Re: [Talk-ca] Canvec Reverts

I agree that forest that are way too costly in time should be removed, but they should also be replaced with something(better) not just mass removed, oh well we'll get to it later kind of thing On Sep 1, 2016 8:05 PM, "Sam Dyck" wrote: > I took a break to make supper, so

Re: [Talk-ca] Canvec Reverts

I took a break to make supper, so I'm going to have to respond collectively. - Sammuell and sammuell_imports are my accounts. Both the forest and the lake are from Canvec data imported together as in the same tile. I Imported the whole thing (I would never import over existing data that

Re: [Talk-ca] CanVec Reverts

I agree with Frederik here. New imports need to make sure they follow the import guidelines, including using a dedicated import account. The wiki information could all be cleaned up, consolidated, and then new users would know the current status and process for importing new information. For

Re: [Talk-ca] CanVec Reverts

>I think a super good first step would be try and ensure that future imports are done diligently and don't introduce new issues. I think that is a reasonable way forward, and I concur with the rest of your post. I think we need to identify which parts of CANVEC are giving concern, each province

Re: [Talk-ca] CanVec Reverts

Andrew, On 09/02/2016 12:47 AM, Andrew Lester wrote: > If people from outside of Canada have decided that our data is so bad > that it needs to be completely wiped out in its entirety, then I guess > we're going to have to do something drastic to try to prevent this. I think a super good first

Re: [Talk-ca] CanVec Reverts

treetmap.org> Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2016 2:38:38 PM Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] CanVec Reverts After reading Paul's email again, its possible that what Nakaner is doing is in line with Paul's suggestion, if unnecessarily confrontational. I tried to play around in JOSM to see if I could get the

Re: [Talk-ca] CanVec Reverts

Sam, On 09/01/2016 11:26 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: >> I believe the given what we have just spent the last 24 hours discussing >> this request is unreasonable and the issue is not significant. Thoughts? > > An importer who imports data into OSM that doesn't match up with already > existing data

Re: [Talk-ca] CanVec Reverts

ions. > > > Pierre > > > -- > *De :* Sam Dyck <samueld...@gmail.com> > *À :* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org> > *Envoyé le :* jeudi 1 Septembre 2016 17h06 > *Objet :* Re: [Talk-ca] CanVec Reverts > > I received the following changese

Re: [Talk-ca] CanVec Reverts

Hi Sam, Am 01.09.2016 um 23:06 schrieb Sam Dyck: > I received the following changeset comment from Nakaner for a Canvec import > (changeset > 38158126) at 15:55 Central Time (20:55 UTC): > > "This changeset has uploaded data which does not fit to each other. There > is an offset between the

Re: [Talk-ca] CanVec Reverts

Hi, On 2016-09-01 21:06:57, Sam Dyck wrote: > I believe the given what we have just spent the last 24 hours discussing > this request is unreasonable and the issue is not significant. Thoughts? An importer who imports data into OSM that doesn't match up with already existing data and doesn't

Re: [Talk-ca] CanVec Reverts

I received the following changeset comment from Nakaner for a Canvec import (changeset 38158126) at 15:55 Central Time (20:55 UTC): "This changeset has uploaded data which does not fit to each other. There is an offset between the water areas and the forest areas. Example:

Re: [Talk-ca] CanVec Reverts

>From what Rps333 told me in person he had worked many hours on that changeset and was frustrated when someone reverted before fixes could be applied. Could you revert the revert? On Sep 1, 2016 4:09 PM, "Paul Norman" wrote: > Hello, > > Multiple people have referred this

Re: [Talk-ca] CanVec Reverts

Canvec data has been imported for many years so why the sudden challenge and change? Are you willing to reimport the CANVEC data or are you intent on leaving a blank area in the map? Cheerio John On 1 September 2016 at 15:41, Michael Reichert wrote: > Hi James, > > Am

Re: [Talk-ca] CanVec Reverts

Hello, Multiple people have referred this issue and changeset 39517002 to the OpenStreetMap Foundation Data Working Group about this issue. The Data Working Group has responsibility for the resolution of disputes beyond the normal means of the community, as well as some responsibilities

Re: [Talk-ca] CanVec Reverts

Message- From: Michael Reichert [mailto:naka...@gmx.net] Sent: Thursday, 1 September, 2016 15:41 To: James Cc: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] CanVec Reverts Hi James, Am 2016-09-01 um 15:04 schrieb James: > To blatantly toss discussions of the > past whether to import

Re: [Talk-ca] CanVec Reverts

:naka...@gmx.net] > Sent: Thursday, 1 September, 2016 01:39 > To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > Subject: [Talk-ca] CanVec Reverts > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > Hi, > > unfortunately posting via Gmane does not seem to work (the website is down &g

Re: [Talk-ca] CanVec Reverts

@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Talk-ca] CanVec Reverts -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hi, unfortunately posting via Gmane does not seem to work (the website is down but NNTP still works), that's why I have to start a new thread. :-( Am Tue, 30 Aug 2016 21:41:21 -0500 schrieb Sam Dyck

Re: [Talk-ca] Canvec reverts

that someone write a >>> "How to >>> > pre-process a CanVec export before importing it into OSM". >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> All ongoing changesets which import CanVec data should either use an >>> improved version of the preproc

Re: [Talk-ca] CanVec Reverts

...@gmx.net] Sent: Thursday, 1 September, 2016 08:37 To: Begin Daniel; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] CanVec Reverts Hi Daniel, Am 2016-09-01 um 12:26 schrieb Begin Daniel: > Furthermore, I hope you will not use you 100 objects per minute to > decide whether or not you will

Re: [Talk-ca] CanVec Reverts

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hi, Am 2016-09-01 um 13:22 schrieb john whelan: > In many parts of the country there are no local mappers for many > miles or kilometers if you prefer. We do have some very > experienced GIS people around and I'm under the impression that we >

Re: [Talk-ca] CanVec Reverts

What tells you he didnt prepare batches outside the upload time(offline)? Your logic is skewed On Sep 1, 2016 8:39 AM, "Michael Reichert" wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > Am 2016-09-01 um 12:26 schrieb Begin Daniel: > > Furthermore, I hope you will not use you 100 objects per minute to

Re: [Talk-ca] CanVec Reverts

Hi Daniel, Am 2016-09-01 um 12:26 schrieb Begin Daniel: > Furthermore, I hope you will not use you 100 objects per minute to decide > whether or not you will delete a changeset. I think this threshold is value > doesn't' apply (see below) > > Daniel > > About the100 objects threshold. > From

Re: [Talk-ca] CanVec Reverts

it takes to upload > the data to the database (5K objects per minute) do not reflect the time I > spent editing the data prior to the upload. > > -Original Message- > From: Michael Reichert [mailto:naka...@gmx.net] > Sent: Thursday, 1 September, 2016 01:39 > To: talk-ca@op

Re: [Talk-ca] CanVec Reverts

. -Original Message- From: Michael Reichert [mailto:naka...@gmx.net] Sent: Thursday, 1 September, 2016 01:39 To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Talk-ca] CanVec Reverts -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hi, unfortunately posting via Gmane does not seem to work (the website

Re: [Talk-ca] CanVec Reverts

See that's where I have an issue with your revert logic, if errors are mostly corrected and say theres only 1 or 2 warnings, you want to revert the whole thing which is very bad for: 1. The community and 2. The database. Let me explain: there are many hours that go into merging down CanVec ways

[Talk-ca] CanVec Reverts

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hi, unfortunately posting via Gmane does not seem to work (the website is down but NNTP still works), that's why I have to start a new thread. :-( Am Tue, 30 Aug 2016 21:41:21 -0500 schrieb Sam Dyck: > After reading through the changeset