[Imports] Dutch addresses and buildings import from BAG
osmned at gmail.com
Tue Dec 3 18:11:29 UTC 2013
I was under the impression that we already had a rough consensus. Indeed it
will not be possible to rely fully on the tags of points 1 and 3 as has
been brought up in the discussion. Please reply if (and why!) you think
that we don't have rough consensus.
2013/12/3 Johan C <osmned at gmail.com>
> I was under the impression that we already had a rough consensus. Indeed
> it will not be possible to rely fully on the tags of points 1 and 3 as has
> been brought up in the discussion. Please reply if (and why!) you think
> that we don't have rough consensus.
> Cheers, Johan
> 2013/12/3 Paul Norman <penorman at mac.com>
>> > From: Johan C [mailto:osmned at gmail.com]
>> > Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 2:42 PM
>> > Subject: Re: [Imports] Dutch addresses and buildings import from BAG
>> > Thanks for the feedback. Four issues arose:
>> > 1. it's nowadays better to put source and source:date on the changeset
>> > instead of the nodes and ways
>> > 2. the changeset should have the text import and source
>> > 3. it's better not to use ref:bag
>> > 4. it's better not to use bag:function
>> > I took these matters back to the others in the Dutch community for
>> > reconsideration. In short: we agreed on 2 and 4 for which the Wiki
>> > page has been updated, we disagreed on 1 and 3.
>> Just to clarify on this point, the Dutch community does not have a sole
>> on points 1 and 3. If we can't reach a rough consensus on imports@ about
>> and 3 the import will need to wait until agreement can be found.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Imports