Another thing about the 2006 map is that many of the ways that definitely were there then.
e.g. http://osmz.ru/osm2006.html#14/51.0523/-0.7374 This is the Fernhurst area, West Sussex. There should be a primary road north to south and many more footpaths Primary and secondary roads seem to be particularly prone to being missing. I think they were always highway=primary so not sure why that is. Also a number of footpaths are missing. Is this perhaps because they are now highway=path and the 2006 map is being rendered with a 2006 stylesheet so they don't show up? Nick -----Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: ----- To: Ilya Zverev <zve...@textual.ru> From: Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> Date: 25/08/2014 03:22PM Cc: "talk@openstreetmap.org" <talk@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Early History of OSM > Il giorno 25/ago/2014, alle ore 12:55, Ilya Zverev <zve...@textual.ru> ha > scritto: > > Thanks, here is the map for August 2006: > http://osmz.ru/osm2006.html#6/53.462/5.08 interesting, thanks for posting this. I have two remarks why it seems missleading for the less informed: - the coastline is more recent than 2006 - you have kept the external data from natural earth (builtup areas for midzoom) So actually in 2006 there was even less map than it appears ;-) cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
