On 10/12/11 21:11, Sam Couter wrote:
Many urban residential roads have speed limits of 60 or maybe
70km/h. I think rural roads with moderately dense residential acre
blocks and 80km/h speed limits are still residential, unless they're
also the main route to a neighbouring town, in which case
On 11/12/11 08:35, Sam Couter wrote:
In the ACT 50km/h is the default if there are no signs.
I know that's what the road signs say as you enter the ACT. It's also
repeated on official ACT government web sites.
But it's an over-simplification.
The ACT version of the Australian Road Rules
As time and opportunity arises, I've started re-entering rural roads
where it's clear that the original is scheduled for deletion. I'm
deleting the old way completely, and re-entering it from GPS data I'm
gathering.
JOSM now has a License Check plugin to identify potential deletions,
bringing
That's fine so long as you are not transferring any tags from the
original way.
See Frederik's comments to NE2 re this, on the osm-talk list.
Mind you, you've got a lot to do in AU.
Cheers
Ross
On 14/12/11 13:56, John Henderson wrote:
As time and opportunity arises, I've started
around -37.932622, 145.1560615
can somebody familiar with the area make this into a sensible junction?
Frank
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
On 15/12/11 02:15, Ross Scanlon wrote:
That's fine so long as you are not transferring any tags from the
original way.
Yes, and that's why I'm trying not to reuse any original nodes. I
imagine a lot of corners and other detail is going to disappear from
some ways which remain (as I interpret
Hi John,
For towns that I have completely suryeyed, I will be remapping roads, as
necessary to ensure that my survey work is not lost to the project.
These roads will be completely replaced by my original data, maybe with
some help from Bing imagery where it will help
improve the accuracy of my
Hi.
I think it's clear we need an automated way to remove non-new-ct-accepting
edits from ways where v1 was by an acceptor.
Even assuming the trace data is in OSM there is still an immense amount of
work needed to cleanse these ways.
- Ben Kelley.
Problem with this is that you are breaching copyright.
This is the same as what the user did with the data in Sydney and it was
removed by the data working group.
It's also what Frederik was discussing on the talk list in regards
to NE2.
You are not resolving the issue of the original data
No I'm not. I think you may be misunderstanding what I am doing.
If the v1 object author has agreed to the CTs, but the v2 author has not, I
simply delete the object, load the v1 object directly, make my changes,
link the object and attribute the v1 author using the attribution tag.
No
Only if v1 is from a non-acceptor. I assumed from Ian's post that v1
is from an acceptor. (Or have I read that wrong?)
Quoting Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com:
Problem with this is that you are breaching copyright.
Cheers
Ross
On 15/12/11 12:34, Ian Sergeant wrote:
For a couple of objects,
11 matches
Mail list logo
