Andy Townsend wrote:
(6)
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:SomeoneElse/Your_tiles_from_osm.org
Interesting hack Andy, thanks
2015-07-14 6:18 GMT+01:00 Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net:
Unfortunately I suspect what I'd choose works well for a
certain type of countryside, but
Dan S wrote:
Sounds good. Mind if I ask how it is done? (i.e. rendering rules
for rural vs town)
Post-import, I run a couple of queries along the lines of
UPDATE planet_osm_point SET urban=true FROM built_up_areas WHERE
ST_Contains(built_up_areas.geom,way)
using a pre-existing
I agree; I don't really see what harm a UK group would have; after all, there
are local OSM groups in other countries, so why not here?
No-one's being asked to stump up money for servers etc just yet; it's just an
initial survey.
Nick
From: Chris Hill
On 13/07/2015 18:14, Andy Allan wrote:
On 13 July 2015 at 14:34, Mike Evans mi...@saxicola.co.uk wrote:
It seems to me that the viaduct and the railway are two separate
entities and should mapped as such. Just because an abandoned
railway happens to run on the top of the viaduct is irrelevant
Actually creating built-up areas from OSM data is fraught with problems:
the basic one, being that OSM landuse/landcover is too fine-grained for
identifying built-up areas. This is one of the examples in my category of
'emergent data': data which is sort of there, but is actually quite hard to
Well done setting up the survey Rob. Good to see something happening. I think
we should get our asses in gear and start forming some sort of organisation.
I was surprised your survey didn't have a question What d'you think the
organisation should be called?, because this is the question which
On 13 July 2015 at 08:53, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
The significant (and massive) disused railway viaduct near Thrapston:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/264894970
does not render on our default map
However, this viaduct of comparable size, does:
We could take that line of thought further. A viaduct/bridge etc actually has
nothing to do with a railway per se. It’s a structural object in its own right.
What we should be doing is rendering the bridge structure first and then if
appropriate putting a way over the top if the structure is in
Actually it was pmailkey who changed the tags on that structure a few months
back and did other incorrect changes to what's left of the viaduct. I've now
reverted.
-Original Message-
From: Andy Robinson [mailto:ajrli...@gmail.com]
Sent: 14 July 2015 22:24
To: 'Andy Townsend';
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 14 Jul 2015, Andy Robinson wrote:
I've now reverted.
I fear that unless the render starts rendering
bridge={viaduct,yes,etc} such re-tagging is likely to continue---or
at least highway=track; access=private getting added to more things.
Is
Hi all,
Thanks to those 65 people who have responded to the survey so far. I want
to address a few of the comments on the mailing list.
The idea of a group has been discussed many time before but it has never
progressed. I believe that this is because it has never been clear what the
group
11 matches
Mail list logo
