The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 420,
is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of all things
happening in the openstreetmap world:
http://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/10586/
Enjoy!
weeklyOSM?
who?: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages
On 10/08/2018 15:08, Edward Catmur wrote:
Oh, I'd map that as barrier=cycle_barrier without hesitation - it's even
made of the archetypal aluminium tubing.
Ok, will do. It's just that if you asked the residents I don't think
they intended it primarily to deter furious cycling. Its purpose is
If you don't like barrier=cycle_barrier, there's also barrier=chicane - I'd
consider barrier=cycle_barrier to be a subset of barrier=chicane. But then
you'd definitely need to provide comprehensive access tags.
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 3:08 PM Edward Catmur
wrote:
>
> Oh, I'd map that as
On 10/08/18 13:00, Martin Wynne wrote:
In this area I was taken to task for adjusting an unexplained boundary,
which turned out to be the local "PlusBus" area boundary for inclusive
fares from the nearest railway station
That's likely to be subject to database rights, as I don't think that it
Oh, I'd map that as barrier=cycle_barrier without hesitation - it's even
made of the archetypal aluminium tubing.
The fact that it's across a road rather than a "path, footway, cycleway or
track" is a pretty minor point compared to construction and intent. For
prior art see e.g.
On 2018-08-10 15:35, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On 10/08/2018 13:14, Colin Smale wrote:
>
>> Who is the arbiter of relevance? I think for any given "mapper" or
>> "consumer" 99% of the contents of OSM is not relevant. People are mapping
>> the nuts and bolts of the insulators on electricity pylons..
On 10/08/2018 13:14, Colin Smale wrote:
Who is the arbiter of relevance? I think for any given "mapper" or
"consumer" 99% of the contents of OSM is not relevant. People are
mapping the nuts and bolts of the insulators on electricity pylons.. I
can't see that being relevant to most people.
> The description of barrier=cycle_barrier in the wiki looks like
> it might be what you need, combined with appropriate access tags.
> I'd say that's a cycle barrier - the intention would be to allow
> pedestrians to pass, force cyclists to dismount
Thanks for the suggestions.
For
Postal counties (mainly a outer London and Manchester thing in this context)
are essentially defunct.
--
Andrew
From: Martin Wynne
Sent: 10 August 2018 13:00:40
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the
On 2018-08-10 13:37, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On 10/08/2018 12:05, John Aldridge wrote:I'd like to register a +1 in favour
> of accepting these historic counties.
>
> I *generally* agree with your principle of 'only mapping what is on the
> ground', but if we followed that strictly we wouldn't map
Hi
On 10/08/2018 12:05, John Aldridge wrote:
I *generally* agree with your principle of 'only mapping what is on
the ground', but if we followed that strictly we wouldn't map current
administrative boundaries either.
That isn't the correct mantra.
"OpenStreetMap is a place for mapping
The "historic" boundaries, though, whatever particular snapshot of them
you choose as the most important one, don't have any relevance to
everyday life.
Are not some of them still relevant to post-code areas and postal counties?
Lots of useful stuff appears on OSM for which there is nothing
On 10/08/2018 12:05, John Aldridge wrote:
I'd like to register a +1 in favour of accepting these historic counties.
I *generally* agree with your principle of 'only mapping what is on the
ground', but if we followed that strictly we wouldn't map current
administrative boundaries either.
I'd like to register a +1 in favour of accepting these historic counties.
I *generally* agree with your principle of 'only mapping what is on the
ground', but if we followed that strictly we wouldn't map current
administrative boundaries either. These historic counties do, rightly or
wrongly,
What is the correct tagging for this type of barrier across a road? Two
lengths of parallel railings with a narrow opening at alternate ends.
Blocking vehicles but allowing pedestrian access:
___
|___ |
In the particular
On 10/08/18 09:38, Stuart Reynolds wrote:
If OSM as an organisation wants to take annual snapshots for posterity,
You are confusing two different things here.
1) Things that were never current during the lifetime of OSM;
2) Things that have ceased to exist after being mapped.
The latter are
I completely agree that to map every iteration is of no merit, and that's
never been the aim. There's an accepted definition of the boundaries
(Historic Counties Trust) that by definition will never change. The
Middlesex changes were to the administrative boundaries. The traditional
boundaries
Hi
I’ve watched this from afar, but thought that I would add my two pennyworth, as
a more casual mapper.
Historic county boundaries have some merit (in a very general sense), but where
do you draw the line? As it happens, I was discussing where, exactly, Middlesex
was with my son only
I guess you at least acknowledge that not everyone agrees with your views
below though.
A quick factual error though: the traditional/historic counties were not
administrative in the sense that current areas are. The changes of the
Local Government Act 1888 were to create administrative areas for
19 matches
Mail list logo
