Road refs

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
39 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Road refs

Toby Speight
Recently, all the tertiary roads in my region had their ref tags
removed, and replaced with "highways_authority_ref".  A week later the
unclassified and residential roads suffered similar attack.

* Who is supposed to benefit from hiding these data?
* Who is responsible for documenting what this tag means, and when it
  should be used in place of the standard tagging?  So far, there's no
  mention of it on its own tag wiki, nor on key:ref
* Who is responsible for coordinating the related changes to software -
  editors, renderers, converters and QA tools - that are required?  I
  see no sign of any of this having started.

In short, what's going on, what's wrong with the standard tagging, and
how can we get the data back where they belong?

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Road refs

Andrew Hain
Toby, I really think you need to read through the conversation archived at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2018-August/thread.html and answer the points discussed there.

Andrew

From: Toby Speight <[hidden email]>
Sent: 27 August 2018 19:15
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [Talk-GB] Road refs
 
Recently, all the tertiary roads in my region had their ref tags
removed, and replaced with "highways_authority_ref".  A week later the
unclassified and residential roads suffered similar attack.

* Who is supposed to benefit from hiding these data?
* Who is responsible for documenting what this tag means, and when it
  should be used in place of the standard tagging?  So far, there's no
  mention of it on its own tag wiki, nor on key:ref
* Who is responsible for coordinating the related changes to software -
  editors, renderers, converters and QA tools - that are required?  I
  see no sign of any of this having started.

In short, what's going on, what's wrong with the standard tagging, and
how can we get the data back where they belong?

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Road refs

Adam Snape
In reply to this post by Toby Speight
Hi Tony,

Please do read the conversation, but I think it's important to stress that no one is changing the standard  tagging here. It has never been standard to map unsigned references for tertiary/unclassified roads under the ref tag; indeed there has long been a consensus against doing so. 

The UK tagging guidelines have always advised against using the ref tag: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines although you'll notice from that there's still no overall agreement on exactly which other tag to use for unsigned references. I do believe this should have been discussed before the mechanical edit.

As a reminder, if you are adding unsigned references you do need to make sure that you're using an acceptable source which doesn't infringe council copyright. ie. a source that is released under a public licence such as the Open Government Licence or one which we have explicit permission to include in OSM and release under the ODBL. 

Kind regards

Adam



On Mon, 27 Aug 2018, 19:16 Toby Speight, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Recently, all the tertiary roads in my region had their ref tags
removed, and replaced with "highways_authority_ref".  A week later the
unclassified and residential roads suffered similar attack.

* Who is supposed to benefit from hiding these data?
* Who is responsible for documenting what this tag means, and when it
  should be used in place of the standard tagging?  So far, there's no
  mention of it on its own tag wiki, nor on key:ref
* Who is responsible for coordinating the related changes to software -
  editors, renderers, converters and QA tools - that are required?  I
  see no sign of any of this having started.

In short, what's going on, what's wrong with the standard tagging, and
how can we get the data back where they belong?

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

On 27 Aug 2018 19:16, "Toby Speight" <[hidden email]> wrote:
Recently, all the tertiary roads in my region had their ref tags
removed, and replaced with "highways_authority_ref".  A week later the
unclassified and residential roads suffered similar attack.

* Who is supposed to benefit from hiding these data?
* Who is responsible for documenting what this tag means, and when it
  should be used in place of the standard tagging?  So far, there's no
  mention of it on its own tag wiki, nor on key:ref
* Who is responsible for coordinating the related changes to software -
  editors, renderers, converters and QA tools - that are required?  I
  see no sign of any of this having started.

In short, what's going on, what's wrong with the standard tagging, and
how can we get the data back where they belong?

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Road refs

Dave F
Hi Adam

On 28/08/2018 08:35, Adam Snape wrote:
>
> The UK tagging guidelines have always advised against using the ref
> tag:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines 
> although you'll notice from that there's still no overall agreement on
> exactly which other tag to use for unsigned references. I do believe
> this should have been discussed before the mechanical edit.

It was discussed back in '15. Some felt the two listed were specific
enough with another option put forward, which I'm currently using. I
indicated in my OP that that was up for discussion. Please start the
ball rolling if you have objections to highway_authority_ref.

Point about OSM wiki: IMO giving multiple options for the same entity
leads to confusion & errors so should be avoided.

Cheers
DaveF



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Road refs

Dave F
In reply to this post by Toby Speight
Hi Toby

You've been given the link to the previous discussions, which explains
the reasons.

What is your objection to the reasons given for this amendment?

The wiki is a guide, not the law. It hasn't been updated yet as you &
others still wish to discuss the situation. If it had, I suspect there
would have been complaints that it was amended before being discussed
(even though it has).

It's the responsibility of the creators of the software to ensure they
keep up to date with the ever changing database.

Cheers
DaveF

On 27/08/2018 19:15, Toby Speight wrote:

> Recently, all the tertiary roads in my region had their ref tags
> removed, and replaced with "highways_authority_ref".  A week later the
> unclassified and residential roads suffered similar attack.
>
> * Who is supposed to benefit from hiding these data?
> * Who is responsible for documenting what this tag means, and when it
>    should be used in place of the standard tagging?  So far, there's no
>    mention of it on its own tag wiki, nor on key:ref
> * Who is responsible for coordinating the related changes to software -
>    editors, renderers, converters and QA tools - that are required?  I
>    see no sign of any of this having started.
>
> In short, what's going on, what's wrong with the standard tagging, and
> how can we get the data back where they belong?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Road refs

Richard Fairhurst
In reply to this post by Toby Speight
Toby Speight wrote:
> Who is responsible for coordinating the related changes to software -
> editors, renderers, converters and QA tools - that are required?  I
> see no sign of any of this having started.

No changes are required to core OSM software, but if your own niche requires
a map on which C-road refs are displayed (and I recognise you from the SABRE
forums, so I guess that might be the case ;) ) I'd be more than happy to
help you and/or others set up a server to do that. I'm sure there are other
people here who'd extend the same offer of help.

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Great-Britain-f5372682.html

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Road refs

WebMaster@Killyfole.org.uk
In reply to this post by Dave F
Dave,

The objection is that you are undoing the effort and time spent by mappers in
these areas for your own agenda.  Mappers, like myself, have added these tags
for a reason at considerable time and effort and that had basically been
trashed in a matter of seconds.  Not only that, you are being extremely
arrogant towards contributors who do not want your edits, even considering
banning users for an editing war.

KDDA

On Tuesday, 28 August 2018 12:39:33 IST Dave F wrote:

> Hi Toby
>
> You've been given the link to the previous discussions, which explains
> the reasons.
>
> What is your objection to the reasons given for this amendment?
>
> The wiki is a guide, not the law. It hasn't been updated yet as you &
> others still wish to discuss the situation. If it had, I suspect there
> would have been complaints that it was amended before being discussed
> (even though it has).
>
> It's the responsibility of the creators of the software to ensure they
> keep up to date with the ever changing database.
>
> Cheers
> DaveF
>
> On 27/08/2018 19:15, Toby Speight wrote:
> > Recently, all the tertiary roads in my region had their ref tags
> > removed, and replaced with "highways_authority_ref".  A week later the
> > unclassified and residential roads suffered similar attack.
> >
> > * Who is supposed to benefit from hiding these data?
> > * Who is responsible for documenting what this tag means, and when it
> >
> >    should be used in place of the standard tagging?  So far, there's no
> >    mention of it on its own tag wiki, nor on key:ref
> >
> > * Who is responsible for coordinating the related changes to software -
> >
> >    editors, renderers, converters and QA tools - that are required?  I
> >    see no sign of any of this having started.
> >
> > In short, what's going on, what's wrong with the standard tagging, and
> > how can we get the data back where they belong?
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Talk-GB mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb





_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Road refs

David Woolley
On 28/08/18 12:54, [hidden email] wrote:
> The objection is that you are undoing the effort and time spent by mappers

The data has not been destroyed, just more correctly tagged.

In general most of this information can only be obtained from armchairs,
so it is irrelevant as to whether or not the mapper is in the area.

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GB does not include Northern Ireland

WebMaster@Killyfole.org.uk
In reply to this post by Richard Fairhurst
Hi folks,

As it has been pointed out to me on IRC that GB doesn't include Northern
Ireland, and I should keep my opinions to myself.  So having left the IRC
channel, I am now leaving this mailing list as well.

I will also be canceling my OSMUK membership or failing that, not renewing in
December 2018.  I can still be reached via OSM username:KDDA or on the Talk IE
mailing list.

Thanks to all who have helped me over the years,

Clive aka KDDA







_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Road refs

Dan S
In reply to this post by WebMaster@Killyfole.org.uk
Hi,

The effort has not been undone - the data is still there in OSM, and
certainly usable. The issue is how to come to a community consensus
(across UK-based OSM community) in how to tag those refs, so let's try
to join the discussions all together. The previous discussion seems to
me level-headed, and it'd be useful to hear your arguments added to
it.

It's tricky with OSM because no-one really has ownership over any
particular aspect of tagging schema, even if they develop software
and/or perform mapping which relies heavily on certain data layouts.
It's a living beast. I guess data consumers would often have a
tweakable mapping from OSM into their own use-case.

Best
Dan


Op di 28 aug. 2018 om 12:55 schreef [hidden email]
<[hidden email]>:

>
> Dave,
>
> The objection is that you are undoing the effort and time spent by mappers in
> these areas for your own agenda.  Mappers, like myself, have added these tags
> for a reason at considerable time and effort and that had basically been
> trashed in a matter of seconds.  Not only that, you are being extremely
> arrogant towards contributors who do not want your edits, even considering
> banning users for an editing war.
>
> KDDA
>
> On Tuesday, 28 August 2018 12:39:33 IST Dave F wrote:
> > Hi Toby
> >
> > You've been given the link to the previous discussions, which explains
> > the reasons.
> >
> > What is your objection to the reasons given for this amendment?
> >
> > The wiki is a guide, not the law. It hasn't been updated yet as you &
> > others still wish to discuss the situation. If it had, I suspect there
> > would have been complaints that it was amended before being discussed
> > (even though it has).
> >
> > It's the responsibility of the creators of the software to ensure they
> > keep up to date with the ever changing database.
> >
> > Cheers
> > DaveF
> >
> > On 27/08/2018 19:15, Toby Speight wrote:
> > > Recently, all the tertiary roads in my region had their ref tags
> > > removed, and replaced with "highways_authority_ref".  A week later the
> > > unclassified and residential roads suffered similar attack.
> > >
> > > * Who is supposed to benefit from hiding these data?
> > > * Who is responsible for documenting what this tag means, and when it
> > >
> > >    should be used in place of the standard tagging?  So far, there's no
> > >    mention of it on its own tag wiki, nor on key:ref
> > >
> > > * Who is responsible for coordinating the related changes to software -
> > >
> > >    editors, renderers, converters and QA tools - that are required?  I
> > >    see no sign of any of this having started.
> > >
> > > In short, what's going on, what's wrong with the standard tagging, and
> > > how can we get the data back where they belong?
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Talk-GB mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Talk-GB mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GB does not include Northern Ireland

Andrew Hain
In reply to this post by WebMaster@Killyfole.org.uk
Imposing strict boundaries on OSM communication channels (in this case a non-ISO3166 meaning for a talk list) is out of order and is not a proper response to any disagreement anyone may have about tagging.

--
Andrew
From: [hidden email] <[hidden email]>
Sent: 28 August 2018 13:04:20
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] GB does not include Northern Ireland
 
Hi folks,

As it has been pointed out to me on IRC that GB doesn't include Northern
Ireland, and I should keep my opinions to myself.  So having left the IRC
channel, I am now leaving this mailing list as well.

I will also be canceling my OSMUK membership or failing that, not renewing in
December 2018.  I can still be reached via OSM username:KDDA or on the Talk IE
mailing list.

Thanks to all who have helped me over the years,

Clive aka KDDA







_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GB does not include Northern Ireland

Richard Fairhurst
In reply to this post by WebMaster@Killyfole.org.uk
[hidden email] wrote:
> As it has been pointed out to me on IRC that GB doesn't include
> Northern Ireland, and I should keep my opinions to myself.

No-one told you to keep your opinions to yourself; I simply suggested you
start a separate Northern Ireland-centric discussion (beginning with
comments on any offending changesets) if edits were being made contrary to
the wishes of the community there, rather than derailing a discussion about
a tag change in Great Britain.

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Great-Britain-f5372682.html

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GB does not include Northern Ireland

Frederik Ramm
In reply to this post by WebMaster@Killyfole.org.uk
Clive,

On 28.08.2018 14:04, [hidden email] wrote:
> As it has been pointed out to me on IRC that GB doesn't include Northern
> Ireland, and I should keep my opinions to myself. So having left the IRC
> channel, I am now leaving this mailing list as well.

If even Germans don't keep their opinions to themselves on this list,
then why should people from Northern Ireland ;)

I'd urge you to reconsider. If someone seriously took the bigoted
approach to "othering" you on IRC just because the list was called
talk-gb then I'm sure the community will stand behind you and not behind
whoever said that, and an apology is in order.

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail [hidden email]  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GB does not include Northern Ireland

Dan S
In reply to this post by Andrew Hain
As an aside - if ISO3166 meaning of "GB" is indeed intended (i.e.
UKoGBaNI), I wonder if someone could update the info on
<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb> to clarify that?
Currently says "General discussion for users in Great Britain"

Best
Dan
Op di 28 aug. 2018 om 13:15 schreef Andrew Hain <[hidden email]>:

>
> Imposing strict boundaries on OSM communication channels (in this case a non-ISO3166 meaning for a talk list) is out of order and is not a proper response to any disagreement anyone may have about tagging.
>
> --
> Andrew ________________________________
> From: [hidden email] <[hidden email]>
> Sent: 28 August 2018 13:04:20
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] GB does not include Northern Ireland
>
> Hi folks,
>
> As it has been pointed out to me on IRC that GB doesn't include Northern
> Ireland, and I should keep my opinions to myself.  So having left the IRC
> channel, I am now leaving this mailing list as well.
>
> I will also be canceling my OSMUK membership or failing that, not renewing in
> December 2018.  I can still be reached via OSM username:KDDA or on the Talk IE
> mailing list.
>
> Thanks to all who have helped me over the years,
>
> Clive aka KDDA
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GB does not include Northern Ireland

Brian Prangle-2
In reply to this post by WebMaster@Killyfole.org.uk
The last time I checked NI was still in a union with the UK and therefore suggesting that NI OSMers form a separate discussion  is very insensitive. As the community there is very upset and has not agreed to this change, having demonstrated very specific needs and separate treatment of these roads I suggest at the very least that the change is reverted for NI. Can I also suggest that all future mechanical edits that affect the WHOLE UK  (including NI) are discussed beforehand as required by  OSM policy before being unilaterally applied so that we can avoid situations like this

Brian Prangle

On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 at 13:05, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi folks,

As it has been pointed out to me on IRC that GB doesn't include Northern
Ireland, and I should keep my opinions to myself.  So having left the IRC
channel, I am now leaving this mailing list as well.

I will also be canceling my OSMUK membership or failing that, not renewing in
December 2018.  I can still be reached via OSM username:KDDA or on the Talk IE
mailing list.

Thanks to all who have helped me over the years,

Clive aka KDDA







_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GB does not include Northern Ireland

Dan S
For reference, here's DaveF's email where he documents his mechanical
edit: <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2018-August/021690.html>.
(Note also that it includes a note about Northern Ireland.)

Comparing that email against the OSM policy which Brian links to (the
Automated Edits Code of Conduct): This talk-gb seems indeed the
correct forum. The documentation happened after-the-fact rather than
in advance, as the AECoC demands. It seems relatively innocent in this
case given the consensus implied by previous threads (eg the ones
listed in DaveF's email), and I guess he took that as sufficient for
the "discussion period" - however, I agree it'd be much better to have
followed the automated-edits rules more closely, and given prior
notice of the actual edit with at least a few days' pause for
discussion. I'd have hoped the dissenters could have joined that
discussion (could we have notified them directly of the chance to join
in, just to be sure?).

I did an automated edit once, and although I was impatient at the lag
created by following the AECoC, the resulting clarity was a definite
good thing.

Dan


Op di 28 aug. 2018 om 20:25 schreef Brian Prangle <[hidden email]>:

>
> The last time I checked NI was still in a union with the UK and therefore suggesting that NI OSMers form a separate discussion  is very insensitive. As the community there is very upset and has not agreed to this change, having demonstrated very specific needs and separate treatment of these roads I suggest at the very least that the change is reverted for NI. Can I also suggest that all future mechanical edits that affect the WHOLE UK  (including NI) are discussed beforehand as required by  OSM policy before being unilaterally applied so that we can avoid situations like this
>
> Brian Prangle
>
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 at 13:05, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> As it has been pointed out to me on IRC that GB doesn't include Northern
>> Ireland, and I should keep my opinions to myself.  So having left the IRC
>> channel, I am now leaving this mailing list as well.
>>
>> I will also be canceling my OSMUK membership or failing that, not renewing in
>> December 2018.  I can still be reached via OSM username:KDDA or on the Talk IE
>> mailing list.
>>
>> Thanks to all who have helped me over the years,
>>
>> Clive aka KDDA
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GB does not include Northern Ireland

Richard Fairhurst
In reply to this post by Brian Prangle-2
Brian Prangle wrote:
> I suggest at the very least that the change is reverted for NI.

The edit did not take place in Northern Ireland, as Dave stated
unequivocally in his original mail: "Note I didn't include Northern Ireland"
(https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2018-August/021690.html)

> The last time I checked NI was still in a union with the UK and therefore
> suggesting that NI OSMers form a separate discussion  is very insensitive.

I suggested the separate discussion on this topic _because_ Northern
Ireland, as Dave had explained (and as I had reiterated to KDDA one minute
previously), was not included in this edit; and therefore was not germane to
the discussion of this edit. I'd therefore ask that you please withdraw your
accusation of being insensitive.

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Great-Britain-f5372682.html

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GB does not include Northern Ireland

Dave F
In reply to this post by Brian Prangle-2


On 28/08/2018 20:24, Brian Prangle wrote:
>  I suggest at the very least that the change is reverted for NI.
>

I wish people would read before putting their hands anywhere near a
keyboard.

DaveF


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GB does not include Northern Ireland

Brian Prangle-2
 I thought that you said  c roads would remain in NI but judging by Clive's reaction I thought something must have changed. He's obviously not convinced that c roads are going to remain in NI so perhaps you should  make it even more abundantly and explicitly clear that this is the case and have it documented clearly in all the right places. Can I suggest that perhaps you might also benefit from your own advice when making  future country-wide automatic edits

Regards

Brian

On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 at 21:42, Dave F <[hidden email]> wrote:


On 28/08/2018 20:24, Brian Prangle wrote:
>  I suggest at the very least that the change is reverted for NI.
>

I wish people would read before putting their hands anywhere near a
keyboard.

DaveF


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GB does not include Northern Ireland

Brian Prangle-2
In reply to this post by Richard Fairhurst
Thanks for your polite request Richard. I stand by my assessment, based not on your intentions or character but based on the result. Regards  Brian

On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 at 21:40, Richard Fairhurst <[hidden email]> wrote:
Brian Prangle wrote:
> I suggest at the very least that the change is reverted for NI.

The edit did not take place in Northern Ireland, as Dave stated
unequivocally in his original mail: "Note I didn't include Northern Ireland"
(https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2018-August/021690.html)

> The last time I checked NI was still in a union with the UK and therefore
> suggesting that NI OSMers form a separate discussion  is very insensitive.

I suggested the separate discussion on this topic _because_ Northern
Ireland, as Dave had explained (and as I had reiterated to KDDA one minute
previously), was not included in this edit; and therefore was not germane to
the discussion of this edit. I'd therefore ask that you please withdraw your
accusation of being insensitive.

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Great-Britain-f5372682.html

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
12