Sebastian Klein wrote:
Nathan Edgars II wrote:
If a way is tagged tiger:reviewed=no, JOSM puts a highlight behind it,
and when you select it the red is a lot fatter. How do I disable this?
You can put
color.mappaint.standard.tiger_data=#80808000
in your advanced preferences
Sebastian Klein wrote:
There seems to be a general user interface problem here, as you are not
the first having trouble with loading custom styles.
To avoid noise on this list, we can try to resolve it on josm trac.
Please add Help-status report to the ticket.
I created a ticket -
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 6:36 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
Also note that once there's a photo on flickr that is tagged with an
osm object id and a foursquare.com venue id at the same time, you have
a link between OSM and foursquare.com, no need to duplicate this
information
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 8:11 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 July 2010 00:50, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 6:36 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com
wrote:
Also note that once there's a photo on flickr that is tagged with an
osm
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 8:28 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 July 2010 02:24, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 8:11 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 31 July 2010 00:50, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 9:40 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
So are you saying you or someone else will be checking all TLIDs
against the TIGER data and correcting errors and adding missing ones?
I can imagine someone making some clever scripts and then manually
verifying it
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 10:15 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 July 2010 04:06, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 9:40 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com
wrote:
I can imagine someone making some clever scripts and then manually
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 9:40 AM, McGuire, Matthew
matt.mcgu...@metc.state.mn.us wrote:
Can you show me an area of the US that's tagged completely objectively?
For example: Interstate 99 near Altoona, PA is coded (AFAIK appropriately) a
motorway. Over the entire length of the Interstate, it
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Jim McAndrew j...@loc8.us wrote:
I-99 is a special case where a congressman wanted a road to go from the PA
turnpike to I-80, he threw a bunch of money at it, and made up a new number
to assign to it. The road never really was meant to be an interstate, and I
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Brad Neuhauser
brad.neuhau...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that's pretty much covered here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_Functional_Classification_System
And it's not polished enough in many areas (the individual states or
even the local metropolitan
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 3:33 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
The only tiger tag that is important to keep (to me) is the
tiger:tlid, all the other values can be pulled from the original TIGER
database provided the
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:01 AM, McGuire, Matthew
matt.mcgu...@metc.state.mn.us wrote:
What you mean is that it can transcend usefulness and become a sea of
unclassified roads. Gotcha.
Your usefulness my usefulness. Therefore, I'm advocating objectivity vs
subjectivity.
Can you show me
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 7:08 AM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 5:35 PM, Kevin Atkinson ke...@atkinson.dhs.org
wrote
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 8:00 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 8:24 AM, McGuire, Matthew
matt.mcgu...@metc.state.mn.us wrote:
This looks like coding for the map rather than mapping
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com
wrote:
The problem is that the
European community has decided that the highway tags are shorthand for
physical qualities that usually only exist
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 6:35 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com
wrote
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 6:35 PM, Kevin Atkinson ke...@atkinson.dhs.org wrote:
Roadway classification in the United States is subjective, there is no
getting around that fact. No amount of discussion is going to fix that.
Guidelines which only focus on each road separably without considering
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 5:35 PM, Kevin Atkinson ke...@atkinson.dhs.org
wrote:
Roadway classification in the United States is subjective, there is no
getting around that fact. No amount of discussion is going to fix that.
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote:
* Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com [2010-07-09 16:19 -0500]:
Also, I see they are rendering highway shields. Didn't I see a big
discussion about that here recently? :)
Wonder if they are using the route relations to render
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 8:09 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
The trunk issue is just a matter of selecting one level in the
road-priority hierarchy. Being off by one is not the end of the
world. Get the verifiable parameters right, name, surface, one way,
single or dual
SteveC-2 wrote:
And I'll try to imagine your parents basement where you toil endlessly on
such counts.
Steve
stevecoast.com
If this is how the OSMF board conducts themselves, perhaps it's best to give
them as little power as possible over the data and its license.
--
View this
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 10:22 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 July 2010 12:07, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
If this is how the OSMF board conducts themselves, perhaps it's best to give
them as little power as possible over the data and its license.
Just
Heiko Jacobs-2 wrote:
But I don't will accept any data loss because only of legal reasons.
Wikipedia and other projects changed licence without any loss of data.
Unfortunately Wikipedia took advantage of a loophole: contributors agreed to
the current GFDL or any later version, and they
I posted a question:
http://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/153/how-do-you-tell-if-a-minor-service-road-is-accessprivate-destination-or-permissive
But I can't view it. Apparently others have been able to respond and
downvote it, but when I go to the above URL I get:
500 Server Error
sorry,
Peter Herison wrote:
Does anyone encounter errors loading Yahoo-Images in Potlatch?
I'm not getting them at all; I reopened
http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2950.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
Maarten Deen wrote:
John Smith wrote:
On 11 July 2010 06:43, Chris Dombroski cdombroski+osm at icanttype.org
wrote:
I ask because I think this is the cause of stupid GPS directions at times
make a left, followed by a slight right
Isn't that a problem with the routing software, not the data?
Pieren wrote:
You missunderstood : the definition of the border IS the middle of the road
It may be the middle of the road *as it existed when the border was
defined*. It's usually not the middle of the road as it exists now,
unless there have been no changes, however slight, to the road
Ed Avis wrote:
Nathan Edgars II neroute2 at gmail.com writes:
Depends what the way is. If it's a street, the area most likely stops
at the right-of-way line, and does not extend to the middle of the
street, so it would be incorrect to extend the area into the street.
On the other hand, if it's
Pieren wrote:
I don't understand you. If they don't follow and don't cross, then you don't
have duplicate nodes anyway...
The TIGER import has numerous topological errors, including many
highways crossing boundaries when they really don't (due to one or
both being in the wrong position). TIGER
I've written a summary of the recent mailing list discussions on
links: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Link
Please discuss on its talk page.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Joseph Reeves wrote:
On 2 July 2010 12:41, Maarten Deen mdeen at xs4all.nl wrote:
- show them keepright.ipax.at
And http://matt.dev.openstreetmap.org/dupe_nodes/
God no. Not until it distinguishes between bad dupes (highway-highway
at county lines, to use a US example) and OK dupes
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
God no. Not until it distinguishes between bad dupes (highway-highway
at county lines, to use a US example) and OK dupes (highway-boundary).
Ok dupes do
Steve Bennett wrote:
Definitely. I would go so far as to say that two connected ways should
render identically to if they were a single way, except for the actual
differences in tags between them.
Not quite. Where a dual carriageway becomes a single carriageway, this
would wrap the name around
colliar wrote:
I can not get onto any wiki page.
Any problems ?
It's down, and there also seems to be a problem with generating new
Mapnik tiles, for instance here:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.3454lon=-75.9435zoom=12layers=B000FTF
This also affects downloading in JOSM - you can download
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 12:50 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
colliar wrote:
I can not get onto any wiki page.
Any problems ?
It's down, and there also seems to be a problem with generating new
Mapnik tiles, for instance here:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.3454lon
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 6:39 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Alan Mintz
alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote:
A bug of some kind has caused there to be untagged, unconnected nodes to be
present, usually in the area and shape of an existing way
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=41.73928lon=-79.88822zoom=15layers=B000FTF
All around here there are missing ways. I can't tell exactly what
happened, but edits such as
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/3128411 and
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/3125973 (done at about
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Apollinaris Schoell
ascho...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe better to revert these whole changesets.
No can do - I don't have the programming skills to handle a revert,
and JOSM's changeset manager doesn't seem to be able to do it.
This can be tricky if people have
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=41.73928lon=-79.88822zoom=15layers=B000FTF
All around here there are missing ways. I can't tell exactly what
happened, but edits such as
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/3128411 and
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/3125973 (done at about
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Apollinaris Schoell
ascho...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe better to revert these whole changesets.
No can do - I don't have the programming skills to handle a revert,
and JOSM's changeset manager doesn't seem to be able to do it.
This can be tricky if people have
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 12:41 AM, Val Kartchner val...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there a way that we could get higher resolution county line
boundaries from anywhere? I expect not, but I figured I'd ask. I'll
plan to continue to correct these manually.
The TIGER county boundaries should be better
David Paleino wrote:
Hello people,
does someone know the reasoning behind:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Map_Features:highwaydiff=490719oldid=485601
?
Looking through his recent edits, I see
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Alan Mintz
alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote:
A bug of some kind has caused there to be untagged, unconnected nodes to be
present, usually in the area and shape of an existing way, as though it was
deleted and added again in a slightly different place, but only
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Apollinaris Schoell
ascho...@gmail.com wrote:
Do you mind posting your standard for discussion and then we should
discuss and agree on something easy to map and easy to ise by rendering,
Garmin maps, other navi systems and update the wiki. Changing existing
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 12:26 AM, Zeke Farwell ezeki...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 12:03 AM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net
wrote:
i think the rendered pseudo-shields probably need to show some reference
to the network
the highway is in, otherwise you'd not know what kind
(sorry about the dupe - forgot to reply to all)
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Apollinaris Schoell ascho...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote:
How consistent are the US route relations? Should the relations with
network information in the
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 8:51 PM, David ``Smith'' vidthe...@gmail.com wrote:
In Ohio:
* Route relation tagging consistently is as described by the wiki
(with the exception of no clear agreement between network=US and
network=US:US)
* Interstate route relations offer nearly complete coverage
*
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 9:09 PM, vidthe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 15, 2010 9:02pm, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually all mainline (unbannered) U.S. Route relations are complete
It's been a while since I've done a lot of route relation work, so I haven't
really seen
(note: I'm talking about boundaries that have stayed in the same place
during recent times, not those that change every year by annexations.)
While the TIGER data is pretty good for these boundaries, it has some
precision issues. For example, at
highway=motorway_junction with ref=[number] is used whenever there's
an exit/junction number, whether or not it's actually on a motorway.
But there are some numbered exits that are right at traffic signals,
which should be tagged highway=traffic_signals. Examples include
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
Well it can't be highway=motorway_junction because motorways don't
have level crossings, right?
If this were a motorway_junction (it isn't) the exit number would be
in the ref tag on the exit node, so go with that.
In
Usually a CDP is simply an arbitrary area drawn by the Census Bureau
for statistical purposes. Does it sound reasonable that these should
at least not be treated as ordinary boundaries, if not (carefully)
deleted altogether where not based on actual administrative
boundaries?
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Brad Neuhauser
brad.neuhau...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
Usually a CDP is simply an arbitrary area drawn by the Census Bureau
for statistical purposes. Does it sound reasonable that these should
Alexander Menk wrote:
is there any better way for mapping very wide steps (100 m, half
circle) instead of putting lots of steps next to each other.
highway=steps area=yes?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
John Smith wrote:
If you wanted something more definite, police injury records could
provide alternative verifiability, if as John pointed out 5 people
were hurt or killed trying to cross a road than it's obviously not
safe.
Only if you do the same for other vehicles - highway with lots of
crashes
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
As others have said, foot=no when pedestrians are legally allowed is a
bad idea. As long as you walk against traffic, drivers will usually
see you
I know this isn't the Cloudmade list, but a recent thread here got
some results. I used the feedback link but never got a response.
If you go to
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
In any case, more important than the etymology of the phrase map what's on
the ground is what it means and whether or not it's good advice. In terms
of its use in excluding verifiable information I think it is quite
problematic.
John F. Eldredge wrote:
From: Nathan Edgars II
In other words, if we know for sure that Long Street is officially the A1889,
it might make sense as a separate ref_unmarked=A1889 tag, like old_ref=A1,
but using the same tagging for signed and unsigned routes helps nobody.
It is not unusual
(sorry about the duplicate, Anthony; I forgot to send to all)
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 12:11 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com
wrote:
In other words, if we know for sure that Long Street
is officially the A1889, it might make
Right now, the only mention of the on the ground rule on the wiki is
here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Disputes#On_the_Ground_Rule
Should a separate page be created about how it applies more generally?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
The 'parentheses' idea for tagging county roads would be mine. I used it in
New Jersey, and then I applied it to county highways when doing fixup in
Florida. For some strange reason, NE2 liked my system so much that he used
it to tag county roads wherever he edited (including the whole of
Frederik Ramm wrote:
I think it's quite easy. If NE2 has been there to inspect the individual
intersection he has been changing, or at least thoroughly studied aerial
imagery or so for this particular intersection, then his idea of how it
should be tagged is as legit as someone else's and the
Eric Christensen wrote:
The existing maps show abandoned railroad tracks in the area. That must
have been some time ago as there are no traces of these tracks left.
At what point do we remove those from the maps or should we keep them
there indefinitely?
railway=abandoned is, like old_ref and
I'll repeat what I told him through the OSM messaging system:
First of all, how did you determine that these features were in fact
ground-level? Many times when I set layer=-1 on something it's at least a
few feet below the surrounding terrain, if not more.
That's still ground-level. Look
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 3:36 AM, Peter Körner osm-li...@mazdermind.de wrote:
Nathan Edgars II schrieb:
A couple hours ago I made a bunch of edits in Potlatch and saved.
While editing the loading from the API was intermittent, and this
continued during the saving. I canceled the save and tried
A couple hours ago I made a bunch of edits in Potlatch and saved.
While editing the loading from the API was intermittent, and this
continued during the saving. I canceled the save and tried again, and
now it refuses to save or load anything. I also can't access any pages
on openstreetmap.org.
Lord-Castillo, Brett wrote:
The road that now bears all the Olive names was originally Plank Rd, the
major road through St Louis County when it was rural. The main road went
through several name changes (Plank Rd, Olive Rd, Olive St, Olive Street Rd,
Olive Blvd). But, it also was realigned,
Lord-Castillo, Brett wrote:
But another good one close to us is Old Olive Street Rd and Old Olive St
Rd (both official names for different sections of the road). These two
streets run parallel to Olive St, Olive Street Rd, and Olive Blvd (all three
of these are different roads).
So if Old
Frederik Ramm wrote:
Nakor wrote:
I came to the OSM project to help create a better map of the world, not
to be insulted. Please remove the page
http://matt.dev.openstreetmap.org/dupe_nodes/heroes.html immediately.
The page is helpful and should not be removed.
To be less offensive,
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Just to be safe - this user has been active on 10 days between 13 September
09 and 22 April 10, uploading over 100 changesets altogether. All these
edits are to be removed, regardless of whether someone else touched the
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Just to be safe - this user has been active on 10 days between 13 September
09 and 22 April 10, uploading over 100 changesets altogether. All these
edits are to be removed, regardless of whether someone else touched the
Response from bhj867:
Delete everything except the bypass, which is finished except the
Interchanges, and the Rollie Moore Drive. south of town. Also Route 45
IS 4 lane through the city all the way to ELdorado, everything else is
not real. Just A few proposed roads and crap that was added on.
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Tyler Ritchie tyler.ritc...@gmail.com wrote:
If someone is going going to truly vandalize a map I wouldn't expect them to
make the detailed map that is West Harrisburg. I would expect giant words
spelled out using streets, and changes to existing names and towns
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Nathan,
Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Anyway, could someone please help me revert? I lack the coding skills
to do the automated part, but can do the resulting cleanup.
If you can try to give a slightly more algorithmic
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Tyler Ritchie tyler.ritc...@gmail.com wrote:
If someone is going going to truly vandalize a map I wouldn't expect them to
make the detailed map that is West Harrisburg. I would expect giant words
spelled out using streets, and changes to existing names and towns
In southern Illinois -
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.777lon=-88.689zoom=10layers=B000FTF
- user bhj867 has added a number of new highways, most notably the
motorways at Murphysboro, Carbondale, Marion, and Harrisburg, and the
trunk from Eldorado to New Haven. But it appears that these are
Richard Welty wrote:
On 5/4/10 7:09 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
In southern Illinois -
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.777lon=-88.689zoom=10layers=B000FTF
- user bhj867 has added a number of new highways, most notably the
motorways at Murphysboro, Carbondale, Marion, and Harrisburg
First, I'm not trying to start an argument or even a civilized
discussion about our policies in this matter. I just found this
interesting.
http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/f?p=gnispq:3:::NO::P3_FID:1196597
is Rosslyn Station, a former railway station in Pennsylvania. The
source cited for
First, I'm not trying to start an argument or even a civilized
discussion about our policies in this matter. I just found this
interesting.
http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/f?p=gnispq:3:::NO::P3_FID:1196597
is Rosslyn Station, a former railway station in Pennsylvania. The
source cited for
Anyone?
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
It's been a day with no response from lkrevert. Can somebody please
take care of this?
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 3:56 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lkrevert
Richard Weait wrote:
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Nathan Edgars II neroute2 at gmail.com
wrote:
It's been a day with no response from lkrevert. Can somebody please
take care of this?
I generally allow other mappers a week to respond to site-mail before
I send another note. They might
Richard Weait wrote:
What is in this (big) changeset that ikrevert reverted?
I fixed up the numbered routes in Columbia. You'll see that currently
some of the primary highways just dead-end, because TIGER often
doesn't have the correct routings for numbered routes. Restore the
changeset and you
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Apollinaris Schoell ascho...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 Feb 2010, at 14:33 , Nathan Edgars II wrote:
And a week from now half the ways in the changeset will probably have
been edited, making a restoration very complicated. Is it the intent
here that those
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lkrevert has reverted one of my
changesets. I contacted this user, but doubt I'll get a response,
since this is obviously not the primary account. I don't have the
tools to undo this revert, and that's probably not a good idea anyway
without some sort of
Oops - forgot to choose 'reply to all'. Sorry Fred for the duplicate.
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 4:03 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Nathan,
Nathan Edgars II wrote:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lkrevert has reverted one of my
changesets. I contacted this user, but doubt I'll
Frederik Ramm wrote:
However, Nathan, I see that for example in this way
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/12515816/history
you had removed *all* the tags from the way. I haven't investigated
further but maybe the reverter had to assume that there was some editing
error?
I deleted that
It's been a day with no response from lkrevert. Can somebody please
take care of this?
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 3:56 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lkrevert has reverted one of my
changesets. I contacted this user, but doubt I'll get a response
I was told at http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2708 to take this
here. Basically, the TIGER import has put a lot of duplicate nodes
where highways cross railways, power and pipe lines, and
administrative boundaries. The former should definitely be connected,
but it seems that power lines,
801 - 889 von 889 matches
Mail list logo
