On Mar 22, 2011, at 9:17 PM, Paul Norman wrote:
> This is now complete for the area west of Portland Oregon as a test.
>
> http://www.paulnorman.ca/blog/?attachment_id=96 shows the difference.
Nice improvement! I like it.
> About 99.8% of the data was untouched since it was imported. I checked
: John Chambers [mailto:jcha...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 3:48 PM
> To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Proposed cleanup: NHD "rivers"
>
> I know of least one 46006 that I would consider a river (Tussahaw
> creek) , but doesn't have riv
..@mac.com]
>> Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 6:52 PM
>> To: 'Richard Welty'; talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Proposed cleanup: NHD "rivers"
>>
>> This is the view I subscribe to too. An example of two ways I would want
>>
...@mac.com]
> Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 6:52 PM
> To: 'Richard Welty'; talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Proposed cleanup: NHD "rivers"
>
> This is the view I subscribe to too. An example of two ways I would want
> to join would be htt
On 3/20/2011 8:30 PM, Mike N wrote:
On 3/20/2011 8:18 PM, Ian Dees wrote:
There were several clients that did not attempt to connect the ways of
each NHD linestring so there are duplicated nodes and ways that touch
but aren't joined. Hopefully fixing this is what Paul was talking about.
Agre
review.
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Welty [mailto:rwe...@averillpark.net]
> Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 5:38 PM
> To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Proposed cleanup: NHD "rivers"
>
> On 3/20/11 8:16 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrot
On 3/20/2011 9:12 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
if combining them meaningfully improves the map, by all means do it.
Or improves editing.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
On 3/20/11 8:54 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 3/20/2011 8:38 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
On 3/20/11 8:16 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 3/20/2011 8:13 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
d suggest using relations to group ways that are parts of named rivers
rather
than trying to combine the ways.
If the
On 3/20/2011 8:38 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
On 3/20/11 8:16 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 3/20/2011 8:13 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
d suggest using relations to group ways that are parts of named rivers
rather
than trying to combine the ways.
If the only difference between the ways is that NHD
On 3/20/11 8:16 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 3/20/2011 8:13 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
d suggest using relations to group ways that are parts of named rivers
rather
than trying to combine the ways.
If the only difference between the ways is that NHD assigns a
different ID number to them, not
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Mike N wrote:
> On 3/20/2011 8:18 PM, Ian Dees wrote:
>
>> There were several clients that did not attempt to connect the ways of
>> each NHD linestring so there are duplicated nodes and ways that touch
>> but aren't joined. Hopefully fixing this is what Paul was
On 3/20/2011 8:18 PM, Ian Dees wrote:
There were several clients that did not attempt to connect the ways of
each NHD linestring so there are duplicated nodes and ways that touch
but aren't joined. Hopefully fixing this is what Paul was talking about.
Agreed - this is a safe case of duplicate
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Ian Dees wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
>
>> On 3/20/11 7:50 PM, Paul Norman wrote:
>>
>>> 3 is about making the rivers into single ways, more like a mapper would
>>> do
>>> by hand. I'm not really set on this step and if done it wo
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
> On 3/20/11 7:50 PM, Paul Norman wrote:
>
>> 3 is about making the rivers into single ways, more like a mapper would do
>> by hand. I'm not really set on this step and if done it would be after
>> steps
>> 1 and 2 have been done everywhere. Lo
On 3/20/2011 8:13 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
On 3/20/11 7:50 PM, Paul Norman wrote:
3 is about making the rivers into single ways, more like a mapper
would do
by hand. I'm not really set on this step and if done it would be after
steps
1 and 2 have been done everywhere. Looking at nhd:com_id it mi
On 3/20/11 7:50 PM, Paul Norman wrote:
3 is about making the rivers into single ways, more like a mapper would do
by hand. I'm not really set on this step and if done it would be after steps
1 and 2 have been done everywhere. Looking at nhd:com_id it might cause
problems with updating, so I'm thi
tmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Proposed cleanup: NHD "rivers"
>
> 1 and 2 make sense to me. What criteria would you use for 2? I have
> done a fair bit of NHD imports and simply used the name, i.e.
> river, to classify rivers. Some parts of the country have di
1 and 2 make sense to me. What criteria would you use for 2? I have
done a fair bit of NHD imports and simply used the name, i.e. river,
to classify rivers. Some parts of the country have different naming
traditions that others.
What is the rationale for 3?
On Sunday, March 20, 20
ldredge.com [mailto:j...@jfeldredge.com]
> Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 2:42 PM
> To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Proposed cleanup: NHD "rivers"
>
> Has anyone determined for sure that the streams you plan to tag as
> intermittent ar
were, in fact,
all intermittent.
---Original Email---
Subject :[Talk-us] Proposed cleanup: NHD "rivers"
>From :mailto:penor...@mac.com
Date :Sun Mar 20 16:29:54 America/Chicago 2011
A mapnik rendering change has revealed a problem in some areas with NHD
imported waterways.
A mapnik rendering change has revealed a problem in some areas with NHD
imported waterways. An example of the problem is at
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=45.3&lon=-123.3&zoom=9&layers=M
Essentially, all the streams are tagged as waterway=river, with
waterway=stream being used for what appear t
21 matches
Mail list logo
