Hello,
I've been working in the area covered by this changeset and I see many errors. You have described a huge area as landuse=orchard when in fact, it is a mixture of scrub, and aquaculture landuses.

Not only that but you failed to create multipolygons to allow for the many ponds (aquaculture ponds) to be properly rendered.

I have been correcting your work as I go. I will spend more time correcting these landuse errors later today but it is a lot of work for me, work that you should have done better in the first place.

Please use more care when outlining and describing objects. Sorry to be so harsh but you need to be a lot more careful.

Dave

Hi Jiulien,

Yes, please feel free to update those highways. I haven't checked back on any of my now out-of-date tagging. Lately, I'm not doing as much mapping as I once did so I don't come across these old tags very often.

Oops.

I must have screwed something up when I was adding the second side of the carriageway.

Hopefully, you were able to fix it Johnny.

Hi Julien,

I was in Doi Inthanon park this morning driving around on the back roads. There is a hamlet that you named Ban Khun Ya (18.4389123, 98.5248006). I believe that hamlet is actually further southwest on that highway. I base that decision on a road sign I photographed that said the town was 12 km distant. When I measured the road segment from that sign it ended in a different town, as yet unnamed, here (18.42927, 98.504549). I believe that is Ban Khun Ya.

Your comment says you read the name from a sign. My guess is that what you saw on the sign wasn't at the town center but perhaps marking the northern-most boundary of Ban Khun Ya. I did not drive all the way there so cannot verify whether it has signage or not but I feel certain the town is where I've indicated.

Interestingly, the highway leading to it has a Kilometer 0 marker right at the junction of the park road that goes to the campground. It is ชม. 7094 which I have tagged as such. It's a funny place for a highway to start IMO but there are many mileposts (metal flags) along the way.

Best,

Dave

My apologies,
That way was not meant to have any name at all. My mistake. I must've tagged it by accident when I was adding the other actual old_name:en on the way intersecting with Huay Keaw Road.

I removed it.

Russ,

If you're asking me, I say yes.

There's a note tag on the way, and in it I say that the name came from a physical sign (which happens to be at located at the junction of 121 and Huay Keaw Road). I recall that sign and it's a fairly small government-issue sign that isn't obvious, but yes, it's real and verifiable if you want to take the trouble. Also note that it's tagged as old_name:en, not name:en, so it will seldom if ever render on any normal map. It's merely a historical fact about the "Canal Road" that I found interesting and wanted to include in OSM.

I wouldn't invent a name just because I felt a name tag was mandatory. I also don't believe adding a "helpful" E or W to a route ref is appropriate unless the route is signed as such, e.g., Route 90 S. But I've never seen that sort of nomenclature in Thailand. Have you?

I hope this alleviates your concerns.

Dave

Relax. It was a mistake. I map in the U.S. as well as Thailand and I merely forgot to download data to a new layer.

Hi,

There is a large way ( id:769510142) with about 1700 nodes that is untagged. Did you forget to tag it? Ordinarily, I would have removed it immediately but seeing as it's such a large addition, thought I'd better contact you first.

Cheers,

Dave

I don't add anything to Google Maps since I started mapping for OSM. Never fear, they will get that data if they want it.

I reckon so!

Congrats igwax, you beat me to it by 17 hours! I read the ADN article last night and had looked forward to entering it into OSM but when I looked at it this morning, the Northernmost Glacier was already there.

I changed your tag "inscription" to "description" because there is no inscription (written sign or plaque etc.) present on that landform.

Cheers,

Dave

Okay. Thanks.

The footway in question is already on a bridge with layer=1.

Also, note that while I was the original mapper, user:Bernhard Hiller has worked on it since. He extended the footway and perhaps moved a couple of nodes.

At any rate, I adjusted the water boundary slightly but it will still probably produce an error if checked with some of the tools OSM offers.

The footway is on a bridge and crosses wetlands and open water. It might better be drawn if I worked to separate the boundary of the Thale Luang Non-Hunting Area from the shoreline of Thale Luang. I did not do that because it was too much work at the time.

In addition, the Thale Luang expands and shrinks depending on the season so the footway you're asking about does sometimes cross open water.

I hope this helps.

I just did this as a one-off. I don't usually map in Bangkok but when I last looked, there are many of these wide canals that are represented by lines only. I added the multipolygon but didn't worry too much about the bridges. I'm only doing armchair mapping so I didn't add any new bridges.

I think I fixed them now. Feel free in the future to correct them if you wish.

No problem.

I only added a name to this water body. It was drawn originally from Mapbox satellite imagery by Tom Layo. I don't know if there is an embankment or not, nor do I know that the highway exists.

I did realign the shoreline using Maxar-Premium but that's all I can do from here (in my armchair LOL)

Hi Julien,
As I said earlier, I don't have a favored outcome for this particular highway but as for the revised scheme, I can't agree with this:

"e.g. highway=track is used agricultural/forestry purposes, and it’s perfectly acceptable to have some paved"

Huh? Paved?

My solution for that situation is to tag the way as jighway=service with service=agrcultural and surface=*

Also, regarding cleaning up Grab's mess; that's up to Grab. We need to rein them in somehow, but I don't think it's wise to adjust our tagging to accommodate their incompetence.

Grab is bad, but then so are many "legitimate" OSM mappers — I clean up messy tagging and multipolygons made by OSMers almost every time I open JOSM. Overall, Grab probably add more value than trouble.

Cheers,

Dave

I reckon this can wait. It's no biggie either way.

I don't have a need to change that tagging and it's not worth the drive out there to see it.

Looking at the fairly clear delineation of it in the imagery, it appears to be more than a track. I define a track as a way through that is visible but not a real "road", something you might want to think about before driving the family car on it.

As in so many other things OSM, there's a lot of subjectivity that enters into our decisions about how to tag and why. LOL

Be well....