Peter, On 22 July 2012 09:27, Peter Wendorff <wendo...@uni-paderborn.de> wrote: > Am 22.07.2012 00:42, schrieb andrzej zaborowski: >> If you're asking me (not Maetma 91), I think the problem has been >> known since the early days of OSMI license view (easily fixable too). >> For example this city I believe was showing as clean although it was a >> while since I have looked at that layer: http://osm.org/go/0MtRfiBy- >> >> Here's a before/after the bot run comparison someone made for that >> city: http://postimage.org/image/sv7gh0rkp/ >> http://postimage.org/image/8m60yvx8j/ > > First of all that's not the ID(s) Frederik asked for. > Secondly: if it has been known to you - did you provide a patch or at least > a patch idea for it?
Wow, I wonder how people manage to ignore so many facts. First of all, I have not been silent about it, quite the opposite and the issue must have been known to Frederik because I remember he participated in one of the mailing list threads about it in mid 2011. Secondly no one could provide such a patch because no one knows what the bot is going to remove and what the LWG will deem clean or dirty, the real discussions about "what will the bot do" started on the rebuild list just a couple of months ago. So are you even serious about the patch suggestion? In this particular case I have been discussing this issue with Simon Poole of the LWG on IRC the day before the but ran (Tuesday last week) and in the morning he decided that the objects would stay and apparently later the same day changed his mind (I hope I'm not misrepresenting what happened, if I am, sorry). > If it has been known before that there has been an error, then you cannot > complain about it suddenly being deleted against the OSMI view - because > obviously you knew about that already. Oh my, please re-read the conversation. I haven't been complaining, I was not a user of OSMI. I simply pointed out a gross error in somebody's statement. Someone said something that was incorrect and very ironic in face of how much people's hard work has been removed, all I said is that this was incorrect. Cheers _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
