Charlotte Wolter wrote:
Perhaps some who know JOSM could take a look at the most recent
uploads by "blars" to see what the effect of reverting those changes
would be.
At 07:36 PM 6/5/2012, you wrote:
It seems we are speaking on many levels here.
NE2 talks of a redaction bot: powerful scr
Perhaps some who know JOSM could take a look at the most recent
uploads by "blars" to see what the effect of reverting those changes would be.
At 07:36 PM 6/5/2012, you wrote:
It seems we are speaking on many levels here.
NE2 talks of a redaction bot: powerful scripting so intelligent it
On 5 June 2012 20:56, stevea wrote:
> But "socially," or more properly stated, in the context of "reaching OSM
> consensus," what does our community think of (rather wholesale) reverts of a
> contributor who has not agreed to the CT? Are we OK with that? Apologies
> if this is already clearly st
It seems we are speaking on many levels here.
NE2 talks of a redaction bot: powerful scripting so intelligent it
is not quite yet built (scripting coupled with lack of consensus
isn't power). Charlotte, a seriously dedicated user, wants to reduce
skull-aching editing, clearly seeing a patter
Given the earlier statements regarding alignment, etc, of the road
vectors, and the seemingly large amount of work to revert these
changes, perhaps an incremental replacement of road geometry with
TIGER 2011 data along with manual conflation of existing attributes
is a more effective applicatio
Given the earlier statements regarding alignment, etc, of the road vectors,
and the seemingly large amount of work to revert these changes, perhaps an
incremental replacement of road geometry with TIGER 2011 data along with
manual conflation of existing attributes is a more effective application of
Nathan,
Good point, but, in working with his "edits," it seems that
not much has been deleted. The problem seems to be what has been added.
Charlotte
At 01:19 PM 6/5/2012, you wrote:
On 6/5/2012 3:42 PM, Mike N wrote:
On 6/5/2012 2:56 PM, stevea wrote:
But "socially," or more prop
Steve,
Thanks for your thoughts, and I hope others in the community
will share their views. My view would be that it should be OK to do
such a reverse if the person has not signed the new license,
particularly when there has been such an enormous number of questionable edits.
I
On 6/5/2012 3:42 PM, Mike N wrote:
On 6/5/2012 2:56 PM, stevea wrote:
But "socially," or more properly stated, in the context of "reaching OSM
consensus," what does our community think of (rather wholesale) reverts
of a contributor who has not agreed to the CT? Are we OK with that?
This nearly
On 6/5/2012 2:56 PM, stevea wrote:
But "socially," or more properly stated, in the context of "reaching OSM
consensus," what does our community think of (rather wholesale) reverts
of a contributor who has not agreed to the CT? Are we OK with that?
This nearly describes what the redaction bot
I have been working on the LA remap, which mostly involves
correcting thousands and thousands of edits by a user named "blars."
The odd thing about the "edits" that "blars" did is that they
seem to have been done almost robotically. Although many
intersections have been changed enough to be ma
11 matches
Mail list logo
