Hey all,
Looks like the Great Lakes Coastline has broken.
See http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/46.0621/-85.2682
I've tracked it down and it should be fixed:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/22357564
Cheers,
Nick Ingalls
___
Talk-ca ma
Hey there,
I just checked it out now and the data appears to be ok? The highway from
Whitehorse to Carmacks isn't appearing on the renderer but the underlying
data is there. Same goes for highway 4.
Cheers,
ingalls
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Richard Weait wrote:
> On Wed, May
Well the first challenge would be putting multiple tags on the same way.
Personally I would create multiple relations using the same way, each
relation having one call-sign. I have heard other people suggest separating
values with commas but I don't like that idea because if for example you
want to
You are lucky then. Just the other day Saint John & area got updated with
stuff from late 2012. its great that they are getting around to updating it
but the imagery is more oblique than vertical making it very difficult to
trace. As well they are really low quality compared to their predecessors.
That's typically what I do as well. I've noticed the same problem
throughout much of the canvec data I've worked with.
Cheers,
ingalls
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 11:26 PM, Sam Dyck wrote:
> Hi
>
> I'm currently working on importing Canvec tile 063I05. I noticed tha
engine couldn't say turn left onto Maple Street. It could only say turn
left. If the tags are on the actual street and not separately mapped, it is
much easier for a routing engine.
http://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Styles/Sidewalks
Cheers,
ingalls
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 10:18 PM, Harald K
> What is the "official" word on the practice of checking non-approved
> data sources, not for inclusion in OSM, but to ensure what is being
> included is correct?
>
That is honestly a good question! I guess to me this would be a bit of a
grey area, nowhere is the practice explicitly mentioned. I
imply use it to check the bing imagery)
Cheers,
ingalls
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Connors, Bernie (SNB) wrote:
> Atmospheric errors are likely to small to be detected by your consumer
> grade GPS. Satellite geometry and the number of visible satellites would
> have more of an ef
the Bing imagery is correct.
Thanks for the feedback! I hadn't thought about the atmospheric
interference.
Cheers,
ingalls
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Andrew Buck wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am not from the area, but I did want to post my 2 cents about this
> issue. Your idea of h
so I
didn't find out what was wrong with the license in the first place other
than it was compared to the Vancouver license and was
probably unintentionally restrictive.
Cheers,
ingalls
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetma
proposing that we shift the data back to match the Bing WMS and the
gps traces. Does anyone else from the Fredericton area have any comments,
or can explain the offset?
Cheers,
ingalls
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.op
interpolation a routing engine could still locate it)
Look forward to your feedback.
Cheers,
ingalls
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
lf as sections
that JOSM shows as flooded. I don't have much experience dealing with
relations so I was wondering if someone could fix this up for me? Hopefully
it wouldn't be too big a job as most of the islands that are flooded are
small in size.
ently (2011) come online.
http://publiclaboratory.org/tool/balloon-mapping
http://publiclaboratory.org/archive
Although I don't have much experience with licensing, it says it is
open-source and it would be interesting to see whether the liscenses were
compatible.
Cheer
14 matches
Mail list logo
