ElliottPlack's Comments
Changeset | When | Comment |
---|---|---|
134885369 | over 2 years ago | Hi, I see you've made this a trunk, but it doesn't meet the trunk criteria as laid out in the osm.wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance wiki guidance. I surveyed (walking and biking) along most of the route and it operates like a primary street. it has lights and crosswalks. The trunk classification is for connecting cities of regional importance or between city centers lacking motorways. This road does neither of those things. As a member of the Data Working Group, I'd ask that you refrain from trunk classification mapping this way, as a large majority of American mappers have settled on one particular use of trunks and as a result, data consumers are treating trunk routes differently. If you have comments on the guidance, please direct them to the wiki or the forum. Best,
|
60713812 | over 2 years ago | Hi Baloo, any idea about the purpose of this ghost ramp? No issues with this edit, I'm just curious. I was thinking it could have been a peel off exit from 35/40 but then they just use the cloverleaf. |
133811680 | over 2 years ago | Hi there, Elliott from the OSM Data Working Group here. The imagery used in this changeset has a license that would appear to be incompatible with OSM. It prohibits commercial reuse, something that we allow. Do you have explicit permission from the agency to use their imagery? It may be fine if you ask, but until such time I’d ask that you refrain from using this imagery source. A good method of getting the community to take a look at new imagery sources is to submit it to the https://github.com/osmlab/editor-layer-index project, which is the source for imagery in the ID and JOSM editors. Thank you,
|
134797806 | over 2 years ago | Hi CurlingMan, Elliott from the Data Working Group here. I’d ask that you stop doing this deletion of these abandoned railroads. Users that are interested in them are complaining about your removal. That data may not be useful to you but it is useful to someone. The data working group asks that you refrain from deleting abandoned railroads (such as in this change set or others). Thank you, Elliott Plack
|
134589968 | over 2 years ago | Work also included: trails and tracks at Copper Mine. Drains and culverts. All base on a hike: https://www.strava.com/activities/8842906698 |
126657941 | over 2 years ago | Hey there! Thank you for your contributions to OpenStreetMap on behalf of the OSM Foundation, Data Working Group. In this particular edit you changed some unclassified roads to service roads. That is not the commonly accepted practice so I would encourage you to reach out to community about changing roadway classifications. In this case, Chesapeake Overlook Parkway and Turnpike Drive both have addresses assigned to them. Generally, we don't use service tagging on named streets that are the lowest level destination street. Instead, for non-residential roads, we use the minor/unclassified option. Service tagging is reserved for roads around a business on their internal network, such as within a parking lot, and for alleys and driveways. I'll go ahead and update these one's for you. It is important to apply road tagging consistently as many data users consume OSM data and expect certain standards. Thanks, Elliott Plack
|
133458504 | over 2 years ago | Hi there, Why is the fairway grass overlapping the green here? That is not how fairways work. What you're doing falls into the category of a common mapping pitfall for golf courses. Please review osm.wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgolf_course#Common_mapping_pitfalls and adjust these fairways accordingly. Thanks! -- Elliott, OSMF Data Working Group |
128008408 | over 2 years ago | Thank you. I should mention that it is a best practice for organizations doing collective editing to use accounts with a user's name and then an underscore and the company name. Example: eplack_EZRouting (if I worked there.) For inspiration, I suggest reviewing Lyft's list of users on GitHub. Setting up something like this would go a long way towards community acceptance. https://github.com/OSM-DCT-Lyft/US/wiki/OSM-Team-Members |
128008408 | over 2 years ago | Hi there, I corrected this edit for you. The DWG has noticed a pattern of low quality or destructive edits that don't follow the community norms. Your use of a single account by multiple people also violates OSM policy. You must cease edits via a single account lest we block this account. In this particular edit it would have been better to close the portion of the road that enters the private compound. Further you should not use access=no, but rather access=private for private areas. No means no one. Please reach out at data@openstreetmap.org Thanks,
|
126502645 | over 2 years ago | Hi there. When adding these new gas station roads via Lyft's "proprietary imagery," would you please consider adding the gas station roofs and building? Thanks,
|
126728319 | over 2 years ago | The problem is that you've deleted osm.org/way/127673486 and replaced it with a set of new pipelines of unknown source. The previous version was traced from aerials and field surveyed in places. Your recent version lists only Bing as a source. Are you saying you could tell the locations of four parallel underground pipes based on imagery? This is why you are blocked, this constitutes an import, regardless of whether you "hand verified" each point. The point of the import process is for the community to review the source. Had you simply modified the existing pipeline to be more correct based on your source, this would not appear as an import, but the wholesale deletion of others work and replacing it without consideration is intolerable. Discuss the source of these edits with the community in the required fashion, e.g., in a public forum such as the imports-us mailing list, and then the DWG will consider lifting your 10-year ban. -- Elliott
|
132466223 | over 2 years ago | Hello again, you can’t copy data from other maps to OSM without permission. Further, that map disclaims that the data may be inacurate. If it was accurate, the Brush River Trail is designated as a Shared Use Path which means bikes and peds are both allowed. The OSM tag that is best practice for shared use path is highway=cycleway + foot=yes. |
132160314 | over 2 years ago | Bicycle=no should only be used if there is a sign prohibiting bikes. A road may be unsafe but if it is still allowed, we don’t change the tags to prohibit bicycles. |
132384964 | over 2 years ago | Hi there, deleting a trail because it’s ‘not a trail,’ is not the way to go. Why isn’t it a trail? Is it closed? Private? |
132160271 | over 2 years ago | |
126728319 | over 2 years ago | This was not a cleanup, but rather a full scale replacement with invalid data. It appears that the source was highly generalized and this erases much of the work by other editors. |
125959501 | over 2 years ago | Hi there and welcome to OSM fellow Wandrer! I love your goal here. Keep it up. One note on the OSM side (I represent the OSM Data Working Group, in effect the regulator of the map). No Trespassing signs are better to be tagged as "access=no" as in, no trespassing. Private access is meant for things like driveways where private access is allowed. Add this to your OSM repertoire. Thanks! |
45609130 | over 2 years ago | Hi DUGA, I know that a lot of the fire roads in the reservoir are not maintained regularly but the track highway classification is a matter of designation rather than use. The idea is that tracks can support a four-wheel drive vehicle for forestry access, exactly what these are for. Many are now overgrown; I have seen it too. This occasionally comes up in discussions whether they should be downgraded. The standard is to leave them as-is based on the designated use. Take a look at this recent discussion. https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/conflicting-global-wiki-definitions-for-deciding-between-tracks-and-paths-based-on-passability/4540/4?u=elliottplack |
87890579 | over 2 years ago | Hi there, was there any discussion or documentation for this import? As you may be aware, we have a policy for importing data, such as these E-911 addresses. In this case, the all-caps addresses are in incorrect form for OSM. A community driven import would have flagged this. Please let us know within the next 7 days how you would like to proceed, i.e., fix this or have it reverted. Thanks! Elliott Plack, OSMF Data Working Group |
131114719 | over 2 years ago | edit. that is set to a hiking trail so it may not show up on the bike maps, maybe it shouldnt? Do you know if the Mason Dixon Trail is also a bike trail? I saw you added the bike tags here. |