Tim Franois wrote on 16/03/2011 17:04:
pedant
Kevin Peat wrote on 16/03/2011 17:27:
On 16 March 2011 17:00, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com
wrote:
Then there are the '30mph' which should for consistency be
'30 mph' (with a space).
Nick Whitelegg wrote on 18/11/2010 11:20:
What a stupid thing to do (and "denotation" is a stupid word to use too).
Thanks, that gave me a good laugh. I think we can add denotation=cluster to the
tagging
Nick Whitelegg wrote on 11/11/2010 20:40:
Hi,
The "OSM for walkers" site Freemap now has a new home on the Swansea University Computer Society tile server... thanks to Chris Jones for the offer of space!
The site is still very basic at the moment, basically a slippy map
Brian Prangle wrote on 27/08/2010 08:02:
Have we got to the stage of mapping these that it
would be worth the effort in replicating a rendering similar to
OpenCycleMap?. The wiki page on long distance paths seems to have
a pretty comprehensive listing and you can
SomeoneElse wrote on 27/08/2010 10:58:
On 27/08/2010 08:50, Ian Spencer wrote:
I don't think there is anyone rendering it explicitly at the
moment, however, it would be trivial for someone to take
SomeoneElse wrote on 27/08/2010 11:35:
On 27/08/2010 11:22, Ian Spencer wrote:
There is a relationship type route with network tag uk_ldp, and
in Potlatch it already renders the long distance paths in a
different way, so
Craig Wallace wrote on 25/08/2010 22:28:
On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 20:41 +0100, "Ian Spencer" ianmspen...@gmail.com
wrote:
I think "already by definition cycle-legal" is the very point I
am querying. The trouble with the Bicycle
I came across a problem with Velomap, which I find is a good
autorouting version of OSM for my purposes for cycling and still
works fine for walking too.
Velomap has made an assessment of the various tags to guess how best
to route for bicycles on roads, tracks and
Brad Rogers wrote on 25/08/2010 11:30:
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 23:57:23 +0100
Ian Spencer ianmspen...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Ian,
suggested, there are no sources quoted on the ways typically, and a
very high number of ways simply do not join although keepright
Jim Avery wrote on 25/08/2010 12:36:
Personally I think that explicitly tagging roads which
are already by
definition cycle-legal as bicycle=yes would be too onerous and not
entirely helpful. There are quite a few roads which are legal but
lethal for cyclists. I think
Richard Fairhurst wrote on 23/08/2010 12:00:
Phillip Barnett wrote:
Potlatch is still offering Opendata as a layer, with no warning as to the
potential problem vis a vis existing contributions. Shouldn't we be
dropping this rather quickly?
I
, at 23:57, Ian Spencer wrote:
I was checking why a
bike route from near Derby to Alton Towers was really
badly out and discovered that whoever has been mapping an
area around Derbyshire has been cunningly disguising
Dave F. wrote on 21/08/2010 13:29:
On 21/08/2010 07:42, Jerry Clough - OSM wrote:
Sorry not to list.
- Forwarded Message
From:
Jerry Clough - OSM
Tom Evans wrote on 14/07/2010 09:19:
As another suggestion: Is there a special tag we can add to force it
to highlight on the noname check without actually destroying the name
tag?
Tom
Perhaps what is required is a new hierarchy, like:
query
so you might then have query:tag_name
Not
Jonathan Bennett wrote on 05/07/2010 23:58:
On 05/07/2010 23:28, Guy Collins wrote:
Another search: high street, barnstaple and yes the result includes
various options but always ...Devon County, Kelland Cross
You'll find the answer here:
Andy Allan wrote on 24/06/2010 12:41:
I just had a look at the UK Mapping Priorities page
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_Mapping_Priorities
and I noticed that Darlington has gone from unmapped to awesome over
the last few months. Who wants to step up and take credit for such
immense
Graeme Wilford wrote on 09/06/2010 11:05:
All this talk about licensing and attribution caused me to question
the following:
If I modify existing (or add new) OSM primatives using other
primatives as a guideline and the guiding primatives are attributed,
my changes might be considered
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Robert Whittaker (OSM)
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote:
[...snip...]
Maybe we should also start a
campaign to ask them to dual license under ODbL+DbCL as well as
CC-By...
Right, there's no way we can ever discuss this licensing without
On the contrary, OS have given explicit permission to distribute their data
under CC-BY. I quote:
This means that you may mix the information with Creative Commons licensed
content to create a derivative work that can be distributed under any
Creative
Commons Attribution 3.0
On the contrary, OS have given explicit permission to distribute
their data
under CC-BY. I quote:
This means that you may mix the information with Creative Commons
licensed
content to create a derivative work that can be distributed under
any Creative
Commons Attribution 3.0 Licence.
...Ed Avis wrote on 08/06/2010 12:40:
Ian Spencerianmspen...@... writes:
This means that you may mix the information with Creative Commons licensed
content to create a derivative work that can be distributed under any
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Licence.
It doesn't
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
Gregory wrote on 28/05/2010 14:19:
You are just thinking about cars, what about foot
routing/planning(sorry I meant to make that clear in my last e-mail)
If we are creating a specification for open or unlocked, we might as
well include locked. Especially on foot it can be helpful to know
Hi
I noticed that a local road which is private is designated as
access::private on OSM. My reading of that tag is that it implies users
need permission to use the road. However, in common with many private
roads, it is in private maintenance, but it is public access - they have
never tried
Richard Mann wrote on 26/05/2010 13:08:
access=yes is the general default, and you could probably leave it at
that (ie with no access tag).
access=permissive might be strictly more accurate, though I've never
seen much point to that as a tag (we're a map of the here and now, not
a map of
Gregory wrote on 26/05/2010 13:38:
On 26 May 2010 12:12, Ian Spencer ianmspen...@gmail.com
mailto:ianmspen...@gmail.com wrote:
but it is public access - they have
never tried to restrict public access, nor is the private sign
anything other than a statement that the road
Jerry Clough - OSM wrote on 26/05/2010 16:21:
An interesting set of points. I've been puzzling over three particular
cases related to this. In each case I'm aware that the tagging is
incomplete:
1. The Park Estate http://osm.org/go/eu8Y9GnT in Nottingham. This is
emphatically a private
Jerry Clough - OSM wrote on 26/05/2010 18:24:
The current issue with the Park Estate is about pedestrian access. The
position with cars has always been clearly stated. Recently Nottingham
City Council has started the process of designating public rights of
way (the former County Boroughs
Ed Avis wrote on 24/05/2010 15:05:
It appears the choice for buildings is a fight between OS maps, which are
likely
derived from high-resolution aerial photos but have been simplified, and the
somewhat lower-resolution photo images available to OSM. It is not really
possible to survey
I think it would be useful to have a think about how we might tag
validated definitive ways in addition to the public footpath recognising
that there are potentially 3 different versions of a path:
1) The official published rights of way - say from OS.
2) OSM interpretation of rights of way
James Davis wrote on 12/05/2010 10:05:
Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:
My local library has the definitive statements in the one book, with
subsequent versions over the ages added into the binding. So as you say its
easy to compare what the statement says 50+ years ago and the
(Newbie alert!!) I suspect this has been discussed before, but it seems
to me that there is a big hole in open source mapping, and that is
getting hold of definitive maps in electronic form to be able to
document them.
I presume that the definitive map is a public document that should be
(Newbie alert!! - another try without the HTML setting) I suspect this
has been discussed before, but it seems to me that there is a big hole
in open source mapping, and that is getting hold of definitive maps in
electronic form to be able to document them.
I presume that the definitive map is
scrutiny of definitive ways is essential under the current
legislation. I'll pop a question to the Ramblers and see where they
have got to.
Ian
Tom Hughes wrote on 11/05/2010 11:29:
On
11/05/10 11:22, Ian Spencer wrote:
I presume that the definitive map is a public
document that should
35 matches
Mail list logo
