Re: [Talk-us] Talk-us Digest, Vol 110, Issue 26

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

Re: [Talk-us] U.S.-Mexico border fence update

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

Re: [Talk-us] U.S.-Mexico border fence update

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 ##

Re: [Talk-us] I think I got this right...

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

Re: [Talk-us] I think I got this right...

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

Re: [Talk-us] I think I got this right...

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