Bryce Nesbitt <bry...@obviously.com> writes: > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 1:10 AM, SomeoneElse <li...@atownsend.org.uk> wrote: > >> On 25/02/2015 05:00, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: >> >>> Any fixme in wide use I'm not interested in deleting. >> >> I'd strongly oppose the mechanical deletion of "low volume" fixme values. >> Mappers local to me often use individually worded fixmes describing >> something that needs investigation. By definition these values are "not in >> wide use", but definitely should be kept. If I'm going to be in an area I >> always load the local notes and fixmes onto the Garmin so that if I'm near >> something that needs some attibute checking, I know about it. > > Hold on, you may have misunderstood. > The only fixme tags proposed for deletion are the mechanically added ones > on thousands of nodes. > Any onesey twosey value would of course stay. > Any value like "continue" that's has high counts, but edited by hundreds of > unique users, would stay.
I am still not sure I am following. There is a difference between: 1) identify foo as a fixme= value that is often associated with mechanical edit 2) therefore, remove all fixme=foo and 3) identify foo as a fixme= value that is often associated with mechanical edit 4) remove all fixme=foo tags *which were actually added by a mechanical edit* Do you mean 1/2 or do you mean 3/4? If 3/4, I think this is fine. If 1/2, I think it's going to remove hand-mapper fixme tags, which seems not ok.
pgpF6KpEHBMw_.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
