Darrin Smith wrote: > On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:40:49 +1030 > Kim Hawtin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Darrin Smith wrote: >>> On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 21:22:20 -0700 (PDT) >>> >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>>> Looking at your B37 & Alexandrina & Flaxley Rd roundabout, you >>>> don't need oneway=yes(it's implied), clockwise(just draw it in a >>>> clockwise direction), ref(roundabout's don't inherit route >>>> numbers, it's for when roundabout's have specific ref numbers [in >>>> Europe I think]). >>> Can you explain why that roundabout wouldn't have a B37, given it's >>> actually part of the B37 route? If you leave out the B37 then you're >>> leaving a gap in the B37 ref's, surely that is inconsistent? >> i didn't put this roundabout in, so when i see stuff like that its >> hard to know what is the right thing to do unless we put it to the >> list. > > It's been there for a while, my question was more directed at > [EMAIL PROTECTED] in this case, I personally think the B37 > should be there as it is (I'm probably the one who added that tag, > can't be bothered confirming it right now ;) since you have to travel > through it as part of travelling along the B37.
Its something i need to do to take more notes. Having a passenger in the car help lots here =) Or I'll have to take the dog on much longer walks ;) >> and i'm yet to find a decent resource for what roads are named routes. >> i suppose i need to make notes from the big green signs huh ? =) > > That's how I've generally been finding them, having a little interest > in highway routing I've been looking around for resources and the BGS's > are the most reliable source I can find, even the old copyrighted > sources are a bit lacking in accuracy. Unfortunately there are still > a number of areas where even the BGS's are lacking although I have to > give TransportSA credit, travelling around SA this year I've found a > number of places where brand new signs with routes have been ereceted > in the last couple of years (since I was last there) so I have some > hope that sometime in the future the route system will be pretty > consistent. =) >>>> * Lots of the area's don't need area=yes, like >>>> parking/schools/landuse etc. >>> Is this yet another crazy OSM inconsistency? Surely any of those >>> closed loops are implicitly areas? In fact I notice mappaint in >>> josm tends to render closed versions of these as areas without any >>> redundant area=yes tag, so I'm not alone in my thinking here. >> I've seen areas around adelaide where they specifically have. >> it looks a whole lot better to see areas like commercial and schools >> marked in, its easier to see and the labels are marked up better. >> i don't understand how the renderer works, but putting in the area >> attribute helps for the mapper to identify what the thing is for. >> well it helps me get a better idea about what im editing anyway. =) > ] > > Oh man! > I feel like a wally :) > I just re-read what bluemm was saying there and he's totally saying the > same thing as me anyway! > Can we just pretend I didn't write my original paragraph? :) Don't worry about it, these things happen =) cheers, Kim -- Operating Systems, Services and Operations Information Technology Services, The University of Adelaide [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au