On Mon, 2008-03-10 at 11:47 +1030, Darrin Smith wrote:
> OK, to take this a step further I'll start the ball rolling in Adelaide:
> (As we get a consensus I'll write a Adelaide/South Australia Wiki page
> to reflect the decisions, I'm happy to do that)
To date, I've been following the guidelines o
Jack Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 10/03/2008 03:37:02 PM:
> A quick fix could be to patch the validator, so it doesn't complain
> about unnamed highway=secondary or highway=tertiary ways, so long as
> they contain no more than say 3 nodes and have length of less than some
> arbitrary cutoff
On Mon, 2008-03-10 at 09:28 +1030, Darrin Smith wrote:
> Futher on this, is you are going to correct them, please check the
> roads you are connecting them to.
>
> I'm seeing examples of valid primary & trunk links being turned into
> secondaries and cases of primary cross-link's where I (have now
On Sun, 2008-03-09 at 18:55 +1030, Darrin Smith wrote:
> I can tell you jack that they are 2-way roads, since I'm the one who's
> put them in there.
Ok, good. That's what I thought.
> Let me explain the reasoning behind my use of those tags (which upon
> reflection and the comment by Stuart earli
Liz wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, Matt White wrote:
>
>> Don't know if anybody is interested, but I have created a custom set of
>> Garmin IMG files for use when mapping missing roads out in rural areas.
>> They have the zoom levels altered so all road types are visible at the
>> 2km zoom level.
I haven't done much mapping for some time and would be happy to abide by
whatever you come up with if I ever get back into it.
My labelling of roads was generally around their physical attributes and
whether they led anywhere important (ie. Glen Osmond road leads from the
freeway to the city) but
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:52:00 +1100
Ian Sergeant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyway, rest assured this is a "live debate". Check out
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Highway_administrative/physical_descriptions
That's an interesting page, good to see people are address
Darrin Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When I read one part of the OSM wiki I see it talking about classifying
> highways purely by their physical characteristics
..
> The majority of pages talk about classifying roads by their state
> funding designation and or highway reference which is fine
I'm getting confused by this.
When I read one part of the OSM wiki I see it talking about classifying
highways purely by their physical characteristics (which after some
thought makes vague sense, since you could in theory product and
alternative map based on road 'importance' by using REF tags),
On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 18:55:56 +1030
Darrin Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 18:20:59 +1030
> Jack Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 2008-03-09 at 18:37 +1100, Stuart Robinson wrote:
> > > Links are by default oneway, I think that's what the other person
> > > is
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, Matt White wrote:
> Don't know if anybody is interested, but I have created a custom set of
> Garmin IMG files for use when mapping missing roads out in rural areas.
> They have the zoom levels altered so all road types are visible at the
> 2km zoom level. The reason for these
On Sun, 9 Mar 2008, Darrin Smith wrote:
> I use JOSM to edit the maps and I have the validator turned on. This
> causes those little bits of road to come us as invalid because they
> don't have a name. So I went looking for a way put the cross overs in
> those cases without having to enter the road
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 18:20:59 +1030
Jack Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-03-09 at 18:37 +1100, Stuart Robinson wrote:
> > Links are by default oneway, I think that's what the other person is
> > getting at.
>
> Ah, I didn't realise that. I don't think most of the ways in question
On Sun, 9 Mar 2008, Stuart Robinson wrote:
> Links are by default oneway, I think that's what the other person is
> getting at.
>
> stuart.
so the use of secondary_link was possibly a shorthand to avoid oneway=true ??
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@
14 matches
Mail list logo
