> The intersection shown in the links below is an interesting case. As it is
> currently mapped in OSM, the mapper is showing the turning posibilities at
> the intersection (and to a lesser extent that the turning lanes have their
> own separate traffic light sequences). To my mind this is over map
I have been watching the discussion with interest. My perspective on mapping
is getting the topology absolutely correct. All routing is driven by the
topology of the underlying data (and the routing engine of the specific
manufacturer). What I say below is said without criticism of the original
map
2009/12/18 Steve Bennett :
> Does it mean that the tag now goes in "map features"? is that the only way?
> What does it matter? etc.
Technically all it does is introduce it to the map features page, but
that doesn't mean you can't use it anyway, it doesn't mean you can't
document it's usage on oth
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 3:52 PM, John Smith wrote:
> I missed the comment about voting, it's mostly a pointless exercise,
> current estimates claim almost 200,000 users, and the current voting
> system suggest about 15 votes for a proposal, does seem like a very
> good majority to me.
>
I'm more
2009/12/18 Steve Bennett :
> Ok, so pretty much as far you're concerned, discussion, proposals and voting
I missed the comment about voting, it's mostly a pointless exercise,
current estimates claim almost 200,000 users, and the current voting
system suggest about 15 votes for a proposal, does see
2009/12/18 Steve Bennett :
> Ok, so pretty much as far you're concerned, discussion, proposals and voting
> only serve the purpose of convincing people to change their ways - the final
> decision is not binding on anyone? In other words, if you disagree with a
> tagging decision, you'll just ignore
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 3:37 PM, John Smith wrote:
> That's the problem in this case, I didn't think what I was doing was
> wrong, still don't really because the issue isn't with the map data
> it's with how the routing software is interpreting it.
>
Ok, so pretty much as far you're concerned, di
2009/12/18 Steve Bennett :
> Do you personally see anything wrong with different people mapping the same
> thing different ways?
Only if things can't be harmonised so they are displayed/useful in a
similar/same way, if they diverge then it just becomes a bit of a
mess.
> Do you personally see any
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 3:06 PM, John Smith wrote:
> personally I don't see anything wrong with mapping roundabouts how I
> have in the past even though it's implied by the wiki to do it that
> way.
Do you personally see anything wrong with different people mapping the same
thing different ways?
2009/12/18 Steve Bennett :
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 2:44 PM, John Smith
> wrote:
>>
>> 2009/12/18 Steve Bennett :
>> > I'm sorry, but this just doesn't even look close to me. I can imagine
>> > ambiguous circumstances, but this isn't one. This is analogous to the
>>
>> We aren't making perfect co
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:44:18 +1000
John Smith wrote:
> 2009/12/18 Steve Bennett :
> > I'm sorry, but this just doesn't even look close to me. I can imagine
> > ambiguous circumstances, but this isn't one. This is analogous to the
>
> We aren't making perfect copies of the real world, we're makin
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 2:44 PM, John Smith wrote:
> 2009/12/18 Steve Bennett :
> > I'm sorry, but this just doesn't even look close to me. I can imagine
> > ambiguous circumstances, but this isn't one. This is analogous to the
>
> We aren't making perfect copies of the real world, we're making
>
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:26:37 +1000
John Smith wrote:
> 2009/12/18 Ross Scanlon :
> > Wrong, on everyone of these you have to enter the roundabout and then take
> > the next exit, it is not a graceful sweep.
>
> We really shouldn't have to map, if they are an exit they're an exit!
> It shouldn't
2009/12/18 Steve Bennett :
> I'm sorry, but this just doesn't even look close to me. I can imagine
> ambiguous circumstances, but this isn't one. This is analogous to the
We aren't making perfect copies of the real world, we're making
approximate depictions of it.
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 7:59 AM, wrote:
> In the first case I have edited the entry, exit and roundabout as meeting
> at
> exactly one node. IMHO this represents reality and if the router can't
> handle
> it then the router should be upgraded to suit (or its OSM-to-router-format
> script suitabl
2009/12/18 Ross Scanlon :
> Wrong, on everyone of these you have to enter the roundabout and then take
> the next exit, it is not a graceful sweep.
We really shouldn't have to map, if they are an exit they're an exit!
It shouldn't really matter if they are attached to an adjoining entry
or not. U
> Well, I would rather represent geometrical reality than play tricks for
> routers.
>
> Take a comparative example:
>
> http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-28.0917,153.3945&z=19&t=k
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-28.0917&lon=153.3945&zoom=18&layers=B000FTT
>
> You can see that to get from S to W
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 6:59 AM, wrote:
>
> In the first case I have edited the entry, exit and roundabout as meeting at
> exactly one node. IMHO this represents reality and if the router can't handle
> it then the router should be upgraded to suit (or its OSM-to-router-format
> script suitably
morb@beagle.com.au wrote:
> "The first exit (west on Ginninderra Drive) isn't being counted as an exit
> because that exit point is also my entry point."
>
> Well, I would rather represent geometrical reality than play tricks for
> routers.
>
> Take a comparative example:
>
> http://www.ne
Ben Kelley wrote:
> Heh. My sister-in-law lives near here. The directions on my eTrext Legend did
> confuse me a little at that intersection. I assumed the intersection hadn't
> been drawn quite right, but I never got around to going back and fixing it.
I fixed this one.
--
Sam Couter |
"The first exit (west on Ginninderra Drive) isn't being counted as an exit
because that exit point is also my entry point."
Well, I would rather represent geometrical reality than play tricks for routers.
Take a comparative example:
http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-28.0917,153.3945&z=19&t=k
http://ww
Heh. My sister-in-law lives near here. The directions on my eTrext Legend
did confuse me a little at that intersection. I assumed the intersection
hadn't been drawn quite right, but I never got around to going back and
fixing it.
- Ben.
2009/12/17 John Henderson
> Here's an example:
>
> http:/
2009/12/17 Ross Scanlon :
>> I don't think it's difficult to change, it's just like everything else
>> with government, you have to cough up a fee and possibly a bit of
>> paper work, both of which would be nice to avoid :)
>
> Actually just a resolution at agm and change it on the annual return, f
> I don't think it's difficult to change, it's just like everything else
> with government, you have to cough up a fee and possibly a bit of
> paper work, both of which would be nice to avoid :)
Actually just a resolution at agm and change it on the annual return, for Qld
anyway.
--
Cheers
Ro
2009/12/17 Henk Hoff :
>
> 2009/12/17 Liz
>>
>> The "what name business" is a version of Catch22
>> we don't exist so we can't apply for the name
>> once we have registered a formal name with the Australian (State)
>> authorities
>> we can't change it easily
>>
> I understand your point.
> Again:
2009/12/17 Liz :
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, Henk Hoff wrote:
>> Just in case: the next meeting of the Local Chapters working group is
>> January 7th @ 8AM GMT. If you want to join this meeting, let me know, and
>> I'll send you the dail in details (there is a local number for Sydney and
>> Melbourne yo
2009/12/17 Liz
> The "what name business" is a version of Catch22
> we don't exist so we can't apply for the name
> once we have registered a formal name with the Australian (State)
> authorities
> we can't change it easily
>
> I understand your point.
Again: I'm not saying: "Do not use the name
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, Henk Hoff wrote:
> Just in case: the next meeting of the Local Chapters working group is
> January 7th @ 8AM GMT. If you want to join this meeting, let me know, and
> I'll send you the dail in details (there is a local number for Sydney and
> Melbourne you are able to use)
Than
Hi all,
I've read the comments on the Local Entity that have been made on this
mailinglist today. I'd like to comment on them briefly.
First, all members of the Foundation board and different working groups are
volunteers. The reason why the Local Chapters working group has been
inactive for a wh
2009/12/17 Liz :
> now i remember the problem
> konqueror doesn't work with that site
So use lynx then :P
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, John Smith wrote:
> 2009/12/17 Alex (Maxious) Sadleir :
> > OpenStreetMap has a lot of name recognition and I'd much rather say
> > I'm a member of OpenStreetMap Australia/Oceania than the Open
> > Cartography Society, the representative/local/supporting organisation
> > of Ope
2009/12/17 Alex (Maxious) Sadleir :
> OpenStreetMap has a lot of name recognition and I'd much rather say
> I'm a member of OpenStreetMap Australia/Oceania than the Open
> Cartography Society, the representative/local/supporting organisation
> of OpenStreetMap in Australia. But as long as our chart
2009/12/17 Ross Scanlon :
> I'd just go ahead and use it. So long as the intent is that we are promoting
> osm I can not see it becoming a problem.
I'm just frustrated by the apathy...
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.op
> "About the use of the name OpenStreetMap and logo. We cannot give a
> formal consent for the use of the name and logo. There therefore we
> need to have an agreement.
>
> However, we will not forbid you to use it at this moment. If your
> intention is to become an official local chapter then you
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 7:24 PM, John Smith wrote:
> Last week it was discussed briefly from what I understand, I was
> hoping to participate in the call but something came up at the last
> moment and I received an email a couple of days later with the
> following reply:
>
> "About the use of the
2009/12/17 Alex (Maxious) Sadleir :
> I don't understand all those ambigious terms - "an agreement" "your
> problem" etc. Are they saying an agreement form/contract does not yet
> exist and that is why they will not give permission?
They are currently trying to come up with local chapters cross
ag
2009/12/17 John Smith :
> 2009/12/17 Ross Scanlon :
>> If they are drawn as in the third example in the wiki then it's not a
>> problem.
>>
>> It becomes a problem when you join an entry and exit flare to the one node,
>> which is incorrect anyway.
>
> There probably needs some examples of what n
I'm starting to get really frustrated with the general level of apathy
with the local chapters working group.
I emailed the OSM-F board some time ago to ask permission to use
OpenStreetMaps as part of the official name of a local entity that we
would most likely become a local chapter in future.
38 matches
Mail list logo
