emote.org>
À : talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Envoyé le : vendredi 2 Septembre 2016 16h02
Objet : Re: [Talk-ca] Forests/Land Use, was: Canvec reverts
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Adam Martin wrote:
> That is the key here. Deleting information without replacing it with
> something more ac
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Adam Martin wrote:
> That is the key here. Deleting information without replacing it with
> something more accurate is inherently destructive. There must be
> some thought as to what will be put back or one is essentially
> ripping the map up simply because
On 9/1/2016 1:22 PM, Paul Ramsey wrote:
I'm not sure I agree. "Better than nothing" I guess is the principle,
but when what is there (not nothing) gets in the way of improving
other features, then it's not better than nothing. And what if what's
there is, from an information point of view,
On 9/1/2016 8:17 AM, Paul Ramsey wrote:
I'm "glad" to see someone else w/ this issue. It's glancingly related
to the canvec import issue, since the land use polygons are a source
of some of the issues the reverter is complaining about (malformed
multipolygons / boundary overlaps).
In my own
the current thread is that deleting something not
>>> perfect without replacing it with something better hurts, not that it is
>>> not acceptable to delete something.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Daniel
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From
mething better hurts, not that it is
>> not acceptable to delete something.
>>
>>
>>
>> Daniel
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Paul Ramsey [mailto:pram...@cleverelephant.ca]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, 1 September, 2016 13:05
>> *To:* Begin Daniel
>&g
that it is
> not acceptable to delete something.
>
>
>
> Daniel
>
>
>
> *From:* Paul Ramsey [mailto:pram...@cleverelephant.ca]
> *Sent:* Thursday, 1 September, 2016 13:05
> *To:* Begin Daniel
> *Cc:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] Forests/Land
to delete something.
Daniel
From: Paul Ramsey [mailto:pram...@cleverelephant.ca]
Sent: Thursday, 1 September, 2016 13:05
To: Begin Daniel
Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Forests/Land Use, was: Canvec reverts
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Begin Daniel
<jfd...@hotmail.c
ng things seem
so high. Nobody wants to be "that guy".)
ATB,
P
>
> *From:* Paul Ramsey [mailto:pram...@cleverelephant.ca]
> *Sent:* Thursday, 1 September, 2016 11:17
> *To:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
> *Subject:* [Talk-ca] Forests/Land Use, was: Canvec reverts
>
>
>
>
Regarding the burning of forests, I find the problems with forests tend to
occur when the forests meet up with human activities (communities, gravel
pits, etc.) If I'm importing in an area with some human settlement (and
decent imagery) I will try and clean up the forest and landuse polygons
September, 2016 11:17
To: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
Subject: [Talk-ca] Forests/Land Use, was: Canvec reverts
I'm "glad" to see someone else w/ this issue. It's glancingly related to the
canvec import issue, since the land use polygons are a source of some of the
issues the reverter is complai
because it is a tangible item in the real world, it should be mapped?
OpenStreetMap is not just about roads and navigation, it's an Open GIS
representation of the world around us. People may be using that
information, even if you are not. While we are at it why not just nuke
lakes and rivers as
I'm "glad" to see someone else w/ this issue. It's glancingly related to
the canvec import issue, since the land use polygons are a source of some
of the issues the reverter is complaining about (malformed multipolygons /
boundary overlaps).
In my own work in my old home town of Prince George,
13 matches
Mail list logo
