On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:08 PM, Ian Sergeant wrote:
> On 25 October 2010 10:01, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>>
>> So effectivly in my view swanilli has deleated the bays I originally
[ ... ]
>
> Clearly done the wrong thing, IMO.
>
> I think there is still room to assume good faith.
Absolutely. I'v
On 25 October 2010 10:01, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
> So effectivly in my view swanilli has deleated the bays I originally
> added as nodes, and then put them back in as new nodes with a
> different ID, while at the same time removing some of the tags I
> originally had without providing any alterna
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 5:03 AM, Richard Weait wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 1:38 AM, Andrew Harvey
> wrote:
>> Looks like this has been done again
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/6132651
>>
>> The whole closed way bays that I added have been deleted. I consider
>> this is va
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 1:38 AM, Andrew Harvey
> wrote:
>> Looks like this has been done again
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/6132651
>>
>> The whole closed way bays that I added have been deleted. I consider
>> this is vandalism,
>> what should I do?
>
> Forget about it and l
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 1:38 AM, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> Looks like this has been done again
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/6132651
>
> The whole closed way bays that I added have been deleted. I consider
> this is vandalism,
I think that you would be wrong.
Vandalism would be sp
I should follow up on the reasons why I added these bays as a closed way.
First the bay is the whole body of water, not just some point in the middle.
Second, using a way allows renderers to for instance render names for
large bays at low zooms, and not render names for small bays untill
very high
Looks like this has been done again
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/6132651
The whole closed way bays that I added have been deleted. I consider
this is vandalism, what should I do?
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Markus_g wrote:
> All of the inner bays that you added were remove
Andrew Harvey
Sent: Thursday, 21 October 2010 9:46 PM
To: OSM Australian Talk List
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Port Hacking (Bay v. Water)
Too many edits for me to keep track of, and it is hard to read every
change file to understand exactly what has been changed. So I would
find it helpful if the changes
Too many edits for me to keep track of, and it is hard to read every
change file to understand exactly what has been changed. So I would
find it helpful if the changes to Port Hacking/surronding bays are
discussed and explained here, if it won't fit in the comment. Thanks.
-boun...@openstreetmap.org
[mailto:talk-au-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of David Groom
Sent: Thursday, 21 October 2010 8:36 PM
To: OSM Australian Talk List
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Port Hacking (Bay v. Water)
- Original Message -
From: "Andrew Harvey"
To: "OSM Austr
- Original Message -
From: "Andrew Harvey"
To: "OSM Australian Talk List"
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 11:51 PM
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Port Hacking (Bay v. Water)
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:34 PM, Markus_g wrote:
Well at the moment it isn't rendering
nal Message-
> From: talk-au-boun...@openstreetmap.org
> [mailto:talk-au-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Harvey
> Sent: Wednesday, 20 October 2010 9:21 AM
> To: OSM Australian Talk List
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Port Hacking (Bay v. Water)
>
> On Tue, Oct 19,
-boun...@openstreetmap.org
> [mailto:talk-au-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Harvey
> Sent: Wednesday, 20 October 2010 9:21 AM
> To: OSM Australian Talk List
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Port Hacking (Bay v. Water)
>
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:34 PM, Markus_g wrot
g] On Behalf Of Andrew Harvey
Sent: Wednesday, 20 October 2010 9:21 AM
To: OSM Australian Talk List
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Port Hacking (Bay v. Water)
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:34 PM, Markus_g wrote:
> Well at the moment it isn't rendering correctly as there is no coastline
> across the
On 20 October 2010 09:51, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
> Also it seems the main boundary for Port Hacking is a way traced from
> Yahoo, it is close to the ABS administrative boarder, I was wondering
> if we should just place the Port Hacking boarder on the ABS boundary.
>
>
>
I really doubt that placin
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:34 PM, Markus_g wrote:
> Well at the moment it isn't rendering correctly as there is no coastline
> across the entrance.
I see you've fix that now.
> Well to be tagged as natural=water it should be a body of standing water,
> such as a lake or pond.
>
> To be tagged as
-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Harvey
Sent: Tuesday, 19 October 2010 10:14 PM
To: OSM Australian Talk List
Subject: [talk-au] Port Hacking (Bay v. Water)
It seems Port Hacking has been subject to some edit warring.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/285916/history
My view is that it is not
It seems Port Hacking has been subject to some edit warring.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/285916/history
My view is that it is not a bay. Its name doesn't have bay, its more
of a lake, or just a body of water, I would have thought.
What is the consenus here? Should it be tagged na
18 matches
Mail list logo
