<ajt1...@gmail.com>
Sent: Apr 28, 2018 3:06 PM
To: Talk us <talk-us@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Undiscussed mass-revert by user Nakaner-repair
On 23/04/18 10:54, Jack Armstrong
dan...@sprynet.com wrote:
... T
On 23/04/18 10:54, Jack Armstrong dan...@sprynet.com wrote:
... There are 6-8 new users who just started editing in and around
Denver. Circumstantial evidence seems to indicagte they are part of a
team in that they all started about the same time, their edits are
remarkably similar and they
reetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] Undiscussed mass-revert by user Nakaner-repair
On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 11:42 PM, ajt1...@gmail.com <ajt1...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 23/04/2018 03:40, Jack Armstrong dan...@sprynet.com wrote:
I fully suppo
On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 7:40 PM, Jack Armstrong dan...@sprynet.com <
jacknst...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> I fully support the efforts of Nakaner. There are 6-8 users creating a
> mess in the Denver, Colorado area.
>
> See here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?node=
>
On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 1:36 PM, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> While you might think this is a good example for why such a policy is
> needed it seems to me that the motivation for both the user blocks by
> the DWG and the main argument that led to the conclusion in the German
>
On Friday 20 April 2018, Clifford Snow wrote:
> [...]
>
> Nakaner post a changeset comment which impart said:
>
> you seem to be part of a paid/organized/commercial editing activity.
> We have been telling your workmates for more than one week that you
> must add a note to your profile page at
On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 9:15 AM, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> On Friday 20 April 2018, Ian Dees wrote:
> >
> > I'd be interested in seeing all of these reverts reverted (at least
> > in the US) until discussion can take place.
>
> I don't know about these changes or the reverts of
On Friday 20 April 2018, Mikel Maron wrote:
>
> [...]Nakaner seems to be
> applying an organized editing policy here without grounds.
While you might think this is a good example for why such a policy is
needed it seems to me that the motivation for both the user blocks by
the DWG and the main
> If mappers find edits they consider questionable - either factually or
>methodologically - and attempts to get in contact with the mapper making those
>edits fail it is commonly accepted practice that mappers can revert such
>changes
While that is somewhat correct (I question how common or
9 matches
Mail list logo