Peter Miller wrote:
On 19 Jul 2009, at 23:02, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
Peter Miller wrote:
We really need some better tools for reverting this sort of
nonsense and a way of patrolling the edits of new contributors .
This isn't a discussion for talk-gb really, but possibly it is a
I am proposing that we get all Liam123's edits removed from OSM.
My reasoning is firstly many of his edits are clearly just plain wrong
and are certainly breaking previously good maps. Secondly that he has
failed to respond to a polite message asking him for an explanation.
Thirdly, given
Peter Miller wrote:
Do I have some support for this?
Yes. Definitely. I am surprised that this has not already happened.
Does anyone object?
Probably. ;-)
Nick.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
Forwarded to Data@
Can you confirm what correspondence there has been with the user please.
Thanks
Andy
-Original Message-
From: talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-gb-
boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Peter Miller
Sent: 20 July 2009 2:57 PM
To: Talk GB
Subject:
If anyone happens to be in Chatham, it needs remapping (again), they
have removed a major flyover and are looking and further work. Not
sure how much data we can extract from Medway's website,
http://www.medway.gov.uk/index/business/medwayrenaissance/chathamfuture.htm
without copyright issues. Or
Hi all,
I had the same problem with reverting some of liam123's edits as Peter
described. Although the reversion looked ok, the upload in Potlatch went
ok, when viewed the data had not changed.
The liam123 edits that didn't seem to respond to Potlatch reverts were
major changes in the positioning
Peter Reed wrote:
There have been a number of attempts to estimate the level of UK
coverage, of varying levels of sophistication, but I've not seen any that
compare the length of roads mapped against actual road lengths.
Over the last couple of weeks, I've had a first attempt at doing
7 matches
Mail list logo
