They seem to put in a lot of "future" things using tags that imply something is currently there. On top of that, they use the wrong tags (landuse=industrial instead of landuse=retail). They've also screwed up a bit of TX 71 and US 290, removing them from relations, in an erroneous attempt to make the road dual-carriageway.
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:52 PM, Bryce Nesbitt <bry...@obviously.com>wrote: > What's your more specific concern, and what wording have you tried? > Is your concern the "future" shopping centers as a concept, or the way > they are tagged? > > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:44 PM, Clay Smalley <claysmal...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/16078863 >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/16080822 >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/16495595 >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/16497029 >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/16540719 >> >> I've tried to be civil with this person but they don't read their >> messages. They're adding a bunch of useless and wrong data. What can we do >> to help get the message through that this is just a pain in the neck to >> work with? >> >
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
