OpenStreetMap
mvexel's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 10000000 | Came here to look back at old milestones too :D |
|
| 7293410 | There's one node in here that has no name but has shop=supermarket and amenity=university.. was that a mistake? The node is node/1154257958 |
|
| 92498789 | Interesting, I had no idea! After discussing on Slack I came to the conclusion that this Challenge needs Local Knowledge in many places, so I am setting the flag to make it so. Here it is in case you want to work on it, but it won't show up in MapRoulette search any longer: https://maproulette.org/browse/challenges/14634 |
|
| 90841357 | Hi, welcome to OSM and thanks for contributing! It looks like you were hoping to add a private apartment. The tag `tourism=apartment` is for AirBnB and similar vacation rentals. It would be sufficient to add the building the apartment is in, and add the `building=apartments` tag to it. Unless the individual apartment has a publicly known name, it shouldn't have a name in OSM.
|
|
| 79094381 | Also, please try to keep your changesets smaller, so they are easier to audit for someone who is interested in reviewing your changes. Thanks. (Case in point, in this changeset you modified the center point for the state of Utah and I would be interested to know why, and the actual change you made.) |
|
| 71121092 | Hi, since this canal is (completely?) underground and hard if not impossible to verify with on-the-ground survey or aerials, I am not convinced it belongs in OSM. Do you feel strongly about having it? Any particular reason for adding it? |
|
| 77570562 | Hi, could you please keep your changesets limited to a smaller number of edits? That makes them easier to verify. Thank you. |
|
| 78544216 | Yes, that is a mistake. I apologize. I created a MapRoulette challenge to review all Burger King restaurants and I was testing it. I made a mistake of including the nodes of each Burger King building as Tasks. I will revert it, review the other test tasks I'd submitted, and refresh the challenge to correct it. Thanks for pointing it out! |
|
| 74441195 | Hi, please take care to connect existing sidewalks so that they don't cross service roads. Thanks! |
|
| 74270490 | Ganesh -- source=Digital Globe is too generic to be useful. The entire OSM community has access to DG / Maxar imagery. As Kevin said, it would be useful to define some metadata that indicates that this is newer / private imagery that the general community does not (yet) has access to. Lacking that, for now, can you add a changeset tag like "note":"imagery used is more recent than what's publicly available" or something like that? |
|
| 74270490 | I see, so this is imagery that is not available to regular OSM mappers. Please understand that this makes it hard for the community to check your edits. It would help if you could be very specific in attributing your sources in the changeset comments, so the community at least is aware that you have access to aerials that they don't. Could you do that in the future, please? |
|
| 74270490 | This is what I see with publicly available imagery: * [Maxar Premium](https://cloud.rtijn.org/s/mZ6S6Yr9pK8ePHG)
None of these images show the road as completed. My point is, unless you have some other source like on-the-ground knowledge or some proxy thereof that is publicly available (GPS traces, Mapillary, OSC) these road should be marked as construction. So I think I am missing your reference to what imagery you are using, because I would like to use the same to update the map :) |
|
| 74323290 | Oh also, you removed the node for the Sandy Library, and the building containing that node does not have amenity=library, so according to OSM there was no longer a library there. I added amenity=library back to the building feature, but if this is incorrect, feel free to delete it again (i.e. if this is no longer a library)
|
|
| 74323290 | Hey there, welcome to OSM! A couple of comments on your edits if I may,
|
|
| 74270490 | I looked at both regular and Maxar Premium but neither shows the roads as completed. Could you please share a screenshot that shows the roads are completed and accessible to the public? |
|
| 74270490 | Hi, Maxar Standard imagery does not show these roads as completed yet, if you have another source please specify it in the changeset tags, or mark the road as construction. Thanks. |
|
| 73984428 | Yea, those are all good points (pun intended) I don't feel strongly one way or the other, lately I have resorted more to mapping POI as separate nodes, and I may even have copied some POI info from a building to a node and deleted it from the building, but I realize that is just me trying to impose my mapping style on other people for no good reason..
|
|
| 73958118 | Welcome to OSM and thanks for your contributions to the map in Utah!
|
|
| 73984428 | Adding the POI tags to the building outline instead of keeping a separate node inside the building is okay, but not undisputed. If there's multiple POI inside one building, this tagging style doesn't work. I'm not saying you shouldn't do it this way, I just wanted to make sure you're aware of discussion around this.
|
|
| 73996405 | When you make a way into a dual-carriageway, please don't forget to adjust the lane count.
|