<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div><br></div><div>Feb 3, 2021, 16:25 by osm@dead10ck.com:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div><span style=""><span class="font" style="font-family:sans-serif">I <u>don't </u>think there's any reason to just jump right to reverting a large change. </span></span><br></div></blockquote><div><div>Definitely, I am not planning to revert anything immediately - whole point<br></div><div>of writing to them, documenting issue etc was to avoid revert and fix it.<br></div><div><br></div><div>I admit that I am positively surprised, that they reacted and I see that they are fixing<br></div><div>problem right now - see now much smaller<br></div><div><a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10953749#map=13/0.0383/29.2350">https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10953749#map=13/0.0383/29.2350</a></div><div><div>- thanks!<br></div><div><br></div><div>I have not really believed that it will happen.<br></div><div><br></div></div><div>Last time when I found something similar<br></div><div>I tried to contact organization doing this, after month someone claimed that they will definitely fix it,<br></div><div>I waited for months, asked again, got the same reply, waited again and then in ended in nothing.<br></div><div><div><br></div></div><div>In the end I gave up. So I admit that I expected the same here.<br></div><div><div><br></div></div><div>I renamed page to make it less aggressive and tweaked some wording.<br></div><div><div><br></div></div></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div><span style=""><span class="font" style="font-family:sans-serif">If the data is good, then there is absolutely no reason to revert it, other than spite because they "broke the rules." </span></span><br></div></blockquote><div>Though note that data of good geometries that is a copyright violation is not a good data. <br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div><span style=""><span class="font" style="font-family:sans-serif">But it doesn't sound like your concern is the quality of the data.</span></span> <br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It is. If data would be OK I would not be even checking how it appeared.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Source was not explained or documented at all.<br></div><div><br></div><div>It had fake strip of farmland along edge of edited area<br></div><div><a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2523318">https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2523318</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>Farmland used as fill over entire area<br></div><div><a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2523319#map=19/0.09717/29.00294">https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2523319#map=19/0.09717/29.00294</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>I was planning to complain here about multipolygon with 933 ways but it is getting fixed :)<br></div><div>See <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10953749">https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10953749</a> - now just 282 ways and it opens<br></div><div>now in iD without trouble at least on modern computer.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Though I still think that it is a bit oversized.<br></div> </body>
</html>