OpenStreetMap
Gregory Peony's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 154149947 | The residential areas look fairly good. Ensure that you envelope all nearby buildings as per the project instructions X<50 m.
|
|
| 154149821 | Virtually all of the residential highways are incorrectly tagged. Rural areas like this rarely have residential roads becuase many settlements don't even have enough roads for any to be considered residential. The villages to the SW have residential roads. Roads connecting settlements to other settlements are not residential. just because buildings are along a road that does not make it residential.
|
|
| 154179277 | The residential areas in this case should be joined especially becasuse they both have place=village nodes. The presence of the nodes means that they can be recognised as seperate settlements even though their sprawl has resulted in the once seperate residential areas becoming one (the residential area just north of WAY: 282589375 is not visible in this change-set). Aside pleas provide a comment with your change-set. I don't always get it right myself but here you are adding and modifying residential areas but you simply use the default project comment which only mentions highways.
|
|
| 154179514 | WAY: 626485122 is in fact a dry river/stream look to the NE at various imageries to see the water body it is connected to. Look to the SW tertiary highway to see its similarity with the waterways which cross it. This is quite a flat area but using a topo map helps also. I have rectified its tagging. The highway connections are not correct. WAY: 532907218 going through the village to the SW does not represent a continuous highway and passes over several barriers. I recommend referencing other imagery sources e.g. mapbox in this case as highways may be easier to identify.
|
|
| 154179355 | These two residential areas should be combined into one as per project instructions. The nearest buildings are 49 m away from one another. The southern residential area should also include the cluster of buildings to the West of it. I agree with the change of classification of WAY: 532907211 from service to unclassified as it connects settlements via the tertiary road to the East, though it should be more accurately digitized, becuase it currently crosses barriers and building footprints visible in aerial imagery.
|
|
| 137290152 | Please, please, please always provide a reason for deleting features and changing tags. Now it might take quite some effort to figure out exactly what was done here to ensure that correct data has been preserved.
|
|
| 135114038 | Building should be square and slightly shorter.
|
|
| 135116711 | Residential areas should not share common nodes with buildings, or highways.
|
|
| 135116762 | Residential areas should not share common nodes with buildings, or highways.
|
|
| 135116353 | Flagged feature should be squared. I rectified this.
|
|
| 135116225 | The flagged feature is not squared, but overall a good change-set.
|
|
| 135116063 | If you want to move several features my a similar ammount you can filter the map data and use the shift key for a laso select function so that you can move them all simultaneously.
|
|
| 135115453 | Adding the layer tag to the building footprint in this instance is not the correct way to resolve the overlapping features warning, though it seems that you are aware of that.
|
|
| 135115562 | Once again, all good. It is also possible to modify the tags of the buildings you deleted to removed:building=house ,given the comment in change-set 40758463 indicating that this was a temporary dwelling. This tagging prevents others from adding it back to the map as so long as it is still visible in other imagery sources.
|
|
| 135115476 | This footprint could be rotated clockwise a few degrees but this is minor. The footprnit is otherwise accurate and valid.
|
|
| 135115453 | Pay no mind to my marking this change-set as bad. It helps OSMCha to better detect errors. I see that you have rectified this problem in a future change-set, likely that one will be marked as good. When adding elements in the iD editor you can hold a keybind to prevent snapping/ the creation of common nodes. Press h or ? for a list of the keybinds.
|
|
| 135115254 | Fantastic! All deletions are valid, all modifications improve the accuracy of building footprints, all additions are valid and accurate. You could have modified WAY: 1163947168 insted of deleting it, but seeing as you created it yourself a few minutes earlier it doesn't really cause any harm. Again it would be nice if you included something like 'deleted buildings which are no longer visible in mre recent imagery'. Thank you!
|
|
| 40758463 | Thank you for providing the source of information. Please also provide the method of how the geometry was aquired. e.g. if it was traced with aerial imagery, then also provide that information. It makes it easier to identify the feature by cross referencing imagery, and determining when its lifecycle prefix should be modified, and when the feature should be deleted. |
|
| 135114659 | The building footprint appears accurate and correctly squared, I cannot verify the highway becasue I do not have access to the imagery you used to digitize it.
|
|
| 135115025 | Well done! You correctly identified that more recent imagery provided sufficient evidence to delete these features, given the date at which the data was uploaded following a survey sometime before 2016-07-15. Please add a comment to your change-set so that others can more easily understand what you've done.
|