Yeah, I agree, it is redundant and thus completely unnecessary to put the
highway number in the name tag. Have you informed SSR_317 about this
discussion?
On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 7:09 PM Albert Pundt wrote:
> I notice the user SSR_317 has been adding the route numbers of unnamed
> roads to
Yes, this is correct. name=* is only the name. Ideally, the ref=* tag
should be *supplemental* to a proper route relation at this point
(especially in Indiana, where I am aware of a *nine-way* concurrency,
something ref=* just doesn't handle very elegantly at all in even the
slightest stretch of
I notice the user SSR_317 has been adding the route numbers of unnamed
roads to the name=* tag of roads around Indianapolis. For example,
name=Interstate
465, name=US 31, name=State Route 37, etc. Isn't this practice frowned upon
as being redundant and not reflecting the lack of a proper name to
Hi,
On 30.08.2018 22:43, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> We can only speculate about the motives here
Ah, just a security researcher, I guess this makes it ok then?
https://reddit.com/r/openstreetmap/comments/9brqx4/this_is_medwedianpresident1_talking_what_i_did/
> frankly my money is on
> "attention
On 2018.08.30. 23:20, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 10:39 AM Ian Dees wrote:
>>
>> Yes, the original harmful edit was made by user "MedwedianPresident" in
>> changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/61555047 20 days ago. It
>> was then reverted by naoliv a day later:
>>
On 8/31/18 5:58 AM, Rihards wrote:
>
> It gives us the same press as some vandals messing with wikipedia -
> let's not see it as a worse thing than it is.
>
> As a sidenote, this was detected and revert in OSM in a day. If data
> consumers would update the data more frequently, the impact would be
6 matches
Mail list logo
