Andy Townsend wrote
>> Will this be frustrating for any mapper? I doubt that.
>
> We need to think a little beyond people who know about "nodes", "ways"
> and "relations" here. Anything that says "you can't do that because"
> had better be really clear about what the problem is (and not use wor
On 10/11/2015 12:15, GerdP wrote:
Now what is meant with oneway=yes;no (or no;yes) ?
(at the risk of stating the obvious) that's likely to be a merged way,
where a new user didn't spot a difference in a key that they weren't
looking at before merging two ways. Just look at the changeset that
2015-11-10 13:15 GMT+01:00 GerdP :
> Now that I what I would call very well put
yes, you're right, as is Lester. I've been too fast (and had thought about
some incidents which were about new keys actually). When it comes to new
values for established keys, things are a bit different, I agree.
lsces wrote
> On 10/11/15 10:08, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> One of the great strengths of OSM is that you can invent tagging on
>> the
>> fly and trying to suppress that just so that the data consumers have
>> it
>> easy, is misguided. In the end the main way our tagging evolves is b
On 10/11/15 10:08, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> One of the great strengths of OSM is that you can invent tagging on the
> fly and trying to suppress that just so that the data consumers have it
> easy, is misguided. In the end the main way our tagging evolves is be
> contributors tr
2015-11-10 8:48 GMT+01:00 Simon Poole :
> One of the great strengths of OSM is that you can invent tagging on the
> fly and trying to suppress that just so that the data consumers have it
> easy, is misguided. In the end the main way our tagging evolves is be
> contributors trying to map stuff tha
As i already pointed out, the problem is not so much fixing obvious
mistakes (typos, clear misclassification) thank you for that, but
wanting conformity to inconclusive results of discussions on a fairly
obscure mailing list.
One of the great strengths of OSM is that you can invent tagging on the
On 11/09/2015 01:39 AM, GerdP wrote:
Andrew Guertin wrote
As a negative example, they seem to have deemed the tag
highway=residential_link bad, and replaced it with either
highway=service or highway=residential.
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/18820600/history,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/w
2015-11-09 7:39 GMT+01:00 GerdP :
> I only know a discussion in Germany which came to the
> conclusion that tags like unclassified_link, residential_link and
> service_link make not much sense:
> http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=26083
> The wiki doesn't mention those _link types as
Hi all,
sorry for the late reaction, I was offline for two days visiting a friend
for his 50th aniversary.
Andrew Guertin wrote
> In my opinion, some of these changes are positive and some are negative,
> but the negatives outweigh the positives.
That's bad news for me. I tried to be very care
GerdP has written me twice about some tagging mistake I made. In one case I
told him about a proposal he was not aware of, and he promptly reverted the
change he had made in the meantime. In both cases we had a nice
conversation via the changeset comments.
Perhaps he did not contact the mapper tha
On 11/06/2015 05:01 PM, Andy Townsend wrote:
Previously there were quite a lot of changeset discussion comments
from GerdP asking about odd values:
http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussions (scroll down a bit)
Ah! That's very good to see!
So perhaps I've overreacted a bit. I now see the
On 06/11/2015 20:42, Andrew Guertin wrote:
An in-between example: on
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/38089492/history,
highway=stepping_stones was replaced with highway=path. While this
helps consumers use the data, it loses information that should have
been kept (perhaps with surface=* or
Am 06.11.2015 um 21:42 schrieb Andrew Guertin:
> ...
> Does anyone know if this was discussed anywhere?
It seems to be a result of a misguided discussion on the tagging list,
which came to the conclusion that data consumers need to be protected
from the (typically very low number) the dangerous non
Hi,
The user GerdP seems to be going around editing things with unusual
highway=* tags, apparently in an attempt to standardize them.
In my opinion, some of these changes are positive and some are negative,
but the negatives outweigh the positives.
As a positive example, GerdP seems to have
15 matches
Mail list logo