards the exiting way and join on to that
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7586789.stm
We're also in the Daily Mail (eek)[1]:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1050408/Is-satnav-turning-dunces-map-reading.html
cheers
Richard
[1] for our overseas readers, this is possibly the most reactionary
Tim Dobson wrote:
Perhaps the people who are nearish the top of OSM, and I feel sheepish
that I don't really know who I'm talking about, might like to put
out a
pressrelease or press statement about how OSM is helping put *real*
maps back on the internet and allow cool mashups etc.
I'm
Tristan Scott wrote:
Maybe modifying and clarifying the scope of the drain tag would do?
Yes, good idea.
I'm thinking in particular of the Middle Level and the Witham
Navigable Drains which drain the surrounding fenlands, a bit like the
ones you're referring to (though much of the ML and
spaetz wrote:
On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 10:08:11AM +0100, Dave Stubbs wrote:
- and that it's possible to represent an exact mph in kph anyway if
you can really be bothered: 1mile == 1.609344km exactly
Do you always carry your calculator with you when mapping or do you
do it by hand :-)
80n wrote:
Here's one: http://carcino.gen.nz/images/index.php/5922d576/48b0f367
I can beat that. There are signs on the canal in Market Harborough and
Leicester proclaiming the speed limit to be 6.43km/h... you can guess
why.
cheers
Richard
___
Frederik Ramm wrote:
Not if you plan to let it make photos that are of better resolution
than Landsat though!
Oh, I don't know:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TopSat
http://www.qinetiq.com/home/defence/defence_solutions/space/topsat.html
Apparently you can rent it for £25k a week... easily
Matt Amos wrote:
out of interest, is there a link to the £25k figure? i couldn't
find any pricing information on the net anywhere...
http://www.qinetiq.com/home/newsroom/news_releases_homepage/2006/4th_quarter/TopSat_toasts_its_first_birthday_with_Best_of_What_s_New_Grand_Award.html
A
Matt Amos wrote:
out of interest, is there a link to the £25k figure? i couldn't
find any pricing information on the net anywhere...
http://www.qinetiq.com/home/newsroom/news_releases_homepage/2006/4th_quarter/TopSat_toasts_its_first_birthday_with_Best_of_What_s_New_Grand_Award.html
A
Peter Miller wrote:
We would need to take advice on it, but I see no reason why
mappers can't sign-up to use the photography on-line
Er, we do that already. You can't edit OSM without registering.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
Russ Nelson wrote:
Richard, I know that you don't have infinite resources to devote to
Potlatch. But if you can't
For those without the imagination to see what have patience followed by a
winking smiley might mean, I would kindly request that you hold fire for a
very small amount of time.
Douglas Furlong wrote:
If that is the case, can we not just tie the OSM authentication in to the
WMS layer, so that you are only able to view the data IF you have an OSM
account.
Exactly. One way to do it in Potlatch, for example, would be to
require auth on the directory with the spherical
Hi all,
It's been an important 24 hours for the webmapping world. At last -
and after many months of expectation - UK cycle charity Sustrans
released their new online slippy map. Oh yeah, and some irritating US
outfit did some data API or something.
But never mind any of that, because it's
Martijn van Exel wrote:
Great work. It all seems somewhat snappier. Love the offline editing
feature already.
Glad you like it (and others, thanks for the kind comments). :)
Still no 'building' preset?
What would you like to see the preset as? I'm no tagging guru.
cheers
Richard
Woll Newall wrote:
Potlatch 1.0 seems to have broken the input of non-ASCII characters
in tags.
I'm running Potlatch inside the Safari browser on Mac OS X.
Before Potlatch 1.0 I could type in Japanese characters into the
tags, but now the Japanese hiragana and katakana entries in the
Teemu Koskinen wrote:
Could somebody revert the node changes in changeset 1315063,
someone accidentally moved big part of Hämeentie (a major street
in Helsinki). There are over a hundred moved nodes, and they are in
middle of hundreds of unmoved nodes, so it would be hard to try to
move
Matt Amos wrote:
i've found that printers often prefer high resolution images
over PDFs, but these are also pretty easy to generate. for the
mappa mercia A0 print [1] it looks like 9934 x 14046 (300dpi)
was a good resolution.
puts professional hat on
We send the magazine to the printers
Joe Richards wrote:
If that is the case, why does Potlatch not offer highway=road
as one of its presents, under the little car icon?
Because I don't really keep up with the ever-changing tagging discussions -
life's too short. Anyone with svn access can augment the Potlatch
maning sambale wrote:
In the Philippines there are very few (close to nothing I
know of) officially designated cycleways and routes. However,
local cycling/mtb clubs have created/established routes for
their own purpose. Any advice on how to tag these routes?
If they're not on the
Peter Miller wrote:
Personally I want a structure for the town which tells a story
about today's road use, rather than a dusty document in a
council. I should inform routing engines to keep cars on
major roads and cyclists off them.
I don't dispute that this information would be valuable
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
thanks a lot. In old-English you could also say burh.
I live in Charl_bury_ and spend a lot of time in _Bur_ton. Shaun, however,
comes from Edin_borough_, which the French, funnily enough, know as
Edin_bourg_.
They're all the same root. I'm not sure that the
I wrote:
Edin_borough_
which should of course be Edin_burgh_. Which is a bit further up the ECML
from Peter_borough_. And so on.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Castles-and-Palaces-tp23874066p23890407.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing
Lambert Carsten wrote:
On Saturday 06 June 2009 15:35:41 Chris Hill wrote:
Yes it is an issue - the few that I have looked at have terms and
conditions that specifically restrict reuse without written permission
- you should expect this on most organisations' websites.
The address is not
Joe Richards wrote:
I have a fairly large set of edits in Potlatch, but when
I click 'save', I get Sorry the connection to the Openstreetmap
server failed. Any recent changes have not been saved.
Would you like to try again [retry] [cancel]. Obviously my
internet connectivity is fine,
Paul Fox wrote:
i'm seeing this error this evening as well. i've asked on IRC as
suggested -- no one's able to help, or maybe no one's awake. :-)
I've committed a small change which we think will fix it. Thanks to Joe for
provoking it and to Tom for checking the server logs.
cheers
Richard
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
Shaun McDonald wrote:
In my eyes, that road would be simply tagged with highway=cycleway.
plus designation=cycleroad
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Bicycle-boulevards-tp23949507p23959526.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at
Mario Salvini wrote:
is there a benefit instead of just tagging these ways:
highway=cycleway + motor_vehicle=yes ?
Yes.
cycleway just told, that's this way is bicycle=designated.
So why designation=?
designation= means this is the official designation of this way. It has
nothing to do with
Paul Johnson wrote:
I'm opposed; this seems like a duplication of effort for what
route relations are currently for
You've utterly lost me - I don't see how the 'designation' tag (already in
use anyway) has anything to do with route relations.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
MP wrote:
So currently, if I want to know how was the way drawn in time T,
I had to get history of the way, then find out which nodes were used
by the way in time T, then get history from each of the nodes and
pick appropriate node from the history, given the time. Then
combine this into
MP wrote:
Well, potlatch have feature of reverting to earlier version of
way, but doesn't that reverting have a side effect of actually
reverting the way?
Only if you save it. If you use the edit with save mode and don't save,
you can just look.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in
Pieren Pieren wrote:
I think the whole wiki page needs
to be taken outside and shot.
Arguing over the presentation on the wiki isn't really the issue. What the
tags are, and how they're documented, are two separate things. But like Ævar
says, talk is cheap, and though many of us feel strongly
Pieren wrote:
I'm not talking about the whole wiki, just the Map Features page.
As was I.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Proposed-Amenity-Reorganization-tp24176224p24183557.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Frederik Ramm wrote:
That's the point I was trying to make - do not hog all the bugs in
one central place and allow users to do only what you have coded;
instead open this up so that anybody can hook their app into the
user interface to offer functionality.
I'd kind of taken that as read
BAN POTLATCH!
Oh, wait.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/JOSM-lat-lon-bug--ban-on-versions-1722-1727-tp24339344p24341064.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
talk
Heh, you beat me to the announcement.
I’m delighted to say that Potlatch 1.1 - special commemorative SOTM edition
- is now live, and there’s loads of new stuff.
== Drag-and-drop points of interest ==
The basics of OSM editing are now easier than ever:
1. Drag a lovely colourful point of
Chris Hunter wrote:
Take a look at the history for this stretch of I-75 near the TN/GA
border, since I was unaware of the undo process, I ended up spending
6+ hours redrawing I-75 (admittedly the work needed to be done
to fix TIGER, but still) because of a single-keystroke mistake
that
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2009/7/16 Rob r...@coolbegin.com:
Can one add it's own poi's ? (like atm's)
or like amenity=drinking_water ? Shall I send you an suggested icon so
you can add it? Which would be your preferred format?
16x16 PNG to the same design and colour scheme as the current
Richard Mann wrote:
One suggestion would be the ability to memorise the last relation you've
added something to (maybe Memory as a third button on the add-to screen),
and a single keystroke method of adding another way or node to the
memorised relation. Maybe even just ctrl-clicking on the
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
did you give JOSM a try? It doesn't suffer from partly loaded
data, which might be the issue in your case.
I doubt that very much indeed. Potlatch can't load a way without loading its
constituent nodes; nor can it find a node which is part of a way without
loading
101 - 200 of 1720 matches
Mail list logo
