Hi, the CLC* things , you don't have to worry, just remove the belgian part / or at least move it near the border... It's an "old" import and the datas are not precise at all, if i'm correct they were exctracted automatically by aerial photography (not by osm ) And i think in the import process they did not check for intersecting landuse in belgium (only in france)
So i already moved a lot of them arround in the south border of belgium On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Glenn Plas <gl...@byte-consult.be> wrote: > On 26-11-13 14:22, Ben Abelshausen wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Glenn Plas <gl...@byte-consult.be>wrote: > >> that's not even accurate for our side of the border. omfg. This >> constitutes a huge amount of work to create this beast, and I wonder why >> one would hurt himself like that.. Now, how to go about removing this >> totally useless relation. >> > > Removing the belgian parts will require deletions on the relations, and > you can bet someone has that zone under watch , so we will eventually > trigger a reaction from them. > > > I would suggest not to remove it but just to move it's boundary to the > french border. I think this is the result of a french landcover import. > > It is, the changeset comment says it's coming from an import. (but > then they violated the 'dedicated account' point by doing this via a real > user account ) > > > Jo might know this, he also follows the fr-list I think. > > > We should ask them why they use a relation in the first place. > > Things like this are the reason you need a human to review automated > imports before the push. common sense is hard to program ;-) > > Glenn > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-be mailing list > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
