[Talk-GB] weeklyOSM #406 2018-04-24-2018-04-30

The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 406, is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of all things happening in the openstreetmap world: http://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/10300/ Enjoy! weeklyOSM? who?: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages

[Talk-GB] Toys R Us

And for the balance: I disagree with Frederik on this one. If we know the map is wrong we should fix it. We should not leave it just because it may encourage others to fix it and then go on to do other local edits. Frederik's view is that a crap map encourages more people to edit. I'm not

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

I concur with this. I'd much rather have an up to date map. Part of OSM's USP is its quick turnarounds. I disagree with Frederik's claim that changing one entity would "destroy the valuable information that this general area of the map hasn't been updated". It seems perverse to want to

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

Hi, On 05/04/2018 09:10 PM, Brian Prangle wrote: > When will it be  appropriate to do a mechanical edit and remove the 47 > instances of this store that can be seen in Overpass? Have they all > closed now?  My local one is now closed and leaving a large gap on its > retail  park

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

On 5 May 2018 10:02:01 BST, Frederik Ramm wrote: >Hi, > >On 05/04/2018 09:10 PM, Brian Prangle wrote: >> When will it be  appropriate to do a mechanical edit and remove the >47 >> instances of this store that can be seen in Overpass? Have they all >> closed now?  My local one

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

On 4 May 2018 at 20:10, Brian Prangle wrote: > When will it be appropriate to do a mechanical edit and remove the 47 > instances of this store that can be seen in Overpass? Maybe we should change them all to "Toys Яn't Us"? -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

On 4 May 2018 21:04:29 BST, Paul Berry wrote: >Perhaps appropriate when the signage is taken down from any of their >former >stores en masse. In the meantime nothing stopping you mechanically >adding >disused :shop

[Talk-GB] [OT] Maplin (was: Toys R Us)

On 05/05/18 08:52, Philip Barnes wrote: At present Maplin are still open and not sure if they have a closing date. I'm still hoping they are saved as there is no get it now alternative. They deepened the discounts, yet again, on Friday, and are selling off the shop fittings. I don't think

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

On Sat, 5 May 2018, 12:00 Rob Nickerson, wrote: > And for the balance: I disagree with Frederik on this one. > A crap map could also put people off - "why bother, OSM is so far behind, > I'll contribute to/just use Google maps instead" > > I think i agree with this.

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

Taking as read the arguments in for and against a mechanical edit for possibly closed shops* it'd be great if shops that we definitely know are now closed could be properly tagged as what they are now, so for example https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1485964357#map=19/53.98855/-1.09350 can

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

On 05/05/2018 16:36, Andy Townsend wrote: > Indeed  - and in the case of named stores (open or shut) which act as > landmarks, there are at least some people (including me) actually > consuming that data.  Please don't remove a name until it really has > been removed. +1 -- helps me mapping too,

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

On 06/05/18 00:24, Andy Mabbett wrote: On 5 May 2018 at 14:24, Adam Snape wrote: I too disagree with intentionally ignoring outdated information. +1 However, we cannot know from our armchairs whether a store is disused but still signed What if t is? It is no longer

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

The reason I said "full removal preferred" was because on a shop=* feature, my understanding is that the name tag relates to the shop. So no shop equals no shop to have a name. If an old sign still exists then this should be mapped *as a sign* not as a shop. So perhaps we need to edit these to

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

Hi, On 05.05.2018 12:57, Rob Nickerson wrote: > Frederik's view is that a crap map encourages more people to edit. Not quite. My view is that a crap map doesn't become a non-crap map by erasing one obviously false name, and I was thinking more of our relationship with the map user and not so

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

On 5 May 2018 at 14:24, Adam Snape wrote: > I too disagree with intentionally ignoring outdated information. +1 > However, we cannot know from our armchairs whether a store is disused but > still signed What if t is? It is no longer an outlet for that brand. There are

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

On 05/05/18 13:03, Andy Townsend wrote: Taking as read the arguments in for and against a mechanical edit for possibly closed shops* it'd be great if shops that we definitely know are now closed could be properly tagged as what they are now, so for example

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

On 05/05/2018 14:24, Adam Snape wrote: However, we cannot know from our armchairs whether a store is disused but still signed, disused with all signage removed, demolished, or replaced by another business. Because if this we cannot fix the map merely by deleting the relevant shops. That is