[Imports] Dutch addresses and buildings import from BAG

Johan C 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.

Cheers, Johan


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
>> import
>> > page has been updated, we disagreed on 1 and 3.
>>
>> Just to clarify on this point, the Dutch community does not have a sole
>> say
>> on points 1 and 3. If we can't reach a rough consensus on imports@ about
>> 1
>> and 3 the import will need to wait until agreement can be found.
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/attachments/20131203/0fcf3123/attachment.html>


More information about the Imports mailing list