On 9/12/2011 7:17 PM, Anthony wrote:
The fact that the land is owned by Walt Disney Parks does not preclude
the fact that they have granted a right of way through it.
According to Orange County property records, the 65.13 acres of land
is owned by Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US Inc. However,
On 9/12/2011 10:04 PM, Metcalf, Calvin (DOT) wrote:
- more road colors just because its a state highway tthat could mean something
unpaved or divided limited acces
If it's divided limited access it should be trunk or motorway. If it's
unpaved it should probably be tertiary unless unpaved is t
I guess the thing for the US vs UK is just that landscape varies much more in
the US and a Collector road in NYC is going to be very different from one in
rural Iowa. This is opposed to the UK where the level of density is much more
uniform.
---
Calvin Metcalf
Massachusetts Depa
Toby Murray writes:
> This might be partially a tagging issue but I think it affects rendering
> too.
>
> It would be nice to change the zoom level at which cities/towns are rendered
> in rural areas. I should not be able to get a map with no place names on it
> in western Kansas
I agree, and i
Or maybe we can tag for density level ?
>-Original Message-
>From: Greg Troxel [mailto:g...@ir.bbn.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 8:27 AM
>To: Toby Murray
>Cc: talk-us
>Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Brainstorm: What should a US map of OSM
>data look like
>
>
>Toby Murray writes:
>
>>
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 4:29 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On 9/12/2011 7:17 PM, Anthony wrote:
>>
>> The fact that the land is owned by Walt Disney Parks does not preclude
>> the fact that they have granted a right of way through it.
>>
>> According to Orange County property records, the 65.13 ac
Disney runs its own Reedy Creek Planning District (and Fire Dept], so some
records from the 1960's and 1970's might not be in OC's system; building
permits are filled with OC, but Land Use may not be in the system you're
looking at. Waste/Submerged would be correct status in 1960 prior to Disney
de
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Bill Ricker wrote:
> The thru-roads across WDW property might or might not be registered as
> Public Right of Way against the deeds, but have been open to the public for
> up to 40 years.
> What is the goal here ?
We're trying to figure out whether this sign restr
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Bill Ricker wrote:
> Waste/Submerged would be correct status in 1960 prior to Disney
> development, not current status. Sounds like that website is not current
> source for Reedy Creek documents.
By the way, the particular parcel of land being referred to *is*
und
On 9/13/2011 8:34 AM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 4:29 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 9/12/2011 7:17 PM, Anthony wrote:
The fact that the land is owned by Walt Disney Parks does not preclude
the fact that they have granted a right of way through it.
According to Orange County prop
On 9/13/2011 8:58 AM, Bill Ricker wrote:
The thru-roads across WDW property might or might not be registered as
Public Right of Way against the deeds, but have been open to the public
for up to 40 years.
Not this one. There was a guard booth on Vista Boulevard near the
present location of the
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On 9/13/2011 8:58 AM, Bill Ricker wrote:
>>
>> The thru-roads across WDW property might or might not be registered as
>> Public Right of Way against the deeds, but have been open to the public
>> for up to 40 years.
>
> Not this one. Ther
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> There was a guard booth on Vista Boulevard near the present
> location of the sign until about 2005.
And now I get it. This road could be used to bypass the main entrance
toll booth on World Drive, and doesn't seem to be particularly us
On 9/13/2011 11:04 AM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
There was a guard booth on Vista Boulevard near the present
location of the sign until about 2005.
And now I get it. This road could be used to bypass the main entrance
toll booth on World Drive,
Towns appear at zoom level 9 in Mapnik, which seems pretty decent to me.
There are tagged "towns" in SW Kansas that show up, but some "villages"
probably need retagging to "towns" in the N and W. The Place page
recommends tagging county seats as towns regardless of population:
http://wiki.openstr
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Brad Neuhauser
wrote:
> Towns appear at zoom level 9 in Mapnik, which seems pretty decent to me.
> There are tagged "towns" in SW Kansas that show up, but some "villages"
> probably need retagging to "towns" in the N and W. The Place page
> recommends tagging co
On 9/13/2011 12:47 PM, Toby Murray wrote:
Hmm I think that page on the wiki has changed since I last looked at
it. The county seat bit is probably a good idea. But even then, there
have been a couple of previous discussions about place name renderings
in the US so I think we can still leave it on
17 matches
Mail list logo
