OpenStreetMap
Adam Franco's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 136640466 | over 1 year ago | This invalid place-level retagging has been reverted. See community discussion at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/new-england-place-name-inflation/103878/21 |
| 136635367 | over 1 year ago | This invalid place-level retagging has been reverted. See community discussion at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/new-england-place-name-inflation/103878/21 |
| 136674286 | over 1 year ago | This invalid place-level retagging has been reverted. See community discussion at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/new-england-place-name-inflation/103878/21 |
| 136673827 | over 1 year ago | This invalid place-level retagging has been reverted. See community discussion at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/new-england-place-name-inflation/103878/21 |
| 136671902 | over 1 year ago | This invalid place-level retagging has been reverted. See community discussion at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/new-england-place-name-inflation/103878/21 |
| 136605034 | over 1 year ago | Why was this moved?
|
| 136595517 | over 1 year ago | This actual change-set of adding two hamlets is OK. The previous comment was intended for your other mass-changes to places across the state.
|
| 140243749 | over 1 year ago | Please add more detailed changeset comments indicating what you are changing and why. The town name is not sufficiently descriptive to evaluate your intent.
|
| 136671620 | over 1 year ago | We don't use abbreviations in OSM.
|
| 136671725 | over 1 year ago | We don't use abbreviations in OSM
|
| 136671809 | over 1 year ago | We don't use abbreviations in OSM.
|
| 136671833 | over 1 year ago | We don't use abbreviations in OSM
|
| 136595346 | over 1 year ago | Glastonbury has a population of 9. It is not a place=town, but rather a place=hamlet. |
| 136589905 | over 1 year ago | It is not appropriate to set the place=* value based on the incorporation status of municipalities. In OSM the place=* tag should have a value that is based on the size, amenities, and importance of the community, not it's incorporation status. In New England, the basic unit of municipal incorporation is called a "Town", but this doesn't mean that such a municipality demands a "place=town".
Please follow up with the New England mapping community in the thread at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/new-england-place-name-inflation/103878/12 |
| 136589957 | over 1 year ago | It is not appropriate to set the place=* value based on the incorporation status of municipalities. In OSM the place=* tag should have a value that is based on the size, amenities, and importance of the community, not it's incorporation status. In New England, the basic unit of municipal incorporation is called a "Town", but this doesn't mean that such a municipality demands a "place=town".
Please follow up with the New England mapping community in the thread at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/new-england-place-name-inflation/103878/12 |
| 136595517 | over 1 year ago | It is not appropriate to set the place=* value based on the incorporation status of municipalities. In OSM the place=* tag should have a value that is based on the size, amenities, and importance of the community, not it's incorporation status. In New England, the basic unit of municipal incorporation is called a "Town", but this doesn't mean that such a municipality demands a "place=town".
Please follow up with the New England mapping community in the thread at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/new-england-place-name-inflation/103878/12 |
| 136595721 | over 1 year ago | It is not appropriate to set the place=* value based on the incorporation status of municipalities. In OSM the place=* tag should have a value that is based on the size, amenities, and importance of the community, not it's incorporation status. In New England, the basic unit of municipal incorporation is called a "Town", but this doesn't mean that such a municipality demands a "place=town".
Please follow up with the New England mapping community in the thread at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/new-england-place-name-inflation/103878/12 |
| 136595960 | over 1 year ago | It is not appropriate to set the place=* value based on the incorporation status of municipalities. In OSM the place=* tag should have a value that is based on the size, amenities, and importance of the community, not it's incorporation status. In New England, the basic unit of municipal incorporation is called a "Town", but this doesn't mean that such a municipality demands a "place=town".
Please follow up with the New England mapping community in the thread at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/new-england-place-name-inflation/103878/12 |
| 136596173 | over 1 year ago | It is not appropriate to set the place=* value based on the incorporation status of municipalities. In OSM the place=* tag should have a value that is based on the size, amenities, and importance of the community, not it's incorporation status. In New England, the basic unit of municipal incorporation is called a "Town", but this doesn't mean that such a municipality demands a "place=town".
Please follow up with the New England mapping community in the thread at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/new-england-place-name-inflation/103878/12 |
| 136596658 | over 1 year ago | It is not appropriate to set the place=* value based on the incorporation status of municipalities. In OSM the place=* tag should have a value that is based on the size, amenities, and importance of the community, not it's incorporation status. In New England, the basic unit of municipal incorporation is called a "Town", but this doesn't mean that such a municipality demands a "place=town".
Please follow up with the New England mapping community in the thread at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/new-england-place-name-inflation/103878/12 |