Re: [Tagging] Upcoming removal of power=station and power=sub_station in the standard style

On 23/10/18 05:04, Yves wrote: Daniel, Mateusz and others: if nobody care to review those sub stations, this means they need care. That's more a concern than an old tag in the DB. You want them re tagged, then advertise for this and bring other people into this, like in 'build a community' .

Re: [Tagging] Upcoming removal of power=station and power=sub_station in the standard style

On 23/10/18 07:53, marc marc wrote: Le 22. 10. 18 à 14:01, Dave Swarthout a écrit : Well, there you go. Mass edits are frowned upon even if the potential for making a mistake is low. Is it worse to have a few power=sub_station objects that should really be power=plant instead of an enormous

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

On 22/10/18 21:32, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am Mo., 22. Okt. 2018 um 01:17 Uhr schrieb Johnparis mailto:ok...@johnfreed.com>>: I guess this means I am leaning towards Warin's argument. There are only 445 objects tagged amenity=embassy (if I read Taginfo correctly) so this would

Re: [Tagging] Upcoming removal of power=station and power=sub_station in the standard style

Le 22. 10. 18 à 14:01, Dave Swarthout a écrit : > Well, there you go. Mass edits are frowned upon even if the potential > for making a mistake is low. Is it worse to have a few power=sub_station > objects that should really be power=plant instead of an enormous number > of objects with

Re: [Tagging] Upcoming removal of power=station and power=sub_station in the standard style

Daniel, Mateusz and others: if nobody care to review those sub stations, this means they need care. That's more a concern than an old tag in the DB. You want them re tagged, then advertise for this and bring other people into this, like in 'build a community' . Or do it automatically and let

Re: [Tagging] Upcoming removal of power=station and power=sub_station in the standard style

W dniu 22.10.2018 o 18:17, Mateusz Konieczny pisze: > I agree that manual review  of anything improbes map, but I am not sure > > why mistagged power=sub_station is better or worse than mistagged > > power=substation > I think that in this case automatic update is a victim of general thinking

Re: [Tagging] Another multipolygon question

Hi Dave, all, Based on this discussion I just recorded this short tutorial of how I use JOSM and its Relation Toolbox plugin to to add adjoining land-cover areas as multipolygons with shared boundary ways to reduce duplication and overlapping ways. The area I'm

Re: [Tagging] Upcoming removal of power=station and power=sub_station in the standard style

22. Oct 2018 17:28 by frede...@remote.org : > On 10/22/18 11:03, François Lacombe wrote: >> Even if sub_station is often 1:1 of substation, this have to be replaced >> carefully since objects can have been mis tagged as power=sub_station. >> In France, last objects

[Tagging] Upcoming removal of power=station and power=sub_station in the standard style

Hi, On 10/22/18 11:03, François Lacombe wrote: > Even if sub_station is often 1:1 of substation, this have to be replaced > carefully since objects can have been mis tagged as power=sub_station. > In France, last objects where removed this summer. There was about 150 > of them and it was not so

Re: [Tagging] Another multipolygon question

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 5:27 AM Dave Swarthout wrote: > > Great. But what are you actually doing when you "sort the members" of a > relation? And after sorting, how does one "ensure the members are > connected"? > Sorting something like a bus route ensures that the various ways that constitute

Re: [Tagging] Another multipolygon question

22. Oct 2018 06:26 by daveswarth...@gmail.com : > I've noted with dismay the lack of debugging support for relations. For > example, I will get an error message when trying to upload an edited relation > but when I ask JOSM to Zoom to the error, the display

Re: [Tagging] Upcoming removal of power=station and power=sub_station in the standard style

W dniu 22.10.2018 o 13:07, Volker Schmidt pisze: > Regarding sub_station, there seems to have been  a  revert three month > ago of the results of a maproulette task Thanks for the info - I have asked who complained, so we could talk. I also asked the author of the wiki warning against

Re: [Tagging] Upcoming removal of power=station and power=sub_station in the standard style

Well, there you go. Mass edits are frowned upon even if the potential for making a mistake is low. Is it worse to have a few power=sub_station objects that should really be power=plant instead of an enormous number of objects with deprecated tags? Good question, but one that must remain academic

Re: [Tagging] Upcoming removal of power=station and power=sub_station in the standard style

Regarding sub_station, there seems to have been a revert three month ago of the results of a maproulette task sub_station > substation. according this changeset comment on one of the sub_station nodes in my area: "revert mechanical edit of

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

Am Mo., 22. Okt. 2018 um 01:17 Uhr schrieb Johnparis : > I guess this means I am leaning towards Warin's argument. There are only > 445 objects tagged amenity=embassy (if I read Taginfo correctly) so this > would be pretty simple. > as of now there are almost 11500 amenity=embassy

Re: [Tagging] Upcoming removal of power=station and power=sub_station in the standard style

Hi, Thank you to talk about this. Definitely ok to retag remaining sub_station and station This helps a lot to clean up power=* key. Even if sub_station is often 1:1 of substation, this have to be replaced carefully since objects can have been mis tagged as power=sub_station. In France, last