I have created a wiki page for appeals for money for aerial
photography and added a basic FAQ to it.
Is still very raw but I think it is valuable to have one page to
support all the funding appeals wherever they are for in the world and
provide answers to the basic questions.
Feel free
Folks,
Having some time on my hands at the moment, I'm trying to get my head round
some of the inconsistencies/duplications/gaps in the usage of the highway
key. Having looked at the recent widescale adoption of highway=path in
Germany it is clearly fulfilling a need. I'm coming to the view that
On 03/04/2009 12:42, Richard Mann wrote:
*** I would like feedback/discussion on this particular point - whether
urban made-up and rural unmade footpaths should be tagged distinctively ***
Given we already have a separate tag for surface, I don't see the
distinction.
In highway engineering
-Original Message-
From: talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-gb-
boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of David Earl
Sent: 3 April 2009 13:02
To: Richard Mann
Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Possibly using highway=path for country
footpaths
Well,
On Fri, 3 Apr 2009, David Earl wrote:
In highway engineering terms in the UK a footway is always alongside a
road, and we don't tend to mark those separately anyway.
This is a slightly separate issue, but not marking them is a bit of a
problem in some cases because we end up with things like
I'd prefer comments on the specific point (path vs footway for rural
footpaths).
I wasn't trying to make a precise proposal re the
cycleway/track/unclassified distinction. I'd probably say that if the extra
width was on something that excluded motor-vehs then it remains a
cycleway, but if it
I'm beginning personally to think that
highway=footway/cycleway/bridleway were all a mistake and that
highway=path and designation=public_footpath/etc, along with
suitable access keys (foot, bicycle, etc) would have been a better
starting point - there would certainly be fewer debates where things
Ed Loach wrote:
Indeed you can have designated public footpaths that pass through
urban areas
snip
Like this one?
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=51.23497mlon=-0.59355zoom=17layers=B000FTF
--
Jonathan (Jonobennett)
___
Talk-GB mailing list
On Fri, 3 Apr 2009, Ed Loach wrote:
I'm beginning personally to think that
highway=footway/cycleway/bridleway were all a mistake and that
highway=path and designation=public_footpath/etc, along with
suitable access keys (foot, bicycle, etc) would have been a better
starting point
I think
If anyone is in and around York Racecourse on 22 or 23 April then you might
think to tout OSM around to some of the exhibitors at XCES. It would be
useful to get some contact names for some of these organisations there. I
might have gone myself but I'm not available those two days.
On 03/04/2009 14:11, Steve Hill wrote:
However, mistake or not, we have what we have and making fundamental
changes doesn't seem especially likely (I have in the past made
suggestions regarding the fundamental data structure and have been met
with nothing but sarcastic replies and put-downs
On Fri, 3 Apr 2009, David Earl wrote:
FWIW, I agree largely with the specific points on your wiki page, but I don't
think it will happen because of the effort involved.
The wiki page wasn't really supposed to be a this is how it needs to be
solution - the hope was to get people talking about
On 03/04/09 13:43, Gregory Williams wrote:
-Original Message-
From: talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-gb-
boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of David Earl
Sent: 3 April 2009 13:02
To: Richard Mann
Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Possibly using
To celebrate the completion of base mapping for the city of Birmingham, UK
we, being the local OSMers here, have had a map printed to show of our
endeavours.
The print run for Edition 1 was limited to just 50 and 10 have already gone
to those who helped make it all happen. The rest we would like
14 matches
Mail list logo
