ThomasB wrote:
Hang on, you've got this completely wrong.
>.....
Seems what you mean and what you wrote differ somehow
Richard Fairhurst wrote
>And no - this isn't intended to hit restoring a single way via P1 (while
>it still exists) or whatever.
But I read it so. Also selecting 10 buildings in JOSM and pressing Q would
fall below your proposal (automated geometry fixup) and require me to add
these extra tags.
Oh come on ...
This is the sort of nit picking that is the whole problem. If we have to write
down rules that define which key press you are allowed to use then I doubt
anybody would contribute.
Having said that though, that simple 10 building 'tidy up' would have to be
justified if it is being applied to 10 buildings that were imported from a
reliable data source? A lot of buildings are not 'square' certainly around here,
and 'styling' them is as bad as deleting ones that have been tidied by other
means and replacing them with a 'stylised' import?
I do get the impression that the Cadastre import has it's own rules on how to
use it, and those are only available in French, which irritates. But it does
need to follow the generic rules, which simply allow some tracking of where
detail is sourced, and also the accuracy of that data. We have been getting some
information on their process, but I still don't understand some of the problems
they are flagging as reasons for the practices?
I also think that there needs to be a major distinction between BOTS which
modify the core data, and import processes which are simply mapping a data
source into a format that can be merged. I think that THIS is another
misconception that is causing confusion. I would certainly not view manually
marking up data from a data source layer, adding additional tags, and then
merging into the core data. As I've been proposing in other threads, carrying a
uneditable tags with data seems essential these days? In this case the core
elements that are copied would have a tag identifying the source and having now
spent some time looking into this I'd even go as far as flagging when someone
tries to edit detail that IS identified as coming from a trusted source? Or more
important that it has been processed DURING the base data 'import'. Which is the
main reason I'm seeing 'layers' as the main path forward here. Cadastre is at
least two layers, the original raw data, and a processed view of that data from
which objects are 'imported' into 'osm'. Both of those layers should be
accessible for all of us to at least view and it's managing that which is the
first step here?
So in light of the above, I don't recognise the use of 'bot' tags in some of
these cases. That really is a different matter relating to changing the data? A
bot that 'squares up all buildings' would certainly not be appropriate, but it
might well be as part of creating a 'stylised layer' view of the data?
The project IS the data, not the maps, and ALL of the data is important, not
just a 'current view' of what people think matter for them?
--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
