On 06/01/2019 19:52, Michael Booth wrote:
Replying to this message as for some reason Dave's emails never come
through to my inbox.
I agree these should be updated to the new tag, but not simply with a
automated edit - it would be much better to check each individual
instance first before
On 06/01/2019 20:47, Edward Catmur wrote:
But what does "a bit much" mean in relation to mapping what you find on
the ground? Either a thing is there or it isn't. You can leave it out,
or make a reasonable stab at drawing what you actually see in front of
your nose.
To me the issue is one of
Replying to this message as for some reason Dave's emails never come
through to my inbox.
I agree these should be updated to the new tag, but not simply with a
automated edit - it would be much better to check each individual
instance first before retagging.
I've just looked at some of the
On 06/01/2019 16:44, Martin Wynne wrote:
For example I have just been updating a local ford well-known to me,
over the River Rea at Neen Savage:
https://goo.gl/maps/NetZQD1UVfE2
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.39462/-2.47891
That section of the river is mapped as an area, so I
On 06/01/2019 15:50, Edward Catmur wrote:
> It would seem a bit much to map the ford as an area unless both the
river and the highway away from the ford are mapped as areas. For the
same reason I wouldn't usually map a ford as a way unless the river is
mapped as an area.
Thanks Edward.
But
On 06/01/2019 15:50, Edward Catmur wrote:
It would seem a bit much to map the ford as an area unless both the
river and the highway away from the ford are mapped as areas. For the
same reason I wouldn't usually map a ford as a way unless the river is
mapped as an area.
Apropos of not much,
It would seem a bit much to map the ford as an area unless both the river
and the highway away from the ford are mapped as areas. For the same reason
I wouldn't usually map a ford as a way unless the river is mapped as an
area.
Apropos of not much, I wonder whether the ford is relevant for
the same time you're writing your message in a combative and
uncooperative tone that is increasing the likelihood of someone getting
upset!
Well, yes, I suppose I am. I'm gradually becoming irritated by the
increasing reluctance (verging on paranoia) to correcting erroneous
data.
Well that
On 06/01/2019 09:32, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
On 1/5/19 9:49 PM, Dave F wrote:
I'm about to do a GB wide edit changing highway=ford (545) to ford=yes
(4814). I know a few contributors like to get upset about wide area
edits, even when they been discussed, so I thought I'd give you a heads up.
I should have clarified the 545 highway=ford tags to be changed are all
nodes.
92 of those also have the ford=yes tag (Red)
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/F0z
Check out Duddon Sands PROWs. That looks far too risky
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/F0C
Cheers
DaveF
On 06/01/2019 09:51, Neil Matthews
Hi Martin,
It's a bit of a do-ocracy - you can take the initiative yourself, but
you should follow the code of conduct, which includes discussing it
with the right local groups and giving time for comments on the edit
you want to make. See the instructions here:
On 05/01/2019 20:49, Dave F wrote:
I'm about to do a GB wide edit
As a recent mapper I'm interested to know - if a GB-wide edit is needed,
how does it get decided who should do it?
cheers,
Martin.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Presumably only those ways that have a consistent highway value for ways
joined at both ends? If there's a different highway value at ways joined
at each end, then you should at minimum add a fixme to the ford section,
or a note for local mappers to check?
Cheers,
Neil
On 05/01/2019 20:49,
Hi,
On 1/5/19 9:49 PM, Dave F wrote:
> I'm about to do a GB wide edit changing highway=ford (545) to ford=yes
> (4814). I know a few contributors like to get upset about wide area
> edits, even when they been discussed, so I thought I'd give you a heads up.
It sounds as if you are belittling
14 matches
Mail list logo
