Added lifecycle prefix in
osm.org/changeset/153107854

Added lifecycle prefix in
osm.org/changeset/153107778

Looks like that area got mostly null edits (no change but registered as a change by the application), or you (by accident) tried to straighten or reverse direction of some ways.

Hey Vivek Dumre,

This changeset is very large. It is hard to see what was changed, even with QA applications (geometry changes preview may not load).
You should separate your edits into multiple changesets where possible.
See
osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets
Understandably, this was likely done by accident.
This is also the case for
osm.org/changeset/151795340

Remember to try adding a 'good changeset comment' to every changeset which describes your changes sufficiently. There are changes to multiple other objects while you have only written 'added road'. I.e.
osm.org/way/231329662

See also comment at
osm.org/changeset/151514175
In case you are not notified already.

Regards,

Daniel

Hey Vivek Dumre,

Thank you for taking your time to review changesets for your open mapping hub's program.

I would recommend you focus on 'New mapper' changesets, especially those with 'Review requested' label.
You can also use the 'Filters' => 'Reasons for Flagging' to get only these changesets, or use the 'Location' filter to get only changesets in a certain area. i.e. it may be useful to look only at the area which is the focus of your open mapping hub, where you have the most experience. Local mapping guidelines elsewhere may differ from what you are used to.

You're welcome to review more experienced mappers' changesets, though try to avoid reviewing multiple by the same user in this case, unless reviewing as bad. Also, some users do not like such 'thank you for mapping' messages as they may appear copy-pasted and do not contain any feedback on how to improve mapping, which may be wasting your and/or the users' time.
Though, your comment otherwise looks fine of course.

In the future, try to link to the objects in question and try to explain how to resolve the issue, please. (at least one or two good examples.)
Here, I don't know what you were refering to. It could be
I.e. The building
osm.org/way/156354822/history
is slightly too large, is not rotated correctly, has an extension...
Have since modified both buildings from this changeset. Noteably, it is not the first version of the building outlines and the geometry did not change even slightly -which may happen if I add a building part and square the full object-. See OSMCha preview or
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=151514175
There was only a roof building part added and some empty nodes -by accident- which were left over from aligning the POI nodes.
It is unlikely to be relevant to discuss the geometry of the existing building with a mapper who only added a building part or modified the POIs. (besides, building parts are usually only added by experienced users.)

For geometry issues, it is important to mention what imagery you are using. The recommended imagery may differ in other locations than you are used to and layers such as Esri and Esri Clarity are only available in editor applications. They are *not* available from OSMCha.

Sidenote: areas such as this where the sides of buildings are visible in aerial imagery (or where they are on a slope) may have an offset applied to some objects to match their footprint. Also, some street level imagery and GPS traces may have been aligned to existing (old) mapping by the application (or are simply too poor), therefore can not be used to determine the precise location of objects.
This may not be directly useful to you as reviewer but it helps to understand why some objects may be at a (seemingly) incorrect position.

Regards,

Daniel

@Aarogya Pandey in the future, try to link to the objects in question and try to explain how to resolve the issue, please. (at least one or two good examples.)

Hey ticki_52,

at least
osm.org/way/1281809899/history
is overlapping
osm.org/way/168180635/history
in southwest / bottomleft corner (two nodes are not connected to a nearby node on the other object)
When saving you would have encountered an overlap warning. Here you have chosen to add layer=1 to the building. If there is only a thin roof overlap (and assuming building from cadastre is relatively accurate), layer=1 should not be added. It is more likely the garages are slightly smaller and you are tracing over some blur or vegetation. In this case it looks like the left garage should have its left wall moved to the right, onto the building outline. The roof seems to fit on aerial imagery, but the garages don't quite. Don't forget to connect the nodes and remove the layer=1 tag from the main building.

Regards,

Daniel

Hey Aarogya Pandey,

Thank you for taking your time to review changesets for your open mapping hub's program.

I would recommend you focus on 'New mapper' changesets, especially those with 'Review requested' label.
You can also use the 'Filters' => 'Reasons for Flagging' to get only these changesets, or use the 'Location' filter to get only changesets in a certain area. i.e. it may be useful to look only at the area which is the focus of your open mapping hub, where you have the most experience. Local mapping guidelines elsewhere may differ from what you are used to.

You're welcome to review more experienced mappers' changesets, though try to avoid reviewing multiple by the same user in this case, unless reviewing as bad. Also, some users do not like such 'thank you for mapping' messages as they may appear copy-pasted and do not contain any feedback on how to improve mapping, which may be wasting your and/or the users' time.
Though, your comment otherwise looks fine of course.

Sidenote: areas such as this which are on a slope may have an offset applied to some objects. Also, some street level imagery and GPS traces may have been aligned to existing (old) mapping by the application (or are simply too poor), therefore can not be used to determine the precise location of objects.
This may not be directly useful to you as reviewer but it helps to understand why some objects may be at a (seemingly) incorrect position.

Regards,

Daniel

That seems to be true as far as the wiki is concerned. Thanks for clarifying.

Hey Victor,

I would kindly suggest to not remove objects mapped as areas instead of nodes without proper reason(, or alternatively discussing with the original mapper).
osm.wiki/Good_practice#Don't_remove_objects_that_you_don't_need_or_like

Objects which can be mapped more detailed, i.e. individual trees instead of tree line -not trees instead of forest if more than five or so, of course- or playground equipment/area as area instead of node should be left as nodes or areas respectively.

On the wiki it is currently explicitly okay to map as either node or area. Though, it is a guideline, not a rule.
osm.wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dstreet_cabinet

If e.g. a street cabinet mapped as area does not render on your map of preference, please submit a request with the developers of the map style. Regardless, it can still easily be found using query applications. OSM is a database. not only a map.

For such cases, it is recommended to start a discussion with the community about mapping street cabinets as nodes and/or areas to reach a consensus. You can do so at
- osm.wiki/Talk:Tag:man_made%3Dstreet_cabinet
- https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/general/38/none
(the forum is usually faster to reply.)

Regards,

Daniel

*See
osm.org/note/3389584

Added route relation here
osm.org/relation/17579858
It will not be shown on any application (unordered, no way -road- members).

It is similar to a (qr-code) fitness trail (or signed fitness meetup point)
osm.wiki/Tag:route%3Dfitness_trail

See also "Kabouterpad" ('gnome trail', or 'fairy trail');
https://www.staatsbosbeheer.nl/uit-in-de-natuur/kabouterpad

Bij MapComplete e.d. worden aparte wijzigingen in een wijzigingenset verzameld.
(maar dat weet je wellicht al.)

material is likely wire ( or wire_mesh )

Hey Lachgast,

Modified the service way in
- https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=149865604
- https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=149866031
Let me know if there are any issues, please.

Regards,

Daniel

"on-site in the last hour and shooting a photo"
Sure. I can't find it on the Mapillary website just yet, but it's fine.

Bing is too skewed and blurry in places. It is mostly used east of the river Barrow (noting also better resolution there), or anywhere outside Kilkenny and the surrounding area.
The difference in alignment is not too large, but still considerable.
(Bing is shifted to southeast compared to Esri Clarity and existing GPS in one or two places I checked)

Hey mackerski,

It seems you are changing the check_date based on aerial imagery. Or, are you doing a survey / using Mapillary as you are elsewhere?

I would suggest to not change construction objects based on aerial imagery unless you are sure they have changed (/make sure you add sources as appropriate, which I'm sure you do)
Imagery is ~1.5 year behind, which is useful for adding construction, but not for updating it.
check_date should be used for 'most recent' survey date, but it looks like 2024 mapillary is not uploaded here yet (may still be uploading); latest is from 2022.

Regards,

Daniel

Hey mackerski,

Thanks for the much needed improvements. You seem to be mapping based on the roof outline on regular Esri imagery. Note,
- Usually building outlines are aligned to their footprint. If aerial imagery is taken from the side the roof will be offset from the location of the building footprint.
- In the Kilkenny city area, Esri Clarity is usually better aligned to the 'true' location (and is generally almost top-down), than Bing/Esri.
In the rural area outside the road ring, regular Esri is best used.
- (It may be useful to check if the buildings are correctly placed based on existing buildings, but this is not true everywhere.);
In many places in Kilkenny, the buildings should be alright, some roads may still be inaccurate (last changed a decade ago). Buildings are mostly missing extensions from regular Esri (newer imagery) as you have already noticed.
Also, you may be aware Anne (b-unicycling) has been collecting imagery in march/april/..., some of which may not yet be available as it is still being processed by Mapillary.

I would suggest trying to align this set of houses on the south side (bottom-left) of The Sycamores to Esri Clarity. Elsewhere the difference between Esri Clarity and Esri is minimal.

Regards,

Daniel

Hey Anfrageancg,

Bitte lesen Sie die text unter die Upload-knopf:
('unsere Bilder werden unter CC-BY-SA 4.0 veröffentlicht
Fotografieren Sie keine Personen oder Nummernschilder. Laden Sie keine Google Maps, Google Streetview oder andere urheberrechtlich geschützte Quellen hoch.')
"Your images will be published under CC-BY-SA 4.0
Do not photograph people nor license plates. Do not upload Google Maps, Google Streetview or other copyrighted sources."
Data von Google, etc. kann im OSM nicht hinzugefugt wurden. Auch nicht platz, details, etc. von Google.
Mann kann nur details von eigenen erfahrung (oder officielen website) hinzufugen.
Bei MapComplete kann mann dann die position immer besser darstellen mit die knopf unter die Fragen. Darfur konnen Sie die Bildern linksunter ('Bing', 'Esri', 'Mapbox', 'OpenAerialMap', etc.) nutzen. (da gibt Erlaubnis fur)

Sehe auch (EN):
osm.wiki/Google

Fur fragen
https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/de/56