On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 6:00 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> Other than legacy issues that would need to be resolved, is there a
>> compelling reason to describe the route on something other than the
>> route? I see this as a problem with consistency,
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 6:00 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> Other than legacy issues that would need to be resolved, is there a
> compelling reason to describe the route on something other than the
> route? I see this as a problem with consistency, but not one that is
> insurmountable; notice how bicy
On 12/22/2010 10:20 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
> On 12/22/10 10:32 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> On 12/22/2010 08:45 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
>>> it may be that we want to
>>> evolve it, but just changing it without a plan and some level of
>>> agreement,
>>> and declaring that it's the renderers that a
On 12/22/10 10:32 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
On 12/22/2010 08:45 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
it may be that we want to
evolve it, but just changing it without a plan and some level of agreement,
and declaring that it's the renderers that are wrong, is a recipe mostly
for ticking people off.
This is w
On 12/22/2010 08:45 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
> it may be that we want to
> evolve it, but just changing it without a plan and some level of agreement,
> and declaring that it's the renderers that are wrong, is a recipe mostly
> for ticking people off.
This is why I brought it up.
signature.asc
On 12/22/10 9:00 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
This isn't a problem with the data itself, but with the renderers. I'm
talking about a problem with how we handle the data, the folks
developing the renderers can just deal with it like they have every
other tag.
the ref tag has a commonly accepted usag
On 12/22/2010 02:53 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
>
>
> On 12/22/10 2:22 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> rather than get into detailed back-and-forth, i'm going to suggest a
> framework
> for deciding when it's appropriate to put something in a ref tag.
>
> 1) ref tags tend to get rendered at some zoom
On 12/22/10 2:22 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
rather than get into detailed back-and-forth, i'm going to suggest a
framework
for deciding when it's appropriate to put something in a ref tag.
1) ref tags tend to get rendered at some zoom level. for mapnik or
osmarender,
there may be some declutt
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 2:14 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On 12/20/2010 02:41 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Paul Johnson
>> wrote:
>>> the way's ACTUAL reference number.
>>
>> Meaning?
>
> Well, in context of the thread that spawned this particular question,
> the
On 12/20/2010 02:51 PM, Toby Murray wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Paul Johnson
> wrote:
>>
>> I'm wondering why we still are trying the whole "describe the route on
>> the way" method of handling the ref= tag on ways.
>
> Because it is currently the only way to get any kind of highw
On 12/21/2010 12:26 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> To add to confusion, different state agencies may use different
> numbers (perhaps a toll road without a signed number is given one
> number by the DOT and another by the toll agency). Or take those
> states where the route numbers are defined legi
On 12/20/2010 03:19 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
> On 12/20/10 1:35 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> On 12/14/2010 11:56 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>>
>>> Also note
>>> http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/hqdiv/p-r-div/maps/control-maps/tulsa3.pdf
>>>
>>> (inset 13) which has US 169 ending between the ramp and t
On 12/20/2010 02:41 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Paul Johnson
> wrote:
>> the way's ACTUAL reference number.
>
> Meaning?
Well, in context of the thread that spawned this particular question,
the ref= and network= for the route would be 169 and US:US, but the r
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 12:55 AM, Alan Mintz
wrote:
> At 2010-12-20 13:19, Richard Welty wrote:
>>
>> are these references from the control map visibly and prominently posted
>> on the ways in the "mythical" real world?
>>
>> if so, it's reasonable to use them in ref tags. if not, then they should
At 2010-12-20 13:19, Richard Welty wrote:
are these references from the control map visibly and prominently posted
on the ways in the "mythical" real world?
if so, it's reasonable to use them in ref tags. if not, then they should not
go in ref tags. most renderers will display them on the assump
On 12/20/10 1:35 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
On 12/14/2010 11:56 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Also note
http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/hqdiv/p-r-div/maps/control-maps/tulsa3.pdf
(inset 13) which has US 169 ending between the ramp and the overpass.
I'm wondering why we still are trying the whole "d
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> I'm wondering why we still are trying the whole "describe the route on
> the way" method of handling the ref= tag on ways.
Because it is currently the only way to get any kind of highway shield
rendered. Get relation-based shield rendering
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> the way's ACTUAL reference number.
Meaning?
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
On 12/14/2010 11:56 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> Also note
> http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/hqdiv/p-r-div/maps/control-maps/tulsa3.pdf
> (inset 13) which has US 169 ending between the ramp and the overpass.
I'm wondering why we still are trying the whole "describe the route on
the way" method o
19 matches
Mail list logo
