[talk-au] a mapping conflict in Sydney, help appreciated

Andrew Harvey andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com
Mon Dec 6 09:23:10 GMT 2010

On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 10:52 PM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Have you looked at these pages:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Vandalism
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Vandalism

I see. I think this edit was done with good intentions but I feel they
made a mistake, I'm trying to point out to this user why I feel that
they made a mistake and what the mistake was. So I'll send them a
message to please take a look at this thread so we can discuss it.

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 10:26 AM,  <info at 4x4falcon.com> wrote:
> Are you sure this is the right changeset.
> It only shows one deleted node and one new node.

Yep. My node tagged with,

name = Outer North Head
place = locality
source = historical
source_ref = http://parishmaps.lands.nsw.gov.au/mrsid/image_sid.pl?client=pmap&image=PMapMN04/14041902.sid

was deleted, and an existing node on the coastline was added as,

name = Outer North Head
natural = coastline

My source tags were removed.

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 3:20 PM, David Murn <davey at incanberra.com.au> wrote:
> If you check the history of the original node, youll see that it came
> from ABS data.  Was there a reason you deleted the original ABS data,
> and replaced it?

Ah, it wasn't deleted, my place=locality node was deleted. I didn't
replace anything.

> The original element was tagged as natural=coastline, the one you added,
> removes natural=coastline in-favour of place=locality.

No it went the other way around. I had place=locality which swanilli
deleted and replaced as natural=coastline.

> Did you check when you deleted the natural=coastline way from ABS data,
> and replaced it with your source-tagged way, that it didnt break the
> coastline data?  Maybe the revert from this user was correct.

When did I delete the natural=coastline way from ABS data? Sorry I'm
not sure what you are referring to here.

> I also notice the node you added with the source tag, was not part of
> the Sydney Harbour National Park relation, which the original node was.
> I think theres been a bit of data-tampering on both sides here, so it
> would be good to get both sides of the story to know who did what and
> why.

More information about the Talk-au mailing list