On 10/22/2018 2:56 PM, Rory McCann wrote:
Hi Mike.
Thanks for the answers, that clears things up. Bt
On 10/22/2018 5:00 AM, Rory McCann wrote: >> I'm a little unclear
about one big question: What are you doing with
the existing data in OSM? Existing OSM data seems to have nearly
Mike N. wrote:
> As one who grew up in a rural area, a country road lined with 4
> houses in a mile would feel "residential" and I would tend to set
> it as residential in OSM. That describes most of the rural parts
> of this county also, except for roads that don't happen to have
> a house.
On 10/22/2018 8:46 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Could I suggest that you act cautiously wrt the tiger:reviewed tag in these
two cases?
If it's an "unknown highway type" it should probably remain as
tiger:reviewed=no. Likewise, if the surface isn't clear, then either
tiger:reviewed should
Mike N. wrote:
> This is a proposed import of road centerlines for Spartanburg County
> SC, based on county GIS data. This will include a systematic review of
> all roads in the county and qualify to remove tiger:reviewed tags.
Looks good!
Browsing through the code and the wiki page, you have:
Thank you for your comments. Answers inline.
On 10/22/2018 5:00 AM, Rory McCann wrote:
On 22/10/2018 05:20, Mike N wrote:
This is a proposed import of road centerlines for Spartanburg County
SC, based on county GIS data. This will include a systematic review
of all roads in the county and
5 matches
Mail list logo