On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 9:52 PM, Harald Kliems kli...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 8:53 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote:
highway=service with access=no or access=private then. Many service roads
aren't open to the public.
If the road is there and is a service road,
On 12-03-19 21:52 , Harald Kliems wrote:
I'd like to add, though, that there is a problem with verifiability
here. If you can't access a highway and it's not visible on aerial
imagery then how can verify it's actually there?
They're definitely not visible on orthophotos. Most of rural
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:00 AM, Gerald A geraldabli...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not a big supporter of imports, but if you are going to use them, you
should use and verify all of them, not just some bits. I'm not sure if there
is a key/tag for unverified, but it might be worth looking at.
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 9:21 AM, James Ewen ve6...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:00 AM, Gerald A geraldabli...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not a big supporter of imports, but if you are going to use them, you
should use and verify all of them, not just some bits. I'm not sure if there
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 8:12 AM, Harald Kliems kli...@gmail.com wrote:
I can't speak for Gerald, but my point was more about verifiability
than about verifiedness. That is, about the question whether a way
can _in principle_ be verified vs. whether it actually _has_ been
verified. The latter
I've notice a few ways in OSM like this one:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/39334713
that really shouldn't be in the database. They're GeoBase imports via
the NRN. They're not tagged in any way that would allow removal.
There is no public access on these roads. They're mostly gated
If they physically exist, we should tag them. Just add a gate=yes tag to them.
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Stewart C. Russell scr...@gmail.com wrote:
I've notice a few ways in OSM like this one:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/39334713
that really shouldn't be in the database.
-Original Message-
From: Stewart C. Russell [mailto:scr...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 4:22 PM
To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-ca] Wind farm access roads that really shouldn't be in
OSM
I've notice a few ways in OSM like this one:
http
On 12-03-19 19:45 , Paul Norman wrote:
I'd just retag as highway=service, but it
definitely belongs in the DB if there's a road or path there, just not
tagged like it is.
But it's not a highway, which implies access. There is no access.
The particular one I tagged, given the amount of
OSM makes no judgements about what we are mapping (beyond a few unavoidable
basics). Not mapping something because the police are going to get you is
on the face ridiculous. So map, add a note about it being private and add
that gate.
On Mar 19, 2012 5:07 PM, Stewart C. Russell scr...@gmail.com
-Original Message-
From: Stewart C. Russell [mailto:scr...@gmail.com]
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Wind farm access roads that really shouldn't be
in OSM
On 12-03-19 19:45 , Paul Norman wrote:
I'd just retag as highway=service, but it definitely belongs in the DB
if there's a road
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Stewart C. Russell scr...@gmail.com wrote:
But it's not a highway, which implies access. There is no access.
The generic use of the word highway implies public access, but in OSM
parlance, the term highway is used as a key, and the value assigned
indicates the
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 8:53 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote:
highway=service with access=no or access=private then. Many service roads
aren't open to the public.
If the road is there and is a service road, it's mappable.
I'd like to add, though, that there is a problem with
13 matches
Mail list logo
