On 9/10/10 4:27 PM, NopMap wrote:
A few corrections are in order...
Serge Wroclawski-2 wrote:
* Nop points out that the wiki definition of trees says a "lone tree"
and interprets this as a prominent tree (a landmark, etc.).
The wiki says: "lone or significant" tree and I interpret that as a
prominent tree.
the problem is that "lone" doesn't really imply that, at least not in
the version of english i'm familiar with.
Serge Wroclawski-2 wrote:
* Nop says that this is unfair because he's already been doing the
"right thing" (ie following the WIki guidelines) and so it's everyone
else that's wrong.
Not quite. I have added only a few trees myself. I say this is destructive
as about 2400 Mappers appear to have been doing "the right thing" while 75%
of the "bad" trees are from only 3 mass imports.
why are you so sure that ~2400 mappers have been doing it that way?
did you poll them or something?
Serge Wroclawski-2 wrote:
I think I understand where Nop is coming from. This doesn't appear to
be a tagging issue as much as it is about "doing the right thing". I
think he feels that he and others who followed the Wiki definition are
being punished by needing to retag their data.
Somewhat like that. I think nullifying 4 years of work by 2400 people who
are not here to voice their opinion is thoughtless, unfriendly, destructive
- anything but an adequate solution.
once again, how do we really know anything about those 2400 mappers
and their work? it's not like they tagged all those trees with why they're
important or anything like that.
this is why i maintain that we have already effectively lost information.
richard
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
