OpenStreetMap
phidauex's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 72656307 | Welcome to OSM! If I can offer a tip, even for your first edits, when drawing a sidewalk, make sure to connect it to the road in the same place that a person would cross - that way pedestrian routing software knows how someone would get to the sidewalk.
|
|
| 72656338 | Welcome to OSM! If I can offer a helpful tip for working with buildings, after sketching it as accurately as you can, select the building and hit the "q" key, which will square the building and correct the angles, making for a much better final product.
|
|
| 72533909 | Oops, one more, the houses along Emerson Court need their street name expanded from "Emerson Ct" to "Emerson Court".
|
|
| 72533909 | Hi, I found a few oddballs in this import batch as well, the houses on De Soto Street have the addr:street tag of "St", which is probably from an error in the pre-processing scripts. Also, there are some apartment buildings along Dawson that have the unit number in the street name - it is better to move that to a "ref" tag. Thanks, and keep up the solid imports.
|
|
| 72567981 | Hi, just took a quick skim on this batch, and I noticed that there are still some "North Race Street" addresses in there that should have the "North" removed. As a tip, I like to do all my address corrections in the .osm file after opening it in JOSM, but before doing any merging - that makes it easy to search for instances of "north" and clean them up before the data gets conflated with the main database. Happy importing!
|
|
| 71727934 | Thanks for opening this road up, should the name be changed back to "Escalante Drive"? Or is it really "Future Escalante Drive"? (That would be a cool name for a street). |
|
| 71793695 | Hi, thanks for your improvements to the map. I had a few suggestions. First, for the park, try to be a bit more precise on the boundaries, you can try changing imagery sources from the panel on the right to find one that gives the most detailed view. Second, I think that may not be Aragon Park, but rather Ada Park: http://www.millikenco.gov/town_services/parks_and_lakes/parks.php And finally, for your footpaths, are they all public paths? The one by the park looks like it goes through people's yards. It is OK if they are informal, but we shouldn't direct people to walk through private property. Thanks, and keep mapping!
|
|
| 71313489 | No problem, thanks for working with us on this. If you'd like to make some other improvements, such as ensuring the nearby roads are named and aligned properly, and that nearby amenities like parks, schools and hospitals are correctly mapped, then it would probably benefit both your development and the overall map. |
|
| 71313489 | Hi, this is generally not allowed on OSM - parcel data changes too frequently to be a useful map input. The only things to include are features that are "on the ground", and they should be tagged using the tag rules for that item (such as roadways). Please remove the nodes and ways that define the parcels, and change the names of the roadways you changed to either the real name of the roadway, or blank. The "name" field is only for the proper name of feature. We are happy to have your help on the map, but please do not import other GIS data into the map without a clear plan with community support. Thanks.
|
|
| 71159798 | Large deletions or modifications like this are a good use of the JOSM tool. It is not as user friendly as the default iD editor, but it can work with any size object. If you aren't comfortable using it, you can always hop on the forums, or the OSM US Slack channels (https://osmus-slack.herokuapp.com/) and ask for help, someone is almost always available to give you a hand with a tricky edit. |
|
| 67162834 | The Osmose address checker is helpful for finding address related problems: http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/#zoom=15&lat=39.73055&lon=-104.95536&item=xxxx&level=1%2C2&tags=addr&fixable= I have cleaned up a lot of this area after the recent DRCOG imports, so I may have already fixed this particular house, but do use Osmose to check the area, you'll probably find some similar issues to resolve. |
|
| 67906983 | Hi mspyker, I also see a few overlapping building outlines along Colorado Blvd. I've fixed a number of these on my own DRCOG imports so let me know if you'd like a hand resolving them. |
|
| 70869898 | Hot dog, that is a lot of buildings coming in! Looks like things are running well, but if I could request slightly smaller changesets it would be helpful for reviewers, and in case there is an issue that needs to be resolved, it would be easier for you or others to fix.
|
|
| 70777874 | I'm sorry, belay that - you fixed the tag, not un-fixed it, I read the changelog wrong!
|
|
| 70777874 | I do have a small comment on your changes - for the disc golf course, "landuse=recreation_ground" is more common than "leisure=recreation_ground", so I'd recommend changing back to "landuse=recreation_ground". If you'd like, you can also add the proposed feature "leisure=disc_golf_course". It hasn't been formally adopted, but is in fairly wide use in CO, and doesn't conflict with other tags, so is a safe add.
|
|
| 70777874 | Goodbye, Hughes Stadium!
|
|
| 70822970 | Hi, thanks for all your building additions! They will look better if you square them after drawing - it is the "q" shortcut in the iD editor.
|
|
| 70207721 | Hi, thanks for your update to the map - everything looks good. Since you requested a review, I have two small suggestions for improvement - on the Eby Creek addition, the Eagle River way accidentally got joined with a node to the Eby Creek Road bridge - usually these should only have a joining node if they are physically connected. In this case, you can right click on the joined node in iD, and select "Disconnect" to separate the node. Second, on Beard Creek Trail, you'll notice a tag called "tiger:reviewed=no" which means no human has reviewed the road segment since it was originally imported. Since you took the time to review the road segment, and correct the geometry, you can remove the tiger:reviewed tag to indicate that you've taken care of it. Thanks, and happy mapping.
|
|
| 69158965 | Hi Nullsoftx, thanks for improving the map. In rural areas like this the difference between "unclassified" and "tertiary" can be a bit blurry. We deal with this a lot in mapping Colorado as well, for the same reasons. I'd recommend reading over the wiki page for highway=tertiary: highway=tertiary The key takeaway of it, from my perspective, is that a tertiary road is one that you use to get between local destinations, or to get you over to a through highway. Tertiary roads can certainly be gravel or paved, it has more to do with how they are used. If you were just dropped in the middle of nowhere out there, you'd probably get onto an unclassified road first, then a tertiary, then connect to a secondary or primary. If a road doesn't connect two different places, it should probably be "unclassified". If it connects two places, but not much else, then maybe tertiary, and then secondary and primary have more clear definitions regarding how they are used as real through highways. And as mentioned, take a look at the road naming conventions - "167TH RD" should be "167th Road" - it is easier for a computer to abbreviate than to un-abbreviate, so we give the full name when editing. Enjoy, and thanks for continuing to work on the map, particularly in rural areas that need the help. |
|
| 55878528 | Hi, I reverted your addition of this park to the map, since it isn't really a park. Please remember that while Pokemon Go uses this map data, so do millions of other people around the world for navigation, emergency response, city planning, etc. Please only add things to the map that are real and verifiable. Many Pokemon Go players do contribute useful information to the map - read here for some tips on how to do so: osm.wiki/Tips_for_new_(Pokemon_Go)_mappers |