Fair enough. I must've misinterpreted "Does this data really belong in OSM? Fair enough the fields but the names?" :)
Ken On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Webmaster <webmas...@killyfole.org.uk>wrote: > I don’t have an issue with it at all! The original poster asked why the > sudden interest in mapping farmland. In which I was curious about finding > out as well. We have now established the reason. > > I asked about the general feeling within the Irish OSM community (people > subscribed to this list) on giving field's a name. It does not bother me > either way. We are getting field boundary data and those users are getting > experience mapping, therefore can only be a good thing. I do however > support the use of another tag (as suggested by Tom) to record the names, > but that's just personal feeling on the matter, I wont be losing any sleep > over it! > > > > > > On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 13:52:34 -0000, Ken Guest <kgu...@php.net> wrote: > > I've added one or two names to fields myself and I don't see what the >> issue >> is that our chap in Killyfoyle has with field names being added. >> There are those of us that add reference numbers of streetlamps and post >> boxes to OSM, this isn't much different and with the general attitude of >> "tag everything, we'll migrate it if a more specific repository for this >> info comes along" this is surely not an issue. >> >> Ken >> > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-ie mailing list > Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie > -- http://blogs.linux.ie/kenguest/ _______________________________________________ Talk-ie mailing list Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie
