John Smith wrote: > 2009/9/28 Lester Caine <[email protected]>: >> And this seems to be the case here? > > The problem is the ways are the best place to tag the ABS information, > and the ABS data just happens to follow rivers, islands, railways and > roads and so on which is very useful where people can't survey and > there is no hi-res imagery, so the relation isn't the best place to > dump ABS tags when these ways are used for multiple purposes.
I think that is sort of what I said ;) A postcode or similar administrative area would only have new ways where there is not an existing higher level boundary, and as you quite rightly say, the WAY is provided by ABS but the rest of the boundary is 'inferred' from other data which while used by ABS to complete a boundary is not 'attributable' to them? They did not define it! I WAS under the impression that we had a rule that tags would NOT be deleted arbitrarily and to be honest, I consider the removal of data like this is vandalism in itself. Certainly a bot that has a delete function should not be allowed free reign :( In this particular case the parts of the relation actually defined by ABS need to be correctly attributed, and while the relation could be atributed as an ABS construct, the content is only partially so and as such the elements also need to retain this information ? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
