[OSM-talk] Edit Attacks

[80hnhtv4agou at bk.ru]

>Wednesday, June 10, 2020 6:17 PM -05:00 from John D. <jdd3 at mail.ru>:
> 
>other than breaking it up into little bits as in the wiiki. 
> 
>I got rid of the  GHOSTS lines.
> 
>>Wednesday, June 10, 2020 6:13 PM -05:00 from Warin < 61sundowner at gmail.com >:
>> 
>>The Changeset:  85357849 comment is "multipolygons for the entire river offer no tangible advantages and not to be used."
>> 
>>Sorry but I don't think that is a great comment.
>>Is there any advantage in what you did?
>>If so, what did you do and what are the advantages?
>> 
>> 
>>On 11/6/20 8:40 am, 80hnhtv4agou--- via talk wrote:
>>>when i look at the changeset it went to the guy, but did not tell me what he did. i have had that discussion 
>>>before with somebody else that must be listed and we agreed it was a land fill,  with a golf course on top it 
>>>is a very small part of the top of the hill only 9 holes only,
>>>how many times do i have to go back and defend my edits ? how many times do i have to go back
>>>and redo my edits.
>>>it is a very big hill that is collecting gas and making electricity. and there still digging on it, and a snow hill
>>>and park on the back side. 
>>>if the edit is wrong then add and correct not do what was done i have had 2 people ask me to explane my
>>>one edit and have me look what i did and correct not jump in and demand.
>> 
>>People ask questions whey they don't understand.
>> 
>>Explain your edits better in the change set comments, it helps others understand what is being done, why it is being done and the source of the information. I note that there is no source given ... is that a 'feature' of iD? In JOSM there is a source statement for each change set, if it is there ... use it.
>> 
>>If they understand but disagree then discussion should take place. Don't take it personally, most are here to help make the map better.
>>>  
>>>>Wednesday, June 10, 2020 4:53 PM -05:00 from Andy Townsend < ajt1047 at gmail.com >:
>>>> 
>>>>On 10/06/2020 22:41, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us wrote:
>>>>> this is a good one because i had a back and forth discussion with
>>>>> somebody that was
>>>>> calling me out on my edit because from space this looked like a flat
>>>>> surface and then explaned
>>>>> how to list it as non active.
>>>>>  https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/802256628#map=16/42.1110/-87.8160
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well that's been a golf course for only a month:
>>>>
>>>>http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=802256628
>>>>
>>>>If that isn't a golf course, I suggest you discuss that with the person
>>>>who added that in  https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/84983669 .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> but the thing is the river was a 10 year old 81 mile download that
>>>>> maye should not be as to the Wiki.
>>>>> and this guy must be a river freak just like the bus stop guy who
>>>>> thought he own the map.
>>>>>
>>>>As I suggested earlier, it'd definitely make sense to split up some of
>>>>the huge "natural=water; water=river" areas such as
>>>>https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/233949 , but anyone who does that
>>>>will need to do it in such as way that it doesn't accidentally delete
>>>>large lengths of riverbank (which happened last time).
>>>i do not think i did, is says do not do the entire river, i broke it up into little bits, and only
>>>the wide parts.
>>>and what ever he did the ghosts are back.
>>>>
>>>>Best Regards,
>>>>
>>>>Andy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 
>>> 
>>>
>>> 
>>>   
>>> 
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>talk mailing list
>>>talk at openstreetmap.org
>>>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>>
>> 
>>_______________________________________________
>>talk mailing list
>>talk at openstreetmap.org
>>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk 
> 
> 
> 
>  
 
 
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20200611/7bf4447b/attachment-0001.htm>