Beste Reisinformatiegroep,

Ik heb deze wijzigingenset handmatig teruggedraaid:
osm.org/changeset/112539753

De Google Maps-licentie is niet te combineren met de OpenStreetMap-licentie. Zie
osm.wiki/Compatible_license

Groet,

Daniel

Beste Reisinformatiegroep,

Ik heb deze wijzigingenset handmatig teruggedraaid:
osm.org/changeset/112539596

De Google Maps-licentie is niet te combineren met de OpenStreetMap-licentie. Zie
osm.wiki/Compatible_license

Groet,

Daniel

Beste Reisinformatiegroep,

Ik heb deze wijzigingenset handmatig teruggedraaid:
osm.org/changeset/112539314

De Google Maps-licentie is niet te combineren met de OpenStreetMap-licentie. Zie
osm.wiki/Compatible_license

Groet,

Daniel

Hey dellisd,

Unless you have gotten written permission to use OC Transpo data for OpenStreetMap, this changeset may need to be reverted, as its data does not seem to be under a compatible open license:
osm.wiki/Compatible_license

See OC Transpo legal information:
https://www.octranspo.com/en/legal-notices/

Regards,

Daniel

Hey erickdeoliveiraleal,

Add good changeset comments. Your changeset comments, for example "mapping poor countries" and "mapeando", do not describe what you are doing. Are you adding, changing or deleting? Ways, buildings, points of interest (POIs), relations? Is there a specific reason why you are doing this (align ways, correct incorrect tags, fix issues).

"mapping poor countries" is also a subjective description. It is not something we need to know, we can see where you are editing. However, if you are editing a large area, or important road, it may be useful to add the place you are editing in, as the change will show up for a lot of people.
osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Specify your sources. Your sources will help mappers identify what imagery or other layers you used, whether you are using the right ones. You can add them when saving an edit.
osm.wiki/Key:source#How_to_use_on_changesets
(read only this subsection, the rest is historic information.)

You should already know both of this.

Regards,

Daniel

Instead of layer=-1 on footways which cross buildings, use layer=1 on buildings and add a "fixme" tag if you do not know if the footway goes through or under or around the building.

Note, there's two sand areas left which you haven't removed. It might be helpful to choose to display no imagery layers from the imagery layer menu (there's a "none" option too) if you want to see only what has been mapped. You can always switch back to another imagery layer.

Regards,

Daniel

Hey kylenz,

Thank you for your reply. This was done by mistake. I have manually reverted this change in
osm.org/changeset/112283318

However, it seems there's been a spelling mistake in the original object name. I have corrected this in
osm.org/changeset/112283407

Regards,

Daniel

Hey openMvD,

Je kan de "note" op de draaideuren bij Aurora gerust weghalen als je ze hebt gesurveyeerd.

Voor de ingangen van de fietskelder (toevoeging "access=no") wellicht goed om een fixme toe te voegen om later opnieuw te surveyeren, of anders te veranderen naar access=* als je daar al zeker van bent.

Groet,

Daniel

I should clarify, by bare ground, I personally mean you can't actually map it with any tag (artificial surface); it's fine to just be an empty area as part of the school grounds. Alternatively, you can tag it with surface=sand instead (and no other tags..); natural=sand is used for natural, loose/drifting sand in some desert areas together with tags for dunes and dunefields -not for artificial sand-, see
osm.wiki/Tag:natural=sand

I would leave the construction area as it is now; although you could map the full extent of the construction area, it would seem like the construction work is mostly done or just beginning.

Meanwhile, I see an entrance node in the middle of a footway here;
osm.org/node/9153295717/history
Could you check this? You might want to remove it.

osm.org/way/990581841/history
osm.org/way/990581868/history
look to be partially construction area.

osm.org/way/990581849/history
These footways should not go through the building, the parts inside the building should be removed.
Sidenote: It could be the footway goes around the building here and/or the imagery is not taken completely straight down so the building appears to be on the footway due to the angle the imagery is taken at. However, I can't say this for sure, so nothing you have to change here (except ideally we would remove the entrances because we don't know there are there or they are not visible in the imagery).

Hey FLAMEEYES,

Note, there are multiple imagery sources you can use (see in the editor the imagery layer tab in the right menu). In this area, Bing is the newest (and then in new->old order; NAIP, Esri, Esri World Imagery).

Where you do not see grass, please do not map grass unless you have surveyed the area. Noteably, from osm.org/way/990907164 I assume you have not. Numerous grass areas and this industrial area are bare land. This is a school with (ongoing) construction, not a scrapyard.

Please remove these incorrect areas and check the rest of your edits carefully. Most of them look ok.

Other remarks;
- osm.org/way/990581871/history has a rather sharp turn. make it follow the middle of the nearly square area it is in (with the right corner being square) and make it connect perpendicular with the other footway and building.
- Connect osm.org/way/990581849/history to the way it leads to.
- Only connect ways to buildings if you know there is an entrance. disconnect ways from buildings -and remove the entrance tag- where needed.

Regards,

Daniel

*added, tweaked landuse and ways.

You didn't manage to square the corners on all the buildings, which you usually should do if they are square, but I think you are headed in the right direction here :)

osm.org/way/988749977
Are you sure this is a crossing? This looks like a social path (a path which formed by frequent foot traffic), it's not even visible on the satellite imagery for me. If it's a social path and not signed as a footway/crossing, it shouldn't be mapped on OSM.
If it is a new, signed footway/crossing, then sure. Do connect it to the street it crosses for routing purposes though. Once connected, the crossing point can be marked as highway=crossing

Regards,

Daniel

PS: I'd wish there were more apps and tools to easily determine a relatively accurate height for buildings and building parts, but you can look up what exists if you'd ever like to do so. (excuse the rant)

Hey b-unicycling,

Adding a chamfer this way is fine, as it's a rule to use ground truth.
Personally, I would add it using Simple 3D if I have the possibility to survey. You may know about this method already. Regardless, I've attached some examples below:

'Chamfer' (building overhang);
osm.org/way/947011970/history
(In this case it is a brick wall on a building's higher levels, with a glass window for the lower levels)

'Inverted chamfer' (building gets thinner towards the top);
osm.org/way/947437087/history
(in this case it is a glass window on a building's higher levels, with a brick wall on the buildings lower levels)

The documentation for this is here:
osm.wiki/Simple_3D_Buildings#Height_and_levels

I understand any concern on the building outline not being ground truth with this method. (the plus side I would think is that it is clearer to contributors why the corner was chamfered on the map; it is visibly not a mapping mistake. Though, building parts are less easy to understand for the average person without looking at a 3d renderer.)
As for the estimated height, I would in this case add est_height, est_min_height
osm.wiki/Key:est_height
and a fixme=height is estimated
(you should do this even if you do not add est_* tags; see also osm.wiki/Good_practice#Mark_estimations_with_fixme )

Regards,

Daniel

Seems I didn't switch back from Maxar to Bing, oops. I'm going to leave it as is for now as the difference is very small and all the roads in this area need to be aligned anyways.

Het staat er op de "Tag:highway=construction" wiki-pagina al langer bij, maar ik zag de link zelf alsnog over het hoofd bij het schrijven van mij reactie. Zie osm.wiki/Tag:highway=construction
(en zie ook voor veel andere tags de wiki)

Overigens, er is nog een ander draadje als je nog verder wilt lezen.
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=70803

Goed, blijkbaar kan er een jaartal bijgevoegd worden. Ik heb ook het forumdraadje bekeken.
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=63629

Normaal houd ik gebruik van de '6 maanden'-handregel aan, maar in Nederland zetten we er soms meer op dan dat. Bedankt voor het aanpassen.

Groet,

Daniel

Beste Hugo Woesthuis,

Veelgemaakte fout van nieuwe gebruikers die beginnen aan het taggen van construction op wegen; zorg je wel dat je er overal ook de "construction" tag op zet? Zo is de soort weg sneller terug te vinden voor andere mappers en data-gebruikers.

Groet,

Daniel