[OSM-talk] Very not happy

[andrzej zaborowski]

Peter,

On 22 July 2012 09:27, Peter Wendorff <wendorff en uni-paderborn.de> wrote:
> Am 22.07.2012 00:42, schrieb andrzej zaborowski:
>> If you're asking me (not Maetma 91), I think the problem has been
>> known since the early days of OSMI license view (easily fixable too).
>> For example this city I believe was showing as clean although it was a
>> while since I have looked at that layer: http://osm.org/go/0MtRfiBy-
>>
>> Here's a before/after the bot run comparison someone made for that
>> city: http://postimage.org/image/sv7gh0rkp/
>> http://postimage.org/image/8m60yvx8j/
>
> First of all that's not the ID(s) Frederik asked for.
> Secondly: if it has been known to you - did you provide a patch or at least
> a patch idea for it?

Wow, I wonder how people manage to ignore so many facts.  First of
all, I have not been silent about it, quite the opposite and the issue
must have been known to Frederik because I remember he participated in
one of the mailing list threads about it in mid 2011.

Secondly no one could provide such a patch because no one knows what
the bot is going to remove and what the LWG will deem clean or dirty,
the real discussions about "what will the bot do" started on the
rebuild list just a couple of months ago.  So are you even serious
about the patch suggestion?

In this particular case I have been discussing this issue with Simon
Poole of the LWG on IRC the day before the but ran (Tuesday last week)
and in the morning he decided that the objects would stay and
apparently later the same day changed his mind (I hope I'm not
misrepresenting what happened, if I am, sorry).

> If it has been known before that there has been an error, then you cannot
> complain about it suddenly being deleted against the OSMI view - because
> obviously you knew about that already.

Oh my, please re-read the conversation.  I haven't been complaining, I
was not a user of OSMI.  I simply pointed out a gross error in
somebody's statement.  Someone said something that was incorrect and
very ironic in face of how much people's hard work has been removed,
all I said is that this was incorrect.

Cheers