OpenStreetMap
MassCartog's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 183261646 | Thanks for the reply, No need for pictures, I believe you. I'm going to restore the part of the road that still exists to the south. When it is actually removed from the ground feel free to remove the rest of it! Thanks |
|
| 183261646 | Hello welcome to OSM. This road is visible in satellite imagery from 3 days ago. Could you describe farther what you mean when you say "planted over with grass"? Thanks |
|
| 181458347 | The person in the note may not think it's a trail, and it may be trespass. But heatmap data shows a lot of people are using it either way. It's a strong bright line, not a mess of trails across a field. The aerial imagery in OSM Is not great there but even in some of the blurry photos you can see the trail visible on the ground. Its seems to be correctly mapped and tagged. |
|
| 182521401 | Hi, welcome to OSM. Unfortunately In your changeset you dragged a bunch of nodes out of place by mistake, try not to move anything but the feature you are trying to edit. I've restored the changes, feel free to give it another shot, Let me know if you need help. |
|
| 182442659 | Hi welcome to OSM, Is there a reason you removed these service roads? |
|
| 182341175 | Thanks for the reply, and making those changes! If they truly do not exist any longer they can be removed. But decommissioned trails a lot of the time just mean the trail is not official any longer, but people still use it (even illegally). If you are on the ground and know what's really there, and what is really gone. Just try to follow osm practices, Thanks |
|
| 182372047 | Hi could you explain what you mean by Duplicate? Looks like you removed a building that exists, it has been demolished? |
|
| 182372168 | Hi could you explain what you mean by Duplicate? Looks like you removed a building that exists, it has been demolished? |
|
| 182357419 | Hi, Can you explain why you removed these features? |
|
| 182341175 | Hello, welcome to OSM. Features you removed in this changeset are valid. Please don’t remove valid OSM data. You have a new account and might not be aware, on OSM, we do not remove features if they exist on the ground. If it exists on the ground, it is valid data regardless of a feature being public or private, designated or informal/illegal/unauthorized. Removing features that exist is actually considered vandalism. It's clear that these features still exist on the ground. Not being public access areas is an invalid reason to remove data from OSM. So this edit is incorrect and damaging to valid OSM data. The correct way to handle this is to use OSM's tagging system. access=private, or access=no would be appropriate if they are closed to the public. Once this is done, services that do use OSM data will reflect that and specify their access. Please read this for more info:
|
|
| 182341560 | Fixed this dragged node. |
|
| 182182420 | Hello, welcome to OSM. Some of the features you removed in this changeset are valid. Please don’t remove valid OSM data. You have a new account and might not be aware, on OSM, we do not remove features if they exist on the ground. If it exists on the ground, it is valid data regardless of a feature being public or private, designated or informal/illegal/unauthorized. Removing features that exist is actually considered vandalism. It's clear that some of these features still exist on the ground. Not being public access areas is an invalid reason to remove data from OSM. So this edit is incorrect and damaging to valid OSM data. The correct way to handle this is to use OSM's tagging system. access=private, or access=no would be appropriate if they are closed to the public. Once this is done, services that do use OSM data will reflect that and specify their access. Please read this for more info:
|
|
| 181960721 | Hi welcome back to OSM. You might not be aware, on OSM, we do not remove features if they exist on the ground. If it exists on the ground, it is valid data regardless of a feature being public or private, designated or informal/illegal/unauthorized. It's clear that these features still exist on the ground. Looks like you removed it in the past, and it was just added back since it exists on the ground. This is one of the reasons we don't just remove trails. Not being public access areas is an invalid reason to remove data from OSM. So this edit is incorrect and damaging to valid OSM data. The correct way to handle this is to use OSM's tagging system. access=private, or access=no would be appropriate if they are closed to the public. Once this is done, services that do use OSM data will reflect that and specify their access. I went ahead and updated the access tag for an example. Please read this for more info:
|
|
| 182046302 | Hello, welcome to OSM. Features you removed in this changeset are valid. Please don’t remove valid OSM data. You have a new account and might not be aware, on OSM, we do not remove features if they exist on the ground. If it exists on the ground, it is valid data regardless of a feature being public or private, designated or informal/illegal/unauthorized. Removing features that exist is actually considered vandalism. It's clear that these features still exist on the ground. Not being public access areas is an invalid reason to remove data from OSM. So this edit is incorrect and damaging to valid OSM data. The correct way to handle this is to use OSM's tagging system. access=private, or access=no would be appropriate if they are closed to the public. Once this is done, services that do use OSM data will reflect that and specify their access. Please read this for more info:
|
|
| 181866521 | Hi welcome to OSM. Please make sure not to remove paths that exist on the ground, even if they are illegal/fall on Private property. That is valid OSM data and should not be removed. Please use the Access tagging system instead. Please read this for more info:
|
|
| 181744360 | Hi welcome to OSM. you changeset was reverted. Doing doing fictitious edits for video games. Removing real features, adding fictitious ones is not allowed. please do not remove real featues or add fake features to OSM data. |
|
| 181769957 | Np, thanks for the reply, happy mapping! |
|
| 181769957 | Hi enfinety, welcome to OSM. In this changeset it looks like you are removing features that some do appear to exist on the ground. I'm not sure what you mean by erroneous if they do actually exist. Please do not remove any features if they still exist on the ground. If they are inaccurate or are tagged as the wrong feature type Please just update them rather then removing them! You have a new account and might not be aware, on OSM, we do not remove features if they exist on the ground. If it exists on the ground, it is valid data regardless of a feature being public or private, designated or informal/illegal/unauthorized. If access is the issue, please use OSM's tagging system. access=private, or access=no would be appropriate if they are closed to the public. Once this is done, services that do use OSM data will reflect that and specify their access. Please read this for more info:
|
|
| 181696404 | Hi welcome to OSM. You have a new account and might not be aware, on OSM, we do not remove features if they exist on the ground. If it exists on the ground, it is valid data regardless of a feature being public or private, designated or informal/illegal/unauthorized. The correct way to handle this is to use OSM's tagging system. access=private, or access=no would be appropriate if they are closed to the public. Once this is done, services that do use OSM data will reflect that and specify their access. So adding the gates and setting the access is the way to go. Thanks Please read this for more info:
|
|
| 181680396 | Hello again, for this and many of your other changset, "Unauthorized User Created Trails" is not a valid reason to remove data from OSM. If it exists on the ground it should not be removed. Instead, use OSM tagging system to set the Access. Changes that removed valid OSM data have been restored. Please read for more info:
|