On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 12:08 PM, wrote:
> On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 6:24 AM, Paul Johnson wrote
>
> > It would be easier to verify by using forward in the child relations
> exclusively. Then it will validate as a loop, or it won't,
>
> > and the gap becomes
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> Well, in this case, the only way to know for a routing application what
> the cardinal direction is, is to look at the member roles. Either that our
> you slice the relation up even more to have separate relations for
Hi,
On 01/23/2017 11:13 PM, Michael Corey wrote:
> Does anyone have thoughts on how to do this most efficiently and without
> causing major headaches?
I wouldn't bother, it's going to be replaced by a wall soon anyway!
SCNR
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ##
Michael,
Sharing your new work on GitHub would be a good start. The community could
look at the work and see how to best incorporate it into OSM.
(We could tag the existing fence as before_trump and if anything actually
gets built as by_trump. )
Clifford
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Michael
will still show be able to show the
> > complete loop or lack thereof, making for a easy manual
> valication/override.
> >
> >
> >
> > The retention of the directional tags are easier for **human** reference
> >
> >
>
> That's the thing, though...JOSM
Well, in this case, the only way to know for a routing application what the
cardinal direction is, is to look at the member roles. Either that our you
slice the relation up even more to have separate relations for east / west /
north / south, which to my mind would make for a too-convoluted
6 matches
Mail list logo