> Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2011 08:07:31 +0000 (UTC) > From: Ed Avis et.com>To: tal > [email protected]: Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis and ITO Map now > updating daily. > New stats for OSM Analysis. New overlay maps for ITO Map > Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Here are some examples of not:name and highway=no: > > n=-0.21501&layers=B0TF> > >From the comparison report you can see only two > errors remaining. That isbecause the others have been checked, and where OS > was wrong a not:name has > beentagged. > > If you download the map for that area you'll see some ways tagged with > highway=no. This is where I visited and found there was no road there any > more.The highway=no way is just a placeholder to mark the not:name tag for the > check. > --
I'd not met " highway=no" before, although I have used not:name. But I'm beginning to worry about the principle that we are cluttering up the OSM databse with stuff that is "not" there. OSM is about what is on the ground. I don't know what ITO's particular interests are, but should we really be putting negative stuff on OSM, just because another map is wrong? Richard (user: richardm565) _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
