OpenStreetMap
CanopyFalls's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 118214586 | Appreciated! If you happen to be in Sheffield feel free to get involved in the project. |
|
| 118214586 | Hello! Working on a project to clean up the city center in Sheffield (fixing alignment issues and cleaning up geometry.) See this community discussion for more info: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/addressing-mapping-debt-in-sheffield-city-centre/148564 Noticed the substation you've mapped is now in the middle of the pavement, do you happen to know if this substation is underground or in one of these buildings? Many thanks! |
|
| 81453916 | See this discussion for what we're doing about this: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/should-relation-2621481-be-deleted/148162 |
|
| 189982531 | Same as the other edit you made.
|
|
| 189982609 | Hello and welcome to OSM! Thank you for contributing to the map. Marked this as good as it was mostly okay with only a minor mistake being that the house name was set to the same as the house number. The house name tag is specifically for mapping the name of a house. I've asked the Data Working Group to redact this changeset as well due to the fact that you have listed your proximity to this address in the comment and source. Be aware that OSM is a public database and all changesets are public and pretty much permanent.
|
|
| 189976042 | Hello! Welcome to OSM and thank you for contributing to the map. In this case I have reverted this changeset as the tag `highway=motorway_junction` is used 'to identify a point along a `highway=*` with junction refs or names where it is possible to exit the highway onto another road.' See the wiki for more information on how to use this tag: highway=motorway_junction I assume it may have been a typo or a misclick when you submitted the changeset but you may also consider a more descriptive comment, it helps us when reviewing though didn't matter too much in this case. Apologies that your first changeset has been reverted, I hope it doesn't put you off contributing to OSM. Thank you for requesting the review so I could catch this and best of luck with any future mapping! Feel free to request as many reviews as you need until you feel confident with it and remember making mistakes is part of the learning process of OSM and totally expected, we'd rather have a few mistakes and more people mapping! |
|
| 188892406 | Oh fascinating! Need to learn more about UPRNs as they seem very interesting.
|
|
| 188892406 | I assume you didn't mean to add a URPN on node/14174311628? |
|
| 189319977 | Ah, makes sense, wouldn't bother using GPX tracks in the UK. We have the cadastral parcels that have near perfect alignment that can be used to align imagery. Always check mapbox and esri imagery for any newer developments in case they've been added. Also you can capture street level imagery using Mapillary or Karta view where the satellite imagery is lacking for new developments. |
|
| 189723696 | Looks good! Ty for adding this information!
|
|
| 189652903 | Oh god, I can very much understand your motivation now lol. |
|
| 71875040 | No worries whatsoever, it happens, currently debating removing this relation entirely. See this community discussion: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/should-relation-2621481-be-deleted/148162 Will reference this discussion in that post so people are aware that these changes weren't intended. |
|
| 189652903 | Nice! That looks like the correct format! Good job adding conditional time tags lol, I can never be arsed.
|
|
| 119368726 | Please do not tag for the renderer by adding a `natural=beach` in the middle of a park in London. I appreciate a pretty carto render as much as the next person but not at the expense of adding junk data into OSM. |
|
| 71875040 | Hello! Why did you add route tags to this relation? It doesn't seem like a route and used to have a name indicating it mapped certain priorities of gritting for roads. |
|
| 81453916 | Hello why does this changeset remove the name "Gritting Priority 2 roads" from relation/2621481 I've just seen this relation and want to know what it is currently mapping as it's not a route based on all the disconnected ways. |
|
| 189641900 | Ahhhh, I see you edited your previous changeset! I ended up reviewing that first. Marked this bad due to the erroneous tags but it's all good now so dw about it saying reviewed bad below.
|
|
| 189642609 | Welcome to OSM and thank you for this contribution! Adding and updating addresses is critical to navigation using OSM so this goes a long way. The change looks good to me! Can't see any errors in the changes made and the previous tags look erroneous.
|
|
| 189648770 | Looks good! Also cannot find any justification for this being tagged as `natural=beach`.
|
|
| 189650164 | Hello and welcome to OSM! Thank you for contributing to the map! Changes like this are critical to navigation. Checked it over as you requested a review on this changeset, all looks good! Best of luck with future mapping!
|