OpenStreetMap
Gregory Peony's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 169093483 | Personally I do not think this residential area should have been mapped. I would have just mapped the obvious buildings in the North of what you mapped as a residential area.
|
|
| 169093540 | You improved the geometry of a residential area to include more buildings in its North.
|
|
| 169093660 | Please draw your residential areas around the settlement and not just buildings e.g. the area encircled by hedges around the buildings is likely residential and should be included. Check Changeset: 169127638 to see how I mapped it.
|
|
| 169092483 | Hi Vincent. The settlements you mapped here look okay... it's just that you mapped them in Nepal instead of Chad. When mapping using ID in a tasking manager you should see a pink area denoting the task boundary. If you do not see this then save your work if it's valid and reload your browser or the task. Without a defined boundary you may map endlessly adding each feature that comes into view. Watch this to see what I mean https://youtu.be/XMtpZf9RoMc?feature=shared&t=3146 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/
|
|
| 169092483 | Hi Vincent. The settlements you mapped here look okay... it's just that you mapped them in Nepal instead of Chad. When mapping using ID in a tasking manager you should see a pink area denoting the task boundary. If you do not see this then save your work if it's valid and reload your browser or the task. Without a defined boundary you may map endlessly adding each feature that comes into view. Watch this to see what I mean https://youtu.be/XMtpZf9RoMc?feature=shared&t=3146 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/
|
|
| 169077423 | Hi Tania, it looks like you identified and added some likely highways in the imagery, but tagged them incorrectly. Please reference osm.wiki/Map_features and highway tag aftrca for how to tag highways in this region.--- The project you locked a task in #17823 requests the mapping of buildings; not highways. Therefore you are not required to add any highways as part of it, perhaps you could modify them if they caused data quality issues with features requested for mapping. Watch this video to see how to find porjects based on your interests https://youtu.be/XMtpZf9RoMc?feature=shared&t=862 ---Please keep this feedback in mind when contributing in future. Preserve the project hashtags when contributing to projects. See my resolution in Changeset: 169113177 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/
|
|
| 169085259 | Hi, it looks to me like you improved the accuracy of the residential area here. 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/
|
|
| 169065797 | Just out of curiosity, why did you tag this as a secondary highway? Check out this page osm.wiki/Highway_Tag_Africa before tagging more highways. Thanks for your contribution.
|
|
| 169067336 | Hi, you certainly made an improvement to the map data here but didn't tag the highway correctly. You correctly deleted the secondary highway in the East here and recognised that the Western one should aslo not be tagged as such, but it is also not a path, because it is wide enough for a car to drive on as evidenced by the erroded tracks on the ground visible in the imagery and its width. I tagged it as unclassified instead. 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/
|
|
| 169065700 | The highway you added does not appear secondary to me: it would be more accurately tagged as unclassified. Secondary highways connect large towns to cities. This highway connects a hamlet to the highway network. Connected highways need to share common (grey) nodes in order to be considered connected and for routing to function properly. 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/
|
|
| 169065146 | The Northern footprint represents a building the Southern one does not. The Northern footprint is oversized becasue part of the building's shadow was included in its shape. Also jsut becasue there are fields available in the tagging preset doesn't mean you have to fill them all in. You tagged the flagged footprint as having 0 levels which would indicate it either isn't a building or it has collapsed. Building=yes is sufficient; it is rare/more difficult to extract more information from aerial imagery alone. Only add extra tags if you're confident that the information is correct. I deleted the southern footprint and modified the Northern one. 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/
|
|
| 169064870 | The footprint you added here does not represent a building but rather a barrier like a fence or wall. Look at the way the shadows are cast. They're cast from both sides. cross reference Mapbox for a different view. I deleted this footprint. 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/
|
|
| 169064824 | You identified a building in the imagery. The footprint is valid and accurate but should be squared. please watch this video for a demonstration https://youtu.be/Xs5wX592E1o?feature=shared --- It should then be moved NE to the base of the building. Here the Northern walls of buildings are visible due to the angle the imagery was taken at. See my project comment about using a secondary source to aid your interpretation. You're looking from above and using the roofs to obtain the building's shape but mapping the footprint. See how I mapped it in Changeset: 169080379 yes it looks a little weird but that footprint is now in an accurate position. 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/
|
|
| 169077090 | The footpritns I flagged outline multiple buildings. Every footprint should represent an individual building.
|
|
| 169077090 | Hi Anabel, You identified buildings in the imagery, well done. These footpritns however are not accurate due to their size and not being squared. Watch this video for an explanation and demo https://youtu.be/Xs5wX592E1o?feature=shared ---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/
|
|
| 169056989 | You correctly idenitified and deleted two invalid footpritns in the SE of this changeset. I agree that they did not represent buildings.
|
|
| 169056989 | Overall you've improved the accuracy of the footprints in this changeset. Generally footprint size has been reduced so they no longer envelope the shadows cast by buildings. Beware that objects can shade themselves i.e. there are dark and light parts of roofs depending on their shape and sometimes the (shaded) wall of a building may be visible if the imagery is taken at an angle.--- you appropiately changed the shape of footprints from square to round. You did this by deleting and remapping the footprints but you can actually just select square buildings you think are round and press (o) to circularise them, then move (m) and scale [shift+(-/+)] them to make them accurate instead of mapping from scratch. The circularise function only requires a minimum of 3 nodes. You deleted some valid footprints here. I previously mapped some of these becasue they are likely buildings under construction. Thanks for your contribution.
|
|
| 168960717 | You correctly replaced some buildings you previously mapped as round with square ones. The shape is more accurate but what you are looking at there is the skeleton/walls of a building under construction. Since it has no roof yet the internal walls may make it seem like multiple buildings but it should be mapped with a single footprint. again cross referencing (older) Bing may help as you migh spot some buildings which were under construction there and have been completed by the capture date of ESRI. Seeing some confirmed examples will help you better interpret the imagery.
|
|
| 168960717 | It seems that most footprints you mapped here are valid (visible in imagery) and have been appropriately squared but a significant proportion represent yards. I see no evidence that you used a secondary imagery source; this would I think significantly improve the quality of your mapping especially in this project. Sometimes it is difficult to tell what is a building in this project becasue some have dark roofs and look very similar to yards but cross referencing another imagery source can help A LOT. I wrote a proejct comment detailing how to do this. 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/
|
|
| 167279963 | Hi Dou g Wilson, the footprints you mapped here are generally valid (exist in imagery), accurate and appropriately squared. I flagged the most likely candidates for footprints wich envelope multiple buildings. Though it can be difficult to tell with some of the buildings in this area, use roof colour, orientation, and shadow to determine where one building ends and another begins. Overall this is a high quality contribution; thank you. 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/
|