[Imports] [tl; dr] Re: cleanup broken import "fix"
osm_ at malenki.ch
Thu May 29 10:12:17 UTC 2014
On Thu, 29 May 2014 05:42:27 -0400
Serge Wroclawski wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:29 AM, malenki
> <osm_ at malenki.ch> wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 May 2014 02:52:23 +0200
> > Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >> do you have a complete list of the tags that you propose to "drop"?
> > key with count of occurrence:
> > gnis:feature_id=* 26
> > gnis:id=* 6577
> The US community has discussed these tags and wants them to stay. Do
> not remove them. I'd call any removal of those vandalism.
Fine. Still I see no sense in them
> > water=lake;pond 57045
> We don't go around removing thousands of tags because there is a new
> tagging scheme.
You miss the point.
> I happen to like the distinction between lakes and ponds.
I assume you like ponds and lakes so much that it is (IYO) correct to
have them both as one value.
So this discussion can be finished right here. Though I answer the rest
of your mail.
> In addition, Is see absolutely no value in a bot going around dropping
> tags just for the sake of dropping tags.
Did you read (and understand) my first two mails on this topic?
> You should be proposing that some of these tags (not all) be removed
> by the editors,
If you mean the "original" editors:
WorstFixer who invented waterway=lake;pond (looking at the numbers¹) is
no longer active.
> which is how we typically handle these cases- not by brute force
When the editors (whoever this is) do remove tags it isn't brute force?
More information about the Imports