On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 3:33 AM, Lester Caine <[email protected]> wrote: > > As I indicated ... it is more a matter of what is wrong with the new > data. I WOULD expect new building data to include the address and > perhaps the fact that this is missing is good enough reason not to allow > the import. Particularly if the buildings removed did have addresses?
The data I looked at seemed of good quality, but had a high number of "messy" tags that can't practically be maintained in OSM. I like the primary key tag, but the others are junk, and remind me of some of the least helpful aspects of the early Tiger imports. Had this import come up on the imports list, I would have commented as above.
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
