Re: [OSM-talk-be] RFC: removing OpenGeoDB and is_in tags (RFC by 29 Feb 2020)

2020-03-01 Thread Midgard
Quoting Midgard (2020-02-05 16:36:51) > - tags with a "openGeoDB:" prefix and > - "is_in" tags. > > I hereby propose a mechanical edit to delete those from all features in > Belgium. Done: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/81642925 ___ Talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] RFC: removing OpenGeoDB and is_in tags (RFC by 29 Feb 2020)

2020-02-05 Thread Pieter Vander Vennet
About the is_in: oh please, get rid of them. About the geoDB: clean them up as well, although I am a bit more reserved. I don't know openGeoDB, but I feel that it is unmaintainted and superseded by the combination of OSM and Wikidata. I feel that using a wikidata entry is a more futureproof

Re: [OSM-talk-be] RFC: removing OpenGeoDB and is_in tags (RFC by 29 Feb 2020)

2020-02-05 Thread joost schouppe
I say "go" Op wo 5 feb. 2020 16:37 schreef Midgard : > Dear mappers > > If you ever touched a place node, chances are you saw it was cluttered > with: > - tags with a "openGeoDB:" prefix and > - "is_in" tags. > > I hereby propose a mechanical edit to delete those from all features in > Belgium.

Re: [OSM-talk-be] RFC: removing OpenGeoDB and is_in tags (RFC by 29 Feb 2020)

2020-02-05 Thread Stijn Rombauts via Talk-be
Hi, I agree with both. I've been removing is_in tags here and there since a few months as JOSM encourages to do so.By the way, I also noticed that at some places streets (highways) have an is_in tag. Regards, StijnRR Op woensdag 5 februari 2020 16:37:26 CET schreef Midgard : Dear

[OSM-talk-be] RFC: removing OpenGeoDB and is_in tags (RFC by 29 Feb 2020)

2020-02-05 Thread Midgard
Dear mappers If you ever touched a place node, chances are you saw it was cluttered with: - tags with a "openGeoDB:" prefix and - "is_in" tags. I hereby propose a mechanical edit to delete those from all features in Belgium. The Overpass query to fetch the data is https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Qqa