blankmash's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 96934283 | Здравей, бил съм в района, но вече не знам. Повечето трябва да са от на живо с допълнения от гугъл мапс, кадфастъра и тн. Напълно е възможно да има нещо сгрешено. |
|
| 133808896 | @Dimitar155 got it. Thank you for the explanation |
|
| 133808896 | Thank you for the feedback! If there is a more appropriate tag for raised crossings, I'm all ears |
|
| 133808896 | Will take a look at my next editing session |
|
| 133808896 | Although some of the kerbs might not exist anymore and require surveys |
|
| 133808896 | > this tag should only be applied when “users of the carriageway (such as cars) have to drive over the kerb at this point.” This is exactly what they are |
|
| 133808896 | Hey Carto_Ferret, those places you pointed are basically raised crossings. The addition of the kerb tag was suggested as an issue fix by the iD editor. If you think about it it makes sense. Before, they were tagged as: kerb: raised but missing the initial kerb assignment: barrier: kerb This is what iD added. You can see why here https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/blob/develop/CHANGELOG.md#2018-feb-01 GH issues: https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/4702 https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/4715 node/10703091860 this one does not seem right as this is not where the kerb starts and ends (kerb=*#On_a_node), should be on the road. Don't see any policy issues |
|
| 110671397 | This won't be more efficient, just more readable. And it depends both nodes are for the same company... so it makes more sense for them to be in the same changeset |