Source:maxspeed was added to a lot of ways by chriscf, such as
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/7529455
and some either side. I don’t know how many other mappers were using
it before then, or an easy way to see how many UK ways he added the
tag to.
This was based I think on what othe
I can think of quite a few border roads that will need signposts before that
happens.
Phil
--
Sent from my Nokia N9
On 25/09/2012 1:38 SomeoneElse wrote:
Peter Miller wrote:
>
> Correct. I did however use alternative maxspeed:type at times which
> also appears in the DB and which I feel is
I've been nosing around the brilliant OSM Inspector tool to check up on my
work with addresses, and I've come across some errors I don't understand or
can't fix.
The first issue is that the tool flags up "endpoint_wrong_format", which
the wiki says means one or other of the numbers in the housenum
On 25/09/2012 10:34, Tom Chance wrote:
The first issue is that the tool flags up "endpoint_wrong_format", which
the wiki says means one or other of the numbers in the housenumber
aren't integers. But they are!
Here's the OSMI view:
http://tiny.cc/kpp6kw
Here's an example way it is flagging up:
On 23 September 2012 09:52, Lester Caine wrote:
>
> I had to 'disconnect' a number of boundaries that were connected directly
> to the A44 to fit the woodland area in and I've added the 'footway' across
> the roundabout for pedestrians ... still need to work out any extra tags
> that needs!
>
Some
On Tue, 2012-09-25 at 10:34 +0100, Tom Chance wrote:
> The second issue is with roads that don't really exist. For example, a
> row of houses have addresses for "OSM Terrace" but front straight onto
> "OSM Road". These terraces often appear where new homes are built and
> there's no space for addr
On 25 September 2012 12:58, Craig Wallace wrote:
> On 25/09/2012 10:34, Tom Chance wrote:
>
>> The first issue is that the tool flags up "endpoint_wrong_format", which
>> the wiki says means one or other of the numbers in the housenumber
>> aren't integers. But they are!
>>
>> Here's the OSMI vie
A few of my own thoughts. Since the subject came up on the GB list a year
ago I've been adding speed limits. Personal confusion about a speed limit
on a roundabout along a dual carriageway led to me creating a personal page
about UK speed limits
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Jamicu/UK_Spe
Hello All,
If anybody can tell me how to go about rectifying break in Rackenford
Road in the following area
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.996550321579&lon=-3.73412847518921&zoom=16
I'd be very grateful. That discontinuity has been bugging me for a few
weeks. I can see it a background la
On 25 September 2012 14:23, Brad Rogers wrote:
> If anybody can tell me how to go about rectifying break in Rackenford
> Road in the following area
>
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.996550321579&lon=-3.73412847518921&zoom=16
>
> I'd be very grateful.
>
The data within OpenStreetMap appe
Delete and redraw? I've tweaked it slightly and some things have
re-rendered. But it is a bit odd.
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Jason Cunningham
wrote:
>
>
> On 25 September 2012 14:23, Brad Rogers wrote:
>
>> If anybody can tell me how to go about rectifying break in Rackenford
>> Road in t
Gregory wrote:
The area that is being complained about is the field just to the right side
of the roundabout. There is a gated road and the 'gap' in the hedge is the
gate into that field off that road. I've currently left the same gap as
there is in the hedge, and on one hand that
Lester Caine wrote:
> OK Finally given in and downloaded JOSM ;)
SPLITTER!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iS-0Az7dgRY
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/First-steps-with-JOSM-tp5726970p5727392.html
Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archi
I've managed to remove the kink from the road with this changeset:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/13247989
I loaded the data in JOSM and showed the Mapnik rendering as the background.
I then checked the history of the nodes near to the kink and found that the
then penultimate
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Fairhurst [mailto:rich...@systemed.net]
> Sent: 25 September 2012 16:07
> To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] First steps with JOSM
>
> Lester Caine wrote:
> > OK Finally given in and downloaded JOSM ;)
>
> SPLITTER!!!
>
> http://ww
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 15:24:18 +0100
Richard Mann wrote:
Hello Richard,
>Delete and redraw? I've tweaked it slightly and some things have
>re-rendered. But it is a bit odd.
I think I may have tweaked myself, but can't remember (it was a while
ago) exactly what I did. Thanks to you, Ed and Jason
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 16:17:44 +0100
"Gregory Williams" wrote:
Hello Gregory,
>I guess that for some reason or another the previous version of the
>node, or at least the line geometry for the road which used it, was
>still stored in the backing Postgres database used for rendering. Hence
>it was b
Brad,
I'm glad I could help.
The most important point is that the kink in the road was in no way down to
a mistake on your part. It looks like it's happened due to some (hopefully
very rare) bug in the code that's used on the servers for keeping up-to-date
with the changes in a stage a little ahe
SomeoneElse writes:
> Presumably the argument for tagging "maxspeed=60mph" where it's actually
> signed
> as "national" is that it's too hard for routers to figure out whether
> something's a single or dual carriageway? I'm not sure why we have to depart
> from the "on-the-ground" rule in this
The waterways in the area of the road seemed also to cause a problem. I've
remapped them and they've now sorted themselves out
Jason
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
It’s almost as though the rendering database is missing a changeset
(or a replication diff containing that changeset), possibly
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/9728130
There are further anomalies a little to the northwest:
http://osm.org/go/euJg~OQQw-
(found by using the Browse
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:43:08 +0100
"Ed Loach" wrote:
Hello Ed,
>There are further anomalies a little to the northwest:
>http://osm.org/go/euJg~OQQw-
Hmmm... IIRC, that was one of mime, too.
--
Regards _
/ ) "The blindingly obvious is
/ _)radnever immediate
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:35:34 +0100
Jason Cunningham wrote:
Hello Jason,
>The waterways in the area of the road seemed also to cause a problem.
>I've remapped them and they've now sorted themselves out
As they stood, they bore little relation to what's actually on the
ground. Same applies to lo
Brad Rogers wrote:
As they stood, they bore little relation to what's actually on the
ground. Same applies to lots of waterways in the area. I believe they
were loaded en mass from an open source data set, but I'm not sure.
"source=npe" suggests that they were traced from New Popular Edition
On Tue, 2012-09-25 at 14:00 +0100, Jason Cunningham wrote:
> A few of my own thoughts. Since the subject came up on the GB list a
> year ago I've been adding speed limits. Personal confusion about a
> speed limit on a roundabout along a dual carriageway led to me
> creating a personal page about UK
Andrew M. Bishop wrote:
As the author of an OSM data consumer (the router "Routino") I think
that distinguishing between single and dual carriageways is mostly
irrelevant in the argument for preferring numeric values for maxspeed
tags. The real reason which I see, and which is much more difficul
On 25/09/2012 18:25, Andrew M. Bishop wrote:
As the author of an OSM data consumer (the router "Routino")
Can I just say how refreshing it is to have some input from the data
consumers. Most of the interminable debates about tagging are between
parties who talk about data entry issues (how many
On Tue, 2012-09-25 at 17:43 +0100, Ed Loach wrote:
> It’s almost as though the rendering database is missing a changeset
> (or a replication diff containing that changeset), possibly
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/9728130
>
We just had a similar data error reported via trac wh
28 matches
Mail list logo
