I agree that forest that are way too costly in time should be removed, but
they should also be replaced with something(better) not just mass removed,
oh well we'll get to it later kind of thing
On Sep 1, 2016 8:05 PM, "Sam Dyck" wrote:
> I took a break to make supper, so I'm going to have to re
I took a break to make supper, so I'm going to have to respond
collectively.
- Sammuell and sammuell_imports are my accounts. Both the forest and the
lake are from Canvec data imported together as in the same tile. I Imported
the whole thing (I would never import over existing data that carelessl
I agree with Frederik here. New imports need to make sure they follow the
import guidelines, including using a dedicated import account.
The wiki information could all be cleaned up, consolidated, and then new
users would know the current status and process for importing new
information.
For clea
>I think a super good first step would be try and ensure that future
imports are done diligently and don't introduce new issues.
I think that is a reasonable way forward, and I concur with the rest of
your post.
I think we need to identify which parts of CANVEC are giving concern, each
province i
Andrew,
On 09/02/2016 12:47 AM, Andrew Lester wrote:
> If people from outside of Canada have decided that our data is so bad
> that it needs to be completely wiped out in its entirety, then I guess
> we're going to have to do something drastic to try to prevent this.
I think a super good first st
*To: *"Talk-CA OpenStreetMap"
> *Sent: *Thursday, September 1, 2016 2:38:38 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [Talk-ca] CanVec Reverts
>
> After reading Paul's email again, its possible that what Nakaner is doing
> is in line with Paul's suggestion, if unnecessarily confrontati
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016, at 16:47, Andrew Lester wrote:
> If people from outside of Canada have decided that our data is so bad
> that it needs to be completely wiped out in its entirety, then I guess
> we're going to have to do something drastic to try to prevent this.
>
> @Michael, Frederik, Paul: w
vec et venir discuter sur
Talk-Ca si vous avez d'autres questions.
Pierre
De : Sam Dyck < samueld...@gmail.com >
À : Talk-CA OpenStreetMap < talk-ca@openstreetmap.org >
Envoyé le : jeudi 1 Septembre 2016 17h06
Objet : Re: [Talk-ca] CanVec Reverts
I received the follow
Sam,
On 09/01/2016 11:26 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> I believe the given what we have just spent the last 24 hours discussing
>> this request is unreasonable and the issue is not significant. Thoughts?
>
> An importer who imports data into OSM that doesn't match up with already
> existing data an
; Pierre
>
>
> --
> *De :* Sam Dyck
> *À :* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
> *Envoyé le :* jeudi 1 Septembre 2016 17h06
> *Objet :* Re: [Talk-ca] CanVec Reverts
>
> I received the following changeset comment from Nakaner for a Canvec
> import (change
Hi Sam,
Am 01.09.2016 um 23:06 schrieb Sam Dyck:
> I received the following changeset comment from Nakaner for a Canvec import
> (changeset
> 38158126) at 15:55 Central Time (20:55 UTC):
>
> "This changeset has uploaded data which does not fit to each other. There
> is an offset between the water
Hi,
On 2016-09-01 21:06:57, Sam Dyck wrote:
> I believe the given what we have just spent the last 24 hours discussing
> this request is unreasonable and the issue is not significant. Thoughts?
An importer who imports data into OSM that doesn't match up with already
existing data and doesn't noti
I received the following changeset comment from Nakaner for a Canvec import
(changeset
38158126) at 15:55 Central Time (20:55 UTC):
"This changeset has uploaded data which does not fit to each other. There
is an offset between the water areas and the forest areas. Example:
https://www.openstreetma
>From what Rps333 told me in person he had worked many hours on that
changeset and was frustrated when someone reverted before fixes could be
applied. Could you revert the revert?
On Sep 1, 2016 4:09 PM, "Paul Norman" wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Multiple people have referred this issue and changeset 395
Canvec data has been imported for many years so why the sudden challenge
and change? Are you willing to reimport the CANVEC data or are you intent
on leaving a blank area in the map?
Cheerio John
On 1 September 2016 at 15:41, Michael Reichert wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> Am 2016-09-01 um 15:04 schri
Hello,
Multiple people have referred this issue and changeset 39517002 to the
OpenStreetMap Foundation Data Working Group about this issue. The Data
Working Group has responsibility for the resolution of disputes beyond
the normal means of the community, as well as some responsibilities
concernin
Message-
From: Michael Reichert [mailto:naka...@gmx.net]
Sent: Thursday, 1 September, 2016 15:41
To: James
Cc: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] CanVec Reverts
Hi James,
Am 2016-09-01 um 15:04 schrieb James:
> To blatantly toss discussions of the
> past whether to import
Hi James,
Am 2016-09-01 um 15:04 schrieb James:
> To blatantly toss discussions of the
> past whether to import CanVec or not into OSM and *that was approved*, …
Could you point me to the discussion at the Imports mailing list? (link
to the archive of the mailing list)
I am not against importing
--
> From: Michael Reichert [mailto:naka...@gmx.net]
> Sent: Thursday, 1 September, 2016 01:39
> To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [Talk-ca] CanVec Reverts
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Hi,
>
> unfortunately posting via Gmane does
16 01:39
To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-ca] CanVec Reverts
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
unfortunately posting via Gmane does not seem to work (the website is down
but NNTP still works), that's why I have to start a new thread. :-(
Am Tue, 30 Aug 2016 21:41:
as possible into two parts.
>>>
>>> > Some years ago I would have proposed that someone write a guide "How
>>> to fix a
>>> > CanVec import". But now I would rather propose that someone write a
>>> "How to
>>> > pre-proce
...@gmx.net]
Sent: Thursday, 1 September, 2016 08:37
To: Begin Daniel; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] CanVec Reverts
Hi Daniel,
Am 2016-09-01 um 12:26 schrieb Begin Daniel:
> Furthermore, I hope you will not use you 100 objects per minute to
> decide whether or not you will de
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
Am 2016-09-01 um 13:22 schrieb john whelan:
> In many parts of the country there are no local mappers for many
> miles or kilometers if you prefer. We do have some very
> experienced GIS people around and I'm under the impression that we
> r
What tells you he didnt prepare batches outside the upload time(offline)?
Your logic is skewed
On Sep 1, 2016 8:39 AM, "Michael Reichert" wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> Am 2016-09-01 um 12:26 schrieb Begin Daniel:
> > Furthermore, I hope you will not use you 100 objects per minute to
> decide whether o
Hi Daniel,
Am 2016-09-01 um 12:26 schrieb Begin Daniel:
> Furthermore, I hope you will not use you 100 objects per minute to decide
> whether or not you will delete a changeset. I think this threshold is value
> doesn't' apply (see below)
>
> Daniel
>
> About the100 objects threshold.
> From m
inutes it takes to upload
> the data to the database (5K objects per minute) do not reflect the time I
> spent editing the data prior to the upload.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Reichert [mailto:naka...@gmx.net]
> Sent: Thursday, 1 September, 201
prior to
the upload.
-Original Message-
From: Michael Reichert [mailto:naka...@gmx.net]
Sent: Thursday, 1 September, 2016 01:39
To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-ca] CanVec Reverts
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
unfortunately posting via Gmane does not seem
See that's where I have an issue with your revert logic, if errors are
mostly corrected and say theres only 1 or 2 warnings, you want to revert
the whole thing which is very bad for: 1. The community and 2. The
database. Let me explain: there are many hours that go into merging down
CanVec ways and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
unfortunately posting via Gmane does not seem to work (the website is
down but NNTP still works), that's why I have to start a new thread. :-(
Am Tue, 30 Aug 2016 21:41:21 -0500 schrieb Sam Dyck:
> After reading through the changeset discussion
29 matches
Mail list logo
