MxxCon's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 119243561 | Nebraska covers all of continental US?๐คจ |
|
| 119234979 | Hello.
|
|
| 119217384 | Hello.
Generally it's best edit and update existing features rather than delete and recreate. That way you preserve history of that object and ability to properly revert if necessary.
|
|
| 115446690 | It needs to be updated in the NSI template too otherwise the next person fixing such warning will clubber your changes. |
|
| 115446690 | I believe it's coming from https://github.com/osmlab/name-suggestion-index/blob/main/data/transit/route/bus.json#L1370 |
|
| 115446690 | iD prompted to update these tags based on its template.. or at least it did at the time when I was editing it. |
|
| 119137062 | Thank you for fixing the shape. :) ๐
|
|
| 119127771 | It looks like there are 3 buildings?
|
|
| 119089979 | For one, if I were to search for such an address, getting a building as a result is more useful than a whole area including playgrounds and sport fields and parking lots and whatever else might be included. I don't have first hand experience with this, but I'd imagine that for data consumers it's easier to have one schema of encoding address of schools rather than implementing every possible variation one could come across. Also I could be misremembering, but I think there are some validators that complain about "address inside of address" check, ie area has an address and there's a node or building with same/different address inside of that area. |
|
| 119089979 | There's amenity=school#How_to_map It doesn't explicitly mention the addr: tag, however if you think about this logically, school grounds can encompass multiple buildings with separate addresses. Putting address into school ground area would prevent you from accurately representing addresses.
|
|
| 119089979 | Hello.
|
|
| 119050535 | That's alright, I'll fix that tag for you. ๐
|
|
| 118913275 | But you removed the hotel tag... Please note that these kind of edits are incorrect. It is wrong to intentionally edit the map with wrong info just so that it looks better on the map. Please see this article for more details: osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer |
|
| 119050535 | Hello.
|
|
| 119002167 | Is that intersection actually pedestrian signal but permanently no markings? Looking at Bing satellite it looks like much darker asphalt, so perhaps just brand new pavement but didn't get around to putting down crosswalk paint? Bing streetview imagery shows very worn-out crosswalk paint, but it's from 2014. https://streets.planning.nyc.gov has imagery every 2 years dating back to 2001 and even 1996 and this intersection's configuration didn't change since. |
|
| 119004182 | So what exactly did you map here? Atrium?
|
|
| 119002167 | I'd imagine you could list both with ";", but wouldn't "traffic_signal" imply that it's marked? Other than temporary after repaving, are there any traffic light crosswalks without stripes? |
|
| 119002176 | As far as I remember, that pedestrian pathway's surface is just asphalt and not cement slabs as typical sidewalks. |
|
| 119002167 | "crossing=marked" is for crosswalks with stop sign. crosswalks with traffic lights are "crossing=traffic_signals" |
|
| 119001229 | What is the previous location?
|