MxxCon's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 117526773 | You moved a bench in the middle of water?🤔
|
|
| 117523809 | Kudos to you on tacking this task.👍I've been meaning to do it, but been dreading it because the train line over head makes it such a PITA to align everything and not accidentally glue something together.😅
|
|
| 117364846 | There are a couple of different ways of handling it:
Also perhaps it's worth considering if they temporary features, not to map them at all, especially since city is considering getting rid of parking space outdoor dining setups. |
|
| 117454139 | In *my* opinion it's best to just map businesses themselves directly since that would give the most detail and let data consumers figure out how to display such areas, like heat-maps or however else.. |
|
| 117454139 | Hello.
|
|
| 117452191 | Hello.
|
|
| 117445531 | Hello.
|
|
| 117440074 | Hello.
|
|
| 117364846 | Hello.
|
|
| 117338122 | Hello.
|
|
| 117306032 | Should this be considered layer=1 or should highway be layer=-1? it seems like this parking lot and road are at the same level as the rest of street network, while the highway is in a trench?
|
|
| 117267310 | You mapped this as "site" relation. According to osm.wiki/Relation:site it seems like if situation is suitable it's preferable to use other types. I think here osm.wiki/Relation:multipolygon is a suitable match with both sections being tagged as "outer". At the same time I'm not sure if this situation warrants the complexities that relation brings. Perhaps map the whole dog park as a single area and just draw a fence between the two sections? Similar to way/955051726 |
|
| 117197742 | Hello.
|
|
| 117166766 | Hello.
|
|
| 117164880 | Hello.
|
|
| 117161693 | Hello.
|
|
| 117090035 | You'd need to make a new edit. This changeset is already closed. 👍 |
|
| 117090035 | Hello.
|
|
| 117065206 | Similarly to your previous edit, you mapped engine 253 as both node and building. This is not the best way to map such feature.
|
|
| 117064819 | Hello.
|