Re: [Talk-us] Blame me for JOSM yellowness
Does anybody object to this? If not, I'll look at inserting special case code which removes tiger:reviewed when the way or any node it solely includes is edited in any way. I'm also not in favor of automatic tag removing, for the same reason - any change does not imply adequately fixed. pgpos2eVYLpYd.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Blame me for JOSM yellowness
On Apr 24, 2009, at 10:31 PM, Apollinaris Schoell wrote: have already done my customize version and removed it from the style file Then what problem are you trying to solve with this discussion? You seem to be the only person with negative feelings about this change. I think that unless there's a groundswell of opinion against it, I'm not going to worry. Because, I mean, there *is* another solution to the problem of unreviewed tiger data: Review it! -- Russ Nelson - http://community.cloudmade.com/blog - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:RussNelson r...@cloudmade.com - Twitter: Russ_OSM - http://openstreetmap.org/user/RussNelson ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Blame me for JOSM yellowness
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Russ Nelson r...@cloudmade.com wrote: Okay, it's pretty clear that most people don't want this change implemented. but it's still the right thing to do. -- Bill n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] What, exactly, does the absence of tiger:reviewed=no mean?
On Apr 25, 2009, at 7:47 AM, Bill Ricker wrote: On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Russ Nelson r...@cloudmade.com wrote: Okay, it's pretty clear that most people don't want this change implemented. but it's still the right thing to do. Yes and no. Further to Apo's point that tiger:reviewed isn't well- defined enough to be useful, auto-removing it following any edit is equally poorly defined to be useful. I think we need to morph this over to a discussion of what, exactly, does the absence of tiger:reviewed=no mean? Does it mean one or all of: o I have travelled the entire length of the way. It is spatially correct. o I have examined every possible path for a vehicle through every intersection and they are all correct. o I have verified that all of the tags on this way are correct. -- Russ Nelson - http://community.cloudmade.com/blog - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:RussNelson r...@cloudmade.com - Twitter: Russ_OSM - http://openstreetmap.org/user/RussNelson ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] What, exactly, does the absence of tiger:reviewed=no mean?
On Sat, 2009-04-25 at 19:09 -0700, Russ Nelson wrote: I think we need to morph this over to a discussion of what, exactly, does the absence of tiger:reviewed=no mean? Does it mean one or all of: o I have travelled the entire length of the way. It is spatially correct. o I have examined every possible path for a vehicle through every intersection and they are all correct. o I have verified that all of the tags on this way are correct. Same as any edit, it means I've improved this in some way. Given the vast array of things we can do to improve a point or way there is a lot of room for variability. Given a TIGER interstate junction, is it reasonable to: add nodes to the ramps to improve the curves; disconnect the node at the overpass and create a bridge; and split the way into dual carriageway, all from Y!WMS and call it improved? Certainly. Could it still be wrong if the freeway was realigned after the Y!WMS image was taken? Sure. I'd say any one of those three potential edits is worthy of removing reviewed:no. Just disconnecting the overpass from the freeway is a big topological win. Improving the curve of the exit ramp is only decorative from the point of view of topology, but important to us humans. (I saw a 270-degree ramp on I-5 that had three nodes. A triangular ramp. Like Picasso decided to do freeway design for a week. [1] ) Likewise, splitting the carriageway is important to getting the map right. Must you do all three? If so shouldn't you have a gpx trace to back it up, or is aerial imagery good enough? So currently, I think removing the reviewed:no means, I've improved this rather than, I've perfected this. To encourage or support more demanding requirements should surely be backed with a tool that reminds and suggests how to fix TIGER. Not just an anthropomorphized paperclip asking Shouldn't your motorway have grade-separated interchanges? Naw, nevermind. The paperclip is the way to go. Best regards, Richard [1] http://www.postershop.com/Picasso-Pablo/Picasso-Pablo-Le-Taureau-2408894.html ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
