pnorman's Comments
Changeset | When | Comment |
---|---|---|
29220327 | over 10 years ago | Copyright and Google's terms don't let us take data from any of their products, which includes Google Street View. |
29277146 | over 10 years ago | Why did you change bulding=bulding to building=bulding? |
29220327 | over 10 years ago | Hi, you've used Google as a source. Copyright and Google's terms don't let us take their data or use their products. (osm.org/copyright) Did you use Google as a source for any other changes? |
28808240 | over 10 years ago | Also, can you please use a more descriptive changeset comment than "Validation" so people can easily see what you're doing? |
28808240 | over 10 years ago | Hey, I wanted to let you know that the tag to indicate a place accepts bitcoin is "payment:bitcoin", and if it's a bitcoin ATM, you should add an amenity=atm tag |
28738340 | over 10 years ago | It should mean that anyone using a router or geocoder using OpenStreetMap as a data source will be able to get there. Of course, it will take time for devices and apps to update their data. |
28738340 | over 10 years ago | Welcome to OpenStreetMap. I slightly changed the tagging of the POI to indicate it's a funeral directors, as well as mapped it out as a building, and added detail to the nearby Walmart |
25331879 | over 10 years ago | Hello, It's claimed that this data is node to node identical to Tracksource, a copyrighted source. What was the source of this changeset? |
28545593 | over 10 years ago | It looks like you've changed the link roads connecting to the motorway to secondary links. Normally these would be highway=motorway_link. You can read more at osm.wiki/Highway_link |
28518296 | over 10 years ago | this seems to have made some problems around osm.org/relation/812190#map=18/34.25831/136.58273 where the admin geoms are separate from the coastline. It's also fairly absurd to represent the admin boundary as thousands of little islands |
28552491 | over 10 years ago | As the import did none of the required consultation with the imports@ mailing list or the local lists, I'm going ahead and reverting it. |
28254229 | over 10 years ago | Rub21, would it be better to revert this changeset? |
28284739 | over 10 years ago | Please use a meaningful changeset comment, not one like "#map-feedback #851" which doesn't allow someone to figure out what you were intending and why. osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments has more information about writing good changeset comments. |
28148397 | over 10 years ago | Could you direct me to the imports list consultation about this import? I'm worried that I can't find it and the imports guidelines haven't been followed |
28296094 | over 10 years ago | Hello, It's good to see the buildings filling out in Edmonton. I was wondering what you were using as a source. JOSM lets you fill in a source automatically based on the imagery you have open |
28243651 | over 10 years ago | Hello, Imports in OSM need to follow the import guidelines (osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines) which include consulting with the imports@ mailing list before importing, as well as other requirements. Can you please make sure the requirements are met before importing, and contact the list about these imports? |
28254229 | over 10 years ago | way 244211443 looks similarly odd - you've tagged it as a residential road joining two trunk roads. Why did you add highway=residential to way 306099045? Given the high level of errors, would it be easier to just revert this changeset? |
4959843 | over 10 years ago | Do you know if you'll be fixing this import? e.g. merging the residential at osm.org/#map=18/36.721324/-119.693138 into something like osm.org/way/321089844 |
27723492 | over 10 years ago | Both claimed or both controlled? |
27027823 | over 10 years ago | If you think it's a different landuse type and want it restored as that, you should indicate the type. It's fairly clearly not landuse for significant parts of it, and I can't see any type that most of it is. |