@ Frederik I'm not quite sure I understand you. The posts you are quoting are not the last ones about this import. Could you clarify your request?
Another part of my uncertainty about understanding you is that it's not clear in what role you are requesting this: as an individual import list member like myself, or is it a clarification you ask on behalf of the DWG? A third point is that I feel your last sentence to be a sort of threat. You could know that I always answer to questions, in contrast to several other community members. Your message would have been clear without the last sentence. It makes me even more unsure, since it makes me aware that you are in a powerful role which enables you to both set rules and to enforce these rules. Instead of a level communication amongst OSM'ers, there is an unequality now. What was your reason to use that sentence? Furthermore you should know that I have taken back your request to the Dutch community. Since around 40 people are involved in importing I find it important that everyone of them has the chance to speak out. A first response from the community is that this import, beside a major upgrade in the quality of buildings and addresses, is also a major quality improvement because a lot of improvements to streets, streetnames and addresses made by the importers are done purely manually during and after their imports. Since it's a habit in the Dutch community to allow members ample time to respond to topics it will take a few days before a response to your request is finished. Your answer to my three questions will also be important as input for that response. I'm looking forward to your answers. @ DWG members I'm interested in hearing your opinion on this matter Kind regards, Johan 2014-05-16 11:46 GMT+02:00 Frederik Ramm <[email protected]>: > Hi, > > JohanC wrote: > >> 1. it's nowadays better to put source and source:date on the changeset > >> instead of the nodes and ways > >> 2. the changeset should have the text import and source > >> 3. it's better not to use ref:bag > >> 4. it's better not to use bag:function > >> > >> I took these matters back to the others in the Dutch community for > >> reconsideration. In short: we agreed on 2 and 4 for which the Wiki > import > >> page has been updated, we disagreed on 1 and 3. > > On 12/03/13 09:41, Paul Norman wrote: > > Just to clarify on this point, the Dutch community does not have a sole > say > > on points 1 and 3. If we can't reach a rough consensus on imports@about 1 > > and 3 the import will need to wait until agreement can be found. > > I note that this discussion has not been completed, but I can see that a > large number of BAG buildings are being imported. > > Are the mappers doing the import aware of this situation? > > Please explain. I'd like to avoid having to revert the whole import. > > Bye > Frederik > > -- > Frederik Ramm ## eMail [email protected] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" > > _______________________________________________ > Imports mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports >
_______________________________________________ Imports mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
