OpenStreetMap
Gregory Peony's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 164091547 | See my resolution in changeset: 164101915 Please keep this feedback in mind when contributing in future. Thank you for your contribution. If you want to experience the OSM community or to get timely feedback from other mappers; I recommend that you attend a mapathon. You can find events here https://osmcal.org/
|
|
| 164091560 | By resolving the issue incorrectly you make the problem harder to spot for others. In this case the highways and buildings should have been modified to resolve the issue as per the project document. Check Changeset: 164101748 for my resolution https://osmcha.org/changesets/164101748?filters=%7B%22ids%22%3A%5B%7B%22label%22%3A%22164101748%22%2C%22value%22%3A%22164101748%22%7D%5D%7D
|
|
| 164091547 | the highway you deleted should have been move and not deleted. Unless a feature does not exist it is best practice to modify existing data rather than deleting it and re drawing.
|
|
| 164091560 | Some of the footprints you added here share nodes with highways: hold alt to prevent your cursor from snapping to exisitng data. You inappropriately tagged a building with a layer=1 tag (the one I flagged): generally instances of overlapping features should be resloved by modifying the geometry of features. Adding a layer tag suggests that the footprint is above the highway. It makes the warning go away but doesn't address the cause of the issue, warnings are there to grab your attention, then secide the best course of action sometimes ignoring warnings is the best thing to do. Please keep this feedback in mind when contributing in future. Thank you for your contribution. If you want to experience the OSM community or to get timely feedback from other mappers; I recommend that you attend a mapathon. You can find events here https://osmcal.org/
|
|
| 164091048 | The footprints to the West of this changeset are the best I've seen you digitise so far. Though their accuracy could be better and they should be squared (q), they represent individual buildings and thus are valid.
|
|
| 164094833 | The western footprint envelopes multiple buildings and shares nodes with a highway. The Eastern featue is a barrier. You can tell becasue of the shadows it casts. Please check changeset https://osmcha.org/changesets/164100764?filters=%7B%22in_bbox%22%3A%5B%7B%22label%22%3A%225.324249%2C13.094192%2C5.326995%2C13.096198%22%2C%22value%22%3A%225.324249%2C13.094192%2C5.326995%2C13.096198%22%7D%5D%2C%22area_lt%22%3A%5B%7B%22label%22%3A2%2C%22value%22%3A2%7D%5D%2C%22date__gte%22%3A%5B%7B%22label%22%3A%222024-11-18%22%2C%22value%22%3A%222024-11-18%22%7D%5D%2C%22comment%22%3A%5B%7B%22label%22%3A%22%23hotosm-project-18084%20Mapping%20of%20buildings%20in%20Sokoto%2C%20Nigeria%20for%20%23msf%20%23missingmaps%20%23Sokoto24%22%2C%22value%22%3A%22%23hotosm-project-18084%20Mapping%20of%20buildings%20in%20Sokoto%2C%20Nigeria%20for%20%23msf%20%23missingmaps%20%23Sokoto24%22%7D%5D%7D to see how I mapped it.
|
|
| 164094314 | It appears that one of the building footprints here is triangular becasue you were strictly staying within the task boundaries. Thanks for sticking to the task boundaries, but If a building is mostly within your task area feel free to map the entire building footprint; otherwise it won't be accurate. |
|
| 164094182 | A lot of the footprints you added here envelope multiple buildings. The objective when digitising buildings is to map their footpritn i.e. where the walls meet the ground. One area per building. Looking at shadows can help you spot where one building ends and the next begins. In the primary imagery source for this project shadows are cast NW. Please keep this feedback in mind when contributing in future. Thank you for your contribution. If you want to experience the OSM community or to get timely feedback from other mappers; I recommend that you attend a mapathon. You can find events here https://osmcal.org/
|
|
| 158502857 | The footprints I flagged consist of excess nodes. You can select features like this and simplify them using the shortcut (shift + y). --- The orientation of some of these buildings is inacurate. Low resolution imagery biases orientation towards the cardinal directions; I recommend zooming out to aquire more accurate shape and orienation information.
|
|
| 163472381 | Hello Mona.--- Why did you change the tagging of these highways? They appear to be wide enough to be used by a 4 wheled vehicle; paths in osm.wiki/Highway_Tag_Africa are described as not wide enough to be passed by a 4 vehicle with 4 wheels.--- I think that highway=residential is the best choice for these ways, based on aerial imagery.
|
|
| 163224816 | You correctly moved most of the existing footprints to align them.--- Some features I've flagged are footprints where you first deleted an existing footprint before adding a new one in their place. It can be more difficult to edit the existing data but it helps to preserve the meta data of the features. Delete features when you think that those features are invalid and do not represent features which are there in reality; not to delete and redraw them.--- There are a few places where you inaccurately glued nodes: hold alt to prevent your cursor from snapping to existing nodes.
|
|
| 162180883 | Buildings rarely share nodes with highways; when they do so they're not ususally on the same level as the highway e.g. the roof fo a fuel station. Hold alt in ID editor to prevent your cursor from snapping to nearby nodes. If you want to unglue nodes select them and press g. ---The issues (yellow triangle) in the bottom right should give you a heads up on some common potential errors. Know that sometimes the best thing to do is to ignore the issues if you don't know how to address them rather than making things worse, but checking what's there before uploading your changes or submitting a task can help you catch some errors you may have made while mapping.--- For my resolution see Changeset: 163225068. Please keep this feedback in mind when contributing in future. Thank you for your contribution. If you want to experience the OSM community or to get timely feedback from other mappers; I recommend that you attend a mapathon. You can find events here https://osmcal.org/
|
|
| 162354648 | I recommend that you seperate changesets containing highways and buildings becasue highways can be very long features which will make your changesets large and it will become more difficult to view the buildings you've added. Please state in your comment when uploading (saving) if you've modifed a highway. Once you've writen a comment it's easy to reuse it with the drop down selection menu by clicking on/near the comment.
|
|
| 162241652 | The northern footpritnt is very good. The southern one should at the least be in the shape of an 'L' and idealy as two seperate adjacent buildings. Reference other imagery sources to better see this.
|
|
| 162422806 | This is a good building footprint. It's accurate in shape, size and orientation. It appears to have been appropriately squared or very close to it. Thank you for your contribution. If you want to experience the OSM community or to get timely feedback from other mappers; I recommend that you attend a mapathon. You can find events here https://osmcal.org/
|
|
| 162423019 | You modified a highway in this changeset. I recommend that you structure your uploads. In a case like this it's best to map and upload (save) your changes to the highway then go on to map the buildings. Try to mention the features you're mapping in your changeset comment upon (saving).
|
|
| 162422885 | Buildings appear valid and accurate in orientation. Their corners are likely right angles so press q after tagging to square the corners of your footprints.
|
|
| 162140041 | I recommend offseting/aliging any imagery source you use to aid your interpretation it makes it easier to use and if you map anything while viewing another source it'll be aligned with the rest of the map data. Some of the buildings you added in this changeset are valid, but misaligned. --- Other footprints you added here are no longer present in ESRI which is more recent. --- It is a valid technique to map using alternate imagery sources, just remember to scan the area using the newer source before you submit/upload.
|
|
| 162139881 | Some of the buildings which I flagged here have odd shapes. check if it's plausable that the building actually has a more standard shape before going with a more unique option. Zoom in and out to aid your interpretation of feature shape.
|
|
| 162139589 | You had the right idea with one of the buildings in the SE by estimating its entire footprint even when a tree obscured it. Good job.
|