Changeset: 76060793
change some CT towns from admin level 7 to 8
Closed by JamesChevalier
Tags
changesets_count | 3 |
---|---|
created_by | iD 2.15.5 |
host | https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit |
ideditor:walkthrough_progress | welcome;navigation;point |
ideditor:walkthrough_started | yes |
imagery_used | Bing aerial imagery |
locale | en-US |
review_requested | yes |
Discussion
-
Comment from user_5359
Welcome to OSM! Please save your work before you change the area.
-
Comment from JamesChevalier
Apologies, but I don't know what you mean by "before you change the area."
-
Comment from freebeer
try to take a look at https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=76060793
you have made eight changes, in areas that span a wide area. if the above link worked, i would point to you the standalone items too far from any others which should have been saved to a separate changeset so as not to create such a large area as you see to the right, spanning several provinces and completely engulfing four or five states.
by saving each independent changeset by itself, you will have up to eight much smaller areas that do not span across hundreds of kilometres where there were no changes, yet people monitoring areas within are notified of this edit even when totally unaffected.
-
Comment from freebeer
to be more specific, now that i've looked at this small number of changes, while seven of them are clearly in connecticut as your changeset description claims, you may wish to have a look at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7825323 , a glastonbury located near edmonton in alberta, canada.
i have an uneasy feeling you probably intended this edit elsewhere. like in the area of https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/158813072 , for which i am failing to find an obvious administrative boundary relation.
-
Comment from JamesChevalier
Thank you! I understand that I should be making edits as localized as possible, now.
I also see that I _did_ change the wrong Glastonbury. I have since changed that back to the admin level 7 that it was before I "helped". :-)
-
Comment from freebeer
no worries -- had your edit gone as planned, there would have been no problems with eight CT locations in a single changeset.
you did well with the changeset comment so it was immediately obvious something had gone pear-shaped with such a large bbox.
since there were relatively few items in this broadly-spanning changeset, it was trivial to open them all for the non-graphical manual review, which admittedly was not to verify what was done, although i have done so for similar wide-area changesets elsewhere.
one reason for people complaining is the relatively naïve history function. a better history function would only notify mappers interested in CT or the canadian glastonbury, but not detroit, milwaukee, or colorado.
the achavi tool works great for smaller, localised changesets. if there were no memory issues, such a large area would result in the affected areas being displayed as tiny dots, requiring extensive zooming to get details. then again, as i note, despite the vast area covered, your changeset description and the small number of objects makes a manual review tolerable for this edit.
Relations (8)
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 |