Re: [Talk-GB] Help with remapping

2012-01-16 Thread Andy Allan
On 15 January 2012 19:27, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:

 If you reposition the new node in same place as the old one, this hasn't 
 really
 achieved anything.  At best, it has obscured the history a bit so it's no 
 longer
 quite so clear that the node was originally added by a CT-decliner.

It rarely ends up in exactly the same place - when I'm doing these
node replacements I take time to remodel junctions, improve curves and
so on. The contribution is my own, not an obfuscation of history. The
O keypress is just a little labour saving, not a charade.

 Rather than going through this charade why not just add odbl=clean to the 
 node?

Because that would be incorrect. The odbl=clean is not a I somehow
assert that I would do the same, therefore ignore the IPR record. The
tag is to indicate where their contribution have washed out and
where the contributor(s) in question cannot reasonably claim any
rights to the current feature[1] - i.e. subsequent edits have
entirely overwritten any IPR in the non-acceptor's contributions. It's
easy to see that the tag is therefore completely inappropriate for
adding to any v1 objects, for a start.

Of course, since the odbl=clean tag is so widely misinterpreted, by
you and seemingly by many others, the tag becomes as meaningless as
foot=yes[2] . It wouldn't actually make any difference during a
changeover anyway - that's the whole point of the tag, after all, to
indicate that even if you removed every conceivable trace of
non-accepting edits from this feature, then end result would be the
same - so there seems little point in adding it. So it's a bizarre tag
- when misunderstood it's applied incorrectly, and when understood
fully it barely makes sense to use it anyway.

Cheers,
Andy

[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:odbl%3Dclean
[2] Originally meaning this is a legally declared 'Public Footpath',
it was ambiguously confused with a general legal right of walking
(e.g. on a bridleway). Automatic inclusion on all footpaths of any
type by potlatch1 for a number of years, it became effectively
meaningless as a designator for Public Footpaths, and a new tag
(designation=public_footpath) was eventually created.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


Re: [Talk-GB] Help with remapping

2012-01-16 Thread Richard Fairhurst
Andy Allan wrote:
 [2] Originally meaning this is a legally declared 'Public 
 Footpath', it was ambiguously confused with a general 
 legal right of walking (e.g. on a bridleway). Automatic 
 inclusion on all footpaths of any type by potlatch1 for 
 a number of years

[Brief historical footnote: P1 only ever included it on its public
footpath and bridleway presets (and note that the former was indeed
public footpath rather than footpath or footway or anything). I think
the original intention was that other people might contribute tag presets
for their own countries' path systems, but this was all about six years ago
when I was still young and green enough to think that people might ever
contribute tag presets. I'm not sure I ever thought that foot=yes meant
this is a legally declared public footpath, I've always understood it to
have the second meaning (public right of way for people on foot).]

As you were...

cheers
Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Help-with-remapping-tp7187743p7192089.html
Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


Re: [Talk-GB] Help with remapping

2012-01-15 Thread Andy Allan
On 14 January 2012 15:35, Eike Ritter osm...@rittere.co.uk wrote:
 I'm trying to do some remapping, and would be grateful for some help in
 situations I've encountered.

 1.) Assume you need to replace a node which is in the intersection of
 several ways. If I simply delete the node and re-create it, I'd have to
 adjust all the ways the node is part of. This is slow and error-prone.
 Is there an easier way of achieving this replacement?

Using Potlatch 2, select the junction node and press O. This deletes
the node and attaches a new node to the cursor - you need to click to
position it. Doing it this way sorts out all the ways for you.

Cheers,
Andy

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


Re: [Talk-GB] Help with remapping

2012-01-15 Thread Ed Avis
Andy Allan gravitystorm@... writes:

1.) Assume you need to replace a node which is in the intersection of
several ways.

Using Potlatch 2, select the junction node and press O. This deletes
the node and attaches a new node to the cursor - you need to click to
position it.

If you reposition the new node in same place as the old one, this hasn't really
achieved anything.  At best, it has obscured the history a bit so it's no longer
quite so clear that the node was originally added by a CT-decliner.

Rather than going through this charade why not just add odbl=clean to the node?

-- 
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


[Talk-GB] Help with remapping

2012-01-14 Thread Eike Ritter
I'm trying to do some remapping, and would be grateful for some help in
situations I've encountered.

1.) Assume you need to replace a node which is in the intersection of
several ways. If I simply delete the node and re-create it, I'd have to
adjust all the ways the node is part of. This is slow and error-prone.
Is there an easier way of achieving this replacement?

2.) Quite often the changes by a non-accepter are trivial (eg additional
tag created by JOSM is the only difference. What's the best way of
dealing with this? So far, I've left those nodes alone, but they will
still show in the OSM-inspector despite being really OK. Is there any
way to delete this tag other than re-creating this node which marks it
as clean in the OSM-inspector?

Eike (tamritt)

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


Re: [Talk-GB] Help with remapping

2012-01-14 Thread Derick Rethans
On Sat, 14 Jan 2012, Eike Ritter wrote:

 1.) Assume you need to replace a node which is in the intersection of
 several ways. If I simply delete the node and re-create it, I'd have to
 adjust all the ways the node is part of. This is slow and error-prone.
 Is there an easier way of achieving this replacement?

I don't think so :-/

 2.) Quite often the changes by a non-accepter are trivial (eg additional
 tag created by JOSM is the only difference. What's the best way of
 dealing with this? So far, I've left those nodes alone, but they will
 still show in the OSM-inspector despite being really OK. Is there any
 way to delete this tag other than re-creating this node which marks it
 as clean in the OSM-inspector?

I'd mark them as odbl=clean (or whatever that tag was).

cheers,
Derick

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


Re: [Talk-GB] Help with remapping

2012-01-14 Thread Frederik Ramm

Hi,

On 01/14/2012 04:35 PM, Eike Ritter wrote:

2.) Quite often the changes by a non-accepter are trivial (eg additional
tag created by JOSM is the only difference. What's the best way of
dealing with this? So far, I've left those nodes alone, but they will
still show in the OSM-inspector despite being really OK. Is there any
way to delete this tag other than re-creating this node which marks it
as clean in the OSM-inspector?


OSMI makes an effort to highlight as problematic only those nodes where 
the removal of decliner content will make a meaningful difference. It 
should treat the created_by tag as harmless, i.e. these objects should 
just appear in yellow which is not cause for concern.


In fact I wonder if I should ditch the harmless layer altogehter and 
have nothing that is coloured yellow, it seems to confuse people more 
than necessary. The idea behind the yellow harmless thing was to 
signal to the mapper this object has been touched by a decliner but is 
still considered ok, you don't have to remap it. I did that hoping that 
people would occasionally check if OSMI does the right thing ;) but 
maybe the time of the yellow stuff is over.


Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09 E008°23'33

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb