I see you point, but boundary is always preferable if possible.
Geographical Suburbs appears ot be the main stumbling block.
I haven't studied Alex's edits in detail but from his diary he appears
to be duplicating; adding both boundary & is_in to the same entities.
Superfluous.
Dave F.
On
I have already brought this to the attention of DWG. SomeoneElse has
been attempting to moderate the tone on a couple of the changeset
discussions.
No idea if it is permanent, but alexkemp has switched his focus to
houses/numbers in the last couple of days.
//colin
On 2016-08-17 13:58, Walter
No, alex has never been blocked: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/alexkemp
please contact DWG
regards
Walter
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Every account that has ever been blocked has a link from the profile called
“Active blocks”.
--
Andrew
From: Paul Sladen <o...@paul.sladen.org>
Sent: 17 August 2016 11:04:20
To: Will Phillips
Cc: Talk GB
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] ref:hectares on admin bo
On Mon, 15 Aug 2016, Will Phillips wrote:
> On 15/08/2016 08:39, Colin Smale wrote:
> > "This is an automated response: sorry, but I'm too busy mapping too be
> > able to spare the time to respond to you. Thank you for your interest
> > in my mapping. -Alex Kemp"
> I have raised this issue with
On 17/08/16 00:57, Dave F wrote:
As far as I can see is_in:* is used for the same things as boundaries,
but is less efficient & prone to errors.
Are you aware of any utilities that use is_in:*?
To me, the value of is_in is that it allows for cases where there is n
usable source for the actual
On 16/08/2016 17:28, Colin Smale wrote:
Dave, if the is_in values are based on common usage rather than
administrative reality, then it would actually be correct to leave
them unchanged.
If a better way of doing something is created then the old methods
become redundant & should be
On 16/08/2016 21:57, Colin Smale wrote:
Having just received another "too busy mapping" response to a
changeset comment I have requested DWG to give alexkemp a 0-minute
block to remind him of his duty to engage with the community in a
proper way.
We (the Data Working Group) normally use
Having just received another "too busy mapping" response to a changeset
comment I have requested DWG to give alexkemp a 0-minute block to remind
him of his duty to engage with the community in a proper way.
Colin
On 2016-08-16 14:55, Dave F wrote:
> +1
>
> Also his use of is_in:* is also
Dave, if the is_in values are based on common usage rather than
administrative reality, then it would actually be correct to leave them
unchanged.
The point I am trying to make, is that I see a need to support a variety
of addressing/location systems, which are all correct in their own way,
but
I queried Alex's rational:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/alexkemp/diary/39062
As I noted is_in tags are hard-coded so become inaccurate if boundaries
change.
I also asked about Nominatim's search criteria on the Talk forum:
In the specific case of the UK, I am not convinced that is_in has no
value at all. This is because of the huge divergence between people's
perceptions and administrative reality. If you ask someone to give their
location/current address, they will most likely refer to the postal
addressing system,
+1
Also his use of is_in:* is also redundant when the boundary tag is used,
Dave F.
On 16/08/2016 13:25, Andy Allan wrote:
On 16 August 2016 at 13:11, Will Phillips wrote:
Regarding the 'ref:hectares' tag, it does seem wrong to me. It's not
consistent with other uses of
On 15/08/2016 08:39, Colin Smale wrote:
Hi,
I noticed a number of new admin boundaries have been tagged with
ref:hectares=* with the numeric value giving the area of the entity in
hectares. This feels to me like an inappropriate use of "ref" and also
redundant as the area can be calculated
Do we know how these values are calculated, for instance do they come from an
external source?
--
Andrew
From: Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>
Sent: 15 August 2016 08:39
To: Talk-GB
Subject: [Talk-GB] ref:hectares on admin boundary, and non-resp
Just out of interest, are unincorporated areas in Australia tagged with
boundary relations?
--
Andrew
From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
Sent: 15 August 2016 12:00
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] ref:hectares on admin boundary, a
On 8/15/2016 7:03 PM, Colin Smale wrote:
Hi Will,
Fully agree with you. I also tried to contribute to that changeset
discussion. If you hadn't reverted that admin level change, I would
have...
Some of his ideas are on his diary pages [1] and my admin boundary
page [2].
Colin
[1]
Hi Will,
Fully agree with you. I also tried to contribute to that changeset
discussion. If you hadn't reverted that admin level change, I would
have...
Some of his ideas are on his diary pages [1] and my admin boundary page
[2].
Colin
[1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/alexkemp/diary
Hi,
This user is currently adding admin_level=10 admin boundaries, which we
use for civil parishes (or communities), to areas where no such
administrative unit exists. To me this seems problematic because my
understanding is that these are legal entities which either exist or
they don't.
Hi,
I noticed a number of new admin boundaries have been tagged with
ref:hectares=* with the numeric value giving the area of the entity in
hectares. This feels to me like an inappropriate use of "ref" and also
redundant as the area can be calculated simply from the geometry anyway.
When I
20 matches
Mail list logo