pitscheplatsch's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 179730130 | #KeepTheHistory Hi, thanks for your contribution! Same again, I noticed you deleted and redrew some features instead of editing the existing ones. In OpenStreetMap, it’s usually better to adjust the geometry of existing objects rather than replacing them completely. This way we keep the history, preserve any important tags, and avoid breaking relations like routes or boundaries. Redrawing can accidentally remove valuable details and make it harder for others to track changes. For future edits, please try to move or reshape the existing nodes instead of deleting them, this helps maintain OSM’s data quality and history. Best regards. |
|
| 179729850 | #KeepTheHistory Hi, thanks for your contribution! Same again, I noticed you deleted and redrew some features instead of editing the existing ones. In OpenStreetMap, it’s usually better to adjust the geometry of existing objects rather than replacing them completely. This way we keep the history, preserve any important tags, and avoid breaking relations like routes or boundaries. Redrawing can accidentally remove valuable details and make it harder for others to track changes. For future edits, please try to move or reshape the existing nodes instead of deleting them, this helps maintain OSM’s data quality and history. Best regards. |
|
| 179729613 | #KeepTheHistory Hi, thanks for your contribution! Same again, I noticed you deleted and redrew some features instead of editing the existing ones. In OpenStreetMap, it’s usually better to adjust the geometry of existing objects rather than replacing them completely. This way we keep the history, preserve any important tags, and avoid breaking relations like routes or boundaries. Redrawing can accidentally remove valuable details and make it harder for others to track changes. For future edits, please try to move or reshape the existing nodes instead of deleting them, this helps maintain OSM’s data quality and history. Best regards. |
|
| 179729451 | #KeepTheHistory Hi, thanks for your contribution! Same again, I noticed you deleted and redrew some features instead of editing the existing ones. In OpenStreetMap, it’s usually better to adjust the geometry of existing objects rather than replacing them completely. This way we keep the history, preserve any important tags, and avoid breaking relations like routes or boundaries. Redrawing can accidentally remove valuable details and make it harder for others to track changes. For future edits, please try to move or reshape the existing nodes instead of deleting them, this helps maintain OSM’s data quality and history. Best regards. |
|
| 179730698 | #KeepTheHistory Hi, thanks for your contribution! Same again, I noticed you deleted and redrew some features instead of editing the existing ones. In OpenStreetMap, it’s usually better to adjust the geometry of existing objects rather than replacing them completely. This way we keep the history, preserve any important tags, and avoid breaking relations like routes or boundaries. Redrawing can accidentally remove valuable details and make it harder for others to track changes. For future edits, please try to move or reshape the existing nodes instead of deleting them, this helps maintain OSM’s data quality and history. Thanks again for helping improve the map. Best regards. |
|
| 179729343 | #KeepTheHistory Hi, thanks for your contribution! I noticed you deleted and redrew some features instead of editing the existing ones. In OpenStreetMap, it’s usually better to adjust the geometry of existing objects rather than replacing them completely. This way we keep the history, preserve any important tags, and avoid breaking relations like routes or boundaries. Redrawing can accidentally remove valuable details and make it harder for others to track changes. For future edits, please try to move or reshape the existing nodes instead of deleting them, this helps maintain OSM’s data quality and history. Best regards. |
|
| 179222112 | Hello, Thank you for your reply. A more neutral and factual version of your text has already been provided in the first comment above. Additionally, the relation you added does not appear to be correct. Could you please remove it? Best regards. |