On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Dave Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Alex Mauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dave Stubbs wrote: > > > >> Maybe, but you're then asking, "reviewed what/how?". And you're back > >> to specifying that you've reviewed that the road has no name, only > >> probably in a more complicated way. > > > > Furthermore, I would expect the default (meaning the value to be assumed > > if the key doesn't exist) to be "yes". I doubt anyone who would put in > > a named road without bothering to put in the name would bother to enter > > a "reviewed=no" tag anyway. > > > > That said, I still doubt the utility of a "no name" meta-value. No > > conscientious mapper should be putting in roads with no name if they > > have a name, and no one should be going out of their way to check if a > > road that has no name in the db actually has no name. > > > So how are we going to fix London then? > Because this is happening on a massive scale thanks to tracing aerial > imagery. > > We have literally thousands of miles of unnamed roads in London... and > the vast, vast majority of these /should/ have names. And I'm going to > go try and fix them, and would like to know when not to bother. > > This is one of those cases where we have actually identified a problem > and are figuring out how to fix it, rather than just inventing crap > for the sake of it. > > Dave > Why don't you just go to the unnamed road, and if it has a name, add it, otherwise drop a note="name not signed" on the way? Karl
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
