24 Oct 2019, 22:48 by [email protected]: > Hi all, > > Before I start this message, I would like to say that I am looking for > solutions and not wishing to open the flood gates on abuse of the iD editors. > On the whole they do a great job and even when we disagree it should be with > respect. Right now on to the message itself: > > > It seems like the iD editor's "upgrade this" feature is replacing > crossing=zebra with crossing=marked but NOT adding crossing_ref=zebra to the > node. If lots of users make use of this "feature" in the UK then we stand to > lose some valuable data. Taginfo UK says there are 4,710 crossing=zebra > features in the UK. > > I have added a comment on to the GitHub issue but no reply yet. > https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6962 > <https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6962> > I would suggest opening a new issue request GB specific - maybe with something like "I checked sample of 100 crossing tagged this way, error rate is low". Comments in a closed issue are likely to be lost/unnoticed. Though with just 5k crossing it seems that bot edit would be preferable if - error rate is considered low - crossing_ref tagging is acceptable - there is no realistic plan to fight with iD over deprecating crossing=zebra - bot edits are considered as acceptable Why bot edit is preferable? - cooperation with iD developers is not necessary - more people can do it (I may do it in case of a clear support) - adding complex region-based handling for 5k objects is making maintenance of editor complex, it is likely to not be done by iD developers
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
