2014-12-18 10:39 GMT+00:00 SomeoneElse li...@atownsend.org.uk:
On 18/12/2014 02:10, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
If you oppose this proposal, or if you want to register particular
areas or objects for an opt-out, please edit the wiki page under the
section 'Oppositions and opt-out'.
At the
I personally feel the current discussion is now thrashing. We are hearing
repeats of the same things over again, and appear to now be bikeshedding
import and mechanical edit policies.
No-one seems to dispute that we do not have a consensus, Can we leave it at
that we agree to disagree. It is
You are not checking that the entities are shops. In my area the Overpass
Turbo finds the following node http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/502411262
a bus stop, from a NaPTAN import.
Ian
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
This is only an issue with the demo I generated, not with the proposal
itself (in the proposal itself, I explicitly restrict changes to
objects with a shop key). Thanks for pointing out this discrepancy.
I generated an improved Overpass Turbo link: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/6Aj
-- Matthijs
On
On 18/12/2014 10:48, Dan S wrote:
2014-12-18 10:39 GMT+00:00 SomeoneElse li...@atownsend.org.uk:
On 18/12/2014 02:10, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
If you oppose this proposal, or if you want to register particular
areas or objects for an opt-out, please edit the wiki page under the
section
Perhaps just posting Overpass links and locals manually making the changes
would be better? I compared the Overpass before and after links only to find
that the nearest item on the first link is missing on the second as the
Sainsbury(')s is missing a shop tag. And now it also misses the
On 18/12/2014 12:05, Ed Loach wrote:
Perhaps just posting Overpass links and locals manually making the changes
would be better?
I think Ed has hit the nail on the head here. All your mechanical edit
does is correct one tiny part of the mapping, and possibly to no great
effect - it's just
On 18/12/2014 10:24, Dan S wrote:
Hi Matthijs,
The DWG email used the word consensus inappropriately, since
consensus means everyone agreeing, and we didn't. However, consensus
is essentially impossible in big wiki communities like ours, so let's
assume there's a relative meaning of the term ;)
On 18 December 2014 at 12:18, Jonathan Bennett jonobenn...@gmail.com wrote:
However, if local mappers could somehow be alerted to this small
discrepancy, they would probably spot other things in the same area that
needed updating at the same time. They might not go looking for them
otherwise.
Finding small problems like this does have an advantage, but it looks
like fixing them mechanically is actually missing the opportunity to
improve the map in other ways at the same time.
As it happens, the local Sainsbury's that I just updated also made me realise
that there is now aerial
On 18/12/14 12:33, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
However, if local mappers could somehow be alerted to this small
discrepancy, they would probably spot other things in the same area that
needed updating at the same time. They might not go looking for them
otherwise.
Finding small problems
On 18 December 2014 at 11:30, SK53 sk53@gmail.com wrote:
I personally feel the current discussion is now thrashing.
I personally feel that the opposition to Matthijs' work is becoming
farcical. After setting up dozens of hoops for him to jump through,
which he has done, and then because he
On 18 December 2014 at 12:18, Jonathan Bennett jonobenn...@gmail.com wrote:
All your mechanical edit does
is correct one tiny part of the mapping, and possibly to no great effect -
it's just the text of the name that's getting corrected under a limited set
of circumstances.
So let's JFDI
We're boiling the ocean here.Matthij's proposal as it now stands is not
controversial and is merely a typo cleanup. I'm amazed at his patience.
On 18 December 2014 at 13:59, Chris Fleming m...@chrisfleming.org wrote:
I really struggled to see how this mechanical edit can do any harm. I
Andy Allan gravitystorm@... writes:
This mailing list appears to be having some sort of immune-response
over-reaction. We don't like mechanical edits in general. Fine.
Therefore every mechanical edit must be fought against, to the bitter
end. That's an over-reaction.
No, that can't work
On reflection, I don't really laugh with scorn in the face of the Mechanical
Edit Policy. But it certainly looks like a mess to me.
My take would be to attempt to extract the spirit of that policy and not bother
kvetching over the letter of it. The phrase rough consensus and running code
is
16 matches
Mail list logo
