Re: [Talk-us] Another random road reclassification

2012-08-14 Thread James Mast
Thanks for the heads up. While he hasn't done anything in the Pgh area, I did notice this one section of US-19 in WV he upgraded from Trunk to Motorway in Changeset 12698753. (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/12698753) I've traveled US-19 between I-79 and I-77/I-64 over 50 times in

[Talk-us] Another random road reclassification

2012-08-14 Thread Toby Murray
I just noticed user SimMoonXP ( http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SimMoonXP ) reclassifying a few isolated stretches of KS highway 7 in the Kansas City area. I sent a message asking why and he indicated that he was reclassifying anything with a separated grade intersection as motorway, even if it w

Re: [Talk-us] Duplicate state parks in California

2012-08-14 Thread Evin Fairchild
The way I see it is that a state park ought to be tagged as a plain-old park, not a national park. The national park tag is for national parks. Pretty self-explanatory. -Compdude -Original Message- From: AJ Ashton [mailto:aj.ash...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 3:54 PM To: t

Re: [Talk-us] Duplicate state parks in California

2012-08-14 Thread Toby Murray
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 5:53 PM, AJ Ashton wrote: > I've seen state parks in California that are in the database twice > each with slightly different tags. > Here is an example changeset that added two of everything: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/2020128 > > Two relations contain

[Talk-us] Duplicate state parks in California

2012-08-14 Thread AJ Ashton
I've seen state parks in California that are in the database twice each with slightly different tags. Here is an example changeset that added two of everything: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/2020128 Two relations containing the same way(s): one relation is 'type=boundary, boundary=

Re: [Talk-us] New version of US redaction map

2012-08-14 Thread Martijn van Exel
Hi On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 9:21 PM, Mike N wrote: > On 8/13/2012 11:11 PM, Paul Norman wrote: > >> It’s all CC BY-SA right now so you’d be okay now, but I think it’d be a >> problem in the future under both CC BY-SA and ODbL if you were mix the >> data in this way. >> > > I'd think this is not