OpenStreetMap
Gregory Peony's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 151781483 | WAY: 1286346152 is probably the most accurate footprint of the ones you added and I've seen. Alignment to imagery still seems poor, but the size, shape and orientation are certainly significanlty better than others.
|
|
| 151781661 | Generally these building footprints are inaccurate and not well aligned to bing imagery. The following buildings should not be mapped as quadrilaterals based on only aerial imagery; WAY: 1286347784, WAY: 1286347761, WAY: 1286347756, WAY: 1286347779, WAY: 1286347763. The following ways envelope multiple buildings; WAY: 1286347784, WAY: 1286347775, WAY: 1286347766, WAY: 1286347759, WAY: 1286347787.
|
|
| 154484987 | I think that WAY: 1286482007 is two adjacent buildings. The Eastern building is significantly larger than this footprint would suggest. Using alternate imagery can sometimes allow you to see the complete size and shape of obscured buildings. In this case the building is visible in ESRI with a silver roof. Using bing as the base (lower) layer with 100% opacity you can add ESRI, then reduce its opacity to x<50% and align it to bing. You can open this changeset in josm by pressing "J" in OSMCha. Check the homepage for more shortcuts.
|
|
| 151764176 | Hello, do you know what is causing the features I flagged to have excess nodes? Otherwise, the imagery allows for buidling footprints to be more accurate, sometimes multiple buildings are enveloped by one footprint, and buildings are oversized because the wall (which is visible in off nadir imagery) has been included in them.
|
|
| 151796341 | WAY: 1286492384's orientation is not accurate. It can be easier to identify the orientation at lower zoom levels, because the image is less distorted. Then zoom in toplace the nodes accurately, while keeping in mind the orientation you obtined at the lower zoom level.
|
|
| 151804281 | I modified the buildings so they'll be ascociated with the correct project now anyway. That's as close to resolved as can get I think.
|
|
| 151804281 | This changeset references the incorrect project and location; this made it more difficult to find when validating. Please check the comments you're submitting with your changesets.
|
|
| 151858762 | WAY: 1286842953 is not a building. You can tell becasue it does not cast a shadow like nearby definite buildings; this is consistent across imagery sources.
|
|
| 154175676 | I recommend using fast draw for the residential areas.
|
|
| 154175273 | I undeleted ways and intergrated them into the map.
|
|
| 52886114 | This changeset was made a long time ago now, so you may already know this, but please don't represent fords this way, because it can break routing e.g. if you choose to route from one side of the river to the other a router may guide you all the way around via a completely different route, since it doesn't recognise this as a valid one. |
|
| 154175273 | WAY: 555942026 & WAY: 1302054689 should have been modified and not deleted. The deletion of WAY: 1302054689 almost resulted in a disconnection in the highway network between the east and west sides of this village. I think that the safest bet would have been make WAY: 1302054689 an intermittent river and then fords could be mapped across it.
|
|
| 154171545 | The features I flagged appear to have 'dog legs' i.e. their continuity is not proper. You can use the inline validation paint style in JOSM to help you visualize continuity amongst other things. Use the URL you can find in JOSM to find the Github repo and change it to the updated version which allows you to choose what is visualized.
|
|
| 154175772 | I resolved the problem by undeleting the highway and conecting it with the network while aligning to imagery and making modifications. You can see this by checking its history after clicking on the element.
|
|
| 154175772 | I accept your apology ;) You're welcome for the comments. I have not rectified these problems, hence the "Unresolved" tag. I think that the best way to fix the problem in this situation is to use the undelete plugin, because there is only one way that was deleted, and I've already modified some of the ways which were also modified in this changeset.
|
|
| 154208243 | You did not provide a reason in your changeset comment for deleting these elements; I'd like to know why you did. It may be obvious to you why you did so, but others have to work it out. Deletion should mainly be used to remove elements which no longer exist, or never did. Generally speaking it is better modify elements if they represent a feature visible in imagery, especially if your intention is for those features to not be mapped again. If the geometry of a feature is accurate but you dissagree with the tagging, consider simply changing the tags, rather than deleting accurate geometry.
|
|
| 154175772 | You should not have deleted WAY: 555932000, especially since you simply replaced a part of it with WAY: 1302677315. In doing so you made the history and metadata of the original element significanlty more difficult to track, and they will likely be lost, unless someone with the required skills retrevies them. Instead you should have split the highway into segments, and retained the history on the segment you wished to keep, given that you replaced the highway with one of the same classification as the first version of the original.
|
|
| 154179514 | You're welcome.
|
|
| 154179277 | Sure thing. I left some comments on the tasks. Contributors can see these discussions if they open the task change-sets via the task data also.
|
|
| 154149947 | The ways I flagged should be connected.
|