aaronsta's Comments
Changeset | When | Comment |
---|---|---|
53367262 | over 7 years ago | Hey rund :)
Sorry for the rant,
Regards,
|
52638904 | almost 8 years ago | Hi Warin61,
Regards,
|
52537240 | almost 8 years ago | Hi Warin61,
Unfortunately I don't have the time to fix this, and would appreciate if you know how, could update the map to reflect your recommendations. Cheers,
|
50505567 | almost 8 years ago | Hi shinjiman, thanks for your edit :) Just following up and letting you know that when you edit to check that you remove redundant tags if possible. This is harder on the ID (web based) editor. This is just as the tag construction=service was still on these ways and should have been deleted. Cheers :) |
51899959 | almost 8 years ago | Thanks for your message aharvey.
|
51899959 | almost 8 years ago | It may be appropriate to remove these lines, as I am yet to complete mapping the area and may need to use them again it could be useful to retain. The lines now have no tagged attributes aside from the note=* |
51899959 | almost 8 years ago | Following up from this, originally these were created as the roundabouts themselves formed good starting points, but are way to inaccurate to align the images. It was not put in a local dataset as the images were rectified outside JOSM, where wms tiles were supported but any vector data (such as osm files) was not. |
51899959 | almost 8 years ago | Hi Warin61 and aharvey, this changeset is in response to a message from OSM user hadry. Below is a copy of correspondence between myself and OSM user hadry: Hi Hadry, Thanks for your message, yes these were tagged for the renderer, as barrier=fence makes a clearly visible straight line on Mapnik. I captured some aerial imagery around the time when these were made, and needed to reference the imagery for imagery rectification, so added these lines. The purpose was to remap this area in greater detail, but I never got around to finishing the project, so never removed the lines. I have now removed the barrier=fence tagging. osm.org/changeset/51899959 osm.org/relation/7560478 I have retained the ways as it would be useful to use in the near future. Cheers, Aaron On 6/09/2017 9:47 PM, hadry wrote: > > > OpenStreetMap OpenStreetMap > > Hi aaronsta, > > hadry has sent you a message through OpenStreetMap with the subject inexistant fences: > hadry > > Hi aaronsta, > > Would you be able to clarify your use of these tags for features that do not exist on the ground? > > barrier: fence > > note: ADDED FOR AERIAL IMAGERY RECTIFICATION, PLEASE RETAIN IN MAP > > eg. osm.org/way/478643208/ > > I don't understand why they need to be tagged as fence. From an outside point of view, it looks a lot like tagging for the renderer. > > Cheers! > > hadry |
51485710 | almost 8 years ago | Correction to previous: your > you |
51485710 | almost 8 years ago | Hi trigpoint,
|
46343585 | about 8 years ago | Some changes have been made to this changeset (#50341042). Please note the meanings and how to use the following tags before any future edits using these keys: motorway; motorway_link; trunk; and trunk_link. osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dmotorway Also ensure that relations are not negatively affected, and all redundant tags are removed (Also note that the ways you edited specifically had note=not freeway on them at the time you edited them, and oneway=yes). Cheers, aaronsta |
38378801 | over 8 years ago | Note: there were some significant issues with this edit, it seems the editor moved some ways |
37646156 | almost 9 years ago | Hi russj79,
When tagging roundabouts don't use highway=turning_circle this is only for certain cul-de-sacs. Use junction=roundabout instead. No roundabouts in Australia are named (no name tag) (some rotaries are though) Also please don't forget to split roads/ways to separate roads when they have different properties! |
32881180 | almost 9 years ago | Changeset reverted in full as it constitutes vandalism |
41084549 | about 9 years ago | Road previously classed as trunk as it was deemed a "dual-carriageway". While this road section is a dual carriageway this is not a classification of Main Roads (MRWA) Beyond Safety Bay Rd and Kwinana Freeway intersection the road is no longer a road with Control of Access. If the logic of “being a dual-carriageway” is used then beyond Safety Bay Road it should be classed as a trunk road. Sometimes it is not appropriate to use the statutory road classification. As a result this section of road is a motorway as it has some limited access aspects to it. |
40195392 | about 9 years ago | Hi there, yes I do think that is what happened Ill do a quick edit now and have a proper look at it later |
40051763 | about 9 years ago | Unfortunatley I cannot work out a way to remove nodes without tags as it will also bring up ways without tags and relation nodes and ways without tags. But you seem to know what you are doing SomeoneElse, please let me know if I can help. |
40051763 | about 9 years ago | Another person has been working hard to try and remove these changesets, if the most recent changeset does not match one of those three above then it may have been their changeset which created the untagged nodes. If the tags can be restored through a revert of smaller changesets then the nodes can be easily deleted. I do not advise reverting one of the three above as they are quite larger and probably overlap with work you have done. |
40051763 | about 9 years ago | Hi SomeoneElse, with regards to the edits I have done relating to this data.
|
40051763 | about 9 years ago | Hi there, This data added by this sequence of changesets was removed in the changesets:
All nodes, ways and relations and their tags were attempted to be removed in these changesets. Unfortunatley as I am now aware some nodes failed to be deleted in full. I did experience internet connection troubles at the time of the changeset revert and had to cancel the upload of data. This may explain the resulting issue. I will investigate to resolve this. |