OpenStreetMap
phidauex's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 73287313 | Hi, this import block also pulled in a lot of "North" street addresses, which can be resolved as mentioned in my other comment. Let me know if you need help. |
|
| 73226838 | Hi, this import block pulled in a lot of addresses with the "North" prefix still attached. Can you go in and fix? A good way to do it is to use JOSM's search functionality to find all buildings with, say, "North Inca Street" as the street, select them all, and change the whole selection to "Inca Street". Thanks - Sam |
|
| 74735102 | Hi Van, I've done you a solid and corrected most of the geometry and tagging errors, doing my best to preserve history, and the best traced building regardless of source. I'd encourage you to go back through the list of issues pointed out above to make sure I got them all, and correct any others. Feel free to message me if you are having a hard time with any fixes, some can be tricky. I've learned a lot about the guts of OSM by working through issues of these types. Going forward, "when in doubt, don't import" is a good rule for any building that is conflicting with something already in the database. In particular, I'd leave all multi-part buildings aside for now. The plan is to address them in a separate import once some better scripts have been developed to make them OSM compliant. Others - Thanks for pointing out the issues, I'm not an import organizer, but I have tried to help out quite a bit. The import is generally good quality (clean traces and good addresses), however, as one of the largest building imports in the country, so there are bound to be some problems. Feel free to visit the import wiki and github issues page to note challenges you are seeing. I spent a few hours last weekend re-writing a lot of the documentation to provide specific guidance for many of these situations to importers. My pull request hasn't been processed yet, but hopefully the new documentation will help new importers learn from some of these situations. |
|
| 74735102 | Ok, I see the problem, those buildings are of type "building=foundation/ruin", probably because they were traced while the development was still in construction, which is why they have a height of zero. They shouldn't have been imported that way. I'll update the documentation for the situation. |
|
| 74735102 | FYI, I just pushed a lot of updates to the workflow documentation for the DRCOG import which should help inform importers of some of these potential issues and how to correct them before importing. The DRCOG data is pretty clean, but no dataset is perfect. These height=0 buildings are a new one for me. |
|
| 74417547 | Hi, welcome to OSM! About the edit to your house, the only suggestion I have is that "height" tags are in meters, so if you meant 18 feet, you probably want something more like "5.5" for the height.
|
|
| 73814502 | Thanks for updating! The tag system is extensive, flexible, and indeed, frustrating. ;) There is a bit of an art to which tag combination is most appropriate for a feature. One thing that can help is to join the OSM US Slack Channel: https://osmus-slack.herokuapp.com/ where you can pop in and ask questions, or get another set of eyes on an issue. Folks there are quite experienced and helpful. The /r/OpenStreetMap reddit can also be a good place to ask for recommendations. Happy Mapping!
|
|
| 73814133 | Hi! One more tip - when drawing buildings, don't forget to use the "q" shortcut to square up the corners of your building after sketching them - it makes for a much cleaner final product.
|
|
| 73814502 | Hi, welcome to OSM! Thanks for your additions to Greeley. For the addition of the wildlife sanctuary, while "zoo=wildlife_park" is close, I think "leisure=nature_reserve" may be a more appropriate tag. Zoo tags, even for wildlife parks, tend to imply a secured and managed environment, usually with a defined entrance and exit, and fees or tickets needed. For a park that is defined for protection of native species, nature_reserve does a bit better job. Thanks!
|
|
| 73268816 | Nice work on the reservoir cleanups! Thanks!
|
|
| 72879760 | It would almost certainly be built along the same line (they aren't likely to change the right-of-way and access easements for PG&E), however, the poles are probably not in the same position - if the originals were destroyed then they will redesign the line with whatever current pole-type and sag calculations are in effect. |
|
| 72942588 | Hi, are you drawing golf courses and then deleting them? If so, we would prefer that you not do that - all changes to the map are retained in the history, and having false additions made and removed makes it hard to review the map. The maps are used by real people for real applications, so false data is not allowed in the database.
|
|
| 72960550 | Hi, is this really a golf course? I don't see any evidence of construction on the imagery - what is the source?
|
|
| 72701146 | Thanks! Happy mapping! |
|
| 72701179 | Hi! Same note on this addition - the "name" tag is only for the actual name of the object, not a description. In this case you can remove the "name" field entirely. The address should be part of the building's tags, not the road's tags. Thanks for updating and contributing to OSM!
|
|
| 72701146 | Hi, another brief note - the "name" tag is only for the formal name of a feature, not just a description. In this case, I doubt the driveway is actually called "E Parker Rd Driveway", so you should probably just delete the "name" tag completely (it isn't needed in most cases - the tags describe the object). Thanks!
|
|
| 72701335 | Hi, thanks for your contributions to OSM! A tip for creating good buildings is to use the "q" shortcut in the iD editor to "square" your building after drawing it - it tightens up your angles and makes a much more professional final product. Please square up the buildings you've added so far. Thanks!
|
|
| 72685546 | Hi, thanks for updating the tags on your points, you are almost there. :) Tags describe what something is, and put it into a category - this is what makes the map more than just a drawing, it allows software to search the map database and make decisions. So for your viewpoints, you need to tell the MAP what the viewpoint is - you do that with the tag "tourism = viewpoint". The name tag is only for the formal name of something, like what would be on a sign. It is likely these viewpoints don't have a formal name, so no name tag is needed. When using the iD editor, instead of just making points and naming them, use the sidebar on the left to search for different types of objects, such as "viewpoint", then the iD editor will put the right tags in for you - these presets are important for detailed editing because there are thousands of tags.
|
|
| 72619014 | Hi, I noticed a few more points you added as "leisure=park", which is only for whole parks, not small features of parks. Use the sidebar in the iD editor to search for better descriptions of the things you've added, such as viewpoints, guideposts, etc. Also, check for duplicates, for instance, this particular point for "Park area" is already mapped as "Eastlake Shores Park", so it can be deleted. Thanks for taking the time to correct your edits, this is a production database and good, clean data is essential for the map to work well.
|
|
| 72619224 | Hi, welcome to OSM! The site you added here could use a few tweaks. First, "leisure=park" is for whole urban parks, in this case, "tourism=viewpoint" is for a single viewing area. Second, the "name" field is only for the formal name of something, not the description of what it is. In this case, unless the viewpoint has a formal name, you can simply delete the name tag. Thanks!
|