StreetSurveyor's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 162349405 | Hi, and welcome to OSM! FYI-this should be a path, not a pedestrian street. |
|
| 162025126 | Please spell out "St" next time. Thanks! |
|
| 162294397 | Please spell out "St" next time. Thanks! |
|
| 160813102 | Hi, I recommend not using MassGIS as a source since it's not always accurate. I've been working on updating Nantucket based on firsthand surveying and also using the Nantucket GIS which doesn't show these track roads named. |
|
| 161433316 | There's definitely no gate. Nice find/add! |
|
| 161207102 | This should not have been set as overall access=private. Please do not make edits unless you have actual knowledge of the area. |
|
| 160561419 | Northbound rather |
|
| 160561419 | Hi, you deleted a sidewalk that I personally surveyed/walked on Rte1S side and changed foot=no. |
|
| 157559909 | If it's registered as a street with a name, it should be listed as such. A footway is not a "street". That reference says "generally wider" but that doesn't mean that's common mapping practice here as it even states: "Scope of this tag may overlap with highway=footway, which is generally used for narrower, often unnamed, pedestrian pathways and sidewalks. The distinction between the two may be region-specific." |
|
| 161005061 | I'll change it to access=destination as this seems the most appropriate for the situation. |
|
| 157559909 | I do not agree. If you click edit on Boardman Pl as it is currently set as a pedestrian street, you will see the access attributes automatically sets automotive=no. Additionally, you will find Boardman Pl listed in the city's GIS:
|
|
| 161005061 | I did not see the sign on my survey just over two months back and a quick glance on StreetView shows the sign says the street name with private way under the name. It doesn't mean that access is restricted. From the Wiki: "Note that it notes access, not ownership. Many privately owned roads are freely accessible for the public without prior permission- in such case access=private would be wrong and it may be access=permissive if the owner can revoke this permission at their own discretion. Privately owned roads can even be -depending on the legislation- public roads in the sense that the owner has a legal duty to allow the public access and is not free to revoke this permission (access=yes)." |
|
| 160815629 | Hello, I've edited Garden Lane back. There's no reason for the road change from residential to service or access=private. Thanks! |
|
| 160253441 | Good catch, but next time can you please spell out the complete name (Avenue)? |
|
| 159684316 | I would think the spot to the right still qualifies…maybe better suited as a pedestrian street now? |
|
| 159684316 | Hi, did you delete Palmer Ave here? |
|
| 158868440 | Although the city map does show this as an actual road. I think your edits were accurate aside from a minor misspelling which I cleaned up. Happy mapping! |
|
| 158868440 | This driveway was tagged/unnamed correctly. It only services 9 Gray Garden East. |
|
| 158985201 | My edit had nothing to do with the imagery. I just used whatever OSM loads. My edit was based on my survey I completed. I don’t recall the road extending here. |
|
| 157235536 | Is this a real road? I went and surveyed it today and there was no street sign. Also, it's not listed on both the GIS or the city's listing of streets. |