[talk-ch] vandalism under the pretense of "simplifying"
marc.mongenet at gmail.com
Fri Jul 1 22:06:51 CEST 2022
Le jeu. 30 juin 2022 à 18:30, RB <tanrub at gmail.com> a écrit :
> I am sorry but I don't agree with their arguments and I have
> addressed them before. Let me restate.
> Mark makes the argument that some of the precise forests are "wrong" and
> again, in some cases, he is right. I am afraid it applies to the complete
> set of OSM data. At some point, it should be deleted and corrected with
> better sources.
> Both these statements are valid but not as a counter argument to the
> precise mapping in general.
You always write about "precise mapping". But your mapping is not. To be
very clear, with the same source as you, I would have done a *better*
mapping job while using 20 times less nodes. And several other mappers
would have done the same.
But it is not a problem, you are doing a great job of mapping huge areas of
forest. The fact that maybe you "edit mechanically while thinking about
something else" is probably an advantage that allows you to map such big
The only problem is that you accuse of vandalism people who are
"simplifying" some of your edits. For me, it is far from obvious that this
simplification is bad, and I write that, because I found cases when
deleting 95% of your nodes actually improves the map.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the talk-ch