Why do they complain about access = no @ (weight > 3.5)
? I thought this was an accepted way of tagging conditional restrictions. Is there another way ? m On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 6:00 AM, Marc Gemis <marc.ge...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't see which checkbox corresponds to the addresses. Hopefully they > are smart enough to look at the associated street relation as well (unlike > another quality control tool). > > Too bad they do not understand that for walking networks you can have a > relation with 1 member. Now I have to click away all those false positives > I've introduced. > > m. > > > On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:50 PM, eMerzh <merz...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> i don't know if everybody knows osmose ( osmose.openstreetmap.fr ) : a >> OSM QA tool. >> >> While i was talking about the integration of urbis with the osmose devs, >> they told me that nearly half (ok might less than that) of the DB of >> errors are in fact >> Addresses errors in Belgium . >> Like here : >> >> http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/fr/map/?zoom=13&lat=50.83942&lon=3.69074&layers=B0000FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFT >> >> I was baffled.... so if you're bored, :) let's fix this :) >> >> >> Regards, >> >> eMerzh >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-be mailing list >> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
