Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving building=building to building=yes

On 08.06.2018 19:19, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > building=building is an unexpected way to mark building without > specifying its type and therefore retagging this duplicate to > building=yes would improve tagging without any information loss. I'm in favour of proceeding with the proposed

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving building=building to building=yes

sent from a phone On 9. Jun 2018, at 17:24, Michael Reichert wrote: >> So, is analysis by Christoph Hormann >> >> sufficient for this proposed edit? > > Yes +1, but the tool you describe would be nice as well ;-) cheers, Martin ___ talk

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving building=building to building=yes

Hi Mateusz, Am 2018-06-09 um 16:20 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny: > So, is analysis by  Christoph Hormann > > sufficient for this proposed edit? Yes Best regards Michael -- Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten ausgenommen) I prefer GPG encryption of emails.

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving building=building to building=yes

9. Jun 2018 12:54 by osm...@michreichert.de : > I did not expect you to write such a tool. It would be ok to pick some > random samples and look into their history. So, is analysis by  Christoph Hormann sufficient for this proposed edit?

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving building=building to building=yes

Hi Mateusz, Am 2018-06-09 um 12:17 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny: > Are you aware about any analysis like that? > > > > > I thought about > > > > > > - listing top contributors > > - time distribution graph (when tag was added) > > > - distribution of editors used to enter data > > > -

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving building=building to building=yes

9. Jun 2018 12:17 by matkoni...@tutanota.com : > > But I would prefer to avoid spending time on creating > > > tool that already exists. > I found  http://taghistory.raifer.tech that reveals that this tag is target of

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving building=building to building=yes

9. Jun 2018 11:36 by osm...@michreichert.de : > Did you investigate who used that tag and maybe why? Was it a bot, a > editor preset, an import or manual user input? I would like to have this > question answered before a mechanical edit. Are you aware about

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving building=building to building=yes

On Saturday 09 June 2018, Michael Reichert wrote: > > Did you investigate who used that tag and maybe why? Was it a bot, a > editor preset, an import or manual user input? I would like to have > this question answered before a mechanical edit. I had looked at this after Mateusz's announcement and

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving building=building to building=yes

8. Jun 2018 22:41 by james2...@gmail.com : > if building=building is not or was not a  wiki approved way of tagging, this > seems more on the side of linting osm tags than it does a "mass blind > edit"/import Note that just because tags are not described on

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving building=building to building=yes

Hi Mateusz, Am 2018-06-08 um 19:19 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny: > building=yes is a standard way to mark building without specifying its > type. Editors wishing to specify building type would (directly or > indirectly, for example using StreetComplete) look through buildings > tagged as

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving building=building to building=yes

My view is probably along the lines of as OSM matures using more standardized tags will make it easier to extract meaningful data from OSM mapping. Having said that we still need the flexibility to use new tags. That Building=building should be replaced by building=yes is fairly obvious some

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving building=building to building=yes

I don't see a problem with this as the major concerns: big edit boundaries, what does it affect? are taken care of by documentation if building=building is not or was not a wiki approved way of tagging, this seems more on the side of linting osm tags than it does a "mass blind edit"/import On

[OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving building=building to building=yes

building=yes is a standard way to mark building without specifying its type. Editors wishing to specify building type would (directly or indirectly, for example using StreetComplete) look through buildings tagged as building=yes. building=building is an unexpected way to mark building without