Oh BTW, I mean PBF - I know that Cloudmade has xml extracts for the US.
Probably still easier to download that and convert to PBF than what I'm
doing now.
Martijn
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:53 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Is there a ready-made, reasonably frequently updated planet
Hi all,
Is there a ready-made, reasonably frequently updated planet extract for the
contiguous US available somewhere? Right now I am merging the partial US
extracts made available by Geofabrik, but I'd love to be able to get it
directly.
Martijn
--
martijn van exel
schaaltreinen.nl
I and some other mappers have noticed that relations are more prone to
breaking than equivalent tags on ways.
(For a simple example, imagine two people simultaneously editing
different parts of a route and each splitting a way, e.g. to add a
maxspeed to a portion. If the route is stored as a rel
On 8/22/2011 5:53 PM, Ian Dees wrote:
Ways break too, it's just that editors sometimes remember to fix them
during their edit session (e.g. by copying the tags when they
dual-carriage a way). If we get people to fix the relations too, then
they won't break.
So how will we do this? I've proposed
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On 8/22/2011 5:47 PM, Richard Weait wrote:
>
>> If there is no overlap, a single network / ref pair will work just
>> fine. Why wouldn't it? What breaks is multi-values in network / ref
>> tags. Don't do that. We have better ways to do
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 16:52:48 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
But the same problem exists with county routes along county lines. Do
you think the ref tag for a county route should contain a county
abbreviation?
FIPS codes would be better, as they are a completely unique identifier
for US counti
On 8/22/2011 5:47 PM, Richard Weait wrote:
If there is no overlap, a single network / ref pair will work just
fine. Why wouldn't it? What breaks is multi-values in network / ref
tags. Don't do that. We have better ways to do this; relations.
Relations break. Hence ref tags are there as a ba
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On 8/22/2011 5:20 PM, Richard Weait wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Nathan Edgars II
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> But the same problem exists with county routes along county lines. Do you
>>> think the ref tag for a county route should
On 8/22/2011 5:20 PM, Richard Weait wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
But the same problem exists with county routes along county lines. Do you
think the ref tag for a county route should contain a county abbreviation?
No, not the ref tag, the network tag.
Sure
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On 8/22/2011 4:46 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 15:08:22 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>>
>>> In both those (literally) edge cases, the relation will tell all.
>>
>> So are you volunteering to make relations for every
On 8/22/2011 4:46 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 15:08:22 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
In both those (literally) edge cases, the relation will tell all.
So are you volunteering to make relations for every route that has this
complication?
They've probably mostly been made alr
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 15:08:22 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
In both those (literally) edge cases, the relation will tell all.
So are you volunteering to make relations for every route that has this
complication?
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@op
On 8/21/2011 4:34 PM, Ian Dees wrote:
I really don't understand this logic. I have never run into a case where
JOSM has broken a relation in a way that wasn't obvious to me. Obviously
I don't "get around" as much as you, Nathan, but can you remind me of a
specific case where a relation breaks ove
On 8/22/2011 2:19 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 13:31:51 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
And what state, despite the implications of some here.
Other than the cases where a state maintains a road as part of their
route network which is not actually in that state. Or the more comm
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 13:31:51 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
And what state, despite the implications of some here.
Other than the cases where a state maintains a road as part of their
route network which is not actually in that state. Or the more common
case where a state highway is directly
On 8/22/2011 12:05 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Exactly my point. Great Britain is fine with ref=M1 despite there
being an M1 in many other countries - and even in Northern
Ireland, part of the same country.
There are some little-known fields in OSM data called "latitud
Mike N. wrote:
> Those with established and often-edited cycle routes are always
> complaining that they're broken. The most recent case is this week:
> http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=13524
>
> Last editor was JOSM, and if his analysis was correct, the most
> recent edit broke th
Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> Exactly my point. Great Britain is fine with ref=M1 despite there
> being an M1 in many other countries - and even in Northern
> Ireland, part of the same country.
There are some little-known fields in OSM data called "latitude" and
"longitude", which allow you to find
On 8/22/11 10:53 AM, Brad Neuhauser wrote:
I do my best to avoid anything to do with highway relations, but FWIW I
recently did just this in Potlatch 2--split a way that's part of relations
to add a bridge and totally ignored the relations--and it all worked out
fine as far as I can tell: http://
I do my best to avoid anything to do with highway relations, but FWIW I
recently did just this in Potlatch 2--split a way that's part of relations
to add a bridge and totally ignored the relations--and it all worked out
fine as far as I can tell: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/126659318
20 matches
Mail list logo
