OpenStreetMap
blackboxlogic's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 85782607 | over 5 years ago | Fixed in changeset/85831475
|
| 85782607 | over 5 years ago | looks like you meant to put ref=ME 166 on a way, but it ended up on NODE: 7480246646
|
| 85730858 | over 5 years ago | It's a good change. Since you asked for review I'd point out that you could have merged node/358225548 into into the element that you changed, since they both represent the same thing. To merge: In the iD editor, hold SHIFT to select both elements, right click and the top button is "merge".
|
| 85715820 | over 5 years ago | Thanks for taking a look. I thought it might be easy. Is fine. |
| 85715820 | over 5 years ago | Hm... you removed WAY: 800664256 and the addresses around it. If I look at newer imagery it looks like this road and buildings (most of them) exist (or soon will). I'm not experienced at reverting parts of changeset so I'm hesitant to try. If you have time, could you give it a go?
|
| 85668333 | over 5 years ago | mfreems, I'm impressed by the breadth and detail of your campus mapping over that last few weeks. I made a comment on a previous change about trying to retain address details and it seems like you received that well and adjusted your technique, thank you. I hope to give more gentle feedback. This change has some mix-up between "name" and "address". For example, WAY: 770655176. Its name (what people call it) was the "Womens Resource Center" and its address (what you put on an envelope) is "24 College Street". But you deleted the name, and put the address in the name field. Now, if someone searches for the "Womens Resource Center" by its name, they won't be able to find this place. You also did this in change# 85663150, and probably more changes after this one. I checked the campus map (https://www.bowdoin.edu/about/campus-location/maps/Campus_Map_Oct_2018.pdf) and this building is listed as number 61: "Sexuality, Women, and Gender Center", so it seems the name in OSM was out of date, and could be updated, but not by putting the address in the name field. Please ask if you have questions. I hope my suggestions don't come across as imposing. |
| 53658421 | over 5 years ago | What is the intended meaning of the key "name:--2017" on node/2785624213? |
| 84701150 | over 5 years ago | Looks like removal of highway tag was an oopsy. fixed in changeset/85408207
|
| 84709228 | over 5 years ago | It looks like removing the highway tag from way/44633980 was a mistake.
|
| 85024954 | over 5 years ago | Welcome to OSM! I've removed your 4 changes because they seemed like details which were specific to you, instead of verifiable information about the real world. I hope this does not discouraged you from improving the map in the future. If you have questions, see wiki.osm.org, ask me (I might not have good answers) or check out osmus.slack.com -Alex fixed in changeset/85404629
|
| 85049494 | over 5 years ago | Welcome to OSM and thanks for adding buildings! When you delete an address node to add a building, please put the address tags on the building. That way, the map can be used to navigate to the building using the address. I've fixed this in
|
| 77930458 | over 5 years ago | Hi SmartDataMap, Adding an opinionated description and stars=5 makes your edit look a lot like spam. A reminder that anything which isn't a verifiable fact might get... fixed. See:
|
| 85346592 | over 5 years ago | Welcome to OSM. I see that some of your previous changes didn't meet the community expectations and have been deleted already. This change also detracts from the map more than it adds and I've decided to check with you before I delete it. Could you improve this to only include accurate information? For example: Yes, there is a building there which is a house. No, it isn't named "Mindy Household" (personal information doesn't belong on this map). Yes, there is a driveway but it doesn't have a street sign, isn't in the Maine state's database of roads, and based your naming of other elements I can assume it probably isn't named "Doug's way". Yes, there is a field. No, the lawn and field are not parks. Sometimes it can be hard to find the right tags to accurately model the real world. Please ask or check wiki.osm.org when you are uncertain. I'm available for questions though I may not have the answers. There is also a slack channel which has been very helpful for me at osmus.slack.com -Alex |
| 774950 | over 5 years ago | 11 years later... But I see your account is still active! I'm looking at a Dam (node/358228362). Its position (44.0767432, -69.6178236) seems pretty far off when looking at the imagery because it isn't near any water. Those coordinates are different than what I find in GNIS: (44.0760500, -69.6732900). see https://geonames.usgs.gov/apex/f?p=138:3:0::NO:3:P3_FID,P3_TITLE:1774354,Trout%20Brook%20Dam Another example: A school (node/358230314) which was .7 miles off but I've fixed. See
Do you know how many of the elements imported are geographically inaccurate (maybe I found the only 2 that had problems but the rest is fine and I should ignore it)? Do you know what caused the problem (bad data source, truncated data during import, typo)? I'm considering trying to address the issue in Maine and would like to understand the background or any clues you can give me. Thank you! |
| 84432832 | over 5 years ago | When you add buildings, feel free to delete the address nodes and move the details to the buildings you add. Though I understand if you don't because it's more work. Thanks for adding buildings!
|
| 84442650 | over 5 years ago | When you add a building where there is an address node, feel free to delete the address node. Thanks for your changes! Example:
|
| 84445621 | over 5 years ago | Welcome back to OSM (looks like you took a break). I've been adding address nodes in Maine. When you add buildings, feel free to delete the address nodes and move the details to the buildings you add. Though I understand if you don't because it's more work. Thanks for adding buildings! |
| 84446402 | over 5 years ago | 04043 came from Maine's E911 dataset, which I've been trusting until I have a reason not to. USPS agrees with your change. Thanks for the fix.
|
| 82931910 | over 5 years ago | I fixed in https://osmcha.org/changesets/83601480/ |
| 82931910 | over 5 years ago | Ouch, the change effected Kennebunkport
|