Changeset No. Date Contributor Comment
12018-09-16 15:49:40 UTCFreedSky this is motoway
12018-09-07 12:03:52 UTCFreedSky ground rule is China controls things without Vietnam
12018-09-07 11:57:41 UTCFreedSky I hope that you can figure out that this place is a disputed area; the solution to the dispute in OSM can refer to the Diaoyu Islands in China and Japan. No one has long-term control and no attribution to any country, or between Japan and Russia is marked by actual Control, if you feel that the bord...
12018-09-07 11:47:36 UTCFreedSky Actually controlled by China
12018-08-29 08:31:10 UTCSomeoneElse Hello,
Please use changeset comments - it helps other mappers understand what has changed.
Best Regards,
Andy
22018-09-04 05:23:03 UTCFreedSky Thank you, if I feel the need to explain, I will leave a message.
32018-09-04 07:19:23 UTCSomeoneElse No - please try and explain whether you feel the need to or not!
Other mappers may not understand the reasons behind your change (especially in contentious border areas) - changeset comments help everyone to understand.
12018-08-26 07:39:59 UTCFreedSky The guidance of the Chinese OSM community is that you must use the city
22018-08-27 07:11:29 UTCMinh Nguyen Can you clarify what you mean? I didn’t change any place tags; I only added name:vi tags for features that already had place=town.
32018-08-27 07:13:35 UTCMinh Nguyen By the way, this changeset is over six years old. If you’re seeing a major tagging problem, it could be due to a more recent change by someone else.
42018-09-04 05:21:58 UTCFreedSky Did not pay attention to time, there was no specification at that time. XD
12018-08-25 01:45:01 UTCFreedSky Please see the border, this is the area of China.
12018-07-19 06:02:00 UTCFreedSky ROC没有公布中文名,你根据什么理由修改名称呢?
22018-07-19 09:22:31 UTC嘿嘿嘿~~ ROC不就是中華民國嗎?
32018-07-22 03:16:51 UTCFreedSky 对啊roc没公布你就没有理由添加上roc的名字,两地的名字有简繁区别所以不应该修改的。
42018-07-22 06:09:18 UTC嘿嘿嘿~~ 好哦sorry
52018-07-22 23:16:38 UTCFreedSky 刚开始编辑可能不太了解建议多和社群接触
12018-07-18 06:34:02 UTCFreedSky Please note that the area actually controlled by Vietnam can be displayed in accordance with the name boundary of the relevant national division of Vietnam. Please do not modify the disputed area without actual control.
12018-07-18 06:32:54 UTCFreedSky Please note that the area actually controlled by Vietnam can be displayed in accordance with the name boundary of the relevant national division of Vietnam. Please do not modify the disputed area without actual control.
12018-07-18 06:26:22 UTCFreedSky Please note that the area actually controlled by Vietnam can be displayed in accordance with the name boundary of the relevant national division of Vietnam. Please do not modify the disputed area without actual control.
12018-07-18 06:25:37 UTCFreedSky Please note that the area actually controlled by Vietnam can be displayed in accordance with the name boundary of the relevant national division of Vietnam. Please do not modify the disputed area without actual control.
12018-07-18 06:21:21 UTCFreedSky Please note that the area actually controlled by Vietnam can be displayed in accordance with the name boundary of the relevant national division of Vietnam. Please do not modify the disputed area without actual control.
12018-07-18 06:20:40 UTCFreedSky Please note that the area actually controlled by Vietnam can be displayed in accordance with the name boundary of the relevant national division of Vietnam. Please do not modify the disputed area without actual control.
12018-07-18 06:20:32 UTCFreedSky Please note that the area actually controlled by Vietnam can be displayed in accordance with the name boundary of the relevant national division of Vietnam. Please do not modify the disputed area without actual control.
12018-07-18 06:02:17 UTCFreedSky Please figure out the difference between the claims of control.
12018-06-08 10:53:04 UTCwambacher Hi,
please do not change those very well ballenced disputed areas. This is the "OSM-view" of that critical area - so please don't change again.
22018-06-25 01:43:10 UTCFreedSky Thank you for reminding me that after the amendment, I discovered a lot of problems, so I changed it back in time.
32018-06-25 11:05:57 UTCwambacher Great.

may be you don't know this document (i didn't)

https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf

it's from 2013 therefore i asked osmfoundation - it is still ok.

Regards

Walter
42018-07-18 05:59:15 UTCFreedSky Have seen it, but it is more difficult to understand; thank you for your communication reminder.
12018-06-11 08:08:29 UTCkeithonearth This edit adds `ref` and `old_ref`tags to what is now mapped as highway G317, for example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/81967418 and others. What are the sources of these `ref` values?
22018-06-25 01:45:31 UTCFreedSky The origin of old_ref is "Tibet Atlas". The current ref source is https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/%E5%9B%BD%E5%AE%B6%E5%85%AC%E8%B7%AF%E7%BD%91%E8%A7%84%E5%88%92%EF%BC%882013%E5%B9%B4%EF%BC%8D2030%E5%B9%B4%EF%BC%89
32018-06-25 01:46:29 UTCFreedSky 西藏自治区地图集.西藏自治区测绘局、浙江省第一测绘院.2012年8月
42018-06-27 19:25:45 UTCkeithonearth I looked at that link. I do not see anything about route G317, either in the text body (which is general laws pertaining to road network design and classifying), or in the maps.

We have route G317 joining G109 just north of Nagqu (那曲 or Nakchu). 40km north. The svg map in the link shows rou...
52018-06-29 03:14:20 UTCFreedSky have map and doc you can see is 成都-噶尔 in the map .
http://zfxxgk.ndrc.gov.cn/PublicItemView.aspx?ItemID={93c7d13b-aa0d-4beb-955e-268adade8a8f}


this is 成都-噶尔 code in page 13

http://www.gb688.cn/bzgk/gb/newGbInfo?hcno=BBDAEDEFFC6808402DE3A25789CC0311

BTW
12018-06-22 01:28:01 UTCFreedSky thanks again, you can see so much line ~
12018-06-21 08:00:52 UTCFreedSky thank you
12018-05-31 11:40:57 UTCFreedSky 这些铁路信号器你是怎么确认的。。。
12018-05-30 11:11:52 UTCFreedSky 这种一整片的商业体请用landuse=commercial
12017-11-15 22:31:18 UTCandrewwiseman Hi there, I just noticed this issue. it looks like you moved an entire town and it doesn't match up with imagery or OSM GPS traces, can you explain more about the edit? Thanks
22018-05-20 12:29:11 UTCFreedSky He shifted all the data
12018-02-02 10:02:10 UTCMateusz Konieczny Can you look at https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1286973 ? Why you changed admin level to 7?

In future, please describe your edits.
22018-02-09 16:08:11 UTCFreedSky ???? is 3
32018-02-09 16:28:33 UTCMateusz Konieczny Sorrry, I was supposed to ask why you changed admin level from 7 to 3.
42018-05-05 08:39:02 UTCFreedSky Because this is the actual control line between the two countries
52018-05-05 08:42:37 UTCMateusz Konieczny https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2713466#map=10/32.9326/79.7470 is not a line, it is an area - 50 km in North-South direction, 10 to 30 km in East-West.


wikipedia tag links to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demchok that is about a village with 78 inhabitants - is it really spa...
62018-05-10 03:18:56 UTCFreedSky My mother tongue is not English and I cannot communicate smoothly in English. Can you simply retell your question?
72018-05-10 05:20:54 UTCMateusz Konieczny "Because this is the actual control line between the two countries" - so why https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2713466#map=10/32.9326/79.7470 is an area rather than a line?
82018-05-10 05:29:25 UTCFreedSky Because of this simplicity, the disputed area has partial control between the two countries, so it is convenient to use one area and it can be easily posted on Wikipedia.

In addition, the change from 7 to 3 is hopefully highlighted. After all, this area does not want overwhelming control in south...
12017-10-31 08:38:30 UTCSomeoneElse Hello FreedSky,
Please use changeset comments for your edits http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/FreedSky/history explaining what you're changing and what the source is. Changes to national borders, especially where there are multiple claims, should be clearer so that all relevant parties have a cha...
22017-10-31 08:39:02 UTCSomeoneElse 你好FreedSky,
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/FreedSky/history说明您正在改变的内容以及来源是什么。 对国界的变化,特别是多方面的要求应该更清楚,所有有关方面都有机会看看和评论所做的改变。
OpenStreetMap,所以请说明你的修改...
32018-02-09 16:11:07 UTCFreedSky I made some revisions based on the boundary data and actual satellite imagery. There are some discrepancies in the frontier. Of course, my guess may be wrong, but I try my best to be neutral. My amendment to this large boundary Is based on this logic, so nothing to say, I do not like to write a reas...
42018-02-09 16:11:46 UTCFreedSky The source is based on the data from China's official mapping bureau, and their boundary data can be consulted for comparison.
52018-02-09 17:03:28 UTCSomeoneElse There are two potential issues with that:
1) What's the licences associated with "data from China's official mapping bureau"? Is it compatible with OpenStreetMap?
2) Where this impacts the boundaries of other states there could be problems. A number of states in this region have overla...
62018-05-05 08:34:19 UTCFreedSky
My modification of the boundary is a feeling that some places are inconsistent with actual control. For example, some ravines are clearly in one of the countries and there are roads leading to them. If you don't think this is acceptable, you can discuss or return my editor.
72018-05-05 08:35:33 UTCFreedSky I also understand the specific conditions of the disputed areas between the two countries. Please rest assured that I will not arbitrarily modify the actual control boundary. As a user editing in the South China Sea, I know how tortured the boundary is.
82018-05-05 08:39:17 UTCSomeoneElse Thanks for the detailed explanation. Sometimes it might make sense to add something like that to your own changesets (because the changeset comment is limited to 256 characters) to explain the reasoning behind it.
92018-05-10 03:15:03 UTCFreedSky I also know that you are worried that, in fact, you can find that my series of boundary editors basically does not involve the disputed areas. It is just some of the borders identified by the existing two countries. The data used before OSM may be a bit error.
12018-03-30 03:24:58 UTCLeon718 作死
22018-04-26 09:11:19 UTCFreedSky 恶意修改
12018-04-24 13:35:47 UTCFreedSky Using city tags in China is not determined by the population
22018-04-25 07:19:02 UTCkent1D Ok I'm sorry.

Is there a link on wiki.openstreetmap.org where we can find useful informations about that?

I was using the comment on Josm as aquired... it says city is more than 100.000 and town between 10.000 and 100.000

I see you already changed back lots of them, did you do all of them?\...
32018-04-25 09:47:51 UTCFreedSky You can open Wikipedia for more comprehensive information.

Specific use please refer to

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/China_Tagging_Guidelines

The Chinese community is relatively closed, and mappers who are interested in other regions of China are less likely to get information.

If...
12018-04-17 03:50:54 UTCFreedSky 不是这样编辑的啊 关系:新兴县 (3031848) 只加边界里面的乡镇边界另外创建关系
12018-03-27 03:53:48 UTCFreedSky 你这样用JOSM更快 用ID事倍功半
12018-02-26 16:20:17 UTCFreedSky thank you for you revert
12018-02-26 16:19:50 UTCFreedSky Do not undermine China's actual control of the island's content
12018-02-26 16:15:09 UTCFreedSky Do not undermine China's actual control of the island's content
12018-02-26 16:13:23 UTCFreedSky Do not undermine China's actual control of the island's content
12018-02-16 11:26:00 UTCFreedSky why delete node?
22018-02-16 12:04:58 UTCimagico Based on

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element

i deleted nodes for reefs that are also mapped as areas - after transferring tags to the area.
12018-02-16 07:03:42 UTCFreedSky 不要黏在一起
12017-11-23 22:54:39 UTCwoodpeck Hello FreedSky, please start using changeset comments to describe what you are editing - at least in cases where it is likely that more people will be interested, for example like this changeset where you edited the border between China and India. What is your source for this edit? Why was this edit...
22018-02-09 16:10:48 UTCFreedSky I made some revisions based on the boundary data and actual satellite imagery. There are some discrepancies in the frontier. Of course, my guess may be wrong, but I try my best to be neutral. My amendment to this large boundary Is based on this logic, so nothing to say, I do not like to write a reas...
12018-02-02 17:45:04 UTCFreedSky Do not change
12018-02-02 16:25:06 UTCFreedSky Maliciously remove the Chinese
12018-02-02 05:52:51 UTCFreedSky This sea area is actually controlled by China. There is no dispute whether it is one thing or the other. Actual control is one thing.
22018-02-02 13:33:53 UTCgiovand Hi @FreedSky - thanks for your comments. This area, as several others in South China Sea, may be controlled by China, but sovereignty is claimed by other countries as well. I would suggest keeping all these features in OSM free of any relation to countries until an official resolution is achieved. I...
32018-02-02 15:47:18 UTCFreedSky I disagree with the fact that the prime minister can basically confirm the actual control of China's South China Sea islands through references to wikipedia. For example, Huangyan Island is a stable stop for military vessels in Beijing and no other state forces can enter, and this is from 2012 to th...
42018-02-02 16:07:11 UTCgiovand Control does not mean that it's not disputed. Some areas have been disputed for a long time and will probably be forever. See this example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/375582883
52018-02-02 16:10:31 UTCFreedSky However, it is enough to comply with a stable control. Nothing in the world is immutable. It is a fact that China has stabilized control of Huangyan Island since 2012, and if you say the ownership change happened on the island a few days ago We may need to wait and see a few months no problem, but t...
62018-02-02 16:13:00 UTCFreedSky OSM is the need to show the current actual situation, such as a county was canceled, I will delete; a rapid development and construction of a city in China, I will draw on the road, may be a few years after the planned changes have demolished there It is possible.
Not because the place is controver...
72018-02-02 16:17:44 UTCFreedSky Unless tomorrow there is an incident in Huangyan Island, the ownership may change; I know Huangyan Island unlike China's other controlled islands in the South China Sea have built artificial islands, so regardless of both the political and military forces, but simply to consider one only by For a lo...
12018-02-02 16:06:17 UTCFreedSky This is a district-level unit in China's administrative divisions, including the Xisha Islands, which are actually under the control of China, and the Nansha Islands as a whole is not the same concept. Please do not arbitrarily modify it.
12018-02-02 15:52:27 UTCFreedSky Please do not destroy
12018-01-21 13:05:23 UTCFreedSky There is actually an island, please do not destroy.
22018-01-22 03:52:50 UTCphamtranminh Whatever it is island or islet, it does not include territorial sea (12nm from coastline). OSM did not update the map at zoom level 12 and it's still there.
12017-12-26 06:19:23 UTCFreedSky 行政村才能使用village 自然村用 hamlet,另外镇关系只能放边界和中心点,别的东西别放进去。
22017-12-26 06:24:14 UTCFreedSky 另外不要吧堤坝和河流边界线重合
12017-12-26 06:19:56 UTCFreedSky 请不要吧学校的边界和 行政边界重合
12017-10-01 06:13:11 UTCFreedSky https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/China_tagging_guidelines
22017-10-02 09:38:41 UTCAustin Zhu Part of your changeset will be reverted, please comply with the tagging guidelines(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/China_tagging_guidelines).
32017-10-02 14:54:45 UTCjamesks Please let me know what the issue is. I am aligning tagging across the entire country - trying to fix regional and local inconstistances, and tagging according things that have no longer exist (e.g. old 'trunk' roads from the 1980s)
42017-10-02 15:08:29 UTCAustin Zhu It's G316. It should be tagged as trunk instead of primary.>_<
52017-10-02 15:15:50 UTCjamesks I just checked, since it is an old trunk road, almost the entire road is 'primary'. the 'Trunk' tag is used mainly for elevated roads in cities, and a few of the old 'G' network that have been upgraded.
62017-10-03 16:37:45 UTCAustin Zhu If it is currently a member of the G-network, then it should be tagged with trunk.
72017-10-04 09:38:05 UTCjamesks Almost none of the old G roads in China are tagged "trunk" - trunk is used for other things. Almost all the old network is replaced by the new G Expressways.
82017-10-04 12:58:08 UTCAustin Zhu I don't think so. All G-network roads should be tagged trunk, Chinese contributors have agreed on that. And they are not replaced. The expressways are new G roads with higher construction standards. There's nothing called old network. Trunk is mainly used for national road system (all G-nnn roads) a...
92017-10-04 15:47:51 UTCjamesks Should we label all the all G roads as part of the trunk network, even if they run alongside a much newer more important 'primary' route?
Maybe there should be an automatic changing of all G roads to 'trunk' tagging - there must be 10s of thousands, or does it need checking on the ground to see wh...
102017-10-04 18:21:00 UTCAustin Zhu My answer is yes. I don't know which primary route you are referring to, if that primary route connects several provinces, then I have to reconsider that issue. Currently, Freedsky and I am doing this changing manually ( because some G-routes have been diverted to newer roads). We hope foreigners ca...
112017-10-05 08:38:09 UTCjamesks I understand, I have been tagging like in Germany and France, where when they built the expressways, the old national trunk routes were left with the same numbering system, but are often not developed, so are no longer the backbone of the national network, nor necessarily funded by central governmen...
12016-09-14 16:57:00 UTCff5722 Is this correct?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4303775114

Maybe there is a more detailed source to smoothen these bends.
22017-09-23 16:25:59 UTCFreedSky 什么玩意- -
12016-07-09 05:35:41 UTCFTA Hi, can you provide some context for adding http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/425270917 to the Sansha City relation as part of its administrative region? What does this claim stem from?
22017-09-23 16:24:39 UTCFreedSky Sorry, maybe this part should not add borders.
12017-03-24 11:29:22 UTCPlaneMad Thanks for your change, you can also add the wikipedia article for a place, like `wikipedia=en:Khorgas`
22017-09-23 16:23:12 UTCFreedSky i dont like add this tag - -
12017-07-18 05:54:03 UTCoormilavinod hey, FreedSky welcome to OSM!! /. I just notice that you have created a POI of a place name : 建设街道 could you please mention the source for the same. happy mapping !!
22017-09-23 16:22:04 UTCFreedSky source? idont know how say but i know 建设街道 node is in relation/7400265 inside is OK
12017-08-29 09:43:21 UTCFreedSky 用ID 就先简单点编辑 你删掉了一些东西
12017-08-03 04:03:26 UTCFreedSky look like is here http://ditu.amap.com/place/B0FFHX441L
XD
12017-07-20 15:55:56 UTCAustin Zhu hey, overrun is a part of the runway!
22017-07-20 19:28:34 UTC4b696d No it is not. Here is my proof:
1. These runways have a length of 3800 m wich is the length without the blast pads. Lengh with blast pads is 4000m -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Pudong_International_Airport
2. Quote from wikipedia: The runway thresholds are markings across the runway...
32017-07-21 16:01:26 UTCAustin Zhu Yes, the runway is 3800m in length, but that's for normal use. You should also include its feature for emergency use, which is the overrun. And most importantly, Wikipedia mentions that blast pad is a section of a runway, so it definitely belongs to a runway. The "runway" which you referre...
42017-07-21 16:28:39 UTCAustin Zhu Plus, for visual convenience, I think it's more easier to identify the gray area if it is a little bit stretched out. Otherwise it may seems to mix with the gray taxiway although they differ in width when displayed. And visual convenience is crucial for a map, I think.
52017-07-21 16:49:49 UTC4b696d Please keep in mind that we are not supposed to map for the renderer. That means that we shall not map something to make it look better on a certain map.
When there is no tag for a certain feature then you should not use a different one just to make it show up on a map.
I have had a look at hundre...
62017-07-21 17:34:49 UTCAustin Zhu I have read several books about airport design and construction. None of them excludes the blast pad from a whole runway. I did not mean that I'm mapping for the rendering, I mean it is convenient for people who use the map. I acknowledge some of your points, but not all.
72017-07-21 17:37:37 UTCFreedSky Well, that's empirical. You should follow the definition. What he said makes sense.
82017-07-21 17:44:47 UTCAustin Zhu Yeah, I can also say that I have viewed many airports in OSM, but only some of them follow the definition. So I don't think it's persuasive.
92017-07-21 17:58:03 UTC4b696d @FreedSky: I don't know to whom you are referring to as "you" and "he" and I don't think that "the definition" exists.
@Austin Zhu: If you have read a lot of books then you certainly know more about this topic than I do, I only got my info from Wikipedia. I still would...
102017-07-21 18:14:26 UTCAustin Zhu That's OK. I will not bother your fix a lot. I only care about airports modified precisely by myself(RJTT, RJAA, RJGG, RJBB, RJOO, etc.), and obviously you can still edit in a way you prefer. Thanks for your suggestions. :-)
12017-07-10 09:20:52 UTCFreedSky 你别吧行政边界连起来 这种做法直接导致一大堆问题
12017-06-29 10:15:02 UTCSpanholz You created a lot of forests here. That doesn't look correct compared with the satellite imagery. Was this an import?
22017-06-29 17:29:50 UTCFreedSky I checked, after all, the amount may be more or less there may be some problems, but I do not recommend to repair, after all, is a huge project is not much significance, the overall reference significance.
12017-04-26 19:04:12 UTCsamely you traced a road that doesn't match with the imagery, can you check it?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/489565604/history
22017-05-04 04:40:14 UTCFreedSky I was drawn according to the picture of the building.
12017-02-09 08:14:54 UTCFreedSky 服了你 车站名称你搞什么
12017-02-02 11:39:52 UTCFreedSky This is not ruled by the United Nations
22017-02-02 11:50:18 UTCFreedSky 还有这个裁定争议太多,你无权根据此裁定修改边界显示。
建议在wikiosm发起南海议题讨论。

There is too much controversy in this ruling, you have no right to modify the border display according to this ruling.
It is recommended that wikiosm initiate the South Chi...
32017-02-06 06:15:25 UTCwoodennature 收到. 但是如果在该领土上只有一个国家归属,对其他索赔人不公平。 如果在地图上,领土清楚地标记为有争议,那将会更好.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to include the other claimants for the same disputed territory instead of just merely just a singl...
12017-01-24 09:57:50 UTCFreedSky 你的修改很”爱国“ 给你个五毛
12017-01-24 09:56:16 UTCFreedSky 你修改了 日本人不会修改吗?
12017-01-22 11:01:03 UTCFreedSky 这样只会引发编辑战
12017-01-22 11:00:53 UTCFreedSky 这样只会引发编辑战
22017-01-25 01:56:26 UTCFTA Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap. Please be careful when editing disputed territories and do not add tags like addr:city to a full island relation. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to reply.
Thanks,
Ethan aka FTA
12017-01-22 11:00:39 UTCFreedSky 这样只会引发编辑战
12017-01-22 11:00:26 UTCFreedSky 这样只会引发编辑战
12016-12-28 07:13:13 UTCFreedSky County no town
12016-12-04 23:38:36 UTCFTA Hello there. Please stop mass-deleting things without explanation. If you are interested in adding country-specific names to these disputed regions or commenting on a particular edit, that is fine. But deleting things without any discussion is not helpful to creating dialogue and doesn't let other m...
22016-12-10 14:05:10 UTCFreedSky 狼狈为奸吗? 退回我的编辑你有没有注意过我吧越南实际控制的地方添加了越南的relation去掉了菲律宾的?
12016-12-04 20:25:20 UTCpitscheplatsch Hi l8ghtofheaven, welcome to the OpenStreetMap project. May I know the reason behind deleting many ways and buildings in this changeset. See http://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=44163602
22016-12-06 15:45:27 UTCl8ghtofheaven Hi pitscheplatsch, in fact all action taken by China on Paracel Islands and Spratly Islands is illegal. They have been building airport, houses and military office on these islands which belong to Vietnam, parallel with expanding military force in South China Sea. Although it is called South China S...
32016-12-06 15:48:05 UTCl8ghtofheaven In Google map they already changed the name to Paracel Islands and Spratly Islands. I can see that the chinese letter means China and Sansha City is really a big joke, we are small country but we are not stupid.
42016-12-07 02:43:05 UTCFTA Hi l8ghtofheaven, generally in OpenStreetMap we follow a policy of representing de facto borders in the case of the South China Sea because of the disputes that are occurring by multiple countries. Usually that choice stems from the on the ground situation. This document http://wiki.osmfoundation.or...
52016-12-10 14:01:55 UTCFreedSky OSM表示的是客观的事实,你不接受请你过去占领啊!不要破坏。
OSM is an objective fact that you do not accept your occupation in the past ah! Do not destroy.
12016-12-05 03:52:35 UTCFTA This is part one of reversions for edits within the SCS that modified boundaries.
22016-12-10 12:48:29 UTCFreedSky 别辩解了 各种破坏你好意思!
Do not justify a variety of damage you have the nerve!
32016-12-10 13:14:12 UTCFreedSky https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6755267/history 破坏
42016-12-10 15:11:43 UTCkatpatuka Could you please explain a bit more in detail to FreedSky why you reverted his edits?!
52016-12-10 16:19:57 UTCFTA Hi katpatuka,
I have communicated with FreedSky through email about the situation, but the set of edits in this area were reverted because OSM follows de facto borders in the Spratly Island area, leaving them how they are. This area is the source of numerous claim disputes for land by multiple coun...
12016-12-10 12:43:49 UTCFreedSky Philippines, I have no control of the deleted, please do not say disappear, the Philippines did not control the current.
22016-12-10 15:37:10 UTCFvGordon In boundary relations we have the roles 'outer' and sometimes also 'inner' and sometimes more role identifiers like 'label'. I only filled the empty fields with the role 'outer' (and sorted the members of the boundary relation). I didn't use any of the words in the changeset comment you criticised.
12016-12-10 12:00:47 UTCFreedSky 别瞎改线路等级
12016-10-23 06:20:47 UTCFreedSky 请问是从哪里找到的数据啊?
12016-10-07 07:04:06 UTCFreedSky 请不要乱删铁路
12016-06-16 07:35:15 UTCFreedSky 不要脸
12016-03-22 06:35:32 UTCPlaneMad Hi FreedSky, amazing work with all the boundaries. Please add a comment to your changesets to give context to other editors of the map.
22016-04-06 14:47:51 UTCFreedSky thks
但是我没这个习惯 i dont like write reason~
12015-12-30 07:22:11 UTCFreedSky 没完成你改成在建不久得了 你删什么
12015-08-03 08:21:44 UTCFreedSky 能不能用JOSM,你已经是第二次乱破坏地图数据了,既然自己会误操作,就请多加注意。
Can not use JOSM, you have destroyed a second random map data, since they will misuse, please pay more attention.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2837802223/history
12015-05-06 06:25:35 UTCFreedSky 我在编辑你动什么 全没了!
12015-05-04 14:31:17 UTCFreedSky 你修改的时候还把抚州的道路移动了 请你注意一下
FreedSky has contributed to 77 changeset discussions(s) with a total of 161 comment(s)