On Thu, 29 May 2014 05:42:27 -0400 Serge Wroclawski wrote: > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:29 AM, malenki > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, 29 May 2014 02:52:23 +0200 > > Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > >> do you have a complete list of the tags that you propose to "drop"? > > > > key with count of occurrence: > > > gnis:feature_id=* 26 > > gnis:id=* 6577 > > The US community has discussed these tags and wants them to stay. Do > not remove them. I'd call any removal of those vandalism.
Fine. Still I see no sense in them > > water=lake;pond 57045 > > We don't go around removing thousands of tags because there is a new > tagging scheme. You miss the point. > I happen to like the distinction between lakes and ponds. I assume you like ponds and lakes so much that it is (IYO) correct to have them both as one value. So this discussion can be finished right here. Though I answer the rest of your mail. > In addition, Is see absolutely no value in a bot going around dropping > tags just for the sake of dropping tags. Did you read (and understand) my first two mails on this topic? > You should be proposing that some of these tags (not all) be removed > by the editors, If you mean the "original" editors: WorstFixer who invented waterway=lake;pond (looking at the numbers¹) is no longer active. > which is how we typically handle these cases- not by brute force > removal. When the editors (whoever this is) do remove tags it isn't brute force? Thomas ¹ http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/water=lake%3Bpond _______________________________________________ Imports mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
