OpenStreetMap
CAM-Gerlach's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 176886412 | 14 days ago | Thanks!
|
| 176805088 | 14 days ago | No worries at all, man! I get all bummed out too when I realize I made a mistake, but I find there's always something new to learn and improve with OSM and it was a learning opportunity for both of us; I didn't realize myself until double-checking the wiki on this changeset that recommended tagging practice had evolved to explicitly condone tagging a node of a highway=* way with road_marking=* without highway=stop in the case of all-way stops. And I have the utmost respect for you and your mapping skill! FWIW, for the longest time I've found public transport relations the most complex set of concepts, rules and practices to master in OSM (and still wouldn't consider myself nearly having done so yet, having only recently really started to engage with them), whereas you seem to be quite adept at them. So when I finally get around to fixing the various Osmose-detected issues with BT transit's I've indirectly touched (hopefully soon), I'm sure you'll have some helpful feedback in case I miss anything! |
| 176805088 | 16 days ago | *Please disregard previous comment, I accidentally fat-fingered the post button.* CORRECTED: NB, I've been mapping all way stops on the intersection node, per the wiki spec and how I've generally seen existing ones mapped, since the relevant wiki page highway=stop#All-way_stop says "All-way stops should be shown using highway=stop at the intersection node." I also tag them with stop=all per the wiki suggestion , as well as direction=both per one of my JOSM validators for explicitness (I have this tag trifecta as a macro, so I can apply all three with one keystroke). You could instead tag the actual stop lines (i.e. the nodes currently tagged with highway=stop) with road_marking=stop_line (+ stroke=solid); per the wiki, "road_marking=stop_line indicates where the painted stop line is physically located, regardless of which node you tag as highway=stop, but only if there's a painted stop line." (which has been the case for all but a few of the all-way stops I've mapped so far in Blacksburg, versus perhaps half or fewer of the stop=minor s). As that had not been added last time I checked the page, I had only been adding stop_line tagging so for minor-way stops, but just now I went back and added them for all the all-way stops I've added (except one or two that didn't actually have stop lines). |
| 176805088 | 16 days ago | NB, I've been mapping all way stops on the intersection node, per the wiki and how I've generally seen existing ones mapped, since the relevant wiki page highway=stop#All-way_stop says "All-way stops should be shown using highway=stop at the intersection node." I also tag them with stop=all per the wiki recommendation, as well as direction=both per one of my JOSM validators for explicitness (I have this trifecta as a macro, so I can apply all three with one keystroke). You can tag the stop lines (i.e. the currently tagged nodes) with road_marking=stop_
|
| 168093783 | 24 days ago | Additionally, there is a West Harwell _Road_ adjacent to this (and many places elsewhere); seems highly probable that "Drive" should have been changed to "Road" here. Also (particularly so with significant name changes like this) it is important to include source(s) for your changeset, which this lacks. |
| 173244652 | 24 days ago | SEO spam removed in changeset changeset/173246888
|
| 173227470 | 24 days ago | Fixed the SEO spam added here in changeset/176507201
|
| 173092666 | 24 days ago | Fixed SEO spam tags in changeset/176506631
|
| 172613073 | 24 days ago | As you added back the blatant spam copy removed changeset/172577196 , I reverted that change and further refined the tagging in changeset/176506065 . Please be advised that continued SEO spam in this manner is not welcome on OSM.
|
| 172577196 | 24 days ago | NB, they reverted your de-spamification and added back the blatant marketing copy in changeset/172613073 which I reverted and further refined the tagging in changeset/176506065 They are currently 0-day banned, though IMO given their repeated pattern of paid spam activity and lack of good faith a perma-ban would be more appropriate instead.
|
| 176341614 | 27 days ago | Sure, understood--correcting the immediate issue was the higher-priority change. I went ahead and changed it to `healthcare=occupational_therapist` in addition in changeset #176379470 . Thanks again!
|
| 176282025 | 27 days ago | Yup, saw that too yesterday after I reached out to them and flagged this the night before. Hopefully its an opportunity for reflection and making the most of the resources out there to learn and grow as a community contributor and a mapper.
|
| 176341614 | 27 days ago | Hey, thanks for the fix! Although, shouldn't `healthcare=occupational_therapist` osm.wiki/Tag%3Ahealthcare%3Doccupational_therapist be used instead/as well, as it has nearly 20x the usage per taginfo (1853 versus 125), has a full wiki page and is documented on the main approved `key:healthcare` page, whereas healthcare:specialty just has a stub page and isn't included in the main key:healthcare:specialty page?
|
| 176282025 | 29 days ago | As multiple mappers and myself have each reached out to this contributor multiple times on multiple of their changesets over the past month (including four days ago regarding a number of breaking changes to East/West AJ) the great majority of which have had a destructive effect (intentional or not) on the existing valid map data while not making meaningful improvements, it seems the next step has to be contacting DWG.
|
| 176281215 | 29 days ago | As multiple mappers and myself have each reached out to this contributor multiple times on multiple of their changesets over the past month (including four days ago regarding a number of breaking changes to East/West AJ) the great majority of which have had a destructive effect (intentional or not) on the existing valid map data while not making meaningful improvements, it seems the next step has to be contacting DWG.
|
| 176282025 | 29 days ago | I reverted both these changesets as I can personally verify that the Pritchard courtyard and passage to it exists (having lived in the building my freshman year), and this new mapper has amassed a consistent history of edits inexplicably deleting or disrupting other buildings (including East/West AJ) in a similar fashion. |
| 176281215 | 29 days ago | I reverted both these changesets as I can personally verify that the Pritchard courtyard and passage to it exists (having lived in the building my freshman year), and this new mapper has amassed a consistent history of edits inexplicably deleting or disrupting other buildings (including East/West AJ) in a similar fashion. |
| 175808457 | about 1 month ago | Once again, same issue as in most of your other recent changesets--the outer way tagged as a generic building in this changeset was already part of a (much more comprehensively tagged) building multipolygon. Many editors (like JOSM) would immediately warn you about this mistake before you upload your changeset, but if iD doesn't, you can check yourself to see if a way is already part of a building multipolygon by scrolling down to "Relations" in the left hand "Edit feature" panel. Happy mapping!
|
| 175808457 | about 1 month ago | Changset reverted as like the others, it merely added a nested, conflicting and duplicative building=yes and name tag on the outer way when (much more detailed and precise) building tagging was already present on the encompassing multipolygon. |
| 175766718 | about 1 month ago | Same issue here--the outer way tagged as a generic building in this changeset was already part of a (much more comprehensively tagged) building multipolygon.
|