Re: [Talk-us] Per-State relations for the Appalachian Trail

Kevin Kenny > writes: > Breaking apart the AT into separate relations - ideally with a superrelation > joining them - would be sensible, I think, but be careful about the > assumption about state lines. The AT literally spends a good many miles

[Talk-us] iD news: v1.9.4 released

iD v1.9.4 was released May 3 2016 and is now available for editing on openstreetmap.org The release includes: - Fix bug causing the Save button to remain disabled even when changeset comment entered - Support setting imagery offset via url parameter - New multiple

Re: [Talk-us] Per-State relations for the Appalachian Trail

On 5/4/16 9:54 AM, Elliott Plack wrote: > Thanks for all of the feedback. I definitely won't be merging any > relations based on some of what you have all stated. What I will do is > go through and look at each relation state by state to ensure there is > connectivity and what not. I'll update

Re: [Talk-us] Per-State relations for the Appalachian Trail

Thanks for all of the feedback. I definitely won't be merging any relations based on some of what you have all stated. What I will do is go through and look at each relation state by state to ensure there is connectivity and what not. I'll update anything of interest here. On Tue, May 3, 2016 at

Re: [Talk-us] Improving coverage of exit numbers and destinations on motorways

So, I am confused here. What Paul is talking about, isn't that what is being proposed (besides the junction:ref bit)? This is a proposal to use the node and way approach, like the one Duane points too, right? On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 10:31 AM Duane Gearhart wrote: > Hey all, >

Re: [Talk-us] Improving coverage of exit numbers and destinations on motorways

On 5/4/2016 4:18 AM, Greg Morgan wrote: At one time there was a discussion on the list about moving exit_to tags as destination tags on the ramp. I moved most of the exit_to tags that I mapped to the ramps. Here you are proposing something different by leaving some exit_to tags and adding

Re: [Talk-us] Improving coverage of exit numbers and destinations on motorways

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 3:18 AM, Greg Morgan wrote: > > > The work flow that you mention drive me batty.[0] At one time there was a > discussion on the list about moving exit_to tags as destination tags on the > ramp. I moved most of the exit_to tags that I mapped to the

Re: [Talk-us] Improving coverage of exit numbers and destinations on motorways

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 2:46 AM, Jinal Foflia wrote: > There has been a recent push to improve the coverage of exit numbers and > destination signs on the motorways in the US by the data team at Mapbox. > Some context here [1][2][3][4]. The primary sources of data were DoT