2019-06-29, št, 15:38 Mike N rašė:
> I don't remember why but I arrived at the new scheme several years ago
> and have been using it ever since. So apparently data consumers will
> be ignoring my tagging?
There are so many of them (data consumers) that it is possible to
say that some will
On 6/29/2019 8:08 AM, Tomas Straupis wrote:
Here I would note that 2nd point is enough to keep original water
scheme and depreciate the new one. Because of data consumers.
I don't remember why but I arrived at the new scheme several years ago
and have been using it ever since. So
2019-06-29, št, 14:23 Mateusz Konieczny rašė:
> All "I prefer tag Y over X" are "rule Z is good way to deciding which tag is
> better" is
> a personal opinion, so I am not sure why you are pointing this out.
> I even started from "I see (...)".
I pointed that:
1. Original OpenStreetMap water
If I understand things correctly, the original poster is reverting
perfectly fine changes to an equivalent, accepted, current tagging
scheme, because they do not want to update their own local code that
uses the data.
I can only imagine if HOT or another group started doing that.
"Our scripts
29 Jun 2019, 13:02 by tomasstrau...@gmail.com:
> 2019-06-29, št, 13:38 Christoph Hormann rašė:
>
>> And it is clear from the data that both tagging schemes enjoy widespread
>> support.
>>
>
> ? landuse=reservoir is used two times more.
>
"two times more" is not a significant difference,
29 Jun 2019, 11:59 by tomasstrau...@gmail.com:
> 2019-06-29, št, 11:58 Mateusz Konieczny rašė:
>
>> (2) I see significant benefit of natural=water + water=*
>>
>
> This is your personal opinion. Opinion of OpenStreetMap community is
> expressed by those who map - in the data.
>
All "I prefer
2019-06-29, št, 13:38 Christoph Hormann rašė:
>> This is your personal opinion.
> No, that is a statement of fact. If this is a good reason for choosing
> a certain tagging over another is a matter of opinion.
When somebody simply says "I think this is better" - it is a
subjective opinion.
On Saturday 29 June 2019, Tomas Straupis wrote:
> > (2) I see significant benefit of natural=water + water=*
>
> This is your personal opinion.
No, that is a statement of fact. If this is a good reason for choosing
a certain tagging over another is a matter of opinion.
> Opinion of
2019-06-29, št, 11:58 Mateusz Konieczny rašė:
> (1) Have you (or someone else) tried making issue on iD bugtracker requesting
> revert
> and explaining why it should be done?
https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6589
> (2) I see significant benefit of natural=water + water=*
This is
29 Jun 2019, 08:11 by tomasstrau...@gmail.com:
> Hi
>
> I've noticed that iD started forcing people to retag waterbodies
> from original OpenStreetMap scheme like landuse=reservoir to new'er,
> less popular and in no way better scheme:
> natural=water+water=reservoir (and similar).
>
(1) Have
.
Cheers - Phil
-Original Message-
From: Tomas Straupis [mailto:tomasstrau...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, 29 June 2019 5:30 PM
To: Phil Wyatt
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] iD forces mistagging again
> . because of duplicate schemes.. And therin lies the real problem!
I've said years
Hi
I've noticed that iD started forcing people to retag waterbodies
from original OpenStreetMap scheme like landuse=reservoir to new'er,
less popular and in no way better scheme:
natural=water+water=reservoir (and similar).
What can be done about it? Is the only way to solve the problem is
12 matches
Mail list logo
