> This makes sense; however, on the other hand, I can't think of a
> situation where someone grants blanket access to the public to drive on
> their home's driveway whenever they want, so access=private seems like
> it would be correct for 99% of cases.
>
> However, I do agree that because of
On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 8:36 PM Clay Smalley wrote:
> For those who aren't following, the DWG recently decided on a two-day ban
> for the person who posted this, for the exact behavior they're exhibiting
> right now: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/3850
>
> jdd 3, please take a break.
For those who aren't following, the DWG recently decided on a two-day ban
for the person who posted this, for the exact behavior they're exhibiting
right now: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/3850
jdd 3, please take a break. You have better things to do.
I look forward to when you
FYI;
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Vandalism
Purposeful removal or degradation of data that are known to be correct,
Deliberate adding incorrect data;
People who revert other people's work should expect to be able to demonstrate
that the reversion was well reasoned and proportionate
On Mon, 2020-08-17 at 09:14 -0700, stevea wrote:
> I believe it correct that access=private tag be removed from
> highway=service + service=driveway, as "private" seems too strict to
> accurately describe a driveway (that's part subjunctive mood where it
> needs doing, part indicative where true
Hi all,
You may be aware that *OpenStreetMap US, Inc.* has applied to become an
official Local Chapter of the OpenStreetMap Foundation. As part of the
application process, we would like to ask you, *the local mapping community*
how you feel about this. Do you support this application? Do you
6 matches
Mail list logo
