Good idea but I think you will find that this is much harder task to
tackle from technical perspective and most people would rather work on
random projects like live viewers, mappers nearby and endless stream of
other gadges based on the basic replication stream...
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013, at 19:28,
On Tuesday 16 April 2013, Pieren wrote:
I'm not sure that the New tagging of riverbanks has been really
adopted, excepted by the 16 who approved it on the wiki (is it in
editors presets ?).
Actually the situation is even worse - current practice in tagging water
areas is a wild mix of
On 16.04.2013 11:53, Pieren wrote:
I'm not sure that the New tagging of riverbanks has been really
adopted, excepted by the 16 who approved it on the wiki
Just for clarity: A redefinition of riverbanks has *not* been approved
by wiki vote.
What has been approved is using water=river on those
I would like to suggest a bit more focus on the OSM source data related
documentation and data quality. The many loose/fuzzy definitions (if they
are definitions at all) allow wide freedom of interpretations. In turn,
these interpretations are causing many (but really many) logical errors.
As a
4 matches
Mail list logo
