side note: I prefer to put the source tags (AGIV;CRAB) on the changeset instead of on each and every separate object we're adding.
I'm sorry about adding Herentalsesteenweg. I should have read the message before trying to click through to test it... Anyway, it's properly attributed and it's mostly manual labour anyway. It's far less automated than the UrbIS integration, as we still have to draw the building outlines ourselves. I had to create the associatedStreet relation myself. Was that intentional? Polyglot 2013/10/15 Jo <winfi...@gmail.com> > This works quite well in combination with the building tools plugin. > Switch on: use address nodes under buildings. Then use x to extrude to get > the shape of the building right. > > A hangout to demonstrate this would be a good idea. I think the street > name is missing. I prefer to add information about postcode, village and > country through associatedStreet relations. > > Jo > > > > > 2013/10/14 Kurt Roeckx <k...@roeckx.be> > >> On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 01:31:02PM -0700, Ben Laenen wrote: >> > >> > I'd add them, our administrative borders aren't all very accurate and >> it's not >> > like they always have a single postal code in every boundary, see >> Antwerp for >> > example. >> >> That just looks like a good reason to properly map those >> administrative borders to me. But I guess it's currently not easy >> to see what the CRAB data says which postal code it belongs to if >> we don't see it anywhere. If we do add it, I suggest only in the >> assosiatedStreet relation. >> >> As far as I know there really shouldn't be a problem adding >> boundary=postal_code relations for places like Antwerpen. >> >> >> Kurt >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-be mailing list >> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be >> > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
