How ‘open’ is ‘government open data for postcodes’? I’m still not sure if we’re safe to derive anything from OS Codepoint Open :-(

– Steve

Report a bug here: https://trac.openstreetmap.org/query?status=new&status=assigned&status=reopened&component=nominatim&order=priority?

OK, Google now has the new alignment (but not the name - perhaps I should check that).

Presumably a compass works underground, so if you could get a continuous log of speed (or distance travelled) and compass bearing, you could do a bit of 'dead reckoning'. Perhaps you could take a compass with you, set it up next to your speedometer in the cab, and video the two as you drive? Or maybe you need to get one of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_navigation_system

Do the tunnels have ventilation shafts to the surface that could act as further checkpoints?

'The sources for all these changes are a) printed maps and town maps [...]'

NO, NO, NO!!

Well, unless German copyright law is different from most other people's.

It's a bit of a fiddle, but a convention has arisen of coding highway=no in cases such as this.

It's a bit of a fiddle, but a convention has arisen of coding highway=no in cases such as this.

To what end?

Have you changed your mind and accepted the CTs?

--
Steve

El Talar de Pacheco seems to be a gated community ('barrio cerrado') in the General Pacheco district: properties for sale on this web page: http://propiedades.zonaprop.com.ar/venta-bsas-gba-zona-norte-tigre-el-talar-de-pacheco/opZtipo-operacion-venta_lnZ13009

--
Steve

Not the Immaculate Conception, I suppose? http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=14.470486&lon=120.992623&zoom=18&layers=M

That place has way too many churches!

--
Steve

I think I found it: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=14.426247&lon=120.998935&zoom=18&layers=M

Message sent.

Thanks, Sanderd17. The Mapquest site looks good, but the final bit looks more difficult - getting the locations into the satnav (the other site gives me the co-ordinates for each one).

Make sure you include a source tag if you are using OS OpenData. The two main ones are OS_OpenData_Streetview and OS_OpenData_Locator. If you trace from Bing and add the name from Streetview, I'd put:

source=Bing
source:name=OS_OpenData_Streetview

It's still not certain that OS Open Data is compatible with ODbL, so if we ever move to the latter we may have to remove stuff sourced from there :-(

--
Steve

La présence sur la carte d'un POI ou manquent certains renseignements jugés essentiels peut attirer d'autres a fournir les données requises. C'est bien le cas de bien de 'place_of_worship' dans mon coin : beaucoup de ceux-ci ont été rajoutés récemment parce qu'ils se trouvent sur les cartes de l'"Ordnance Survey" publiées sous l'égide du projet gouvernemental "Open Data" - sans nom ni religion ni dénomination. Ces objets sont par la suite signalés sur keepright.ipax.at, ce qui fait que moi et d'autres mappeurs nous sommes rendus sur place pour cueillir les détails manquants.

Also, Potlatch has a delete button - looks like a white X in a red circle.

I've since accepted the CTs.

-- Steve

There is a proposal: in German at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Proposed_features/Advanced_footway_and_cycleway

Steve

You definitely shouldn't be doing this. I'm a user who has declined the CTs, but I fully expect to accept them in due course - I just wasn't ready to make up my mind on Sunday evening. I believe we have something like 3 weeks to do so. Unfortunately, there was no 'ask me later' option, so you had to either accept or decline at that point. I personally found I could not do anything on the openstreetmap.org site (not even look at the standard slippy map) until I chose one option or the other. I understood that only the 'decline' option was reversible, so I chose that one. No change of licence has yet been made, so it is extremely premature to start removing others' data.