On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 12:09 AM, marc marc
wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 08:51:16PM +0200, Simon Poole wrote:
> >> a) good practice to tag source on the changeset.
> > I always include a fairly comprehensive list
> > of sources on changesets, but *need* individual source tags
> > on ob
> On Jul 22, 2017, at 9:50 PM, Adam Snape wrote:
>
> Removing the name key from the JOSM preset wouldn't stop somebody adding a
> name tag in the few cases where a tree really was named. Nor would it remove
> name tags from existing trees.
Gotcha. I assume the vast majority of mapped trees
I create a new thread because it have no link with a tree :-)
Le 22. 07. 17 à 22:20, ael a écrit :
> On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 08:51:16PM +0200, Simon Poole wrote:
>> a) good practice to tag source on the changeset.
> I always include a fairly comprehensive list
> of sources on changesets, but *
ael wrote:
"Otherwise, subsequent mappers come along with far
inferior information and wipe out my many hours/days/years of careful
work on the ground ... bitter experience as above shows that source tags
are *necessary* to indicate: "please don't modify
unless you have better information".
I agr
On 22.07.2017 20:51, Simon Poole wrote:
[...] Which in turn implies
that if you are using more than one third party data source and it is
not clear what you have been deriving from which source, you should be
creating separate changesets.
Separating changesets would be a rare case in which the
On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 08:51:16PM +0200, Simon Poole wrote:
>
>
> On 22.07.2017 20:28, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > Can you expand and clarify your comment for me?
> >
> >
> Just as I wrote, and nothing that I invented, it is considered
>
> a) good practice to tag source on the changes
On 22.07.2017 20:28, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> ...
>
> Can you expand and clarify your comment for me?
>
>
Just as I wrote, and nothing that I invented, it is considered
a) good practice to tag source on the changeset. Which in turn implies
that if you are using more than one third party data sour
In the Github discussion referred to above, SimonPoole stated:
"Source tags on objects have not been considered good practice for a long
time (with some limited exceptions)."
Simon, I presume your intention is to strengthen the preference for using
source tags on changesets rather than on object
On 22.07.2017 16:35, Pander wrote:
> Rarely used tags also take up valuable space in apps such as Vespucci.
>
Just to clarify: optional tags are, as the name says, optional and do
not use screen real estate except if already in use, or explicitly added
On 07/22/2017 04:22 PM, Adam Snape wrote:
> Hi
>
> I wasn't arguing in favour of the change, merely addressing John Willis'
> concern. I suppose the intention might be to reduce the likelihood of
> erroneous descriptive name tags such as name=tree. New mappers sometimes
> often fail to realise tha
Hi
I wasn't arguing in favour of the change, merely addressing John Willis'
concern. I suppose the intention might be to reduce the likelihood of
erroneous descriptive name tags such as name=tree. New mappers sometimes
often fail to realise that name boxes in the editors often should be left
blank
On 07/22/2017 08:18 AM, Craig Wallace wrote:
> On 2017-07-22 13:50, Adam Snape wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Removing the name key from the JOSM preset wouldn't stop somebody
>> adding a name tag in the few cases where a tree really was named. Nor
>> would it remove name tags from existing trees.
>
> But wh
On 2017-07-22 13:50, Adam Snape wrote:
Hi,
Removing the name key from the JOSM preset wouldn't stop somebody
adding a name tag in the few cases where a tree really was named. Nor
would it remove name tags from existing trees.
But what's wrong with having the name as an optional tag on the pr
Hi,
Removing the name key from the JOSM preset wouldn't stop somebody adding a
name tag in the few cases where a tree really was named. Nor would it
remove name tags from existing trees.
Regards,
Adam
On 22 July 2017 at 12:47, John Willis wrote:
>
>
> Javbw
>
> > On Jul 22, 2017, at 7:23 PM,
Javbw
> On Jul 22, 2017, at 7:23 PM, Pander wrote:
>
> 5. remove key `name` as it is rare for trees
As a person who has tagged a named tree, please don’t remove it.
A tree was named and planted near my house 300 years ago, and it is a local
tourist spot. There is no park, no other kind of
Hi all,
I would like to proposed some improvements to Beautified JSON presets
for natural=tree.
In short these are:
1. rename label "Type" to "Leaf Type" for key `leaf_type` to explain
the key better and avoid confusion with key `type` which is no longer
used for trees
2. rename label "Cycle" t
16 matches
Mail list logo
