Re: [Talk-GB] Help with remapping
On 15 January 2012 19:27, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: If you reposition the new node in same place as the old one, this hasn't really achieved anything. At best, it has obscured the history a bit so it's no longer quite so clear that the node was originally added by a CT-decliner. It rarely ends up in exactly the same place - when I'm doing these node replacements I take time to remodel junctions, improve curves and so on. The contribution is my own, not an obfuscation of history. The O keypress is just a little labour saving, not a charade. Rather than going through this charade why not just add odbl=clean to the node? Because that would be incorrect. The odbl=clean is not a I somehow assert that I would do the same, therefore ignore the IPR record. The tag is to indicate where their contribution have washed out and where the contributor(s) in question cannot reasonably claim any rights to the current feature[1] - i.e. subsequent edits have entirely overwritten any IPR in the non-acceptor's contributions. It's easy to see that the tag is therefore completely inappropriate for adding to any v1 objects, for a start. Of course, since the odbl=clean tag is so widely misinterpreted, by you and seemingly by many others, the tag becomes as meaningless as foot=yes[2] . It wouldn't actually make any difference during a changeover anyway - that's the whole point of the tag, after all, to indicate that even if you removed every conceivable trace of non-accepting edits from this feature, then end result would be the same - so there seems little point in adding it. So it's a bizarre tag - when misunderstood it's applied incorrectly, and when understood fully it barely makes sense to use it anyway. Cheers, Andy [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:odbl%3Dclean [2] Originally meaning this is a legally declared 'Public Footpath', it was ambiguously confused with a general legal right of walking (e.g. on a bridleway). Automatic inclusion on all footpaths of any type by potlatch1 for a number of years, it became effectively meaningless as a designator for Public Footpaths, and a new tag (designation=public_footpath) was eventually created. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Misguided user kane123
On 13 January 2012 16:36, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: On 13 January 2012 13:41, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: Anyone fancy dealing with http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/kane123 ? All of their changesets so far are bogus, and need reverting. I have reverted the changesets. I have also put a notice on the account, the person will be required to read it before they can make further edits: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/79 The user is back, and has spent the early hours of this morning deleting lots of things - major roads etc. I'm going to upgrade my assessment to deliberate vandal, and ask again if someone can revert the changesets in question. Thanks, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Help with remapping
Andy Allan wrote: [2] Originally meaning this is a legally declared 'Public Footpath', it was ambiguously confused with a general legal right of walking (e.g. on a bridleway). Automatic inclusion on all footpaths of any type by potlatch1 for a number of years [Brief historical footnote: P1 only ever included it on its public footpath and bridleway presets (and note that the former was indeed public footpath rather than footpath or footway or anything). I think the original intention was that other people might contribute tag presets for their own countries' path systems, but this was all about six years ago when I was still young and green enough to think that people might ever contribute tag presets. I'm not sure I ever thought that foot=yes meant this is a legally declared public footpath, I've always understood it to have the second meaning (public right of way for people on foot).] As you were... cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Help-with-remapping-tp7187743p7192089.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Misguided user kane123
On 16 January 2012 10:34, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: The user is back, and has spent the early hours of this morning deleting lots of things - major roads etc. I'm going to upgrade my assessment to deliberate vandal, and ask again if someone can revert the changesets in question. My thanks go to Richard Fairhurst for taking care of things. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Misguided user kane123
On 16 January 2012 10:34, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: On 13 January 2012 16:36, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: On 13 January 2012 13:41, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: Anyone fancy dealing with http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/kane123 ? All of their changesets so far are bogus, and need reverting. I have reverted the changesets. I have also put a notice on the account, the person will be required to read it before they can make further edits: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/79 The user is back, and has spent the early hours of this morning deleting lots of things - major roads etc. I'm going to upgrade my assessment to deliberate vandal, and ask again if someone can revert the changesets in question. This is a related user... http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/sanganabongina Recent edits seem to be vandalism in New York City. / Grant ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
