Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
> I wonder if another prioritisation approach might be useful
> too -- prioritising certain high-value types of objects,
> where-ever they might be.
Yes, I think that's an excellent idea. Obviously, everyone has their own
definition of "high value" (I'm quite anxiou
Hi,
On 03/03/2012 05:45 PM, Robert Norris wrote:
As such I'm thinking the changeset should probably be reverted/removed.
Yes, this kind of automated edit is not acceptable. The user seems to
lean towards that kind of edit, having seemingly auto-added "operator"
tags to French phone boxes pre
On 3 March 2012 16:45, Robert Norris wrote:
>
>
> I can't say I'm convinced about the value of adding FIXMEs to 7000+ postboxes
> in the UK in changeset:
> ...
> As such I'm thinking the changeset should probably be reverted/removed.
Wholeheartedly agree. Automated QA shouldn't be run against th
I can't say I'm convinced about the value of adding FIXMEs to 7000+ postboxes
in the UK in changeset:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/10834378
1. Collection Times when missing can be cross referenced with the open data
request with the Royal Mail when the postbox has a reference
I agree that we want to try and have a complete main road network network.
Whilst longish stretches of road are easy to spot there are a lot of
other small sections (eg. bridges) which are harder to see on cleanmap
(unless the rest of the area is clean).
We also have the issue of nodes going
On 2 March 2012 14:35, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> We change to the new licence in just under a month's time, so it's a good
> time to look at the current state of the UK.
We're almost certainly not going to be able to able to get the UK
completely clean by the switch-over, and it's definitely goo
6 matches
Mail list logo
