Re: [Talk-us] Request revert on Changeset #33669446

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Chris Lawrence wrote: > On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 3:54 AM Paul Johnson wrote: > >> I'm going to have to additionally request this revert due to a fairly >> substantial loss of data that was involved after I spent a good

Re: [Talk-us] understanding administrative boundary relations

On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 07:06:33 +0200 Marc Gemis wrote: > On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 3:56 AM, Ray Kiddy wrote: > > > It has occurred to me that there will probably need to be a > > "boundary watcher" tool, which can let an interested group know > > about it

Re: [Talk-us] understanding administrative boundary relations

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Ray Kiddy wrote: > > Strangely, I am finding that some of the cities in California _are_ in > the system, but as ways and not as relations. This seems odd, but we > will see. Well the primary reason to use relations in boundaries is to reduce

Re: [Talk-us] Request revert on Changeset #33669446

This is in conflict with what I'm seeing in the area around Vancouver Mall, where jakeroot appears to be the most recent editor of everything along WA500. On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Chris Lawrence wrote: > It's in the OSM way history. I didn't make it up. Look at it

Re: [Talk-us] Request revert on Changeset #33669446

It's in the OSM way history. I didn't make it up. Look at it yourself if you don't believe me. http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/45846830/history - "lanes" disappears between revisions 19 and 20. You submitted revision 20. http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/45846831/history - "lanes" disappears

Re: [Talk-us] understanding administrative boundary relations

On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 14:11:26 -0500 Toby Murray wrote: > On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Ray Kiddy wrote: > > > > Strangely, I am finding that some of the cities in California _are_ > > in the system, but as ways and not as relations. This seems odd, > >

Re: [Talk-us] Anybody had any contact with this user?

On 04/09/2015 04:55, James Mast wrote: ... but I've sent him two messages in the last 2 months without any response back from him, asking him if he could please add a 'comment' to his changesets after he was mass adding some data in my local area a few times (mostly just buildings from Bing

Re: [Talk-us] Request revert on Changeset #33669446

Paul, He's not saying that jakeroot isn't the most recent editor. He's saying that the specific changes you're referring to are in changesets earlier than jakeroot's, and that *those* changesets appear to be yours. Not at a computer, so can't look myself. -jack On September 4, 2015

Re: [Talk-us] Request revert on Changeset #33669446

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 3:54 AM Paul Johnson wrote: > I'm going to have to additionally request this revert due to a fairly > substantial loss of data that was involved after I spent a good 12-15 hours > on detail lane tagging this expressway. It appears many ways got merged

Re: [Talk-us] Request revert on Changeset #33669446

Paul, I've tried to stay out of this here on talk-us, but being belligerent and claiming somebody else removed the 'lanes' tags that didn't do it is just wrong Paul. You honestly owe jakeroot an apology here (and in the Changeset 33669446 comments) since he didn't remove those tags!!! You,

Re: [Talk-us] understanding administrative boundary relations

On 9/4/15 5:09 PM, Ray Kiddy wrote: > So, there is nothing that a relation brings to the table that a way > does not? I mean, it is clear that for the purposes of drawing, they > are the same. But then are they really just the same? i don't know about the current style, but in the past there has

Re: [Talk-us] Anybody had any contact with this user?

On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 11:22 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote: > Wow, that is more changesets than I racked up in 10 years. Haven't had > contact with this particular mapper but I can say with certainty that > they're not with Telenav. > It appears most of the changesets are