I removed them. Thanks for the reminder.

Yes, sorry, I forgot to remove those extraneous tags. I'm importing new coastline for St Lawrence Island piece by piece using the source mentioned in my comment. I usually strip those tags off before uploading. I merely forgot to do it for this particular lake.

These are NOT wilderness huts. Please read the Wiki for a definition of wilderness hots.

I deleted them.

Hi,
You added a park with name=memorial brick in this changeset but I cannot see any names near it or any signs saying that this is a park.

Can you give me your source of information for this park?

Thank you.

Russ, I've been busy with other projects and this is the first chance I've had to continue our discussion.

As for your statement about roads becoming obstructed and (because of that) surely the tagging has to change, I disagree. The road's class is not determined only by physical characteristics but also by its importance in the movement of traffic. That highway is certainly important for it entire length and as such it is, IMO, a primary highway.

There are other reasons for my assertion. I located a milestone in Ban Nam Pheung at mile 179 in the tertiary portion of the highway that displays ref=106. In addition, there is a sign at the junction of Mahidol Road that shows 106 _crossing_ that highway. The sign has arrows for 106 pointing both north and south at that intersection.

The database you're using is interesting, especially for highways that carry no markings, but as we both know all too well, data like that aren't always decisively accurate in LOS. It's not the last word by any means.

What say you?

Thanks for the reply.

I fixed it already. It wasn't as bad as I thought at first glance. The error messages one gets when using JOSM aren't always super helpful either. I don't like iD at all and I imagine it could only be worse in that regard.

I sometimes look back at my older edits and ask myself, why did I do it that way? Or, what was I thinking?

Anyway, damage fixed. We go on to new projects and learn as we go.

Hello,

I was aligning coastlines for some islands close to Nuka Island and saw two islands that you had included in the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. The shapefile I have been using for the refuge does not include those particular islands (Way id: 688530271 and Way id:21674829). The history of those ways isn't clear but if you were the person that added them, can you verify that they are indeed part of the AM NWR?

Thanks,
Dave

Hello,
When you added Unalaska Lake in this edit session, you accidentally deleted a portion of the boundary relation for the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. I know this session happened a year ago but I'm curious if you can recall seeing any error message during the upload.

I added that boundary just before you did you editing. I can repair the boundary but it will take a while to get it done.

Well, if talking about it is a waste of time, would you mind if I reclassify that road to primary then?
It is weird to see the classification of a highway change at a node where the highway is identical on both sides (same pavement, width, traffic, etc.) just because a database, esp,. a Thai database, tells us the ref changes from 106 to nothing. I mean, it's the exact same road!

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?