You know how it is with Thailand ref signs. One can never be sure if they are saying "R106 is that-a-way" or the next right IS R106. At best these highways are poorly marked compared to our home countries.

Regardless, I still think that highway should be a primary all the way from Mahidon Road to its southern terminus.

It's not a clear cut case so maybe we should ask other mappers about it in the Thailand OSM forum. What do you think?

Thanks so much for this helpful response. Please feel free to share our communications with the sponsors of your project. I can only hope it leads to a reduction of the use of the OSM database for this sort of project record keeping.

I added your response to the thread on the OSM Thailand Forum and asked for opinions regarding the removal of these transmission-site areas but I'm convinced they serve no useful purpose currently and should be removed.

Earlier in this comment, you mentioned ~400 areas added by this project. Do you have a list of identifiers for those other areas?

I'll let you know if I get any dissenting opinions, or you can subscribe to the thread yourself if you haven't already.

Thank you,
Dave

Hi Russ,

I was surprised to see you had lowered the Chiang Mai-Lamphun Road to tertiary class and removed the ref=106.
I'm not familiar with the DOH Roadnet database but there is a sign for 106 as you exit Mahidon Road to go south to Saraphi.

Even if the route designation doesn't continue into Chiang Mai proper I would still think that road should be classified as a primary highway.

Dave

Thanks for your reply. I asked for opinions about these "foci" on the Thailand OSM subforum but so far nobody has expressed their views.
Read the thread here: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=70754

My feeling is that if you could correlate your areas with officially recognized hamlets, towns or districts and add a real name, they could stay. In the absence of that knowledge, they should be removed.
If you have the project codes at hand, perhaps you could search them and delete them easily. Thank you.

You will have to excuse the tone of our conversation in the above referenced thread and in my initial comment on this changeset. We have experienced so many similar edits, which you correctly refer to as pollution, in our database that our patience has worn thin.

Please read the thread for more information. Using OSM as you and your colleagues did isn't legitimate and it serves to enrage people who do this from a love of mapping and whose mapping standards are high. Seeing buildings drawn the way your team did them is incorrect, sloppy and in the end, infuriating.

You added some areas and modified some incorrect landuse=residential areas in this changeset but did not say what these areas actually are. The descriptions and sources you used mean nothing to me or other experienced OSM mappers.

And what do the descriptions mean? What do they refer to? There are so many mistakes in this area I cannot take the time to inform you of them.

It would really help you to read the Wiki and follow standard procedures in your mapping.

Actually, while your script is interesting, I'm not sure I would want to look at it every day and see all the strange keys people create. The flexibility offered by the OSM platform encourages users to invent any old tag they like. It must drive you crazy sometimes.

I'm not disappointed.

I was curious to know how you noticed my "New tags" in Alaska seeing as most of your OSM mapping work is elsewhere.

You have answered that question and satisfied my curiosity.

Thanks for sharing the information.

Thank you. I removed the extra tags. I must have forgotten to do it earlier.

I'm curious to know how you happened to notice these tags? There are so few people mapping in Alaska it always amazes me to get a comment on one of my changesets.

Thanks again.

Thanks for the reply.

I did find a reference to the Penny Royal Glacier in geonames.com but the only references I found to the Bomber Glacier is in several news stories about why it's named Bomber. Did you see the wreck while you were there? It would be nice to add its coordinates to OSM as but I did not find any information about the position of the wreck.

I traced the outlines of the glaciers, added the names and did not alter your existing tourist=attraction nodes at all.

Dave

Yes, I know. I strip those tags before uploading. Did I forget to do this for a section of coastline? Can you provide an OSM ID for a section that still has the foreign tags?

Thank you.

Thank you very much.
I might never have found the data viewer on my own.

I have downloaded some shapefiles to experiment with, however so far, all the extracts I've tested are very inaccurate. Better then the old PGS coastlines but still in need of major aligning before use.
I cannot seem to select the proper color box to get the "finest resolution" as you suggested. What am I missing?

Did you have to "move" the shapes to better fit the coastline? Did you hand align some segments of the coastline using satellite imagery?

You have added a very nice coastline in this changeset to replace the original PGS coastline. I want to do this for a great many other islands in Alaska. However, I cannot find the exact URL to obtain these coastlines. Can you be more specific about the source URL you have provided?

Thank you

The building you added should be orthogonalized, that is, its corners made to meet at 90 deg angles. Right-click on a building outline in the iD Editor and select the "Square" setting from the flyout menu.

Okay, Carlo. Thanks for the information. I suggested JOSM because of its power but unless you want to become a regular contributor it might not be worth the time it takes to learn how to use it.

No problem about the extra work. I'm glad you want to contribute time to worthwhile projects and I'm happy you are willing to work on improving your technique.

Returning to the duplicate buildings - yep, it was probably some sort of error in the HOT task manager. Sometimes there are synchronization issues between two users working in the same area or even two versions of editing by the same user, that cause "conflicts" upon uploading. These are very difficult to resolve and most OSMers dread them. It looks like that's what happened here.

Dave

You requested a review of this work. It looks like the junction of 294 and ศก.5089 has some serious problems. One segment of 294 (way id:844947605) has 16 redundant U-turn restrictions.

The rest of the junction looks okay but if I were being asked to fix it,my first step would be to delete all of the existing U-Turn restrictions and start over.

It's hard for me to tell which of those restrictions you're responsible for but clearly it needs to be fixed.

Dave

You requested a review of this changeset. Actually my original comment belongs on a different changeset. I didn't see anything wrong with the oneway situation here so I'll give you a "pass" on that.

Dave

You requested a review of this work. It looks like the junction of 294 and ศก.5089 has some serious problems. One segment of 294 (way id:844947605) has 16 redundant U-turn restrictions.

The rest of the junction looks okay but if I were being asked to fix it,my first step would be to delete all of the existing U-Turn restrictions and start over.

It's hard for me to tell which of those restrictions you're responsible for but clearly it needs to be fixed.

Dave

These buildings are okay but are not drawn very well IMO. I commented on another of your recent changesets (90482117) and made some suggestions there.

Dave

Hi again,

There are no duplicate buildings in this changeset but the accuracy of your building outlines is still pretty poor. You're using the iD Editor and it has built-in tools to make a building square, rotate it, move it, etc. After selecting the outline you right-click to open a special menu.

My advice, if you intend to become a regular mapper, is to start using JOSM as soon as possible. I don't like iD and don't see how people can use it. But that's just my opinion.

Dave

According to my Thai wife, those two names are probably the same man using two different forms of his name. Can't be sure.

I agree with you that something is wrong with a system — I have never been able to add a building over the top of another one. One way that could happen is if you are working from some sort of a "task manager" that allocates work spaces for different mappers and it didn't work as intended. A good task manager will make sure to not allocate the same area to two different mappers. Are you using a task manager?

I have a couple more questions:
What is the full name of the project you're working for? Are you getting paid for your work?

Thanks for your willingness to work together.