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, y
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 be
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 4:44:53
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
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,
> > but we will see.
>
> Well the primary reas
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 yourself if
> you don't
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
duplication. So if two
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 when a boundary gets broken in some way. And
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 betw
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 12-15 hours
>> on detail lane tagging this exp
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
> and data was lost a
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
and data was lost as a result.
On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 2:36 AM, Paul Johnson wr
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 exceptionally fine-grained
13 matches
Mail list logo