Changeset: 28799534
osmi routing view fixes
Closed by ratrun
Tags
created_by | JOSM/1.5 (7995 de) |
---|---|
source | bing |
Discussion
-
Comment from zool
You're contributing some changesets with a lot of deletions to tagged ways, and they stretch right across Europe. There's too much going on in each changeset to easily explore the consequences, so it would be good to have a clear description of what you are changing and why, rather than the repeated "osmi routing view fixes".
I take it that osmi refers to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Inspector/Views/Routing but is deletion of data necessary in these cases? It would be good to hear more in the comments or discussions about what motivates these changes.
-
Comment from ratrun
Yes. OSMI is exactly the tool for which you provided the documentation link above.
The wiki already explains what I'm doing and also includes an answer to your question about deletions in the changes-sets. This is what the wiki says about deletion. It is located in the "What you can do with this view to improve OSM data" section there and says: "Go through the duplicate ways and fix those cases. Sometimes whole ways overlap, sometimes only parts. Look at the tags of both ways, consolidate them and then remove one of the ways."
Here is one example, which is not yet fixed:
Way
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/178257938
was there first. Then user mcheckimport created an overlapping duplicate with tags for a cycleway:https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/275193195
This is a very frequent obvious error.
One possibility to fix it, would be to create a relation for the cycleway, put the first way (ID=178257938) into this new relation and delete the way with way ID 275193195. By doing so also every duplicated node gets deleted.
Deletion of nodes also automatically happens in case that one merges two close nodes, which were not properly connected.
My changesets cover such a big areas now, because the most prominent errors classified as "Unconnected major<1m distance" are getting rare and if I fix some of those, the whole changeset gets visible in a big area. I can't do anything about this. It is an issue of the OSM changeset view as it does not show only the changes within the active bounding box, but rather within the bounding box of the changeset.
If I don't forget I'll try to commit and comment those “Unconnected major” fixes separately in the future. These changesets will still cover a big area, but contain fewer changes.
I hope that this answers your concerns.
-
Comment from tyr_asd
Why don't you simply save each individual OSMI fix in an individual changeset?
-
Comment from ratrun
I don't do this because it spams the displayed amount of changset if one fixes bugs in small areas with many problems. This is the usual case. Every single upload would generate a small changeset, all containing the same comment. My experience is that it is good to perform multiple uploads and not just one big one in order to reduce the probability of getting a conflict in case that somebody else is fixing concurrently.
-
Comment from SomeoneElse
Actually, it would be better if each small change didn't "all contain the same comment". For example, rather than simply "osmi routing view fixes" the one that replaced http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/304192905/history with http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2971905214 could say something like "Kastellbell: replaced pedestrian crossing drawn across the road but not joining it with crossing node on the road itself". That way it's easy for local mappers to see exactly what has changed and why (and it also helps in cases such as this for experienced mappers to contact the previous mapper and explain politely why "a footway crossing a road but not joining it" is not a good representation of a pedestrian crossing - that way they'd know for the next time they needed to map one.
-
Comment from ratrun
This is impractial. Connecting two nodes is a matter of 1 second, writing the comments would take at least 40 seconds. If you are working on such granuarity, then congratulations from me, but I won't do that.
-
Comment from SomeoneElse
OpenStreetMap is a community - together we benefit from all the work that all other mappers have done. If a new mapper doesn't know that they're "doing it wrong" simply because no-one has been bothered to tell them, then they'll continue to do so, because they don't know any better, and there'll be more things that need correcting in the future. If people do take the small amount of time needed to communicate effectively (by e.g. writing meaningful changeset comments) then they'll get things right next time. There's a saying "Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime".
- Grabenäcker (327524455), v3
- 327791250, v1
- 327791251, v1
- 327791252, v1
- 327791253, v1
- 327791254, v1
- 327791255, v1
- Am Fäßlesgrund (24831895), v10
- Dickenhardtstraße (232365874), v4
- Dickenhardt (327524452), v2
- Dickenhardt (276891274), v5
- Ehrlichstraße (25050141), v6
- Eichendorffstraße (232365875), v5
- Eichendorffstraße (25049672), v6
- Grabenäckerstraße (275527381), v13
- Grabenäckerstraße (275787929), v7
- Grabenäckerstraße (275787930), v8
- Grabenäckerstraße (292733226), v3
- Grabenäckerstraße (131304197), v12
- Grabenäcker (327524455), v2
Relations (2)
- 3346019558, v1
- 3346019559, v1
- 3346019560, v1
- 3346019561, v1
- 3346019562, v1
- 3346019563, v1
- 3346019564, v1
- 3346019565, v1
- 3346019566, v1
- 3346019567, v1
- 1445386090, v5
- 2670745687, v2
- 275403763, v4
- 2804599708, v4
- 299278709, v8
- 3343139966, v2
- 410757346, v5
- 567970721, v3
1819291269, v32020297447, v2
Welcome to OpenStreetMap!
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.
Hosting is supported by Fastly, OSMF corporate members, and other partners.
https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |