OSMWeekly's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 166279777 | 7 months ago | Wow! thanks for the heads up! too bad it was such a messy edit, haha. Here's to 9k more! |
| 152151400 | over 1 year ago | aha, merci beaucoup. Je seulement parle un petit peu de Français et donc, quand j'ai demandé a le Bar à Thym, je n'ai comprende exactement qu'est ce qu'il me disait :') . merci a votre bienvenue. Je vais essayer plus fort. et aussi, le carto ici est tres bien. Dans les etats-unis il y a plus beaucoup chose à faire. |
| 152151400 | over 1 year ago | a, bonne question, je fait verifier demain, merci. |
| 145645030 | almost 2 years ago | Hello, It appears you accidentally changed an entire forested area into a residential area. Furthermore, as mentioned in a previous edit, removing paths for being on private property is not the correct use of this map. Please see here:
lastly, descriptions are not used in the name tag. For example, here you would also use an 'access=private'. |
| 144676173 | almost 2 years ago | hello, Is there a trail there? Even if it's private, it's still "visible from the ground". trail should be marked as private with access=private tag, not removed. |
| 76053267 | about 2 years ago | hi @Naturebiz, I've updated it, fixing the name and adding the 'disused:' lifecycle prefix. if there's another business there now, would you let me know or add it? thank you! |
| 116266990 | almost 4 years ago | question: should "city of _" also be struck from the administrative boundary? |
| 115629029 | almost 4 years ago | Happy New Year from NY, USA! |
| 114828918 | about 4 years ago | Rad, that's good |
| 114828918 | about 4 years ago | specifically this way: 1011305256 |
| 114828918 | about 4 years ago | for the pedestrian way, you have it tagged as highway=pedestrian (highway=pedestrian?uselang=en) but you may want to use highway=footway (highway=footway) there's a subtle difference which boils down to how often vehicles are able to use the way. |
| 114976505 | about 4 years ago | I am curious about your use of relations. Did you intend for these to both be joined by relation? |
| 114831400 | about 4 years ago | hello. I believe you confuse d building=retail for landuse=retail. I am changing these. |
| 114828918 | about 4 years ago | looks good! I don't know if you need separate 'entry' nodes for each door unless those doors go to explicitly separate parts of the building. |
| 114665805 | about 4 years ago | hey! remember if you use building:levels tag in a building:part tag, to also make sure the main building it's apart of has the building:levels added as well! see: "Where a building has been split into parts, the whole building way should still have the tags building:levels=* and height=*. These values should be the maximum of all the building parts. A building that has a three-story part and a six-story part is still a six-story building. " in building:part=* I fixed it up for you! |
| 107656044 | over 4 years ago | Sorted it out, thank you! |
| 105901694 | over 4 years ago | I recently made a series of edits that were against the spirit of OSM and were plainly mean. I regret these changeset comments and vow to uphold a higher standard of respect from here on out. To any who find these comments, do not make the same mistake I did: thinking that imports are ruining all of your hard work. Sometimes, to take two steps forward, you need to take a step backwards. OSM is a collaborative project, not an island. |
| 105901763 | over 4 years ago | I recently made a series of edits that were against the spirit of OSM and were plainly mean. I regret these changeset comments and vow to uphold a higher standard of respect from here on out. To any who find these comments, do not make the same mistake I did: thinking that imports are ruining all of your hard work. Sometimes, to take two steps forward, you need to take a step backwards. OSM is a collaborative project, not an island. |
| 105901819 | over 4 years ago | I recently made a series of edits that were against the spirit of OSM and were plainly mean. I regret these changeset comments and vow to uphold a higher standard of respect from here on out. To any who find these comments, do not make the same mistake I did: thinking that imports are ruining all of your hard work. Sometimes, to take two steps forward, you need to take a step backwards. OSM is a collaborative project, not an island. |
| 106485677 | over 4 years ago | I recently made a series of edits that were against the spirit of OSM and were plainly mean. I regret these changeset comments and vow to uphold a higher standard of respect from here on out. To any who find these comments, do not make the same mistake I did: thinking that imports are ruining all of your hard work. Sometimes, to take two steps forward, you need to take a step backwards. OSM is a collaborative project, not an island. |