Hi!
John F. Eldredge wrote:
>
> Perhaps i've miss something but i haven't see a discussion about a bot
>
Yes, you missed something. Check the posts from Sept. 7th:
Tagging ML:
Anthony-6: "Can't that analysis be expanded to the world, and the trees
retagged?"
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer: "can't you do this analysis and add tags to the
landmark trees?"
German ML:
Wolfgang-4: "Aber aus deinen Daten sollte es doch eigentlich möglich sein,
die
einmal so erkannten und damit "geretteten" Bäume per bot mit einem
entsprechenden Tag zu versehen,"
I did what was asked for. You can't mark landmarks automatically, but can
add a hint to those that are likely unremarkable. Since it is just an
additional tag, it is non-destructive, unlike re-inventing the tagging
scheme. If you don't like it, just ignore it.
This being OSM, surely there would be complaints. It is very funny that they
even come from one of the very people who suggested it in the first place.
:-)
But I can live much better with being the bad guy anyway after investing
quite some work to fix at least some of the ambiguity than with
thoughtlessly destroying 4 years of previous work by other people.
So please keep complaining, I am removing myself from the discussion. I have
made my point three times over. As far as I am concerned, the problem is
mostly remedied. If you still think it is a good idea to destroy some 50000
nodes of information - go ahead and let the edit war commence.
bye
Nop
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/tagging-single-trees-tp5501462p5519927.html
Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
