Logo OpenStreetMap OpenStreetMap

Hollad cheñchamantoù Pegoulz Evezhiadenn
172893406 war-dro 2 miz 'zo.

Thank you for adding the Halkomelem name for Mount Baker! Google and other search engines don't handle the phonetic writing of "χe:t̕ᶿenəxʷ" very well, so I'm trying to find a source for that.

Wikipedia gives "Kwelxá:lxw" as the Halkomelem name for Mount Baker. Do you know if those are basically the same thing in two writing systems? They don't seem quite the same. Are they two dialects of Halkomelem?

171990197 4 miz zo

Thank you!

33692915 11 miz zo

Not relevant precedent for Gulf of Mexico, if that's what you're referring to. In the case of Denali it was already an established name that was widely used locally in English (unlike the new official name for Gulf of Mexico). Also these days we have more options for tags including `nat_name` and `official_name`, so looking to an old tagging precedent in OSM isn't very relevant now.

150178654 tost 2 bloaz zo

👏

68319956 ouzhpenn 4 bloaz zo

Maxheight of 0 makes no sense, so there some missing information here? I'm going to remove that tag for now.

100730758 tost 5 bloaz zo

😲

99704478 tost 5 bloaz zo

well done! 🏚 🚚🏠

72417397 tost 5 bloaz zo

Hello!
A lot of the reservoirs you added in this changeset aren't filled with water on most of the satellite layers. Should they be tagged with `intermittent=yes`?

93679968 war-dro 5 bloaz zo

👏🏻

77975824 ouzhpenn 5 bloaz zo

Hi there, thank you for creating a polygon for Coney Island, but I think we _also_ need to have it as a node for labeling purposes. See for example Bath Beach and Gravesend, which each have both. You can also combine the node and the boundary together in a relation, like most of the Manhattan neighborhoods have: relation/8398117

82365635 ouzhpenn 5 bloaz zo

Hi there, I see you added a node for Koreatown, but there already existed a node at node/150968103 with a much longer history. Maybe you could reuse that node instead? Also I haven't looked at the other neighborhood relations you added in this changeset, but you might want to check to see if any of those have duplicated nodes, too.

61457308 ouzhpenn 5 bloaz zo

Hi there, should this relation for "Sto:lo Nation" relation/8512693 be combined with "Stó:lō Tribal Council" relation/8514116? It seems like they share some of the same parcels, but there are a lot of parcels that only exist in one or the other relation. Is this intentional?

79122774 ouzhpenn 5 bloaz zo

Should this relation for Sto:lo Nation be the same as "Stó:lō Tribal Council" relation/8514116? It looks like they share some parcels, but a lot of other parcels only exist in one or the other relation. Is this intentional?

79122814 ouzhpenn 5 bloaz zo

Hello Arctic Gnome, should this relation for Stó:lō Tribal Council be combined with the other partly-overlapping relation for "Sto:lo Nation" relation/8512693?

21793456 ouzhpenn 5 bloaz zo

👍

79522153 war-dro 6 bloaz zo

💅

49992886 war-dro 6 bloaz zo

This changeset incorrectly added a `dam` tag to a feature that should be `waterway=riverbank`

63363399 tost 7 bloaz zo

Is "Belbay" some kind of railroad marker? It's not a locality name that I'm familiar with at all, as a long-time Bellingham resident.

36394455 tost 7 bloaz zo

Is this an official protected area? Or is it just the area where these people live? The Wikipedia page doesn't say it's protected: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayuu_people

63491706 war-dro 7 bloaz zo

Is start_date=0000 appropriate for these waterways? If that means "unknown" shouldn't we just remove the tag?