Destroy set back requireetns (building must be close to the street)
Sean Dayton wrote on Jul 23, 2014 19:30:
This idea was suggested during the Co-creating Open Streets Event. What do YOU think of it?
Diablita wrote on Apr 01, 2015 08:02:
I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together! Carrie, (and acasoiste), Creepy. It appears we're doing the same things on opposite seaboards. I like your work, I like your end tables, I like the time you put into your blog! and I especially like your pad!Thanks for commenting. Its nice to know there are others out there -Q
I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together! Carrie, (and acasoiste), Creepy. It appears we're doing the same things on opposite seaboards. I like your work, I like your end tables, I like the time you put into your blog! and I especially like your pad!Thanks for commenting. Its nice to know there are others out there -Q
Thathianinha wrote on Apr 01, 2015 13:03:
"Takeshima" and "Matsushima" in 日露清韓明細新図 are phantom ilansd "Argonaut" and "Ulleungdo", respectively, apparently from their longitude. This is Prof. Shimojo's typical ugly distortion on Meiji era maps and western mapping error. "Argonaut" in western maps is an phnatom ilansd, but "Takeshima" in the Japanese Meiji era maps is not an phantom ilansd. Japanese never called Takeshima as Argonaut.If Prof. Shimojo truly believe "Takeshima" is "Arognaut" and "Matsushima" is "Ulleungdo" because they are in the positions of wrong western maps, he needs to learn why and how western mapping error took place.To see the real western mapping error , click .If Takeshima is Argonaut as Prof. Shimojo absurdly insists, where is Dokdo in this map? I know pro-Japanese people's typical answer. They shamelessly say "Dokdo was omitted." There's no ,if any, Japanese maps depicting Takeshima(Ulleongdo) alone without Dokdo(Matsushima). Japan has consistently depicted two ilansds together for over 150 years. Dokdo didn't disappear because of western mapping error. The two ilansds Meiji era mapmakers tried to draw were Korean Ulleongdo (Takeshima) and Dokd(Matsushima) regardless of the wrong location. The shape and location of Takeshima and Matsushima in the most of the Meiji era maps are inaccurate."日露清韓明細新図" must have been made for the Russo-Japanese War because it was produced just 4 months before Japan's declaration of war with Russia. Dokdo was very important for imperial Japanese Navy as strategical site. The Navy map of the great Imperial of Japan without Dokdo is beyond imagination. Kaneganese wrote "The map is made for the soldier who goes to war to the oversea land". Can you imagine imperial Japanese Army and Navy let the Japanese soldiers go to the war with the map with an phantom ilansd and without Dokdo in the East Sea(Sea of Japan)? The identity of Argonaut was found to be non-existent around 1858 and the western maps didn't draw Argonaut afterwards. Japan also got to know the identity of the Argonaut as Watanabe Kouki proved in 1878. It's nonsense to claim The Japanese Empire's Army and Navy Survey Department" knowingly drew non-exist Argonaut in the military map for the Japanese soldiers in 1903.Pro-Japanese people make "Takeshima" and "Matsushima" in the Meiji era maps "Argonaut" and "Ulleongdo" respectively citing the wrong location caused by the western mapping error. They do so to deny Japan during Meiji period considered Matsushima(Dokdo) as Korean land. To claim Takeshima is "Argonaut", there should be three ilansds - Takeshima , Matsushim and Liancourt Rocks- in the map. For example, 大日本沿海略図(1867) and 大日本四神全図(1870) depict three ilansds. If there are only two ilansds ( Takeshima and Matsushima) in the East Sea between Korean peninsula and Oki ilansd, they are always Ulleongdo and Matsushima. The mapmakeres did draw Takeshima and Matsushima based on the names, not on the accurate locations. 日露清韓明細新図 is the decisive evidence Japanese Cabinet in 1905 lied that Dokdo had no traces of being owned. This map is just one of many evidence Japanese incorporation of Dokdo was illegal. Japanese claim to sovereignty on Dokdo based on the false is very foolish and self-destructive.
"Takeshima" and "Matsushima" in 日露清韓明細新図 are phantom ilansd "Argonaut" and "Ulleungdo", respectively, apparently from their longitude. This is Prof. Shimojo's typical ugly distortion on Meiji era maps and western mapping error. "Argonaut" in western maps is an phnatom ilansd, but "Takeshima" in the Japanese Meiji era maps is not an phantom ilansd. Japanese never called Takeshima as Argonaut.If Prof. Shimojo truly believe "Takeshima" is "Arognaut" and "Matsushima" is "Ulleungdo" because they are in the positions of wrong western maps, he needs to learn why and how western mapping error took place.To see the real western mapping error , click .If Takeshima is Argonaut as Prof. Shimojo absurdly insists, where is Dokdo in this map? I know pro-Japanese people's typical answer. They shamelessly say "Dokdo was omitted." There's no ,if any, Japanese maps depicting Takeshima(Ulleongdo) alone without Dokdo(Matsushima). Japan has consistently depicted two ilansds together for over 150 years. Dokdo didn't disappear because of western mapping error. The two ilansds Meiji era mapmakers tried to draw were Korean Ulleongdo (Takeshima) and Dokd(Matsushima) regardless of the wrong location. The shape and location of Takeshima and Matsushima in the most of the Meiji era maps are inaccurate."日露清韓明細新図" must have been made for the Russo-Japanese War because it was produced just 4 months before Japan's declaration of war with Russia. Dokdo was very important for imperial Japanese Navy as strategical site. The Navy map of the great Imperial of Japan without Dokdo is beyond imagination. Kaneganese wrote "The map is made for the soldier who goes to war to the oversea land". Can you imagine imperial Japanese Army and Navy let the Japanese soldiers go to the war with the map with an phantom ilansd and without Dokdo in the East Sea(Sea of Japan)? The identity of Argonaut was found to be non-existent around 1858 and the western maps didn't draw Argonaut afterwards. Japan also got to know the identity of the Argonaut as Watanabe Kouki proved in 1878. It's nonsense to claim The Japanese Empire's Army and Navy Survey Department" knowingly drew non-exist Argonaut in the military map for the Japanese soldiers in 1903.Pro-Japanese people make "Takeshima" and "Matsushima" in the Meiji era maps "Argonaut" and "Ulleongdo" respectively citing the wrong location caused by the western mapping error. They do so to deny Japan during Meiji period considered Matsushima(Dokdo) as Korean land. To claim Takeshima is "Argonaut", there should be three ilansds - Takeshima , Matsushim and Liancourt Rocks- in the map. For example, 大日本沿海略図(1867) and 大日本四神全図(1870) depict three ilansds. If there are only two ilansds ( Takeshima and Matsushima) in the East Sea between Korean peninsula and Oki ilansd, they are always Ulleongdo and Matsushima. The mapmakeres did draw Takeshima and Matsushima based on the names, not on the accurate locations. 日露清韓明細新図 is the decisive evidence Japanese Cabinet in 1905 lied that Dokdo had no traces of being owned. This map is just one of many evidence Japanese incorporation of Dokdo was illegal. Japanese claim to sovereignty on Dokdo based on the false is very foolish and self-destructive.
Open Streets Website