OpenStreetMap
Baloo Uriza's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 58232454 | When moving to ref, try CR N0830 instead of verbatim from name.
|
|
| 58232561 | Diagonally across a field?
|
|
| 58217698 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/58249963 where the changeset comment is: Reverting imported data. |
|
| 58217698 | While the address data may be good, it appears this data may be sourced from a georeferencer that may be using copyrighted data. Additionally, the other data in this appears to be meant for a personal map layer, not for the general consumption of the map. Please consider using Leaflet to project your data over OpenStreetMap, as adding this kind of data to the live database will not produce the results you intended, and will cause problems for other OpenStreetMap data consumers.
|
|
| 58178633 | Buildings with holes should be mapped as multipolygons.
|
|
| 57957554 | I'm not opposed to landuse=highway, and I'm on the fence about landuse versus landcover for grass. Though for forests, landuse versus landcover, while they may be congruent, can be very different things, for example, when the grove of trees is for forestry products, something that came up a lot when I was in Salem, Oregon thanks to the surrounding environs. Likewise, with the next county over from that producing the majority of the world's grass seed and sod, there's huge farms that are basically giant lawns because the crop is literally lawn grass. |
|
| 57957554 | Well, the landuse would be more like highway, since it's a highway infield, but the land cover is grass. |
|
| 58077110 | No problem. It doesn't have to be cadastre perfect (that's not exactly feasible given that often corner monuments end up in publicly inaccessible areas on the back sides of rows of abutting lots, if there's any at all) but what can be discerned from the aerial is often considered "good enough" where boots-on-the-ground surveys can't be taken. |
|
| 57925478 | Is there any disagreement on my assessment of Bella Vista? If not, I'll pick over it and make the change. |
|
| 57925478 | Oh no problem, didn't accuse you of otherwise. Just happened to notice the changeset because of whatever was done over towards Grove and Jay. |
|
| 58104372 | I am using PT Assistant, but it's not really much help versus doing it by hand. MTTA's GTFS feed is, to put it __very__ politely, a hot mess, like Apple Maps bad. Stops inside office blocks, routes turning impossibly from surface streets directly onto freeways...if there's a way to screw up the data badly, they've done it. |
|
| 58119494 | Was the new alignment a short-term deal? I believe the curve you removed was a permanent change to the road. I'll try to survey this tomorrow.
|
|
| 58077110 | There was some, but it's more or less come down to big areas as a general starting point, but mapping for precision is better. talk-de had a pretty lengthy conversation about it that made it into osm-weekly this week as well. |
|
| 58104372 | Are you very interested in mapping Transit in general? MTTA has a lot of really weird routes that dogleg and have variations that only run certain times of day with the same number, and I'm not 100% on how to deal with that.
|
|
| 58104372 | Thanks for the heads up on this one. I'm checking this as I think the 118 got swapped out.
|
|
| 58077110 | Ideally, landuse matches the landuse, not a whole neighborhood, eg, not crossing roads.
|
|
| 58072269 | Not super familiar with rural route addresses, but is the city name part of the first line address? If not, addr:city would be a better place for that. Likewise, no need to put the city name in the name of a chain, ie, Love's. addr:city will disambiguate for data consumers that don't georeference the nearest town.
|
|
| 58066785 | Thanks for the assist on that, do you know where the ends of the 45 zone are, so I can get the missing bits?
|
|
| 58037698 | Are we mapping unpaved roads as track again?
|
|
| 58014354 | Fixed 520 Pine, since the whole address was in the addr:street key.
|