OpenStreetMap
ezekielf's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 127060671 | Why did you delete the recreation ground another mapper added here? The recreation fields near schools are often mapped this way here in Vermont.
|
|
| 127061565 | Hi, you replaced a school node with an area here, but you only preserved the amenity, and name tags, deleting the rest. Please do not do this. There was useful information in those tags, especially the address information.
|
|
| 127048317 | Hi, thanks for adding the addresses of these schools. However, combining the areas for Colchester Middle School and Malletts Bay School into one area named Colchester Schools is not correct. These are two separate schools so the previous modeling was better. |
|
| 123013394 | Hi, thanks for the information that this trail is not public. However, the preferred approach for non-public trails (and other features) is to add the tag access=private. This means the general public is not allowed and map renderings should treat it accordingly. I've reverted the deletion and applied this tagging.
|
|
| 122979709 | Since I got no response, I've gone ahead and reverted the name back to "Vermont Route 108 South". Feel free to reach out if you want to discuss. |
|
| 122979709 | Hi dchiles,
|
|
| 122395981 | Thanks for updating this. Since its not clear if this an extended, but still temporary, closure or if it is permanent, I restored the deleted way but changed the tag to disused:route=ferry. This way it won't show up on maps, but it can easily be re-activated if starts operating again in the next couple years. |
|
| 119922514 | Hi, JoshBDPW113,
It appears you are adding access=private to a lot of driveways and privately maintained roads. I just wanted to give you a heads up that this is likely not correct usage of the tag in most cases. On its own, a sign reading simply "private" or "PVT" is not enough to indicate access=private, only ownership=private. A more strongly worded sign such as "keep out", "no trespassing", or a physical gate indicates access=private as well. It's important to not overuse access=private because it is a very strong restriction and routing engines will completely avoid all roads marked as such. It's generally not necessary to add access tags to driveways and privately maintained roads, but if you feel it's important, access=destination or access=delivery may be appropriate. Another appropriate tag is ownership=private. |
|
| 118296643 | I've reverted this for you: changeset/118676080
|
|
| 118296643 | Hi Steve, despite your comment stating that these edits should not be integrated into OSM, you succeeded in doing exactly that. Edits are saved directly into OSM as soon as you click the save button. Please revert the changes you've made if they don't represetnt real world features.
|
|
| 117664623 | There's not need to cut stuff out of a baseball field to make it look the way you want. You can just draw the sand parts on top like I've just done with this one: way/220484121 |
|
| 117664623 | 1. Don't call people "sir douchebaggery"
|
|
| 117628622 | Although the exact line where forest/woods begins is certainly somewhat subjective, every single a square foot of land covered by tree canopy is not forest/woods. Three trees in a park is not a forest. This would be more accurately mapped as thee individual tree nodes than as a tiny forest/woods area shaped exactly like the tree crowns. Listening to feedback from other mappers is important in this collaborative project. Dismissing it and saying that it doesn't matter is not really acceptable. Please consider joining the wider US mapping community on Slack and the #local-washington-state channel there.
|
|
| 116978760 | Hi bkuker,
|
|
| 116088255 | I've also been following this thread without commenting in hopes of California mappers working things out among themselves. Since that clearly isn't happening I guess I'll pile on. I support a connected trunk network and I haven't found Adamant1's arguments for why a trunk route should stop at the edge of town convincing at all. |
|
| 115360162 | Don't worry @G1asshouse, everyone on Slack agrees with you that this should get reverted. It's been submitted to the DWG. |
|
| 115482846 | Thank you, OneC. Your efforts are much appreciated! |
|
| 115482846 | Thank you for reviewing. Please note that on its own, a sign reading simply "private" or "PVT" does not indicate access=private, only ownership=private. A more strongly worded sign such as "keep out", "no trespassing", or a physical gate indicates access=private. It's important to not overuse access=private because it is a very strong restriction and routing engines will completely avoid all roads marked as such. If you must apply an access value to road signed as "private" or "PVT", access=destination or access=delivery may be appropriate. |
|
| 115482846 | Hi, OneC. It appears you are adding access=private to a lot of driveways and privately maintained roads. This is not correct unless these driveways all have "no trespassing", "keep out", or similar signs posted. To specify that a road or driveway is privately owned and maintained, the proper tag is ownership=private. Thanks for contributing to OSM in VT, and please join the OSM US Slack where we have a #local-vermont channel.
|
|
| 115183189 | Thanks for updating the map here. I feel like there must be a good story behind this "sad experience". What happened!? |