[Talk-us] Redaction bot is heading our way!

Phil! Gold phil_g at pobox.com
Thu Jul 19 03:40:46 BST 2012


* Kai Krueger <kakrueger at gmail.com> [2012-07-18 18:26 -0700]:
> Chris Lawrence-2 wrote
> > I've fixed up I-20 between the Columbia River and US 21
> 
> I also started fixing the I-20 at the intersection to I-77

I also started working on I-20, from the Georgia border.  (I had qualms
about just going with the first one Wikipedia listed on their "numbered
routes in South Carolina" page...)  I spent a bunch of time reconstructing
the roads that cross it, though; for a lot of them, all the
decliner/non-responder did was split them to make bridges, which ends with
the road still on one side of the Interstate and a line of nodes on the
other side, so it's not too hard to recreate the roads.

> The question is, is it better to fix up a small bit thoroughly, or try
> and get as much of the interstate at least vaguely right as soon as
> possible, and leave the rest to a second pass?

IMHO, interstate connectivity is most important, but I figure reconnecting
roads that were split to cross the interstate will get decent other chunks
of the road network functional, too.

> Unfortunately, I think I also ran into an editing conflict with you, as when
> I wanted to upload my changes, potlatch complained about version miss match
> on the I-20 relation.

I hit a conflict with someone, too, but I think I correctly integrated
both sets of changes.  It helped that the other person had been working on
a different area of the relation, and neither of us had drastically
reordered the relation members.

> So another question is, what is the best way to coordinate the general
> fixing of the interstate system to try and minimize editing conflicts?

I'm not sure.  Maybe listing the Interstates (and perhaps US Highways) on
the wiki and letting people claim them one by one?



More information about the Talk-us mailing list