SomeoneElse's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 149800938 | Hello,
|
|
| 149801516 | Ah - I see you're ahead of me and have fixed a number of subsequent ones with level0 :) |
|
| 149801516 | Not sure what happened, but lots of extra things were still in the relation here. I've restored relation/12189102 back to the pre-vandalism version. It might be worth logging a bug against whatever it was that managed to introduce the extraneous stuff in here? |
|
| 141491007 | Thanks - I think this does make more sense. |
|
| 149770918 | No, no local knowledge. Josm made that source up; I did not type it in or select it. |
|
| 149532419 | Of course, nodes can be part of two ways if features join, as node/11747001741 now is here. |
|
| 149532419 | Actually, it's not true to say that "greens are dominant over fairways". Different renderers processing OSM data will use different rules, but a common one is "draw smaller areas over larger ones" which lead to the effect that you think you're seeing.
|
|
| 148075216 | I've hidden some of the stupider comments here - they are neither helpful nor relevant.
|
|
| 149148109 | Thanks - I've filled in the gap in changeset/149587811 and noted there that the spur into town was surveyed by you here. |
|
| 149148109 | Hello - is there really a gap in the NCN 13 as suggested by relation/13389346#map=17/51.48337/0.23041 ?
|
|
| 149349180 | Great - thanks for confirming. |
|
| 148661572 | I suspect that an approach that is a bit more nuanced than either extreme is currently taking is required - https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1Jj7 is pretty clearly still a railway=abandoned (perhaps in addition to some other tags).
|
|
| 148681678 | To be honest, one of the ways in this example, the railway=abandoned https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1Jj4 is VERY obvious on aerial imagery, and I bet it's also obvious on the ground, too.
|
|
| 148528299 | To be honest, in this example the railway=abandoned https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1Jj4 is VERY obvious on aerial imagery, and I bet it's also obvious on the ground, too. |
|
| 149349180 | Hello,
|
|
| 148873760 | I'm not pitscheplatsch, but:
|
|
| 149024785 | I can only see what you have written here :)
|
|
| 149024785 | Hello VARVAR8,
|
|
| 148979715 | If a project offers explicit support (even if only generic rendering) it still makes sense to contact them as likely a code change is warranted if a combination is no longer in OSM.
|
|
| 148979715 | > And I did it. Where was this? I don't remember seeing a message about this change here. > But if app lists shop=* catchall rather than using specific tag values then contacting them is very unlikely to be useful. Indeed - but I don't think that anyone is suggesting that? To be clear, until https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/commit/73f06e837d4792a4d9da939cb0e661472e595772 that repository was listed as an explicit consumer of "shop=guns" (not just "shop=*"). |