public_transport:version is for route but not for route_master
this is true, but having public_transport:version on route_master does not harm anything, there's no stringent reason to delete the tag.
On the other side, this is similar to a mechanical edit and should be avoided or at least be discussed first.
Hey there. I spent many years curating the bus routes in my area. I completely disagree with this mass mechanical world wide looking change. There is nothing wrong with public_transport:version on the route master. It marks that all my work will be using that level of the transportation scheme. Please don't make a change like this again.
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/79354681
@all If anyone believe that this mechanical edit needs reverting please let the DWG know.
@Linda_Esperanto This is a mechanical edit and should have been discussed first. At the very least you owe the people asking you questions about it a reply.
@all Wenn jemand der Meinung ist, dass diese mechanische Bearbeitung zurückgesetzt werden muss, lass es die DWG wissen.
@ Linda_Esperanto Dies ist eine mechanische Bearbeitung und sollte zuerst besprochen werden. Zumindest schulden Sie den Leuten, die Ihnen Fragen dazu stellen, eine Antwort.
@SomeoneElse: Yes, I'm very sorry. That was imprudent of me. I will not do this again, but I'm not sure what to do now.
Thanks for your reply. I guess that for now we wait until one of the people whose data has been affected replies - do they think that this change should be reverted, or are they happy with things as they are?
OF course - if you think yourself that it should be reverted, please let us know.
Best Regards, Andy
(from OSM's Data Working Group)
the change should have been discussed but i'm ok and happy with it (it's indeed a mistake for me to have a tag on a route_master that doesn't concern the route_master).
if the revert is done because of "not following mecanical edit rules", I will propose a mecanical edit following the rules in the local communities where I am active.
@SomeoneElse some of data I have integrated are affected. I'm waiting a global revert if appropriate. If it's not I will reverted objects affected I have intagrated
@marc__marc Mechanical revert no yet done, apparently. 2 months later, is it not too late ?
@SomeoneElse Finally, it's ok. @marc__marc explained it to me. But even if the correction is correct, it's still a mechanical edit...
@deuzeffe If a mechanical edit is likely to conduse data consumers, or lose data, then I'll definitely tend to do a revert straight away. In this case it wasn't obvious that either of those had happened, and the person making the change apologised immediately - that's why I asked 2 months ago "do people think this should be reverted" rather than just doing it.
@SomeoneElse Thank you for your explanations and your wise reaction. *I don't think* revert is appropriate for objects that concern me. Best Regards.
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.
Hosting is supported by UCL, Bytemark Hosting, and other partners.