On 2018-08-27 00:24, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On 26/08/2018 21:36, Colin Smale wrote: On 2018-08-26 21:17, David Woolley
> wrote:
>
> It looks to me as though boundaries can be defined recursively, so Hampshire,
> rather than its bounding ways, ought to to be the object referenced in the
> bigger
On 26/08/2018 21:36, Colin Smale wrote:
On 2018-08-26 21:17, David Woolley wrote:
It looks to me as though boundaries can be defined recursively, so
Hampshire, rather than its bounding ways, ought to to be the object
referenced in the bigger entities.
This wouldn't work in the case of civil
On 2018-08-26 21:17, David Woolley wrote:
> It looks to me as though boundaries can be defined recursively, so Hampshire,
> rather than its bounding ways, ought to to be the object referenced in the
> bigger entities.
This wouldn't work in the case of civil parishes as components of
districts
On 26/08/2018 20:01, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
On 08/26/2018 12:46 PM, Colin Smale wrote:
It has gone all quiet here, and in the mean time smb001 has been making
steady progress across England.
I think he shouldn't have done this. He should have argued his case here
and the community should
On 26/08/18 20:01, Frederik Ramm wrote:
I think we should all think twice before duplicating and triplicating
data in OSM just because there's yet another boundary that includes
Hampshire. We should find a way to reference existing boundaries instead
of copying them.
It looks to me as though
Hi,
On 08/26/2018 12:46 PM, Colin Smale wrote:
> It has gone all quiet here, and in the mean time smb001 has been making
> steady progress across England.
I think he shouldn't have done this. He should have argued his case here
and the community should have come to an explicit resolution,
6 matches
Mail list logo
