To breathe a little fresh air into this discussion (and perhaps pour
a little oil on troubled waters): I have enjoyed in the last few
hours some email exchanges with both Kerry and Paul.
In short, Kerry and I are discussing how it is inappropriate for OCM
to display a USBR as a proposed ncn when the ACA is still in the
"corridor only" phase, and no SPECIFIC route exists. I think she and
I agree there. In some of those cases, there is an existing STATE
(rcn) route (which MAY become a USBR/ncn) and so it seems the correct
response is to change those from ncn/proposed to rcn/actual. If/as
the state adopts the state route as a specific USBR, (initially as
proposed, perhaps paralleling the existing rcn, perhaps not), it can
then be promoted, or another relation in OSM can capture this for
display in OCM.
Does this make everybody happy? Consensus is important, even critical, in OSM.
SteveA
California
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 10:03 AM, KerryIrons
<<mailto:irons54vor...@sbcglobal.net>irons54vor...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
You really are making this personal Paul, but I don't understand why.
That's not the intent.
I only asked that those who might want to help clean up the mis-tagged routes
could contact me directly. Is that some sort of OSM violation?
Not in so much as itself, but given that this is a community
project, your audience is the community collaboration, not the
individual.
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
