Peter Wendorff wrote: > Am 31.07.2012 10:33, schrieb "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]": >> If he knows for sure, that on that road from point A to point B is >> ref=42 and not ref=56 as the OSM data says, then the user should fix >> it as I wrote in previous email. Remove the ways from the current >> relation and add the correct ref tag to the ways themselves, or create >> a new relation for them. Problem fixed! > Hooray! > now we have a relation that's incomplete again - how to use it?
What do you mean incomplete? You can use it the same way as before, the old relation retains the latest known data about the other ways. > It's hard to see these changes. You can see it on the rendered map, in navigation SW, in QA tools, what more do you want? I don't get it. >> Note, that if the edit was mistake after all, then QA tool analyzing >> road network should catch that. > How should it do that? The graph structure of the road has changed. >> If he's not really sure about his data, but wants to alert locals >> "hey, here may be something wrong", then he should use FIXME tag as >> for any other dispute. > FIXME isn't for dispute, but for "I don't know how to change it or I > don't have the time to do so now." Excuse me, I choose a bad word. To your list I would add a reason. But generally it's used as a way to alert locals or someone more experienced to take a look at the place and correct possible errors. >> -- If I understood your scenario correctly, it can be summarized as: >> "Let's use conflicting ref tags for road disputes instead of fixme >> tag." Personally, I don't support this view. > No. I never said something like that. I never said you did, I responded to the mail from Kytömaa Lauri. Best regards, Petr Morávek
<<attachment: xificurk.vcf>>
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
