OpenStreetMap標誌 OpenStreetMap

電郵圖示 Bluesky圖示 Facebook圖示 LinkedIn圖示 Mastodon圖示 Telegram圖示 X圖示

討論

-karlos-2018年12月1日16:51發表的評論

Could you add some changesets?

LACDH2018年12月1日16:53發表的評論

Hello,

What do you mean?

-karlos-2018年12月1日16:56發表的評論

All your edits got changeset nurmber. Please add some of the reverted changesets to your block post. So we may see what and why they have been reverted.

LACDH2018年12月1日16:59發表的評論

60090584

alexkemp2018年12月1日17:22發表的評論

Changeset 60090584

I’m obviously ignorant, but I cannot see from that url why (nor even if) it has been reverted.

LACDH2018年12月1日17:38發表的評論

Most of the roads were merged and everything was cleaned up. Them someone has come along and added them all back, not just that area as well.

Heather Leson2018年12月1日18:29發表的評論

Thanks for your contributions to OSM.

Richard2018年12月1日19:51發表的評論

LACDH, I think people are having trouble understanding what you’re saying here. Could you give a concrete example? (e.g. “I added Frog Street in Toadville and now it’s been deleted”) What do you mean by “merged” and “cleaned up”?

Warin612018年12月1日23:21發表的評論

Just as you have edited existing entries in OSM, so people may have edited your entries?

Changeset 60090584 deleted;

some relations .. they look to be turn restrictions.

some ways

some nodes

The people who put those in .. should they take offense and cease contributing to OSM?

What I am getting at .. are any of these changes made to ‘your’ entries destructive to the map?

Note: the ‘your’. Once you have entered data it is no longer ‘yours’ but the communities. Certainly some monitoring is a good thing both to gauge others perception as to the accuracy of the changes and any updates that may occur.

Unless the changeset was reverted then I would think the changes you have noted are simply others doing the same as yourself - trying to improve the map.

escada2018年12月3日12:21發表的評論

So with “merge” you probably mean that you replaced e.g. the “twin” road way “Hibiscus Coast Highway” with 1 OSM way ? Which was then mapped again as twin road in osm.org/changeset/60446050 (Twin ways, added slip roads primary links and added directionality one way.) ?

On aerial imagery I see that at least part of that road is separated by a physical obstacle (grass, ..). I’m not familiar with the location, so it’s hard to tell whether the intermediate sections with just white markings should be mapped as 1 OSM or not. What’s the ratio of the length with a physical separation vs. lane markings ?

Warin612018年12月3日22:37發表的評論

There are those who think a simpler map is ‘better’ - less confusing, less clutter, easier to understand. There are those who think more detail is ‘better’ - reflects ground truth, aids detailed navigation.

I have come across those those who reduced the information … make it ‘simpler’. I am in the other camp - more detail to reflect what is there.

A vector map can have lots of detail, and not show it when zoomed out - thus making the map ‘simpler’ yet retaining the detail when zoomed in. If the data is not there then when zoomed in that data is missing. So that is how I justify my preference for that data detail.

登入以留言