OddlyAngled's Comments
Changeset | When | Comment |
---|---|---|
138166004 | about 2 years ago | why do you believe this road to be a secondary? you've upgraded it from unclassified, to tertiary, to secondary?
|
138165711 | about 2 years ago | old proposed roads and fully destroyed roads don’t belong here, please remove them and add them to https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/ (or some other site) instead
|
137616362 | about 2 years ago | this used to be an old trail that was still serviceable as a use trail.. has it been destroyed in recent times?
|
137213677 | about 2 years ago | please use better statewide references before upgrading all of the road tags, Tioga Pass Road for example is secondary
|
136520705 | about 2 years ago | https://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/#zoom=12&lat=37.3207&lon=-119.1773 can also help highlight problems in the map |
136520705 | about 2 years ago | these are not link roads nor secondary, please read osm.wiki/Highway_link and osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified |
134756633 | over 2 years ago | trail updates around the GTW and eastern Sequoia, added bridge details, Volcano Falls and a few more buildings |
134635084 | over 2 years ago | if it's a name that would be used on an mailing address then `name` is fine... otherwise I'd use `loc_name` or maybe `alt_name` depending on how common it is. just something like `loc_name=The Four Lane` without quotes should be good. the road number is pulled from the `ref` tag so you don't need to add it again |
134635084 | over 2 years ago | when a creek runs under a road add a culvert to the creek instead of creating a bridge on the road. unless there really is a bridge. there is no need to add the number of lanes to the road name. the lanes=4 tag already covers this. thanks!
|
134434061 | over 2 years ago | are the marked ford=yes nodes actually fords? the NHD flowlines around the Sierras are not super accurate, and most (say 95-99%) of the notable ones have culverts or bridges
|
133652920 | over 2 years ago | grocery stores need not be added to hiking routes, even if they are nearby. take a look at osm.wiki/Hiking#Roles for common hiking relation roles. |
132234287 | over 2 years ago | No worries, just saw these pop up in Osmose. can you take a look and connect or delete them? There may be others too: osm.org/way/924857015 osm.org/way/924857036 osm.org/way/924857009 osm.org/way/924857033
|
132234287 | over 2 years ago | this change deleted a lot of tracks and left some orphaned/disconnected. was this intentional?
|
129174409 | over 2 years ago | I double checked in Secor and the UTM location can point to either one but the description makes it sound like the way you have it mapped is correct: "The south side of the pass consists of slabs that lead to the northern base of Matthes Crest." |
129174409 | over 2 years ago | Secor describes Wilts Col as being directly between peak 7 and 8, where Echo Pass (currently) located. do you think Wilts Col and Echo Pass are one and the same? |
126157758 | over 2 years ago | should be fixed by osm.org/changeset/129662865#map=15/37.8349/-119.8433 |
126157758 | over 2 years ago | this broke the Yosemite Wilderness relation
|
128953724 | almost 3 years ago | did you also modify the existing canyon?
|
126795363 | almost 3 years ago | minor nit but consider adding bridge=boardwalk for the boardwalk osm.wiki/Tag:bridge%3Dboardwalk
|
124463048 | about 3 years ago | the problem in this area is mostly due to NHD flowlines imported as waterways. many (most?) of these should be deleted but it's a ton of work to clean up an area. Yosemite is much better than Inyo NF in this regard. the 1994 USGS quads are a better reference for waterways, they're not always correct but they're pretty good. in this case there is no waterway on the USGS quad. the trail however does get wet... just no running or standing water to deal with, at least in my experience. |