> Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2011 11:42 AM
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Combining State/County Borders & Physical
> Features?
>
> part 3, of course, is simplification. both 2) and 3) above have a lot of
> nodes.
> do we have any criteria stated anywhere about when simplifica
On 10/15/11 2:17 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 10/15/2011 1:57 PM, Peter Dobratz wrote:
I too agree that the same Way should be used for waterway=river and
boundary=administrative whenever the boundary is defined by the river.
That Way should also be added to a relation for the boundary. If
On 10/15/2011 1:57 PM, Peter Dobratz wrote:
I too agree that the same Way should be used for waterway=river and
boundary=administrative whenever the boundary is defined by the river.
That Way should also be added to a relation for the boundary. If the
river has changed course, but the boundary
I too agree that the same Way should be used for waterway=river and
boundary=administrative whenever the boundary is defined by the river.
That Way should also be added to a relation for the boundary. If the
river has changed course, but the boundary remains in the prior
location, then the map sh
On 10/15/2011 1:16 AM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
I noticed in the past few days that user Alexander Roalter has been
converting administrative boundaries in the Midwest to relations
(which I think is good) but in some cases he's combined state and
county boundaries with physical features, especially r
I noticed in the past few days that user Alexander Roalter has been
converting administrative boundaries in the Midwest to relations
(which I think is good) but in some cases he's combined state and
county boundaries with physical features, especially rivers. A prime
example is the eastern border
6 matches
Mail list logo
