I have left a comment on his last change set .. suggesting not to reduce detail.
And that the new LPI information is good for park boundaries too.
On 13/12/2015 8:23 PM, Andrew Harvey wrote:
Thanks for letting us know.
I checked out one particular changeset, 35907472, looking at the
geometry changes at
http://osmhv.openstreetmap.de/changeset.jsp?id=35907472.
It appears like there is some missing data which they have added
(which is great).
But it also appears that they have removed finer details (which seem
legitimate when comparing against the aerial imagery) of other
existing geometry (which is bad, and in my opinion we need to revert
back).
I don't know what we should do about this since some parts of the
changeset appear to be constructive some appear slightly destructive
(no loss of features, just some slight loss of detail).
On 13 December 2015 at 18:24, Marc Gemis <[email protected]> wrote:
Hallo,
It seems like some Australian mapper (stweb) [1] is reaching out for
help on the forum [2]. One of his complaints is the number of nodes
used to trace lakes, beaches, etc. He did several "simplifications" in
his last changesets [3]. I don't know how the Australian community
thinks about this.
Perhaps it is worthwhile to reach out to him.
regards
m
(from Belgium)
[1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/stweb
[2] http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=566043#p566043
[3] http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/stweb/history#map=6/-33.591/151.597
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
