[Talk-us] OpenMetaMap

Dale Puch dale.puch at gmail.com
Thu Sep 22 21:11:00 BST 2011


Was RE: [Talk-us] California landuse import

Personally I like the idea of seperating out portions of the database into
separate sections, but I prefer more use orientated divisions.

Piste (skiing)
land use
roads
utilities
admin boundaries
marine
buildings

Are some examples.  Things that can be treated as layers.  Easily turned on
and off ect.
Yea most of this is handled by different tags instead.  Perhaps all I really
want is a good way to filter by some set tag types when downloading or
viewing.

-- 
Dale Puch

On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 7:09 AM, Mike N <niceman at att.net> wrote:

> On 9/22/2011 12:51 AM, Toby Murray wrote:
>
>> These changesets are all nodes. I assume the ways are coming in a
>> subsequent changeset. This is pretty risky so I will keep an eye on
>> this tomorrow.
>>
>
>  Just a comment to say I hope that there are no land use imports in my area
> of the US[not in California].    This is in keeping with the current
> thinking that such an import would be a prime candidate for the theoretical
> OpenMetaMap - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/**wiki/OpenMetaMap<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenMetaMap>
>
>  The editing tools do not support working with detailed landuse.  When I
> travel to areas containing landuse imports, I don't even bother surveying
> updates because editing is so awkward.
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-us<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20110922/dac72612/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-us mailing list