Paul Norman wrote:
Case 3 ... vandalism creating havoc ... this can only be correctly
>handled by reverting the change set ... a delete button is not the right
>tool!
The revert tools just do a delete.
I hope not!
They roll back to the previous version of an object. I've just had to use that
Am 25.08.2013 10:17, schrieb Lester Caine:
> Paul Norman wrote:
>>> Case 3 ... vandalism creating havoc ... this can only be correctly
>>> >handled by reverting the change set ... a delete button is not the
>>> right
>>> >tool!
>> The revert tools just do a delete.
>
> I hope not!
> They roll back
> From: Lester Caine [mailto:les...@lsces.co.uk]
> Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2013 1:17 AM
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Making iD the default editor on osm.org
>
> Paul Norman wrote:
> >> Case 3 ... vandalism creating havoc ... this can only be correctly
> >> >handl
> From: Peter Wendorff [mailto:wendo...@uni-paderborn.de]
> Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2013 1:57 AM
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Making iD the default editor on osm.org
>
> If you revert a deletion the old nodes aren't re-used, but created as
> new objects. There is no real un
2013/8/25 Peter Wendorff
> >> The revert tools just do a delete.
> >
> > I hope not!
> > They roll back to the previous version of an object. I've just had to
> > use that to fix a problem id created with a commit I had pushed. Revert
> > rolled all the nodes back to their correct position.
>
> I
Am 25.08.2013 11:11, schrieb Paul Norman:
>> From: Peter Wendorff [mailto:wendo...@uni-paderborn.de]
>> Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2013 1:57 AM
>> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Making iD the default editor on osm.org
>>
>> If you revert a deletion the old nodes aren
> From: Peter Wendorff [mailto:wendo...@uni-paderborn.de]
> Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2013 2:34 AM
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Making iD the default editor on osm.org
>
> Am 25.08.2013 11:11, schrieb Paul Norman:
> >> From: Peter Wendorff [mailto:wendo...@uni-paderborn.de]
&
Am 25.08.2013 11:42, schrieb Paul Norman:
>> From: Peter Wendorff [mailto:wendo...@uni-paderborn.de]
>>>
>> If so, then sorry for that - but is there any documentation about it?
>> The API description in the wiki does not mention anything like that, so
>> IMHO it's missing there, isn't it?
>
> The
(remember to check address!)
Peter Wendorff wrote:
If so, then sorry for that - but is there any documentation about it?
>>The API description in the wiki does not mention anything like that, so
>>IMHO it's missing there, isn't it?
>
>They upload a new version of the object with the appropriate
Hi Lester,
Thanks - my fault.
misread the section about 412, which refers to MEMBERS of the updated
object, not to the object itself.
Sorry for the confusion!
regards
Peter
Am 25.08.2013 12:37, schrieb Lester Caine:
> (remember to check address!)
> Peter Wendorff wrote:
If so, then sorry fo
On Aug 23, 2013 5:06 AM, "Martin Koppenhoefer"
wrote:
> IMHO an editor should either display these memberships and relations or
not allow the modification of involved members. Doing neither is crying for
trouble.
I'm willing to go so far as to say any editor that doesn't is fundamentally
lacking
Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
it has been proposed to make the newly released iD v1.1 the
default editor on openstreetmap.org, meaning that if someone doesn't
explicitly chose an editor they will open iD instead of Potlatch.
In an attempt to put some numbers to to the "errors made by new mapp
Hi Andy,
Thanks, this is great. I love having real numbers to discuss.
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 4:36 AM, SomeoneElse wrote:
> Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> it has been proposed to make the newly released iD v1.1 the default
>> editor on openstreetmap.org, meaning that if someone doesn't
John Firebaugh wrote
> Hi Andy,
>
> Thanks, this is great. I love having real numbers to discuss.
Indeed, that is great. So thanks for the effort to produce these numbers and
allow the discussion to come back to an objective debate.
Those numbers speaks towards that iD is "no worse" than P2, pro
Il giorno 21/ago/2013, alle ore 20:10, John Firebaugh
ha scritto:
> So 45 of 79 new contributors (57%) made errors with P2, 16 of 33 (48%) with
> iD, 2 of 5 (40%) with JOSM, and 3 of 6 (50%) with other editors. While
> there's no doubt a fair margin of error here, what I conclude from this i
Thanks so much for running those numbers! Actual data is helpful in a
conversation that has contained quite a few assumptions.
(Continuing the assumption trend...) Anecdotally, as someone who only
became an active editor last year, I found P2 more accessible than JOSM as
a new contributor. I had a
John Firebaugh wrote:
During the last month in this area:
P2 iD JOSM Other (Wheelmap / Go Map! / POI+)
Made no newbie errors34 17 3 3
Made at least one newbie error 40 16 1 3
Made more serious errors 5 0 1 0
So 45 of 79 new con
SomeoneElse wrote:
1) A POI added without a main tag
http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/4295739963
I suspect that people are adding a "point" to a map (in this case for a shop),
and are not seeing "shop" in the default list to the left or understanding that
they can search. In my e
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 9:36 PM, SomeoneElse wrote:
> In an attempt to put some numbers to to the "errors made by new mappers"
> debate, I've done a count-back of new users and editors that they use for
> they area that I keep an eye on in the UK (England and bits of Wales, not
> including bits th
2013/8/25 Steve Bennett
> Hi,
> Just wondering what tools you use to "keep an eye on" that area? I'd
> love to have a better idea of what other editors are doing in my area.
>
I'm using IFTTT to get an email from the rss-feeds created by Pascal Neis'
new mappers service. The feed is here (ad
Am 24.08.13 schrieb Lester Caine:
See other thread an why there should not be a delete button! I made the same
case on potlatch in the past and now the reasons are even greater.
In your last 5 changesets you deleted 7 nodes. You improved the quality of
the map by deleting (and adding) nodes.
Fabian Schmidt wrote:
See other thread an why there should not be a delete button! I made the same
case on potlatch in the past and now the reasons are even greater.
In your last 5 changesets you deleted 7 nodes. You improved the quality of the
map by deleting (and adding) nodes.
When you try
101 - 122 of 122 matches
Mail list logo
