Gregory wrote:
But what if a 3rd source says something different. Should
we record that too, and how?
not:name=Something,Somewhat,SomePlace,...
This perhaps relates to a discussion I just had on the irc channel
about how to tag a road with two names. I've not checked the OS
Locator source
On 2 Jun 2010, at 09:48, Ed Loach wrote:
Gregory wrote:
But what if a 3rd source says something different. Should
we record that too, and how?
not:name=Something,Somewhat,SomePlace,...
This perhaps relates to a discussion I just had on the irc channel
about how to tag a road with two
On 1 Jun 2010, at 20:08, Robert Scott wrote:
On Tuesday 01 June 2010, Peter Miller wrote:
We did have a similar discussion in-house at the design stage. We
could of course implement this and the data would then be locked away
into our systems and be hard for others to access and use for
Peter Miller wrote on 02/06/2010 10:17:
On 2 Jun 2010, at 09:48, Ed Loach wrote:
Gregory wrote:
But what if a 3rd source says something different. Should
we record that too, and how?
not:name=Something,Somewhat,SomePlace,...
This perhaps relates to a discussion I just
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Roy Jamison xtee...@googlemail.com wrote:
then these could probably just be ignored instead of having
millions of not:* tags for all the possible permutations that *could* be
entered incorrectly by an end user.
I think you've misunderstood the issue under
On 2 Jun 2010, at 11:13, Andy Allan wrote:
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Roy Jamison
xtee...@googlemail.com wrote:
then these could probably just be ignored instead of having
millions of not:* tags for all the possible permutations that
*could* be
entered incorrectly by an end user.
It is quite common to add 'note' tags to OSM documenting why the data is tagged
as it is, e.g.
note=This used to be a pub, but is now closed
note=There is no street sign, but locals confirm the name
note=It appears OS has the wrong name 'Abbey Road'; street sign is Abbey Way
Now,
I completely misinterpreted what was going on, just ignore me :)
By the way, great to have OSL vs OSM overlay, definitely helps!
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Andy Allan wrote:
I believe we need to track these false positives. If Ipswich is any
guide, and there is about a dozen errors per town, then there is going
to come a point where we are all repeatedly examining the same false
positives trying to track down the remaining few actual mistakes in
Could I just make a silly suggestion that no one seems to have talked about
yet. If we find an error in OS Open Data, rather than tag our own data to
say someone else has got it wrong, why not just report it to OS. After
examining the postcode data for my area recently I found a couple of errors,
From: Andrew Ainsworth andrew.ainswo...@gmail.com
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Wed, 2 June, 2010 16:57:48
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] - Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO
Could I just make a silly suggestion that no one seems to have talked about
yet. If we find an error in OS
On 2 Jun 2010, at 17:36, Sam Larsen wrote:
From: Andrew Ainsworth andrew.ainswo...@gmail.com
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Wed, 2 June, 2010 16:57:48
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] - Map layer with OS Locator comparison from
ITO
Could I just make a silly suggestion that no one seems to
On Wednesday 02 June 2010, Jerry Clough - OSM wrote:
I for one would miss a publicly-deployed version. The matching of strings
really makes a difference between your data and the ITO one:
1. in well-mapped areas one finds a few places which either have not been
surveyed or require a
13 matches
Mail list logo
