relation for CR169 created in changeset 154799304. oops.

this changeset creates relation for CR169, not CR 145.

Yes, the name_1 tag was an error which I fixed. The source for the name was Bradford County address data from PASDA, not Penndot

Woodpeck, my comment about something that was indeed visible was about a driveway. I agree the connector link is debatable. I’d have to check, but I may have just renamed a way that was already there. But those items are only ancillary to my original comments.

First, I’m not a GIS professional and never was. I was a global vice president and chief exploration geologist for a supermajor international oil company. I also spent many years in charge of quality assurance of geoscience technical evaluations.

I edit at very high zoom level. And I stand by my edits. you are harassing me and it needs to stop. As I have said before, I’m happy to fix any errors if you would like to politely point them out.

You seem to believe I’m mapping randomly and carelessly. I am not. When you move a node less than a meter you are well within the margin of error of any of the data available on openstreetmap. You are playing in the weeds.

As I said before, please feel free to report me to whoever you would like. I’d be happy to have that discussion.

Seriously? You really need to find someone else to harass. Adding my user name to your changesets with “junk removal” is completely inappropriate. I’m really getting tired of this. There have been very few edits in this county since the TIGER import so the vast majority of my edits are improvements. There are a lot of things that need fixing in this county, and I am not fixing every tag and every item I touch in a changeset.
Some of the “junk” you removed were perfectly valid ways. The driveway you deleted IS visible. It may not be their primary driveway, but it’s there. Just because it’s not how you would map it, doesn’t mean you can delete it. Map what’s on the ground .

Your adjustments to the roads are mostly tiny adjustments that make zero difference, especially compared to what was there before.

If you spent as much energy on actually mapping areas that haven’t been touched in years instead of chasing my changesets, you could have improved the map a whole lot more than what you’ve done.

Your comments are insulting and harassing. Are my edits always perfect? No. Are yours? I’m sure if I inspected all of your edits the way you seem to be stalking mine, I would find “junk” to remove.

99% of my edits are improvements to the map. Get over yourself. If you have issues with my edits politely ask me to fix it or just go ahead and report them. I’d be happy to have this discussion with the data working group.

I’m not sure what your issue is with me and I really don’t care, but you need to leave me alone.

Yes, I clearly forgot the primary tags for the well site on that one. Thanks for fixing it.

Nope. Good catch. Thanks. I must have hit that toggle button accidentally. I fixed it.

There’s a signed entrance to this lot on Franklin Street. Given that the bank faces Main Street and there is no entrance to the parking from Main Street, it seemed like a way for people to find it, but it doesn’t matter to me either way. there’s likely another way to represent it, but its probably not worth losing sleep over.

So I checked this changeset and I made alignment changes to every road where I deleted the tags, with one exception, it was a way you had previously updated but did not remove the tiger tags. I reviewed the geometry and it didn’t need changes.

So I’m not sure what the issue is here. I also checked your changeset over this area with the comment “Emergency Update” to see if there was something I missed. You made a few changes to one road that I had edited that could be called cosmetic at best given the new nodes were mostly within a lines width of the old. One exception is a rural intersection that I had mapped wrong, so thanks for fixing that.

Can you please be more specific? I don’t remove the tags unless I update the geometry (if it needs it). Was there a specific way that was a problem? Today I noticed that some uploads from ID didn’t seem to include my changes. I have no idea why. I did notice in this are that there were some obviously wrong roads without the tiger tags.

Hi solongago,
thanks for your contributions! I've been working in this area to fix and update some of the administrative boundary ways and relations. When you edited the forest boundary, you changed a way (osm.org/way/360210008) that is part of the official boundary for Porter and Leham Townships. I see you are using JOSM, so it's easy to see that something is associated with a relation if you look at the very top of the side bar for tags. It will show the number of tags and the number of "Memberships" that item has. Memberships mean that they are in a relation of some sort. Please use caution when editing these as it's very easy to break the relations! I fixed this one and put it back to to the original boundary. It may be that they ways were "glued" together for this one and for the state land. Something to look out for!
cheers

I really have no desire to be at odds with you. I am still learning and am bound to make some mistakes, but I assure you it is never intentional. I am happy to fix any mistakes.

On the boundaries, I agree that it’s difficult to find an authoritative source for these boundaries. I did find the Census BAS files, which according to the webpage are sourced directly from the local governments. That map for Jessup township does appear to follow the creek, but I have not been able to determine if that is legislatively defined that way. In this case, do have a recommendation for how best to map it? It seems that using a water feature in an administrative boundary leaves open a lot of room for accidental edits of one or the other (as evidenced by my mistake). In this case, I doubt many people would care either way, but I’m curious about this for other areas where it may be more relevant.

You can also pm me on OSM US slack (same user name) if you see something else I need to fix.

I live in Susquehanna county and my motivations are to simply improve the map here given that rural areas are usually overlooked.

I fixed the creek. BTW, you might try assuming good intent as required by the code of conduct before threatening to report a changeset. I suspect we are going to be dealing with each other in this area and I don’t mind debate or someone pointing out that I made a mistake, but I ask you keep it civil or I may have to report you for a breach of the OSM code of conduct.

Sorry about the broken river. I’ll fix that, I was focused on the boundary relation. In general the guidance is not to use features like rivers as members in a boundary relation unless the boundary is specifically defined this way legally. Is that case here that you are aware of?

Hi ManDam, Thanks for your contribution to OSM! O took a look a look at your changeset and have a few comments for you.

It's best to try to map buildings separately unless it is very clear that they are connected. I noted a few examples where you have mapped multiple buildings with one closed way (area).

You can also make sure the buildings with 90 degree corners are square by selecting the item and hitting the Q key.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148983555

Hi Duga, I noticed that you tagged a number of ponds as water=basin. example here: (osm.org/way/1046342439/history/2)
My understanding is that the basin tag is typically used in the context of water management. from the wikipage: ..."Usually these features are made for man made water courses e.g. storm water, water treatment."

Is there a reason you chose this tag instead of water=pond? Many of these are just small ponds that landowners have created or modified. Often they are spring fed. Generally they are for recreation, more than water management.

Would you object if I modified these tags?

A bit late on my response, but thanks Bernard. Much appreciated.

May i ask why you reverted this edit?

hey Duga, Just saw this. I assumed I would be notified if there were comments on my changesets, but I guess that's not the case. I get the concept and I'm wondering whether I should also be deleting the source tag that gets added when using the MapwithAI data in JOSM. The software adds the source to each building, even if I only use it as a starting point.