On 24 Mar 2011, at 13:56, Luke Smith wrote:
As I understand it, there is both a written record of where the rights of way
go and the definitive map is in addition, with the written record taking
precedence?
My experience is that it probably depends, and that the statement and map are
very
How do I go about asking for changes in rendering to be reverted?
http://trac.openstreetmap.org/changeset/25298
I've left some comments, is that all I need do?
Seems to have diverted quite widely from the documented use of this tag where
it's clearly for ways only - and I presume that existing
On 4 Feb 2011, at 12:55, Stephen Gower wrote:
What do you do when a road has completely gone? Mascall Avenue in Oxford
has completely gone. There's a new housing estate, with a road network that
doesn't match what was there before, so there's no way to mark with old_name
or not:name or
Dave F. wrote:
access=private is not restricted to roads.
For the building (drawn as an area I presume), split it at the
restrictions tag it as access=private.
For external areas, is there a fence boundary or road barriers that
define the area?
I've split the area up into it's
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.57507lon=-1.31246zoom=15layers=M
The Harwell Science and Innovation Campus consists of areas which are
open to the public and others that are closed (the nuclear licensed
section of the site for starters).
They've recently started changing some of the
Tom Hughes wrote:
Well adding access=private to the non-public roads would be a good start.
It'd be a start, but in general I'm unable to confirm that these roads
exist. Judging by the areas of the campus that have recently been opened
up, the available data does not accurately reflect what is
Gregory Williams wrote:
I just happen to have looked up a whois record for a domain and it
helpfully has the registrant’s physical address and postcode. OSM is
always ticking away in the back of my mind, so I thought: I can
physically get to that address quite easily for mapping purposes, so
WessexMario wrote:
I'll go through that stretch of the canal and tag it more appropriately,
removing the parts that are only proposed, and putting more appropriate
tags on the bits that are visible.
Thank you :) I think it's fine to have the remaining and disused parts
of the canal
There's a feature in my local area and I'm not sure it should be
included - it's the proposed new cut of the Wilts Berks Canal, so that
it can join the Thames at a new junction rather than the original
junction which has been developed over.
Whilst the actual junction has been completed, as far
Nick Whitelegg wrote:
Someone probably needs to sort this out with a council. Maybe I'll get
round to doing it with mine at some stage.
I contacted my local council with a freedom of information request -
asking if I could obtain vector information of particular rights of way
from them. After
Frederik Ramm wrote:
No, that's perfectly ok. If you want to be extra safe, you might want to
ask for permission to distribute derived mapping under the license
choosen by the OpenStreetMap foundation, this will reduce problems if
the license should be changed in the future.
That's good to
Jonathan Bennett wrote:
If they've been published, that's actually a very good reason *not* to
map them, unless there are signposts on the ground. It's a clear
violation of copyright without specific written permission.
I've obtained permission to publish the routes under CC-BY-SA. This
12 matches
Mail list logo
