OpenStreetMap
CurlingMan13's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 153438100 | Hello, This changeset has been reverted in part or full. I appreciate the enthusiasm with adding railways, but OSM (OpenStreetMap) is only for what is on the ground now, not what once was on the ground. I noticed you used older versions of map data to try and recreate the routes that once were (or may have once been). In most cases, the railways have long been overbuilt and replaced by new buildings and projects, thus, no remnants or clear ROW exists. "Historical" features, such as these long-gone railways would best be mapped on OHM (OpenHistoricalMaps) over at https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/ . You can read up on the general OSM guidelines here:
Additional info on non-existent features can be found here:
|
|
| 153437710 | Hello, This changeset has been reverted in part or full. I appreciate the enthusiasm with adding railways, but OSM (OpenStreetMap) is only for what is on the ground now, not what once was on the ground. I noticed you used older versions of map data to try and recreate the routes that once were (or may have once been). In most cases, the railways have long been overbuilt and replaced by new buildings and projects, thus, no remnants or clear ROW exists. "Historical" features, such as these long-gone railways would best be mapped on OHM (OpenHistoricalMaps) over at https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/ . You can read up on the general OSM guidelines here:
Additional info on non-existent features can be found here:
|
|
| 153433757 | Hello, This changeset has been reverted in part or full. I appreciate the enthusiasm with adding railways, but OSM (OpenStreetMap) is only for what is on the ground now, not what once was on the ground. I noticed you used older versions of map data to try and recreate the routes that once were (or may have once been). In most cases, the railways have long been overbuilt and replaced by new buildings and projects, thus, no remnants or clear ROW exists. "Historical" features, such as these long-gone railways would best be mapped on OHM (OpenHistoricalMaps) over at https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/ . You can read up on the general OSM guidelines here:
Additional info on non-existent features can be found here:
|
|
| 153433500 | Hello, This changeset has been reverted in part or full. I appreciate the enthusiasm with adding railways, but OSM (OpenStreetMap) is only for what is on the ground now, not what once was on the ground. I noticed you used older versions of map data to try and recreate the routes that once were (or may have once been). In most cases, the railways have long been overbuilt and replaced by new buildings and projects, thus, no remnants or clear ROW exists. "Historical" features, such as these long-gone railways would best be mapped on OHM (OpenHistoricalMaps) over at https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/ . You can read up on the general OSM guidelines here:
Additional info on non-existent features can be found here:
|
|
| 153432297 | Hello, This changeset has been reverted in part or full. I appreciate the enthusiasm with adding railways, but OSM (OpenStreetMap) is only for what is on the ground now, not what once was on the ground. I noticed you used older versions of map data to try and recreate the routes that once were (or may have once been). In most cases, the railways have long been overbuilt and replaced by new buildings and projects, thus, no remnants or clear ROW exists. "Historical" features, such as these long-gone railways would best be mapped on OHM (OpenHistoricalMaps) over at https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/ . You can read up on the general OSM guidelines here:
Additional info on non-existent features can be found here:
|
|
| 153432297 | Can you explain why you removed the official name from a footpath and added railway tags? |
|
| 152690162 | Do not partially overlap areas...
|
|
| 152690564 | Again, do not partially overlap areas... This is not the first time I have brought it up...
|
|
| 153090452 | Just use multipolygon relations instead of confusing area art.
|
|
| 153178050 | Just use multipolygon relations instead of all these seperate and creative area drawings...
|
|
| 152903365 | Reverted. Access tags should be used instead of deletion. Read more here: |
|
| 152903365 | Access tags should be used instead of deletion. All of these roadways are clearly visible on aerial imagery and should be mapped. Read more here: osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property
|
|
| 152903931 | Reverted. Access tags should be used instead of deletion. Read more here: |
|
| 152916680 | Good catch. Hard to keep up with people sometimes.
|
|
| 153129532 | Reverted. Road/Driveway still exists in aerial imagery. |
|
| 153177727 | Welcome to OSM. Couple comments. Road names shouldn't be abbreviated. Example, it should be "Trail", and not "Trl". Secondly, "(Private)" shouldn't be in the name. It is an access tag, and the appropriate access=* should be used instead. It doesn't matter if "Private" is in the name, navigation will still take people down those roads if it is not in the access field. Only the official name should be used, and never descriptions.
|
|
| 153313365 | Access tags should be used in lieu of deletion. Changeset reverted.
|
|
| 148893121 | Realistically, the only ones that should are the ones within the golf course. Named lakes generally are tagged as lakes and not water hazards. For example, Force Lake is a lake, and not just a water hazard.
The water treatment plant also should not be tagged as a water hazard. In many cases, golf mappers remove natural=water to add golf=water_hazard. All bodies of water should be tagged with natural=*. |
|
| 152823900 | Also, please use a more detailed changeset comment. What did you change and why? "-" tells me absolutely nothing about what you did. |
|
| 152866532 | Review note: |