On Jul 30, 2012, at 10:32 AM, Paweł Paprota wrote:
>> But what leads you to the assumption that the data get's better when we
>> agree to only use ref on relations or only use ref on ways?
>
> Well my logic is simple - less duplication = less data to maintain =
> more time mappers can spend on
On Aug 1, 2012, at 7:01 AM, Simone Saviolo wrote:
>
> I use mostly JOSM which has good relation support. But still it's a pain and
> a challenge. Just downloading a huge relation takes too much time. No editor
> can fix this because it's the nature of the data model.
>
> What's painful and ch
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 12:43 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> Alan Mintz wrote:
>
> > 1. How should one tag "suggested" speeds (usually around curves) like
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MUTCD_W1-4.svg with
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Advisory_Curve_Speed_English_25.svg ?
> > Should I t
On 7 Mar 2010, at 12:17 , Pieren wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Apollinaris Schoell
> wrote:
> an average newbie mapper should be able to understand a tag without reading
> tons of docu.
> Josm, Potlatch support templates and could fill in the default values to make
On 8 Mar 2010, at 1:41 , Pieren wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 2:06 AM, Apollinaris Schoell
> wrote:
> and where did you read the let's put all available tags on all object?
>
>
> But your message suggests that the editors should fill in the defaults for
> us. Th
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 1:42 AM, Dave F. wrote:
> Alan Mintz wrote:
> > I'm doing detailed surveying and tagging of intersection turn
> restrictions.
> > However, I'm not always able to safely get pics from all four directions
> of
> > a typical intersection, so I want to be able to know to go ba
On 24 Apr 2010, at 19:52 , Alan Mintz wrote:
>
> That's one solution. What I usually do is to bring the ways back together
> to form a single intersection at that point, which is technically more
> accurate anyway. Plus, there are usually turn restrictions that are easier
> to deal with on a
On 3 May 2010, at 5:18 , Greg Troxel wrote:
>
> Katie Filbert writes:
>
>> * Baskin Robbins (fast food?)
>
> This is the missing ice cream shop I think. But if they serve other
> food, it's made to order, and they have table service - restaurant.
>
>> * Fuddruckers (restaurant or fast food?
On 16 Jun 2010, at 20:54 , Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> So a trunk road crosses a primary road, but you're not allowed to turn
> at the crossing. Instead you have to turn before or after and loop
> around to get from one to the other. If this connecting status is the
> sole reason through traffic wo
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>
> Not everything in a national forest is covered by trees, yet the
> standard way of tagging one is landuse=forest on an area.
>
>
some tag it like this but this is entirely wrong.
National forest defines the ownership but has nothing to d
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:22 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>
>
> That's why it's landuse=forest, not landcover=forest. A
> landuse=residential area isn't all houses (it includes yards,
> driveways, garages, streets, sidewalks) and a landuse=forest area
> isn't all trees.
>
>
still it isn't at all a
On 22 Oct 2010, at 9:11 , M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> Looking at a dictionary I found "trail" (for german "Trampelpfad"),
> and helas: there is already a tag-page:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrail
>
> It isn't very clear though and from the picture I'd say that is hig
On 28 Oct 2010, at 7:51 , Peter Budny wrote:
>
> To me, this says we really ought to be using super-relations for route
> relations, rather than a single relation with roles tagged, for 2
> reasons:
>
yes, absolutely, the relation with role is very limited, one more reason is the
checking tool
On 29 Oct 2010, at 9:05 , Peter Budny wrote:
>
> P.P.S. Why do I see so many route relations where a way has been added
> more than once, sometimes up to 5 times, with the same role? What is
> that supposed to mean?
typically an error. only use case where it makes sense is a bus route which
so
On 19 Nov 2010, at 8:58 , Pieren wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 3:47 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>
> The hgv-class is defined for vehicles over 3.5 t, if your legislation
> has different weight limits I'd suggest to introduce a different
> value/key and document that on the access-page
15 matches
Mail list logo
