OpenStreetMap
pitscheplatsch's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 176044070 | Hallo, willkommen bei OSM. Die hier von dir vorgenommenen Änderungen waren nur zum Testen? Falls ja, kannst du es bitte wieder in den ursprünglichen Zustand zurückversetzen? Danke und Grüße |
|
| 176043531 | Hallo, willkommen bei OSM. Die hier von dir vorgenommenen Änderungen waren nur zum Testen? Falls ja, kannst du es bitte wieder in den ursprünglichen Zustand zurückversetzen? Danke und Grüße |
|
| 176043389 | Hallo, willkommen bei OSM. Die hier von dir vorgenommenen Änderungen waren nur zum Testen? Falls ja, kannst du es bitte wieder in den ursprünglichen Zustand zurückversetzen? Danke und Grüße |
|
| 176043287 | Hallo, willkommen bei OSM. Die hier von dir vorgenommenen Änderungen waren nur zum Testen? Falls ja, kannst du es bitte wieder in den ursprünglichen Zustand zurückversetzen? Danke und Grüße |
|
| 176084689 | Bonjour, merci pour votre réponse. D’après l’historique du changeset, le nœud concerné a bien été déplacé par vous (visible dans la version associée à votre nom d’utilisateur dans ce changeset node/286680630/history/5). C’est précisément à cela que fait référence le commentaire du bot : même le déplacement d’un seul nœud peut créer des croisements involontaires.
Merci beaucoup et cordialement (Auto-translation)
Hello, thanks for your reply. According to the history, the node in question was moved by you (visible in the version associated with your username in this changeset, see node/286680630/history/5). This is exactly what the bot comment refers to: even moving a single node can unintentionally create crossings. Could you please take another look at the mentioned location and correct it if necessary? Thank you and best regards |
|
| 176143223 | In this case, it seems the reported issues are false positives. The geometries were not changed in a way that would introduce crossings, and the tagging adjustments did not create any new conflicts. I have checked the mentioned elements and can confirm that the current configuration is valid. Sorry for the inconvenience, and thanks again for your map edits. Regards,
|
|
| 176130322 | This comment was generated by my bot. The description appears to be factual and non-promotional, so this is a false positive. Apologies for the inconvenience. |
|
| 176025578 | And also fixed by changeset/176085011 |
|
| 176025578 | Fixed by changeset/176081425 |
|
| 176019397 | Should be corrected by changeset/176058904 |
|
| 176003410 | Corrected by changeset/176045158 |
|
| 176008396 | Corrected by changeset/176040413 |
|
| 176013479 | Corrected by changeset/176058904 |
|
| 176018217 | Corrected by changeset/176018326 |
|
| 176019705 | Should be corrected by changeset/176065568 Thanks, SenteInterdite |
|
| 175166346 | Thanks for your reply. It already has been changed. |
|
| 176028570 | In this case, it seems the reported issues are false positives. The geometries were not changed in a way that would introduce crossings, and the tagging adjustments did not create any new conflicts. I have checked the mentioned elements and can confirm that the current configuration is valid. Sorry for the inconvenience, and thanks again for your map edits. Regards,
|
|
| 175995210 | Danke, bartgron 👍 |
|
| 175996263 | Danke, bartgron 👍 |
|
| 175839630 | 🔴 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the original contributor or remaining promotional text in description tags by changeset/176016763 |