On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 7:38 PM, Alex Mauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dave Stubbs wrote: > >> 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. > > When it's a single road or far out of the way of where you're mapping, > would be my suggestion. It's probably fine to go a few blocks out of > the way to check out one unnamed road, and probably fine to go few mile > or two out of the way to check a whole neighborhood of unnamed roads. I > for one will not be going 100 miles out of the way to check an unnamed > road (or indeed to map at all). It's a judgment call, so your mileage > may vary. No pun intended.
Pity. It would have been a good pun. :-) But yes, this is what I'm trying to do, but wasting as little time as possible on the diversions. > >> 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. > > Good! Karl suggested using the "reviewed" tag, and I agree with that. > Mark all unnamed roads in the area you're mapping with "reviewed=no", > and then once you've reviewed them, delete the tag. I just don't see a > need to mark out that the name specifically has been reviewed. Mostly because this is the property that we're most interested in at the moment. Reviewed feels to me too open ended. A little like the concept of completeness. We can't really (easily) mark in the unreviewed areas because so many have already been added without it, but we can tell they don't have a name.... so then we just want to quickly deal with the false positives that throws up. Dave _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
