OpenStreetMap
Frank Peng's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 161226968 | You deleted a bunch of buildings in this location (and many places elsewhere) and readded them when it would have been better to just modify the geometry of the existing buildings you deleted. It's good practice to just modify the geometry of existing map features (roads, buildings, landuse, etc.) instead of deleting them and re-adding them.
|
|
| 179105274 | Also, please respond when other mappers and I comment on any of your changesets asking about your map edits. I left comments on a number of your changesets asking about your map edits, and you have not responded to them. It is crucial that you respond to comments made by other mappers in the changeset discussions of your changesets as it helps build trust. If you don't respond, then you may be treated as less trustworthy. So in the future, when other mappers and I comment in the changeset discussions of any of your changesets, pointing out issues or asking about your map edits, please respond to those comments or you could be blocked from editing OSM. Please refer to the section titled "Someone commented on my changeset, what should I do?" in the OSM Wiki article on "Changeset": osm.wiki/Changeset#Someone_commented_on_my_changeset,_what_should_I_do?
|
|
| 179105274 | You could have just retagged the highway=path way that you deleted in this changeset (way/1175124664/history) to highway=service + service=parking_aisle and modified its geometry, instead of deleting the highway=path way and mapping a new parking aisle in its place (what you just did here: way/1483593064). By just modifying and reusing the existing map elements such as roads, buildings, landuse, relations, etc., instead of deleting them and remapping them from scratch, it helps preserve the element history on OSM and follows the good practice of keeping the history on OSM. Please refer to the OSM Wiki article on keeping the history on OSM: osm.wiki/Keep_the_history
|
|
| 178705225 | Hello MooPoo7, I noticed that you removed lanes, turn lanes, maxspeed:advisory=*, destination:lanes=*, change:lanes=*, and placement=* tagging from those roads in this changeset. I don't think those tags are outdated. Could you explain if the removal of those tags was intentional? Thanks.
|
|
| 178249979 | It's also a good idea to chunk a long road into smaller sections (by splitting the long road into smaller sections). Per the OSM Wiki article on good practice, it states: "...if a straight road or other element is longer than, say, 500 metres, it is vital to interpolate intermediate points so that its actual alignment is preserved across different map projections."
|
|
| 178249979 | Please also be aware of the covered=yes tag on roads, paths, or train tracks that pass underneath roofs or are partially covered by buildings or other structures. You merged a section of a service road with the covered=yes tag (way/1108488570/history) with its adjoining service roads, then added the layer=-1 tag to the entire service road in front of the hotel building, and retagged the service road to highway=service + service=parking_aisle. Please don't delete sections of roads with the covered=yes tag that are covered by roofs or are partially covered by buildings or other structures. The covered=* tag denotes whether an object represented by a node, way, or area is covered. Per the OSM Wiki article on the covered=* tag, it states: "For highways and railways this differs from tunnel=* in that it is usually open at least on one side. This then implies covered=yes."
The covered=* tag is used for "Highways, footways, railways, or waterways that are (even partially) covered by a building or other structure other than where tunnel=* (including tunnel=building_passage) applies."
The use of a layer=* tag on the parking aisle next to the hotel building (way/1108488568) is not meaningful because it is at ground level and not underground or on a bridge or other structure overground (This parking aisle and the surrounding parking aisles next to the hotel building would be better tagged as just highway=service since they provide access to the hotel building). For roads or paths passing underneath roofs or partially covered by buildings or other structures, you can instead split the road or path at where the covered section of it begins or ends, and (in most cases) add the covered=yes tag on the covered section of the road or path. Please see these OSM Wiki articles on the covered=* tag and the covered=yes tag so those are brought to your attention to keep in mind for the future: covered=*
|
|
| 178249979 | For these roads you added and modified in this changeset: way/1108488561 and way/1475162113, these would probably be better tagged as just highway=service instead of highway=service + service=parking_aisle since these roads provide access to a car dealership and an auto repair shop. Service roads for access must not be tagged as parking aisles. A parking aisle is a service road that passes between rows of parking spaces in a parking lot or a parking garage and is generally not used for through traffic. A service road is a road used for vehicle access to a building, parking lot, service station, business estate, beach, campsite, etc. Please note that not every roadway within a parking lot is a parking aisle. If a road "connects a parking lot or parking garage to a through street and serves as the entrance or exit of the lot or garage", use highway=service without service=* instead.
Please see these OSM Wiki articles on highway=service and service=parking_aisle:
|
|
| 178249144 | Please also do not remove map elements you don't need or don't like. It's known that not everything is needed by everyone, but you must not remove map details that another mapper added just because you don't need it, you think it's stupid, or the validator ordered it so.
|
|
| 178249979 | Hello iismitch55, I'm not sure what the purpose of this changeset is. Looking at this changeset's map edits on OSMCha, I see that you deleted some roads and redrew them anew. As mentioned to you numerous times, please do not delete existing roads and redraw them anew. Doing that is against good practice on OSM. Instead, please just modify the geometry of the existing roads. Please see the OSM Wiki article on Keep the history: osm.wiki/Keep_the_history Before you continue any map edit on OSM, please see the OSM Wiki article on good practice: osm.wiki/Good_practice. Per the "Good practice" OSM Wiki article, it states:
|
|
| 178249144 | Please do not delete roads on private property. It is considered vandalism and a violation of OSM's Terms of Use. You deleted a residential road leading to a home in this changeset (way/737322983/history). Instead of deleting the residential road, you could have retagged the road to highway=service + service=driveway. Please see the OSM Wiki article on why we never delete roads on private property: osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property Please also click on the OSMCha link of this changeset below to see which map elements you added, modified or deleted. You may have to login to OSMCha with your OSM account to see those map edits on OSMCha.
|
|
| 178166541 | You could have retagged the area tagged with just area=yes that you deleted in this changeset (way/481417747/history) to building=yes since it outlined a building in aerial imagery. Please don't delete existing map elements and redraw them anew. Instead, please just modify the existing map elements as it helps preserve the history on OSM.
|
|
| 178108149 | Could you please proide the source(s) for the residential roads you deleted in this changeset ( way/20600788/history, way/20597006/history, and way/20597068/history)? Those do appear to be driveways and I can clearly see those in aerial imagery. If those roads still exist on the ground, then please note that we do not delete roads or other map elements on private property. It is considered vandalism and a violation of OSM's Terms of Use. A couple of the residential roads you deleted in this changeset had the access=private tag. Instead, we can usually add the access=private tag to roads or other map elements on private property. Any map data that can be verified exists on the ground is valid regardless of whether it's on public or private property.
|
|
| 177873967 | Hello sarya, please be careful. You removed the highway=trunk tag from the South Croatan Highway way (way/16497322), causing this section of the road to be invisible on the map. I have restored the highway=trunk tag on the road.
|
|
| 177937880 | Thanks for the fix!
|
|
| 177940270 | You just modified the geometry of an existing industrial area instead of adding any landuse in this changeset.
|
|
| 177871913 | So for this no U-turn restriction relation, the exit road from the roundabout to Park Road (way/1166123018) should have the "from" role since it's the beginning way of the restriction, the node between Park Road and the entry and exit roads to/from the roundabout (node/221131526) should have the "via" role since it connects the beginning and end ways of the no U-turn restriction, and the entry road from Park Road to the roundabout (way/483134703) should have the "to" role since it's the end way of the no U-turn restriction. Please see the OSM Wiki article on turn restricton relations: osm.wiki/Relation:restriction
|
|
| 177871913 | For the no U-turn restriction relation you created in this changeset (relation/20151461), it only has two members, which are the entry and exit roads at the Park Road side of the roundabout. Both of those ways have the "via" role, which is not correct. Osmose will flag this issue (To see Osmose issues, check the checkbox to the left of "Osmose Issues" underneath "Data Layers" in the right-hand "Map Data" pane in the iD editor, and you will see issues flagged by Osmose). The "via" node or way(s) has to connect the beginning and end ways of the attempted turn.
|
|
| 177871913 | Please note that turn restriction relations need to have at least 3 members: a "from" way, a "via" node or one or more "via" ways, and a "to" way. Per the OSM Wiki article on turn restriction relations, it states:
|
|
| 177871913 | Just to clarify, you could have disconnected the park area from the Park Road ways by holding down the "Shift" key on your keyboard and selecting the park area and the node connecting the bi-directional and one-way sections of Park Road next to the roundabout (the node at where Park Road divides entering the roundabout), and either right-clicked on the node and selected the "Disconnect" option to disconnect the park area from the roads, or pressed "D" on your keyboard to disconnect the park area from the roads. So there was no need to remove the node from the no-u-turn restriction relation or even delete the relation.
|
|
| 177871913 | For the no-u-turn restriction relation you deleted in this changeset, I don't think there was a need to delete the no-u-turn restriction relation at the Park Road side of the roundabout and recreate it. You could have held down the "Shift" key on your keyboard and selected the park area and the node connecting the bi-directional and one-way sections of Park Road at the roundabout (the node at where Park Road divides entering the roundabout), right-clicked on the node, and selected the "Disconnect" option or pressed "D" on your keyboard to disconnect the park area from the roads. So there was no need to remove the node from the no-u-turn restriction relation or even delete the relation.
|