- Sorry about that. I really don't know it happened. Can it be removed/reverted? User:Steve8
- It's fine now, I reverted it, I may have over-reacted by alerting you here. Bruce89 00:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Lolcat of awesomeness! - Tube Network Map
I grant you the Lolcat of awesomeness! ...for your Tube Network Map. Always fun to see new renderings as slippy maps, but I find this one has particular awesomeness, because I did some work on drawing in London's railway=subway network, and was wondering when I would get to see it. -- Harry Wood 11:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Must kind! Hope folk will take the opportunity to use it as proofing device and correct details in database and help improve it. For instance, would like to remove the confirming grey centre lines when happy with completeness -- steve8 16:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, this tag suddenly appeared on Map Features with no discussion or voting and I feel it is confusing. I'd like to remove it but felt I should ask why first, may be there is some history behind it. Mike mike at ayeltd dot biz. MikeCollinson 14:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- There was discussion on list (late Sept-early Oct) to which you contributed and on IRC. There was justifiable criticism of of no voting having taken place. Because of the critical comments I withdrew from that particular arena. I was responding to a request to render a tag and was not aware at that time that it had not been voted in. It probably needs re-visiting and a concensus solution reached - with perhaps an auto change of the highway=unsurfaced tag to follow. steve8 16:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Steve, are you still maintaining the OSM Mapnik stylesheet? I noticed in one of my recent mapping trips that bridges for tracks are not rendered correctly in Mapnik, e.g. here in Steinbach 2 track bridges over the B457 road and one track bridge over the A5 motorway. They are rendered correctly in Osmarender. Perhaps this can be fixed. Greetings, Longbow4u 08:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. I have only just seen this, and you are right. I will look into it, but am away at a conference next week so may have to wait till next weekend. steve8 22:54, 29 Aug 2008 (UTC)
- Thank You, Longbow4u 12:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Would it be possible to consider making this tag render the same as a disused station, or perhaps even more faded out?
barrier=* will render for these but seems overkill, Also some land_boundaries do not have a clear 'barrier'. My thought was that barrier=* should render over the top of the boundary=land_parcel. boundary=land_parcel is intended for areas with fields (it's not intended for urban areas), and is intended be visible on zoom levels equivalent to the 1:25000 scale downward.
I have no objections to your raising these for further discussion on the wiki
Eventually, the hope is to create relations for land_parcels (the landuse=field) being applied to the area formed by the relation,
ShakespeareFan00 23:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)