On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Toby Murray <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Anthony <[email protected]> wrote: >> I'm all for upload_uuid being removed automatically. As for >> tiger:separated, is it possible to remove the tag only if it's set to >> "no"? The 1.4% that are set to something else should probably be >> reviewed manually. > > Might be possible but not the way I was hoping to implement it to > match existing code.
I'd say keep it, then. > Has anyone ever used a tiger:separated tag to > guide them to something that needs review? Yes. > I have found a few "yes" > values that were incorrect. The rest were pretty obviously dual > carriageway on aerial imagery and the tag didn't really help me... And > once it is mapped as dual carriageway in OSM the tag is misleading. > That way no longer needs to be marked as separated since it now has > two parallel ways representing it. I agree with removing ones that are marked incorrectly. I think it's harmful to remove ones that are marked correctly, though. And I don't see any way to automatically distinguish between the two. Anyway, that's my opinion. I think it's useful information. And the fact that it is sometimes incorrect is, in my opinion, a reason to keep it. I support removing tiger:uuid precisely because there is no definition of what the correct value should be. _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
