Warin61's Comments

Changeset	When	Comment
103567116	almost 5 years ago	Changes made in Greenland have been at least partially reverted. Suggest your changeset comments reflect what you are doing, and where you are doing it. Where you change something that has a source tag .. either remove the source tag or change it to reflect the source. Would not the coastline (Greenland) be after the ice flow?
103940019	almost 5 years ago	No changeset comment. Please read osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments.
103896568	almost 5 years ago	Hi, The multipolygon relation/2833302 is now in error following this changeset. See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=174.73599&lat=-39.11920&zoom=9
103874921	almost 5 years ago	Hi, No need to excluded parks, schools, etc from residential landuse areas.
103556913	almost 5 years ago	No need for apologies. Id editor is not the best if your dealing with boundaries. Actually there is no 'great editor for boundaries'! Just something to try and be aware of. I do try to alert people when I have 'corrected' their work in case my 'correction' damages their entries.
103556913	almost 5 years ago	Hi, Welcome to OSM. Unfortunately this changeset broke the relations for; Mt Maurice Reg Res. Forester Banca Winnaleah I have attempted a partial reversion of this changeset to restore these relations. This may have some effect on the data you have entered.
103397661	almost 5 years ago	I go for simpler, much easier to understand. I have also separated the trees from the reserve, again - simpler.
103397661	almost 5 years ago	Hi, Welcome to OSM! Previous mappers have not mapped the smaller middle bit near the pier as part of the reserve. Is it part of the reserve? I have made the relation into a simple single closed way, this includes the middle bit. And I have separated the tree areas from the nature reserve.
103133583	almost 5 years ago	Oh, you could combine the outer ways into one way and remove the relation (if there are no inners). Exception: if there are over 2,000 nodes, then make it as serparate ways. Multipolygon relations should also have less than 300 members... sometimes these exceptions need to be broken, but in general...
103133583	almost 5 years ago	Segments cannot be shared when they are members of the same multipolygon relation. Segments can be shared ... between; 2 (or more) separate ways 2 separate multiplication relations ------------------- Do you mean tags or names? If things are common to the outer ways of a multipolygon relation then those things should be on/in hte relation. Only put things that are different between the outer ways on the outer ways.
103360251	almost 5 years ago	Your changeset comments .. are not good. What have you been trying to do? Describe that. Read osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments --------------------------- I read you have been adding 'Roman Road' ... in places where it no longer exists? If so you might add that to Open Historical Map... where historical things are welcome. Unfortunately I could not find these easily from you changeset comments.
103133583	almost 5 years ago	Same problem on relation Andersons Inlet (12596998, v1) - shared segments. Also the 'water=yes;river' cannot be both yes and river .. chose one or the other.
103134224	almost 5 years ago	These roads are of a lower level than West Parade... so they should remain as 'unclassified'. See the DCS Base Map for more comparison of road classifications.
103047491	almost 5 years ago	It is fine, I only picked it up are there was an error in the forming of the relation - that I fixed. I just wanted to warn you of that change I made so you don't think it just 'disappeared'. The DCS Base Map has wetlands in it too - handy so you can see that bit of the river bank is 'swampy' before hand. Myself - I add data to OSM well before a trip so the information I can get is in OSM and rendered (OSMand does a monthly update .. so 2 months before I should finish my OSM edits). After the trip I can add any details I want. As far as 'overseeing you edits' .. ha. Too much to do, like getting ready for my next trip. Enjoy yours.
103133583	almost 5 years ago	A simple area ... use a closed way. Separate areas that share segments?; Use a simple way that includes all and tag that with the common information to all the included things. Then a way on each included thing this the tags that are different from the common tags. Or possibly a site relation? However for this situation; Brake the each way into 2 ways at the place where the segments are shared. You now have 4 ways .. 2 of the ways over lap one another. Delete these overlapping ways. You now have 2 ways that connect at node, that do not overlap and form a continuous loop. These should still be in the relation and should be ok.
101755031	almost 5 years ago	Hi, Road segment does not link in with the OSM data on the FRV Boundary .. deleted from the relation.
103097827	almost 5 years ago	Hi Multipologon relation outer ways cannot share segments. See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=174.81242&lat=-41.23216&zoom=18
103133583	almost 5 years ago	Hi, Relation Clybucca Creek (12596997) is redundant as the member ways already contain the tags of the relation. I have deleted this relation.
103156323	almost 5 years ago	HI, Problem with way/876017444 see https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=151.68127&lat=-30.52629&zoom=18
103047491	almost 5 years ago	The relation 'Clybucca Creek' has part of the Maclay Rv, Anderson Inlet, Spencers Ck, Maclay Arm ... so I have deleted the name from the relation. The DCS Base Map is better detailed than the topo map.