2014-05-29 11:12 GMT+01:00 malenki <[email protected]>: > 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
There is no-one in OSM who understands every tag :) So let's keep them eh? But let's not jump too quickly to using words like "vandalism" in this context which is still a lovely polite one. >> > water=lake;pond 57045 >> >> We don't go around removing thousands of tags because there is a new >> tagging scheme. > > You miss the point. Let's be a bit clearer: someone appears to have applied the double-barrelled tag "water=lake;pond" as a reinterpretation of the external value "LakePond". This doesn't help distinguish between lakes and ponds since the objects in question are all labelled as being both, whereas the external data probably didn't mean that (it may have meant either-or). It seems IMHO that Malenki's proposed bulk edit to remove the specific instances of "water=lake;pond" done in that previous edit is the best way to deal with this case: it would improve the utility of the water=* tag (by removing those badly-done data points), while allowing for the future possibility that future users might legitimately add "water=lake;pond" to an object. >> 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 no longer active. No I think he means removed automatically by JOSM etc: whenever a person uses JOSM to edit a lake it could silently drop unwanted tags, which has the advantage of not adding extra changesets to the history. (Although it has the disadvantage of combining intentional edits with silent edits!) Dan _______________________________________________ Imports mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
