Internet cut out part way through. let me know if there are any issues.

zluuzki,

why do your landuse boundaries have blocky boundaries? in the files I've generated I don't have landuse objects split into cubes.

wrong account.

wrong account.

wrong account.

Hi Kirbert,

can you tell me what these objects are that you have added?

Thanks, SherbetS.

currently being repaired

fixed here:

changeset/126619620

hi,

I processed this part of the data in order to fix a coastline overlap issue, but when converting back from shp file in QGIS it converted all the non top-level tags into other_tags=*

I thought that I already processed these out before I resumed work, but it is apparent that it was not the case. I'll see if I can get it fixed.

This time, I remembered to upload the multipolygons as well

Kirbert,

according to the wiki, landuse=cemetery should be reserved for cemeteries that are not a part of a place of worship, which does not appear to be the case here.

>Then what? I not only believe, I am sure.

Then you shouldn't import. You do not have permission to import here.

Hiausirg,

I don't care that this you think the amount of error in this dataset is acceptable, I don't.

This is the state that I live in, I don't remember you ever asking for import permission here. its our call not yours what is acceptable here. Stop wasting everyone's time making these pointless arguments.

-SherbetS

Please don't import MS buildings in Alabama.

I've seen the quality from this dataset and I'd rather add the buildings by hand. thanks.

do you know when the trail organization plans to build the link to the state road?

Zluuzki,

I apologize if my page was unclear, I still haven't jumped through the mailing list discussion hoops to get this import approved. I will square that away in a few weeks time after I'm finished with the FL landuse import. at that time,

Keep in touch and we can look into having this dataset added. I am always grateful for your investment in mapping energy infrastructure, and I feel like it would be easier on everyone if we could get the import approved first.

Thanks,
SherbetS

Yes. I was analyzing a sample of this data to assess the quality as a part of another import im working on.

This user imported all this data without reviewing any of it using a bad tagging scheme. Since they data was already of very low quality I decided it would be better to revert the change.

It looks like JOSM missed the north half of the changeset somehow, but at least I caught at least some of the bad data

Okay. I reverted the second changeset the user made to avoid excessive conflicts
The I reverted the first changeset.

Hope that explains it

The data in this import is below the quality I would consider useful for openstreetmap. I reverted the eddit offhand in JOSM last night and set all conflicts to others versions

Can you explain what you are seeing that is problematic?

reverted in changeset/124908478