On Wed, 5 Jan 2022 at 10:53, stevea wrote:
>
> Graeme makes a request, Steve does what he can (Warin and Steve have an
> on-list and off-list dialog), Steve leaves alone what he's not sure about
> in the relation, Graeme confirms that "something right" happened and that
> he agrees with Steve
On Jan 4, 2022, at 3:51 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Jan 2022 at 16:51, stevea wrote:
> But it is a bit better than it was five minutes ago.
>
> & has now disappeared from Inspector, so you obviously did something right :-)
>
> I'll also leave the bus route relation to somebody
On Mon, 3 Jan 2022 at 16:51, stevea wrote:
> But it is a bit better than it was five minutes ago.
>
& has now disappeared from Inspector, so you obviously did something right
:-)
I'll also leave the bus route relation to somebody who knows what they're
doing!
Thanks
Graeme
Thanks, mate!
Graeme
On Mon, 3 Jan 2022 at 16:51, stevea wrote:
> I deleted what appeared to be the superfluous way (which indeed WAS part
> of the relation). However, “Route 754” (relation/10974127) seems to need
> some additional “role” tags (forward, backward). I’ve edited hundreds,
>
I deleted what appeared to be the superfluous way (which indeed WAS part of the
relation). However, “Route 754” (relation/10974127) seems to need some
additional “role” tags (forward, backward). I’ve edited hundreds, maybe
thousands of routes (bus, bike, road, rail…) but as I’m a
Been looking at OSM Inspector & it is showing an error on a near-by street:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=id=791590032#map=18/-28.08609/153.42409
The error is being reported as a "Way without tags".
I can see a line there, which appears to be a duplicate of Christine Ave?,
but no
6 matches
Mail list logo
