[talk-au] FYI I removed a whole bunch on nodes where ways existed for the same object.

Ross Scanlon info at 4x4falcon.com
Tue Aug 31 01:19:31 BST 2010

> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Ross Scanlon <info at 4x4falcon.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 21:15:12 +1000
> > Do you really think this was a good idea before discussing it on the list?
> I did ask on the newbies list before about what to do here, I was told
> that deleting the nodes was the best thing to do.
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/newbies/2010-August/thread.html#5749

Two people on the newbies list really is not a consensus of what is the right thing to do.  If you are contemplating something along these lines particularly with mass deletes or changes then you need to bring it up here.

> > This has been discussed previously and it was decided that currently we would leave both as not all rendering and searches will work correctly on a way as opposed to a node.
> My previous search could not find this discussion, could you point me
> to this discussion? Thanks.

The original disscussion was more than 12 months ago so not sure where you would find it now.

> > The recommendation is only if the item is not already there, not to go and delete items that have both already in place.
> >
> > The statement that you've ensured no tags were lost does not mean that the changes you have made are correct as an example the source tag for "Campbell Primary School" is now "data.australia.gov.au" where this was correct for the node but not for the way.
> >
> > I'd suggest we revert this change set and let those who have added the new or additional data make the decision on whether to remove the nodes.
> >
> You are right, I only changed a couple of these and should have asked
> about what to do with these. Especially if the way was created after
> the node was placed, and where the way had no source tags already
> (although the source may have been in the changeset). I can track down
> all these ones with source=data.australia.gov.au, and the QLD
> DCDB-Lite ones where I may have made a similar mistake.
> Pending that previous discussion, I would prefer to revert the
> changeset, pick out those source=data.australia.gov.au, and possibly
> QLD DCDB-Lite ones, and then re-apply the rest.

The change set has been reverted.

I'd still be cautious about changing any of these per my previous comments.

A more useful QA task is making sure straight roads are straight and only have required nodes.


More information about the Talk-au mailing list