On 31 July 2010 04:17, Richard Weait <rich...@weait.com> wrote: > You are contradicting yourself, John Smith. You replaced > amenity=ambulance_station with your emergency=ambulance_station. This > is unnecessary and inappropriate without wide community support.
Since no one bothered to document this I have no idea what the other tag was for, people keep attacking me over my "lack of documentation" well where is the documentation for this tag? > Could you have _added_ emergency=ambulance_station without deleting > amenity=ambulance_station ? Yes, you could have. But you did not. as pointed out before, amenity=Ambulance and amentiy=ambulance and amenity=Ambulance_station, but you seem to have neglected to mention those, in any case there was only about 100 in total, so it was not widely used, and it didn't even have a JOSM preset. > Fire stations and ambulance stations are often co-located here. So you have. According to Chris it may have implied multiple things, but since no one bothered to document it I'm not exactly sure what it meant at all. > Also, show me your fire station change set so we can confirm this? It > should be easy to find it via your change set comments? Except, of > course, ... Since I didn't change them there is no changeset, so no amount of commenting is going to help with an missing changeset. > Especially the way you misuse them. Hundreds of "Fixed stuff" change > set comments. Hundreds. I would have said it was closer to thousands... > So to summarize, you deleted amenity=ambulance_station . You did so > without previously ensuring that the tools that expect > amenity=ambulance_station would instead deal with > emergency=ambulance_station. Which tools exactly? > So you removed data that users, and tools expect and replaced it with > data that users and tools do not expect. Again, which tools specifically used one of the 4 above ambulance tags... > Now how should the OSM community evaluate the quality of your work? > Obviously, if you had done nothing at all, the users, data base and > tools would be better off. More expected data in more places. So > John Smith scores badly on this test. So we are better off with 4 ambulance tags, none of which were documented to explain what they were for? > Look! The vandal test provides results indistinguishable from your > edits John Smith! And you aren't providing any proof anything has broken, just hand wavy examples that something somewhere might have broken. > My question stands. How is the community to distinguish your actions > from that of a vandal? The intentions usually, but of course intentions are always hard to prove, at least in my case I'm trying to work through the issues some of my edits may have caused, but others seem intollerant and inflexible to changes to try and improve the data for both end users of the data and people creating it in the first place. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
