Clifford Snow <[email protected]> writes: > On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Greg Troxel <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I don't follow this. If an import has a lot of data that's right, and >> is missing some data that it might have had, that's fine, and it can be >> manually mapped before or after. I don't see that expecting 100% >> coverage is a reasonable requirement for an import. But maybe I'm not >> following - if the dataset proposed for import has data that is actually >> wrong, that's another story. > > My suggestion was to help improve the quality of the import. With a small > village it's easy enough to get the few missing pieces. I wouldn't object > if this import went forward as is but if it could be improved why not.
If you said "after doing the import, or maybe while doing it, it would be really nice if you also went around and manually surveyed the things the import is missing" I'd agree with you. What I don't understand is adding in manual data to an import, because you need different metadata on the changesets - manual data with the import changeset would be misattributed.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Imports mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
