On 19/07/2016 14:01, Greg Morgan wrote:
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 5:38 AM, Dave F <davefoxfa...@btinternet.com> wrote:
...Two wrongs don't make a right.
And yet you persist at your war.
Seriously?
Because it's wrong with what's in the real world. I'm proposing to
revert this changeset & then ask on Talk-gb if those local to the
amendments can clarify what is the correct tagging to use.
NO! I am putting the emphasis on the bullying that is going on in the
community under the guise of correctness.
I'm struggling to see how asking for other's opinions could be regarded
as bullying. I'm endeavouring to make the OSM database as accurate as
possible. When I see edits that make it worse I will query it. That's
not bullying,
You took it upon yourself
to allege an automated edit in the talk on the change set.
No I never. Please pay attention
Now you
brought your war here.
Where better to have a discussion than a 'Talk' forum?
You want to roll back someone's work just
because you think you are right
No. It's because Wynnham has made assumptions.
yet you cannot say that you have
surveyed the ground either. That's my objection!
We are an open
source project that should be building on each other's work. I agree
that the tagging is wrong in the original and the change. I disagree
with how you are handling the situation. The better way forward is
not a revert the change but to change the tagging to highway=crossing;
crossing=unmarked;
How do you know they're unmarked?
Reverting will reinsert the highway=crossing to all tags in one go.
FIXME=Please adjust this crossing by adding other
tags or changing the crossing tag.
That's the same as asking on Talk-gb for users to check which, I
suspect, will have a higher hit rate.
Dave F.
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
