On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 9:52 PM, Andrew Errington
wrote:
> I don't think a new tag is warranted. maxwidth=* is fairly unequivocal.
> If map users or routers want to interpret it as "max width, but probably
> not really, there's probably a bit of extra space, I mean, who's going to
> be that petty
Colin Smale writes:
> I meant my question seriously, not hypothetically I assume all these
> boundary posts are tagged with something like "source:location=MA State
> Data Set 2015-01-19"? If not, how is a mapper to compare his
> "correctness" to the existing "correctness"?
There are chang
I meant my question seriously, not hypothetically I assume all these
boundary posts are tagged with something like "source:location=MA State
Data Set 2015-01-19"? If not, how is a mapper to compare his
"correctness" to the existing "correctness"?
Without this provenance information in the
Colin Smale writes:
> How does the chap with the GPS on his smartphone know that the old
> coordinate of 50.000 is "more correct" than his own measurement?
This is generally a hard question, but if you're using a phone, and the
value you see is within 20m (or maybe 10m) of what's in the db, th
And let's not forget that what is correct to one person, may be
inaccurate according to another. 50.N may be exactly accurate
according to a particular frame of reference at a certain point in time,
but if a surveyor with sub-centimeter accuracy equipment says it's
50.0001 then he is also ri
On 2015-09-09 23:39, moltonel wrote :
On 9 September 2015 21:46:54 GMT+01:00, "André Pirard" wrote:
There are various reasons for warning other mappers to be careful about
their updates.
I once temporarily overlaid two walking routes to show the effe
On 11/09/2015, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 12:41:36 +
> moltonel wrote:
>
>> Consumers (routers, renderers, whatever) will not be swayed by a wiki
>> page. They might look at stats and decide themselves what the absence
>> of a oneway tag means, but a wiki proposal is never
On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 08:40:21 -0500
Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 7:41 AM, moltonel wrote:
>
> > > If not tagged, the oneway=*
> > >status of this way is undefined.
> >
> > You wont gain anything by de-defining the "oneway=no" default value.
> > Consumers (routers, renderers, wha
Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> Documentation on wiki is one of main sources during development of
> map style.
You mean of the openstreetmap-carto style, which is just one of many.
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/New-proposal-Obligatory-tagging-of-oneway-
On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 12:41:36 +
moltonel wrote:
> Consumers (routers, renderers, whatever) will not be swayed by a wiki
> page. They might look at stats and decide themselves what the absence
> of a oneway tag means, but a wiki proposal is never going to
> influence that decision.
Documentati
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 7:41 AM, moltonel wrote:
> > If not tagged, the oneway=*
> >status of this way is undefined.
>
> You wont gain anything by de-defining the "oneway=no" default value.
> Consumers (routers, renderers, whatever) will not be swayed by a wiki page.
> They might look at stats an
On 10 September 2015 13:20:43 GMT+01:00, Joachim wrote:
>Proposal:
>Define on the wiki page of highway=motorway_link that oneway=* must
>also be tagged for every motorway_link.
Sounds fair.
> If not tagged, the oneway=*
>status of this way is undefined.
You wont gain anything by de-defining t
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 7:07 AM, Kieron Thwaites
wrote:
> > Though I agree in principle with the idea of making tagging more
> > explicit, how big of a practical concern is this? i.e. how many times in
> > the real world is motorway_link a two-way road?
>
> While I agree such a case is rare, it i
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:56 AM, Shawn K. Quinn
wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 14:20 +0200, Joachim wrote:
> > I drafted up a proposal about oneway=* for highway=motorway_link.
> > Please comment.
> >
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Motorway_link_obligatory_oneway
> >
> > P
On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 05:25:52PM +0200, David Marchal wrote:
> > map the underground stream if possible.
> As I don't know where the intake from the first stream is, I think I can't
> map it this way. Besides, wouldn't that make the link exclusive, i.e. tell
> that the water only comes from one
> Though I agree in principle with the idea of making tagging more
> explicit, how big of a practical concern is this? i.e. how many times in
> the real world is motorway_link a two-way road?
While I agree such a case is rare, it is possible.
See: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/68433570 -- whil
On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 14:20 +0200, Joachim wrote:
> I drafted up a proposal about oneway=* for highway=motorway_link.
> Please comment.
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Motorway_link_obligatory_oneway
>
> Proposal:
> Define on the wiki page of highway=motorway_link that onewa
On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 14:20:43 +0200
Joachim wrote:
> I drafted up a proposal about oneway=* for highway=motorway_link.
> Please comment.
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Motorway_link_obligatory_oneway
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Motorway_link_obliga
Yes, I indeed thought of a karst system, but specifically of the case when one
spring, even if it feeds a stream of its own, is in fact a resurgence of a
partial loss of another stream.
From: j...@jfeldredge.com
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 17:30:24 -0500
Subject: Re: [Ta
19 matches
Mail list logo
