On 3 February 2012 06:00, Toby Murray <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 3:34 PM, andrzej zaborowski <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 2 February 2012 19:28, Martijn van Exel <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 11:02 AM, andrzej zaborowski <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> On 31 January 2012 18:51, Paul Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Looks like about 4% of Austin was balrog-kun; I'm in the process of >>>>> tagging >>>>> that odbl=clean right now per his previous request. >>>> >>>> I don't believe I made any non-automatic edits in TX, and those are >>>> already considered clean by the license plugins. >>>> >>>> Note also that if you use odbl=clean you need to make sure other edits >>>> in the history are ODbL-clean and as far as I know there's no general >>>> way to do that. >>>> >>> >>> Are they also considered clean on >>> http://odbl.poole.ch/usa-20111208-20120201-poly.html ? There's still a >>> whole lot of 'dirty' edits by you on there. >> >> 82k ways, so yes, looks like some of the name expansion changesets are >> still counted dirty. Simon Poole mentioned on IRC something may be a >> little off in his latest stats. > > Well I just found 8 TIGER name expansion changesets that have a total > of ~113,000 ways in them and weren't listed on the changeset override > page because they didn't have the bot=yes tag.
Technically some of these are 100% manual edits. Cheers _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
