OpenStreetMap
Gregory Peony's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 166112952 | Hi Fabien, why have you joined the waterways you tagged as canals here to the water=river area of the river, and not to the river way itself? Most waterways in OSM start life as open ways with some never recieving a water=river area so based on my understanding it is important for the open ways to be connected to each other, then seperately the areas can be connected. Joining the open ways to the areas only may hinder connectivity analysis. Please reference the rivers OSM wiki page. --- I flagged a bridge that I modified to be mapped as a culvert, and changed the tagging of the waterway after the culvert to drain due to its reduced width.
|
|
| 166112952 | Hi Fabien, why have you joined the waterways you tagged as canals here to the water=river area of the river, and not to the river way itself? Most waterways in OSM start life as open ways with some never recieving a water=river area so based on my understanding it is important for the open ways to be connected to each other, then seperately the areas can be connected. Joining the open ways to the areas only may hinder connectivity analysis. Please reference the rivers OSM wiki page. --- I flagged a bridge that I modified to be mapped as a culvert, and changed the tagging of the waterway after the culvert to drain due to its reduced width.
|
|
| 166112952 | Hi Fabien, why have you joined the waterways you tagged as canals here to the water=river area of the river, and not to the river way itself? Most waterways in OSM start life as open ways with some never recieving a water=river area so based on my understanding it is important for the open ways to be connected to each other, then seperately the areas can be connected. Joining the open ways to the areas only may hinder connectivity analysis. Please reference the rivers OSM wiki page. --- I flagged a bridge that I modified to be mapped as a culvert, and changed the tagging of the waterway after the culvert to drain due to its reduced width.
|
|
| 168404858 | You digitised what is likely a hedge. There is a building surrounded be the hedge on the Easter side. 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/
|
|
| 168404948 | I rated this changeset as bad becasue the end result is still not great, but I have to say very good effort in improving the existing building footprint data. I flagged an accurate footprint mapped by you. 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/
|
|
| 168404994 | I also just saw that you added these footpritns. They are oversized but there are round buildings there in the imagery.
|
|
| 168404994 | You deleted what appear mostly to be valid footprints. Don't worry I brought them back.
|
|
| 166861178 | Try to see if a regular shape will accurately represent the building before going for more complex geometry. I flagged a couple of buildings that stand out to me as well mapped. Thank you!
|
|
| 166864435 | well done. You improved the geometry of building footprnits, though they're not as accurate as they could be. Please map them a little smaller than the roof.
|
|
| 167812000 | (SE) Hold alt to prevent the creation of shared nodes. Press d to disconnect them.
|
|
| 167812000 | All buildings valid. Try to map them a little smaller than the roof next time. Good job spoting the C shaped building.
|
|
| 167812000 | you identified buildings in the imagery. Map them slightly smaller than the roof next time. Good job spotting the C shaped building.
|
|
| 168405189 | Welcome to OSM! Most building footpritns have a regular shape. Please press o or q after drawing their approximate shape slightly smaller than the roof. 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/
|
|
| 168262764 | The building footprints adjacent to what you mapped as a construction site share nodes and overlap with it even though there appears to be a path wide gap between them; these fetures should not share nodes nor overlap hold alt to prevent the creation of shared nodes. The highway should be adjusted as to not overlap building footprints. The SE footprint has been unnecessarily mapped using a pair or lines and a multipolygon relation when it could have easily been digitsed as an area. The imagery allows for some of these building footprints to be more accurately mapped. 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/
|
|
| 168509457 | The footprints I flagged clearly contain the buildings' shadow in their size. Take care to not include the shadow while mapping the shape and size of footpritns. I recommend that you map footprints slightly smaller than the roof seen in the imagery becasue of the likely overhang. You can scale selected features in ID with shift+(-/+) after squaring or circularising them.
|
|
| 168509657 | The L shaped footprint you mapped is more likely to be two seperate buildings.
|
|
| 168179315 | A valid extension of a waterway. It appears that this stream is also intermittent.
|
|
| 168179286 | Hi, while this waterway looks to be atrificially made, I think this is too narrow to be a canal. Personally I would tag it as a drain.
|
|
| 167726263 | This changeset looks like it was traced created using an imagery source other than ESRI. Was it?
|
|
| 167110815 | This changeset looks like it was traced created using an imagery source other than ESRI. Was it?
|