Joe Richards wrote:
I think this might be taking attribution too literally. Just because
Google Maps does this for the copyright holder, doesn't mean that
LINZ insists on the same. Can anyone substantiate that LINZ actually
require this to be on-screen at all times when LINZ data is
Thomas Wood wrote:
Because so far (with exception of the enforcement relation)
relations have not been voted in, but been accepted once they
gain a significant usage in OSM.
Absolutely.
I'm not sure why the need for a specific towpath-waterway relation. Why not
just have a general-purpose
Etienne wrote:
We are going to keep the appeal open for at least a few more days.
We know there are more donations in the pipeline
Google Inc
Google Open Source Programs Office http://code.google.com/opensource/
2009-02-08 12:33:25
GBP 5,000.00
Wow.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in
BH wrote:
Hmmm but potlatch must have some way of querying for deleted
ways - if it is not the main API, is it something documented
somewhere? Some hidden API? Or should I try my luck with browsing
through potlatch sources or perhaps using wireshark to find out?
Or you could ask me.
MP wrote:
I tried searching on CPAN for AMF classes, but I have
found only server-side libraries for perl - I found code
to create an AMF serice, but no code to call it. Do you
know of any Perl package to call the AMF code?
From a brief glance you should be able to use Data::AMF, but the
MP wrote:
I tried it multiple times, with same result. The ordinary API
seems to work, so I don't think it is just some server outage.
Any clue where the problem may be?
Works fine for me, but just returns an empty list - i.e. there aren't any
deleted ways in that area. (The get deleted ways
Gert Gremmen wrote:
The current concept is good for geeks , like you and me,
and people that are really interested. The geeks are on-board
( 1). Now it's time to create a user interface for the rest
of the world.
Yes, I agree absolutely (wow, Gert and I agree on something :) ).
Shaun McDonald wrote:
I have created:
http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/1584 for RichardF.
:) Thanks.
Of course, the other thing we could do is rescue the wiki from trainwreck
territory.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
And there is a limit to the extent that we can dumb down the
interface without compromising usefulness. How would 'add a
road' work? I cannot even begin to dream of how to code such
a thing.
Have a look at Google MapMaker. We don't have to dumb down; we can offer
Oxford, Oxfordshire and the Cotswolds have as many mappers as anywhere
in Britain, and such things as Mapnik, Potlatch and npemap.org.uk hail
from our county - but we didn't have a mailing list.
Now Mike Collinson has kindly set one up. The address is
Tom Hughes wrote:
I'm all for having the geo-bugs in the main database, in fact
I would much prefer that
Yep, me too, as I'd like to add support in Potlatch.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Openstreetbugs-source-code-tp22090086p22117319.html
Sent from
Robert Vollmert wrote:
Probably, a minor edit in Potlatch (say changing a tag) will restore it.
Indeed.
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2009-January/033065.html
explains what this is (and
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2009-January/013540.html
describes a recent
Tom Hughes wrote:
That said, my understanding is that Potlatch puts a break in the
track whenever there is a jump in the timestamp. Richard can
probably explain in more detail what it does.
(Oooh, look at all that lovely untraced Yahoo imagery...)
Yep. Potlatch connects points, breaking
Tanveer Singh wrote:
Okay, I enabled just my track, and at one point, its done the same
even with my track.
If you post the URL of your track, we can tell you what's wrong with it.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
Jordan S Hatcher wrote:
I know everyone really wants to see the latest draft and have
an opportunity to discuss it. If you can just give me a bit of
time, I'll have something for you next week.
Any news? Not meant as a nag, we're just all in an eager state of
anticipation. :)
cheers
LeedsTracker wrote:
I do. To be clear, I'm not advocating using Gmaps/G-earth for OSM, I
was just puzzled by the (apparently unproblematic) use of it in
Wikimedia and wondered if a parallel use was justifiable.
Put yourself in the shoes of Google's lawyers - and, more significantly,
those of
Guenther Meyer wrote:
it may be trivial, but when you have to do this for every possible
tag with some variations, it's a waste of time, that should not
be necessary. parsing the osm xml files is already a ressource
consuming task; every unnecessary work should be omitted.
Maybe, but you
David Earl wrote:
I can't help feeling the effort that I've noticed some contributors
are putting into manually changing oneway=yes to oneway=true
would be better spent doing something more useful.
Eek - people are really doing this?
'yes' is English (and, as you say, in the editor
Nop wrote:
On the other hand, the way I understood it OSM was a global
initative and is happy for every additional mapper. If this is the
goal, we need structures that you can understand and properly use
without a degree in computer science.
A good general principle: we should always
Ben Laenen wrote:
There's exactly one way to be sure this won't happen: get
approval of *all* the people who've been editing OSM. And with
a number of around 100.000 mappers I'm very skeptical that
you'll be able to manage that.
Not true (IMO at least).
We have 100,000
marcus.wolschon wrote:
Actually it's the other way around.
We have tens of thousands of mappers
but are lacking developers on every corner.
Nah. We don't have enough developers on the OSM core site, but that's
immaterial in this context. The ecosystem, however, is thriving. There isn't
a day
Nic Roets wrote:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net
wrote:
A good general principle: we should always optimise for ease of mapping.
Yes Richard, but some things are best done in the editors. It's
much easier for editors to highlight obvious mistakes, than
Chris Hill wrote:
Emoticon aside, I think the licence is far too important to just
discuss among a cosy few. When I tried to join legal (out of
interest) I could not.
It's not a closed list - it's open to anyone and you can, of course, read on
the web or via Nabble. If you try to join
Donald Allwright wrote:
Even in the UK, which follows the sweat of the brow principle (i.e.
copyright
can be gained through effort even without creativity), such effort needs
to
be significant.
Sorry I meant to add at the end of my previous email - what I was saying
is that
tracing of
Ben Laenen wrote:
As long as there's no answer to it [...]
I wouldn't even accept [...]
I would refuse [...]
I want a very detailed answer [...]
that's really not my concern [...]
Hey, this is a collaborative project. No-one is being paid for this.
You could, you know, even _help_.
cheers
Ben Laenen wrote:
Great use of the ellipsis. You may have missed that I actually had
some things to say there.
Yes, I'm sure you did. But what I was trying to say is that (IMO) the really
important bit is this:
My hope basically when starting this thread was that these
fundamental issues
CC-BY-SA says:
You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly
digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License, a
later version of this License with the same License Elements as this
License, or a Creative Commons iCommons license that contains the
80n wrote:
What percentage of data would other people feel willing to see
sacrificed in order to move forward with the new license?
I'd be interested to see this related to our userbase and editing stats.
If (say) we lose 5%, how many months - at current rates of growth - does it
take us to
80n wrote:
No. CC-BY-SA does not have a class of derivative works that are not
share alike. ODbL does.
No it doesn't, that's the entire point of what I said. (Is this the
five-minute argument or the full half-hour?) This is what 4.7 in ODbL is all
about. The data is still protected, if
jean-christophe.haessig wrote:
Moreover, after having read the proposed license text and some comments
on wiki pages, I am under the impression that most of the participants in
the discussion are public domain advocates and that they may use this
license change to promote their views.
wer-ist-roger wrote:
First of all we will lose data. We won't get everyone to agree on the
new license. No matter why. Maybe they don't approve the new
license or we just can't reach them anymore.
There's three categories to consider relating to existing data.
1. People who have made edits
Tom Hughes wrote:
Screen size is of course irrelevant to browser window size,
unless you're one of those weird web designers that seems to
think everybody runs their browser full screen all the time...
IMX it's a platform thing. Windows people genuinely do run their web
browser, and most
SteveC wrote:
I asked the CM designers for some quick hacks on what different
front pages could look like which you can see on the wiki page
below.
Very pretty in a sort of let's-polish-the-CSS way, which isn't a bad thing
at all.
In a let's ask for the stars way, though, how about:
- a
Tom Hughes wrote:
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
IMX it's a platform thing. Windows people genuinely do run their web
browser, and most things, full screen. Hence the aberration that is MDI.
Us Mac people, by contrast, usually have about 57 different non-full screen
windows overlapping - that's
Ulf Lamping wrote:
Personally I am feeling excluded from what's going on behind
the scenes and I think this is not the way for a project that
has open in his name ...
If it helps, there _isn't_ anything going on behind the scenes... well, at
least not that I know of.
Post in German, or
Andy Allan wrote:
Quite. Can someone please come up with names for the two main
styles that aren't just the technology that creates them?
Mapnik - Standard (or maybe 'Classic')
Osmarender - Community
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
Dave Stubbs wrote:
Am I missing something obvious, or am I just being sneaky in some
way? And is there a way it can be made more obvious in the license
if it's actually intended to be that way?
I think this is a serious error in the ODbL draft 0.9. (I believe Frederik
is of the same
Tom Chance wrote:
It's not clear that it's the distributed rendering of the data that makes
one more community than the other.
That's not quite what I was thinking of - it was more the cartographic style
than the mechanics behind it.
The Osmarender layer tends to prioritise more POIs, more
OJ W wrote:
This could potentially alienate anyone who wonders why they are
doing surveying for free so that cartographers can sell all-rights-
reserved map images based on their data.
Yeah, just like I lie in bed at night fretting that people can sell
all-rights-reserved, closed-source
Pieren wrote:
It's very confusing now about who, how and what is deleted with
the license change. I would appreciate if someone could answer
the following questions:
It's not been decided. What do you think should happen?
Everything is up for debate. ODbL itself is up for debate. As Jordan
Ed Avis wrote:
What you wrote above is a very good argument for it.
Rendering the data into a printed map is not a great deal of effort.
Anyone can do it and many already do so. There are not many
people who would be put off from rendering maps by being unable to
make the result
OJ W wrote:
If the cartographers then devise a new license that says my
contributions are more important than yours, I should get exclusive
rights over my additions to the map with a paintbrush while you
shouldn't get exclusive rights over your additions to the map with a
GPS then it reduces
OJ W wrote:
[routing source code]
I saw that as a bit of a loophole in the license which is unfortunate
but rather difficult to close
Ok, that's consistent. Extreme, perhaps, but consistent. But:
[...]
we can just declare that it should meet sharelike standards to
ensure that OSM players
MP wrote:
We have now tool to convert OSM data to garmin format (Mkgmap).
The tool is opensource. Garmin can do routing (at least I assume it can,
I don't posses any garmin devices or software myself) and is closed
source. Would the new license make mkgmap unusable/illegal with
odbl'd
Dave Stubbs wrote:
But don't kid yourselves it's a simple A or B choice.
Absolutely.
Steve actually answers this in his (very good IMO) Licence to kill post.
You can theoretically work out a complicated Boolean system of is this
derived from an ODbL refusenik's work?. You can read every bit of
Ed Avis wrote:
I could start tracing in things from Ordnance Survey maps
right away. Note that these maps are 'Crown Copyright', not
'Crown Database Right'
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22crown+copyright+and+database+right%22
:)
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
Peter Miller wrote:
The clear advice (verbal so far) from our lawyer is that in the
UK/EU map data is covered by copyright (as well as DB rights).
I will quote the following from an Ordnance Survey agreement as much for
people's amusement as for edification.
Intellectual Property Rights
Pierre-André Jacquod wrote:
Was a surprised by the announcement. Read the license and mails.
Would probably have said yes.
But I do not like the way this went on. The fact that those who want
to change it just say you do not want to help. That's my free time,
that's your's.
Seriously,
Russ Nelson wrote:
How do people feel about me importing this data (with all of
their metadata), adding an immutable=yes tag, with the intent
of tracking their dataset, and deleting --outright-- any changes
made by OSM editors.
If it can't be edited, there's no point sending it to the
Stephen Hope wrote:
And you can't always blame the journalists, either. Once they
send their copy in, the editors can have a go at it as well.
If I may speak up for editors, a lot of journalists could avoid this
unfortunate necessity by Actually Learning To Write.
cheers
Richard
Lars Aronsson wrote:
You have to explain how your rants help the project.
The impression I get is that you cause division rather than unity.
On a point of order, getting all meta on a flamewar like this is the most
surefire way to prolong it.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
Pieren Pieren wrote:
May I suggest a new tag:
landuse=blur
Superb. I've been wanting a tag like that for a while. I have now used it
for the first time, in a location not that far from where I live:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=51.90063lon=-1.62397zoom=15way=32060656
(warning - very
Russ Nelson wrote:
There's a reason why people create generalized interfaces and
standard metadata and a common currency and a shared language
We do have all that, of course. It's called, for OSM-historical reasons, the
Rails port. You can get yourself a server (I can probably think of
Peter - are you really sure about geograph? AIUI only the photos are
CC-BY-SA, the geolocation is OS-derived. Please check.
Sorry for crap formatting, moving house so on mobile.
Richard
Peter Miller-7 wrote:
On 18 Mar 2009, at 17:11, Lester Caine wrote:
Tim 'avatar' Bartel wrote:
David Earl wrote:
The problem marking it as cycleway now is that in the UK road
bridleway cycleway footway loosely speaking. Unless there is
evidence to the contrary, cycles can use bridleways, but horses can't
use cycleways.
Sort of. There are actually two fairly important exceptions to
Richard Mann wrote:
Map Features says that highway=cycleway should be used for ways that
are mainly/exclusively for bicycles.
Map Features is wrong. :)
IIRC some divvy inserted this sentence a good while after people had got
accustomed to using highway=cycleway for shared-use paths.
cheers
Andrew Chadwick wrote:
So let it be a cycleway, tagged designation=public_bridleway. Surface
I guess we can use the best (vehicular) value for it: paved,
probably. Acceptable?
*applauds*
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Igor%20Shubovych/diary/5772
http://www.opengeodata.org/?p=459
http://fakestevec.blogspot.com/2009/04/new-ceo-appointed.html
http://blog.shaunmcdonald.me.uk/2009/04/the-crap-o-surface-detector/
cheers
Richard
___
talk
Living Spain, a quarterly magazine published by our company, has just
published its new spring issue and I'm pleased to report that it
includes OSM mapping for the first time.
The magazine contains pull-out Instant Guides to Barcelona and
Torrevieja, and each one has a city map. For these,
Rory McCann wrote:
So is that book under a creative commons licence?
Collective Work.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/OpenStreetMap-in-%22The-Times---atlas-of-the-world%22-book-tp22734589p22925199.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list
80n wrote:
This is correct. Neither OSM nor OSMF holds any copyright.
Database right, on the other hand... ;)
For a magazine, I use
OpenStreetMap.org and contributors: CC-BY-SA
next to the map.
Then in the flannel panel at the start of the magazine (where
copyright/contributor
Ben Ward wrote:
This looks like a bug/problem with the Openstreetmap Mapnik
Export rendering. Can anyone confirm, or fix?
Mapnik export doesn't work on Wednesdays while the database is reloaded. I
believe there's an intention to fix this in the medium term (help welcome no
doubt). Meanwhile
Mike Harris wrote:
Does anyone know anything about People's Map?
It's a tragic waste of good aerial imagery.
http://fakestevec.blogspot.com/2007/12/peoples-map-is-deeply-fucked.html
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/People%27s-Map-tp22966717p22967071.html
...with API 0.6, Postgres and the new server. But everyone's uploading
at once, so don't expect to do much serious editing for the time
being. :)
The new changeset stuff is really superb. Have a browse:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changesets
Mad props (as the kids say) to Tom,
Pieren wrote:
Another short question : empty changesets are possible ?
(e.g. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/876923)
(I tried to download the xml but no response - I guess it is the
server current load).
Indeed, there's no prohibition on empty changesets. Specifically,
Martijn van Exel wrote:
Great. Congratulations to all involved. You pulled a massive, great
job. Potlatch seems to be stuck for me at 'Loading Presets'. It does
say 0.11. Firefox and Chrome on windows. Is this load-related or
something else altogether?
Load-related.
I know of two issues
Ed Loach wrote:
When editing, Potlatch no longer shows what relations an
existing way is part of. I'm assuming this isn't deliberate.
Still trying to track this one down. It works 100% as intended on my local
test setup, with the latest svn code and the latest Potlatch (though still
running
Ben Laenen wrote:
Little warning though: relations are completely broken with Potlatch.
We think we've found the issue. More in half an hour, hopefully.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
I wrote:
We think we've found the issue. More in half an hour, hopefully.
Fixed (hopefully) and committed. Will be live later when Tom has a chance to
deploy it.
For those interested, the database was changed in 0.6 to store relation
members as 'Way', 'Node' or 'Relation'. Previously they were
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
Have new editor statistics been compiled from the created_by tag
in changesets now that 0.6 is live?
If anyone actually managed to use Potlatch on Tuesday/Wednesday, given the
server speed, I think they deserve some sort of medal.
cheers
Richard
--
View this
Adam Schreiber wrote:
We don't know where the wikipedia users sourced their cooridinates from.
Oh yes we do: Google Maps.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Obtaining_geographic_coordinates#Google_tools
There is absolutely no way that Wikipedia-derived co-ordinates are suitable
for mass
Frederik Ramm wrote:
Thomas Wood wrote:
Where's ShakespeareFan00 when you need him? :)
That poor guy has been told by some self-important OSMers that
Wikimapia was an unacceptable source, and they somehow forgot
to say that this is just the OSM interpretation. SFan00 dutifully
started
Russ Nelson wrote:
Fine enough, and who sweated hardest to click in a particular point
on a Google Map? Google? Or the Wikipedia editor[...]?
Sweat-of-the-brow doesn't mean that. It doesn't mean that A did some work,
but B did more, so B owns the copyright. _Both_ A and B own some
Jochen Topf wrote:
I don't think we have to worry about that. Google hasn't sued
Wikipedia yet. And Wikipedia has been distributing all those
points in bulk for years.
It isn't about Google, it's about their data providers.
Wikipedia is not a competitor to TeleAtlas. OpenStreetMap is.
Russ Nelson wrote:
WHERE do you guys get these weird ideas about copyright from?
Tell you what. You work for CloudMade, right?
I suggest you ask your bosses. Show them what you're proposing to import.
Show them the Wikipedia page that explains how it's been gathered. Ask them
if they'd be
On 05/12/2009 21:31, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
The proposed licence is not a benefit to Australians in my view.
You have generously qualified this with in my view and I should point
out that I disagree with all the force I can muster.
I spent about two hours this morning writing a pretty detailed
John Smith wrote:
Shaun McDonald wrote:
The License Working Group has spent months, well probably nearer years,
on the license
change. They know one heck of a lot more about legal systems than
myself. They are
people that I trust. Therefore I'm going to listen to them, and let them
80n wrote:
You've spent many many hours studying the licensing issues and claim
to have a deep understanding of the issues. If CC BY-SA is as broken
as you claim it is then Google, Navteq, Teleatlas and many others
would all have helped themselves to our data by now.
You can't continue
Ed Avis wrote:
Google have recently started using their own set of map data for the
USA. If it were possible for them to take OSM data under the current
licence they would have done so. This suggests that the current
share-alike provisions are working as intended.
No, it suggests that our
Ed Avis wrote:
Richard Fairhurst richard at systemed.net writes:
In other words: If you want to use OSM data without attribution or
share-alike, you may do so by distributing the program that makes the
derivative, rather than the derivative itself.
Right. Of course it is up to the user
Lars Francke wrote:
At the moment I'm displaying statistical data about a snapshot of
the OSM data. If it'd stay that way it would be very easy for me to
switch from one license to the other as the data wouldn't depend on
data from the CC by-SA set. But I'm currently rewriting the tool to
Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
I have been searching for a way to render indic fonts in OSM/mapnik
for some months and have posted here and elsewhere without result.
Today I discovered something called GNU unifont which has glyphs for
all known languages. Apparently this is used in the official
Anthony wrote:
Ah, but I don't plan on ever visiting the OSM website when and if
they switch to the ODbL.
Best. Reason to switch to ODbL. Ever.
Richard
--
View this message in context:
Shalabh wrote:
1. A group of really useless people with nothing better to discuss or
2. A group of really diligent people making the world's map better
and being assinine about it.
3. A group of no doubt lovely people who have temporarily forgotten about
the existence of the tagging list
Steve Bennett wrote:
For example, around my city there are little reserves - patches of
grass reserved by the government for future development such as
freeways or train lines. They often get tagged leisure=park, but
say I want to start tagging them landuse=reserve instead. Suddenly,
Roy Wallace wrote:
Currently, it's my understanding that, if you're running Ubuntu
and want to contribute by tracing imagery, you have to follow
the instructions here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/WMSPlugin#On_Ubuntu_9.10_.27Karmic_Koala.27
Or you could use Potlatch...
Hi all,
If you get a message from Potlatch complaining about uninitialized
constant ActiveSupport::Multibyte, and asking you to e-mail me, you
don't need to.
Something has changed on the server and Potlatch is simply passing the
message back to the user. Nothing has changed in Potlatch
Tom's restarted the daemon and it appears to have fixed the problem for now.
cheers
Richard
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Gervase Markham wrote:
Oh, there's every chance it will be adopted. The issues with this
clause have been raised on various discussion lists, but it doesn't
look like there's going to be any change.
Don't be too pessimistic! Matt and I hammered away at this one on IRC just
before Christmas
Frederik Ramm wrote:
We cannot, and do not want to, trademark the words open, free and
the like, but I think we could be a little bit more assertive about whom
we consider to be a kindred spirit and who is doing his own thing, and
apply the tiniest amount of pressure for people to upgrade from
Steve Bennett wrote:
But...where do you get the street name from? I think there's a
general policy that you can't copy it off other maps...but why,
exactly? How can a piece of information like the name of the
street be copyright?
Quick answer as requested:
1. Your jurisdiction may give
Frederik Ramm wrote:
Just because user X does something propietary with OSM data doesn't mean
that he is less of a nice guy. However (on the other hand) just because
he is a nice guy doesn't mean that something proprietary he produces
should be treated as if it was part of the family.
But
Anthony wrote:
I'd say a key provision there is the one about repeated and systematic
extraction of insubstantial parts. If you're just using a map site
occasionally, when you hit a snag, that's one thing. If you're
systematically using it on road after road, that's another.
Oh, sure. But
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
+1, IMHO it should not be an option on the main map page as it is
less open than OSM. Instead we could have other projects there,
that are as open as OSM (and that preferably cover the whole
planet, don't know how much of those there are at the moment).
Right.
Frederik Ramm wrote:
Your argument about flash players and JVMs leads nowhere; I am not
talking about openness of the target infrastructure but openness of the
process.
I know you're not.
Nonetheless neither you nor I have a monopoly on defining open. People
on this list have, in the past,
The Port-au-Prince map is astonishing but we're short on street names
in some places.
I've added a 1994 US military map as one of the background layers in
Potlatch. You can use this to add street names easily.
Full details are at:
Margie Roswell wrote:
Are there other source codes that people are using frequently,
that we might like to request be added to potlatch?
On the specific issue of source= tags, Potlatch best practice is that you
select the imagery you want from the popup menu, then use the B (for
'background')
Ulf Lamping wrote:
Seems a lot of mappers would be quite happy to follow an at least
more fixed tagging scheme than what we currently have today.
Unfortunately, there's no magic wand to get to this quickly ...
It's beginning to happen already.
As OSM's data structures (principally
NopMap wrote:
Is there any initiative to make sure the different editors use the
same tags for the same thing? If so, I missed it completely.
Not formally, but certainly when deciding which presets to use in Potlatch
I'll look at the other editor presets; at tools like OSMdoc and Tagwatch;
Roy Wallace wrote:
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
I will confess to being very disappointed that JOSM has now adopted
the retarded why-use-one-tag-when-eighty-three-will-do cycleway
scheme.
So you seriously think highway=cycleway is all that's needed
to describe the various flavours
401 - 500 of 1720 matches
Mail list logo
