Mashin's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 92527310 | Hi,
|
|
| 92369554 | Hi,
and also this building
|
|
| 92469192 | Hi Richū,
although, was:* prefix is somewhat used. Current preference seems to be more specific set of prefixes e.g. disused:*
If the bridge is gone then we usually delete the feature as rule is to map the existing objects. But you can map the supporting structures that are still there with bridge:support=*
waterway=* tag is more meant for ships navigation on water rather than airplanes. I would keep the aeroway=runway tag and add surface=water. or change it to something like aeroway=water_runway |
|
| 92118070 | Thank for clarification. If it is really blocked off, might be worth to add nodes on both ends with barrier=chain. |
|
| 92118070 | Hi,
|
|
| 91489683 | Hi, even though what you are doing is correct, the way how you are removing these tags causes loss of useful data.
|
|
| 91489520 | Hi, even though what you are doing is correct, the way how you are removing these tags causes loss of useful data.
|
|
| 91489467 | Hi, even though what you are doing is correct, the way how you are removing these tags causes loss of useful data.
|
|
| 91489424 | Hi, even though what you are doing is correct, the way how you are removing these tags causes loss of useful data.
|
|
| 91490045 | Hi, even though what you are doing is correct, the way how you are removing these tags causes loss of useful data.
|
|
| 91490077 | Hi, even though what you are doing is correct, the way how you are removing these tags causes loss of useful data.
|
|
| 91490115 | Hi, even though what you are doing is correct, the way how you are removing these tags causes loss of useful data.
|
|
| 91490249 | Hi, even though what you are doing is correct, the way how you are removing these tags causes loss of useful data.
|
|
| 11870543 | I thought you would appreciate to know that the position and the shape of your
|
|
| 90836448 | All looks good.
|
|
| 88368687 | OSM keeps information about any existing verifiable feature and therefore we leave such data in the database. When a road or a path has restricted access, the proper way is to apply access=private tag that marks is as such and tells route planners to avoid those. OSM also renders them less visibly. Generally it is the task of the owner to properly label and explain to visitor where is permitted to go and enforce such rules. The duty of visitors are to follow such rules and not what navigation app tells them.
|
|
| 88368687 | Please do not delete exiting features. If the access to a path is restricted the appropriate way is to include tag access=private or access=no. If you can please let other parks know that such changes are watched and will not be permitted. |
|
| 90869237 | Please do not delete exiting features. If the access to a path is restricted the appropriate way is to include tag access=private or access=no. If you can please let other parks know that such changes are watched and will not be permitted. |
|
| 90366918 | OK. But now the road has no name.
|
|
| 89863937 | Hi again, can you provide evidence that those roads don't physically exist? They are clearly visible from satellite imagery and it seems unlikely that there would be roads abruptly ending in the middle of nowhere or not being connected to other roads. |