OpenStreetMap
CAM-Gerlach's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 178648091 | Sure, see the wiki article osm.wiki/Names . In short, as something spray painted on top of the cave, it is at most a `loc_name`: > loc_name=* is for the name of a feature as it is known locally, but only where this is deemed to be too much of a slang name or otherwise unofficial-sounding. However, this would need to be substantiated by further research or at least informally asking various folks that live there to confirm it is actually what locals call it. It could very well be the graffiti of a single vandal that no one has gotten around to changing. Given the location near Provo and the local culture of most of the folks that live there (who would likely consider such a name to be quite blasphemous), I highly doubt they actually call it such. Therefore, at least for now I would suggest removing the name and adding a Map Note saying what you state above, for other local mappers to follow up on. Thanks! |
|
| 178648091 | Is this really the name of the cave? Could you provide a source for this? I'm not seeing one provided in either the changeset tags or comment. Thanks! |
|
| 178644582 | And welcome to OpenStreetMap; thanks for your contribution to our community! I'm happy to answer any questions you may have on your mapping journey, and there are a number of other friendly users mapping in the NRV that would be glad to do likewise. Feel free to reach out, and looking forward to your future contributions! |
|
| 178644582 | Great, thanks for adding these details and refinements!
|
|
| 178563814 | Hi user3266, Thanks for your rapid, thoughtful and comprehensive response! I'm glad to hear it my comments were well-taken, and I apologize if any of it came across as unduly harsh--it certainly didn't rise to the level of "mayhem" that perhaps some of my feedback might have come across as, sorry. I'm always happy to answer any questions you might have ahead of time; just FYI ultimately with OSM all changes go live in the DB immediately and requesting review only sets a flag that makes it theoretically more likely that folks using various tools will see and review it ex post facto. Since I monitor every changeset within the Blacksburg town limits regardless of that flag (I don't know if I've ever actually seen it used in practice), not selecting that option didn't have any practical negative impact here. Hey, most if not almost everyone mapping has _some_ sort of personal motivation for doing so, so no need to denigrate yourself here--so long as that doesn't conflict with the data quality of the map as a whole, that's perfectly fine and it does further emphasize the necessity of the holistic change this would be a part of. Revert looks good! I didn't feel up to using osm-revert until at least many months/hundreds of changesets/tens of thousands of changes, so good on ya. Just curious, you doing this as part of a company, class or a personal project? I'm a VT alum ('17, BS Meteorology BA Geography/GIS), so always love to see OSM getting used in the Blacksburg community. Cheers, and looking forward to your future contributions! |
|
| 178686469 | Looks good, thanks! For the record I do agree with the change (to add directional) in principle, and am planning to do comprehensively once discussed with the community. Thanks!
|
|
| 178563814 | Hi user3266, First off, welcome to OpenStreetMap, and thanks for your contribution to our community! I'm happy to answer any questions you may have on your mapping journey, and there are a number of other friendly users mapping in the NRV that would be glad to do likewise. Could you help us understand the rationale for your change here? Like every other town-maintained street in Blacksburg, the street signs for Church Street (and addresses along it) have always had directional suffices, at least as far back as when I first arrived in Blacksburg in 2013 (and likely far longer), which has been visible on the signage as long as street-level imagery exists (e.g. Streetside, Mapillary and other sources). Therefore, I'm not really sure what street-sign change you're citing here as far as this is concerned. The reason the directional suffix isn't currently in any of the Blacksburg street names, nor `addr:street` is for, AFAIK, historical reasons related to the limitations of the data import of Town of Blacksburg GIS data circa 2010 that form the basis for the OSM data in the area. I absolutely agree that we should be adding it, but rather than a piecemeal effort like this for one part of a single relatively-unremarkable street (there are a number of further blocks of Church St to the south that are still missing the directional suffix), this should be done consistently and holistically everywhere it applies (possibly with automated or semi-automated tooling) following a discussion and consensus in the local community as required by OSM principles, to ensure everyone is on the same page. I've been planning to do so for quite some time following the completion of several other ongoing Blacksburg mapping projects, and I'd of course appreciate your contributions to that process. Also, the change introduces two significant regressions in terms of data quality and correctness per OSM guidelines. First, it changes the name of the street way while not also updating the `addr:street` of the addresses along it, leading to the latter not matching the former creating a serious data inconstancy. Second, one of the core OSM principles when naming things is to always expand abbreviations for clarity, including in directional suffices like this as well as street names. So this should be "Northwest" and "Northeast" rather than "NW" and "NE" (and "Road", not "Rd" in your other changeset #178565996 changeset/178565996 ). The easiest and most consistent fix I'd recommend is just reverting the change for now, either by manually changing the street name back or using OSM-Revert (which I can do for you, if you'd like). Alternatively, if you really want to make this change now rather than waiting for community discussion and consensus, and then just having it being applied consistently in an automated/semi-automated fashion town-wide, you should be prepared to fix the naming issue, be consistent about renaming the southern parts of Church Street as well, and update all the various addresses that refer to Church Street to reflect the new names (a relatively straightforward task for an experienced mapper using a full-featured editor like JOSM, but likely rather tedious and error prone to do using iD as you are). Looking forward to hearing from you, and happy to answer any further questions you might have and assist you in remediating this! And again, welcome to OSM! |
|
| 176886412 | Thanks!
|
|
| 176805088 | No worries at all, man! I get all bummed out too when I realize I made a mistake, but I find there's always something new to learn and improve with OSM and it was a learning opportunity for both of us; I didn't realize myself until double-checking the wiki on this changeset that recommended tagging practice had evolved to explicitly condone tagging a node of a highway=* way with road_marking=* without highway=stop in the case of all-way stops. And I have the utmost respect for you and your mapping skill! FWIW, for the longest time I've found public transport relations the most complex set of concepts, rules and practices to master in OSM (and still wouldn't consider myself nearly having done so yet, having only recently really started to engage with them), whereas you seem to be quite adept at them. So when I finally get around to fixing the various Osmose-detected issues with BT transit's I've indirectly touched (hopefully soon), I'm sure you'll have some helpful feedback in case I miss anything! |
|
| 176805088 | *Please disregard previous comment, I accidentally fat-fingered the post button.* CORRECTED: NB, I've been mapping all way stops on the intersection node, per the wiki spec and how I've generally seen existing ones mapped, since the relevant wiki page highway=stop#All-way_stop says "All-way stops should be shown using highway=stop at the intersection node." I also tag them with stop=all per the wiki suggestion , as well as direction=both per one of my JOSM validators for explicitness (I have this tag trifecta as a macro, so I can apply all three with one keystroke). You could instead tag the actual stop lines (i.e. the nodes currently tagged with highway=stop) with road_marking=stop_line (+ stroke=solid); per the wiki, "road_marking=stop_line indicates where the painted stop line is physically located, regardless of which node you tag as highway=stop, but only if there's a painted stop line." (which has been the case for all but a few of the all-way stops I've mapped so far in Blacksburg, versus perhaps half or fewer of the stop=minor s). As that had not been added last time I checked the page, I had only been adding stop_line tagging so for minor-way stops, but just now I went back and added them for all the all-way stops I've added (except one or two that didn't actually have stop lines). |
|
| 176805088 | NB, I've been mapping all way stops on the intersection node, per the wiki and how I've generally seen existing ones mapped, since the relevant wiki page highway=stop#All-way_stop says "All-way stops should be shown using highway=stop at the intersection node." I also tag them with stop=all per the wiki recommendation, as well as direction=both per one of my JOSM validators for explicitness (I have this trifecta as a macro, so I can apply all three with one keystroke). You can tag the stop lines (i.e. the currently tagged nodes) with road_marking=stop_
|
|
| 168093783 | Additionally, there is a West Harwell _Road_ adjacent to this (and many places elsewhere); seems highly probable that "Drive" should have been changed to "Road" here. Also (particularly so with significant name changes like this) it is important to include source(s) for your changeset, which this lacks. |
|
| 173244652 | SEO spam removed in changeset changeset/173246888
|
|
| 173227470 | Fixed the SEO spam added here in changeset/176507201
|
|
| 173092666 | Fixed SEO spam tags in changeset/176506631
|
|
| 172613073 | As you added back the blatant spam copy removed changeset/172577196 , I reverted that change and further refined the tagging in changeset/176506065 . Please be advised that continued SEO spam in this manner is not welcome on OSM.
|
|
| 172577196 | NB, they reverted your de-spamification and added back the blatant marketing copy in changeset/172613073 which I reverted and further refined the tagging in changeset/176506065 They are currently 0-day banned, though IMO given their repeated pattern of paid spam activity and lack of good faith a perma-ban would be more appropriate instead.
|
|
| 176341614 | Sure, understood--correcting the immediate issue was the higher-priority change. I went ahead and changed it to `healthcare=occupational_therapist` in addition in changeset #176379470 . Thanks again!
|
|
| 176282025 | Yup, saw that too yesterday after I reached out to them and flagged this the night before. Hopefully its an opportunity for reflection and making the most of the resources out there to learn and grow as a community contributor and a mapper.
|
|
| 176341614 | Hey, thanks for the fix! Although, shouldn't `healthcare=occupational_therapist` osm.wiki/Tag%3Ahealthcare%3Doccupational_therapist be used instead/as well, as it has nearly 20x the usage per taginfo (1853 versus 125), has a full wiki page and is documented on the main approved `key:healthcare` page, whereas healthcare:specialty just has a stub page and isn't included in the main key:healthcare:specialty page?
|