2008/5/8 Christoph Eckert [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
For those who think the RFC/vote process represents the
consensus on how things should be done, what needs to happen to
change that process?
IMO map features should be built on top of tagwatch. This way tagging
recommendations would be
2008/5/8 Richard Fairhurst [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
yes, it is a strange choice. it leads to irrationalities like
highway=footway and highway=cycleway
why we're not using right_of_way=motorway|primary|cycleway|footway|
and so on, i don't know
Generally right of way is a legal term. It
2008/5/8 DavidD [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
2008/5/7 Robin Paulson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
using tagwatch is a good idea as a basis for proposals, but problems
arise when we have two ways of tagging the same type of item. how does
anyone decide which should be used? one must be more optimal than
is there any intention to include contours on the main map at any
point? would it be possible to have them as a static layer (i.e. they
not be re-rendered every week like the mapnik images, to save
processing time), with a transparent background?
alternatively, are there any world wide maps out
2008/5/6 Peter Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I notice that 'railway=spur' is used a lot in the tiger data. Here is an
example (where the railway continues north out of Davis as a 'spur').
http://openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.57568lon=-121.74505zoom=16
However it doesn't render in Mapnik or
2008/5/3 micha ruh [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
in options, choose 'Aerial - OpenAerialMap' as background and you'll be fine
hmm, i'm slightly baffled by that. the oam coverage for nz is
appalling at best and as an aside, i'd be very surprised if it was
better resolution than the yahoo imagery anywhere on
a situation has come up, where i've been mapping some railway lines
that go through a maintenance shed. the problem is, the railway is
drawn on top of the shed, rather than shown dotted too imply it's
underneath/inside. is there a tag i could use, to show that it's
inside? something like the
richard, i see you've rolled out some changes as part of potlatch
0.8c, including huge thick ways...could you roll them back please?
they're very obtrusive and obscure a lot of the yahoo imagery
underneath. i'm finding it very difficult to accurately place ways on
the centre of roads, amongst
2008/4/18 maning sambale [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The KML is not a problem, only if someone makes a screenshot or
whatever from the whole thing with the Google Earth layer visible,
that would have to be CC-BY-SA licensed meaning that he can't
distribute such a screenshot unless Google also
On 09/04/2008, Andy Robinson (blackadder) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I haven't expressed my view too much on this aspect of late. I think most
know that I'm an advocate of the let it evolve approach.
me too. it should evolve - but settling on agreed ways of doing things
does not prevent
On 08/04/2008, 80n [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if we are going to have an 'attribution' page on the wiki[1], with the
fine print regarding sources of various chunks of data, would a link
to it be possible, on the main map page? titled say 'data attribution'
or 'data sources'?
Have
On 08/04/2008, Nick Black [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I've been involved in some ongoing dialogue with Natural Resources,
Government of Canada, who are keen for their National Road Network to
be used by OSM. There are a few particularities of the license that
need clarifying on
2008/4/3 Robert Vollmert [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I may be missing something, but why would we need to introduce a read-
only attribution tag if we already have it? It's the source tag of the
first version of an object, in
http://api.openstreetmap.org/api/0.5/objtype/id/history
fantastic. like
2008/4/7 Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
stumbled across a quote by David D Clark (of Internet
architecture fame) today. He said:
We reject: kings, presidents and voting. We believe in: rough
consensus and running code.
maybe someone should tell the government? apparently we're all
On 08/04/2008, 80n [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if we are going to have an 'attribution' page on the wiki[1], with the
fine print regarding sources of various chunks of data, would a link
to it be possible, on the main map page? titled say 'data attribution'
or 'data sources'?
Have
2008/4/3 David Ebling [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
True, I acknowledge that, but requiring two seperate
attributions for OSM data is going to be confusing to
people who use the data. So far we have managed to get
by on just one attribution.
..
It changes the attribution which all
On 02/04/2008, David Ebling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am I the only person observing this conversation on
the mailing list who is deeply, deeply concerned by
the notion of importing data that requires attribution
other than the standard OSM CC-by-SA? The fact that
well, the attribution they
many thanks to all that participated in the recent discussions on
attributing data provided by land information new zealand. i've read
through all that was discussed and written down a brief summary of
what osm will do and won't do, on the wiki:
i don't recall if there was ever a definite 'yes'
On 02/04/2008, Cartinus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 01 April 2008 22:46:39 Robin Paulson wrote:
*osm will carry out:
4. ??? creating an 'attribution' tag, which can only be edited by
select members of the community. this tag will be applied only to
items requiring
From: Robin Paulson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: talk@openstreetmap.org; Licensing and other legal discussions. [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 1 April, 2008 9:46:39 PM
Subject: [OSM-talk] linz dataset for nz - attribution methods summary
many thanks to all that participated
On 18/03/2008, David Dean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But, there are a bunch of nodes in the XML file outside that bounding box:
After a bit of that, the reset of the xml file seems ok, but something weird
is
clearly happening here.
Any ideas?
seeing as no-one more
On 20/03/2008, Richard Fairhurst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
bear with me here, i'm not sure what you mean:
what is the serious cartographic issue, and why is it a problem?
It looks pug ugly!
fair point, i'll agree with that
Not a lot more that I can say than that, but I'll try. It
On 20/03/2008, Stephen Gower [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I absolutely agree with this (aka +1).
OSM's baseline is user-collected data, freely given to project.
Imports of large datasets are nice, but if they can't be given
under the same terms as my GPS tracks, OSM should have to use
On 19/03/2008, Cartinus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Twice no.
Objects in the database are more than just shapes. To concentrate on the
second one: The shape from the Yahoo image is better, but there are no names
visible in the aerial photographs. If I don't know the name (and whatever
other
On 18/03/2008, Richard Fairhurst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Robin Paulson wrote:
(c) Crown Copyright
w00t, Robin found his Shift key! ;)
thanks, incredibly constructive. haven't you got something better to do?
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal
On 19/03/2008, Richard Fairhurst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What, something better than having a sense of humour? No, probably not.
Alternatively, you could respond to the seven lines of constructive,
substantive suggestion I made below that. But - oh look - you appear
to have snipped that.
land information new zealand is a government org that holds data on
roads and properties for the entirety of new zealand. they have
recently given permission to use their data sets in osm, with a caveat
that we include an attribution statement:
Contains data sourced from Land Information New
On 19/03/2008, Ian Darwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the key is the attribution
at present there is no method for attributing data in osm, so this is
a call to all:
I presume you've verified that putting it on the OSM web site would not
be adequate? I think there needs to be a
On 19/03/2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which is as it should be. If an object originating from that import is
significantly altered later, then it should be possible to reflect this in
the source tag.
of course, defining 'significantly altered' becomes an issue
maybe
On 13/03/2008, Paul Hurley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
According to map features the value for the lanes key should be.
Number of travel lanes in each (or only permitted) direction
I've been tagging to this definition.
Number of travel lanes on the way
This makes more sense to me because
the entire town (*everything*) of nanaimo in canada is being mapped
with help from google -
it would be wonderful to get this kind of collaboration with OSM, to
promote innovative uses of unusual data sets
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1720932,00.html
On 11/03/2008, Andrew Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can I ask for suggestions on the best way to get Archicad (.dwg) files
into OSM?
if you can convert them to dxf (should be able to do this with
archicad i think), there is a process for converting them into
shapefiles, as outlined in the
On 10/03/2008, Robert (Jamie) Munro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anyone know of software that will allow you to pick and choose the
towns and other features that appear in a printed outline map? Suppose,
for example, that I was planning a Spurr Pilgrimage Tour: how could I
print an
On 25/02/2008, J.D. Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could this work with video media files ? I've invested in an Oregon
Scientific ACT2000 solid state helmet cam ( http://tinyurl.com/22zaep )
for use when driving my cityscooter. It has audio input too, but the
cool, will you be contributing
On 22/02/2008, David Earl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Funnily enough, the first time I tried audio tracing I just assumed
there was something like this available, so when I came to use my
audio I realised that all my post box on the left NOW, bus stop
on the right... NOW was fairly
On 19/02/2008, Andy Allan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gaaarrgggh!
snip
Deliberately tagging things incorrectly is bad practice. There are so
many renderers out there that if what you do works for more than one
of them that's just coincidence. And when bad practices like this
On 19/02/2008, Christoph Eckert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Sadly, it seems to be frozen in a proposal state forever and is therefore
not rendered on the two main maps yet.
so why not open it for voting? I've mapped some and would vote for it :) .
for consistency, this would be better
after two weeks of voting, and two extended weeks, this proposal has
been approved, with 17 yes votes, and 1 no vote
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Power_plants
it will be moved to the approved features and map features page
thanks for voting
after two weeks of voting, this proposal has been approved, with 13
yes votes, and 0 no vote
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Ferry_Terminal#Voting
it will be moved to the approved features and map features page
thanks for voting
after two weeks of voting, this has been apprvoed with 8 yes votes and
0 no votes
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/naval_base
it will be moved to the approved features and map features page
thanks
___
talk mailing list
On 11/02/2008, Karl Eichwalder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why did I not think of that? (slaps head). In fact, I could put them in
as layer=5 which will put them on top of virtually any other conceivable
feature (like, a river underneath a three-layer highway intersection...)
In fact, I have
On 11/02/2008, Robin Paulson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 08/02/2008, David Groom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The main problem area seems to be that some people do not like the current
proposal whereby a river is divided up in to separate closed areas. The
reason being that the segment
On 08/02/2008, David Groom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The main problem area seems to be that some people do not like the current
proposal whereby a river is divided up in to separate closed areas. The
reason being that the segment crossing the river to close the area marks a
boundary which does
On 11/02/2008, Alex S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lukasz Stelmach wrote:
1. why there is (i'll answer it in a moment) unsurfaced highway while in
practice every highway can have surface=unpaved?
Highway=unsurfaced is old. Surface=unpaved is much more recent, and
should be used by
On 10/02/2008, Martin Trautmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
wiseLYNX wrote:
There is even an
italian expression, viale alberato which specifically describes an
avenue with tree lines..
Could an avenue exist without tree lines?
not in english - it explicitly means a road with trees. although
On 04/02/2008, Robin Paulson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i think it would be a good idea to group a lot of these tags together
in one proposal,
[...]
[]
I guess, lot's of the simple tags are not that simple when you look more
close at it, but let's have a try at Robins idea
On 04/02/2008, Ulf Lamping [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
lot of proposed 'shop' tags on the proposals page, something which is
overwhelming and time-consuming to solve using our current method of
tag proposal/ratifying
i think it would be a good idea to group a lot of these tags together
in
taking on board one of Frederic's comments from last week: there are a
lot of proposed 'shop' tags on the proposals page, something which is
overwhelming and time-consuming to solve using our current method of
tag proposal/ratifying
i think it would be a good idea to group a lot of these tags
this has been open for comment for two weeks now, time to open voting
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/peninsula
thanks
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
this has been open for over two weeks, and currently has 4 yes votes
and 0 no votes
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/rig
could i request some more votes please, to push it one way or the other.
thanks
___
talk mailing list
this has been open for two weeks, and currently has 4 yes votes and 0 no votes.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/chalets
could i request some more votes please, to push it one way or the other.
thanks
___
talk mailing list
after several weeks of RFC and a re-work of the tagging, this is open for voting
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Service
thanks
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
this has been around for several months now with little input, so i've
done a bit of cleanup
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Rack_railway
time to open for comments
thanks
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
On 04/02/2008, Richard Fairhurst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway, more usefully, Potlatch now automatically resizes itself to
your browser window. Still a couple of rough edges to iron out
(particularly with the Yahoo imagery) but hope you like it!
woooah, col
thank richard, been
On 04/02/2008, Robert Vollmert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sounds good, but why not go a step further: There could be a page on
the wiki for simple proposals, and anything that gets no objections
for a week is automatically approved and added to Map Features.
i'm not too comfortable with that -
On 04/02/2008, Hakan Tandogan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My problem is that the template only shows official values for the
shop key, but there might be more tags that are used only locally. Could
the template render those additional tags after the official list,
perhaps with a divider row
On 04/02/2008, Hakan Tandogan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, I'm talking about creating a Map_Features page where new
values for given keys (e.g. highway, shop) appear. The only part I'm
complaining is that the Template only allows the approved values
whereas I'd like it to show the
i've noticed that there are two tags for places where people are
buried - cemetery and graveyard, with an ambiguous distinction between
the two
this proposal is to make one obsolete
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/graveyard
comments are welcome
this has bene open for commetns for several weeks now, with no major objections
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Handball
voting is now open, until 2008-02-18
thanks
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
On 04/02/2008, Robin Paulson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, I can live with it and I think it's a good idea to move the
stuff to power so I reverted my vote, I guess we can consider this to be
approved and can close the voting.
Are you gonna do the next steps?
plus, of course, lots
there have been a few discussions recently concerning proposed landuse
tags, that have brought up a question:
what is the definition of landuse, in the context of OSM?
i ask, because a number of the tags that have been suggested in this
category, seem to be badly thought out - it appears to have
from now on, until someone creates an extra tagging list, i'll include
[tagging] in every tag proposals e-mail, to let those of you who
aren't interested, filter out this stuff easily. every e-mail client
has filter capabilities, so this shouldn't be a problem.
i'll come up with some way of
this has been open for comments for several months now, with no
objections. time to open voting
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Ferry_Terminal
thanks
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
this has been open for vote for 6 weeks now, it has closed with 6 yes
votes, 1 no vote and 3 votes which are ambiguous. in future, please
either vote yes for the proposal or against it, not for part of it and
against part of it, or we will never get anywhere.
if you have objections, these should
this has been open for voting for 2 weeks, and has now closed. it has
been approved, with 6 yes votes and 0 no votes
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/crane
it will be moved to the map features and approved features page
thanks
On 29/01/2008, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wrote the following two weeks ago because I felt that the talk list
was a bit flooded by administrative voting ends, voting opens,
comments requested etc. messages:
would it make sense to create a new mailing list - say
[EMAIL
On 29/01/2008, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, if nobody wants to write digests, then IMHO it's just not a good
idea to move to a seperate mailing list.
well, if other people keep up with the rfc open, tag vote open, etc.
categories i put together last week, it should be pretty
voting has been open on this for 4 weeks. it has now closed, with 4
yes votes, and 1 no vote - the proposal was rejected
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/hov_access
it will be moved to the rejected features page
thanks
___
voting on this proposal has now closed. the proposal has been
approved, with 21 yes votes and 1 no vote
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Turning_circle
it will be added to the map features and approved features page
thanks
On 25/01/2008, Adrian Frith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
highway=ford is a node tag. According to map features. There shouldn't
be any gaps.
maybe it should be a way as well, some rivers are pretty wide
Then shouldn't it be highway=whatever ford=yes - by analogy with
bridge=yes and
this tag proposal vote has been open for two weeks now, and has passed
with 14 approvals and 1 disapproval
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Museum
voting is now closed, the proposal will be moved to the approved
features and map features page
thanks
after two weeks of voting, this vote has closed, with 111 approval
votes and no disapprovals
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Battlefield
the proposal will be moved to the map features and approved features page
thanks
___
On 24/01/2008, Robert (Jamie) Munro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Shall we put the node on the way where the sign is, a little bit before
| the intersection (and how much) ? or is it planned to use a relation ?
| or does it really help to tag such signs (I mean, it does not influence
| routing)
after two weeks of voting, this proposal has been passed with 15 yes votes
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Cave_entrance
it will be moved to the approved features and map features page
thanks
___
talk mailing list
voting has ended on this proposal, with 6 yes votes and 3 no votes
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Climbing_Wall
the proposal will be moved from the proposed features page to the
rejected features page
thanks
___
talk
this proposal has become very muddled
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/P%C3%A9tanque
two users have now voted no on it, for not entirely explained reasons
- please, if you are going to comment on a proposal/oppose a vote,
provide some reasoning behind your comment, or
this has been re-proposed, with amended tags:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Shooting
comments please
thanks
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
On 22/01/2008, Rob Reid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Robin Paulson wrote the following on 22/01/2008 07:44:
voting has ended on this proposal, with 6 yes votes and 3 no votes
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Climbing_Wall
the proposal will be moved from the proposed
this has been around for 8 months now, time to open voting
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Power_plants
this proposal has two parts: to create the new power=power_plants tag
and make the old man_made=nuclear_power, man_made=solar_power, etc.
obsolete
thanks
On 18/01/2008, Andy Robinson (blackadder) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have to agree that this might be a useful resource for establishing
reasonably current land usage. However the first two bullet points of their
terms immediately give me a problem:
1. not to use the
On 17/01/2008, Sebastian Spaeth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am all for it. And I am still of the opinion that more people would
vote if there was an easier voting mechanism.
I had already implemented a prototype of an e-mail voting system, where
proposals would be send in mail (in addition to
this proposal has been open for voting for two weeks now. it has been
rejected, with 6 no votes and 3 yes votes
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Saltmarsh
it will be moved to the rejected features page
i will put together a new proposal for sub-keys to the 'marsh' tag,
this has been open for comments for two weeks now, with no issues
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Turntable
voting is now open, for two weeks
thanks
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
some of us on the new zealand mailing list are working on a proposal
to import data from www.zenbu.co.nz, a business listing site in new
zealand
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Zenbu
is the page that's been put together for coordinating the work on this data
as this sort of thing has
further to my e-mails last week concerning badly-documented proposals,
i've put together a proposals guideline page:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Creating_a_proposal
could i get some impressions on it please? i would like it to be
fairly comprehensive, but at the same time i don't
does anyone know what's happening with this tag?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Population
it appears to have been voted on, but it isn't really clear what, the
tags were only added after voting had completed. i think it's rejected
(11 yes to one no), but the last
On 14/01/2008, Brent Easton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chill out guys,
I'm merely pointing out an interesting anomaly with the current voting
scheme. I don't particularly care if you change it or not. I am not having a
go at you Robin, who are doing a terrific job.
not at all, i didn't
this was pretty sound already, i've done a bit of tidy up and proposed
some tag values, as well as splitting it into three sub-proposals.
hopefully it captures the intent of the original proposer
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Service
could i get some comments please
On 13/01/2008, Tony Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Robin Paulson wrote:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bildstock
of course, i remember seeing these in austria now. yes, they are quite
prominent aren't they and maybe map-worthy after all - would you be
willing to put a proposal up
On 13/01/2008, Robin Paulson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i'll start a wiki page. anyone here have any experience with drawing
libraries? i'm sure we can do this by re-using something that's
already there
ok, here we go. i've put in some rough details of the method i
suggested earlier. if anyone
this has been proposed for 2 weeks now, with no disagreements, time to
open voting
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/crane
thanks
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
On 14/01/2008, Brent Easton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If there are votes both for and against, then it requires 14 Yes votes to
get something through, but only 1 No vote to can it.
In fact, the No voters are more likely to prevent a proposal by NOT voting
against a proposal once the first
On 12/01/2008, Igor Brejc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just as a curiosity: 12 NM was chosen because it it the farthest point a
person can see from the shore (due to Earth's roundness). Or something
like that :)
according to wp, it was the range of a cannon in 14th c or something
On 13/01/2008, Lukasz Stelmach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
according to wp, it was the range of a cannon in 14th c or something
XIV c. ships would draw rather then carried a cannon that could
shoot as far as 22.2 km. It must be something different.
i should say, i'm no expert on this, but
On 13/01/2008, 80n [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 12, 2008 2:10 PM, Martijn van Oosterhout [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let's say I'm looking at a satellite image and I see a body of water.
Is it a lake/reservoir/dam/blah? I don't know. Yet the proposed scheme
forces me to choose one with a
On 12/01/2008, Martijn van Oosterhout [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 12, 2008 11:32 AM, Igor Brejc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That would be an interesting thing to implement. It would involve
creating a union of circles (with radius of 12 NM) and then determining
the border of that union. If
On 10/01/2008, Sebastian Spaeth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it's been talked about regarding a couple of other issues that have
cropped up (the naming dispute over cyprus for instance) - maybe we
need to lock some information, and allow it only to be edited by
certain privileged
On 11/01/2008, Lukasz Stelmach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is more important to me, and this is question for all who know,
how to cope boundaries *between* two areas, like administrative
ones? How to cope with boundaries of different administrative
levels? If a line is a boundary between
this has been on the proposals page for 8 months now, with very little
attention paid to it
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Checkpoint
a request for comments and opinions, please
thanks
___
talk mailing list
further to my previous post about editing the wiki, are there any
mediawiki gurus here?
a set of templates (or even one!) for proposals would save a lot of
time, does anyone feel like volunteering to create one? hopefully,
this would give some guidelines for people when proposing tags, and
save a
201 - 300 di 337 matches
Mail list logo
