On 21/11/17 14:29, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
Steve,
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 04:34:18PM -0800, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:
O> If the reltoolbox plug-in as as powerful as I am beginning to understand it
may be (I appreciate the introduction, Gleb), and given my agreement that certain
use cases
A longer version (I'll try). I assume we all agree that overlapping
or not reaching polygons where there is adjacency on the ground is
wrong. So how can we properly express adjacency? The simple way is
to run two polygons through the same subset of nodes. The advanced
is to separate this
certainly is.
You should talk to a psychologist - they would be able to explain why the
demographics are what they are, but that's academic as far as I'm concerned.
Best Regards
Joel Holdsworth
On September 4, 2017 4:45:27 AM MDT, Zoe Gardner <zoegardn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Dear OSM talk s
Could we have one eye colour, also? ;-)
On 05/09/17 17:03, Ian Dees wrote:
Hi all,
Let's continue the conversation on this new thread, keeping in mind that
we all need to keep our mind open and have productive and positive
conversation.
I reserve the right to add a moderated cooling off
words.
On 05/09/17 14:32, Joel Holdsworth wrote:
The ultimate goal for OSM should be a project which everyone feels
welcome to be a part of, and which does not have a noticeable bias
towards either gender or any given race. Also, please realize just
because women are welcome to participate in OSM
The ultimate goal for OSM should be a project which everyone feels
welcome to be a part of, and which does not have a noticeable bias
towards either gender or any given race. Also, please realize just
because women are welcome to participate in OSM, does not necessarily
mean that some women
On 05/09/17 12:07, Charlotte Wolter wrote:
If someone named Allessanbdro were in charge, a study,
such as Zoe's, never would happen, Clearly, from the reactions
on the email lists, a gender topic is very threatening to a number
of members.
That's a quite a toxic statement.
It's hard to think
Because the very notion that it is relevant to study OSM by gender is
divisive.
Who cares what the gender balance of contributors to OSM is? I don't. I
didn't even know what the split was until this thread. Because it
literally doesn't matter.
Even it were 99% women, it wouldn't matter. So
certainly is.
You should talk to a psychologist - they would be able to explain why the
demographics are what they are, but that's academic as far as I'm concerned.
Best Regards
Joel Holdsworth
On September 4, 2017 4:45:27 AM MDT, Zoe Gardner <zoegardn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Dear OSM talk s
On 10/03/17 14:52, Brian Stromberg wrote:
Wow.
I think it at least merits a discussion. Yes, it's a political decision
but not so ridiculous as to dismiss it as part of a feminist plot.
Not a feminist plot. Just a very tired game to see played out over and over.
I've seen it played in a lot
ess open to those that believe it
is an important thing to discuss.
Thanks,
Ian
(Your friendly talk-us moderator)
On Mar 10, 2017 16:38, "Joel Holdsworth" <j...@airwebreathe.org.uk
<mailto:j...@airwebreathe.org.uk>> wrote:
No.
"Man" has been a general term
nd serves no purpose.
There is no need for the change, or a pointless discussion about such a
change.
Please lets get on with making an awesome map.
Best Regards
Joel Holdsworth
On 10/03/17 14:27, Joshua Houston wrote:
Hi,
It occurred to me that "man_made" is an outdated term
2) Is there a known tagging scheme for this? Area based traffic
resctrictions?
No, but it would be handy, because there's literally no way anybody's
tagging this for every approach of every intersection with a traffic
light, HAWK or half-signal in Oregon that doesn't have an
Therefore,
tagging them as protected areas is appropriate (not withstanding the
fact that not much in a National Forest seems protected based upon my
visit to a section of the Roosevelt National Forest yesterday).
+1 agree with everything you say.
Also, come help me map the land-cover! -
Yeah I posted a question about this last week:
https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/44763/tagging-us-national-forests
To me landuse=forest is pretty clearly incorrect. It should be
boundary=protected_area,protect_class=6 and the rendering rules should be
patched to make it appear similar
This whole discussion going back more than a year ago has
been dominated by very European concepts of what is a forest.
I think that's the problem.
In europe (and for that matter the whole of OSM) forest == trees. Every
square foot of a landuse=forest area should be covered in trees.
I did the same to the Roosevelt National Forest a couple of weeks ago:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/40.6167/-105.3240
Hopefully we can patch the rendering rules to display
boundary=protected_area
Joel
On 17/08/15 15:44, Martijn van Exel wrote:
I removed the landuse=forest from the
It worked before, it can work this way again.
It worked to some degree, but it was rather a road-block to adding more
detail. It won't every be possible to produce a detailed image like this:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/49.1850/7.9723
...when the whole administrative area is clobbered
18 matches
Mail list logo
