OpenStreetMap
Gregory Peony's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 164120633 | A valid and accurate footprint. 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/
|
|
| 159483667 | The footprints I flagged represent the light and dark side of a gabbled roof i.e. you added 2 footprints for one building. Consider common roof shapes when mapping and how they look when lit in different ways.
|
|
| 164178595 | Overall a high quality contribution. Thank you for your contribution. Generally the footpritns here are valid and acurate. 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/
|
|
| 164406149 | Overall a high quality contribution. All buildings are valid, have the correct shape, and are generally accurate. Some of them include the shadow cast by the building in the footprint. Keeping in mind the direction shadows are cast can aid imagery interpretation. 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/
|
|
| 164179970 | I flagged some footprints which are invalid becasue they envelope multiple buildings or include gardens. It lookos like you correctly deleted an invalid footprint. The footprints you added here should be square: make them so by pressing (q) after tagging. 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/
|
|
| 164176423 | Generally the footpritns you added here represent buildings in the imagery, some could be more accurate. It looks like you improved the geometry of existing footprints instead of deleting them and redrawing, well done.
|
|
| 159484057 | Resolved in Changeset: 165127791
|
|
| 159484057 | Looks like you identified buildings in imagery but tagged them with a name instead. The name tag is used for the name of a feature e.g. name=Eiffel Tower. 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/
|
|
| 165092936 | All footpritns valid. Accuracy could be improved and they should be squared (q) after tagging.
|
|
| 165030744 | The one in the south does not cast the sadows I would expect to see and it does not look like similar dark roofed buildings nearby. I think the one in the north is a tree (probably without leaves) it may be a building, but if so the footpint should be significantly smaller. Cross referencing bing is useful here. Hope this is informative.
|
|
| 165030744 | I suspect that neither of these footprints represent buildings visible in imagery.
|
|
| 164693122 | Generally adding a layer tag (over/under) is not the correct way to resolve overlap issues as they are usually caused by inaccurate geometry. If you come across overlap issues zoom to them by clicking on them and see if they can be addressed by modifying geometry. 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/
|
|
| 162706734 | The residential area I flagged does not contain enough buildings to be a residential area. Highways should not share nodes with landuse areas. 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/
|
|
| 164180890 | All footprints you added are valid, appropriately squared and most are accurate. Hold alt to prevent your cursor from snapping to data and press d to disconnect shared nodes.
|
|
| 164133065 | Footprints are generally valid, appropriately squared and have an accurate orientation but tend to be oversized and include the shadow a building casts in its footprint size. I flagged footprints which outline multiple buildings.
|
|
| 164092259 | This footprint is valid and appropriately squared, but has a westerly bias and is oversized.
|
|
| 164180102 | Most footprints are valid; the Western two do not need to be mapped for this project. Please remember to square (q) the footprints you digitise; it's common for buildings to have square corners and it's difficult to map precise corners.
|
|
| 164090960 | The footprint I flagged has a more complex shape. Add more nodes and use the corners of the roof to map it accurately. The points you place need to be colse to square to be squared by ID editor, watch the beginer mistakes videos on the missing maps youtube chanel for more details.
|
|
| 164090679 | The footprint I flagged is likely two adjacent buildings and not one.
|
|
| 160828457 | Overall a good contribution but you mapped the light and dark side of pitched roofs (I flagged these). Keep in mind roof shapes and how the scene is lit when mapping. See how I mapped them in Changeset: 164957877
|