If I saw one of these locally I would verify that it corresponds to nothing on the ground and then delete it.
> -----Original Message----- > From: SomeoneElse [mailto:li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk] > Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 6:28 PM > To: Open Street Map mailing list > Subject: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage relations, in particular 1298962 > > I noticed this while looking at the map here: > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=32.001059&lon=34.825519&zoom=18&layers > =M > > The "Hires coverage of Bing imagery in the Near East" label is from the > name on this relation: > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1298962 > > Regardless of the "perhaps the map shouldn't render unknown things just > because of name=blah" issue, I'd argue that metadata such as this really > doesn't belong in OSM. I've messaged the three previous editors of this > relation and two haven't objected to it's removal (the other one hasn't > replied). Can anyone put forward a good reason why it should be kept? > > There are, of course, a number of other relations on this page: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bing/Coverage > > Cheers, > Andy > > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
