On 6/18/2016 10:13 AM, Eric Ladner wrote:
I could fix it manually, if you like. Pretty straight forward, actually.
I wouldn't suggest putting too much work into it until we determine a
source, since it's possible the data might have to go.
___
Tal
well, by overlapping, I mean there's two trees in the exact same spot with
the exact same details on them (but one is a has some more ultra-detailed
fields like height, diameter, etc). Looks like it might have been an
attempt to add more detail to the tree, but a previous load wasn't cleared
out p
Cleaned up about 40,000 - 50,000 points. Removed about 95% of the
co-linear points. Fixed some of the pitches and most of the tagging.
There are still about 100 overlapping trees with some odd tagging that
haven't been cleaned up yet, though.
On the good side, you can download the whole universi
Recognize that the small sign is not a USBR sign. In your first link I could
find no bike route sign unless it is that sign way off in the distance that I
can’t make out.
Kerry Irons
From: Elliott Plack [mailto:elliott.pl...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2016 3:03 PM
To: Kerry
On Jun 18, 2016, at 12:03 PM, Elliott Plack wrote:
> I've been out there a few times taking Mapillary photos along the route so
> you can see some of the bike signage.
> http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/3Aq9dVh3Av7K_di9KKUudQ/photo
Thanks for doing this! (Ah, rural Maryland, so pretty).
> Thi
I've been out there a few times taking Mapillary photos along the route so
you can see some of the bike signage.
http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/3Aq9dVh3Av7K_di9KKUudQ/photo
This tiny one is my favorite. It's so small compared to the massive BGS:
http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/8I80lkxdGCOgfsOCKDy
I could fix it manually, if you like. Pretty straight forward, actually.
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 4:22 AM Rihards wrote:
> see https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/338699618/history and other things
> around there.
>
> looks like a ~ 1 year old import. doesn't seem to have followed the
> guidelines
Retrying because a previous attempt bounced:
On 06/18/2016 12:26 AM, Russ Nelson wrote:
>
> Kevin Kenny writes:
> > The rule for coalescing would be to group by facility number, so all
> > the parcels of Burnt-Rossman Hills State Forest would be one relation,
> > while the ones of adjacent M
8 matches
Mail list logo
