Hi Mikel--
Can you tell us about the program selection process? How will talk
proposals be evaluated and selected?
Thanks!
Kathleen
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 8:24 PM, Mikel Maron wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm delighted to report that the planning for State of the Map 2016 is
> going well. We have now
Sure Kathleen. We haven't discussed it yet in detail, but imagine we'll
organize it similar to SotM US. Members of the program committee will each
individually evaluate all submissions according to criteria like relevance,
quality, newness to SotM, etc. Based on average and distribution of score
Hey Elliot and all,
Thanks for this notice, I think it is two separate issues. One is the use of
the landuse=forest tag which has been discussed many times on many lists. The
other is the rendering, I think this is ‘just’ a rendering issue as you can see
where ‘meadow/grass/scrub’ coloring i
Russ, Elliott, Kenny and all:
This might sound glib, but I believe that setting landuse=forest on a
(multi)polygon which is land use forest is correct. Yes, I have notice that
mapnik rendering has changed over the years so that other 2-D objects which
occupy the same space may yield unexpected
* OSM Volunteer stevea [160509 20:23]:
> This might sound glib, but I believe that setting landuse=forest on a
> (multi)polygon which is land use forest is correct. [..]
I guess everyone would agree with that. The problem is that we (as in
"the mappers of OpenStreetMap") don't agree on what land
On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Wolfgang Zenker
wrote:
> * OSM Volunteer stevea [160509 20:23]:
> > This might sound glib, but I believe that setting landuse=forest on a
> (multi)polygon which is land use forest is correct. [..]
>
> I guess everyone would agree with that. The problem is that we
On 8/19/2015 2:29 AM, Nathan Mixter wrote:
I would like to see areas in OSM categorized as either land use, land
cover (which we call natural for the most part in OSM) or
administrative to clear the confusion. I am also in favor of
eliminating the landuse=forest tag at least in its current inca
> On 8/19/2015 2:29 AM, Nathan Mixter wrote:
>> I would like to see areas in OSM categorized as either land use, land cover
>> (which we call natural for the most part in OSM) or administrative to clear
>> the confusion. I am also in favor of eliminating the landuse=forest tag at
>> least in its
On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 2:45 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea <
stevea...@softworkers.com> wrote:
> On 8/19/2015 2:29 AM, Nathan Mixter wrote:
>
> I would like to see areas in OSM categorized as either land use, land
> cover (which we call natural for the most part in OSM) or administrative to
> clear the
Mike Thompson writes:
> 1) I don't know how anyone would able to tell this from simple on the ground
> observation.
Granted: from an on-the-ground observation, a landuse=forest might look very
much like a natural=wood. However, if you saw that part of the area had some
stumps, you could safe
Just to add my two cents, I do not think that "landuse=forest" should be
tagged with national forest boundaries. That something is within a national
forest boundary does not guarantee that it is a managed forest, or even
that it has tree cover. A 'national forest' is more an administrative
boundary
Hi Steve and all,
I think you are correct that we’re trying to build consensus, I think this is a
good time to review the ‘OSM best practices/rule(s) of thumb’. I would
counter-argue that a ‘blanket use of landuse=forest’ does not meet the
‘verifiable rule/guideline’ [1]; it’s not something
12 matches
Mail list logo
