On 5 April 2016 16:18:53 GMT+01:00, Greg Morgan
>In my case, you'll have to provide more context here. I look at OSM
>Inspector and Keep Right and see all these broken things. That is a
>beautiful discovery. Mappers are trying to improve the map that is
>very
>much a human endeavor and mistak
Context Please!
On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 1:49 AM, Frank Villaro-Dixon
wrote:
> On 16-03-23 13:24:29, Andy Townsend, wrote 1.0K characters saying:
>
>> On 23/03/2016 12:22, Frank Villaro-Dixon wrote:
>>
>>> On 16-03-23 12:20:35, Andy Townsend, wrote 0.3K characters saying:
>>>
On 23/03/2016 12
On 16-03-23 13:24:29, Andy Townsend, wrote 1.0K characters saying:
On 23/03/2016 12:22, Frank Villaro-Dixon wrote:
On 16-03-23 12:20:35, Andy Townsend, wrote 0.3K characters saying:
On 23/03/2016 12:07, Frank Villaro-Dixon wrote:
Again, that's not the goal if it. As said above, the role is NOT
Possibly! I am not sure if I understand the full scope of the issues, but if
someone could catch some of the issues presented in one or more Overpass
queries, I (or anyone, really) can use geojson2maproulette to make a
MapRoulette challenge out of it.
Martijn
> On Mar 22, 2016, at 10:37 AM, Da
Frank Villaro-Dixon wrote:
>On 16-03-22 17:25:37, malenki, wrote 2.1K characters saying:
this is nonsense
>>Example:
>>Think of an MP where the way has – additionally to the tags you want
>>to fix – intermittent=yes and the relation has not.
>>
>>Would you
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 8:12 AM, Frank Villaro-Dixon wrote:
>
>> Can you give me an example ?
>
> Two lakes, collectively known as "Sheep Lakes" but individually known as
"North Sheep Lake" and "South Sheep Lake"
R [natural=water name=Sheep Lakes]
W [natural=water name=North Sheep Lake]
W [natura
On 23/03/2016, Frank Villaro-Dixon wrote:
> Maybe it's an higher priority, but that doesn't interest me. If someone
> wants to, good for them.
Fair enough, we all have different priorities.
> Now, the lower priority 'redundant tag deleting'
> is still needed, and if it can be done automatically
On 22/03/2016, Pierre Béland wrote:
> This is a good proposition to look at unclosed polygons and see if a
> potential incorrect keys to fix.
>
> I agree with others that using a Bot is not a safe way to handle these
> problems. Could a script to extract such unclosed polygons be proposed?
> This
On 22/03/2016, Frank Villaro-Dixon wrote:
> On 16-03-22 10:23:51, Nicolás Alvarez, wrote 1.2K characters saying:
>>
>>> El 22 mar 2016, a las 10:10, Frank Villaro-Dixon
>>> escribió:
>>>
>>> # First goal:
>>> First goal is quite simple. The idea is to work only on relations which
>>> have a natur
On 23/03/2016 12:22, Frank Villaro-Dixon wrote:
On 16-03-23 12:20:35, Andy Townsend, wrote 0.3K characters saying:
On 23/03/2016 12:07, Frank Villaro-Dixon wrote:
Again, that's not the goal if it. As said above, the role is NOT to
change
tags, but to remove redundancies.
It doesn't matter.
On 16-03-23 12:20:35, Andy Townsend, wrote 0.3K characters saying:
On 23/03/2016 12:07, Frank Villaro-Dixon wrote:
Again, that's not the goal if it. As said above, the role is NOT to
change
tags, but to remove redundancies.
It doesn't matter. All of the screed that I wrote yesterday applies
On 16-03-22 16:46:03, Christoph Hormann, wrote 1.5K characters saying:
On Tuesday 22 March 2016, Frank Villaro-Dixon wrote:
Can you give me an example ?
I probably could (after all i am on record for saying waterbody mapping
in OSM is a practical case of the infinite monkey theorem) but right
On 23/03/2016 12:07, Frank Villaro-Dixon wrote:
Again, that's not the goal if it. As said above, the role is NOT to
change
tags, but to remove redundancies.
It doesn't matter. All of the screed that I wrote yesterday applies to
"redundant data" too - we need to understand how it got there, a
On 16-03-23 09:54:34, Warin, wrote 6.0K characters saying:
On 23/03/2016 2:47 AM, Pierre Béland wrote:
On 2016-03-22 14:10, Frank Villaro-Dixon wrote:
# First goal:
First goal is quite simple. The idea is to work only on relations
which have a natural=water . Then, it will:
* Delete natural
On 16-03-22 17:25:37, malenki, wrote 2.1K characters saying:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 15:12:42 +0100,
Frank Villaro-Dixon wrote:
>Mappers frequently map things in ambiguous ways or change existing
>mapping in ways that make it ambiguous and it is hard to decide from
>the data alone how to interpret s
On 16-03-22 14:52:55, Andy Townsend, wrote 7.8K characters saying:
On 22/03/2016 13:10, Frank Villaro-Dixon wrote:
Technically, it was already run on the whole planet, and so far no bugs
were found.
That's not true. Many people complained and all your work was reverted.*
The complaining was t
On 23/03/2016 2:47 AM, Pierre Béland wrote:
On 2016-03-22 14:10, Frank Villaro-Dixon wrote:
># First goal:
>First goal is quite simple. The idea is to work only on relations
>which have a natural=water . Then, it will:
>* Delete natural=water from all the ways if they are NOT closed or
>
I think that this would be a great Maproulette subject!
> On Mar 22, 2016, at 9:23 AM, Maarten Deen wrote:
>
>> On 2016-03-22 14:10, Frank Villaro-Dixon wrote:
>>
>> # First goal:
>> First goal is quite simple. The idea is to work only on relations
>> which have a natural=water . Then, it wi
On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 15:12:42 +0100,
Frank Villaro-Dixon wrote:
> >Mappers frequently map things in ambiguous ways or change existing
> >mapping in ways that make it ambiguous and it is hard to decide from
> >the data alone how to interpret such mapping. A bot will not be any
> >better in doing tha
On 2016-03-22 14:10, Frank Villaro-Dixon wrote:
># First goal:
>First goal is quite simple. The idea is to work only on relations
>which have a natural=water . Then, it will:
> * Delete natural=water from all the ways if they are NOT closed or
> ring 0.
>
This is a good proposition to lo
On Tuesday 22 March 2016, Frank Villaro-Dixon wrote:
>
> Can you give me an example ?
I probably could (after all i am on record for saying waterbody mapping
in OSM is a practical case of the infinite monkey theorem) but right
now i don't have the time to look for a good real world example.
In
On 22/03/2016 13:10, Frank Villaro-Dixon wrote:
Hi everybody,
So, what do you think ?
I think it's a silly idea.
Identifying complex potentially problem areas is one thing - as you've
found, attempting to fix them automatically is quite another. In among
the "obvious" fixes will be many h
On 16-03-22 15:23:44, Maarten Deen, wrote 1.7K characters saying:
On 2016-03-22 14:10, Frank Villaro-Dixon wrote:
# First goal:
First goal is quite simple. The idea is to work only on relations
which have a natural=water . Then, it will:
* Delete natural=water from all the ways if they are NO
On 2016-03-22 14:10, Frank Villaro-Dixon wrote:
# First goal:
First goal is quite simple. The idea is to work only on relations
which have a natural=water . Then, it will:
* Delete natural=water from all the ways if they are NOT closed or
ring 0.
I have been fixing waterways and water area
On 16-03-22 14:53:42, Christoph Hormann, wrote 1.9K characters saying:
On Tuesday 22 March 2016, Frank Villaro-Dixon wrote:
# Why ?
Well, OSM has a quite exhaustive lakes/water surfaces database, but
it's a complete pain to work on because:
* Some non closed ways have a natural=water or
On 16-03-22 10:23:51, Nicolás Alvarez, wrote 1.2K characters saying:
El 22 mar 2016, a las 10:10, Frank Villaro-Dixon
escribió:
# First goal:
First goal is quite simple. The idea is to work only on relations which have a
natural=water . Then, it will:
* Delete natural=water from all the
On Tuesday 22 March 2016, Frank Villaro-Dixon wrote:
>
> # Why ?
> Well, OSM has a quite exhaustive lakes/water surfaces database, but
> it's a complete pain to work on because:
> * Some non closed ways have a natural=water or a water=* tag,
> which makes no sense and is forbidden.
>
> El 22 mar 2016, a las 10:10, Frank Villaro-Dixon
> escribió:
>
> Hi everybody,
>
> I launched a bot (FrankVD_bot) this week which didn't make everyone happy, as
> it wasn't discussed with the community, which is quite normal. Here's then
> the RFC for (let's call it) scorpion.
>
>
> # Ta
Hi everybody,
I launched a bot (FrankVD_bot) this week which didn't make everyone happy,
as it wasn't discussed with the community, which is quite normal. Here's
then the RFC for (let's call it) scorpion.
# Targets
The targeted zones are actually the multipolygons with natural=water on
them
29 matches
Mail list logo