asciipip's Comments
Changeset | When | Comment |
---|---|---|
41784824 | about 1 year ago | My understanding of waterway=ditch is that it carries connotations of manmade waterways, so I don't think it's appropriate. Probably waterway=stream + intermittent=yes would be the better-supported alternative tagging. |
149912940 | about 1 year ago | Haha; thanks! I don't spend as much time on OSM contributions these days, but I still use the data and still run into things I want to add/fix, especially when I've been hiking. |
41784824 | about 1 year ago | At the time I made this, it seemed there was a growing use of waterway=brook for natural waterways that were smaller than a stream. I was using it as the non-man-made alternative to waterway=ditch. Since then, it seems that tagging has coalesced around waterway=stream + intermittent=yes for waterways like these. (And I see you wrote about deprecating waterway=brook on the tagging list in 2020.) |
120024447 | almost 3 years ago | For that matter, I see you changed the route relation for US 1 northbound from ref=1 to official_ref=1, but it doesn't look like you changed the southbound US 1 relation. I think both probably ought to use the ref tag, not the official_ref tag. |
120024447 | almost 3 years ago | This changeset included a change from ref=140 to official_ref=140 for the MD 140 route relation. But MD 140 is signed as such. Was this an oversight, or am I misunderstanding the tagging here? My understanding is that the MD 140 route relation ought to be tagged with ref=140, matching its signage. |
52356319 | about 5 years ago | Yes. Based on the progress they've made so far, I don't expect it'll be done this year, though I don't recall the official timeline at the moment. |
39513544 | over 7 years ago | I'm not even correcting flowlines. I'm tracing lines directly from imagery, assisted by an overlay of contour lines from elevation data and an NHD overlay that I mostly use to get the names of waterways. The results are pretty accurate, but doing it is rather time-consuming. |
9899323 | almost 9 years ago | Er, where? I just had a look around the area and don't see anything that looks problematic. |
37374024 | about 9 years ago | Well, it starts with "L"... :-/ It's hard to tell from the county parcel data exactly where the NCR land is, unfortunately. It looks like parts of the NCR trail run through private land, but I'm not sure whether that's actually true. There are also sections where the NCR parcels are nowhere near aligned with the state imagery (and I trust the state imagery more, largely because it lines up with GPS traces). (Also, I know it's now the "Torrey C Brown Trail", but old habits die hard, plus the parcels can still be fairly referred to as "NCR parcels". :) ) |
34981491 | over 9 years ago | I don't recall specifically now; it's been too long. :( In general, though, the changes I've made to your imported state data are generally along the following lines: First, the state data often appears to be lower resolution/quality than the county parcel data. I suspect that this is a factor of its age, since things that appear to be newer acquisitions by the state agree much better with the county's parcels. In a number of places I've shifted boundaries to what appear to be better positioning based on county parcel data and aerial imagery. The other thing I've done is to join together adjacent area polygons for the same park. In some of those cases, county data shows that the parcels are adjacent even though the state data had them as being separate. In other cases, there's a road running through the park that _technically_ is under someone else's jurisdiction (SHA or the county), but since OSM isn't strictly a land ownership database, I felt it was clearer to have the park area span the road's right-of-way. (I'm not as inclined to join things across very wide spans, like the one where I-70 runs through Patapsco State Park.) |