>Wednesday, June 10, 2020 6:17 PM -05:00 from John D. <[email protected]>: > >other than breaking it up into little bits as in the wiiki. > >I got rid of the GHOSTS lines. > >>Wednesday, June 10, 2020 6:13 PM -05:00 from Warin < [email protected] >: >> >>The Changeset: 85357849 comment is "multipolygons for the entire river offer >>no tangible advantages and not to be used." >> >>Sorry but I don't think that is a great comment. >>Is there any advantage in what you did? >>If so, what did you do and what are the advantages? >> >> >>On 11/6/20 8:40 am, 80hnhtv4agou--- via talk wrote: >>>when i look at the changeset it went to the guy, but did not tell me what he >>>did. i have had that discussion >>>before with somebody else that must be listed and we agreed it was a land >>>fill, with a golf course on top it >>>is a very small part of the top of the hill only 9 holes only, >>>how many times do i have to go back and defend my edits ? how many times do >>>i have to go back >>>and redo my edits. >>>it is a very big hill that is collecting gas and making electricity. and >>>there still digging on it, and a snow hill >>>and park on the back side. >>>if the edit is wrong then add and correct not do what was done i have had 2 >>>people ask me to explane my >>>one edit and have me look what i did and correct not jump in and demand. >> >>People ask questions whey they don't understand. >> >>Explain your edits better in the change set comments, it helps others >>understand what is being done, why it is being done and the source of the >>information. I note that there is no source given ... is that a 'feature' of >>iD? In JOSM there is a source statement for each change set, if it is there >>... use it. >> >>If they understand but disagree then discussion should take place. Don't take >>it personally, most are here to help make the map better. >>> >>>>Wednesday, June 10, 2020 4:53 PM -05:00 from Andy Townsend < >>>>[email protected] >: >>>> >>>>On 10/06/2020 22:41, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us wrote: >>>>> this is a good one because i had a back and forth discussion with >>>>> somebody that was >>>>> calling me out on my edit because from space this looked like a flat >>>>> surface and then explaned >>>>> how to list it as non active. >>>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/802256628#map=16/42.1110/-87.8160 >>>> >>>> >>>>Well that's been a golf course for only a month: >>>> >>>>http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=802256628 >>>> >>>>If that isn't a golf course, I suggest you discuss that with the person >>>>who added that in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/84983669 . >>>> >>>> >>>>> but the thing is the river was a 10 year old 81 mile download that >>>>> maye should not be as to the Wiki. >>>>> and this guy must be a river freak just like the bus stop guy who >>>>> thought he own the map. >>>>> >>>>As I suggested earlier, it'd definitely make sense to split up some of >>>>the huge "natural=water; water=river" areas such as >>>>https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/233949 , but anyone who does that >>>>will need to do it in such as way that it doesn't accidentally delete >>>>large lengths of riverbank (which happened last time). >>>i do not think i did, is says do not do the entire river, i broke it up into >>>little bits, and only >>>the wide parts. >>>and what ever he did the ghosts are back. >>>> >>>>Best Regards, >>>> >>>>Andy >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>talk mailing list >>>[email protected] >>>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >>> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>talk mailing list >>[email protected] >>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > > >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
