Changeset: 79354681
public_transport:version is for route but not for route_master
Closed by Kristjan ESPERANTO
Tags
created_by | JOSM/1.5 (15628 en) |
---|
Discussion
-
Comment from ToniE
Hallo Linda_Esperanto,
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.Regards,
Toni -
Comment from Dr Kludge
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
-
Comment from SomeoneElse
@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. -
Comment from SomeoneElse
@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. -
Comment from Kristjan ESPERANTO
@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.
-
Comment from SomeoneElse
Hi Linda_Esperanto,
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) -
Comment from marc__marc
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. -
Comment from deuzeffe
@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 ?
-
Comment from deuzeffe
@SomeoneElse Finally, it's ok. @marc__marc explained it to me. But even if the correction is correct, it's still a mechanical edit...
-
Comment from SomeoneElse
@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.
Best Regards,
Andy -
Comment from deuzeffe
@SomeoneElse Thank you for your explanations and your wise reaction. *I don't think* revert is appropriate for objects that concern me. Best Regards.
Relations (1-20 of 10000)
Welcome to OpenStreetMap!
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.
Hosting is supported by Fastly, OSMF corporate members, and other partners.
https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |