On 9/1/2011 2:23 AM, Toby Murray wrote:
Hmm I just noticed that it was a little eager about creating relations
so some ways don't have any tags but are only members of a relation
which is tagged. Not sure if this will work with the routes plugin or
not.
It actually works fine. There are ways th
On 9/1/2011 2:16 AM, Toby Murray wrote:
http://ni.kwsn.net/~toby/OSM/FL_maxspeed.osm.gz
If you have trouble dealing with the extra spaces I can clean it up
tomorrow. Bed time now. But it looks like it is just putting in the
same number of spaces in front of the numbers for some reason.
Thanks.
On 9/1/2011 1:19 AM, Toby Murray wrote:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 8:58 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 8/31/2011 9:57 PM, Dale Puch wrote:
Anyways that is why I am interested in how you plan to attack it.
I haven't started, but I plan to convert to .osm using gpsbabel and then use
the
On 9/1/2011 1:02 AM, Dale Puch wrote:
If a way with [network=US:FL] is NOT in a relation, will it be returned
by this?
I don't think any ways have this tag.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/ta
On 8/31/2011 9:57 PM, Dale Puch wrote:
For me it was partly an issue of the data covering a large land area,
then only able to download small chunks from OSM to edit.
For this, a xapi query of relation[network=US:FL] gets all the state
road relations.
On 8/31/2011 9:57 PM, Dale Puch wrote:
Anyways that is why I am interested in how you plan to attack it.
I haven't started, but I plan to convert to .osm using gpsbabel and then
use the JOSM 'routes' plugin to color the maxspeed values of the background.
_
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/statistics/gis/roaddata.shtm
This is public domain per Microdecisions, Inc. v. Skinner (though I'm
waiting on a reply from FDOT confirming that they agree).
After checking all current maxspeed tags against the data to ensure
accuracy, I plan to use this as a
On 8/24/2011 7:25 PM, Craig Hinners wrote:
I see what you're saying about Arkansas, in that their treatment of US
business routes on signage "feels" more like a "different designation".
On the other hand, Maryland uses a totatally different shield design for
business US routes (basically a green-
On 8/24/2011 6:25 PM, Craig Hinners wrote:
FWIW, I agree with all of Jason's suggestions, below, for the
relation-level "network" tag values. It mirrors my thinking on the
matter exactly.
I disagree with putting alternate and business in the network. These
modifiers are part of the designation
I and some other mappers have noticed that relations are more prone to
breaking than equivalent tags on ways.
(For a simple example, imagine two people simultaneously editing
different parts of a route and each splitting a way, e.g. to add a
maxspeed to a portion. If the route is stored as a rel
On 8/22/2011 5:53 PM, Ian Dees wrote:
Ways break too, it's just that editors sometimes remember to fix them
during their edit session (e.g. by copying the tags when they
dual-carriage a way). If we get people to fix the relations too, then
they won't break.
So how will we do this? I've proposed
On 8/22/2011 5:47 PM, Richard Weait wrote:
If there is no overlap, a single network / ref pair will work just
fine. Why wouldn't it? What breaks is multi-values in network / ref
tags. Don't do that. We have better ways to do this; relations.
Relations break. Hence ref tags are there as a ba
On 8/22/2011 5:20 PM, Richard Weait wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
But the same problem exists with county routes along county lines. Do you
think the ref tag for a county route should contain a county abbreviation?
No, not the ref tag, the network tag
On 8/22/2011 4:46 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 15:08:22 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
In both those (literally) edge cases, the relation will tell all.
So are you volunteering to make relations for every route that has this
complication?
They've probably mostly been
On 8/21/2011 4:34 PM, Ian Dees wrote:
I really don't understand this logic. I have never run into a case where
JOSM has broken a relation in a way that wasn't obvious to me. Obviously
I don't "get around" as much as you, Nathan, but can you remind me of a
specific case where a relation breaks ove
On 8/22/2011 2:19 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 13:31:51 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
And what state, despite the implications of some here.
Other than the cases where a state maintains a road as part of their
route network which is not actually in that state. Or the more
On 8/22/2011 12:05 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Exactly my point. Great Britain is fine with ref=M1 despite there
being an M1 in many other countries - and even in Northern
Ireland, part of the same country.
There are some little-known fields in OSM data called
Sent again; sorry to people who receive multiple copies due to moderation.
On 8/21/2011 4:34 PM, Ian Dees wrote:
I really don't understand this logic. I have never run into a case where
JOSM has broken a relation in a way that wasn't obvious to me. Obviously
I don't "get around" as much as you,
On 8/21/2011 4:34 PM, Ian Dees wrote:
I really don't understand this logic. I have never run into a case where
JOSM has broken a relation in a way that wasn't obvious to me. Obviously
I don't "get around" as much as you, Nathan, but can you remind me of a
specific case where a relation breaks ove
On 8/21/2011 2:22 PM, Alan Mintz wrote:
As someone pointed out, once you put them in a relation, the tags on the
ways become duplicative. While this is generally bad database design,
it's also true that many consumers don't deal with relations, and so we
need the duplication and the problems that
On 8/21/2011 1:57 PM, Henk Hoff wrote:
Putting every single route-label in the ref-tag is not a good idea.
Putting every single route-label in the ref-tag is the way we do things.
If you don't like it, you can always find a different country to
armchair-map (most countries don't have route ov
On 8/21/2011 9:21 AM, Alan Mintz wrote:
My understanding was that there are two options for California SR-60:
1) network=US:CA + ref=60
2) ref=CA 60
SR 60 is a good example, since it overlaps I-215 in Riverside. The
network tag won't work here, since it needs to be both US:I and US:CA.
I created a table of most of the different state-level route markers
(not counting West Virginia's "county routes", which are actually
state-maintained): http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:NE2/routes
This can be used as a basis for a table of abbreviations.
On 8/20/2011 3:29 PM, Val Kartchner wrote:
Because some states officially designate the road as "SR-26", for
instance.
Not to mention states like Texas, which have, for example:
State Highway (SH) 121
Loop 12
Spur 408
Beltway 8
Farm to Market Road (FM) 1960
Park Road (PR) 27
and probably a few
On 8/20/2011 2:56 PM, Phil! Gold wrote:
* Nathan Edgars II [2011-08-20 14:24 -0400]:
I agree with this, and will abide by any reasonable consistent convention.
The wiki has long recommended using the two-letter state abbreviation, a
space, and the number. Is there any problem with
On 8/20/2011 2:41 PM, Toby Murray wrote:
I still see a lot of messages coming through about a network tag. This
tag is already used on route relations so I'm not sure why it is still
being discussed. The ref=* tag on ways is primarily just duplicating
data from the relation and tagging for the re
On 8/20/2011 2:13 PM, Henk Hoff wrote:
The difference with the UK example is that there is a consistency: M1 =
M1. In the case of Arkansas we're talking about AR 26, Hwy 26 and
possibly in the future also 26. All being a ref for the same State
Highway. That is the problem.
I agree with this, an
On 8/20/2011 1:50 PM, Val Kartchner wrote:
On Sat, 2011-08-20 at 13:39 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Meaning? How would you add more detail? US:MA:2? US:FL:ORA:535? UK:GB:M1?
And once we set "our" standard here in the US, how do we get it adopted
world-wide?
Exactly my point. Gre
On 8/20/2011 1:29 PM, Metcalf, Calvin (DOT) wrote:
From: "Nathan Edgars II"
On 8/20/2011 12:42 PM, Metcalf, Calvin (DOT) wrote:
It doesn't matter if a state like MA uses SR internally we just use that
because we deal with only one states routes. Postal code prefixes for all
r
On 8/20/2011 12:42 PM, Metcalf, Calvin (DOT) wrote:
It doesn't matter if a state like MA uses SR internally we just use that
because we deal with only one states routes. Postal code prefixes for all
routes makes the most sense.
So how do you distinguish California from Canada? Or Delaware fr
On 8/20/2011 6:04 AM, Henk Hoff wrote:
User Nathan Edgars is now changing all State Highway ref-tags in
Arkansas from AR ## to Hwy ##
False. I'm using Hwy x on ways that lacked ref tags.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists
On 8/20/2011 12:01 PM, Val Kartchner wrote:
What about another field for the network. For instance "US:UT:SR" for
Utah State Routes then the "ref" tag will be just the number. I'd like
to put it all into the "ref" field, but the renderers just don't parse
this field and render the whole string.
This will require objective criteria for grading a route. Does SRTS
ignore complications, such as badly-designed bike lanes and especially
sidepaths decreasing safety, and kids choosing the sidewalk over even
well-designed bike lanes? How is safety of crossing a street determined?
How about saf
On 8/13/2011 6:58 PM, Carl Anderson wrote:
They appear to be descriptive names in general use within Oklohoma.
Oknoname reservoirs are referenced in these, so the names are at least
in use.
[snip]
Interesting. Yes, the names do appear to have become used. I wonder if
the bureaucrat responsib
The GNIS import included a number of lakes, reservoirs, and dams in
Oklahoma with name=Oknoname [number] [Reservoir|Dam], e.g.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/357440089/history . The source
cited by the GNIS is "U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Dams and Reservoirs
List, Washington, DC.".
On 8/8/2011 2:17 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
Nathan Edgars II wrote:
https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/6601
https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/6667
Now that this one has been cleared up,
No it hasn't. It's possible for an individual mapper to set additional
values (assuming
https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/6601
https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/6667
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
On 8/4/2011 7:06 PM, Mike Thompson wrote:
Here is another, somewhat related, question. Fort Collins CO is
represented by two separate relations: 112524 and 253754, neither of
which matches the 2008 TIGER data that they claim to be derived from,
although 253754 is a much closer match. What is go
Many toll plazas now have high-speed electronic toll lanes. Tagging
seems haphazard. As I see it, the choices are:
*What gets tagged as motorway vs. motorway_link?
*What gets the name, ref, and relation membership?
Note that some plazas have the cash lanes marked like an exit:
http://en.wikipedi
On 7/16/2011 4:04 PM, Val Kartchner wrote:
Hello,
I've been mapping Scofield Reservoir in Utah. I've also been aligning
roads with satellite images. SR-96 has partially disappeared after my
edit. It was there before.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=39.78855&lon=-111.12483&zoom=17&layers=M
On 7/15/2011 9:13 PM, Greg Troxel wrote:
I would say that if you know a road has been repaved, you might set it
to 'good' or whatever the appropriate value is.
This has pointers to the mass spec, I think:
http://www.mass.gov/mgis/eotroads.htm
According to the linked PDF, the field measures
On 7/15/2011 8:15 PM, Greg Troxel wrote:
Nathan Edgars II writes:
The MassGIS import included a "condition" tag:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/9602415
Presumably this is something in their data, but what use is it to us?
There's no definition of what 'intolerabl
The MassGIS import included a "condition" tag:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/9602415
Presumably this is something in their data, but what use is it to us?
There's no definition of what 'intolerable' means, and no way to know
what value to use if the road is repaved.
_
On 7/13/2011 2:47 PM, Josh Doe wrote:
Has anyone looked at the NOAA Composite Shoreline? It seems to have much
better accuracy (as in orders of magnitude better) than the PGS
shoreline that was imported, at least for the small portion I checked in
Virginia. Unless there are better sources, I'll p
On 6/10/2011 5:31 PM, James Umbanhowar wrote:
The state of North Carolina has released 6 inch resolution orthoimagery for
the entire state that was taken during leaf off time in 2010. These are great
quality for all types of mapping. The information about the service is at:
http://data.nconema
On 6/29/2011 5:03 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
FWIW, and you should absolutely not listen to me because I'm a long way away
and it's up to you guys to sort yourselves out... but I'd create a separate
relation for each direction (i.e. one northbound relation, one southbound
relation) and not bothe
On 6/29/2011 4:50 PM, Richard Weait wrote:
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
I've started using forward/backward roles rather than north/south/east/west
on relations for state highways, due to JOSM's relation editor supporting
sorting by them and Nakor's
On 6/29/2011 3:47 PM, Toby Murray wrote:
For bike/bus routes that makes sense since they may go against the
directionality of the way. For highway routes this doesn't seem to
make sense and as Josh pointed out is just duplicating oneway
information whereas the signed direction of the highway prov
On 6/29/2011 3:28 PM, Josh Doe wrote:
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Nathan Edgars II mailto:nerou...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On 6/29/2011 2:49 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:
It also avoids the inevitable "which way is
forward and which is backward" question.
On 6/29/2011 2:49 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:
It also avoids the inevitable "which way is
forward and which is backward" question.
Forward is the direction of the way. If a way carries both directions of
the route, it gets no role (as with directional roles).
__
On 6/29/2011 2:49 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:
My personal preference is to use directional roles so that they match
what is written on signage. It also avoids the inevitable "which way is
forward and which is backward" question.
How would you suggest ensuring that relations are and remain complete?
I've started using forward/backward roles rather than
north/south/east/west on relations for state highways, due to JOSM's
relation editor supporting sorting by them and Nakor's tool (which was
already less convenient, given that you had to upload to OSM and get the
relation number) being down.
On 6/2/2011 3:17 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
To this end, I've been systematically going through trunks in
the US and adding lanes=* tags. This is of course useful even if nothing
is done rendering-wise.
Thanks to PeterIto, we can see the fruits of this:
http://www.itoworld.com/product
I've seen a number of ways where tiger:county was changed to is_in,
leading to values like is_in=Orange, FL for Orange County, Florida. This
seems less than ideal and sometimes misleading: does is_in=Des Moines,
IA mean that it's in the city of Des Moines or in Des Moines County,
which is in th
On 6/10/2011 10:46 PM, James Umbanhowar wrote:
The website says all data is free for use
(http://www.nconemap.com/Default.aspx?tabid=286) and any queries will not be
answered. A close reading leaves some slight ambiguity "Geospatial content
provided directly from this NC OneMap FTP service is fr
On 6/10/2011 5:31 PM, James Umbanhowar wrote:
The state of North Carolina has released 6 inch resolution orthoimagery for
the entire state that was taken during leaf off time in 2010. These are great
quality for all types of mapping. The information about the service is at:
http://data.nconema
On 6/9/2011 3:54 PM, David ``Smith'' wrote:
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 4:08 AM, James Mast mailto:rickmastfa...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
I just happened to notice this guy tonight was going around and
editing the "ref" tags on highways in the US just to replace
the space and put in the hyph
On 5/29/2011 4:08 AM, James Mast wrote:
I just happened to notice this guy tonight was going around and editing
the "ref" tags on highways in the US just to replace the space and put
in the hyphen. (I noticed this when going to load the I-77 NC relation
to add in speed limits I saw and wrote down
On 6/8/2011 2:29 PM, Lord-Castillo, Brett wrote:
This shot shows the road as all 4 interstates and US-40 at once.
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=38.617642,-90.181049&spn=0.00824,0.013078&z=17&layer=c&cbll=38.617746,-90.181461&panoid=etjY4kn9oqoecsdYSjoXqw&cbp=12,285.92,,0,5.98
(This shot is a
On 6/7/2011 9:30 AM, Lord-Castillo, Brett wrote:
I-64, I-70, I-55, I-44, US-40
AKA, the Poplar St Bridge in St Louis, MO.
It is the only quad Interstate route in existence. I-70 will reroute in 2015
and it will go down to a tri route.
It also carries the designation Historic Route 66 and has th
On 6/7/2011 12:55 AM, Dion Dock wrote:
On 6/3/2011 9:43 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Oh wow. http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SimonSquare/edits contains the
following:
landuse=military on the US border
religion=christian denomination=anglican landuse=cemetery on the UK
leisure=park on France
A related question is what should be done with routes that are posted
only on small signs not intended for navigation. The best example of
this is Pennsylvania's 'quadrant routes'. Here's an example with SR 2108
to the left (and SR 400 - the unsigned designation for PA 380 to avoid
conflict wit
On 6/5/2011 12:22 AM, Richard Welty wrote:
however, there are unsigned routes in NY; state maintained routes which
have designations but which do not have signage, and some county
routes.
Three states - Florida, Alabama, and Tennessee - have an unsigned state
designation for every segment of U
On 6/5/2011 12:15 AM, nat...@nwacg.net wrote:
In Arkansas, routes are not unsigned or (except in very rare cases) cosigned.
The route ends where it meets a route of higher priority and begins again as a
new segment elsewhere.
There are a lot of states that do this internally. But most sign th
On 6/4/2011 9:46 PM, James Mast wrote:
Also, are you going to try to add proper "Future" Interstate shields?
Currently in Google, they just show a normal Interstate shield. It might
give people a proper reason to tag these "posted" Future Interstate
correctly instead of without the "Future" tag.
On 6/4/2011 7:06 PM, Chris Lawrence wrote:
Reminds me, we need to add some notation for unsigned routes in
relations (the only approaches I can think of are either to tag it as
roles on each member, with things like "unsigned;west" sometimes -
which is icky but would work - or having separate rel
On 6/4/2011 4:51 PM, Richard Weait wrote:
I'm doing a little work on shield rendering for Interstate and US
Route shields, etc.
Who has a favourite highway overlap? I'd like a few examples of each
of the following.
- two Interstates overlapping on a way
I-80/90 across Indiana and Ohio
- thre
On 6/3/2011 9:43 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=41.722&lon=-75.094&zoom=10&layers=M
I'm currently looking for the source; please report here if you find and
fix it first.
Oh wow. http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SimonSquare/edits contai
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=41.722&lon=-75.094&zoom=10&layers=M
I'm currently looking for the source; please report here if you find and
fix it first.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tal
On 5/29/2011 4:08 AM, James Mast wrote:
I just happened to notice this guy tonight was going around and editing
the "ref" tags on highways in the US just to replace the space and put
in the hyphen. (I noticed this when going to load the I-77 NC relation
to add in speed limits I saw and wrote down
On 5/29/2011 3:32 AM, Nathan Mills wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2011 03:00:03 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Perhaps the best way to handle it would be to render a wider line if
oneway=yes and not lanes=1 or if oneway=no/unset and lanes=4 or more.
Thus divided highways would not need a lane count to
On 5/30/2011 4:06 PM, Steve Coast wrote:
... or does this map look like an older Texas osmarender layer
screenshot plus a tilt-shift blur added?
http://www.wm.com/contact-us.jsp
The use of name=Interstate Highway 45;Gulf Freeway is a dead giveaway:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/4662
On 5/29/2011 8:09 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:
FSM knows the aerial imagery around here is outdated, to put it mildly.
Try the NAIP imagery:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/National_Agriculture_Imagery_Program
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstree
On 5/29/2011 5:16 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
subtle mass vandalism
This is why I ignore Paul.
Though I really wonder about this edit:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/14751094/history
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://l
On 5/29/2011 10:31 AM, John F. Eldredge wrote:
Nathan Edgars II wrote:
There are many types of roads that it's not possible to describe. How
do
you tag an unpaved classified road so the map shows that it's unpaved
(this is very common in the third world, but also occurs in extre
On 5/29/2011 2:30 AM, Nathan Mills wrote:
I think that trunk is more useful if it's prescriptive, more along the
lines of a motorway than primary and below. If we aren't going to do
that, we need to come up with another value for highway and get it
rendered by default. It's something that map use
On 5/29/2011 1:50 AM, Nathan Mills wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2011 01:00:25 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 5/29/2011 12:37 AM, Nathan Mills wrote:
US-441 between St. Cloud and Yeehaw Junction could easily be trunk by
NE2's definition
Nope, since any through traffic will be on the Turnpik
On 5/29/2011 1:08 AM, Nathan Mills wrote:
Once again, there is, to most non-mapgeeks a class of road which is less
than a motorway, but better than all other classes of road. In my part
of the country, most people call it an expressway.
Try expressway=yes or access_control=partial. But make sur
On 5/29/2011 12:37 AM, Nathan Mills wrote:
US-441 between St. Cloud and Yeehaw Junction could easily be trunk by
NE2's definition
Nope, since any through traffic will be on the Turnpike. US 441 serves
mainly only local and toll-avoiding traffic, and the latter is
better-off cutting east to I-95
On 5/28/2011 10:52 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:
Only if trunk has a meaning that implies that a road tagged trunk is
somehow better than a road tagged primary, which it apparently does not,
at least in some people's minds. If you're going to waste trunk on curvy
two lane roads, a router may as well us
On 5/28/2011 9:47 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:
Another example is US-71 between Fort Smith and Texarkana. It is in fact
the fastest route between Fort Smith and Texarkana, but it is terribly
slow going. The fact that it is the fastest route between those two
regionally important cities is adequately d
On 5/28/2011 9:13 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:
So you continue to assert that trunk is most useful if it essentially a
duplicate of primary?
Maybe a duplicate of your version of primary, but not mine.
Take, as an example, US 84 in western Alabama. Why on earth did you
change it to trunk when it's a
On 5/28/2011 8:37 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:
On Sat, 28 May 2011 17:25:17 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
No, trunk is to primary as primary is to secondary.
Except that it's not.
It is in my criteria, which you're misrepresenting.
You described your criteria, but did not explain
On 5/28/2011 5:04 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:
On Sat, 28 May 2011 16:21:24 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Using NE2's criteria, trunk is not really any different from a routing
standpoint than primary.
No, trunk is to primary as primary is to secondary.
Except that it's not.
I
On 5/28/2011 3:39 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:
On Sat, 28 May 2011 15:19:03 -0400, Anthony wrote:
In my experience the difference between primary and trunk is generally
very minor, to the point where I'm not sure there'd be any advantage
at all in a router using it as a hint.
But maybe that's just
On 5/27/2011 10:41 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:
Besides, if importance to the route network is the only consideration,
we ought not be using trunk at all or all US highways ought to be
classed as trunk.
Eh? A lot of U.S. Highways are no longer the most important highways,
since they are paralleled
On 5/27/2011 9:51 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2011 12:17:53 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Also, I don't know how major a road between Dumas, TX and Texline, TX
really is. If it weren't a US highway, I'd probably demote it all the
way to secondary.
It's on
On 5/27/2011 12:00 PM, Alex Mauer wrote:
On 05/27/2011 09:06 AM, Richard Welty wrote:
if you peruse the wiki, and make a reasonably through search
for definitions of trunk in the US, you will find an extensive
complex of contradictions and inconsistencies.
Maybe someone should find all these a
On 5/27/2011 10:04 AM, Nathan Mills wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2011 09:26:41 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
No, trunk is also used for a major intercity highway that's not a
freeway. Take a look at the UK and their network of trunks.
I'm sorry, I thought I posted to talk-us. My mistake.
On 5/27/2011 9:34 AM, Richard Welty wrote:
On 5/27/11 9:26 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 5/27/2011 12:32 AM, Nathan Mills wrote:
Would I be correct in stating that tagging an undivided 2 lane (one lane
in each direction) highways would be improper, even if a state calls the
highway a "
On 5/27/2011 12:32 AM, Nathan Mills wrote:
Would I be correct in stating that tagging an undivided 2 lane (one lane
in each direction) highways would be improper, even if a state calls the
highway a "trunk" for planning purposes? Especially if it's in the
middle of a town with a low speed limit.
Those of you who get off on schadenfreude might be interested in this
thread: http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4464.0
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
On 5/18/2011 8:31 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
I've just tried this with the case you cited and it seems to work. First
time I've used P1 for ages. ;)
And you just gave me 311 conflicts in JOSM :) Oh well, I'll find a way
around it.
___
Talk-us mai
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/28397519/history
This way seems to have been reduced to only those nodes at
intersections, obviously wrong given the curves in the road. Can anyone
explain what this "DB fixer" is and how much damage it's done?
___
A few I've seen:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/38742497/history "C and S Road"
referring to the old Colorado and Southern Railway
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/9823192/history "Cp Railroad"
expanded to "Camp Railroad"
I'm pretty sure I have seen some where the tiger prefix
On 5/16/2011 9:43 AM, Ian Dees wrote:
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Kristian Zoerhoff
mailto:kristian.zoerh...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Ian Dees mailto:ian.d...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Nathan Edgars II
On 5/15/2011 5:01 PM, Ian Dees wrote:
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Nathan Edgars II mailto:nerou...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I'm not sure if all 2010 imagery has been added, but some from
Florida (where the latest available had been 2007) was just added in
the past week,
I'm not sure if all 2010 imagery has been added, but some from Florida
(where the latest available had been 2007) was just added in the past
week, and some in Kentucky was also added recently. This can be used in
JOSM and perhaps other editors via the URLs on
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=39.40241&lon=-86.44609&zoom=17&layers=M
SR 37 is planned to become a freeway as part of the I-69 extension.
Final plans have not been chosen, so there are several possibilities for
the details at each interchange. Someone has drawn both plans for the SR
39 inte
On 5/10/2011 8:17 AM, Ian Dees wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 7:06 AM, Nathan Edgars II mailto:nerou...@gmail.com>> wrote:
It sounded to me like you were working on rendering with Mapnik. As I've
mentioned several times, osm2pgsql creates linestrings for route
relations, so all you ne
301 - 400 of 780 matches
Mail list logo
