In the context of the tracks, there is always the risk that if you delete something that you don't think should be there, that someone else re-maps it because they see it in the aerial photo. (As we discussed.)
I guess the best is that we could detail a preferred approach (e.g. in Australian tagging guidelines). I think it's clear that there are a number of views on this though. Then at least if something happens that differs from the preferred approach, it makes it clearer whether a revert is justified. - Ben. On Thu, 2 Nov 2023 at 14:57, Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefi...@gmail.com> wrote: > DWG have received a > "*Request for a Liaison Officer*: > To enhance the accuracy of OpenStreetMap data pertaining to the NSW > National Parks and Wildlife Service" > > This has come up in regard to tracks that they say they have previously > requested be deleted (I'm contacting them to confirm just which?) > > What would be the easiest way for them to contact us with questions like > this - here / Forum / Discord? > > Question posed in all three places > > Thanks > > Graeme > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
