On 9 Jun 2008, at 18:46, Karl Newman wrote:
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Dave Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Alex Mauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Dave Stubbs wrote:
>
>> Maybe, but you're then asking, "reviewed what/how?". And you're
back
>> to specifying that you've reviewed that the road has no name, only
>> probably in a more complicated way.
>
> Furthermore, I would expect the default (meaning the value to be
assumed
> if the key doesn't exist) to be "yes". I doubt anyone who would
put in
> a named road without bothering to put in the name would bother to
enter
> a "reviewed=no" tag anyway.
>
> That said, I still doubt the utility of a "no name" meta-value. No
> conscientious mapper should be putting in roads with no name if they
> have a name, and no one should be going out of their way to check
if a
> road that has no name in the db actually has no name.
So how are we going to fix London then?
Because this is happening on a massive scale thanks to tracing
aerial imagery.
We have literally thousands of miles of unnamed roads in London... and
the vast, vast majority of these /should/ have names. And I'm going to
go try and fix them, and would like to know when not to bother.
This is one of those cases where we have actually identified a problem
and are figuring out how to fix it, rather than just inventing crap
for the sake of it.
Dave
Why don't you just go to the unnamed road, and if it has a name, add
it, otherwise drop a note="name not signed" on the way?
That isn't useful for validators or special renderings if you want to
put a note for something else too.
Shaun
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
