On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 6:48 AM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote:
As a mapper, you have mapped from third party sources and not been in
the place physically to confirm. But you expect other mappers to have
a different threshold for deleting these edit, why?
Because they are not an
Bryce Nesbitt writes:
But this also means a non-expert could well* actually visit the area* and
miss the subtle signs
Sure. That's why people should edit with humility. I think *any* edit
is fair game to ask a question. Not sure that it should result in an
argument, though.
We should default
Russ Nelson wrote:
We need to make sure that the Wikipedia deletionism doesn't take hold
within OSM. Because, if I have to spend time defending the data I've
already entered, that will take away from my effort to enter new
data.
And a lot of wikipedia articles still have pointless complaints
Hi,
I think it is self-evident that correct data shouldn't be deleted from
OSM. I'd be surprised if anyone actually disagrees with that.
However, frequently as an editor I have to make decisions as to the
correctness of data in the database. In the areas I work there is a
lot of data that is
Hi,
On 10/19/2013 07:05 AM, Russ Nelson wrote:
This is wrong, and it's got to stop. Nobody should be deleting data
that somebody else entered unless they have actually BEEN to the
place, failed to see any trace of the mapped entity, and are an expert
at identifying the mapped entity.
I've
Am 19.10.2013 09:41, schrieb Lester Caine:
Russ Nelson wrote:
We need to make sure that the Wikipedia deletionism doesn't take hold
within OSM. Because, if I have to spend time defending the data I've
already entered, that will take away from my effort to enter new
data.
And a lot of
Russ,
Though I'm not the person you're talking about, the problem with your
argument, in your case is that you map things in places you have not
been.
I've seen imported data from you that was created before the LWG's
position on these things, and a lot of it is *highly* suspect. I've
seen old
On Saturday 19 October 2013, Frederik Ramm wrote:
I think that is the core of the problem. For many, the visual power
of the aerial imagery is so strong that any data not matching the
imagery is deemed wrong.
It seems to me instructions for beginners concerning mapping based on
imagery could
Serge Wroclawski writes:
Though I'm not the person you're talking about, the problem with your
argument, in your case is that you map things in places you have not
been.
Some, yes, and some, no. How would you know without talking to me?
Here's a perfect example:
I've recently had two instances of people deleting data that I had
entered. Their rationale? You only map what's on the ground.
Their authority to do so? Armchair mapping.
This is wrong, and it's got to stop. Nobody should be deleting data
that somebody else entered unless they have actually
10 matches
Mail list logo
