Sorry for the late response, great idea Clifford. I will contact the editor
first. But my opinion is it does not meet the requirements and therefor
should be removed from osm. If it should be moved to OHM is another
discussion.
*Regards,*
*Hans*
*http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheDutchMan13
Would this be better in OpenHistoricalMap?
http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/33.44692/-112.09043
*Regards,*
*Hans*
*http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheDutchMan13
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheDutchMan13*
*Sorry for any misspellings*
Is there any feature on the ground that can be surveyed? From the image it
doesn't appear that the site has any historical markers that can be mapped.
If so, I would say it doesn't belong in OSM. You'l' have to ask OHM if
they think it belongs there.
You should also contact the editor. I'm sure
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net
wrote:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Darchaeological_site
Thanks for pointing out the wiki page on archaeological sites. I wasn't
aware it was documented.
--
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
I think there's also this? http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/303225395
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net
wrote:
On 6/29/15 3:58 PM, Clifford Snow wrote:
Is there any feature on the ground that can be surveyed? From the
image it doesn't appear that the
On 6/29/15 3:58 PM, Clifford Snow wrote:
Is there any feature on the ground that can be surveyed? From the
image it doesn't appear that the site has any historical markers that
can be mapped. If so, I would say it doesn't belong in OSM. You'l'
have to ask OHM if they think it belongs there.
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Brad Neuhauser brad.neuhau...@gmail.com
wrote:
I think there's also this? http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/303225395
That was the feature I pick up on and did look any further.
--
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human
On 6/29/15 4:58 PM, Brad Neuhauser wrote:
I think there's also this? http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/303225395
ah, missed that.
depends on whether the requirements of
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Darchaeological_site
are met; if they are, then OSM is correct. otherwise i
* Jay Boyer bo...@snhdmail.org [2013-10-10 13:34 -0700]:
Enterprise is an unincorporated town. But Enterprise is actually part of Las
Vegas and all of the addresses within Enterprise are Las Vegas addresses.
Enterprise is this area: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/170132
On 10/14/13 9:57 AM, Phil! Gold wrote:
* Jay Boyer bo...@snhdmail.org [2013-10-10 13:34 -0700]:
Enterprise is an unincorporated town. But Enterprise is actually part of
Las Vegas and all of the addresses within Enterprise are Las Vegas
addresses.
Enterprise is this area:
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.netwrote:
also, i would be remiss if i didn't point out that post office delivery
addressing
is only vaguely related to the actual administrative boundaries; the
addressing
situation for Enterprise is hardly unique, in fact
I have been looking at the OSM data for Las Vegas and there are some serious
problems for it. The OSM boundary for Las Vegas encompasses about half of the
city. Certain areas of Las Vegas, including Paradise, Enterprise, Spring
Valley and probably others are not within the city boundaries
Jay,
I don't think the data is incorrect. If you look at the City of Las Vegas
webmap (
http://clvplaces.appspot.com/apps/interactive/clvpi.htm#ctrLat=36.27433191227921ctrLng=-115.18729447119142zoom=11layers=|10435|10010userMarkers=0mapType=roadmap)
and turn on the Cities and City Limits layers,
On 10/14/13 1:13 PM, Jay Boyer wrote:
I have been looking at the OSM data for Las Vegas and there are some
serious problems for it. The OSM boundary for Las Vegas encompasses
about half of the city. Certain areas of Las Vegas, including
Paradise, Enterprise, Spring Valley and probably
penStreetMap has an administrative area with the name of Enterprise in the
southwestern corner of Las Vegas, Nevada.
All of the addresses in this Area are actually Las Vegas addresses.
So if I look in OpenStreetMap for:
Summers Ranch Ct., Las Vegas, NV 89139
I will not find it. But if I
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Randal Hale
rjh...@northrivergeographic.com wrote:
Sorry - this might be a bit more of a convoluted problem than I think.
[ ... ]
Is there a way in JOSM or
in something to figure out where ways are broken. We're using
http://keepright.ipax.at/ to check around
How about using OSM Inspector as a background layer in josm or
Potlatch? It will point out possible routing failures.
Thanks that's exactly the workflow improvement I need to make cleaning
those up worthwhile investment of time.
(The other day I thought I'd run into another routing failure
+1
given the length of some interstates this is highly recommended.
On 7 Sep 2009, at 12:12 , Richard Welty wrote:
given that there is apparent concensus that Interstate relations be
done
on a state-by-state
basis, perhaps the language on the Interstate_Highways_Relations page
should be
i've recently finished up a relation for I-90 eastbound from I-481
(Syracuse NY) to the NY/MA border.
i'm wondering which of the following methods is preferred for the
westbound leg:
1) same relation, set role to west
2) different relation for west bound.
i can go either way right now with
-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] question: relations divided highways
I'd prefer to see both directions as a part of the same relation. If
there's a problem with the number of items in a relation, what about
creating separate relations for each state and tie them together
I have always used 2 for multiple reasons.
- they have different signs and if you add direction tag with same
info to the relation routing software can use it. commercial navis are
doing it too.
- putting the info on a role is lot of work and prone to errors. Josm
improved lately but it is
On 9/4/09 1:18 PM, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
... a number of reasons to go with two relations, one eastbound and one
westbound.
now that i consider it again, despite roles, two relations in a
hierarchy of super-relations makes a lot of sense.
the resulting topology conveys useful real
I'm started reviewing and cleaning up TIGER data for my area. Should I remove
TIGER tags from duplicate nodes I've created to separate non-joined ways? Or
should I leave the tags intact?
--
Stephen Johnson sjohn...@monsters.org
___
Talk-us mailing
23 matches
Mail list logo
