I would suggest to make a consistent edit of the area, not just solve one
isolated MapRoulette challenge.
Other segments of the walks have the three names:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/435947565
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/435947561
etc.___
T
On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 16:24, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This comes up with a dam with no tracks in the USA.
> Better off with https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/435947564
Thanks - don't know how that happened?
> Easiest?
> Delete the walking track nameS from the road.
>
> The walki
On 28/11/18 17:05, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
Just working on some errors identified by Map Roulette as having
invalid characters in street names.
One that's come up is
https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=rocky%20creek%20dam#map=18/-28.63593/153.34517,
where named walking tracks follow
Just working on some errors identified by Map Roulette as having invalid
characters in street names.
One that's come up is
https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=rocky%20creek%20dam#map=18/-28.63593/153.34517,
where named walking tracks follow a service road across a dam wall.
The original ma
Thanks for this, Rory. I'll add it as a comment to the active proposal (
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Mapping_disputed_boundaries
).
I don't think the notion of "according_to" is viable unless it is
restricted to the two disputing parties. (Three-way disputes can be
simpli
W dniu 28.11.2018 o 03:49, Joseph Eisenberg pisze:
> Re “Have we found the covert reason why carto still doesn't render
> [Protected areas]”
>
> No need for conspiracy theories. We simply need more contributors at
> openstreetmap-carto who are willing to volunteer their time to fix
> these issues.
Re “Have we found the covert reason why carto still doesn't render
[Protected areas]”
No need for conspiracy theories. We simply need more contributors at
openstreetmap-carto who are willing to volunteer their time to fix these
issues.
But we are about to start rendering the equivalent protected_
On 11/26/18 17:00, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>> and I fail to see how much more
>> difficult it is to tag "boundary=protected area" and
"protect_class=24"
>
> Because "24" is a completely random code, unlike
boundary=aboriginal_lands
And on 11/26/18 17:00, Frederick Ramm wrote:
>We
On 27/11/2018 23:01, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
This proposal has several problems:
1) Too many new relations, up to 180 per border or whatever the number
of independent states has reached.
It's a concern (I've made similar points about languages in the past)
but in this case I don't think that
Rory, thanks for tackling this. You might want to re-upload your proposal
to the wiki, as it does appear to be borked at the moment.
I think we should not store undisputed territories in the same relation as
the disputed ones. Lets just store the disputed regions as individual
relations, e.g. Kur
This proposal has several problems:
1) Too many new relations, up to 180 per border or whatever the number of
independent states has reached.
2) OSM is for “real, current” data
- Claimed borders are not real.
- Many old claims have never been officially surrendered
3) “Don’t map your local legisl
This is my suggestion for how to map disputed/claimed borders.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ClaimedBorders
(but I appear to have broken the wiki).
This proposal is simple. Map the claimed border of a country according
to another country as another regular {{Tag|type|bo
On 11/26/18 6:35 PM, Clifford Snow wrote:
I can't speak for other countries so I'll limit my comments to the US.
As Kevin Kenny commented, tribes in the US are recognized as domestic
dependent nations. But from there it gets messy. They can set their
own sales tax separate from the state and h
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018, 07:10 Martin Koppenhoefer
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 27. Nov 2018, at 03:27, Paul Johnson wrote:
> >
> > I'm generally a fan of the admin_level option. protected_area is OKisn,
> but the protect_class=* tag definitely hits me as an oddity given other
> tagging. boundar
sent from a phone
> On 27. Nov 2018, at 03:27, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> I'm generally a fan of the admin_level option. protected_area is OKisn, but
> the protect_class=* tag definitely hits me as an oddity given other tagging.
> boundary=aboriginal_lands could be a supplemental tag to admin
Thank you for that reference, Marc.
The blog post you cite deals with the policy and how it is enforced, not
with the question of physical control. The blog acknowledges that Russia
has physical control.
Let me be clear: this proposal makes NO CHANGES in the existing policy
regarding de facto bor
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 10:06 AM Johnparis wrote:\
> The question of "physical control" is, I believe, not at issue. The fact that
> Russia exercises physical control is precisely what Ukraine objects to. So
> both sides agree that Russia has physical control of Ukraine. But if there
> were a
>From the proposal: *The de facto border is the one that conforms to the
Policy's statement: "Currently, we record one set that, in OpenStreetMap
contributor opinion, is most widely internationally recognised and best
meets realities on the ground, generally meaning physical control."*
The questio
Hi all,
a much simpler approach is to look into the respective constitution.
The Ukrainian constitution defines the state's territory in article 133.
Other countries, like Germany do so as well, and Ireland does or has
done so. France does not define its terriotry in the constitution, and
the
I'm trying to understand how the current situation in Crimea has to be
mapped with your proposal.
The Ukranian community wants the old border (before the Russian
invasion) to be the de-facto border.
I assume that the Russian community wants the border elsewhere, so
Crimea becomes Russian territory.
20 matches
Mail list logo
