emvee's Comments
Changeset | When | Comment |
---|---|---|
47913658 | over 8 years ago | Hi Szydzio, Thanks for adding addition details to the Szachty park. One note: When creating relations, the tags should not be on the outer way, but on the relation itself, see osm.wiki/Pl:Relation:multipolygon#U.C5.BCycie and http://area.jochentopf.com/old-style-josm.html Martin. NB: No problem, just a hint. |
47894207 | over 8 years ago | Hi Kiekin, Thanks for adding addition details to Filmpark Babelsberg. One note: When creating relations, the tags should not be on the outer way, but on the relation itself, see osm.wiki/DE:Relation:multipolygon#Verwendung and http://area.jochentopf.com/old-style-josm.html Martin. NB: No problem, just a hint. |
47918126 | over 8 years ago | Hi, Thanks for adding the "Teich am Blumenauer Kirchweg + Brücke". One note: When creating relations, the tags should not be on the outer way, but on the relation itself, see osm.wiki/DE:Relation:multipolygon#Verwendung and http://area.jochentopf.com/old-style-josm.html Martin. NB: No problem, just a hint. |
46630715 | over 8 years ago | Thanks polari, Checked https://asiointi.maanmittauslaitos.fi/karttapaikka/ and yes, these inner parts are not part of the national park, strange but true. I have fixed the relation in the light of http://area.jochentopf.com/old-style-josm.html, see osm.org/changeset/47874735 Thanks for your work or making the map more complete! |
46630715 | over 8 years ago | Hi polari, What is the source for the Kurjenrahkan kansallispuisto national park? It is a bit strange it is a relation with an outer (makes sense) and inners. Is the area of these inners no national park?? Greetings, Martin. |
40649293 | over 8 years ago | Hi Thoschi, Thanks for your Ergänzungen Muttental but I noticed it likely broke quite some bicycle and Wanderweg relations. I fixed some relations but some are still problematic, for example the Energiewirtschaftlicher Wanderweg, osm.org/relation/3095572 and the Radverkehrsnetz NRW, Ennepe-Ruhr-Kreis, osm.org/relation/2073184 over the Mühlenstraße If possible, could you have a look at these relations? Thanks, Martin. |
47378720 | over 8 years ago | Hi Sven, Thanks for the feedback, great somebody is watching. I learned something new, if "boundary=protected_area", the relation type should be boundary instead of multipolygon. Yes, I already concluded touching rings are not always errors although I think it is often possible to change the data such that there are no touching rings. I did not do any of these type of cleanups tough. Regards, Martin. |
47299272 | over 8 years ago | Hi Sebasic, Goed bezig; ik was ook bezig maar toen ik wilde uploaden kwamen er allerlei conflicten op dus ben ik maar richting Duitsland verhuist ;-) Groeten, Martin. |
44030849 | over 8 years ago | Hi Jimiiee
For trees that are really in a line natural=tree_row is useful but I am also not against mapping individual trees, the "Gemeente Rotterdam" has and App that has all trees in the city with the type so why not openstreetmap ;-) |
44030849 | over 8 years ago | Hi Jimiiee In this changeset you added streetlamps, great but with a "source=Google Maps". Google Maps can not be used as source for openstreetmap data, see osm.wiki/FAQ#Why_don.27t_you_just_use_Google_Maps.2Fwhoever_for_your_data.3F Can you either remove these lamps or do a survey, check the lamps and remove only the "source=Google Maps" tag? |
44984296 | over 8 years ago | Hoi, Bedankt voor het terug-corrigeren, osmore geeft een foutmelding op rwn_ref en ik was even niet scherp genoeg om te zien dat dit een bogus foutmelding was. Bedankt, Groeten, Martin. |
28955232 | almost 10 years ago | Als onderdeel van deze changeset zijn de Daan Schammerstraat en Pietje Bellstraat toegevoegd maar zover ik weet bestaan die helemaal niet. |
30742446 | over 10 years ago | Hi MeghaShrestha, I saw that with this changeset several hospitals were added for example in Dharapani, osm.org/node/3494714639#map=18/28.45185/83.37409 I have been there last year and I am quite sure there is no hospital there. Maybe there is an doctor there (although I doubt it) and if so amenity=doctors seems to be more appropriate. Regards, Martin. |