tuttiton's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 119350356 | Hi, i think there are some leftover untagged lanes that are not in relations from this change
|
|
| 162189702 | I mean this one
|
|
| 162189702 | that's a very strange change especially making
|
|
| 172067490 | messed up the changeset's message:
|
|
| 157896586 | Hello, it's of course a mistake. fixed, thanks for checking! |
|
| 115385676 | Ah ok. yeah I think some maps may be getting addresses from the public address database which has it incorrect for whatever reason. hopefully if you update it in OSM they'll switch to the correct ones (but it's not guaranteed). just a heads up, I don't think it's a right approach to add name of the apartment complex/neighborhood to every building (not sure why it was done this way for some other buildings in vicinity)
Otherwise welcome to the OSM community you may find some information specific for Michigan here osm.wiki/Michigan
|
|
| 146610935 | Hi, sure, fixed now. Thanks for checking |
|
| 115385676 | you can seee actual changes from this changeset here https://osmcha.org/changesets/115385676/ I checked your change history and as far as I understand from it is that you're talking about this building
And indeed I added it 2 years ago. here https://osmcha.org/changesets/115401350/
I added footprints by aerial imagery and I have no knowledge of actual street addresses of the buildings I added. if you know these addresses you can add them yourself.
|
|
| 115385676 | are you sure this changeset is the problem? it was made 2 years ago and I'm reasonably sure I didn't touch the addresses. just added building footprints and changed the roads geometry slightly. |
|
| 143052467 | sorry i mean it was definitely not intended like that
|
|
| 143052467 | definitely not. thanks for checking, fixed |
|
| 142991899 | thanks for checking. updated |
|
| 124051974 | Thanks! and also thank you for checking other admin_level buildings and the discussion! much appreciated |
|
| 124051974 | I mean I don't particularly mind removing the tag per se, it's pretty obvious what the building is. but I'm not sure that removing it is the right approach. I think the tag is descriptive and used correctly in a reasonably documented way... I don't think it's a good argument that other building are not marked like that in US (and are there buildings marked with different admin_level?). I don't see why should the correct, even if unusual, data fit your query instead of the other way around |
|
| 124051974 | I didn't add the admin_level tag as far as I remember. but anyway sounds like you may want to update your query see admin_level=*
|
|
| 111210848 | yeah i changed my nickname here about half a year ago:) and i'm a frequent visitor to Michigan mappers meeting |
|
| 111210848 | well i guess not really. i've seen it made this way in a few places and continued to use it this way for a while but i supppose adding level tag l to the building is probably a better way to do it |
|
| 124971244 | Hi, thanks for letting me know. removed these tags in the change set changeset/125059769 |
|
| 124051974 | also don't know heights of porches and small domes at the sides |
|
| 123613890 | Hello, Yeah I think I did it a bit freely. I see that you already rolled back some of that. I'll revisit this change soon
Thank you for your vigilance |