Re: [Talk-us] Proposal to Remove Two Duplicate Route Relations in Texas
And now that I've looked into this more, Cam4rd98 didn't cause any of the problems here this time. So, this should have been just brought to the group as how to fix it as a whole and not call out any specific user. The last editor isn't always the person who caused the problems. You should always take a look at the entire history of a relation/way/node to figure out who might need to be contacted to help resolve something. -James ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Proposal to Remove Two Duplicate Route Relations in Texas
> From: skqu...@rushpost.com > To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org > Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 00:01:59 -0600 > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Proposal to Remove Two Duplicate Route Relations in > Texas > > I don't think Cam4rd98 is still an active mapper. > > If you are absolutely, positively sure they are duplicates, I say go > ahead and prune. > > -- > Shawn K. Quinn > skqu...@rushpost.com > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us He is still an active mapper. He's done over 20 edits in the last 17 days. -James ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Proposal to Remove Two Duplicate Route Relations in Texas
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014, at 06:19 PM, Kam, Kristen -(p) wrote: > Hello, > > I am writing in regards to the highway route relations representing US 59 > and US 281 in the state of Texas. > > For US Highway 59, I edited route relation 71232 > (http://osm.org/relation/71232). After editing said relation > (1475243;http://www.osm.org/relation/1475243), I noticed there is a > relation that has members that are also members to 71232. Relation > 1475243 is essentially a duplicate of 71232 and I would like to delete > this relation from the database. I contacted a user (Cam4rd98) who > previously edited 1475243 and mentioned the action the subject to > him/her. To date, I have not received a response. Instead of following up > with the user it was suggested to me that I ought to message the list. > Therefore I am proposing to you all the removal of relation 1475243. > > In addition, I would like to remove relation 1475274 > (http://www.osm.org/relation/1475274) because its members are also > members of relation 1628532 (http://www.osm.org/relation/ 1628532) and > thus is a duplicate. > > Does anyone object to my proposal to remove both relations? I don't think Cam4rd98 is still an active mapper. If you are absolutely, positively sure they are duplicates, I say go ahead and prune. -- Shawn K. Quinn skqu...@rushpost.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Proposal to Remove Two Duplicate Route Relations in Texas
Cam4rd98 is an interesting character, I'll say that. He's new and enthusiastic about mapping, but doesn't quite understand the conventions of OSM. I haven't had to talk to him recently, but previously he's been unresponsive to messages. In this case, I'd say send him a message and delete the relation. If he notices it gone, maybe he'll read his inbox for once. I concur with these Cam4rd98 characterizations as I have done similar coming to these conclusions. OSM is a community. This includes communication amongst its members. Frequently, we reach consensus. We don't do that in a communications vacuum. Reverting changesets by knowledgeable and experienced contributors after shouting into the chasm of OSM citizenship is good work, especially as it is watched and supported by wider consensus. We are building an excellent working map here. Let us well communicate intention. OSM doesn't work when it is considered a solo map, so we must listen. Consensus is essential, though only occasionally easy. SteveA California ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Proposal to Remove Two Duplicate Route Relations in Texas
My bad, I could have worded that better. I shouldn't let personal grievances spill into public discussion. Thanks for keeping the mailing list clean and civil. Am 07.01.2014 20:25 schrieb "Ian Dees" : > Hi folks, > > Please be careful when talking about a specific person. I realize it's > relatively pertinent to the discussion, but lets not make it any more > personal here on the mailing list. > > Thanks, > Your friendly talk-us moderator > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 8:15 PM, Clay Smalley wrote: > >> Cam4rd98 is an interesting character, I'll say that. He's new and >> enthusiastic about mapping, but doesn't quite understand the conventions of >> OSM. I haven't had to talk to him recently, but previously he's been >> unresponsive to messages. >> >> In this case, I'd say send him a message and delete the relation. If he >> notices it gone, maybe he'll read his inbox for once. >> > ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Proposal to Remove Two Duplicate Route Relations in Texas
Hi folks, Please be careful when talking about a specific person. I realize it's relatively pertinent to the discussion, but lets not make it any more personal here on the mailing list. Thanks, Your friendly talk-us moderator On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 8:15 PM, Clay Smalley wrote: > Cam4rd98 is an interesting character, I'll say that. He's new and > enthusiastic about mapping, but doesn't quite understand the conventions of > OSM. I haven't had to talk to him recently, but previously he's been > unresponsive to messages. > > In this case, I'd say send him a message and delete the relation. If he > notices it gone, maybe he'll read his inbox for once. > ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Proposal to Remove Two Duplicate Route Relations in Texas
Cam4rd98 is an interesting character, I'll say that. He's new and enthusiastic about mapping, but doesn't quite understand the conventions of OSM. I haven't had to talk to him recently, but previously he's been unresponsive to messages. In this case, I'd say send him a message and delete the relation. If he notices it gone, maybe he'll read his inbox for once. Am 07.01.2014 18:20 schrieb "Kam, Kristen -(p)" : > Hello, > > > > I am writing in regards to the highway route relations representing US 59 > and US 281 in the state of Texas. > > > > For US Highway 59, I edited route relation 71232 ( > http://osm.org/relation/71232). After editing said relation (1475243; > http://www.osm.org/relation/1475243), I noticed there is a relation that > has members that are also members to 71232. Relation 1475243 is > essentially a duplicate of 71232 and I would like to delete this relation > from the database. I contacted a user (Cam4rd98) who previously edited > 1475243 and mentioned the action the subject to him/her. To date, I have > not received a response. Instead of following up with the user it was > suggested to me that I ought to message the list. Therefore I am proposing > to you all the removal of relation 1475243. > > > > In addition, I would like to remove relation 1475274 ( > http://www.osm.org/relation/1475274) because its members are also members > of relation 1628532 (http://www.osm.org/relation/ 1628532) and thus is a > duplicate. > > > > Does anyone object to my proposal to remove both relations? > > > > Best, > > > > Kristen > > > > --- > > > > OSM Profile à http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/KristenK > > > > *From:* Sebastian Arcus [mailto:s.ar...@open-t.co.uk] > *Sent:* Monday, January 06, 2014 1:07 PM > *To:* talk-us@openstreetmap.org > *Subject:* Re: [Talk-us] Help with non-existent school in Big Sur, CA area > > > > Thanks Volker. It's interesting that there is at least one source that > suggests the existence of that school at some point in time, at least. > > On 06/01/14 13:39, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > According to the USGS Scanned Topographic Maps Layer (in JOSM) there was a > "Sur School (abandoned)" exactly on the other side of the road from where > the actual node is in OSM (I suppose where the stand of trees is on the > areal photograph). I mapped in that area in 2011 and was also looking for > it, but did not find anything on the ground, but I did not look on the > other side of the road (I did not use the scanned maps layer at the time). > > I suggest you move the node across the street, add a source "USGS Sacnned > Topographic Maps" and mark it as abandoned. There is certainly no building > there any more. > > Volker > > (Padova, Italy) > > > > On 6 January 2014 13:00, wrote: > > Send Talk-us mailing list submissions to > talk-us@openstreetmap.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > talk-us-requ...@openstreetmap.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > talk-us-ow...@openstreetmap.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Talk-us digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > >1. Help with non-existent school in Big Sur, CA area > (Sebastian Arcus) >2. Re: Help with non-existent school in Big Sur, CA area > (Richard Welty) >3. Mappy New Year (Richard Weait) > > > -- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2014 20:21:43 + > From: Sebastian Arcus > To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org > Subject: [Talk-us] Help with non-existent school in Big Sur, CA area > Message-ID: <52c9bed7.9060...@open-t.co.uk> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > I'm doing a bit of mapping south of Monterey based on some notes I've > taken two months ago, and I've stumbled over this school on the map: > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/36.31044/-121.88636 > > A search on the Internet doesn't reveal anything called "Sur School". A > search for schools in the area reveals some schools further south - but > nothing close to where this school is on the map and nothing similar > sounding. Also, looking at the satellite imagery, there is nothing close > to this point on the map that looks like either a building or some > remnants of one. There are the disused "Point Sur Naval Facility" > buildings on the other side of the road, but we know what those are and > they are not a school. > > I think the best thing to do is to delete this object. However, could > someone who either lives in the area or has local knowledge confirm that > this school really doesn't exist. All the evidence so far points to it > being the case, but it would be nice if we could have "on the ground" > confirmation before I delete it. > > Thanks > > > > -- > > Message: 2 >
