CurlingMan13's Comments
Changeset | When | Comment |
---|---|---|
147058636 | over 1 year ago | What did they do? I am having a hard time sorting out. Also, they are an organized editor for Amazon, so there is a higher level of quality expected. |
146974346 | over 1 year ago | Historic/once-existing railways can be mapped on OHM. But they do not belong on OSM if they don't currently exist. |
136767562 | over 1 year ago | FYI, your changeset was reverted without duscussion by a different user... I agree with you. Based on lifecycle tags, they either shouldn't be mapped or should be tagged as razed since abandoned only applies to locations where the rails still exist, and based on multiple roads and the buildings that now exist where these "abandoned" railways exist, I think it is safe to say there is nothing remaining that resembles a railway in some portions. |
145012535 | over 1 year ago | What is your source? How did you verify they accept crypto payment? |
146387906 | over 1 year ago | The removal has already been reversed, and thus no further action is needed here: In the future, care will be taken to ensure that payment types remain correct (via phone call to business or in-person surveys). I will not touch crypto payment types personally unless it has been verified personally (in person by me), and will comment on relevant changesets according prior to removal. I have previously encountered seemingly organized mappers updating the "check_date=*" in an automated fashion without verification that it still (or ever) exists. I will comment and report those organized users going forwards without reverting or touching their tags. |
147150199 | over 1 year ago | When mapping cartpaths over water, they should be a bridge, or the water should be a tunnel... |
147156080 | over 1 year ago | Welcome to OSM. When adding buildings or other rectangular/square type features, "Q" can be used to give them right angles and make the map look good.
|
147100348 | over 1 year ago | Please review:
|
147100994 | over 1 year ago | When mapping golf course features, do not overlap them partially. The smaller one can be completely in the larger one, or they can not overlap at all. Review here for more info: osm.wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgolf_course#:~:text=Overlapping%20green/fairway/rough%20polygons%20(see%20graphic%20below)
|
127225049 | over 1 year ago | You made a couple mistakes: 1) Do not partially overlap landcovers. 2) Do not leave slivers of areas to create "holes". You should review the following webpage:
I have fixed this one time for you. Please do not continue to submit changesets with these errors. |
83275556 | over 1 year ago | These houses are mapped as literal trash. They are not even close to square, they also don't even closely resemble the shapes of the houses. |
126522757 | over 1 year ago | You made a couple mistakes: 1) Do not partially overlap landcovers. 2) Do not leave slivers of areas to create "holes". You should review the following webpage:
I have fixed this one time for you. Please do not continue to submit changesets with these errors. |
147065222 | over 1 year ago | You made a couple mistakes: 1) Do not partially overlap landcovers. 2) Do not leave slivers of areas to create "holes". You should review the following webpage:
|
146288113 | over 1 year ago | Before making further edits on OSM, you shoudl review the following: You made a couple mistakes which I have kindly resolved here:
|
146603640 | over 1 year ago | Before making further edits on OSM, you shoudl review the following: You made a couple mistakes which I have kindly resolved here:
|
146603969 | over 1 year ago | Before making further edits on OSM, you shoudl review the following: You made a couple mistakes which I have kindly resolved here:
|
147032660 | over 1 year ago | Trails that are on private property should not be removed... Access tags should be used instead, "access=private". You can read why here:
I recommend you revert this changeset, restore the trails and then add access tags as appropriate.
|
147035464 | over 1 year ago | Couple things:
|
144295159 | over 1 year ago | Please stop deleting trails just because you declare them "private", but they have been confirmed to exist. Access tags should be used instead of deletion. I have reverted your latest attempt to delete these ways. |
146994662 | over 1 year ago | Again, this changeset has been reverted. Access tags should be used instead to restrict access, rather than deleting the features all together. You can read why it won't be deleted here:
|