Re: [OSM-talk] Bot removing attribution tags
> 2009/9/28 Lester Caine : >> And this seems to be the case here? > > The problem is the ways are the best place to tag the ABS information, > and the ABS data just happens to follow rivers, islands, railways and > roads and so on which is very useful where people can't survey and > there is no hi-res imagery, so the relation isn't the best place to > dump ABS tags when these ways are used for multiple purposes. > > Example Lachlan River Way is a rough trace from landsat imagery. Yahoo is worse for the detail. In some places with many curves and meanderings I have been very rough with the trace. all of that work is marked source=landsat ABS data is imported. Where this corresponds to the river I have started using the ABS data to make the river more accurate. Neither of these are a field survey of any description, and the way still needs the ABS source attributed, so that in future when someone does follow the river with a GPS the river can be updated - it won't be marked source=survey so we will know it needs a field check. If the ABS tag is gone - how do I know to use this for an improvement on landsat ??? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bot removing attribution tags
John Smith wrote: > 2009/9/28 Lester Caine : >> And this seems to be the case here? > > The problem is the ways are the best place to tag the ABS information, > and the ABS data just happens to follow rivers, islands, railways and > roads and so on which is very useful where people can't survey and > there is no hi-res imagery, so the relation isn't the best place to > dump ABS tags when these ways are used for multiple purposes. I think that is sort of what I said ;) A postcode or similar administrative area would only have new ways where there is not an existing higher level boundary, and as you quite rightly say, the WAY is provided by ABS but the rest of the boundary is 'inferred' from other data which while used by ABS to complete a boundary is not 'attributable' to them? They did not define it! I WAS under the impression that we had a rule that tags would NOT be deleted arbitrarily and to be honest, I consider the removal of data like this is vandalism in itself. Certainly a bot that has a delete function should not be allowed free reign :( In this particular case the parts of the relation actually defined by ABS need to be correctly attributed, and while the relation could be atributed as an ABS construct, the content is only partially so and as such the elements also need to retain this information ? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bot removing attribution tags
> John Smith wrote: >> 2009/9/28 Ruben Wisniewski : >>> Hi John, >>> >>> thank you for your report, but whats wrong with moving the tags to a >>> relation, this is the common way as far as I know, only all ways >>> together represent the border, so the relation should hold the tags. >>> Else if there is a change, not every way has to be edited. >> >> Because these boundaries were never fully imported so when I add >> sections of missing boundary I need to re-add the missing tags that >> were removed and add them to the individual ways again. > > If I am reading this thread correctly, I think John's problem is that > the RELATION is not totally attributed to ABS, and so only those element > that were imported should be attributed while other unattributed data > will be added at the relation level? ADDITIONAL ways added to the > relation that are not from the original import should not be attributed > to ABS and so a bot that blindly strips information without > understanding the nature of that data SHOULD NOT BE RUNNING ? > I can imaging a number of situations where the initial information would > have a common set of tags that COULD be interpreted as applying to the > relation level, but then latter additions require all of that 'tidying' > to be undone manually to put the correct data back :( > And this seems to be the case here? > > -- > Lester Caine - G8HFL Yes we need to know what is original ABS data and what is edited data from a mapper sorting something out. Please, instead of arguing the point, could the bot be stopped until the problem is resolved one way or another?? And then, if anyone wants to run automated edits on AU data, we're on talk-au and willing to discuss things. Liz ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bot removing attribution tags
2009/9/28 Lester Caine : > And this seems to be the case here? The problem is the ways are the best place to tag the ABS information, and the ABS data just happens to follow rivers, islands, railways and roads and so on which is very useful where people can't survey and there is no hi-res imagery, so the relation isn't the best place to dump ABS tags when these ways are used for multiple purposes. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bot removing attribution tags
John Smith wrote: > 2009/9/28 Ruben Wisniewski : >> Hi John, >> >> thank you for your report, but whats wrong with moving the tags to a >> relation, this is the common way as far as I know, only all ways >> together represent the border, so the relation should hold the tags. >> Else if there is a change, not every way has to be edited. > > Because these boundaries were never fully imported so when I add > sections of missing boundary I need to re-add the missing tags that > were removed and add them to the individual ways again. If I am reading this thread correctly, I think John's problem is that the RELATION is not totally attributed to ABS, and so only those element that were imported should be attributed while other unattributed data will be added at the relation level? ADDITIONAL ways added to the relation that are not from the original import should not be attributed to ABS and so a bot that blindly strips information without understanding the nature of that data SHOULD NOT BE RUNNING ? I can imaging a number of situations where the initial information would have a common set of tags that COULD be interpreted as applying to the relation level, but then latter additions require all of that 'tidying' to be undone manually to put the correct data back :( And this seems to be the case here? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] address interpolation
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 7:33 PM, David Earl wrote: > I'm experimenting with adding house numbering for the first time (and > using the address interpolation plugin). > > One common case I came across was 25, 25A, 25B, ... > > I wonder whether addr:interpolation=alphabetic could include this case 25A-25C should work with addr:interpolation=alphabetic . However not all software that supports interpolation at all, supports this interpolation-mode yet. 25-25A would not. Marcus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bot removing attribution tags
2009/9/28 Matthias Versen : > John Smith wrote: > >> These aren't state borders these are administrative borders >> (postcodes, town etc), and I'm filling in missing sections manually to >> complete postcodes as these weren't imported manually, as a result the >> relation isn't correct, each section of the way needs to be tagged >> with these values. > > I used country/state as example for administrative borders. > I still don't under stand your problem ! > > For every administrative border you create a relation and give this > relation the tags it needs. The whole relation itself represents an > area. The members of the relations are short border lines. > > It makes no sense for me why you want to tag each way or why the way > must be in one part. > It can be in one part but it seems that it's not possible because of the > 2000 Node/way limit and in such a case you create a relation. At the time it was split it may have exceeded 2000 nodes, since I've been adding other boundaries the existing way was effectively split by the intersecting boundary now the relation isn't accurate or the same as every other boundary similar to it.. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bot removing attribution tags
John Smith wrote: > These aren't state borders these are administrative borders > (postcodes, town etc), and I'm filling in missing sections manually to > complete postcodes as these weren't imported manually, as a result the > relation isn't correct, each section of the way needs to be tagged > with these values. I used country/state as example for administrative borders. I still don't under stand your problem ! For every administrative border you create a relation and give this relation the tags it needs. The whole relation itself represents an area. The members of the relations are short border lines. It makes no sense for me why you want to tag each way or why the way must be in one part. It can be in one part but it seems that it's not possible because of the 2000 Node/way limit and in such a case you create a relation. Matthias ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bot removing attribution tags
Lennard wrote: > Matthias Versen wrote: > >> A border-way should contain admin_level=X where X is the highest number >> of the border it represents and an boundary=administrative Tag. > > Lowest Correct, my mistake. I meant the highest importance which is the lowest number. Matthias ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bot removing attribution tags
2009/9/28 Matthias Versen : > Ruben Wisniewski wrote: >> Hi John, >> >> thank you for your report, but whats wrong with moving the tags to a >> relation, this is the common way as far as I know, only all ways >> together represent the border, so the relation should hold the tags. >> Else if there is a change, not every way has to be edited. > > A border-way should contain admin_level=X where X is the highest number > of the border it represents and an boundary=administrative Tag. > > The whole border itself is represented by a relation with the correct Tags. > > You usually will never have one borderline for a whole border because > for example a border for a country represents also (only a part of it) > the border for a state in this country. > > I think that the edits made by the bot are correct. These aren't state borders these are administrative borders (postcodes, town etc), and I'm filling in missing sections manually to complete postcodes as these weren't imported manually, as a result the relation isn't correct, each section of the way needs to be tagged with these values. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bot removing attribution tags
2009/9/28 Ruben Wisniewski : > Hi John, > > thank you for your report, but whats wrong with moving the tags to a > relation, this is the common way as far as I know, only all ways > together represent the border, so the relation should hold the tags. > Else if there is a change, not every way has to be edited. Because these boundaries were never fully imported so when I add sections of missing boundary I need to re-add the missing tags that were removed and add them to the individual ways again. > Btw: The bot was not _removing_ tags, it was moving tags to the relation > if the long way was a circle (first and last node was the same) the ways > was split up and the tags of the way was moved to the relation. It's > easy to fix it, if you say the way I did is wrong. But please proof > you're view with a tagging guideline in the wiki or smiliar. The problem isn't fixing it, the problem is I found these mistakes by accident and I don't know how many more exist. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] The French Corine Import has started
Hello, I am sending a quick message to mention that the French import of Corine has started. We created an user for the occasion: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/CLCF06 The polygons are already starting to appear all over France, since we are uploading polygons by polygons. The import will take about a week to complete. The final green light was given by the French community after reviewing some mapnik overlay and review of the logic used for the calculation of overlaps. The maximum size for a way is 2000 nodes. I hope you will enjoy looking at France and see polygons appearing as much as we do currently. This is the first phase of the import. We are importing only polygons with little overlaps with existing OSM geometries. The scripts will be published this week. The goal of this import was to minimize any impacts on the user who have been working hard in completing the map of France. The second phase will be the use of a web interface to allow individual users to import polygons that were not imported manually. The interface will be made public once the main import will be finished. Emilie Laffray signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bot removing attribution tags
Matthias Versen wrote: > A border-way should contain admin_level=X where X is the highest number > of the border it represents and an boundary=administrative Tag. Lowest -- Lennard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bot removing attribution tags
Ruben Wisniewski wrote: > Hi John, > > thank you for your report, but whats wrong with moving the tags to a > relation, this is the common way as far as I know, only all ways > together represent the border, so the relation should hold the tags. > Else if there is a change, not every way has to be edited. A border-way should contain admin_level=X where X is the highest number of the border it represents and an boundary=administrative Tag. The whole border itself is represented by a relation with the correct Tags. You usually will never have one borderline for a whole border because for example a border for a country represents also (only a part of it) the border for a state in this country. I think that the edits made by the bot are correct. Matthias ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bot removing attribution tags
Hi John, thank you for your report, but whats wrong with moving the tags to a relation, this is the common way as far as I know, only all ways together represent the border, so the relation should hold the tags. Else if there is a change, not every way has to be edited. Btw: The bot was not _removing_ tags, it was moving tags to the relation if the long way was a circle (first and last node was the same) the ways was split up and the tags of the way was moved to the relation. It's easy to fix it, if you say the way I did is wrong. But please proof you're view with a tagging guideline in the wiki or smiliar. Greetings Ruben ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] geolocation with GPS in iPhone Safari ???
Shaun McDonald wrote: > On 27 Sep 2009, at 20:06, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> 2009/9/26 bernhard : >>> Can somebody confirm that iPhone Safari has no access to GPS? >> >> did you try to contact Microsoft support? > > Why would Microsoft support be able to help? Why would osm-talk? -- Jonas Häggqvist rasher(at)rasher(dot)dk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] Changeset history - hide 'big' edits?
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> Is it possible at least add "area (big)" in RSS feeds of changesets so it >> is filterable via external services (yahoo pipes)? > > do you know ito? It is a proprietary service but subscribing is free > and it offers this feature you are requesting (see all changes in a > certain area ... as long as they affect ways, rather than just nodes or relations. Also, there often with a delay of several days, and it doesn't show edit comments (as it apparently isn't changeset based). However, with the changeset history barely usable due to "big edit" spam it's probably the most useful provider of watchfeeds. Here's the link: http://www.itoworld.com/static/osmmapper Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [english 95%] Re: How to tag dead-ends and how to distinguish them from incomplete ways
- Original Message - From: "Blaz Lorger" > Using todo tag is solution for existing problem and and a case study to > see > how it works out and whether is it useful. But you are right, making > formal > entry in wiki is overdue. I'll try to take some time to write a proposal. > > Blaz > Great, I think that would solve my (and many other's) problem, if it's rendered in the maps. Thanks! Kai ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] geolocation with GPS in iPhone Safari ???
On 27 Sep 2009, at 20:06, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2009/9/26 bernhard : >> The geolocation API in iPhone Safari does not give the correct >> position. >> Can somebody confirm that iPhone Safari has no access to GPS? > > did you try to contact Microsoft support? > Why would Microsoft support be able to help? Shaun ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Duplicate nodes incorrectly removed by bot BugBuster ?
Apollinaris Schoell writes: > yes this a critical point. also tiger import created 2 nodes for > railways/boundary/road/powerline crossing each other. even if the layer tag > is missing they must not merge. instead a layer tag must be added. > a bot can never solve such a problem. only make it worse. Power lines should have a default layer=5, and so no bot should ever join them to anything. But you're right about railways -- not clear if it's overgrade, below grade, or an at grade crossing. Other than from data imports, the only way to get a duplicate point is for an editor to create one, so perhaps the long-term fix is for editors to move a node slightly when they are asked to split a node (in JOSM, Un-glue Ways). -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Own aerial photos
On Sunday 27 September 2009, Blumpsy wrote: > One of the heroes is a forestry researcher by the name of Alpo Hassinen > who works near the Finnish-Russian border. It's an inaccessible area, so > he uses an R/C plane for taking aerial photographs. The documentary > describes how all he has to do is select the area of interest in some > mapping software, and how the plane then navigates itself, taking > GPS-references photographs at certain intervals. > > This is as technical as the BBC get, so I contacted Alpo for some > further info. > > It turns out they are using a turnkey solution called CropCam: > http://www.cropcam.com The ground control system software [1] that accompanies the Paparazzi project [2] is not too dissimilar from this. robert. [1] http://paparazzi.enac.fr/wiki/GCS [2] http://paparazzi.enac.fr/wiki/Main_Page ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to tag dead-ends and how to distinguish them from incomplete ways
2009/9/26 David Paleino : > k...@vielevisels wrote: > >> Hi, >> many people tag ways, which are incomplete and show just the beginning, >> with the note (or FIXME) = stub. In the wiki, the tag noexit=no is >> intended for this. I think it would be helpful have one way to tag this >> and to render both (dead-ends and incomplete ways), to show where work has >> to be done. >> >> Any comments on this? > > I agree that using noexit=no is a good thing to do. > >> PS: noexit=no is not without problems, often there are ways which start as >> a very good track, but end after some kilometers. So a tag displaying that >> only the beginning of the track is displayed, would be better > > Why? If a way/node is noexit=no, you are telling people that this road > continues somewhere, somehow. As I understand it, it could be the same road, > or another one crossing. The first case, being the same road, applies here > -- dead end roads where only the beginning has been mapped. > > > Anyways, what's the current way of using noexit=*? I've always used that on > ways, the wiki suggests that too, but reading the Talk page it seems like > there was some intention to tag the final node with it? Also josm shows the > dead-end signal when applied to a node. Did I miss something? there is also another issue with noexit: the definition for yes states. "The way ends in the forest or before a barrier. There is no trail or way which is going further from this point. It is also useful to tag this if there is an other way in the near of the end, so that a quality check-program can ignore this. " but it does not clarify, for whom this is valid. Pedestrians can cross different barriers than cars and bikes, they have different legal rights to use ways, etc. Many of the noexit=yes that I have seen had been noexits for cars, but bikes and pedestrians could have passed on. besides that, I think non-German people would have to guess the intented meaning of this English ;-) cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Duplicate nodes incorrectly removed by bot BugBuster ?
yes this a critical point. also tiger import created 2 nodes for railways/boundary/road/powerline crossing each other. even if the layer tag is missing they must not merge. instead a layer tag must be added. a bot can never solve such a problem. only make it worse. On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Russ Nelson wrote: > Ruben Wisniewski writes: > > No I'm not only touching this buildings, I tried to fix every doubled > > node. It's the same thing a user would do with a josm validator. > > What is a "doubled node"? Any node which has the same lat/lon as > another node? The US TIGER import created just one node where > limited-access highways crossed local roads at a bridge. Sometimes > I've separated them by selecting the node, and asking JOSM to create > another node. Now, maybe JOSM should move the nodes ever so slightly > apart from each other, but that's in the nature of an improvement to > JOSM. > > It's definitely NOT correct to take two nodes which are at the same > location and merge them, particularly if they're part of two different > ways tagged with different layer= values. > > -- > --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com > Crynwr supports open source software > 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 > Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] geolocation with GPS in iPhone Safari ???
2009/9/26 bernhard : > The geolocation API in iPhone Safari does not give the correct position. > Can somebody confirm that iPhone Safari has no access to GPS? did you try to contact Microsoft support? cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to tag dead-ends and how to disting uish them from incomplete ways
On Sunday 27 September 2009 02:38:31 Dave F. wrote: > You see, this is where I get /really /confused > > I see no reference to 'todo' or 'continue' in the general OSM wiki. > In the Groundtruth wiki page they're highlighted red, saying there there > no reference page. > > I'm repeatedly told "don't tag for the renderers" > > Yet it appears in this case the renderers are telling the mappers what > to do. > The previous post implies these tags will only work in Groundtruth renders. > > What am I not understanding? > > At the moment it looks like the left hand is deliberately not > telling the right what is going on. > > I fully support the endeavours of OSM but the hierarchical stature of it > leaves me baffled at the moment. > > Oh, & Liz, if you're reading. please don't post to tell me some of the > 'regulars' have anarchy symbols on the blog page as if that some how > makes it all OK. It can hardly be called tagging for the renderer. No existing tag was misused to get desired result. Tagging schema and renderer style were extended to provide new functionality. That is what O in OSM stands for :-) Of course most/all renderers will support any tag. It is only a question of style used. I would not hold a breath while waiting for mainstream renderer setups to support "way not finished" tags, but you can always do it yourself. Using todo tag is solution for existing problem and and a case study to see how it works out and whether is it useful. But you are right, making formal entry in wiki is overdue. I'll try to take some time to write a proposal. Blaz ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Duplicate nodes incorrectly removed by bot BugBuster ?
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Russ Nelson wrote: > Ruben Wisniewski writes: > > No I'm not only touching this buildings, I tried to fix every doubled > > node. It's the same thing a user would do with a josm validator. > > What is a "doubled node"? Any node which has the same lat/lon as > another node? The US TIGER import created just one node where > limited-access highways crossed local roads at a bridge. Sometimes > I've separated them by selecting the node, and asking JOSM to create > another node. Now, maybe JOSM should move the nodes ever so slightly > apart from each other, but that's in the nature of an improvement to > JOSM. > > It's definitely NOT correct to take two nodes which are at the same > location and merge them, particularly if they're part of two different > ways tagged with different layer= values. Right on. Most of the mistakenly doubled nodes probably can't be solved automatically. If the two nodes are contained in more than one way, you don't know if you should merge them or not. If the two nodes are listed more than once, non-consecutively, in a single way, you don't know if you should merge them or not. This latter situation is almost surely a mistake, but the fix may or may not be to merge the nodes. The fix might be to split the way, turn one section of it into a bridge, and add a layer tag, for instance. If one of the two nodes is contained exactly once in exactly one way, directly consecutive to the other node which is in the exact same location, I guess it's safe to automatically remove the former node. But I'm not sure, so even if you just want to do that I'd suggest writing up a proposal and giving people time to come up with objections first. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Own aerial photos
A few months ago, the BBC aired a wildlife programme titled "Iron Curtain, Ribbon of Life". It dealt with the former no-man's land between the East and West. The strip along those former borders runs over a length of 13,000 km, from Finland to Bulgaria. Here is the program's page on the BBC web site: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00j1bzp The episode is no longer available through iPlayer, but with a little help from Google, you will find it on the Internet. The programme visits a number of nature conservationists along this strip, documenting how local enthusiasts are trying to turn this area into nature reserves. One of the heroes is a forestry researcher by the name of Alpo Hassinen who works near the Finnish-Russian border. It's an inaccessible area, so he uses an R/C plane for taking aerial photographs. The documentary describes how all he has to do is select the area of interest in some mapping software, and how the plane then navigates itself, taking GPS-references photographs at certain intervals. This is as technical as the BBC get, so I contacted Alpo for some further info. It turns out they are using a turnkey solution called CropCam: http://www.cropcam.com This is from their web site: "The CropCam is $7,000 USD, highly efficient and user friendly for the commercial market. It is a radio control (RC) glider plane equipped with a Pentax digital camera, controlled by an autopilot, along with pre-programmed ground control software. Available in electric, the CropCam will also work with a RC transmitter for manual control of the plane. The CropCam utilizes an autopilot for navigation and control of the camera,..." The brochure claims an altitude of up to 4000 feet (about 1200 m), but Alpo pointed out that Finnish regulations dictate to fly no higher than 150 m, and that the operator must be able to see the plane at all times. The Cropcam can fly 20-40 km in one flight, mapping 30-100 hectares. In one flight they normally take about 300-600 pictures. The flight recorder logs GPS coordinates, as well as pitch and roll, but the drift or lag of the GPS signal is quite noticeable. Another problem is georeferencing and stitching, for which no quick and accurate solution seems to exist. Example photographs from Alpo's work are available here: http://mekri.joensuu.fi/Kuvat/cropcam/index.htm Cheers PS: If you are interested in the BBC programme: Alpo's slot starts at 21:22 min and lasts for 2:14 min. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Duplicate nodes incorrectly removed by bot BugBuster ?
Ruben Wisniewski writes: > No I'm not only touching this buildings, I tried to fix every doubled > node. It's the same thing a user would do with a josm validator. What is a "doubled node"? Any node which has the same lat/lon as another node? The US TIGER import created just one node where limited-access highways crossed local roads at a bridge. Sometimes I've separated them by selecting the node, and asking JOSM to create another node. Now, maybe JOSM should move the nodes ever so slightly apart from each other, but that's in the nature of an improvement to JOSM. It's definitely NOT correct to take two nodes which are at the same location and merge them, particularly if they're part of two different ways tagged with different layer= values. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Grant for usage of a google mapmaper users data to me
Will you react calmly if Google send messages to > every OSM contributor asking them to dual-license their data? Only if > you can honestly answer yes should you proceed. HI there, I would never just spam anyone. But there are some really motivated mappers in kosovo, and they dont even understand that they cannot print these maps or use them properly. The guy was still searching for the print buttton! Thanks! mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-talk] address interpolation
I'm experimenting with adding house numbering for the first time (and using the address interpolation plugin). One common case I came across was 25, 25A, 25B, ... I wonder whether addr:interpolation=alphabetic could include this case (in essence when the first node has no letter, the second would be A, the next B and so on up to the explicit final one, rather than always starting on a letter - though that existing case isn't excluded of course). It doesn't need any change other than in how it is documented. The JOSM plugin could easily support this too. Where it's just 25 and 25A (usually a house that's been built in a gap) it hardly matters, but I found them 3, 4 and 5 in a row like this. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Grant for usage of a google mapmaper users data to me
Hi, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: > We need to state that we are not working for yahoo and why people > should prefer to license thier work to OSM over other sites. No. Such we-are-better-than-them reasoning will only give you the kind of negative feedback you have just received. I agree that it would be nice to have some kind of standard message for GMM contributors that explains our project and the possibility of dual licensing. However, please always bear in mind that Google have the same rights vis a vis our contributors, so if you do start to poach in their realm, test yourself: Will you react calmly if Google send messages to every OSM contributor asking them to dual-license their data? Only if you can honestly answer yes should you proceed. If you do prepare such a standard letter, be sure to highlight the positives and not the negatives: "Dear so-and-so, I see you have added a tremendous amount of data to Google Map Maker which I found very impressive. I am involved with a non-profit project that does something similar to Google Map Maker. It is called OpenStreetMap. We try to be soemthing like a Wikipedia for maps - everyone can contribute, and everyone can use our data for any purpose they like (drawing different kinds of maps, offering various services, programming computer games - whatever). I, and indeed the whole OpenStreetMap project, would indeed be very interested to be able to use the data that you gave to Google Map Maker for OpenStreetMap as well. Since OpenStreetMap follows very strict intellectual property rules, we do not simply copy data from anywhere - we always ask the original rights owner for permission. Since you are the original rights owner of the data you contributed to Google Map Maker, will you allow me to incorporate your data in OpenStreetMap as well? There would be no additional work involved for you. You can find more about the OSM project here ... and all our data is licensed under CC-BY-SA which you can read more about here ..." Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] walking-papers.org is dead?
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 10:33:06 -0700, Michal Migurski wrote: > I've given the image processor a hard kick. Thank you Mike! -- pratite me na twitteru - www.twitter.com/valentt http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com/ linux, blog, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org. ICQ: 2125241, Skype: valent.turkovic ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Duplicate nodes incorrectly removed by bot BugBuster ?
please stop this Bot until it's usefulness is proven and others agree it should run. it was never discussed in this list and a bot affecting the whole planet should be discussed first for risks. On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 8:28 AM, Ruben Wisniewski wrote: > Hi there, > > just want to join the discussion, this is my first post to this list, > and till now I don't followed the list. > > BugBuster is my Bot. > > woodpeck note me that you discuss it here. > > Pieren schrieb: > > > > Yes, it seems it is only touching buildings, maybe created by a > > > previous import because they contain a tag "ID". > > > > > > No I'm not only touching this buildings, I tried to fix every doubled > node. It's the same thing a user would do with a josm validator. > what happens if 2 nodes are used by different ways? merging them is creating even more problems by creating duplicate ways. some duplicates are on purpose and might be the smaller problem in the database. > > It might look like just editing this because the bot has the sorted ways > from the planet file as source and the import seems to be very fast so > the IDs of the ways are very close together. > running a bot of a planet file is a bit dangerous, there are well know problems with the integrity of the planet file. > Eugene Alvin Villar schrieb: > > > > Nope. That way is not closed. A closed way is a way has the *same* > starting > > > and ending nodes, not a starting and an ending node that happen to have > > > identical coordinates. So the way is still broken, but the bot's fix > > > (duplicated nodes) is correct for the particular bug the bot is fixing. > > > You're right the bot only fix this one bug in this run. I doesn't fix > the broken import script that has created the buildings before. Just > because I didn't know about it. > > > Shaun McDonald schrieb: > > > > Another bad thing about that bot is that it is producing a changeset > > > for each edit, with nearly 10 changesets per minute. > > > > > > I'm sorry, didn't thought this is a problem, I just heard before that > often somebody dislike that changesets changed things over the whole > world and ordering the ways which are near together in location is much > work if I just want to use the planet file as datasource again. I might > change to exports of parts of the world and upload changsets for the > parts. If you (all) like this way more. Or I might merge the changesets > to big changesets from the IDs from the ways which leads in changesets > with boxing around the world. > > > again don't come up with a bot if you are not sure about side effects. fixing duplicate nodes on an open polygon is a good idea. but fixing all duplicate nodes isn't > Greetings Ruben > > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Grant for usage of a google mapmaper users data to me
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: > here is what they guy wrote to me : > > Thanks but you are wasting time. i do not get any payment from > google neither from Yahoo (OSM). >so please leave me alone i do not need any more explanations what > google do or don't or yahoo or some >thing like that, i do know that you are getting payed for this > project do whatever you want. >please do me a favour. DO NOT WRITE BACK TO ME ANY MORE. > > OMG, > > mike > That's an interesting reply.. It is quite annoying to see people reacting like this. Emilie Laffray signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bot removing attribution tags
2009/9/28 Dave F. : > Could you post a link to those please? > We can still see the errors within the history. I've made a lot of edits today, this is one of the relations I deleted and I had to retag the ways: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/253976/history There are others but it would take too much digging to find them. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bot removing attribution tags
John Smith wrote: > 2009/9/28 Matthias Versen : > >> Please post an example changeset where this bot did something wrong. >> > > I've already fixed the mistakes I've found so far, but I don't know > how many other mistakes there are. > Could you post a link to those please? We can still see the errors within the history. Cheers Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bot removing attribution tags
2009/9/28 Matthias Versen : > Please post an example changeset where this bot did something wrong. I've already fixed the mistakes I've found so far, but I don't know how many other mistakes there are. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Duplicate nodes incorrectly removed by bot BugBuster ?
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Ruben Wisniewski wrote: > No I'm not only touching this buildings, I tried to fix every doubled > node. It's the same thing a user would do with a josm validator. > > It might look like just editing this because the bot has the sorted ways > from the planet file as source and the import seems to be very fast so > the IDs of the ways are very close together. Two questions then: - are you just removing duplicate nodes when they are twice in the way ? are you just checking the node-id or also the position ? - do you take into account the fact that closed ways are normally using the same node-id at first and last in the list ? Could you also enhance your page on the wiki to explain a bit more in details what your bot is doing ? Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bot removing attribution tags
2009/9/28 Dave F. : > Excuse my ignorance, what's ABS? Australian Bureau of Statistics, they've donated a large data set of postcode/suburb and other administrative boundaries. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bot removing attribution tags
John Smith wrote: >> What are the tags that it/he is wrong to remove? > > ABS imported data was stripped from ways and moved to a relation which > is incorrect, I fixed a couple manually but I don't know how many more > times this has happened. Please post an example changeset where this bot did something wrong. Matthias ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bot removing attribution tags
John Smith wrote: > 2009/9/28 Dave F. : > >> What are the tags that it/he is wrong to remove? >> > > ABS imported data was stripped from ways and moved to a relation which > is incorrect, I fixed a couple manually but I don't know how many more > times this has happened. > > > Excuse my ignorance, what's ABS? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Duplicate nodes incorrectly removed by bot BugBuster ?
Hi there, just want to join the discussion, this is my first post to this list, and till now I don't followed the list. BugBuster is my Bot. woodpeck note me that you discuss it here. Pieren schrieb: > > Yes, it seems it is only touching buildings, maybe created by a > > previous import because they contain a tag "ID". > > > No I'm not only touching this buildings, I tried to fix every doubled node. It's the same thing a user would do with a josm validator. It might look like just editing this because the bot has the sorted ways from the planet file as source and the import seems to be very fast so the IDs of the ways are very close together. Eugene Alvin Villar schrieb: > > Nope. That way is not closed. A closed way is a way has the *same* starting > > and ending nodes, not a starting and an ending node that happen to have > > identical coordinates. So the way is still broken, but the bot's fix > > (duplicated nodes) is correct for the particular bug the bot is fixing. > You're right the bot only fix this one bug in this run. I doesn't fix the broken import script that has created the buildings before. Just because I didn't know about it. Shaun McDonald schrieb: > > Another bad thing about that bot is that it is producing a changeset > > for each edit, with nearly 10 changesets per minute. > > > I'm sorry, didn't thought this is a problem, I just heard before that often somebody dislike that changesets changed things over the whole world and ordering the ways which are near together in location is much work if I just want to use the planet file as datasource again. I might change to exports of parts of the world and upload changsets for the parts. If you (all) like this way more. Or I might merge the changesets to big changesets from the IDs from the ways which leads in changesets with boxing around the world. Greetings Ruben ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bot removing attribution tags
2009/9/28 Dave F. : > What are the tags that it/he is wrong to remove? ABS imported data was stripped from ways and moved to a relation which is incorrect, I fixed a couple manually but I don't know how many more times this has happened. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bot removing attribution tags
John Smith wrote: > This bot: > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/BugBuster > > Is removing all sorts of tags from ways, including attribution tags, > can it please be blocked immediately to prevent further damage. > > Hi John What are the tags that it/he is wrong to remove? For my edits, he's doing a good job by removing duplicate nodes from ways & removing the created_by tag, which should be used according to the wiki http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:created_by Basically I think he's correcting my mistakes for which I'm grateful. Cheers Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Grant for usage of a google mapmaper users data to me
Listen guys, this should all go into the FAQ. I am having problems educating people about what OSM is, and how it differs to GMM. We need to state that we are not working for yahoo and why people should prefer to license thier work to OSM over other sites. We also have to tell people that google does not own thier contributions, but the reference data that it is built upon. I would like to have a standard waiver to allow people to license the copyrights of thier GMM work to the OSM foundation. It says in the GMM TOS that you have to have full ownership of the data you enter in, that means they cannot for example take data from OSM. It also means they can license it to us. This should be a standard contract that we can also use for other wikimapia projects, and travel guides. We should start collecting rights for this data, even if we cannot import it directly and there are other issues, if we have at least permission to use it it would be a big win as reference material. thanks, mike On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > Richard Fairhurst wrote: >> jamesmikedupont wrote: >>> please correct me when I am wrong, that he as an author still owns >>> his data and can license it to me. >> >> That needs someone from Google to answer, not us. > > Sure? > > I mean, would they not have to say very clearly if they wanted an > exclusive license? > > Bye > Frederik > > > ___ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-t...@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Grant for usage of a google mapmaper users data to me
Hi, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > jamesmikedupont wrote: >> please correct me when I am wrong, that he as an author still owns >> his data and can license it to me. > > That needs someone from Google to answer, not us. Sure? I mean, would they not have to say very clearly if they wanted an exclusive license? Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Brainstorming: Simple Revert-Tools
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 3:04 PM, John Smith wrote: > 2009/9/4 Richard Fairhurst : >> That's lovely, but it would be less selfish if you could refrain from >> filling up the rest of our mailboxes' with it, given that you've been >> responsible for over 10% of postings to talk@ since August 1st. > > I'm glad you care so much you took the time to keep stats, next time I > need some info I know exactly who to ask! :) Look at the bright side. It seems to have resulted in a featured image proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php?title=Featured_image_proposals&oldid=341451#Mailing_List_Activity_Graph ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Grant for usage of a google mapmaper users data to me
here is what they guy wrote to me : Thanks but you are wasting time. i do not get any payment from google neither from Yahoo (OSM). so please leave me alone i do not need any more explanations what google do or don't or yahoo or some thing like that, i do know that you are getting payed for this project do whatever you want. please do me a favour. DO NOT WRITE BACK TO ME ANY MORE. OMG, mike On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > jamesmikedupont wrote: >> please correct me when I am wrong, that he as an author still owns >> his data and can license it to me. > > That needs someone from Google to answer, not us. > > I suggest you ask them on the Google MapMaker forum: > http://groups.google.com/group/map-your-world > > cheers > Richard > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/Grant-for-usage-of-a-google-mapmaper-users-data-to-me-tp25632402p25632629.html > Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > ___ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-t...@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] zoomlevel 8 rendering
I understand (didn't check the tag:natural=water) That is one needs to add the - a bit redundant - natural=water to waterway=riverbank to get it rendered at zl>=6 Riverbank wiki entry updated accordingly... Roman > On Sun, 2009-09-27 at 08:25 +0300, Roman Neumüller wrote: >> When does zoomlevel 8 get rendered? > > Every few weeks after a full import or when started manually. It was > last done yesterday > >> River Lena for example did not update on zoomlevel 8 since 24. July! (1) >> No problem for zoomlevel 9 though (2)... > > The part which renders on zoom level 8 has natural=water & > waterway=riverbank [1] > > The part which does not render has just waterway=riverbank [2] > > The osm.xml style rules only render riverbank up to a scale of 2 > million: > > > [waterway] = 'dock' or [landuse] = 'reservoir' or > [landuse] = 'water' or [waterway] = 'mill_pond' or [waterway] = > 'riverbank' or [waterway]='canal' > 200 > > #b5d0d0 > > > > This means that they only appear at zoom >= 9. > > The natural=water renders to a scale of 10M which is zoom >= 6. > > 1: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/27729622 > 2: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/29074703 > > > Jon > >> Roman >> >> (1) >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=61.215&lon=128.018&zoom=8&layers=B000FTF >> (2) >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=61.215&lon=128.018&zoom=9&layers=B000FTF > > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Grant for usage of a google mapmaper users data to me
jamesmikedupont wrote: > please correct me when I am wrong, that he as an author still owns > his data and can license it to me. That needs someone from Google to answer, not us. I suggest you ask them on the Google MapMaker forum: http://groups.google.com/group/map-your-world cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Grant-for-usage-of-a-google-mapmaper-users-data-to-me-tp25632402p25632629.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Duplicate nodes incorrectly removed by bot BugBuster ?
Pieren schrieb: > On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 6:02 PM, Gary68 wrote: >> in a closed way the first and the last node must be the same your >> example is an error. >> > > Yes, it seems it is only touching buildings, maybe created by a > previous import because they contain a tag "ID". The original way has > the same node twice at the end of the list, the modified way is not > closed anymore. My guess is that the original creation was wrong and > the fix is also wrong... I fixed most of the problems with the validator in josm. (Changesets 2648295 [1], 2648339 [2], 2649930 [3]). I also contacted the creating user GChris [4] about this issue. There is still a *lot* of work to do (some Nodes of square buildings are not identical but only have ~1cm distance, a lot of buildings are not yet closed, some identical ways-parts are connected by ways without any tags, ...) Peter [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/2648295 [2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/2648339 [2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/2649930 [3] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/2649930 [5] http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/GChris ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] zoomlevel 8 rendering
On Sun, 2009-09-27 at 08:25 +0300, Roman Neumüller wrote: > When does zoomlevel 8 get rendered? Every few weeks after a full import or when started manually. It was last done yesterday > River Lena for example did not update on zoomlevel 8 since 24. July! (1) > No problem for zoomlevel 9 though (2)... The part which renders on zoom level 8 has natural=water & waterway=riverbank [1] The part which does not render has just waterway=riverbank [2] The osm.xml style rules only render riverbank up to a scale of 2 million: [waterway] = 'dock' or [landuse] = 'reservoir' or [landuse] = 'water' or [waterway] = 'mill_pond' or [waterway] = 'riverbank' or [waterway]='canal' 200 #b5d0d0 This means that they only appear at zoom >= 9. The natural=water renders to a scale of 10M which is zoom >= 6. 1: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/27729622 2: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/29074703 Jon > Roman > > (1) > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=61.215&lon=128.018&zoom=8&layers=B000FTF > (2) > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=61.215&lon=128.018&zoom=9&layers=B000FTF ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bot removing attribution tags
2009/9/27 Pieren : > Maybe he plans another extra run later. If you want to contact him to > know more about his work, do it. I emailed him when I emailed the list, but no reply yet. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Grant for usage of a google mapmaper users data to me
Hi there, I am in discussion with a google mapmaker user to relicense his work to me. here is my mail, please correct me when I am wrong, that he as an author still owns his data and can license it to me. thanks, mike === Hi there, all you have to do do is make your work that you own available to me to put into OSM. You give google all the rights to your data, you get no rights from them. But you still own all your data! "By submitting User Submissions to the Service, you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display, distribute, and create derivative works of the User Submission. " That means you give google full access to your data. "You confirm and warrant to Google that you own or have all of the necessary rights or permissions to grant this license. You also grant to end users of Google services the right to access and use, including the right to edit, the User Submissions as permitted under the applicable Google terms of service." That means you own all your data. You can still do what you want with your data, like grant me license to use your data in OSM. http://www.google.com/mapmaker/intl/en_ALL/mapfiles/s/terms_mapmaker.html ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bot removing attribution tags
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 8:59 AM, John Smith wrote: > This bot: > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/BugBuster > > Is removing all sorts of tags from ways, including attribution tags, > can it please be blocked immediately to prevent further damage. > Did you read this: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2009-September/042688.html For me, this bot is only modifying a group of objects, almost always the same, composee of buildings in the same area. It looks like a script trying to fix a previous import issue - the building ways are not closed - but the second version is not perfect either. As soon as he is not changing other stuff, I don't care about this. Maybe he plans another extra run later. If you want to contact him to know more about his work, do it. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Bot removing attribution tags
This bot: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/BugBuster Is removing all sorts of tags from ways, including attribution tags, can it please be blocked immediately to prevent further damage. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
