[OSM-talk] Removing non-CT data method?
It seems to me to be premature to start removing map features. Edit, remap from aerial and acceptable sources would be OK, IMO. Just not something I'll be spending time on. I was checking out a local change and was surprised that the church was missing since it is a prominent local feature that I drive by frequently. So I added it back. Then I looked at a local area extract to find it in the history: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/469532416/history The last 2 edit authors have accepted the CTs, but the feature is still deleted? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Removing non-CT data method?
On 9/1/2011 5:39 PM, Mike N wrote: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/469532416/history The last 2 edit authors have accepted the CTs, but the feature is still deleted? Looks like vandalism by rw__. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Removing non-CT data method?
Why? it's replaced by a building polygon. so it's improvement of data and license status. On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: On 9/1/2011 5:39 PM, Mike N wrote: http://www.openstreetmap.org/**browse/node/469532416/historyhttp://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/469532416/history The last 2 edit authors have accepted the CTs, but the feature is still deleted? Looks like vandalism by rw__. __**_ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talkhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Removing non-CT data method?
Look at the whole change set, notably, it includes adding this way:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/128541629
Bob
if (*ra4 != 0xffc78948) { return false; }
On 1 Sep 2011, at 23:06, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 9/1/2011 5:39 PM, Mike N wrote:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/469532416/history
The last 2 edit authors have accepted the CTs, but the feature is still
deleted?
Looks like vandalism by rw__.
___
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] Removing non-CT data method?
On 9/1/2011 6:20 PM, Thomas Davie wrote: Look at the whole change set, notably, it includes adding this way: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/128541629 Which was (and is) not labeled as the church. Mike had to add the church back: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1420378996 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Removing non-CT data method?
On 9/1/2011 6:14 PM, Apollinaris Schoell wrote: Why? it's replaced by a building polygon. so it's improvement of data and license status. The building polygon has no tags except building=yes. An anonymous building has less value to OSM than a searchable POI in my opinion. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Removing non-CT data method?
You have been too fast in adding them and fix the data. Certainly agree that a building alone has not much value. drawing nice looking maps is not much value compared to a verified POI On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Mike N nice...@att.net wrote: On 9/1/2011 6:14 PM, Apollinaris Schoell wrote: Why? it's replaced by a building polygon. so it's improvement of data and license status. The building polygon has no tags except building=yes. An anonymous building has less value to OSM than a searchable POI in my opinion. __**_ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talkhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Removing non-CT data method?
On 9/1/2011 9:08 PM, Apollinaris Schoell wrote: You have been too fast in adding them and fix the data. Certainly agree that a building alone has not much value. drawing nice looking maps is not much value compared to a verified POI I can't figure out what you're trying to say or who you're directing it at. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
