qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 151824643 | Hi, good detailing, but please don't remove ways inside parking lots. It allows to use routing software. |
|
| 151520379 | Nice. If you're in the area, could you please check what kind of sign/road marking is here at the beginning of the "Peedu kergliiklustee"? The name suggests that bicycles should be allowed there, but access tags on it are confusing with only foot=designated |
|
| 151368777 | Yes, it's subjective. There is a oneway:bicycle=no, to account for direction, but I've noticed that wiki suggests using cycleway:right:oneway=no which is probably not supported by many apps. So, to avoid confusion, maybe it's better as a separate way. |
|
| 151368777 | Hi, cycleway:right=track was put in with a goal to show that it's directly adjacent to the carriageway and not protected from the cars. I'm not really against something mapped your way, but in OSM it's better not to break things for each other or we'll have edit wars. But there is an actual problem here too. You shouldn't have added bicycle=use_sidepath. Access tags are about the law and there is nothing prohibiting cyclists from using the carriageway (sõidutee). In Estonia, bicycle=use_sidepath is not applicable, please remove it. |
|
| 148138779 | Hi, please don't change bicycle-pedestrian paths to footways. More information on mapping cycling infrastructure:
|
|
| 150947171 | Hi, I've removed the duplicate building you've created. |
|
| 150915111 | Hi and welcome! You don't have to add names to everything. Paths usually don't have names. Mostly, we try to keep things more or less in sync with Maa-amet (land board) and road registry in Estonia. With exceptions when there are signs on the ground which specify the name of a path or a forest path having a distinct name from being a known trail for training or being advertised with such name. I guess Peedu kergliiklustee along the tracks nearby is one of such cases. Consider removing Tuletõrje and Oja names from paths. |
|
| 116075221 | Yes, you can remove them |
|
| 116075221 | Hi, you can check address history in Maa-amet
it does show that previously it had a lot of addresses Harju maakond, Tallinn, Lasnamäe linnaosa, Kesk-Sõjamäe tn 10a // Lennujaama tee 4 // 6 // 10 // 11 // 12 // 14 // Tartu mnt 101 // 103 // Väike-Sõjamäe tn 1a // 2 // 12 // 12a but now it's just
|
|
| 148055008 | Hi, it makes little sense to have these two
|
|
| 150656832 | Hi, when using conditional tags, you should specify the default value too, so that the data consumers would know what it is when the condition does not apply. In this case
you may also want to reverse this condition so that data consumers who don't know about conditional suffixes would parse just access=yes. |
|
| 150615188 | Hi,
|
|
| 139838574 | osm.org/edit#map=20/59.36898/24.64031
If cycling is forbidden, then it's not only at barriers. If it's just hard, but not forbidden, then barrier by itself is enough, not need for access tags on it. |
|
| 149363650 | Hi and welcome, you probably wanted to use ditches instead of canals |
|
| 142226833 | There is no need to add all those access tags to footways. They allow only pedestrians by default. I'll remove them so that they don't confuse osm standard renderer |
|
| 149183674 | Hi, it's better to tag dirt roads as paths. Some data consumers don't read the surface tag. It also allows bicycle routing on these paths. |
|
| 149315961 | I'm really surprised you do this in iD. JOSM has some plugins to display lanes in the editor and also edit them not as a text. |
|
| 149029808 | There are actually 11 spaces, fixed it. |
|
| 148746552 | Hi,
|
|
| 148387820 | Hi, it's better to use highway=path or highway=cycleway when it's bicycle=designated (then need foot=designated too). footways are usually for pedestrians only |