It strikes me that it's you whose "at war"
On 19/07/2016 14:48, Greg Morgan wrote:
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 6:26 AM, Dave F <davefoxfa...@btinternet.com> wrote:
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.
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?
The long story short is that there is a node that is tagged that can
be built upon. Even with the current tagging that Wynnham added or
removed, there is a node to build upon. Add just the FIXME tag to the
current tagging. I don't care. The big sledge hammer approach to your
fellow mapper is what I care about.
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.
Right to the end you have this precision that no one else can match.
Look at all the energy that you spent on correctness and continue to
do so.
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
