Andreas Perstinger wrote:
On 2011-06-15 04:01, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
As far as I know, I have probably contributed data in the following
circumstances:
*Mapper A who has not accepted the change to ODbL drew two intersecting
roads.
*I note in person that there is a recently-added island
Andreas Perstinger wrote:
How did you noticed that there is a right-way turn lane? Probably not by
looking on the OSM map because then it would have been already there. So
you have another source (local knowledge, bing, ...) from which you got
the location of this way - you derived the
Andreas Perstinger wrote:
On 2011-06-16 15:48, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Andreas Perstinger wrote:
How did you noticed that there is a right-way turn lane? Probably not
by
looking on the OSM map because then it would have been already there.
So
you have another source (local knowledge
Heiko Jacobs-2 wrote:
Am 15.06.2011 06:59, schrieb Russ Nelson:
Michael Collinson writes:
As per the implementation plan [1], we intend to move to phase 4
this
Sunday 19th June or as soon after as is technically practical. This
will
mean that anyone who has explicitly
benlast wrote:
All such additions or edits submitted to OSM prior to 17 June 2011 may be
held and continue to be used by OSM under the terms in place between OSM
and
the individual which submitted the addition or edit at the relevant time.
Quick, everyone armchair-map Australia for the
I've read the current version of the contributor terms and have a question:
If you contribute Contents, You are indicating that, as far as You
know, You have the right to authorize OSMF to use and distribute those
Contents under our current licence terms.
As far as I know, I have probably
Serge Wroclawski-2 wrote:
Next, about a year later, a vote amongst OSMF membership was
taken.This isn't the board, but the entire membership. Since it was a
decision that was to effect the direction of the OSMF, this makes
sense to me..
This was before my time, but from what I understand
On 6/13/2011 5:54 PM, Henk Hoff wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com
mailto:nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
Serge Wroclawski-2 wrote:
Next, about a year later, a vote amongst OSMF membership was
taken.This isn't the board, but the entire
On 6/11/2011 4:43 AM, Thomas Davie wrote:
On 10 Jun 2011, at 23:01, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
You're still conflating two decisions. To continue with your referendum
analogy, someone may vote no on construction of a new arts center, yet
still
patronize it once it's complete. But one cannot
Dermot McNally wrote:
On 10 June 2011 22:16, TimSC lt;mappingli...@sheerman-chase.org.ukgt;
wrote:
I think you are confusing support the relicense with accept the
relicense and that difference is significant.
Not at all - I know of no form of democracy that distinguishes between
Dermot McNally wrote:
On 10 June 2011 23:01, Nathan Edgars II lt;nerou...@gmail.comgt; wrote:
I cannot think of any democratic process where only the 'yes' voters are
allowed to participate in the results. Can you?
About a year ago, Bavaria held a referendum to ban smoking in just
Dermot McNally wrote:
On 10 June 2011 23:35, Nathan Edgars II lt;nerou...@gmail.comgt; wrote:
It's a flawed analogy, since there were two decisions for smokers:
whether
to vote yes or no on the referendum, and (after it passed) whether to
patronize these places. With OSM there is only
On 6/10/2011 7:49 PM, Dermot McNally wrote:
On 11 June 2011 00:15, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com wrote:
I think you're being deliberately obtuse
That's amusing coming from somebody who thinks he can inhibit the use
of data he has declared as PD, but let's carry on...
Eh? I don't
On 6/10/2011 5:31 PM, James Umbanhowar wrote:
The state of North Carolina has released 6 inch resolution orthoimagery for
the entire state that was taken during leaf off time in 2010. These are great
quality for all types of mapping. The information about the service is at:
On 6/9/2011 3:54 PM, David ``Smith'' wrote:
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 4:08 AM, James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com
mailto:rickmastfa...@hotmail.com wrote:
I just happened to notice this guy tonight was going around and
editing the ref tags on highways in the US just to replace
the
On 6/8/2011 2:29 PM, Lord-Castillo, Brett wrote:
This shot shows the road as all 4 interstates and US-40 at once.
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8ll=38.617642,-90.181049spn=0.00824,0.013078z=17layer=ccbll=38.617746,-90.181461panoid=etjY4kn9oqoecsdYSjoXqwcbp=12,285.92,,0,5.98
(This shot is
On 5/29/2011 4:08 AM, James Mast wrote:
I just happened to notice this guy tonight was going around and editing
the ref tags on highways in the US just to replace the space and put
in the hyphen. (I noticed this when going to load the I-77 NC relation
to add in speed limits I saw and wrote down
On 6/7/2011 12:55 AM, Dion Dock wrote:
On 6/3/2011 9:43 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Oh wow. http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SimonSquare/edits contains the
following:
landuse=military on the US border
religion=christian denomination=anglican landuse=cemetery on the UK
leisure=park on France
On 6/7/2011 9:30 AM, Lord-Castillo, Brett wrote:
I-64, I-70, I-55, I-44, US-40
AKA, the Poplar St Bridge in St Louis, MO.
It is the only quad Interstate route in existence. I-70 will reroute in 2015
and it will go down to a tri route.
It also carries the designation Historic Route 66 and has
On 6/4/2011 7:06 PM, Chris Lawrence wrote:
Reminds me, we need to add some notation for unsigned routes in
relations (the only approaches I can think of are either to tag it as
roles on each member, with things like unsigned;west sometimes -
which is icky but would work - or having separate
On 6/4/2011 9:46 PM, James Mast wrote:
Also, are you going to try to add proper Future Interstate shields?
Currently in Google, they just show a normal Interstate shield. It might
give people a proper reason to tag these posted Future Interstate
correctly instead of without the Future tag. I've
On 6/5/2011 12:15 AM, nat...@nwacg.net wrote:
In Arkansas, routes are not unsigned or (except in very rare cases) cosigned.
The route ends where it meets a route of higher priority and begins again as a
new segment elsewhere.
There are a lot of states that do this internally. But most sign
On 6/5/2011 12:22 AM, Richard Welty wrote:
however, there are unsigned routes in NY; state maintained routes which
have designations but which do not have signage, and some county
routes.
Three states - Florida, Alabama, and Tennessee - have an unsigned state
designation for every segment of
On 5/29/2011 4:08 AM, James Mast wrote:
I just happened to notice this guy tonight was going around and editing
the ref tags on highways in the US just to replace the space and put
in the hyphen. (I noticed this when going to load the I-77 NC relation
to add in speed limits I saw and wrote down
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=41.722lon=-75.094zoom=10layers=M
I'm currently looking for the source; please report here if you find and
fix it first.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
On 6/3/2011 9:43 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=41.722lon=-75.094zoom=10layers=M
I'm currently looking for the source; please report here if you find and
fix it first.
Oh wow. http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SimonSquare/edits contains the
following:
landuse
On 5/29/2011 3:32 AM, Nathan Mills wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2011 03:00:03 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Perhaps the best way to handle it would be to render a wider line if
oneway=yes and not lanes=1 or if oneway=no/unset and lanes=4 or more.
Thus divided highways would not need a lane count
On 5/30/2011 4:06 PM, Steve Coast wrote:
... or does this map look like an older Texas osmarender layer
screenshot plus a tilt-shift blur added?
http://www.wm.com/contact-us.jsp
The use of name=Interstate Highway 45;Gulf Freeway is a dead giveaway:
On 5/29/2011 1:50 AM, Nathan Mills wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2011 01:00:25 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 5/29/2011 12:37 AM, Nathan Mills wrote:
US-441 between St. Cloud and Yeehaw Junction could easily be trunk by
NE2's definition
Nope, since any through traffic will be on the Turnpike. US
On 5/29/2011 2:30 AM, Nathan Mills wrote:
I think that trunk is more useful if it's prescriptive, more along the
lines of a motorway than primary and below. If we aren't going to do
that, we need to come up with another value for highway and get it
rendered by default. It's something that map
On 5/29/2011 5:16 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
subtle mass vandalism
This is why I ignore Paul.
Though I really wonder about this edit:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/14751094/history
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
On 5/29/2011 8:09 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:
FSM knows the aerial imagery around here is outdated, to put it mildly.
Try the NAIP imagery:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/National_Agriculture_Imagery_Program
___
Talk-us mailing list
On 5/28/2011 3:39 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:
On Sat, 28 May 2011 15:19:03 -0400, Anthony wrote:
In my experience the difference between primary and trunk is generally
very minor, to the point where I'm not sure there'd be any advantage
at all in a router using it as a hint.
But maybe that's just
On 5/28/2011 9:13 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:
So you continue to assert that trunk is most useful if it essentially a
duplicate of primary?
Maybe a duplicate of your version of primary, but not mine.
Take, as an example, US 84 in western Alabama. Why on earth did you
change it to trunk when it's
On 5/28/2011 9:47 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:
Another example is US-71 between Fort Smith and Texarkana. It is in fact
the fastest route between Fort Smith and Texarkana, but it is terribly
slow going. The fact that it is the fastest route between those two
regionally important cities is adequately
On 5/28/2011 10:52 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:
Only if trunk has a meaning that implies that a road tagged trunk is
somehow better than a road tagged primary, which it apparently does not,
at least in some people's minds. If you're going to waste trunk on curvy
two lane roads, a router may as well
On 5/27/2011 12:32 AM, Nathan Mills wrote:
Would I be correct in stating that tagging an undivided 2 lane (one lane
in each direction) highways would be improper, even if a state calls the
highway a trunk for planning purposes? Especially if it's in the
middle of a town with a low speed limit. I
On 5/27/2011 9:34 AM, Richard Welty wrote:
On 5/27/11 9:26 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 5/27/2011 12:32 AM, Nathan Mills wrote:
Would I be correct in stating that tagging an undivided 2 lane (one lane
in each direction) highways would be improper, even if a state calls the
highway a trunk
On 5/27/2011 10:04 AM, Nathan Mills wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2011 09:26:41 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
No, trunk is also used for a major intercity highway that's not a
freeway. Take a look at the UK and their network of trunks.
I'm sorry, I thought I posted to talk-us. My mistake. ;)
Seems
On 5/27/2011 12:00 PM, Alex Mauer wrote:
On 05/27/2011 09:06 AM, Richard Welty wrote:
if you peruse the wiki, and make a reasonably through search
for definitions of trunk in the US, you will find an extensive
complex of contradictions and inconsistencies.
Maybe someone should find all these
On 5/27/2011 9:51 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2011 12:17:53 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Also, I don't know how major a road between Dumas, TX and Texline, TX
really is. If it weren't a US highway, I'd probably demote it all the
way to secondary.
It's on the National Highway
On 5/27/2011 10:41 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:
Besides, if importance to the route network is the only consideration,
we ought not be using trunk at all or all US highways ought to be
classed as trunk.
Eh? A lot of U.S. Highways are no longer the most important highways,
since they are paralleled
Those of you who get off on schadenfreude might be interested in this
thread: http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4464.0
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/28397519/history
This way seems to have been reduced to only those nodes at
intersections, obviously wrong given the curves in the road. Can anyone
explain what this DB fixer is and how much damage it's done?
On 5/18/2011 8:31 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
I've just tried this with the case you cited and it seems to work. First
time I've used P1 for ages. ;)
And you just gave me 311 conflicts in JOSM :) Oh well, I'll find a way
around it.
___
Talk-us
I'm not sure if all 2010 imagery has been added, but some from Florida
(where the latest available had been 2007) was just added in the past
week, and some in Kentucky was also added recently. This can be used in
JOSM and perhaps other editors via the URLs on
On 5/15/2011 5:01 PM, Ian Dees wrote:
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com
mailto:nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure if all 2010 imagery has been added, but some from
Florida (where the latest available had been 2007) was just added in
the past
http://www.openstreetmap.org/history?bbox=-82.063%2C28.21%2C-80.887%2C28.784
There's no way to tell, going down the list, which ones are huge
changesets that cover the entire world and which ones are confined to
this area.
___
talk mailing list
On 5/13/2011 11:59 AM, Tom Hughes wrote:
On 13/05/11 16:34, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/history?bbox=-82.063%2C28.21%2C-80.887%2C28.784
There's no way to tell, going down the list, which ones are huge
changesets that cover the entire world and which ones are confined
On 5/13/2011 12:32 PM, Tom Hughes wrote:
As to scanning the list, what exactly does seeing that there are N big
changesets in the list tell you?
It tells me which ones I can ignore when looking at recent changes in my
area.
___
talk mailing list
On 5/13/2011 1:31 PM, Tom Hughes wrote:
On 13/05/11 18:12, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 5/13/2011 12:32 PM, Tom Hughes wrote:
As to scanning the list, what exactly does seeing that there are N big
changesets in the list tell you?
It tells me which ones I can ignore when looking at recent
On 5/10/2011 7:08 AM, Ian Dees wrote:
Or you could simply apply the shields to the geometries created by route
relations, greatly simplifying the ref parsing crap. Since the tile
server is running Mapnik trunk-ish now, you should be able to use the
SVG symbolizers (which should allow you to
On 5/10/2011 8:17 AM, Ian Dees wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 7:06 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com
mailto:nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
It sounded to me like you were working on rendering with Mapnik. As I've
mentioned several times, osm2pgsql creates linestrings for route
relations, so all
On 5/7/2011 9:57 AM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
What I've done is to create a customized PL2 instance which renders
streets and highlights missing sidewalk data. I also provide a
background layer of imagery, showing the pavement. From these two
things, you can determine if a road has a sidewalk,
Jaak Laineste wrote:
Is there good reason to add addr:country, addr:county, addr:city and
other regional tags to all the address tags, if OSM database already
has administrative regions for given area?
I can't speak for the other tags, but addr:city is not the same as
is_in:city. I have an
On 5/3/2011 8:39 PM, PJ Houser wrote:
Sidewalks as separate ways.
I am working on some multi-use paths that travel on sidewalks for some
portions, like the I-205 corridor in Portland, Oregon. Mapping sidewalks
as a separate way is now an approved practice, and I'd like to do this
for the parts
On 5/2/2011 2:32 AM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
I
believe giving new mappers concrete, attainable goals and a sense of
accomplishment - badges - could really help to retain motivation.
Goal: I want to make the map around me correct.
Adding MMORPG grinding is not the answer, if only because we
On 5/2/2011 4:29 AM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:West_Harrisburg.jpg
As such, it could help
reduce - though never fully prevent - cases like the one you link to.
How is that? West
On 5/1/2011 2:23 PM, Alan Millar wrote:
On May 1, 2011, at 10:25 AM, Toby Murray wrote:
Every time I go editing in some new place, I always find another
reason to hate imports.
Yeah... Every time I go editing in some new place, I always find another
reason to hate newbies, too.
Personally
On 5/1/2011 5:23 PM, Mike N wrote:
On 5/1/2011 3:39 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
blindly copying route numbers from TIGER into refs
I'll have to admit that I have done this for most of the stuff I have
ref'd because I usually don't have a more authoritative source.
Hopefully you realize
On 5/2/2011 12:50 AM, Toby Murray wrote:
Tomorrow I think I may try to use my local pgsnapshot database to
query all untagged, unconnected nodes in the region and nuke them from
that.
If you can catch the xapi when it's up,
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Xapi#Child_Element_Predicates
On 4/30/2011 9:39 PM, Charlotte Wolter wrote:
Yes, I deleted the extra version of Highway 163 today. However, there
definitely was a second version.
This one? http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/10151896
In changeset: 8008309
Comment:Oljeto Wash
I can't see the history so I
On 4/30/2011 9:57 PM, Charlotte Wolter wrote:
But, now there are two ways for the same highway.
No there aren't; I undeleted and then deleted the portion in Arizona.
I clearly did not delete the only way for 163.
Zoom 12 was redrawn between your deletion and my undeletion. Unless
someone
On 4/30/2011 10:30 PM, Charlotte Wolter wrote:
South of the Utah-Arizona line, there still are multiple versions of US
163. Perhaps we should hold off on fixes until others have had a
chance to look at this.
If you're talking about just south of the line, that was my error in
adding an extra
On 5/1/2011 12:14 AM, Charlotte Wolter wrote:
Yes, that was my question originally. I am wondering why I saw two ways
when, from your point of view, there was one. And, they definitely were
there. As I zoomed in they diverged more and more. Hmm, anyone?
Yes, that was the extra node 83731621 at
Thomas Davie wrote:
Because it will show the genuine trend – at the moment, a quick glance at
the graph would suggest that the no vote is expanding at the same rate,
and at the same level as the yes vote. I agree that we can't clearly
show that they're not at the same level, because it
jgrocha wrote:
Hi,
Recently, when I try to upload my edits, the server (or JOSM?) is
reporting:
Waiting 10 seconds ... OK - trying again.
then it waits 10 seconds and continues afterwards.
Is this some kind of overload protection mechanism on the server side?
Is the server been to
jgrocha wrote:
Hi Nakor,
I use the API mostly from the command line. Things like (in one line):
curl -g
http://jxapi.openstreetmap.org/xapi/api/0.6/*[amenity=pharmacy][bbox=-9.2,39.68,-6.2,42.19];
-o farmacias.osm
works for me. The output (farmacias.osm) can be load in JOSM, for
On 4/3/2011 11:58 AM, Richard Welty wrote:
On 4/3/11 11:44 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22fake+state+hwy+35%22
baseless speculation:
random census bureau employee puts in a placeholder name,
never gets around to correcting it.
http://www.openstreetmap.org
Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Mike Collinson wrote:
If you were a contributor before this date and have not accepted yet,
you will be asked to accept or decline the new terms. You can find
background information about this on the main wiki page [2]. If you use
an off-line editor like
Dermot McNally wrote:
On 14 April 2011 18:12, Nathan Edgars II lt;nerou...@gmail.comgt; wrote:
Nathan Edgars II wrote:
What happens in the future if I decline? Can I accept at a later date?
Since there has been no response to this, I plan to:
*hold off on accepting or declining
Dermot McNally wrote:
I applaud your ethics, but it seems to me that your chosen course of
action, unless you do intend to accept at a later stage for your
existing account,
I do, if we get to the point where we are removing data.
--
View this message in context:
Frederik Ramm wrote:
There are regions in OSM where a visible no vote will lead to your
data being re-surveyed and replaced by other contributors rather
quickly.
This is vandalism and should be reverted.
Frederik Ramm wrote:
It's a hard language to use. We don't want to lose any
On 4/14/2011 7:08 PM, David Murn wrote:
So, please feel free to tell me where I invented anything?
I never said anything about the reason being because my old
contributions were tainted. I do understand the dilemma faced by those,
but, as far as I know, every change I made can be relicensed
On 4/13/2011 4:18 PM, Kristian M Zoerhoff wrote:
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 10:56:51AM -0400, Richard Welty wrote:
ways vs. relations. we need the identifier on ways because of the
data consumers
that expect to render directly. for relations, we should in theory
be only including
the actual
Mike Collinson wrote:
If you were a contributor before this date and have not accepted yet,
you will be asked to accept or decline the new terms. You can find
background information about this on the main wiki page [2]. If you use
an off-line editor like JOSM, you will need to manually
On 4/11/2011 2:05 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
for the California situation, i think there's an obvious answer, as
the tertiary network appears to be divided into lettered groups:
network=US:CA:A
That's not the network any more than US:I:95 is the network for I-195
and other spurs of I-95.
On 4/11/2011 2:26 PM, Phil! Gold wrote:
I've also thought that it would be nice to have a tag like admin_level
(perhaps the admin_level tag itself) on relations to indicate which level
of government is responsible for maintaining the road.
No good. Many local governments maintain portions of
I came across a relation for a school bus:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/239393
Isn't this a little too much detail for OSM?
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
On 4/10/2011 3:43 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
but they do vary from year to year. i worry about importing such data then
failing to maintain it. it's very subject to bit rot.
The reason I noticed it was because I merged two identical ways that
were part of a state route relation, and the server
On 4/10/2011 3:53 PM, j...@jfeldredge.com wrote:
The route information would also be of interest to any parents considering
moving into a neighborhood
So would information about recent sales and foreclosures or reported
crimes. I hope nobody's tried mapping either of these. There's a point
On 4/10/2011 4:12 PM, j...@jfeldredge.com wrote:
A bus route is a spatial relationship, and thus makes sense to show on a map.
We have a large number of people adding bike route information and/or highway
route information to OSM; would you argue that those shouldn't be mapped either?
Yes,
On 4/10/2011 4:29 PM, j...@jfeldredge.com wrote:
How would the insertion of these new nodes cause a relation already linked to
the way to no longer reflect reality? Does a relation include a list of all of
the nodes in the related section of the way? Does any insertion of a new node,
say to
On 4/10/2011 5:00 PM, Kristian M Zoerhoff wrote:
I don't want ref tags on these, as the shields will quickly get too
cluttered in Mapnik.
Don't tag for your preference for what the renderer should do...
___
Talk-us mailing list
On 4/10/2011 5:19 PM, Kristian Zoerhoff wrote:
Point taken. I'm still not clear on the correct syntax for the relation,
though.
It shouldn't really matter as long as it's consistent, now that the new
Java XAPI can download relations without their elements. For example,
On 4/10/2011 7:05 PM, Alan Mintz wrote:
At 2011-04-10 12:43, Richard Welty wrote:
but they do vary from year to year.
As do commercial bus routes, at least based on the number of stickers
with changes on them I see on signage around here. In fact, I'll bet
that's on the rise as more/easy
On 4/10/2011 7:25 PM, Alan Mintz wrote:
At 2011-04-10 14:00, Kristian M Zoerhoff wrote:
What's the consensus for county roads in the US?
I don't know what the consensus is.
County roads in California are of the form [A-Z][0-9][0-9]. I tag Orange
County route S18 as:
network=US:CA:Orange
+
On 4/9/2011 8:41 AM, Richard Welty wrote:
there are some notes in the Wiki about downgrading state highways
to tertiary if they don't connect up to other secondary roads at
reasonable intervals.
in the spirit of this, when i encountered a county route in Rensselaer
County that was a stub that
On 4/9/2011 8:41 AM, Craig Hinners wrote:
* At the conceptual level, the same string should not be used to
represent the networks of multiple states, and some state-unique
ID, be it the USPS two-letter abbreviation or otherwise, is needed.
Why? We use the same prefixes for many
On 4/9/2011 10:21 AM, Toby Murray wrote:
This explicitly split out network information should be present in
route relations. The ref=* tag on ways right now is mostly tagging
for the renderer because current renderers don't use route relations.
And tagging for redundancy, since relations break
On 4/9/2011 11:18 AM, Richard Welty wrote:
i wouldn't, i think, upgrade everything that has full striping as that
would
mean that most all roads in, say, Saratoga County end up tertiary as the
towns there like to spend money on stripes. a standard based on striping
makes more sense in Rensselaer
On 4/8/2011 12:47 PM, Alan Mintz wrote:
At 2011-04-07 13:31, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 4/7/2011 4:09 PM, Alan Mintz wrote:
Exit 183 / SR-247 South / Barstow Road
is tagged
ref=183 +
exit_to=CA-247;Barstow Road +
exit_dir=South;
Does anyone have examples of places where my suggested model
On 4/8/2011 2:00 PM, James Mast wrote:
I just thought I would throw this out there so this can be settled once
and for all. Which ref tag setup do you think should be used for State
Highways on ways (not relations)? PA-44 or 44.
There's a third way: use the correct abbreviation. So Florida, if a
On 4/8/2011 3:03 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:
The SR naming leads to ambiguity as to which state's route number is
being referenced.
Just like name=Main Street leads to ambiguity as to which city's main
street it is.
I understand the overlap between 20 and 42, but here the solution is to
make
On 4/8/2011 3:58 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
i know NE2 likes to make the prefix go away for state ref tags
For Florida, yes, since that's the statewide standard. For other states,
I usually don't tag without a prefix. I certainly don't make it go
away en masse.
On 4/8/2011 4:46 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
On 4/8/11 4:26 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Do you have an example of that outside my first few months of editing?
this changeset:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/5223229
from 7/2010, in which the ref tag for
http
On 4/8/2011 6:22 PM, Alan Mintz wrote:
At 2011-03-28 12:19, Ian Dees wrote:
In this picture:
http://www.nomadchallenge.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/likelike-highway-honolulu.jpg
What is the proposed tag for the highway=motorway_junction node?
Are we tagging the node with exactly what is on
On 4/8/2011 10:31 PM, James Mast wrote:
Well, I was just testing MapQuest and it thinks that I-74's split there
from I-77 is the main highway (somewhat).
http://open.mapquest.com/?le=thk=7-OEgrKIB6vs
http://open.mapquest.com/?le=thk=7-OEgrKIB6vs=
It says Stay STRAIGHT to go onto I-74 E. The
On 4/6/2011 5:59 PM, Alan Mintz wrote:
At 2011-03-28 12:40, Ian Dees wrote:
With that in mind I think it's important that the exit_to tag only
include verbage on the sign (and not stuff we make up).
IMO, not all the verbage on the sign. I've been tagging name as the name
of the exit according
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22fake+state+hwy+35%22
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
401 - 500 von 889 matches
Mail list logo
