Re: [OSM-talk] Undiscussed (?) edits removing lesser-used highway=* tags

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Undiscussed (?) edits removing lesser-used highway=* tags

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Undiscussed (?) edits removing lesser-used highway=* tags

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Undiscussed (?) edits removing lesser-used highway=* tags

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Undiscussed (?) edits removing lesser-used highway=* tags

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,

Re: [OSM-talk] Undiscussed (?) edits removing lesser-used highway=* tags

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Undiscussed (?) edits removing lesser-used highway=* tags

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Undiscussed (?) edits removing lesser-used highway=* tags

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Undiscussed (?) edits removing lesser-used highway=* tags

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,

Re: [OSM-talk] Undiscussed (?) edits removing lesser-used highway=* tags

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Undiscussed (?) edits removing lesser-used highway=* tags

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Undiscussed (?) edits removing lesser-used highway=* tags

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

[OSM-talk] Undiscussed (?) edits removing lesser-used highway=* tags

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Undiscussed (?) edits removing lesser-used highway=* tags

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Undiscussed (?) edits removing lesser-used highway=* tags

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=*