@Eric: I looked at more examples, and I have to admit that you are right
with your statistical (0.1%) argument. Most cases I looked at, are obvious
accidental tagging errors.
I checked for Madagascar. I found one case and I'm the author :-p
I first added embankment and later cute a small part of
@Martin: you are right there, naturally. I should have said "You cannot do
this automatically with a mass edit. You need to consider each situation.
In many cases you may be able to understand the situation from satellite
photos (for example from shadows!) but there will be a large number where
you
sent from a phone
> Am 22.07.2015 um 22:16 schrieb Volker Schmidt :
>
> Which means manual correction with inspection of aerial photos.
I agree on all but this sentence: you won't be able to actually "inspect " a
spot on aerial imagery, rather you should go there to understand what is at
th
Although I agree that such combination is suspicious...
> 250 in France
A rough evaluation for France give me 200k ways with bridge=yes. So
about 1 error each 1000 bridges. Not such a big issue.
My 0,02 €.
Eric
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@op
By chance I have detected that amny mappers use this combination on
highways:
ways con bridge=*
embankment=yes
To see an example search in Northern Italy: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/axW
When I saw the first example I thought of an accidental mapping error, but
the Overpass Turbo revealed that thi
