This is really just a heads up on the ongoing discussion in the indoor
forum http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=67 and the
competing proposals https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/IndoorOSM_2.0
and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/F3DB .
I have to admit even though the IndoorOSM 2.
On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 05:10:26PM -0400, Christopher Hoess wrote:
> Volker,
>
> There was a rather inconspicuous sentence at the end of
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bridge linking to the additional
> "bridge:..." keys. I've reordered the introductory material in that page
> somewhat t
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 8:25 AM, Richard Z. wrote:
>
>
> thanks, that looks much better now.
>
> Would it be fine to add the "simple_suspension" type
>(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_suspension_bridge)
> to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bridge:structure ? It appears
> that most of
Hi
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.49428/-0.12149
I've noticed highway=footway is being used as an area across Lambeth
Bridge: North side as a closed polygon; South side within a relation.
(checking the history previously they were both highway=pedestrian.
I thought that tag should b
On 9 August 2014 17:06, Dave F. wrote:
> You'll notice though that mapnik
> renders them the same way. Is that part of the recent carto upgrade?
No, the rendering hasn't been changed in this respect. See
http://bl.ocks.org/tyrasd/raw/6164696/#18.00/51.49424/-0.12091.
-- Matthijs
___
On Sat, Aug 09, 2014 at 09:21:46AM -0400, Christopher Hoess wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 8:25 AM, Richard Z. wrote:
> >
> >
> > thanks, that looks much better now.
> >
> > Would it be fine to add the "simple_suspension" type
> >(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_suspension_bridge)
> > to
