[Talk-us] Cam4rd98 just doesn't get it

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:56 PM, Clay Smalley <claysmalley at gmail.com>wrote:

> They seem to put in a lot of "future" things using tags that imply
> something is currently there. On top of that, they use the wrong tags
> (landuse=industrial instead of landuse=retail). They've also screwed up a
> bit of TX 71 and US 290, removing them from relations, in an erroneous
> attempt to make the road dual-carriageway.
>

A you sure Cam4rd98 even realizes he/she has messages from you?

Potlatch/iD users damaging relations is... I have to say... a tool issue.
 How could a new mapper realize what's going on?

The future tagging is not so well defined in OSM.  It is quite common on
paper maps to mark future facilities, due to the publication cycle times.
 There is this page to point people to:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:proposed and
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:construction
Cam4rd98 seems to have at least tried to mark these as future facilities,
by using the name tag with the word "futture", though landuse=construction
would follow the wiki better.


----

Long term I think OSM will have to put some form of limits or peer review
in place.
Perhaps you can't edit your 11th feature until you've had a two
way communication with an established mapper?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20130625/433905db/attachment.html>