OpenStreetMap
CAM-Gerlach's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 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?
|
|
| 176282025 | As multiple mappers and myself have each reached out to this contributor multiple times on multiple of their changesets over the past month (including four days ago regarding a number of breaking changes to East/West AJ) the great majority of which have had a destructive effect (intentional or not) on the existing valid map data while not making meaningful improvements, it seems the next step has to be contacting DWG.
|
|
| 176281215 | As multiple mappers and myself have each reached out to this contributor multiple times on multiple of their changesets over the past month (including four days ago regarding a number of breaking changes to East/West AJ) the great majority of which have had a destructive effect (intentional or not) on the existing valid map data while not making meaningful improvements, it seems the next step has to be contacting DWG.
|
|
| 176282025 | I reverted both these changesets as I can personally verify that the Pritchard courtyard and passage to it exists (having lived in the building my freshman year), and this new mapper has amassed a consistent history of edits inexplicably deleting or disrupting other buildings (including East/West AJ) in a similar fashion. |
|
| 176281215 | I reverted both these changesets as I can personally verify that the Pritchard courtyard and passage to it exists (having lived in the building my freshman year), and this new mapper has amassed a consistent history of edits inexplicably deleting or disrupting other buildings (including East/West AJ) in a similar fashion. |
|
| 175808457 | Once again, same issue as in most of your other recent changesets--the outer way tagged as a generic building in this changeset was already part of a (much more comprehensively tagged) building multipolygon. Many editors (like JOSM) would immediately warn you about this mistake before you upload your changeset, but if iD doesn't, you can check yourself to see if a way is already part of a building multipolygon by scrolling down to "Relations" in the left hand "Edit feature" panel. Happy mapping!
|
|
| 175808457 | Changset reverted as like the others, it merely added a nested, conflicting and duplicative building=yes and name tag on the outer way when (much more detailed and precise) building tagging was already present on the encompassing multipolygon. |
|
| 175766718 | Same issue here--the outer way tagged as a generic building in this changeset was already part of a (much more comprehensively tagged) building multipolygon.
|
|
| 175766718 | Changset reverted as like the others, it merely added a nested, conflicting and duplicative building=yes and name tag on the outer way when (much more detailed and precise) building tagging was already present on the encompassing multipolygon. |
|
| 175766843 | I certainly understand that this is a pretty complex situation for a new mapper to figure out. As such, it is a good idea to tread especially carefully around such unusually complicated mapping situations, and be wary of changing things until you fully understand why the original contributor mapped it the way they did and why it should be changed, given they are in all likelihood going to have much more experience than a newbie (and in this case, the contributor in question happens to be one of the most knowledgeable, experienced and widely respected mappers in the United States :). Thanks, and happy mapping. |
|
| 175766843 | Hi Thomas, unfortunately this changeset further compounded the problem introduced in changeset #175766539 changeset/175766539 as it added a _third_ layer of nested building inside the building:part multipolygon (turned building), itself inside the actual building multipolygon. Namely, it added another `building=yes` tag to the inner way of the original building:part, making for three buildings in the same space (two with identical outlines), and again conflicting with the more precise building tags on the outer building. As such, I once again had to revert the change.
|
|
| 175766539 | Given many of your other changesets share the same basic issue, I'd really advise consulting the OSM wiki to help you understand how building tagging works in OSM, particularly the simple buildings schema: wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Simple_3D_Buildings , and I'd be glad to explain further if there is anything you still aren't clear on. Thanks, and happy mapping.
|
|
| 175766539 | Hi Thomas, I'm not really clear what you were trying to do with this changeset (a descriptive changset summary, like you did on changeset #176142278 , goes a long way toward that). The multipolygon you modified, which itself was one part of a larger building (with a single overall name, address and properties), was already correctly tagged as such with `building:part`, with the encompassing overall building tagged `building=university`. This changeset tagged the central part of that that latter building as a nested building (which is not considered valid OSM tagging; two entirely buildings cannot physically occupy the same space, unlike a building:part). Furthermore, it tagged it as `building=yes`, which is less precise and conflicting tagging with the outer building. Therefore, given it was strictly a regression from the existing correct tagging, I reverted both changesets.
|
|
| 175766843 | Changset reverted due to triple-nested and conflicting tagging of building=yes on a way and two levels of multipolygon, when the original building:part tagging on the part multipolygon and building on the full building was entirely correct, and more precise. |
|
| 175766539 | Changset reverted due to triple-nested and conflicting tagging of building=yes on a way and two levels of multipolygon, when the original building:part tagging on the part multipolygon and building on the full building was entirely correct, and more precise. |
|
| 174478608 | Also, if I understand you correctly that you are mapping on behalf of or for a benefit of a client, or your mapping is otherwise connected to what you are paid to do, this is allowed but you will want to carefully consult OSM's Organized Editing policy: osm.wiki/Organised_Editing and follow the relevant guidelines https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines |
|
| 174478608 | And more importantly, it is even more strictly prohibited by OSM policy (above and beyond what the law specifically requires); any such contaminated or potentially contaminated changeset will need to be purged. Could you please confirm that you understand this and will take care to abide by it, and whether it was used for any of your other changesets? Thanks, and happy mapping.
|