Re: [talk-au] Transponders mistagged

2011-04-21 Thread John Smith
On 22 April 2011 13:43, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: > The logical reason for a relation is that there are numerous parts to > the transponders at various heights and that there are several per > aerial mast / comms hut > Perhaps the wiki page needs a rewrite? I thought the wiki page was added to about

Re: [talk-au] Transponders mistagged

2011-04-21 Thread Elizabeth Dodd
On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 13:31:22 +1000 Gary Gallagher wrote: > Hi, >I've been editing some areas of rural Victoria and I keep coming > across communications transponders that have been mis-tagged as > relations. in the .osm file the xml looks like this:- > >timestamp='2010-05-22T23:46:04Z' u

[talk-au] Transponders mistagged

2011-04-21 Thread Gary Gallagher
Hi, I've been editing some areas of rural Victoria and I keep coming across communications transponders that have been mis-tagged as relations. in the .osm file the xml looks like this:- I'm not sure about some of the tags but f

Re: [talk-au] Reverting a bad edit?

2011-04-21 Thread Grant Slater
On 21 April 2011 05:05, 4x4falcon wrote: > Completed. > > Please check the area as I don't know what should be there. > This isn't the only large scale delete by new user within minutes of signing up. Recent example in the UK: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/7907122 Best we keep a