Re: [Talk-us] Request revert on Changeset #33669446
Paul, I've tried to stay out of this here on talk-us, but being belligerent and claiming somebody else removed the 'lanes' tags that didn't do it is just wrong Paul. You honestly owe jakeroot an apology here (and in the Changeset 33669446 comments) since he didn't remove those tags!!! You, yourself removed them Paul, back in Changeset 32790788 over 2 months ago. The history here doesn't lie about it. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/45846830/history The 'lanes' tag was there for version 19 of that way edited by Bickendan, but gone in version 20 edited by you Paul. The way is now currently on version 23. If I was part of the DWG, I would recommend making you apologize to jakeroot before you could continue editing anything because of that. If you didn't realize Paul, you're kinda acting like NE2 right now when it comes to this. -James (rickmastfan67) From: burke...@gmail.com Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 20:07:31 -0400 To: ba...@ursamundi.org; d...@osmfoundation.org; talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Request revert on Changeset #33669446 Paul, He's not saying that jakeroot isn't the most recent editor. He's saying that the specific changes you're referring to are in changesets earlier than jakeroot's, and that *those* changesets appear to be yours. Not at a computer, so can't look myself. -jack On September 4, 2015 4:44:53 PM EDT, Paul Johnson wrote: This is in conflict with what I'm seeing in the area around Vancouver Mall, where jakeroot appears to be the most recent editor of everything along WA500. On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Chris Lawrence wrote: It's in the OSM way history. I didn't make it up. Look at it yourself if you don't believe me. http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/45846830/history- "lanes" disappears between revisions 19 and 20. You submitted revision 20. http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/45846831/history - "lanes" disappears between revisions 13 and 14. You submitted revision 14. http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/201133287/history - "lanes" disappears between revisions 3 and 4. You submitted revision 4. I could go on... Chris On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 12:58 PM Paul Johnson wrote: On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Chris Lawrence wrote: On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 3:54 AM Paul Johnson wrote: I'm going to have to additionally request this revert due to a fairly substantial loss of data that was involved after I spent a good 12-15 hours on detail lane tagging this expressway. It appears many ways got merged and data was lost as a result. Paul - You deleted that data yourself in changeset 32790788 when you made the road a trunk in the first place. Patently false. I still have the last edit I made in the area on my desktop. jakeroot vandalized the map in his quest to tag the map NE2 style, and merged dozens of ways with zero regard for any tags except the one he was trying to game. -- Christopher N. Lawrence Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us -- Typos courtesy of fancy auto-spell technology. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] understanding administrative boundary relations
On 9/4/15 5:09 PM, Ray Kiddy wrote: > So, there is nothing that a relation brings to the table that a way > does not? I mean, it is clear that for the purposes of drawing, they > are the same. But then are they really just the same? i don't know about the current style, but in the past there has been an issue where a way was contained in a relation, and both the way and the relation had the same admin boundary tagging. the stylesheet of 1-2 years ago would draw the admin boundary twice. i haven't checked to see if this problem has been fixed or not. the correct answer is to only tag the relation and remove any duplicate tagging from the way, especially because the way may be in multiple relations and with different admin levels in the different relations. richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Request revert on Changeset #33669446
Paul, He's not saying that jakeroot isn't the most recent editor. He's saying that the specific changes you're referring to are in changesets earlier than jakeroot's, and that *those* changesets appear to be yours. Not at a computer, so can't look myself. -jack On September 4, 2015 4:44:53 PM EDT, Paul Johnson wrote: >This is in conflict with what I'm seeing in the area around Vancouver >Mall, >where jakeroot appears to be the most recent editor of everything along >WA500. > >On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Chris Lawrence >wrote: > >> It's in the OSM way history. I didn't make it up. Look at it yourself >if >> you don't believe me. >> >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/45846830/history >> - "lanes" disappears between revisions 19 and 20. You submitted >revision >> 20. >> >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/45846831/history >> - "lanes" disappears between revisions 13 and 14. You submitted >revision >> 14. >> >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/201133287/history >> - "lanes" disappears between revisions 3 and 4. You submitted >revision 4. >> >> I could go on... >> >> >> Chris >> >> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 12:58 PM Paul Johnson >wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Chris Lawrence > >>> wrote: >>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 3:54 AM Paul Johnson >wrote: > I'm going to have to additionally request this revert due to a >fairly > substantial loss of data that was involved after I spent a good >12-15 hours > on detail lane tagging this expressway. It appears many ways got >merged > and data was lost as a result. > Paul - You deleted that data yourself in changeset 32790788 when >you made the road a trunk in the first place. >>> >>> Patently false. I still have the last edit I made in the area on my >>> desktop. jakeroot vandalized the map in his quest to tag the map >NE2 >>> style, and merged dozens of ways with zero regard for any tags >except the >>> one he was trying to game. >>> >> -- >> Christopher N. Lawrence >> > > > > >___ >Talk-us mailing list >Talk-us@openstreetmap.org >https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us -- Typos courtesy of fancy auto-spell technology. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Anybody had any contact with this user?
On 04/09/2015 04:55, James Mast wrote: ... but I've sent him two messages in the last 2 months without any response back from him, asking him if he could please add a 'comment' to his changesets after he was mass adding some data in my local area a few times (mostly just buildings from Bing as far as I could tell). It's certainly possible that (for whatever reason) they just haven't noticed the messages. It's happened to me - I've sometimes not noticed the number at the top right of the osm.org website and if they're not using JOSM (which this user isn't) they won't see the more prominent "new message" display there. Also, if the messages were added as changeset discussion comments then a user that doesn't regularly check emails (which some people don't - perhaps they receive mail on a computer at home and are editing OSM from a different one elsewhere) then it's possible that they may not be read immediately. Something that's also happened to me is that after a mail server problem at my end has been fixed there's been a delay getting mails from OSM sent again. If all other avenues are exhausted and you really wants to get in touch, as a last resort drop the Data Working Group (d...@osmfoundation.org) a message and we can send a user a message that has to be read before they can continue mapping (making it clear that they're not being blocked for any sort of "bad editing", but that we'd really like them to reply to messages that have been sent, or reply to changeset discussions, or similar). Cheers, Andy (SomeoneElse) ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] understanding administrative boundary relations
On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 14:11:26 -0500 Toby Murray wrote: > On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Ray Kiddy wrote: > > > > Strangely, I am finding that some of the cities in California _are_ > > in the system, but as ways and not as relations. This seems odd, > > but we will see. > > Well the primary reason to use relations in boundaries is to reduce > duplication. So if two cities share a border, the same way can be used > in both relations. Sometimes people even use roads or streams or other > physical ways as part of boundary relations. I personally usually > avoid this because I like having boundary relations completely > separate from other things so that they are easier to update in the > future. So for a city that is not part of a metro area with adjoining > cities, it is perfectly fine to just used a closed way instead of a > relation for the boundary. At the end of the day, both ways and > relations generally get turned into either linestrings (if linear) or > multipolygons (if closed) in things like a postgis database or a > shapefile. > > Toby > So, there is nothing that a relation brings to the table that a way does not? I mean, it is clear that for the purposes of drawing, they are the same. But then are they really just the same? I am tempted to try to add relations for these that refer to the ways, moving the associated data appropriately, but then I like to do things like re-normalizing databases and it is sometimes not such a good idea So, I will believe you if you say that ways are just aliases for relations. Is this the case? - ray ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Request revert on Changeset #33669446
This is in conflict with what I'm seeing in the area around Vancouver Mall, where jakeroot appears to be the most recent editor of everything along WA500. On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Chris Lawrence wrote: > It's in the OSM way history. I didn't make it up. Look at it yourself if > you don't believe me. > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/45846830/history > - "lanes" disappears between revisions 19 and 20. You submitted revision > 20. > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/45846831/history > - "lanes" disappears between revisions 13 and 14. You submitted revision > 14. > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/201133287/history > - "lanes" disappears between revisions 3 and 4. You submitted revision 4. > > I could go on... > > > Chris > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 12:58 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > >> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Chris Lawrence >> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 3:54 AM Paul Johnson wrote: >>> I'm going to have to additionally request this revert due to a fairly substantial loss of data that was involved after I spent a good 12-15 hours on detail lane tagging this expressway. It appears many ways got merged and data was lost as a result. >>> >>> Paul - You deleted that data yourself in changeset 32790788 when you >>> made the road a trunk in the first place. >>> >> >> Patently false. I still have the last edit I made in the area on my >> desktop. jakeroot vandalized the map in his quest to tag the map NE2 >> style, and merged dozens of ways with zero regard for any tags except the >> one he was trying to game. >> > -- > Christopher N. Lawrence > ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] understanding administrative boundary relations
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Ray Kiddy wrote: > > Strangely, I am finding that some of the cities in California _are_ in > the system, but as ways and not as relations. This seems odd, but we > will see. Well the primary reason to use relations in boundaries is to reduce duplication. So if two cities share a border, the same way can be used in both relations. Sometimes people even use roads or streams or other physical ways as part of boundary relations. I personally usually avoid this because I like having boundary relations completely separate from other things so that they are easier to update in the future. So for a city that is not part of a metro area with adjoining cities, it is perfectly fine to just used a closed way instead of a relation for the boundary. At the end of the day, both ways and relations generally get turned into either linestrings (if linear) or multipolygons (if closed) in things like a postgis database or a shapefile. Toby ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] understanding administrative boundary relations
On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 07:06:33 +0200 Marc Gemis wrote: > On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 3:56 AM, Ray Kiddy wrote: > > > It has occurred to me that there will probably need to be a > > "boundary watcher" tool, which can let an interested group know > > about it when a boundary gets broken in some way. And I have > > started playing with the python libraries for accessing OSM data > > with this in mind. > > > > There is a German team that does this. They maintain the website > https://osm.wno-edv-service.de/boundaries/ from which you can > download all administrative boundaries in a number of formats. > They also have a website with all missing (or broken) administrative > boundaries: > https://osm.wno-edv-service.de/index.php/projekte/internationale-administrative-grenzen/missing-boundaries > (in German) > > regards Others had mentioned the site to me. When I was looking at it, things did not make so much sense, but I can see it now. Strangely, I am finding that some of the cities in California _are_ in the system, but as ways and not as relations. This seems odd, but we will see. And, actually, it looks as though the missing-boundaries pages are in both German and English. So that will help. Other parts are still in German, but I can deal. I will check with them about some of this. thanx - ray ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Request revert on Changeset #33669446
It's in the OSM way history. I didn't make it up. Look at it yourself if you don't believe me. http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/45846830/history - "lanes" disappears between revisions 19 and 20. You submitted revision 20. http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/45846831/history - "lanes" disappears between revisions 13 and 14. You submitted revision 14. http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/201133287/history - "lanes" disappears between revisions 3 and 4. You submitted revision 4. I could go on... Chris On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 12:58 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Chris Lawrence > wrote: > >> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 3:54 AM Paul Johnson wrote: >> >>> I'm going to have to additionally request this revert due to a fairly >>> substantial loss of data that was involved after I spent a good 12-15 hours >>> on detail lane tagging this expressway. It appears many ways got merged >>> and data was lost as a result. >>> >> >> Paul - You deleted that data yourself in changeset 32790788 when you made >> the road a trunk in the first place. >> > > Patently false. I still have the last edit I made in the area on my > desktop. jakeroot vandalized the map in his quest to tag the map NE2 > style, and merged dozens of ways with zero regard for any tags except the > one he was trying to game. > -- Christopher N. Lawrence ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Request revert on Changeset #33669446
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Chris Lawrence wrote: > On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 3:54 AM Paul Johnson wrote: > >> I'm going to have to additionally request this revert due to a fairly >> substantial loss of data that was involved after I spent a good 12-15 hours >> on detail lane tagging this expressway. It appears many ways got merged >> and data was lost as a result. >> > > Paul - You deleted that data yourself in changeset 32790788 when you made > the road a trunk in the first place. > Patently false. I still have the last edit I made in the area on my desktop. jakeroot vandalized the map in his quest to tag the map NE2 style, and merged dozens of ways with zero regard for any tags except the one he was trying to game. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Request revert on Changeset #33669446
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 3:54 AM Paul Johnson wrote: > I'm going to have to additionally request this revert due to a fairly > substantial loss of data that was involved after I spent a good 12-15 hours > on detail lane tagging this expressway. It appears many ways got merged > and data was lost as a result. > Paul - You deleted that data yourself in changeset 32790788 when you made the road a trunk in the first place. Chris -- Christopher N. Lawrence ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Request revert on Changeset #33669446
I'm going to have to additionally request this revert due to a fairly substantial loss of data that was involved after I spent a good 12-15 hours on detail lane tagging this expressway. It appears many ways got merged and data was lost as a result. On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 2:36 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > This is regarding WA 500 in Vancouver, Washington. This is a surface > expressway that will be later upgraded to a motorway, but currently has a > mix of surface intersections and ramp style interchanges. It appears there > is a small but vocal minority of people who are attempting to start an edit > war regarding this issue. > ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Anybody had any contact with this user?
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 11:22 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote: > Wow, that is more changesets than I racked up in 10 years. Haven't had > contact with this particular mapper but I can say with certainty that > they're not with Telenav. > It appears most of the changesets are exceptionally fine-grained, like a building here, a single node there, which is close to the exact opposite of how you and I tend to edit many miles of ways in a single changeset, Martijn. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us