[Talk-GB] Zebra crossings being lost in iD - how to respond

Mateusz Konieczny matkoniecz at tutanota.com
Fri Oct 25 07:21:39 UTC 2019




24 Oct 2019, 22:48 by rob.j.nickerson at gmail.com:

> Hi all,
>
> Before I start this message, I would like to say that I am looking for solutions and not wishing to open the flood gates on abuse of the iD editors. On the whole they do a great job and even when we disagree it should be with respect. Right now on to the message itself:
>
>
> It seems like the iD editor's "upgrade this" feature is replacing crossing=zebra with crossing=marked but NOT adding crossing_ref=zebra to the node. If lots of users make use of this "feature" in the UK then we stand to lose some valuable data. Taginfo UK says there are 4,710 crossing=zebra features in the UK.
>
> I have added a comment on to the GitHub issue but no reply yet.
> https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6962 <https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6962>
>
I would suggest opening a new issue request GB specific - maybe with something like 
"I checked sample of 100 crossing tagged this way, error rate is low".

Comments in a closed issue are likely to be lost/unnoticed.

Though with just 5k crossing it seems that bot edit would be preferable if
- error rate is considered low
- crossing_ref tagging is acceptable
- there is no realistic plan to fight with iD over deprecating crossing=zebra
- bot edits are considered as acceptable

Why bot edit is preferable?
- cooperation with iD developers is not necessary
- more people can do it (I may do it in case of a clear support)
- adding complex region-based handling for 5k objects is making maintenance of editor
 complex, it is likely to not be done by iD developers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20191025/71a7b80c/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-GB mailing list