Re: [Imports] Fwd: [osm-pl] Import adresów Gmina Wieprz

2014-02-21 Thread andrzej zaborowski
On 21 February 2014 01:48, Jason Remillard remillard.ja...@gmail.com wrote: Could somebody recap this, if this one really one huge import across all of Poland, or a bunch of little imports. It seems like this is the primary issue to work through right now. Sounds like a deeply philospohical

Re: [Imports] Fwd: [osm-pl] Import adresów Gmina Wieprz

2014-02-21 Thread Serge Wroclawski
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Jason Remillard remillard.ja...@gmail.comwrote: Hello Everybody, Each municipality is a different import. Part of the process needs to be to be validation, for example, which has already been brought up and not answered. I have been trying to follow this

Re: [Imports] Fwd: [osm-pl] Import adresów Gmina Wieprz

2014-02-21 Thread masti
On 02/21/2014 01:54 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote: On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Jason Remillard remillard.ja...@gmail.com mailto:remillard.ja...@gmail.com wrote: Hello Everybody, Each municipality is a different import. Part of the process needs to be to be validation,

Re: [Imports] Fwd: [osm-pl] Import adresów Gmina Wieprz

2014-02-21 Thread Jason Remillard
Hi, This is a bunch of little imports. This is not a single all of Poland dataset, but rather a collection of little datasets by region. The data is similar, of course due to the nature of the data being addresses. this is true. Data comes form local governaments databases/GIS which are

Re: [Imports] Fwd: [osm-pl] Import adresów Gmina Wieprz

2014-02-20 Thread Pieren
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote: Each municipality is a different import. Part of the process needs to be to be validation, for example, which has already been brought up and not answered. I wrote Once the process is established and approved and

Re: [Imports] Fwd: [osm-pl] Import adresów Gmina Wieprz

2014-02-20 Thread Jason Remillard
Hello Everybody, Each municipality is a different import. Part of the process needs to be to be validation, for example, which has already been brought up and not answered. I have been trying to follow this thread, but I think I missed this part. Could somebody recap this, if this one