keithonearth participated in the following changeset discussionskeithonearth participated in the following changeset discussions| Changeset | # | Tmstmp UTC | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 117351053 by Martin868 @ 2022-02-13 12:01 | 1 | 2022-02-14 10:32 | Andre68 ♦88 | I did some technical fixes, but...Are the new coastlines really "high water level"? See wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Coastline |
| 2 | 2022-02-14 12:58 | Martin868 ♦61 | Its a valid question. I asked myself as well. The location of the old coastline I think was much too high and essentially was putting the entirety of those beaches underwater. I am no expert but in general the MHWL line is not that high. It is the wavers, storms and exceptionally high tides that p... | |
| 3 | 2025-04-29 00:30 | keithonearth | While I agree that it can be unclear how far up the high tide line is, this changeset put the coastline on part of the beach that is clearly covered by the tide routinely. Based on your comments it seems like the old coastline was at the upper boundary of the beach. I think this is closer to the cor... | |
| 4 | 2025-06-10 16:50 | keithonearth | I've finished cleaning up the coastline, and finished fixing the relations that use the coastline. One of the advantages of not using the low-tide line for the coastline, was that it made many small islands, like Box Island, part of Vancouver Island. My approach avoids this issue, and overa... | |
| 52265634 by Arestes @ 2017-09-22 06:41 | 1 | 2025-02-11 21:32 | keithonearth | What's up with the small grassy area you've mapped as a park? (Here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/526675645/ )Did you hear something about the ownership being transferred to the Vancouver Park Board, or are you just basing it on the satellite imagery? If it's the latter, I th... |
| 161109870 by Noam Suissa @ 2025-01-07 20:20 | 1 | 2025-01-12 18:59 | keithonearth | Could I get a more information about this? It looks like it is fictional, and made up with humorous intent. |
| 160418777 by InfiNorth @ 2024-12-20 05:10 | 1 | 2024-12-20 18:11 | keithonearth | Good job getting this edit done so close to the opening time! |
| 2 | 2024-12-20 18:19 | Viajero Perdido ♦243 | Which is the correct spelling: the node, or the changeset description? | |
| 158718832 by keithonearth @ 2024-11-03 21:52 | 1 | 2024-11-03 22:19 | joel56dt ♦170 | I just happened to notice - this looks like a duplicate? |
| 2 | 2024-11-07 17:41 | keithonearth | Yes, my mistake, I've fixed it. I added it from my phone, and on the small screen didn't notice the cafe had already been created. I also repositioned the old node, to place it within the building. | |
| 3 | 2024-11-07 22:25 | joel56dt ♦170 | I wasn't sure so I thought I would check! Thanks 👍👍 | |
| 57152624 by SteBernd @ 2018-03-13 17:44 | 1 | 2024-11-01 16:23 | keithonearth | Thanks for fixing this. I am aware that Tso means lake, but "Tso Kar" was the only name I'd heard used for this settlement. May I ask where you got the name "Thukje" from? |
| 2 | 2024-11-01 16:47 | SteBernd ♦4 | Its on the Nelles Map Ladakh, and slightly different written Thugje on the Ladakh Zanskar map, Editions Olizane | |
| 157947203 by lasthenia @ 2024-10-16 05:11 | 1 | 2024-10-16 05:14 | NeisBot ♦2,342 | Hi lasthenia, welcome to OSM!Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits and noticed that 90% of the changes in this set involve deletions, including:- 1 natural(s)Could you please confirm if these deletions were intentional or if they occurred by mistake... |
| 2 | 2024-10-16 08:00 | pitscheplatsch ♦5,402 | Thanks for your private message and your clean-up here, lasthenia!#HappyMapping | |
| 3 | 2024-10-30 05:15 | keithonearth | I'd also be interested in why [this way](https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1314750813/history) was deleted. I was the one who mapped that beach, and do not understand why it was deleted. | |
| 4 | 2024-10-30 18:51 | lasthenia ♦1 | I was trying to make the shape of Rose Point match the way it appeared on Bing Satellite Imagery. The way it was mapped seemed, to me, like it was following older satellite imagery. And the landform being a spit would mean it's liable to shift. | |
| 5 | 2024-10-31 00:01 | keithonearth | That does not explain why you deleted the way that mapped what was beach. Did you follow the link to the way I linked to in my comment? | |
| 122932639 by Quentin Golsteyn @ 2022-06-28 01:01 | 1 | 2024-10-01 20:46 | keithonearth | I've noticed that people often don't do imports any closer to towns than this. Is it because it is too tough to get the import to work with the existing data when the existing data is pretty high density? |
| 156152593 by Iron Beaver @ 2024-09-03 17:21 | 1 | 2024-09-23 23:50 | keithonearth | Thanks for adding these addresses! |
| 156743176 by keithonearth @ 2024-09-17 18:42 | 1 | 2024-09-17 18:54 | joel56dt ♦170 | I guess someone wanted to be clear we should not be trying something like this: https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=bicycle+tightrope&iax=images&ia=images😛 |
| 2 | 2024-09-21 03:25 | keithonearth | LOL, exactly! | |
| 123327250 by alex circuit @ 2022-07-07 16:12 | 1 | 2022-07-22 16:07 | keithonearth | I've cycled on the 99 past Squamish, and never seen any signage prohibiting cycling. Can you please provide evidence that cycling is prohibited on the sections you changed the tags from `bicycle=yes` to `bicycle=no`? |
| 2 | 2024-06-25 18:30 | voteforpedro ♦20 | There are multiple sections of the highway that have both painted bike lanes, and signage to alert drivers to the presence of bicycles. Specific places that you listed as "no" bicycles conflict with this, so I'll be changing it to remove the restrictions. | |
| 3 | 2024-06-26 07:08 | keithonearth | Thank you for reminding me about this voteforpedro, I'd meant to give alex circuit a chance to explain themselves, and then remove the `bicycle=no` if they failed to provide a reasonable rational for their change. Or at least the opportunity to write a full sentence. But I forgot to deal with i... | |
| 4 | 2024-06-26 07:10 | keithonearth | Here's a link to my edit making the changes:https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/153187014 | |
| 5 | 2024-09-17 18:54 | keithonearth | I'd missed a couple places these tags had been added, and only cleaned them up today. Please be cautious about adding tags like this, and don't base edits on assumptions, as it is a pain to clean up messes like this. | |
| 24968021 by james_hiebert @ 2014-08-24 00:42 | 1 | 2024-07-23 06:14 | keithonearth | Hi James, I've seen a number of sections of sea on the coast of Haida Gwaii, tagged as `natural=water` and `intermittent=yes`, below the `natural=coastline`, like this one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/299759857/This is a strange tagging convention, and I'm not sure how to interp... |
| 2 | 2024-07-23 14:18 | james_hiebert ♦2 | I did this nearly 10 years ago, so I can't necessarily recall everything that went into it. But IIRC, all of the features in the changeset are straight out of the CanVec data. The way that you mention sure does look like a low tide area. | |
| 3 | 2024-08-20 22:26 | keithonearth | OK, sounds like it doesn't mean anything here on OSM, so I'll see what I can do in terms of deleting the relations and ways. I'm not very experienced with imports, but the one I did I documented what tags I used in the imported dataset and how I translated them into OSM tags on my... | |
| 4 | 2024-09-11 03:28 | keithonearth | I've been working on it, deleting some areas, and retagging some as `natural=wetland`, `wetland=tidalflat` when the satellite imagery makes that look likely. | |
| 155537090 by sbedwal_Lyft @ 2024-08-21 04:41 | 1 | 2024-09-10 20:20 | keithonearth | Thanks for updating this. It was closed for some time during construction of the new road to the north, but I passed this way again a few days ago, and it is open again. |
| 156404851 by eerib @ 2024-09-09 17:01 | 1 | 2024-09-10 20:03 | keithonearth | Thanks for updating this, I'd not heard that news. |
| 51599240 by mapgdd1 @ 2017-08-31 03:31 | 1 | 2024-07-08 19:58 | keithonearth | This changeset added the same address to multiple building traces. This should not be done. If there are really more than one building with the same address the address should be added once, either on a central node, or on a landuse area. In this case the one building was incorrectly mapped as many,... |
| 51599229 by mapgdd1 @ 2017-08-31 03:29 | 1 | 2024-07-08 19:55 | keithonearth | I'm going through fixing some address errors in this changeset too. The usual stuff: the same address added to multiple buildings, or buildings with multiple addresses only being mapped with one. Only buildings with one address seem to usually be correct. |
| 53070137 by mapgdd1 @ 2017-10-19 14:15 | 1 | 2024-07-08 19:54 | keithonearth | I'm going through fixing some wrong addresses for this changeset too. |
| 24997296 by james_hiebert @ 2014-08-25 08:24 | 1 | 2024-07-01 19:32 | keithonearth | This import seems to include coastal regions of sea tagged as both `natural=water` and intermittent=yes`, I've just found this as relations, but there may be some mapped as a single circular way. (example relation: Some of them seem to be areas of shallow water, probably to the low tide lin... |
| 2 | 2024-07-01 20:33 | keithonearth | oops, I forgot to link to the example relation: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3989104/ | |
| 153187014 by keithonearth @ 2024-06-26 07:01 | 1 | 2024-06-26 07:10 | keithonearth | Here's a link to the changeset in question: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/123327250 |
| 141482608 by joel56dt @ 2023-09-19 19:07 | 1 | 2024-05-17 01:56 | keithonearth | What's the advantage of making the Burnaby Mountain Conservation Area a relation with three members? It had been mapped as a single way marking the outer boundary for 7 years. |
| 2 | 2024-05-17 18:43 | joel56dt ♦170 | I think I was trying to separate the scrub ground cover by creating way 1209175050 from the existing 102355693. I probably just split at the nodes (8412872122 and 366497349) and iD split all the ways and relations and not just the scrub I was working on. I recombined the ways in changeset 102355... | |
| 3 | 2024-05-18 01:21 | keithonearth | Thanks for your answer Joel. I think it's good not to over complicate things. I think it's good to represent areas with simple outlines as a single trace. If we used multiple ways in relations to represent everything that can be represented as a single way it would become much harder to ed... | |
| 4 | 2024-05-19 17:42 | joel56dt ♦170 | Thanks for the explanation, this makes sense. | |
| 151429647 by dazzerstack @ 2024-05-16 22:35 Active block | 1 | 2024-05-16 22:50 | SomeoneElse_Revert ♦70,576 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 151429899 where the changeset comment is: Reverting more childish vandalism. See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/the-osm-standard-tile-layer-looks-wrong-white-lines-abusive-comments-etc/111583/12 |
| 2 | 2024-05-17 01:51 | keithonearth | Thanks SomeoneElse! | |
| 3 | 2024-05-17 17:30 | Ericles ♦1 | Just noticed those and came to clean up. Thanks! | |
| 149028389 by keithonearth @ 2024-03-22 19:33 | 1 | 2024-03-24 18:57 | joel56dt ♦170 | Hi keithonearth,Thanks for the great additions, as always. Just one point I want to discuss: the coastline.The wiki says the coastline should be mapped to follow the mean high-water springs line. I have typically used the flotsam in the aerial imagery to determine where this is but I noticed... |
| 2 | 2024-05-08 04:51 | keithonearth | Sorry not to see your message until now, Joel. I also understand that the mean highest high tide line is the best one to use for the coastline. That said, I do think there is generally some beach between this line and where the terrestrial plants start, and if there are too many overlapping ... | |
| 145371644 by CoupleOfBesties @ 2023-12-21 13:46 | 1 | 2024-03-11 18:24 | keithonearth | Hi, and thank you for your work on the map. I've noticed what looks like a mistake to me, a short section of railway that is disconnected from any other railway line by many km of mountainous terrain. I think it's actually a section of canal, mostly obscured by the trees. These nar... |
| 2 | 2024-03-11 18:25 | keithonearth | I should also point out that it was changeset 148518163 that I deleted the railway line with. | |
| 147312260 by AlaskaDave @ 2024-02-11 00:04 | 1 | 2024-02-11 21:40 | MxxCon ♦3,359 | There's no need for changes in Alaska and Vietnam to be in the same changeset.🫤 Please split them by geographic region. That makes things much easier to review. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/147312260 |
| 2 | 2024-02-12 02:15 | AlaskaDave ♦167 | I am in Thailand during the winter but I've been doing a lot of mapping in Alaska. I went away for the afternoon, made some mappable observations locally and merely forgot that the changeset was still open in Alaska when I added the new data to OSM. | |
| 3 | 2024-02-12 05:26 | keithonearth | Wow! That's a pretty funny mistake! | |
| 4 | 2024-02-12 12:00 | AlaskaDave ♦167 | I have nade something like 16,000 edits in the 12 years since I started mapping with OSM and this is the first time I've ever gotten comments about the SIZE of a changeset.I had no idea people would be so concerned about such things, or that people actually monitor changeset characteristics... | |
| 5 | 2024-02-13 00:59 | AlaskaDave ♦167 | In further response to the concerns about the size of my changesets. I carefully used new layers when moving to another area of interest today (2024-02-13) yet the bounding box of my changeset remained overly large, extending from Alaska to Sloan NY.I just now discovered the reason for this, I ... | |
| 6 | 2024-02-13 08:12 | silversurfer83 ♦3,420 | Hey Dave :)the communications part of the OSM community is a topic of debate among the users active on the forum (community.openstreetmap.org) or some of the more active chat groups. There it has been noted that users can go around for years without ever interacting with another user.There a... | |
| 7 | 2024-02-13 12:35 | AlaskaDave ♦167 | I appreciate your feedback, silversurfer. I must say, I felt a bit as though I was being scolded for my oversight.The thing with the saved session shocked me because I had just told the commenters that I would be more careful next time and then, I accidentally did it again.I use like 6 diffe... | |
| 8 | 2024-02-14 22:53 | Xvtn ♦470 | Well put, Silversurfer. To add a little bit, I think the main reason people comment on huge changesets is because if you go to your area on osm.org and click history, depending on the activity in the area, many or even all of those changesets can be accidental world-spanning bounding boxes like this... | |
| 9 | 2024-02-14 23:32 | MxxCon ♦3,359 | Xvtn, I don't use OSM website. I use OsmCha and whodidit RSS feeds with fillets to monitor NYC. Such huge bboxes are a part of how OSM works.If your know a tool that allows me to review changesets that ONLY affect my area of interest, do share them. | |
| 10 | 2024-02-15 00:01 | Xvtn ♦470 | In OSMcha you can filter limit the maximum bbox size. When reviewing my local area, I have it capped at 20x the size of my area of interest. | |
| 11 | 2024-02-15 00:06 | MxxCon ♦3,359 | That's not an acceptable solution. Just because a bbox is big it doesn't mean it has no changes in my area of interest. | |
| 146266133 by QuigleyJones @ 2024-01-15 04:16 | 1 | 2024-01-16 06:11 | keithonearth | Thanks for noticing my note, and updating to a construction site. |
| 141044147 by nyanpsyche @ 2023-09-10 00:41 | 1 | 2024-01-02 06:32 | keithonearth | I'm not sure what you mean by "Protected bike lane is part of the roadway", just like the sidewalk, it is part of the public thoroughfare, but it has a barrier between it, and the lanes for general traffic. Yes, it is a short section of separated cycleway, but I believe it meets t... |
| 145257778 by CjMalone @ 2023-12-18 16:15 | 1 | 2023-12-20 06:00 | keithonearth | Was this an automated edit? |
| 2 | 2023-12-20 10:28 | CjMalone ♦233 | The edit was made using JOSM and it's Conflation plugin. | |
| 53382514 by mapgdd1 @ 2017-10-31 01:15 | 1 | 2023-12-16 17:20 | keithonearth | This changeset also contains at least two address errors, which I've fixed. |
| 48049095 by yoshi57 @ 2017-04-23 02:17 | 1 | 2023-11-28 04:52 | keithonearth | Thanks for your edit! Your edit from 6 years ago made it much easier for me to find this hostel! |
| 142588387 by nyanpsyche @ 2023-10-14 18:35 | 1 | 2023-10-19 22:37 | keithonearth | The map looks nice with those trees! |
| 2 | 2023-10-20 05:46 | nyanpsyche ♦8 | I absolutely agree; I think it's great! | |
| 28366272 by Hawk777 @ 2015-01-24 07:31 | 1 | 2023-10-09 21:08 | keithonearth | I've deleted the AssociatedStreet relation that this changeset added, as its addition was unexplained, does not match how the wiki says this tag should be used, and it looks like an error. Let me know if I am mistaken, and I can revert my edit. Relation: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relati... |
| 2 | 2023-10-09 21:33 | Hawk777 ♦2 | It was based on what, at the time (eight years ago), was the most complete and reasonable documentation I could find, the Karlsruhe schema, of which I chose the “Using relations to associate house and street” option (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?oldid=2323041#Using_relation... | |
| 3 | 2023-10-09 21:36 | Hawk777 ♦2 | I don’t understand what you mean by “does not match how the wiki says this tag should be used” though. Per (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:associatedStreet), it appears that it should have two members (a Way for the street and a Node or Area for the house, with those ... | |
| 4 | 2023-10-09 21:37 | Hawk777 ♦2 | By version 17 it appeared to have lost the house, but AFAICT it was correct when I created it? | |
| 5 | 2023-10-09 23:09 | keithonearth | Thanks for getting back to me!I was referring to the lack of address nodes, or houses/buildings contained in the relation. It's a relation for mapping addresses, but contained no addresses, just the street.But I had not checked the full history, so it would make sense that you'd do... | |
| 6 | 2023-10-09 23:24 | Hawk777 ♦2 | Yeah I’m fine with it staying gone. Thanks for cleaning up! | |
| 141841547 by keithonearth @ 2023-09-27 23:26 | 1 | 2023-09-29 06:06 | keithonearth | I did record my route on my phone's gps twice when riding on this path, but the resulting gpx files were pretty inaccurate, so I disregarded them when adding the path, for the most part. The cycleway's accuracy could be improved when imagery becomes available, or someone else wants to try ... |
| 116765473 by munger2002 @ 2022-01-30 03:20 Active block | 1 | 2022-01-30 10:35 | SekeRob ♦1,435 | Hi,Can you be more detailed in what you did in your edit set comments over and above 'all'. What?. You did save the edit set ignoring 5 warnings of ways crossing ways or water ways without connecting them.So you know, as everyone sees this between the american great lakes and the P... |
| 2 | 2023-09-12 01:31 | keithonearth | All of their changesets use the summery "all". At least they do not seem to be active any more. | |
| 3 | 2025-06-03 22:18 | Boris Verkhovskiy ♦11 | Looked through some of the edits and this user is a vandal. Like adding French names to random places in Canadahttps://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116746963#map=3/54.96/-93.93or adding streets/houses that don't existhttps://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=116761805most e... | |
| 4 | 2025-06-03 23:42 | Boris Verkhovskiy ♦11 | Seems to be the same person https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5585 | |
| 116746963 by munger2002 @ 2022-01-29 14:46 Active block | 1 | 2022-01-31 20:02 | alester ♦187 | First, "all" of what? Your changeset comment doesn't tell us what you were doing here, or explain why it modified objects across all of Canada at once.Second, you seem to have tried to add some bilingualism to a few pieces of roads scattered across Canada. Not only is this not the... |
| 2 | 2022-05-03 01:19 | 022 ♦21 | encountered this after coming across an out of place bilingual road in Calgary and went in to correct it. Weird edits from this person | |
| 3 | 2023-01-01 03:29 | Shrinks99 ♦14 | Also encountered this, part of Merton Street was changed to French but other parts remain Anglicized? This changeset is incorrect as per street signs. | |
| 4 | 2023-09-12 01:30 | keithonearth | This edit added a bilingual (French + English) to a short section of street in Vancouver. This is non standard for Vancouver, so I've changed it back to a purely English name (Changeset 141138575). If you want to add French names to Vancouver streets use the `name:fr` key. | |
| 140513279 by keithonearth @ 2023-08-28 21:08 | 1 | 2023-08-29 17:10 | joel56dt ♦170 | Thanks for fixing this (and adding the explanation). I had previously misunderstood the guidelines for drawing intersections so I am sure there are several more like this. I have recently been working on improving intersection details in Vancouver so I hope to fix the rest of them when I see them. |
| 2 | 2023-09-01 00:39 | keithonearth | Thanks for working on the map and being receptive! | |
| 124655918 by PlaneMad @ 2022-08-08 19:58 | 1 | 2023-08-18 21:00 | keithonearth | Today I just heard about the Zoji La tunnel project. Thanks for adding it to the map! |
| 2 | 2023-08-19 16:54 | PlaneMad ♦450 | :) | |
| 139409910 by keithonearth @ 2023-08-03 19:22 | 1 | 2023-08-03 19:23 | keithonearth | I think this was added as a AirBnB type rental, and as such isn't really applicable, or useful, in the OSM database. |
| 85968474 by Osmch2 @ 2020-05-29 22:43 | 1 | 2023-07-22 22:19 | keithonearth | Hi, two of these three campsites are located in the middle of the highway, and are not visible in the imagery. The third one is also not visible in the imagery. Are they real? What did you base this edit on Osmch2? |
| 124250899 by robellamy @ 2022-07-29 23:27 | 1 | 2023-06-28 06:46 | keithonearth | I've deleted the highway=cycleway on Fourth that this edit added, because ways tagged as highway=cycleway are best used for dedicated bicycle paths, or paths shared with pedestrians. Fourth just has a painted bike lane, between the parking land for cars, and the travel lane for cars. In this ca... |
| 135213326 by keithonearth @ 2023-04-22 00:54 | 1 | 2023-04-22 00:57 | keithonearth | From the North this construction area just looks like a abandoned building, but from the alley you can see that a new construction is almost finished. I think the facade facing Broadway was saved, and a new building was built behind it. |
| 53307762 by mapgdd1 @ 2017-10-28 02:51 | 1 | 2023-03-28 22:49 | keithonearth | I haven't commented on this changeset, but it also has an address error too. This (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/357092568) building has two addresses on it, not one as this changeset added. Please add a source for your edits. |
| 53543347 by mapgdd1 @ 2017-11-06 02:06 | 1 | 2023-02-28 03:02 | keithonearth | I've not commented on this changeset, so I'll just point out that I found an error in this one too, after surveying the addresses. This building: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/292766817 |
| 53252366 by mapgdd1 @ 2017-10-26 04:59 | 1 | 2023-02-21 23:07 | keithonearth | I've fixed the address on one building added in this changeset. As I've not said it on this changeset: you should add a source for your edits. |
| 123211777 by robellamy @ 2022-07-05 00:23 | 1 | 2023-02-07 04:12 | keithonearth | Are the `highway=cycleway` you added to Fourth separated bike paths, or dedicated lanes painted on the roadway? |
| 111798775 by 3ngineer @ 2021-09-28 06:01 | 1 | 2023-01-17 00:03 | keithonearth | How up to date is the info on the subway entrance at the current Whole Foods location? I don't remember my source (Proper news, YouTube videos?), but I was under the impression that the current Broadway-City Hall entrance was going to be the only one. Should we delete the construction at whole ... |
| 2 | 2023-01-17 06:16 | 3ngineer ♦47 | Agreed, I deleted it. The void "cavernous" space still exists apparently, but I think OSM is not for indoor maps. | |
| 3 | 2023-01-17 06:46 | keithonearth | Thanks. That's interesting. Some indoor mapping is good, but I don't think that there's a reasonable way to map what sounds like it's just a very unusual basement. Odd that they had this plan in the first place, it seems like an odd location, although I guess it's just over ... | |
| 128960570 by QuigleyJones @ 2022-11-15 21:38 | 1 | 2022-12-15 22:19 | keithonearth | I'm sorry to see them go, but thanks for updating the map. |
| 72791681 by Liudas Sodonis @ 2019-07-30 02:25 | 1 | 2022-11-07 17:19 | keithonearth | I'm deleting the address tags from the small building that had a house number of 900 added by this edit, as I visited, and found this house number wrong. |
| 127923007 by Dawid2849 @ 2022-10-22 13:43 | 1 | 2022-10-26 16:09 | keithonearth | Thank you for noticing and fixing this so quickly! Unfortunately this user is still active, their last edit was a few hours ago. |
| 110192868 by martin_tct @ 2021-08-24 20:32 | 1 | 2022-09-20 19:47 | keithonearth | I'm deleting this ice cream parlour in the middle of the forest. |
| 124661805 by Ian Kinman @ 2022-08-09 00:39 | 1 | 2022-08-09 16:41 | joel56dt ♦170 | This changeset and your others are a little suspicious. Did you intent to add a viewpoint and waterpoint in the middle of the harbour? |
| 2 | 2022-09-17 05:01 | keithonearth | Looks mistaken to me too, I've reverted it, as the viewpoints don't make sense. And some maps.me users make map edits w/o realizing they are editing the public map. | |
| 126064910 by keithonearth @ 2022-09-11 21:02 | 1 | 2022-09-12 05:20 | keithonearth | I failed to update the source tag, and this is not based on Esri imagery, but based on my survey of the addresses. |
| 53307603 by mapgdd1 @ 2017-10-28 02:24 | 1 | 2022-08-29 03:14 | keithonearth | At least one bad address in this changeset, as with others uploaded by this user. |
| 87355355 by DunbarLoop @ 2020-06-30 15:16 | 1 | 2022-08-23 18:50 | keithonearth | Have you been out this way lately. I'd be surprised if the oneway restrictions are still in place on these trails. |
| 118933189 by DunbarLoop @ 2022-03-26 03:01 | 1 | 2022-04-01 17:58 | keithonearth | As this tram does not exist, I would like to remove the tag from this roadway. Have you gotten the results from this test yet? |
| 2 | 2022-06-02 22:14 | keithonearth | I was looking over the OSM wiki on Demolished Railways, and see that this may be correct usage of the `razed` tag, although there seems to be some dispute about the use of such a tag, and assuming that there was indeed a tram here at one point. In any case, I'm ok leaving the tag, if there ... | |
| 120866132 by keithonearth @ 2022-05-12 04:27 | 1 | 2022-05-12 04:38 | keithonearth | I mistakenly failed up update the source tag on this changeset. It should be "Survey". |
| 115221677 by Devicelimit @ 2021-12-21 18:42 | 1 | 2022-04-27 04:29 | keithonearth | Just a quick heads up: A single address should not be duplicated on multiple nodes our building outlines. One address should only appear one time. Josm gives errors if you try to have the same address on multiple objects, and I'm surprised that iD doesn't. This changeset added a couple... |
| 2 | 2022-04-27 15:21 | Devicelimit ♦2 | Sorry about that. I'll keep that in mind going forward. Thanks for the explanation and fixing it. | |
| 3 | 2022-04-30 06:22 | keithonearth | No worries. Thanks for contributing to OSM! | |
| 119034883 by keithonearth @ 2022-03-28 18:34 | 1 | 2022-03-28 18:35 | keithonearth | I forgot to change the changeset's source tag to "Survey". |
| 113008604 by DENelson83 @ 2021-10-26 19:53 | 1 | 2022-01-17 23:13 | keithonearth | I'm not familiar with the "one point, one name rule for bodies of seawater". Where can I read more about it? |
| 2 | 2022-01-17 23:51 | DENelson83 ♦96 | It is a rule I use when naming bodies of seawater. Any point on the sea is allowed to have a maximum of one name associated with it. | |
| 3 | 2022-01-19 15:45 | keithonearth | Oh, it's just a personal rule you use for yourself, not a general OSM one? I think it should have more general acceptance to change the names of bodies of water like you have with this changeset. | |
| 4 | 2022-02-19 05:07 | keithonearth | I've posted my question to https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/83528/Feel free to comment there, if you would like. | |
| 5 | 2022-02-19 13:29 | SomeoneElse ♦13,390 | (prompted to come here by the help question)The relevant OSM wiki page is https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element - essentially you wouldn't add 2 things in OSM for one thing in the real world. However, that page doesn't say that a patch of water can't be p... | |
| 6 | 2022-02-22 07:45 | keithonearth | I see that DENelson83 has made some more significant restructuring of the named parts of Burrard Inlet with the changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13828327This uses parent relations to create a complex structure, with no advantage. The fundamental issue with these changes is that... | |
| 117708734 by DENelson83 @ 2022-02-22 04:42 | 1 | 2022-02-22 07:34 | keithonearth | As per the discussion on:https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/83528/can-different-named-areas-of-sea-overlapthere is no such rule as the one point, one name rule. I think it would be wise to stop making these major edits changing the boundaries of bays and other bodies of water, to fit y... |
| 106239947 by Computron @ 2021-06-12 05:14 | 1 | 2021-06-23 17:08 | keithonearth | Are these traces based on the Esri Imagery, as the changeset tags state? It contains many details that are not visible in the imagery, so it seems that there is more going on here. |
| 2 | 2021-06-24 00:20 | Computron ♦2 | Yes, I used the Esri Clarity imagery. It is several years old, but within Vancouver it is registered to within cm compared to the City of Vancouver's survey data. I frequent this area on foot, so I knew the current state of the land. | |
| 3 | 2021-07-19 18:01 | keithonearth | When I say that there are many details not included in the imagery I mean things like this: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/953633823 or https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/953633828There plenty of small details that do not correspond to anything in the imagery. The landuse traces you deleted ... | |
| 4 | 2021-07-20 00:22 | Computron ♦2 | I think I understand what you mean now. Yes, the landuse traces I uploaded do follow the private plots of land because the other land is reserved for the city. This level of detail is not visible in aerial imagery but is visible if one was to inspect the survey markers in the ground which bound each... | |
| 5 | 2021-08-04 18:14 | keithonearth | You've not really answered my question about the source of your info about the private parcel boundaries. Is it the Esri Clarity imagery? I also walk in the area frequently and do not see these details on the ground. | |
| 6 | 2022-02-15 16:14 | keithonearth | Sorry, but it really does not make sense to me, to use the land parcels for the landuse traces, w/o reliable data on what the land parcels actually are. Satellite imagery is just insufficient to determine land parcels. | |
| 98669692 by joel56dt @ 2021-02-03 23:04 | 1 | 2022-01-29 00:13 | keithonearth | Based on this article: https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/city-of-burnaby-mountain-sfu-gondola-route-selection-officialThe route as mapped is accurate, and now approved. |
| 53383500 by mapgdd1 @ 2017-10-31 03:30 | 1 | 2020-12-21 20:19 | keithonearth | The addresses in this changeset include many buildings tagged with the same addresses. I've fixed a few of these with this edit: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/96215843 |
| 2 | 2022-01-17 18:22 | keithonearth | This one too: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116266434And some more made before and after that changeset. | |
| 116081820 by keithonearth @ 2022-01-12 20:39 | 1 | 2022-01-14 17:12 | joel56dt ♦170 | Hi Keith, not sure what happened, looks like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/61738375 got rotated or something?Thanks, Joel |
| 2 | 2022-01-14 20:44 | keithonearth | Thanks for noticing and telling me Joel. I'm not sure how I managed to do that! I reverted this changeset, and manually redid the (very minor) changes this edit originally intended. I think this is sorted the problem, but let me know if I've missed anything. | |
| 3 | 2022-01-14 21:50 | keithonearth | Here's the changeset that fixes it: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116163215 | |
| 4 | 2022-01-15 18:50 | joel56dt ♦170 | Thanks! | |
| 112857016 by QuigleyJones @ 2021-10-22 21:09 | 1 | 2021-11-20 21:50 | keithonearth | Good job on the outline, seeing as there's no imagery yet! I walked by the other day, and was surprised to see it so well done so soon after construction finished. |
| 113356239 by keithonearth @ 2021-11-04 05:03 | 1 | 2021-11-04 05:10 | keithonearth | Oops, the source tag should read `Survey`. |
| 111840621 by 3ngineer @ 2021-09-28 23:23 | 1 | 2021-11-01 21:11 | keithonearth | Thanks for making the tagging of this construction area more detailed. I am wondering if the `level`, `layer`, and `underground` tags. As the construction continues right to the surface, I feel that it would be more accurate with these tags removed from the station construction sites. What do yo... |
| 2 | 2021-11-02 00:25 | 3ngineer ♦47 | I agree, I removed the tags to see how it looks. I was worried the area may render over the roadways in some renderers. | |
| 8223248 by jharvey @ 2011-05-23 05:59 | 1 | 2021-10-09 17:01 | keithonearth | Uhh... Was it the art gallery? |
| 53383478 by mapgdd1 @ 2017-10-31 03:27 | 1 | 2021-10-03 15:29 | keithonearth | This changeset contains at least some errors, placing a single address to a building with multiple address, or repeating the same address for multiple buildings. I've fixed some of it, but there's more to do. |
| 109113728 by keithonearth @ 2021-08-03 21:03 | 1 | 2021-09-28 05:29 | 3ngineer ♦47 | Hi, are you certain about the location of the proposed subway where it crosses under Great Northern Way upto Broadway? This vancouver city PDF from 2014 shows the subway going under the Canvas residential area at a much different angle: http://council.vancouver.ca/20140204/documents/p1.pdf |
| 2 | 2021-10-03 06:17 | keithonearth | Thanks for asking.I'm afraid I'm not sure of that part of the subway. I was basing this edit on the images I saw of the construction plans right around Emily Carr. If I made any changes in the Broadway area, it was based on speculation of what a reasonable turning radius would be. | |
| 92849310 by jerschwab @ 2020-10-21 18:35 | 1 | 2021-09-02 18:28 | keithonearth | This marks part of the Trans Canada Trail as `access=no`, and maybe other trails in the area. Is the trail really closed to the public? Still? |
| 2 | 2021-09-03 17:52 | jerschwab ♦1 | Not sure which feature you're referring exactly... the part going up the powerline is not allowed for public access (BC Hydro property I believe)... there's signage indication as such.https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/783781646 | |
| 3 | 2021-09-07 03:21 | keithonearth | Thanks. Yes, that is the part I was referring to. Thanks for the confirming it is tagged properly. | |
| 110586932 by keithonearth @ 2021-09-01 22:22 | 1 | 2021-09-02 00:28 | joel56dt ♦170 | How about leisure=swimming_pool, swimming_pool=wading, seasonal=summer ? |
| 2 | 2021-09-07 03:19 | keithonearth | Sounds good to me. I'm not sure what the normal way to tag a wading pool like this is. | |
| 110700172 by keithonearth @ 2021-09-04 01:49 | 1 | 2021-09-04 01:50 | keithonearth | oops, I forgot to update the source tag for this changeset, it should read "Esri World Imagery". |
| 108794918 by Fleezing @ 2021-07-29 06:01 | 1 | 2021-08-18 06:41 | keithonearth | This changeset marks "nature trail" closed to walkers as well as cyclists, but the edit summary only mentions cyclists. Is it really closed? The link to the pdf doesn't work, maybe that's the cause of my confusion. |
| 2 | 2021-08-18 15:35 | Fleezing ♦9 | It looks like they've already changed the link to the map; you can download the trail map from this page:https://www.burnaby.ca/explore-outdoors/walking-hiking-and-biking/burnaby-mountain-conservation-area-trailsThe "Nature Trail" (in the south end of the bounding box) is marked... | |
| 3 | 2021-09-02 16:17 | keithonearth | You could be right `access=no` with `foot=designated` could mean that it is only open to walkers, but it is an unusual way of doing it. Tagging it how you did basicly means "no one is allowed here, except walkers". But footpaths are closed to motor vehicles by default, and in this context ... | |
| 106232461 by AmateurCartographer @ 2021-06-11 20:53 | 1 | 2021-08-23 04:15 | keithonearth | Hey, thanks for asking the individual campsites. That's really helpful! |
| 106683848 by keithonearth @ 2021-06-20 23:54 | 1 | 2021-06-21 04:36 | ngry_pazuzu ♦20 | I understand why you changed these from obelisks to markers. It seems however that markers do not show up in the Standard Tile Layer. |
| 2 | 2021-08-04 18:23 | keithonearth | Thanks for the message, I answered on the original changeset (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/101006739) to keep the thread in one place. | |
| 101006739 by ngry_pazuzu @ 2021-03-14 20:25 | 1 | 2021-06-20 23:59 | keithonearth | I wanted to let you know that I've retagged the obelisks you've added. The way you tagged them seems to be meant for very large monuments. I think the way I've tagged them in a way that makes more appropriate.By the way, have you seen this article? https://scoutmagazine.ca/2017/01... |
| 2 | 2021-06-21 04:35 | ngry_pazuzu ♦20 | I understand why you re-tagged them. Unfortunately the marker tag does not seem to show up in the Standard Tile Layer.Yes, I have seen the article. | |
| 3 | 2021-08-04 18:22 | keithonearth | It's a good article.Unfortunately, yes they do not show up in the Standard tile layer. One of the mapping rules is "don't map for the renderer", or to say it another way, don't define things based on how you want them to look on the map, define them based on what they ar... | |
| 109111917 by keithonearth @ 2021-08-03 20:00 | 1 | 2021-08-03 20:04 | keithonearth | While some of the changes this edit introduces may be "temporary" on the ground, we're looking at 5 years for completion of the Broadway line, so it's good to map them. |
| 107796848 by andreagott @ 2021-07-11 20:21 | 1 | 2021-07-12 17:13 | keithonearth | I'm not sure if you've tagged Hummingbird Place as well as it could be. I've not visited this facility, but my understanding is that this is a supported housing facility, built using the modular housing technique. I do not think it is right to call it a group home, or to say it is for... |
| 2 | 2021-07-12 18:48 | andreagott ♦1 | Feel free to make any change as your see fit! | |
| 106227888 by keithonearth @ 2021-06-11 18:05 | 1 | 2021-06-30 15:10 | keithonearth | I just double checked, and I was correct with the southern end of the pedestrian section correct. |
| 105043734 by keithonearth @ 2021-05-20 17:37 | 1 | 2021-05-20 19:22 | keithonearth | This edit adds the last of the sidewalk traces to Vancouver proper, except for a few odds and ends that I missed. |
| 104087512 by andreagott @ 2021-05-04 03:23 | 1 | 2021-05-18 18:15 | keithonearth | Hi Andrea, I wanted to let you know that I made some changes to how you mapped Sanford Apartments, and the Resource Centre. I work in the field, and have been inside both facilities, and have some knowledge about them. Here is a link to my changeset, let me know if you'd like more info about my... |
| 8677409 by WBSKI @ 2011-07-09 19:33 | 1 | 2017-07-22 18:10 | keithonearth | I see that this edit also added a `maxspeed=30` tag to at least one alley. This surprises me, because the default maxspeed in BC for alleys is 20km/h. What is the source 30km/h speed? |
| 2 | 2021-04-28 21:11 | keithonearth | I've deleted some of the maxspeed tags as I've not received a response. | |
| 101751376 by keithonearth @ 2021-03-26 01:49 | 1 | 2021-03-26 01:50 | keithonearth | It's not just common practice for buildings with one address, it's also neater, and more structurally logical. |
| 100870022 by voteforpedro @ 2021-03-12 00:47 | 1 | 2021-03-12 17:17 | keithonearth | Thanks for the work on sidewalks! Looks good. I was wondering if you have looked at the Esri imagery? It seems quite a bit better than the Bing Imagery you've been using. You can find it in the background settings in iD. |
| 84790006 by DunbarLoop @ 2020-05-06 23:39 | 1 | 2021-02-21 07:33 | keithonearth | This changeset creates a new relation (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11075507/history#map=11/49.1175/-122.6994&layers=Y), ostensibly for a bike route, but in reality containing many different routes, and uses the `name` tag "Local Surrey Bike routes". Can you provide any evide... |
| 85314307 by DunbarLoop @ 2020-05-16 19:01 | 1 | 2021-01-03 16:00 | keithonearth | Hi DunbarLoop, I see this changeset adds two info boards (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7527083855 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7527083854) one with the `name` tag in English and one in Japanese. Would it make sense to use a single node with the `name:jp` tag for the Japanese name? |
| 2 | 2021-01-03 16:53 | DunbarLoop ♦4 | Hi Keithonearth,I see your logic but I would prefer to keep these as two separate nodes to reflect the situation.These are two separate plaques. One is in English, the other in Japanese that are about 3 meters apart separated by a building entrance.Cheers,Ken | |
| 3 | 2021-01-03 19:09 | keithonearth | That makes sense, thanks for the answer Ken. | |
| 80398313 by keithonearth @ 2020-02-01 02:57 | 1 | 2020-11-24 01:07 | Aglis IRM-ED ♦109 | Hi keithonearth, I changed the classification and geometry of this way (https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/768695327) based on Maxar Premium Imagery. I also made some change around this changeset. Thankyou |
| 2 | 2020-11-29 23:40 | keithonearth | Thank you Aglis, it looks great! | |
| 3 | 2020-12-08 09:11 | Arma IRM-ED ♦196 | Hi, keithonearth. I have changed the classification of these roads https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/768695353, https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/768695354, https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/768695411, https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/768695410, https://pewu.github.io/os... | |
| 4 | 2020-12-21 06:44 | alu_pula ♦1 | Hi keithonearth,Trust you are doing great!While mapping in city Vietnam, I came across a couple of highway’s which were tagged as “service” (way 768695472,way 768695470,way 768695467,way 768695426, way 768695439,way 768695414) which were tagged under the residential landuse pol... | |
| 5 | 2020-12-23 19:00 | keithonearth | The source of this changeset is just what the changeset source tag states, satellite imagery and Strava heatmap. It was not based on a field survey. | |
| 78450608 by PlaneMad @ 2019-12-16 04:51 | 1 | 2020-11-20 09:51 | keithonearth | Good call changing Zero Bridge to `highway=pedestrian`, it better corresponds with reality than `highway=footway`. |
| 94402138 by keithonearth @ 2020-11-19 01:17 | 1 | 2020-11-19 01:25 | keithonearth | I often see sidewalks tagged `highway=cycleway`, by editors that seem to value mapping features of interest to cyclists. I think it is unhelpful to map bicycle infrastructure as better than reality, tagging the sidewalks of the Knight Street Bridge as cycleways is an example. The sidewalks seem to b... |
| 51599355 by mapgdd1 @ 2017-08-31 03:44 | 1 | 2020-10-28 06:46 | keithonearth | I checked the addresses on two buildings, and found the addresses added by this changeset were wrong:https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/324172370https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/324172363The buildings had two and three addresses in reality, but a single one from this changeset. As with mos... |
| 93157997 by keithonearth @ 2020-10-28 06:16 | 1 | 2020-10-28 06:27 | keithonearth | I should have tagged the source of this changeset as "survey", as I checked the addresses in person, and made notes. |
| 89713583 by keithonearth @ 2020-08-20 22:22 | 1 | 2020-09-21 21:10 | Ana657 ♦3 | Hi keithonearth, Regarding Way: 834816257. City of Port Moody recently upgrades this sidewalk to multi-use path (completed May 2020). Do you mind if I remove your changes for this way? |
| 2 | 2020-09-22 17:25 | keithonearth | Hi Ana,Sorry I hadn't responded to your direct message yet, I wasn't ignoring you, just a busy few days.Please feel free to make the edits that accurately reflect reality. You don't need to ask before fixing any mistakes I've made. Sorry to have made a mistake here. I don... | |
| 3 | 2020-09-25 16:11 | Ana657 ♦3 | Way 834816257 is 4m wide mixed use path. More info here: https://www.portmoody.ca/en/city-services/resources/Documents/2019-Murray-Street-Upgrades-Project---Maps.pdfRegarding multi-use (mixed use) path tagging, I thought a lot about it. `highway=cycleway` or `highway=footway` tags seem like they ... | |
| 4 | 2020-10-16 07:26 | keithonearth | I see what you mean about `highway=cycleway` and `highway=footway` prioritizing one mode of transport over another, but I don't think it's quite accurate. It seems to me that ways on OSM default to the largest vehicle that can use it. A road that can be accessed by foot or by motor-vehicle... | |
| 5 | 2020-10-19 15:14 | Ana657 ♦3 | I understand your reasoning. I will do more research. Thanks. | |
| 85055682 by keithonearth @ 2020-05-12 03:54 | 1 | 2020-10-07 01:18 | keithonearth | I have received a direct message about this changeset from [user NM$L](https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/NM$L). I think it is more useful to discuss it publicly here, so I am posting my response here, with NM$L's original message quoted below.The main thing is: If I changed the name tags o... |
| 2 | 2020-10-07 03:36 | NM$L ♦83 | The names you mentioned are turly strange and I advice delete them. I've restore some names in this changest because they are near the roads or the village where we can easily find the evidence of China actually controling.About the twi-language name, I mean that if we can't say who ac... | |
| 3 | 2020-10-07 03:59 | NM$L ♦83 | (A digression: I write such sentences on my personal page just because I dealt with a lot of editing wars between Vietnam and China and a little hate it.) | |
| 90899852 by keithonearth @ 2020-09-15 05:54 | 1 | 2020-09-28 03:17 | keithonearth | I've double checked the location of the end of the bike lanes, made a note when cycling by, and this edit is accurate. I can add "Survey" to the sources of this changeset. |
| 88962380 by Bike Across Canada Route Network @ 2020-08-05 06:30 | 1 | 2020-08-05 19:23 | keithonearth | I'm unclear what this "route 1" is. At present, are you actively developing it with a group on facebook? |
| 2 | 2020-08-06 00:53 | Bike Across Canada Route Network ♦4 | Route 1 is 1 of 3 primary routes across Canada that most people take; Route 1 being the most popular route across the country. It goes to Cape Spear, NL Available on https://www.trailforks.com/route/1010000-mainline-1-victoria-bc-to-cape-spear-nl-7-212km-6-594-8km-cycling-and-617-2km-ferries/ a... | |
| 3 | 2020-08-06 17:39 | keithonearth | So they are crowd sourced routes of convention, not officially defined ones? Would it be fair to call them recommended routes? | |
| 4 | 2020-08-06 18:33 | Bike Across Canada Route Network ♦4 | The tag 'state=proposed' indicates that it's not officially defined. Instead of a small group of beaurocrats defining a National Cycling Route Network, this Network is designed by those who have actually done the trip. Once the whole network is shown here on Openstreetmap c... | |
| 5 | 2020-08-06 18:55 | Bike Across Canada Route Network ♦4 | Slightly long-winded, but I hope it makes sense. :) | |
| 6 | 2020-08-06 20:23 | keithonearth | It totally makes sense, I also think the Trans-Canada trail has many issues too. Even the parts of it that are a bike route are often poor. I think that developing new routes publicly, with many adjustments is a good thing.All that said, I'm not sure if it is in keeping with the OSM policie... | |
| 7 | 2020-08-07 06:02 | Bike Across Canada Route Network ♦4 | That would be for the OSM overlords to decide. Keep in mind that the TCT/TGT has been wrongly designated as a NCN in openstreetmap for over 12 years and nothing was done about it. I didn't remove it when it was added because I wanted to replace it with something more useful. And t... | |
| 8 | 2020-08-14 18:04 | keithonearth | There seem to be a few misconceptions involved in your understanding of OSM. There are no "Overloards". Most decisions are made collaboratively. The only exception is when the question of vandalism comes up, and an editor does not respect other editors opionins. Then the Data Working G... | |
| 9 | 2020-08-14 18:14 | keithonearth | Additionally, in the interests of transparency, and to try to consolidate this discussion that has become spread out over a few changesets, I'll link to the other changesets we've discussed this on:https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87108609https://www.openstreetmap.org/change... | |
| 10 | 2020-08-15 16:49 | Bike Across Canada Route Network ♦4 | Thanks for taking the time to get into detail on this issue. Much appreciated than if we were to discuss this 8 months from now after spending that time adding it in. I've reached out to Canada Bikes, just waiting for a reply. On the topic of the TCT/TGT https://thegreattrail.ca/... | |
| 11 | 2020-08-17 05:55 | keithonearth | I'm sorry you are having such a hard time understanding this. The TCT is a multi-use trail, with many sections that are specifically intended for bicycle use, those sections are tagged with the `ncn` tag on osm. The fact that it is not a continuous national cycle network is irrelevant. You also... | |
| 12 | 2020-08-17 07:27 | Bike Across Canada Route Network ♦4 | The tag ncn means 'National Cycle Route', which the TCT/TGT has stated (themselves) that it is not. So tagging those segments that are cycling only is not correct. It's misleading for anyone looking at the map. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:network%3DncnYes, I remember... | |
| 13 | 2020-08-17 17:59 | keithonearth | Good work on uMap! It looks really good, and like it will be a good way of representing your data, and will be a very helpful resource to people cycling across Canada.It really doesn't matter if the TCT fits the definitions of a National Cycle-network outside of OSM, what matters is if it i... | |
| 14 | 2020-08-18 18:09 | alester ♦187 | If you don't mind, I'd like to join this discussion to make a few suggestions:1. I wasn't aware that some significant changes were already being made to the existing relations, and I bet other Canadian contributors weren't either. There clearly needs to be wider discussion on... | |
| 15 | 2020-08-18 20:18 | alester ♦187 | Also, I'm willing to give some leeway in discussing the TCT/TGT project in general. While I don't believe it was a "national embarrassment", it wasn't a glowing success story either. Some good did come from it by triggering the creation of a number of good trails, but it fel... | |
| 16 | 2020-08-19 04:27 | keithonearth | Give some leeway in discussing the TCT/TGT in general? I'm not sure what you mean. I do think you are missing the point. It's not a question of it it is good or bad. The big question is whether or not it objectivly exists. To which any reasonable person will say yes it exists. As such it s... | |
| 17 | 2020-08-19 18:34 | Bike Across Canada Route Network ♦4 | *gets out the popcorn*Nice to hear that there will be discussion on the talk-ca mailing list, check it each week from the archives and it's been very quiet. I see that the rendering of the proposed NCN routes is now a thick dashed brown line and ref ID number isn't shown until the ... | |
| 18 | 2020-08-24 17:50 | Bike Across Canada Route Network ♦4 | There has been no discussion on the talk-ca mailing list as suggested before moving forward.https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2020-August/thread.html | |
| 19 | 2020-08-28 05:08 | keithonearth | Sam, just so you know, "getting the popcorn", is usually used to indicate taking enjoyment to watching conflict and disagreement. I hope you didn't mean it that way.I hope things work out ok with the Canada Bikes Organization, and they are willing to signpost your routes. It'... | |
| 20 | 2020-08-28 16:49 | Bike Across Canada Route Network ♦4 | https://twitter.com/samvekemans/status/1035193654384648192?s=19I am the author of the OSM Wiki article about the TCT and encouraged the national wrong tagging of it in the first place. Just because it has been wrong for over 10years, doesn't make it right. | |
| 21 | 2020-08-31 22:38 | keithonearth | Of course just because it's been one way for over 10 years doesn't make it right. I never said it did, I said that I was dubious that it is necessary for me to discuss the changes that I've made.You continue to ignore significant questions that have been asked of you. Please addre... | |
| 22 | 2020-09-10 05:03 | Bike Across Canada Route Network ♦4 | Sunday September 27th is the Velo Canada Bikes AGM. The topic of Schrödinger's Trail which is equally both NOT and IS a National Cycling Route Network and should or should not be tagged as such and is or is not interfering with (anyone's) attempt to build a designated National Cycli... | |
| 23 | 2020-09-14 19:13 | keithonearth | I don't think if it's a National Cycling Route or not is a meaningful question. It is a multi-use trail that includes bikes for most of it. Here, on OSM, it makes the most sense to include the bike parts as a relation with the ncn tag. I think focusing too much on if it *really* is... | |
| 89797822 by keithonearth @ 2020-08-23 04:49 | 1 | 2020-08-25 19:16 | keithonearth | I changed the name tag of the TCT/TGT bicycle and foot relations with this edit. It was accidental. I did it so I could see which is which while editing the relations. and forgot to change them back before uploading the changeset. I apologize for the error. |
| 87108609 by Bike Across Canada Route Network @ 2020-06-25 01:53 | 1 | 2020-06-25 03:57 | alester ♦187 | A proposed bike route probably shouldn't be on the map, and definitely not tagged as an active route. It might be best to wait until the route officially opens and signage goes up. |
| 2 | 2020-06-25 04:59 | Bike Across Canada Route Network ♦4 | It's a chicken and egg problem. The route should not be physically signed until it's agreed upon by the community. Unlike how another (signed NCN which is not actually a National Cycling Route Network*) was built, here, we are using technology to make the proposed (not active, but usab... | |
| 3 | 2020-08-08 02:13 | keithonearth | I think developing these routes is a very useful thing, but I'm not convinced that OSM is the place to do it.I see that you had been informed about potential issues with the approach you are taking previous to my message more recently (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88962380). I th... | |
| 4 | 2020-08-08 02:15 | keithonearth | Oh, and I think you misunderstood the comment about signage on the route. They weren't suggesting random individuals put up signage, which would be vandalism. But that appropriate organizations put up signage. | |
| 5 | 2020-08-08 07:44 | Bike Across Canada Route Network ♦4 | It seems to be only you who thinks it's not appropriate to add in the proposed Bike Across Canada Route Network to openstreetmap. The biggest reason why I can't get 'official proposal' status is that the TCT/TGT is actually in the way (i can't even get funding for it). ... | |
| 6 | 2020-08-14 18:10 | keithonearth | Our discussion about this has become spread out over a few changesets, in the interest of consolidating it, I'll only be commenting on this changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88962380 | |
| 88215490 by Bike Across Canada Route Network @ 2020-07-20 01:45 | 1 | 2020-08-07 06:22 | keithonearth | This edit changes the Trans-Canada Trail back to being classified exclusively as a foot route. I see that this user has made *extensive* changes to the Trans-Canada Trail in the 6 weeks they have been signed up with OSM. They have twice changed it from a bicycle route, to a hiking route, despite thi... |
| 2 | 2020-08-07 07:23 | Bike Across Canada Route Network ♦4 | Happy to comply with your request. Here's the source indicating approval for making the TCT/TGT a National Waking Routehttps://www.facebook.com/groups/2001276213451132/permalink/2726253827620030/Also note the source"Please remind people That we NEVER said it was a National Cy... | |
| 3 | 2020-08-08 01:01 | keithonearth | I see the confusion. The route isn't designed for cyclists for the entire network. But many sections are designed for cyclists. Many multi-use routes are represented on OSM by multiple route relations. The sections that are for bicycles are contained in a bicycle relation, the ones for foot are... | |
| 4 | 2020-08-08 07:02 | Bike Across Canada Route Network ♦4 | Thanks. The TCT/TGT relations were changed from ncn to nwn (not removed). There is a BC Super Relation, just as there is a super relation for each province - however it's not really well organized with the right super and parent super relations. And yes, making a new separate relation for ... | |
| 5 | 2020-08-08 20:51 | keithonearth | I'm not satisfied with the changes to the Trans-Canada Trail that you've made. The fact that your facebook group hasn't complained about them is irrelevant. I've not gotten any complaints here about my facebook posts either.There are disadvantages to organizing outside of the... | |
| 6 | 2020-08-09 06:03 | Bike Across Canada Route Network ♦4 | I've checked the talk-ca archives, and crickets are to be found, and my inbox from this profile is empty.Seems you are the only one who is complaining about the Great Work i've done so far to improve the map and the cycling experience from those who use the cyclemap, and map users who ... | |
| 7 | 2020-08-11 16:11 | keithonearth | It often takes weeks or months to come to consensus on these things. I will not delete the proposed routes you've added for the time being, but I think it's only fair to warn you that I think that deletion will be the likely outcome.I find the damage you've done to the Trans-Canad... | |
| 8 | 2020-08-14 18:09 | keithonearth | Our discussion about this has become spread out over a few changesets, in the interest of consolidating it, I'll only be commenting on this changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88962380 | |
| 88099236 by alester @ 2020-07-16 17:05 | 1 | 2020-08-11 16:32 | keithonearth | Hi alester, could you confirm your source for the bicycle access on this paved trail? Local knowledge? Survey? Something else? |
| 78438209 by PlaneMad @ 2019-12-15 19:23 | 1 | 2020-07-30 16:46 | keithonearth | Hi Arun, wanted to let you know that I have changed the tagging of a way you tagged as `highway=pedestrian`, back to `=service`. Based on your edit summary, I think you based the tag on the satellite imagery. I visited Srinagar in 2016, and came this way. At the time, some of the road was too narrow... |
| 2 | 2020-08-02 20:35 | PlaneMad ♦450 | Have only walked on a short stretch in front of Suffering Moses back in 2012 and did not recall seeing vehicles on it. Will definitely trust your judgement and service definitely seems like a better option. | |
| 3 | 2020-08-02 20:39 | PlaneMad ♦450 | Suffering Moses is west of Zero bridge, so looks like we both have been on different parts of the road :DUltimately would be great to have someone local update it (hopefully soon!) | |
| 4 | 2020-08-03 17:14 | keithonearth | Small world! I"ll bet the right thing to do would be tag sections as pedestrian and parts as service. Although I've always been bothered by how the `highway=pedestrian` is used for such a wide variety of very different ways from something like The Mall in Shimla, to the galees in varan... | |
| 5 | 2020-08-04 03:58 | PlaneMad ♦450 | My interpretation of a `pedestrian` street is one that has been restricted for vehicles to give pedestrians right of way and not "too narrow for vehicles to use".Reason for tagging it pedestrian was more of hunch that the whole route was closed off for entry to vehicles, but from your ... | |
| 6 | 2020-08-04 04:04 | PlaneMad ♦450 | It was a handicraft shop, but i wouldn't be surprised if there was houseboat named that :P | |
| 88436881 by keithonearth @ 2020-07-24 05:39 | 1 | 2020-07-24 05:40 | keithonearth | link: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87866102 |
| 87866102 by markwainwright @ 2020-07-12 00:01 | 1 | 2020-07-18 06:14 | keithonearth | Hi Mark, I see you have updated the tagging of Twin Bridges Trail. I totally agree, that it is wide and gravel. It seems to me that it is not used as a road, and based on its use we can more accurately tag it as a trail. Are you basing its classification based solely on it's width? |
| 2 | 2020-07-18 07:45 | markwainwright ♦1 | Hi Keith, thanks for noticing. Two Metro Vancouver trucks flew past while I was walking on it last weekend and I found myself wishing it was marked in some way to differentiate it from a true hiking trail. I read the relevant wiki pages at the time and was under the impression that highway=track was... | |
| 3 | 2020-07-24 05:35 | keithonearth | Thanks for the comment. I do think it is a bit of a grey area, because I agree with your first interpretation that `highway=track` is appropriate even if it isn't publicly accessible. The thing is that this is only very rarely accessed by Metro Vancouver Parks trucks. I think I have seen one th... | |
| 4 | 2024-02-07 05:10 | ScottNelson ♦24 | After running this "trail" I was all set to change to to highway=track when I found this discussion. I think highway=track is more appropriate. Locally there are many examples of roads with no public access used as hiking trails that are tagged with highway=track. (WOP XC trails, singin... | |
| 5 | 2024-02-07 05:11 | ScottNelson ♦24 | Also see: https://www.reddit.com/r/openstreetmap/comments/uxfpph/how_do_i_tag_gated_forest_roads_like_these_theyre/ | |
| 88050133 by keithonearth @ 2020-07-15 20:15 | 1 | 2020-07-15 23:35 | keithonearth | This edit was just in the immediate vicinity of Fraser River Park, but did change some of the river bank traces. |
| 85635336 by DunbarLoop @ 2020-05-23 01:34 | 1 | 2020-06-26 18:26 | keithonearth | Thanks for such a useful edit summery. I only noticed the name change now, and was glad to have it explained. |
| 87048728 by keithonearth @ 2020-06-23 19:26 | 1 | 2020-06-23 19:36 | keithonearth | Here's a proper link to the changeset that introduced the errors: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/86894976 |
| 86894976 by VancouverHistoricalPhotos @ 2020-06-19 21:39 | 1 | 2020-06-23 19:33 | keithonearth | Hello and welcome to OSM VancouverHistoricalPhotos! Thanks for contributing. I'm just a normal volunteer here, just like you, but I've been doing it for a while now, and wanted to let you know that this edit has introduced some errors in the a section of the cycleway. (here: https://www.op... |
| 86905944 by Connecticut @ 2020-06-20 09:57 | 1 | 2020-06-21 04:34 | keithonearth | Hi thanks for paying attention, and seeing my note. I added the note from my phone, while cycling past, and I got the location a bit off. I then added the bench in the proper location, and forgot about the note... I've deleted the bench you added, because I put the note on the wrong side of the... |
| 53280418 by mapgdd1 @ 2017-10-27 05:12 | 1 | 2020-06-02 04:17 | keithonearth | At least two of the buildings in this edit mistakenly have a single address added, when two exist in reality. (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/331442853/history and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/331442829/history) |
| 69465112 by mbiker @ 2019-04-22 19:08 | 1 | 2020-05-29 01:08 | keithonearth | It's cool you added the Russian name to the church, but I've moved it to the `name:ru` tag. If you have Russian language skills it'd be great to get some more multilingual `name:ru` tags around the Vancouver, but I don't think it should go into the default `name` tag, even for Ru... |
| 85911660 by benshapiro @ 2020-05-28 23:08 | 1 | 2020-05-29 01:03 | keithonearth | Very amusing, but I think it should be removed. Do I really need to say why? |
| 71613133 by keithonearth @ 2019-06-25 20:11 | 1 | 2020-05-12 04:07 | PlaneMad ♦450 | Fantastic work with all the details. Map is looking beautiful! |
| 2 | 2020-05-12 06:18 | keithonearth | Thanks Arun, that's kind of you to say. Means lots coming from a pro. | |
| 84853962 by keithonearth @ 2020-05-07 21:27 | 1 | 2020-05-07 21:35 | keithonearth | Maybe I should add that I also walked by this block today, and checked the progress of the building on Main Street. While it is not ready for people to move in yet, the construction of the structure is completed. As it is not visible in the imagery yet, the trace is very approximate. |
| 83282391 by Bookwus @ 2020-04-09 05:10 | 1 | 2020-05-01 00:48 | keithonearth | This edit removes all tags, except the name tag, from Griffen Switchbacks. Was this done because the path is no longer publicly accessible? If so wouldn't adding `access=no` be more appropriate? |
| 2 | 2020-05-01 05:39 | Bookwus ♦2 | The trail has been actively blocked/decommissioned by NV district, and is not in use/usable anymore. I think having it on a map (even with no access label) would encourage people to try to use it.I'm OK to put it back on map with no access label, but would rather keep it off as that would h... | |
| 83285349 by DENelson83 @ 2020-04-09 06:09 | 1 | 2020-04-17 19:08 | keithonearth | Is the post office actually inside Nesters? I've been there a number of times, and don't remember seeing it, but wasn't actually looking for a post office. |
| 2 | 2020-04-17 19:18 | DENelson83 ♦96 | Canada Post says it's there. It may be in the adjacent pharmacy, though. I hope I didn't get that wrong. | |
| 3 | 2020-04-18 05:49 | keithonearth | Fair enough. I'll have to pay attention if I'm in there again. | |
| 83557649 by keithonearth @ 2020-04-15 00:57 | 1 | 2020-04-15 01:10 | DunbarLoop ♦4 | The plaque and rock exists, at least at the time I was doing a site visit. Due to the bushes it is hard to see from the road, but from the sidewalk it very visible and stands 3 feet high. |
| 2 | 2020-04-15 01:12 | DunbarLoop ♦4 | Here is a link to a documented webpage to the artifact.https://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WMDAPP_Dads_Cookies_Vancouver_BCCould you please replace to OSM unless you can verify it has been removed. | |
| 3 | 2020-04-17 05:37 | keithonearth | Thanks for the info, I have reverted my edit, and the node is back, with its edit history maintained: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7120449583That said, is this the best way to tag it? I think my original confusion was expecting an object that was more oriented for tourists. Would tagging i... | |
| 83603949 by keithonearth @ 2020-04-15 16:57 | 1 | 2020-04-15 16:59 | keithonearth | I can't verify the name tag, as I don't remember if the named business is still at that location, or has moved. |
| 79395198 by DunbarLoop @ 2020-01-09 22:46 | 1 | 2020-04-15 00:58 | keithonearth | I've deleted this node, as I'm familiar with this intersection, and there is nothing here that I can see this node reasonably representing. Please correct me if I am mistaken. |
| 82390531 by keithonearth @ 2020-03-19 12:42 | 1 | 2020-03-19 12:48 | keithonearth | I say impossible river crossings, impossible at present, but I am only temporarily visiting town. It may be more possible at other times. I am still convinced that this trail, if it exists at all, was so inaccurately mapped that deletion was the only sensible thing to do. |
| 16559266 by Tznischd @ 2013-06-15 06:17 | 1 | 2020-01-16 21:06 | keithonearth | This edit adds a `bicycle=no` tag to the Songdai Expressway, but does not say what this is based on. Is it based on local signage, an assumption, or something else? |
| 75232380 by SomeoneElse @ 2019-10-03 12:43 | 1 | 2019-10-03 12:46 | SomeoneElse ♦13,390 | This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 21702908, 21704722, 21858188, 21877729. |
| 2 | 2019-10-03 23:27 | keithonearth | Thank you very much for doing this SomeoneElse. I fully support reverting the changesets. | |
| 63710894 by RMorewood @ 2018-10-20 18:15 | 1 | 2019-09-30 02:48 | keithonearth | I've added a note, asking about the addition of the `access=no` tag added to the section of Vanness Ave with this edit. If you can provide more info could you please do so on the note:https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1944032I hope to hear from you. Thanks! |
| 74111494 by Manoj Thapa @ 2019-09-05 04:57 | 1 | 2019-09-05 05:01 | keithonearth | weird. This is tagged as part of #osmnepal, but is far from Nepal. |
| 2 | 2019-09-11 04:46 | Manoj Thapa ♦18 | We from Nepal are validating and supervising the mapping work. | |
| 74111477 by keithonearth @ 2019-09-05 04:57 | 1 | 2019-09-05 05:00 | keithonearth | In reality the sections of road that are inaccessible to the public are likely to be much longer than this, as border areas are sensitive military areas, with restricted access to the public. But with these tags, I hope that routers will not try to send people across closed crossings. |
| 37252742 by katpatuka @ 2016-02-16 19:13 | 1 | 2019-07-02 21:12 | keithonearth | This edit changed the `name:bo` tag from `ཉང་ཆུ,` to `z=མྱང་ཆུ`. Based on my very basic knowledge of Tibetan writing, the typo, and some basic googleing. Please let me know if you think I've made a mistake. Here's the link to my edit: https://www.openstreetmap.org/cha... |
| 2 | 2019-07-03 15:06 | katpatuka ♦194 | no idea where the z= came from ;) I don't have better sources than you had anyway... | |
| 3 | 2019-07-03 22:28 | keithonearth | Ok, thanks. | |
| 71834002 by thibautRe @ 2019-07-02 18:55 | 1 | 2019-07-03 17:56 | keithonearth | Is this an automated edit? If so was it discussed? |
| 2 | 2019-07-03 19:52 | thibautRe ♦4 | It wasn't :) I mapped a lot of the valley using Norway Ortophoto.I realized that I might have also changed stuff in Polynesia. I hope that wasn't a mistake, I was just trying to get an understanding on how things were set up there (the island of Nuku Alofa is so well mapped). If I change... | |
| 3 | 2019-07-03 22:24 | keithonearth | I don't think there's any rule against mapping two far flung locations, but it does make it harder for other mappers to know the location of your edits. I've seen very experienced editors doing it, but I don't think it's a good idea. In this case I was looking at some change... | |
| 4 | 2019-07-04 06:52 | thibautRe ♦4 | I completely understand, I will try to be more careful in the future. Thanks for sharing your thoughts - OSM is a community so feel free to keep doing that :) | |
| 63962393 by nilavarsha @ 2018-10-29 00:05 | 1 | 2018-10-29 03:45 | Chetan_Gowda ♦214 | Hi nilavarsha, Welcome to OpenStreetMap. I appreciate your localisation work. Do not replace default English names of the city or neighborhoods. This will lead places unreachable. You can follow name:hi=* to add Hindi names. Thanks! |
| 2 | 2019-06-27 00:19 | keithonearth | Unfortunately you have failed to follow these instructions, and while some edits have just added Hindi in the default `name` tag, others have replaced existing name tags with Hindi ones. | |
| 71321675 by Adam Schneider @ 2019-06-17 08:47 | 1 | 2019-06-20 17:30 | keithonearth | I don't want to step on your toes, but I did make an edit that may have negatively impacted your edit. I just reverted a couple of changesets that I view as vandalism (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/68196326 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/68196294). The changesets deleted ... |
| 2 | 2019-06-20 17:45 | Adam Schneider ♦56 | I'll take a look; I was going to go back into that area and fix up some "access" tags anyway, having visited in person a couple days ago.(I don't think I'd characterize those Westwind changesets as "vandalism"; maybe just overzealousness.) | |
| 3 | 2019-06-20 19:44 | keithonearth | It's a wonderful place, isn't it? I'd call it as overzealous the first time he deleted all the details, but then he did it again after I'd explained it all to him. He gave it about 9 months, and tried again.Irrespective of how we characteristic the changeset it negatively... | |
| 4 | 2019-06-20 23:59 | Adam Schneider ♦56 | I think the solution — which I just did — is adding Westwind to the map and marking it and all of its trails/roads as "private." Then there's no ambiguity about what that blank space on the map means. | |
| 5 | 2019-06-21 16:28 | keithonearth | Adding Westwind to the map is a good idea, unfortunately tourism=camp is not the right tag for it. If the entirety of it is tagged this way it means you could camp anywhere within Westwind. That is not the case. It could also attract people to the area, as most campgrounds are the sort of places you... | |
| 6 | 2019-06-21 17:16 | Adam Schneider ♦56 | Fortunately, it looks like leisure=summer_camp is now being rendered. Unfortunately, it looks exactly like tourism=camp_site. I'm going to add "(private)" to the camp's name just to cover all the bases. | |
| 7 | 2019-06-21 17:23 | Adam Schneider ♦56 | My mistake, it doesn't render at all. (I was looking at cached tiles.) | |
| 8 | 2019-06-22 04:13 | keithonearth | I'm not sure that adding description or advice into a name tag is a good idea. It's not got "(private)" in its name, and it shouldn't really be in the name tag either. | |
| 59544426 by keithonearth @ 2018-06-04 17:02 | 1 | 2019-06-20 10:51 | woodpeck ♦2,431 | Hello keithonearth, in this changeset you have removed access restrictions from the "Lighthouse Road" track. Now DWG has recevied a message from the land owners ("Therah Village Developments Ltd") saying that "This is in fact a private road on our land, and we respectfully r... |
| 2 | 2019-06-20 16:34 | keithonearth | Hi, woodpecker, thanks for your question.I moved the access restriction from the road to the gate. I did this because, despite what the individual who states he is the land owner says, the road is not *entirely* on private land, a significant portion of it is in the park itself. This section is ... | |
| 3 | 2019-06-20 17:02 | woodpeck ♦2,431 | The landowner originally (politely) requested deletion of the road but I already explained to them that we do not entertain such requests since mapping a way that is physically there will, even if access is not permitted, help with orientation and in emergencies. I have requested clarification on ex... | |
| 4 | 2019-06-20 20:23 | keithonearth | That sounds entirely reasonable to me. | |
| 68196326 by Matt Taylor_mapper @ 2019-03-16 06:01 | 1 | 2019-03-16 07:42 | pitscheplatsch ♦5,402 | Hi Matt Taylor_mapper, welcome to OSM.If a way is not accessible to the public, add the access=private tag and don't delete the way.See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access=privateMore details about this changeset: https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=68196326Coul... |
| 2 | 2019-06-20 17:10 | keithonearth | I think it's worth pointing out that these trails were already tagged as private, and that this has been explained to Matt previously (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/52643870). In fact the only contributions from this editor have been to delete features from this part of the map. W... | |
| 3 | 2019-06-20 17:44 | keithonearth | Matt, it's probably worth noting that in the 3 months since you've deleted the road and the trails from the land you manage, the road, and most of the trail from God's Thumb have been added back (with this changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/71321675) based on Strava He... | |
| 70880520 by xinduqiao @ 2019-06-03 10:27 | 1 | 2019-06-19 04:29 | keithonearth | What is the source for this name? |
| 70603644 by Prasit Aphiphunya @ 2019-05-25 04:06 | 1 | 2019-06-06 00:39 | keithonearth | Is this based on a visit to the location? |
| 2 | 2019-06-06 02:37 | Prasit Aphiphunya ♦1 | Yes, It is always based on my visit to each locations. | |
| 3 | 2019-06-07 16:46 | keithonearth | That's great! I'm sure it's a fascinating trip. Have you had many restrictions to your movement from the police or army?Let me know if you'd like any help with mapping. It's an area I'm quite interested in, and I see you use Maps.me for editing. There are more power... | |
| 70165015 by Nicolas Pare @ 2019-05-12 16:35 | 1 | 2019-05-12 23:51 | Glassman ♦5,240 | That is a lot of activity on one upload. Did you visit each site? |
| 2 | 2019-05-13 05:28 | Carnildo ♦905 | A quick spot-check says that most if not all of them are Maps.Me bookmarks. Probably the best thing to do is just revert the entire changeset. | |
| 3 | 2019-05-13 16:23 | Jarek 🚲 ♦323 | this changeset has been discussed in talk-ca https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2019-May/009307.html | |
| 4 | 2019-05-13 16:51 | PierZen ♦262 | Merci Nicolas pour ta contribution. Quelques commentaires et tu peux venir en discuter sur la liste de discussion https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/ (il faut s'inscrire avec adresse de courriel). On doit Éviter de couvrir de grandes régions dans une meme Session... | |
| 5 | 2019-05-30 00:58 | keithonearth | I found this discussion about reverting this changeset when I found this node (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6468319591), which is incorrectly tagged (puts a description in the name value, tags it a tourist attraction, rather than a bar), poorly located (about 100m away from where it should be,... | |
| 6 | 2022-04-07 13:04 | A Hall ♦53 | Checking in here to add to the discussion. I just found a useless node (attraction, no description, no idea what the 'attraction' is). If anyone else stumbles upon this changeset there's a good chance that reverting/deleting whatever you found is the right way to go. | |
| 11212968 by Contributor666 @ 2012-04-07 11:51 | 1 | 2019-04-26 05:01 | keithonearth | This edit adds a building called "Kadakh Renewable Energy Development Agancy" is this a typo for "Ladakh"? |
| 69185513 by Heinz_V @ 2019-04-13 18:56 | 1 | 2019-04-19 20:51 | keithonearth | This edit makes significant changes to the outline Dachigam National Park, and a minor change to Overa Aru wildlife sanctuary. These boundaries are not visible in satellite imagery. What is the source of this edit? |
| 2 | 2019-04-20 10:13 | Heinz_V ♦296 | See the wiki : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/India:Protected_areasthe notification can be downloaded from ENVIS | |
| 3 | 2019-04-20 10:16 | Heinz_V ♦296 | If you think the WLS-name should be Wildlife Sanctuary, please first ask the indian mapper community. All 543 WLS are actually named with WLS. | |
| 4 | 2019-04-20 10:20 | Heinz_V ♦296 | http://www.jkwildlife.com/pdf/pub/final_management_plan_DNP_06082011.pdfhere you find a map of Dachigam NP | |
| 5 | 2019-04-26 03:26 | keithonearth | Thanks for the link to the wiki page, it's interesting reading. This changeset in particular, was that based on info in the pdf you link to?Regarding the names of Wildlife Sanctuaries, In this case I do think that following the guidelines recommended on the wiki is wise: https://wiki.openst... | |
| 30132413 by MetVanRider123acme @ 2015-04-10 23:24 | 1 | 2019-04-10 21:29 | keithonearth | I know this was quite some time ago, but I'm wondering why you added and then removed the `leisure=park` tag to this area. |
| 53069552 by mapgdd1 @ 2017-10-19 13:49 | 1 | 2019-03-25 04:32 | keithonearth | I have fixed the addressing error on this building too: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/163539163/history |
| 51488604 by mapgdd1 @ 2017-08-27 18:03 | 1 | 2017-09-29 23:01 | keithonearth | This edit changes the address of a building I visited from 12 E 10th, to 2617 Ontario Street. (The building at the SW corner of 10th and Victoria, http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/331422481). I added the this changeset: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/45201188. As I noted in the changeset tag... |
| 2 | 2017-10-27 19:33 | keithonearth | I've changed the address back to 12 W10th, after visiting the site again, and double checking that I didn't make a mistake last time. I do feel that it was inappropriate to change the address I'd added with "survey" as my source, without adding a source of your own. | |
| 3 | 2018-12-31 06:35 | keithonearth | Additionally a building (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/331422458) had an address tagged on the building outline, but in fact the building contained at least two addresses. I've fixed it, after doing a site survey. | |
| 4 | 2019-03-21 01:48 | keithonearth | And this one too: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/331422517/history | |
| 5 | 2019-03-21 02:07 | keithonearth | And another one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/331422538/history | |
| 61938212 by keithonearth @ 2018-08-24 03:20 | 1 | 2018-08-25 11:29 | Colin Smale ♦319 | What makes you think that it can't be both a riverbank and part of the coastline at the same time? I think both are correct here. It is indisputably a riverbank, and by the usual definition (tidal high water mark) it is also part of the coastline. They are different concepts, and I think you mi... |
| 2 | 2018-08-28 02:53 | keithonearth | The ways that were traded as `waterway=riverbank` did not trace the same outline, nor were they continuous with each other, just random sections of water. They did not even trace the bank, for the most part, just random mid river areas. There is no reason for this river to be traced as seashore,... | |
| 3 | 2018-08-28 07:27 | Colin Smale ♦319 | Hi Keith, thanks for your reaction. I should have made it clearer in my first comment that it's the coastline that is the problem, not the riverbank. If you have tidied up the riverbank tagging, that's great, and thanks for that. But you have unilaterally adopted a different paradigm regar... | |
| 4 | 2018-08-29 16:39 | keithonearth | When I said that I was confident that this edit was an improvement, I was referring specificity to this changeset this discussion area is for.As for my edit that removed the coastline and added riverbank tags from the riverbank, I'd say the case isn't as clearcut, but I'll discuss... | |
| 5 | 2019-03-20 07:37 | keithonearth | It is probably worth pointing out that I posted a question on help.osm.org about this: https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/65629/should-riverbanks-be-tagged-as-naturalcoastline | |
| 68090384 by keithonearth @ 2019-03-13 08:03 | 1 | 2019-03-13 16:14 | fmarier ♦62 | I've started to change all of the breweries in BC to be in line with this guidance: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/BC_Craft_Breweries#Tagging_guidanceBasically, it seems like the best thing to do, as far as I got from the discussion with more experienced mappers than me, is to tag the ... |
| 2 | 2019-03-13 17:47 | keithonearth | Huh. To me that feels like mapping one thing twice. Tasting rooms and breweries are not the same thing, but they are still part of the same establishment.But I respect your judgement, if you'd rather tag the outline as the brewery and add a node for the tasting room, I'll let them be. | |
| 3 | 2019-03-13 18:03 | fmarier ♦62 | The problem I found is that some of them are breweries, pubs and alcohol stores. Often these different activities are in different parts of the buildings, though not always. When they were part of the same node / way, then it was pretty random which would get picked by different renderers, making th... | |
| 4 | 2019-03-13 18:21 | keithonearth | Yeah, you make valid point. | |
| 5 | 2019-03-15 05:56 | fmarier ♦62 | I've restored the split bars/shops and breweries in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/68162124. | |
| 6 | 2019-03-15 16:45 | keithonearth | Alright. Thanks. I started to do that, but was finding it more of a headache to figure out how it had been tagged than I expected. Then I procrastinated. | |
| 68009337 by keithonearth @ 2019-03-11 05:17 | 1 | 2019-03-11 16:45 | fmarier ♦62 | Are you referring to this blog post?https://blog.mapillary.com/update/2019/02/12/potential-for-openstreetmap-to-seize-the-curb.html |
| 2 | 2019-03-13 04:53 | keithonearth | That's the one. I was being a bit silly prong that in the edit summery, especially because I don't expect people to read those edit summaries. At least not often. Also I was kind ignoring the point of the article, by only tracing the curb around a traffic island, which seems pretty irr... | |
| 62805729 by keithonearth @ 2018-09-21 17:44 | 1 | 2019-02-19 21:54 | masojuli ♦8 | Hi, Would you please confirm that there is no way to enter this stretch of Lakewood Drive by car from the East Broadway or the south? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/37007997 Are there any exceptions (bikes?) for those turn restrictions? Thank you very much for your help! |
| 2 | 2019-02-20 21:05 | keithonearth | Thanks for your message. I'd forgotten about these turn restrictions. The restrictions had been put in place before I made this edit, but seem to have been some sort of trial of additional traffic calming/diversion on the Lakewood bike route. There had been plastic bollards and signage abou... | |
| 51487269 by mapgdd1 @ 2017-08-27 17:06 | 1 | 2019-01-26 03:39 | keithonearth | This edit contains at least one error, this (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/309854489) building contained one address, when in fact it has 3 separate addresses. I've fixed it by moving the addresses to nodes. |
| 2 | 2019-02-14 05:50 | keithonearth | Another address error I've fixed on this building: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/102521333 | |
| 3 | 2019-02-18 04:34 | keithonearth | This one too: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/109684770 | |
| 67173172 by keithonearth @ 2019-02-13 19:10 | 1 | 2019-02-13 19:12 | keithonearth | I forgot to update the source field, it should be "survey". |
| 53383403 by mapgdd1 @ 2017-10-31 03:19 | 1 | 2019-01-28 22:13 | keithonearth | This building (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/160290132) also contained an error, should have been 3 addresses, not one. I've fixed it. |
| 65352375 by fmarier @ 2018-12-10 18:04 | 1 | 2019-01-18 05:24 | keithonearth | Thanks for updating the node. |
| 51493075 by mapgdd1 @ 2017-08-27 21:36 | 1 | 2019-01-18 02:47 | keithonearth | Another error in the address added to this building:https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/291869937There are multiple addresses to this building, and they are already added to the nodes of the business's. |
| 66217445 by keithonearth @ 2019-01-11 06:49 | 1 | 2019-01-11 06:50 | keithonearth | I mistakenly forgot to update Josm's source tag. I should have said "local knowledge" |
| 53331920 by mapgdd1 @ 2017-10-29 03:40 | 1 | 2018-12-24 22:52 | keithonearth | I don't mean to give you a hard time, but this changeset also contains at least one error, with a single address for a building (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/309857586) that has multiple (at least 5) addresses. I've fixed it. |
| 2 | 2019-01-09 20:14 | keithonearth | Two more buildings with addressing errors in this changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/536535030https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/309857585 | |
| 66063324 by DENelson83 @ 2019-01-06 06:45 | 1 | 2019-01-06 18:19 | keithonearth | Thanks for seeing my note and changing the name of the plaza. To tell the truth I'd forgotten all about it. |
| 53383350 by mapgdd1 @ 2017-10-31 03:12 | 1 | 2018-11-30 01:16 | keithonearth | This edit also contains bad data, one building (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/309666268) that has multiple addresses, has only been tagged with one. I'll fix it. |
| 2 | 2018-11-30 01:21 | keithonearth | This one (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/160289773) too. | |
| 53322778 by mapgdd1 @ 2017-10-28 16:55 | 1 | 2018-11-30 01:13 | keithonearth | This is another changeset, that contains bad data, in this case two buildings with the same address. One (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/309666268) was numbered 901, but a survey proved the correct address to be 909. I've fixed it, but it's all too common to find bad address data in yo... |
| 65023329 by keithonearth @ 2018-11-29 20:10 | 1 | 2018-11-29 20:11 | keithonearth | Unusual for Nepal, that is. The forest traces here are generally very well done, far better than India. |
| 60934151 by Rakesh Nainta @ 2018-07-21 16:16 | 1 | 2018-11-26 04:21 | keithonearth | This looks like the name of a school, but is on a road. Can you please clarify if it is the name of a school or a road. |
| 32536358 by R Rajendra Kurup @ 2015-07-10 07:42 | 1 | 2018-11-23 04:48 | keithonearth | I'm wondering what the "Ezhammile Edakkad Thengamam Pazhakulam Road" (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/359734078) is based on. It is absent from the Bing and Esri imagery, and a note says it is absent from DGP images too. There is no GPS data available.I'm putting up a note ... |
| 64767882 by keithonearth @ 2018-11-22 07:55 | 1 | 2018-11-22 08:14 | keithonearth | My edit 5 months ago seems to have mistakenly left two unclosed ways as part of the relation that contains pretty much all the wooded areas of North Pender. I think it had been rendering after that edit, but due to a technical change no longer was editing. My mistake caused no forests on N Pender to... |
| 53539787 by mapgdd1 @ 2017-11-05 21:08 | 1 | 2018-11-20 19:02 | keithonearth | here (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/259486983/history) is an example of another building that contains multiple addresses, but only had one placed on the outline. I have not found any examples yet of any buildings with two or more addresses that you've done anything other than just put one ... |
| 64157854 by kelvinc @ 2018-11-04 05:53 | 1 | 2018-11-17 02:02 | keithonearth | Thanks for catching and fixing that. |
| 53251833 by mapgdd1 @ 2017-10-26 04:10 | 1 | 2018-11-15 20:45 | keithonearth | This edit added a single addresses to many buildings. I think it is worth pointing out that most of the buildings had multiple addresses. I've fixed it for some of the buildings, but have yet to check the other buildings. In the case of one building it was just the wrong address.As I'v... |
| 64130060 by keithonearth @ 2018-11-02 22:59 | 1 | 2018-11-05 20:13 | keithonearth | I forgot to update the source tag on this changeset, and it should read `Esri World Imagery` |
| 53600582 by mapgdd1 @ 2017-11-08 06:20 | 1 | 2018-11-01 02:10 | keithonearth | I see you're still not adding a source for these addresses. Please do so, if you have any questions please let me know. |
| 51599064 by mapgdd1 @ 2017-08-31 03:06 | 1 | 2017-09-02 20:51 | keithonearth | Hi mappered1, I'm curious, what's the source for these edits adding address you are doing? |
| 2 | 2018-11-01 02:09 | keithonearth | It's worth adding the source when you upload the edits. For example you could be basing them on a survey, or on the City of Vancouver's address data. It's important not to take anything from google. One of the reasons it's useful to add source info to the changeset, is that i... | |
| 63884784 by keithonearth @ 2018-10-26 00:13 | 1 | 2018-10-26 00:17 | keithonearth | links to the notes:https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/475277https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/475257 |
| 40187305 by robert @ 2016-06-21 18:19 | 1 | 2018-10-18 04:19 | keithonearth | Just a head's up for you Robert, this area is administered by India. The Pakistan hashtag is very political, and wouldn't go down well in India. If you're mapping in this area again, #Kashmir is an accurate, and non-controversial hashtag.And keep in mind that "politics" ... |
| 2 | 2018-10-18 17:56 | robert ♦234 | Heh. Should possibly put a warning filter on the HOT task manager for sensitive words. This task will have resulted in thousands of edits with this tag. Though then again this was 2 years ago so maybe they've got better at this now. | |
| 3 | 2018-10-19 05:02 | keithonearth | I've come across it before in this area, but always old edits like this one. I suspect you are right and this is no longer an issue. | |
| 63335677 by keithonearth @ 2018-10-09 08:00 | 1 | 2018-10-09 08:15 | keithonearth | What do other people think? Should we wait until the name enters more common usage? Or at least is publicly posted? |
| 56278566 by Adam Schneider @ 2018-02-12 01:10 | 1 | 2018-10-07 05:03 | keithonearth | This changeset edited one reservoir (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/58425053) that was covered, and also not in WA or OR, but in fact in BC. This edit seems to have assumed that any reservoir that wasn't tagged as `covered=yes` was uncovered, but this is a bad assumption, as it may just no... |
| 2 | 2018-10-07 05:12 | Adam Schneider ♦56 | It wasn't "automated," but it wasn't discussed either. I just took all of the objects that had been tagged as landuse=reservoir and added water=reservoir, because as I understand it that's the preferred scheme now.Yes, I suppose this could create problems with untagged ... | |
| 3 | 2018-10-07 05:36 | Adam Schneider ♦56 | FYI, I just double-checked ALL reservoirs in southern BC and didn't find any others that should have been covered. (But I did find a few that clearly don't exist anymore, and one node that I turned into a way.) | |
| 37158228 by BC Trail Guides @ 2016-02-11 23:23 | 1 | 2018-10-07 02:51 | keithonearth | I've added a note on one of the things added by this edit, a seafood shop. It seems a very unlikely location for a retail establishment. Here's the note, requesting more info:https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1552659 |
| 62993578 by keithonearth @ 2018-09-28 00:32 | 1 | 2018-09-28 00:42 | keithonearth | The section of 10th between Kingsway and Watson St could use some more work, as there is what looks like an off-street bike path that should open soon. |
| 60196351 by InfiNorth @ 2018-06-26 23:14 | 1 | 2018-09-01 18:38 | keithonearth | I'm not aware of any abandon railway on Quebec St. Is it genuine? Why is it such a short fragment? |
| 2 | 2018-09-02 00:19 | InfiNorth ♦12 | https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.2596116,-123.1031348,3a,60y,22.34h,66.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUoaern9_LwXVfHlgUqZ69A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656This is a small fragment of the former streetcar interchange. While the streetcars formerly ran on Main Street for passenger service, there used to be a car barn ... | |
| 3 | 2018-09-05 18:08 | keithonearth | That's really interesting, thanks for the info! | |
| 61959067 by keithonearth @ 2018-08-24 13:28 | 1 | 2018-08-24 13:44 | keithonearth | I debated about doing this edit, because it is a significant change, but in the end can see no reason for the coast to continue as far upstream as it had been. Also it seems contradictory to have the river centre line mapped as a `waterway=river` while the banks are `natural=coastline`. This edi... |
| 2 | 2018-08-25 19:46 | Colin Smale ♦319 | Please review the definition of coastline, and then revert these changes.Remember OSM is not the map you see, it is about the underlying database. Fiddling with the tagging to give the rendering effect you desire is frowned upon, as you probably know...Was your debate purely with yourself? If yo... | |
| 3 | 2018-08-29 17:53 | keithonearth | Although I did mention the effects to rendering, my change was specifically with the goal of improving the underlying database. I tagged a riverbank as a riverbank, not for rendering reasons, but because it more effectively reflects reality.I apologise if I've broken a UK mapping convention... | |
| 4 | 2018-08-30 15:01 | keithonearth | I posted a question to help.osm.org here: https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/65629/Please feel free to explain your rational there. Additionally if there is any documentation of this convention to tag rivers as sea-coasts I'd really appreciate you providing a link. | |
| 5 | 2018-09-06 04:44 | Joseph E ♦137 | I believe you should revert the change.We discussed this on the Tagging mailing list: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-September/038912.htmlOne comment from Christoph Hormann: "The coastline closure there is both below the lower limit of the proposal and below the ... | |
| 39634693 by mccaus @ 2016-05-29 03:16 | 1 | 2018-08-24 23:21 | keithonearth | Hi mccaus, I'm wondering where you got the name "Park & Metro" for the construction area at W32nd and Yukon. Is it the name of the now completed housing development, or does it refer to something else? |
| 2 | 2018-08-24 23:33 | mccaus ♦1 | Hi keithonearth, yes, Park & Metro is the name of the now completed condo & townhouse development on that site. I just haven't been keeping up with the completion! I can remove the label and change the land use to residential. | |
| 60556481 by Alan Trick @ 2018-07-10 01:26 | 1 | 2018-07-10 08:06 | keithonearth | Thanks Alan! |
| 60509406 by SomeoneElse_Revert @ 2018-07-08 13:21 | 1 | 2018-07-08 13:41 | SomeoneElse_Revert ♦70,576 | This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 60419677, 60419741, 60419814, 60419836, 60419865, 60419887. |
| 2 | 2018-07-08 17:45 | keithonearth | Thank you. | |
| 60314446 by keithonearth @ 2018-07-01 05:10 | 1 | 2018-07-01 05:55 | keithonearth | I saved the address of the building that was here before the construction, by placing it on a node. I expect that the same address will be used on the new building, but that should be double checked. |
| 58978312 by FreedSky @ 2018-05-15 10:11 | 1 | 2018-06-11 08:08 | keithonearth | 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? |
| 2 | 2018-06-25 01:45 | FreedSky ♦181 | 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 | |
| 3 | 2018-06-25 01:46 | FreedSky ♦181 | 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 | |
| 4 | 2018-06-27 19:25 | keithonearth | 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... | |
| 5 | 2018-06-29 03:14 | FreedSky ♦181 | 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 13http://www.gb688.cn/bzgk/gb/newGbInfo?hcno=BBDAEDEFFC6808402DE3A25789CC0311BTW | |
| 49657403 by Sonam Tshewang @ 2017-06-19 06:40 | 1 | 2018-06-27 16:32 | keithonearth | Hi Sonam, Thank you for your edits in Bhutan! I'm glad to see you are continuing to edit OSM. I see this edit has added `name=house` to many buildings. The name tag is for real names, and should not be used for descriptions of what a building is, or what it's used for. As such I've re... |
| 43586462 by Ben Harris @ 2016-11-12 17:39 | 1 | 2018-06-26 06:58 | keithonearth | I just added a few more building traces in this area, and moved the nodes you'd added to the building outlines. You might want to check my work, as I am armchair mapping the area, and your edit says you did a gps survey. |
| 59341407 by PlaneMad @ 2018-05-28 13:50 | 1 | 2018-06-16 20:42 | keithonearth | I've deleted the forest tags off these parks, as none of these parks were entirely forested, many already had the forested areas mapped more accurately, and adding the forest tag to the park hid the more accurate forest boundary. I know you are a very experienced mapper, but I think it is bette... |
| 2 | 2018-06-16 20:54 | PlaneMad ♦450 | Agree. | |
| 3 | 2018-06-16 21:41 | keithonearth | Thanks bhai. :-) | |
| 4 | 2018-06-17 00:32 | keithonearth | I've realized that without the forest tag the parks stopped rendering at all. While I don't want to tag for the renderer, I do want these parks to render. I checked how national parks are tagged in Canada, and found that the `leisure=nature_reserve` tag was on all of them, in addition ... | |
| 5 | 2018-06-18 09:41 | PlaneMad ♦450 | Looks good! Btw you should definitely be speaking at SOTM Asia http://bit.ly/sotmasia-cfp | |
| 6 | 2018-06-21 23:09 | keithonearth | That's very flattering, I'm just a amateur though. Are you speaking at it? | |
| 57890156 by easyKL @ 2018-04-07 12:20 | 1 | 2018-06-18 07:37 | keithonearth | This edit has added two streets to the SE of Durbar Square, one of which overlaps completely with the other. It is clearly an error, but I do not know which name is correct: Nisthananda marg or Jochhne. ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/577458434 or https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/577458435 ). I... |
| 19801538 by Sushmita Timilslna @ 2014-01-04 10:14 | 1 | 2018-06-18 07:00 | keithonearth | What was this mapping based on? Is there really a church in Dhulikhel? |
| 2 | 2018-06-18 07:09 | keithonearth | Also I'm interested in what the building named "Resting place" is. Is it some place anyone can shelter from the rain or sun? | |
| 59863710 by Jaller @ 2018-06-15 03:26 | 1 | 2018-06-16 06:10 | keithonearth | Awesome, thanks! |
| 59887100 by keithonearth @ 2018-06-16 02:23 | 1 | 2018-06-16 02:26 | keithonearth | As this edit changes both the coastline, and other objects, and the coastline rendering updates with a different frequency than other objects it may look a bit weird until the coastline rendering is updated too. |
| 53070825 by mapgdd1 @ 2017-10-19 14:50 | 1 | 2017-11-10 05:41 | keithonearth | What is the source of these addresses? |
| 2 | 2018-05-10 16:36 | keithonearth | I've checked the addresses on the East side of Lanark St, and found most of them accurate, just one building had 3 separate addresses in reality, and only one added by this changeset. Even though the addresses added are mostly accurate, I would like to know what the source this editor is gettin... | |
| 53041600 by mapgdd1 @ 2017-10-18 14:32 | 1 | 2018-04-29 21:05 | keithonearth | This changeset contains at least 1 error in the addresses added. I was out noting some addresses today, to add them to OSM, and found that 3333 Commercial had both been added to the wrong building. It should be on the neighbouring building. I think I've asked before, but what source are you... |
| 23126619 by Galiander @ 2014-06-24 16:50 | 1 | 2018-03-24 00:53 | keithonearth | This edit adds a small park, named "Beach Access". I'd like to know if this is actually a separate park from Tapovan Sri Chinmoy, and if it is, what the official name is. I've made a note about this, could you please answer it here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/874456Th... |
| 56142270 by inah_telenav @ 2018-02-07 08:52 | 1 | 2018-03-13 19:55 | keithonearth | What's the reason for adding the name of the road to a bridge? I always felt that if a bridge had a name tag, then it should be specific to the bridge. This bridge probably has a name, but it'd be something generic like "bridge 18".Am I missing something? |
| 2 | 2018-03-13 20:21 | Viajero Perdido ♦243 | Hi KOE. I'll interject here.JOSM complains when you remove the name from a bridge (imports have created these aplenty) when the road/bridge is tertiary or above.I've been removing names (sometimes) because I agree with your logic. But the warnings bug me. | |
| 3 | 2018-03-13 21:06 | keithonearth | Thanks for the input Viajero. I am annoyed by Josm warnings too, and it feels better to only upload changes that Josm does not provide warnings for, but I think that warnings should not be viewed as definitive. I think in some cases it's better to upload despite the warnings. | |
| 4 | 2018-03-14 07:31 | inah_telenav ♦23 | Thank you for reverting the edits and sorry about the road. But with the bridge name usually if the bridge gets the name the street so the road has continuity. And the name of the bridge can go on bridge:name.(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bridge:name) | |
| 56142276 by inah_telenav @ 2018-02-07 08:53 | 1 | 2018-03-13 18:28 | keithonearth | This edit deletes a 2.6km section of road and a bridge, causing routing engines to provide a 451km detour. It seems that the deletion of this section of road was done in error. The road was certainly open to the public and in good shape 9 months ago, when I was there. I do feel it necessary to p... |
| 56366008 by keithonearth @ 2018-02-14 21:08 | 1 | 2018-02-14 21:12 | keithonearth | I can't say from first hand knowledge that this is actually a weir, but that is how I understood the tagging, and how it looks in the imagery. The way was actually tagged as a hospital, which is clearly wrong. One of the nodes was tagged as a weir, and seems the original editor intended that fo... |
| 27765183 by Warin61 @ 2014-12-28 22:28 | 1 | 2018-02-04 03:42 | keithonearth | Hi Warin61, are you familiar with the area that had been tagged area=yes? Because it seems to me that it is more accurate to tag it as an area. While the entire area isn't accessible due to the vegetable hawkers' stalls, it's not just the periphery that is publicly accessible. \... |
| 2 | 2018-02-04 05:08 | Warin61 ♦2,666 | Hi,That is a fair time ago. Thanks for the comment! 2 issues. First. The added tag of amenity=marketplace .. the OSM guide is one feature one OSM element .. as either this way is a foot path or a market place.. as it was originally tagged a footpath I'd use a separate OSM entry for th... | |
| 3 | 2018-02-05 04:08 | keithonearth | Hi Warin, thanks for your quick reply. I hope my initial message didn't come across as rude. After sending it I was thinking I could have been more polite. Sorry about that.You make some good points. And I agree, that the way I've done it is not ideal, but I do think it is an improveme... | |
| 55985258 by keithonearth @ 2018-02-02 05:16 | 1 | 2018-02-02 05:52 | keithonearth | Oops, I forgot to update the source tag on this changeset, it should be "Bing", supplemented by "Strava Heatmap" |
| 53878719 by keithonearth @ 2017-11-17 15:44 | 1 | 2018-01-25 00:25 | SomeoneElse ♦13,390 | Belated thanks here for trying to add a bit of neutrality to the dispute here! |
| 2 | 2018-01-29 06:14 | keithonearth | Thanks for the positive feedback! :-) | |
| 53586026 by Readpeoplemap @ 2017-11-07 16:37 | 1 | 2018-01-21 01:00 | keithonearth | Thanks for your edits! I've added tags to the Mosque, as you've requested. Here's the changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/55616594I haven't used OsmAnd for editing so I can't provide advice on how to use it for adding POIs, but I see you've used iD a f... |
| 55572879 by keithonearth @ 2018-01-19 09:37 | 1 | 2018-01-19 09:50 | keithonearth | I passed by on 29th, and saw the construction area went as far as the corner of Dunbar and 30th, but do not know how far east it goes on 30th. I probably covers the entire area of the parking lot, but I didn't actually see that. |
| 3920489 by Adam Dunn @ 2010-02-20 04:31 | 1 | 2018-01-15 21:01 | keithonearth | Hi Adam, I see this edit took place quite some time ago, but you seem to still be active on OSM.Looking over the alleys in Prince Rupert I see many that do not exist in the imagery. They seem to have been added by you in import(s) around this time. I suspect that the data the imports were using ... |
| 2 | 2018-01-16 02:44 | Adam Dunn ♦18 | That import came from the Government of Canada and was quite accurate in my home town, as well as checks throughout the province. I think it may have pre-dated the availability of Bing Maps imagery, using Yahoo aerial imagery at the time, and probably low resolution in Prince Rupert area.I've... | |
| 3 | 2018-01-16 08:06 | keithonearth | Thanks for looking it over Adam! I'm sure that data was the best thing going at the time. I've seen a lot of improvement in the available imagery in the 4 years I've been contributing here too. It makes things much easier. I'm glad my edit looked reasonable to you. | |
| 55399687 by keithonearth @ 2018-01-13 07:14 | 1 | 2018-01-13 20:48 | keithonearth | I suspect that the node representing Prince Rupert was deleted, but I don't want to go through the edit history to find it. |
| 55274797 by keithonearth @ 2018-01-08 20:25 | 1 | 2018-01-09 10:32 | keithonearth | Well, it does in fact go down Gaglardi Way, but what I meant was that it does not go on Gaglardi South of the intersection with University Dr. |
| 55258821 by keithonearth @ 2018-01-08 09:19 | 1 | 2018-01-08 09:22 | keithonearth | Looking at the imagery I'm pretty that it shows the new depot here, but can't be entirely sure. I also added the address based on an anonymous note. Kinda questionable, but it is an entirely plausible address. |
| 55122086 by keithonearth @ 2018-01-03 08:21 | 1 | 2018-01-03 21:06 | keithonearth | I've left a couple of small sections as cycleways, as they have been widened with the recent road work, and have shared pedestrian/cyclist markings. The sections marked as sidewalks are so narrow that a cyclist cannot pass another cyclist or a pedestrian w/o one of them coming to a stop. |
| 8677608 by MNoo @ 2011-07-09 20:01 | 1 | 2018-01-03 08:06 | keithonearth | This edit changes the cycleway=shared tag on Crompton Street to cycleway=lane, I'm changing it back to cycleway=shared because there is no bicycle lane on this road, nor has there ever been. It's just an ordinary road that happens to be designated a bicycle route. |
| 55093638 by keithonearth @ 2018-01-02 08:08 | 1 | 2018-01-02 08:17 | keithonearth | The construction that took place in the last few months of 2017 seems to have been completed, but I still see signs telling drivers to expect delays, so maybe the work will continue, and the workers are just off for Xmas and New Years. I don't expect that there'll be more lanes added, but ... |
| 54798135 by Jarek 🚲 @ 2017-12-20 21:22 | 1 | 2017-12-22 05:50 | keithonearth | Thanks for fixing this Jarek! I didn't make the connection between bus #3 and the gratuitous digit. |
| 33663328 by Papayaved @ 2015-08-29 12:58 | 1 | 2017-12-15 21:40 | keithonearth | I see this edit adds the name "Gue" to this village: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3004260144I'm wondering where you got the name from? It sounds very Chinese, and not at all Ladakhi, though the Chinese name "巨哇" is pronounced "jùwā". |
| 2 | 2017-12-16 14:04 | Papayaved ♦14 | Chinese name is fictional only for Chinese maps. In this village live Tibetans | |
| 3 | 2017-12-18 05:44 | keithonearth | I understand that. I'm asking where did you learn the name "Gue"? | |
| 4 | 2017-12-18 06:12 | Papayaved ♦14 | http://www.thehindu.com/features/metroplus/travel/go-away-to-gue/article4561440.ece | |
| 5 | 2017-12-18 06:13 | Papayaved ♦14 | https://i1.wp.com/themountainwalker.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/gue-lama-mummy-04.jpg?resize=639%2C479&ssl=1 | |
| 6 | 2017-12-18 06:14 | Papayaved ♦14 | http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-R92bUjQoSTc/U_mAAm576aI/AAAAAAAAG10/98-6Jy1IJTM/s1600/Blogspot%2BTabo%2B8.jpg | |
| 7 | 2017-12-18 06:17 | Papayaved ♦14 | https://www.tripadvisor.in/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g1156028-d1627236-i41083545-Gue_Mummy-Kaza_Lahaul_and_Spiti_District_Himachal_Pradesh.html | |
| 8 | 2017-12-18 06:19 | Papayaved ♦14 | It's popular tourist place and i was in this village too, but I did not photo gate of village | |
| 9 | 2017-12-18 22:18 | keithonearth | Thanks Bhai :-) I wasn't trying to challenge you, just wondering where the info had come from. I do find it useful when people put that in the edit summery, and/or the source tag of the changeset. Just saying that you'd been there would have been more than sufficient. All the same, tha... | |
| 10 | 2017-12-19 04:22 | Papayaved ♦14 | It's Bajaj Avenger on the pass Pensi La by the way to Zanskar. Himalayas are a very beautiful place | |
| 11 | 2017-12-19 08:48 | keithonearth | I had no idea Bajaj made such a cool looking bike. The Himalaya are very beautiful. I've been to Zanskar, and over the Pensi La too, but not for over 10 years. I was in Central Ladakh last summer, and I really love that part of the world. And would like to get back again. I've been map... | |
| 49292776 by Itzscallywagyt @ 2017-06-06 04:07 Active block | 1 | 2017-06-06 09:22 | woodpeck_repair ♦33,903 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 49299541 where the changeset comment is: Revert buggy vandalism |
| 2 | 2017-09-20 11:41 | woodpeck_repair ♦33,903 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 52208464 where the changeset comment is: Revert all Itzscallywagyt changesets that had not be reverted already. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/1482 | |
| 3 | 2017-12-08 07:38 | John Grubb ♦40 | I see that a path running through the area bounded by this changeset's outline is tagged with a name of "Your Mom." I suspect that this is not factually accurate! I'm unfamiliar with the area so do not know if the path actually has a name or not, else I'd dive in and rename ... | |
| 4 | 2017-12-08 08:29 | woodpeck ♦2,431 | It might actually be - MTB cyclists seem to have a strange sense of humour see https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2017-October/008145.html | |
| 5 | 2017-12-08 16:12 | John Grubb ♦40 | You're kidding?! Figured it might be left-overs from the original vandalism! Every day's a school day... | |
| 6 | 2017-12-13 08:25 | keithonearth | I can't speak for the validity of the name, as I've not ridden in the trails around Squamish, but knowing MTB'ers I find the name entirely plausible. Trails like these are made by a bunch of dudes with shovels and bikes. "Dude, we should *totally* call this one 'Your Mom... | |
| 7 | 2017-12-29 14:42 | John Grubb ♦40 | The mind boggles... | |
| 54402979 by tintin1192 @ 2017-12-06 14:25 | 1 | 2017-12-08 08:33 | indigomc ♦187 | Hi You changed an enormous area of mountain woodland near Dharamsala from woodland to lake in this changeset. I assume it was a mistake, and changed it back. Please take care in future. Thanks. |
| 2 | 2017-12-13 08:20 | keithonearth | Good catch indigomc! I'm pretty sure we'd have heard about it in the news if that'd land had all become flooded, so it looks like a safe assumption to me. :-) | |
| 2028046 by mayne-mapper @ 2009-08-03 18:45 | 1 | 2017-12-10 19:34 | keithonearth | Hi Manny, I've added a a note, questioning existence of the gas station added by this changeset. Here's the note: http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1234998 |
| 53042108 by mapgdd1 @ 2017-10-18 14:47 | 1 | 2017-11-06 20:29 | keithonearth | Hi mappered1, I've asked before, but I'm going to ask again: Were are you getting this address data from? It's important to let other mappers know, and to keep a record of, where info is coming from.I noticed that you added addresses to the buildings on the East side of Cambie, be... |
| 17647498 by RemoteC @ 2013-09-03 05:39 | 1 | 2017-11-06 08:17 | keithonearth | I know it was 4 years ago that you made this edit, but if you get this message I want to ask: what was the source for these ways? |
| 53540543 by keithonearth @ 2017-11-05 21:50 | 1 | 2017-11-05 22:06 | keithonearth | I wanted to be honest about the quality of the data I based this edit on, but please do not remove the trails, I'm confident they are more or less accurate, and I want to do a bike tour in this area next summer. It'd be good if my route was in Osmand, and I can adjust the trace, and add mo... |
| 52643870 by Matt Taylor_mapper @ 2017-10-05 05:40 | 1 | 2017-10-28 22:28 | keithonearth | Hi Matt. It's always great to see new users here on OSM, and I hope you stay and contribute.That said you edits so far give me some concern. From your edit summaries I understand that you do not want Westwind to appear on the map. I understand that it is privately owned land, but to my unde... |
| 53325472 by keithonearth @ 2017-10-28 18:46 | 1 | 2017-10-28 18:57 | keithonearth | This edit of mine hid the already mapped fairways in the default rendering. That's unfortunate, but looking over the wiki I think that I changed the tags to the more appropriate ones, so I'm leaving it as is. |
| 53136060 by keithonearth @ 2017-10-21 19:09 | 1 | 2017-10-21 19:12 | keithonearth | Ooops, I forgot, I also improved the stream trace in the upper Markha valley too. |
| 53134752 by keithonearth @ 2017-10-21 18:12 | 1 | 2017-10-21 18:18 | keithonearth | Perhaps I should have broken this into two changesets, but in addition to my summary, I also retagged the path in the area of the military base, from track+visibility=no to a path. As it's primary use seems to be hiking, and it seems unlikely that this would be used for motor vehicles. |
| 52634089 by keithonearth_imports @ 2017-10-04 18:46 | 1 | 2017-10-04 19:33 | keithonearth | I've added these buildings from the City of Vancouver data, that is compatible with the OSM licence as per the Wiki and the mailing list. |
| 46327436 by lorandr_telenav @ 2017-02-23 06:15 | 1 | 2017-09-30 00:46 | keithonearth | This edit brakes a bike route relation (at Main and Keefer). It is the second bike route relation I've come across that's been broken by a telenav editor. Please be more careful, and note the warnings that JOSM provides when editing relations.I've fixed it, but please try not to m... |
| 2 | 2017-10-02 05:59 | lorandr_telenav ♦26 | Hy. i'm sorry for the mistake, i will be more careful. | |
| 3 | 2017-10-02 07:02 | keithonearth | Thank you. I could have been more polite with my comment. I'll try to be so in the future. | |
| 47774572 by radek-drlicka @ 2017-04-14 09:48 | 1 | 2017-09-30 04:49 | keithonearth | This edit added a duplicate relation for Haida Gwaii. I've deleted the duplicate, but saved the multilingual tags, but copy and pasting them onto the original relation. Thanks for those tags. I hope it doesn't feel like I'm stepping on your toes.Here's a link to the changeset... |
| 51599124 by mapgdd1 @ 2017-08-31 03:13 | 1 | 2017-09-17 23:31 | keithonearth | Hi mappered1, thanks for the addition of addresses. I did notice that there are 3 buildings with the same address (1733 E33rd). I'm putting a note (here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1143839) about this ostensible error. I'd also like to point out that iD (the OSM editor you are u... |
| 36097450 by rbrtwhite @ 2015-12-22 01:04 | 1 | 2017-09-03 05:03 | keithonearth | What's up with this? Has construction completed on the new school building? |
| 45500783 by parambyte @ 2017-01-26 06:19 | 1 | 2017-08-18 03:20 | keithonearth | What's with the `highway=unclassified` with the `name=s` tag that was added with this changeset, just north of Hikkim? This is a very unusual name. It seems like it could easily be a typo. The changeset also lacks a source tag, so we can't tell what the name would be based on. |
| 2 | 2017-08-18 09:33 | parambyte ♦1 | Hello. I don't think I created or named the highway. But whatever it is, it must be changed to what's right. | |
| 3 | 2017-08-18 22:18 | keithonearth | Ok, thanks for the info. The road's history lists the creation with this changeset, and not subsequent versions, so if you're not sure about the name tag, I'll remove it. | |
| 50084653 by Oberaffe @ 2017-07-06 12:58 | 1 | 2017-08-08 22:40 | keithonearth | FYI, this edit added many power=tower nodes with identical locations, pairs with one connected to the powerline, and one not. I've fixed it with this edit: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/50956271 |
| 2 | 2017-08-08 23:11 | Oberaffe ♦45 | Thanks for fixing the towers! | |
| 50844496 by mitry @ 2017-08-04 16:57 | 1 | 2017-08-06 22:35 | keithonearth | Thanks for fixing this Checkpoint, I've added a note (http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1094106) questioning if there is really a checkpoint here, and was wondering if you knew one way or the other. The reason for my doubt, is that I was not stopped here while cycling past last summer, nor did ... |
| 50832423 by Ana Dizon @ 2017-08-04 09:29 | 1 | 2017-08-06 19:41 | keithonearth | Thanks for your contribution Ana! It's good to have someone in Ladakh adding details. You have made an error that is common to new editors, of using the name tag as a way to provide general information. It should be used exclusively for names. Names like "Fresh Naan 7rs!!" should ... |
| 50870279 by keithonearth @ 2017-08-05 20:14 | 1 | 2017-08-05 20:19 | keithonearth | I failed to update the source tag, yet again. This did use Bing, but also used Mapbox for sections. |
| 50858319 by keithonearth @ 2017-08-05 09:50 | 1 | 2017-08-05 09:58 | keithonearth | I don't normally make major adjustments like this one based purely on imagery. In this case the discrepancy between the imagery and what we had mapped was huge. Slightly further south, in Udaipur, the imagery aligned perfectly with the public GPS track we had, and our mapped road was off. In th... |
| 50829966 by keithonearth @ 2017-08-04 08:25 | 1 | 2017-08-04 08:26 | keithonearth | Oops, this edit used Bing, not Mapbox, imagery. |
| 50661104 by keithonearth @ 2017-07-28 23:11 | 1 | 2017-07-28 23:25 | keithonearth | The way representing the canal I extended is in the opposite direction of the one it meets. As an irrigation canal this would have a direction of flow, so it makes sense that the way should match it, but I don't know which is the correct direction. |
| 38704165 by Eléonore @ 2016-04-19 18:48 | 1 | 2017-07-23 23:17 | keithonearth | The "residential areas" that are added with this edit contain a great deal of farmland and wooded areas. I can only view it as inaccurate enough that the traces should just be deleted. But perhaps I'm missing something?Also I am confused by the "#Pakistan" in the edit su... |
| 41996468 by אסף מורן @ 2016-09-08 07:46 | 1 | 2017-07-23 22:59 | keithonearth | I'm adding a `religion=jewish` tag to this, as the Chabad institutions are Jewish. I do not know if this is a synagogue or not, but as some renderings may assume based on the current tags, but I will assume that the place_of_warship tag was accurate.If the original uploaded could provide mo... |
| 30447083 by MelioraCogito @ 2015-04-24 07:11 | 1 | 2017-07-22 18:10 | keithonearth | I see that this edit also added a `maxspeed=30` tag to at least one alley. This surprises me, because the default maxspeed in BC for alleys is 20km/h. What is the source 30km/h speed? |
| 2 | 2017-08-01 23:19 | MelioraCogito ♦15 | I don't recall adding any speed tags to any of the edits (considering these were made over two years ago).Feel free to correct them. | |
| 37612717 by katpatuka @ 2016-03-04 17:06 | 1 | 2017-07-12 19:22 | keithonearth | Hi Katapatuka. I see that you have added a |
| 2 | 2017-07-12 19:28 | keithonearth | oops...sorry to hit send there before I meant to. :-/I see that you have added a bunch of name values with this changeset, with many of them being in the Chinese language. I'm wondering where this info has come from. I also noticed that you mistakenly put a "(CN)" in the changeset... | |
| 3 | 2017-07-13 14:24 | katpatuka ♦194 | Hm - in the heat of the moment I must have forgotten that I left China... :)Since it is claimed by China there are of course sources for Chinese river names. I've set the name tag now to be in English. | |
| 4 | 2017-07-15 06:25 | keithonearth | Thanks for your answer katpatuka. And thanks for your contributions in this area, and in undermapped areas in general.That said, I don't think it's a good idea to use Chinese data sources in this area. China has never administered this part of the world, but I think it has an interest ... | |
| 5 | 2017-07-15 09:47 | katpatuka ♦194 | I noticed that user too. His changeset comments could be more descriptive... did you contact him? | |
| 6 | 2017-07-15 13:07 | katpatuka ♦194 | ... his old username is jerryhappy (https://yosmhm.neis-one.org/?jerryhappy). | |
| 7 | 2017-07-16 06:09 | keithonearth | I haven't contacted the editor, I should, only haven't out of laziness. Although I did leave many changeset summaries stating the issue.I was confused about their name, "Stop edit", is that a result of being blocked? | |
| 8 | 2017-07-16 07:56 | katpatuka ♦194 | I don't think so... Pascal (neis-one.org) told me that the user had changed his name (see also https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/33994/how-can-i-change-username-on-openstreetmaporg-is-it-possible ) | |
| 43437193 by stop edit @ 2016-11-06 09:33 | 1 | 2017-07-10 17:29 | keithonearth | This area is administered by India. Please use the `name:zh` tag for names in the Chinese language. Do not put Chinese names in the `name` tag. |
| 50138814 by keithonearth @ 2017-07-08 20:13 | 1 | 2017-07-08 20:28 | keithonearth | I forgot to edit the chageset summery to say that this is adding the name:squ tag for Horseshoe bay. Not Vancouver. |
| 50138961 by keithonearth @ 2017-07-08 20:22 | 1 | 2017-07-08 20:27 | keithonearth | Damn it. I forgot to edit the chageset summery to say that this is adding the name:squ tag for the Stawamus River. Not Vancouver. |
| 50097461 by keithonearth @ 2017-07-07 02:04 | 1 | 2017-07-07 02:24 | keithonearth | I forgot to update the source tag on this changeset, it should read BC Mosaic, not Mapbox. |
| 39345744 by Antisthenes @ 2016-05-16 07:58 | 1 | 2017-06-23 08:07 | keithonearth | I'm not aware of this shipwreck, and am fairly familiar with this part of town. Does this represent a wreck that is still present at the site? Or was a pleasure craft that was briefly stranded here? |
| 2 | 2017-06-27 15:00 | Antisthenes ♦1 | When I visited this area in 2016 there was a half submerged pleasure craft that seemed to have been there fore quite a while | |
| 3 | 2017-06-27 19:26 | keithonearth | Huh. Thanks for the info. I don't know if that qualifies for the `historic=*` tag. I'll try to remember to take a look at the site next time I'm in the area, because if the derelict pleasure craft is gone that would remove any need for debate over the historic nature of the cr... | |
| 4 | 2017-06-30 02:07 | keithonearth | I am pleased that I remembered to check this when I was cycling past on the seawall today. The wreck is no longer present, so I've deleted the node representing it. | |
| 5 | 2017-07-02 08:13 | Antisthenes ♦1 | Perfect. Thanks. | |
| 49933463 by keithonearth @ 2017-06-30 01:26 | 1 | 2017-06-30 01:27 | keithonearth | I'm not sure why this came through w/o a comment, but it was just me adding some house numbers to buildings. |
| 49804397 by keithonearth @ 2017-06-25 00:47 | 1 | 2017-06-25 00:51 | keithonearth | Pretending that sidewalks that allow use by cyclists are bike ways does not help cyclists, it just obfuscates the reality of the infrastructure. Also footways are visible on most (all?) renderings, but if they didn't that'd be no reason to use inaccurate tags, as we do not want to tag thin... |
| 49726259 by keithonearth @ 2017-06-21 17:24 | 1 | 2017-06-21 17:27 | keithonearth | Oops, I forgot to update the source tag on this changeset. It should have been BC Mosaic, and no Survey. |
| 38747758 by Coppertown @ 2016-04-21 06:50 | 1 | 2016-08-04 00:34 | Alan Trick ♦36 | A few items were added in North Vancouver in this changeset, can you confirm that they actually exist and weren't just an accident? |
| 2 | 2017-06-20 16:50 | keithonearth | I've deleted one campsite that was added in this edit, as it was clearly inaccurate. I'm not sure if there are other objects added to North Van with this changeset that should be removed. | |
| 48580354 by triboyeric @ 2017-05-11 05:40 | 1 | 2017-05-11 06:36 | Chetan_Gowda ♦214 | Does this park really exists? There are big buildings inside the park? |
| 2 | 2017-05-11 06:41 | triboyeric ♦1 | Yes. Google maps shows the area all in green, and there is a "Shannon Mews Park" sign at the entrance. Kind of like a green garden in between the buildings, with walking paths. | |
| 3 | 2017-05-11 07:00 | Chetan_Gowda ♦214 | That's very quick response. Great! Thank you. | |
| 4 | 2017-06-16 06:23 | keithonearth | @Chetan_Gowda, I'd like to thank for the response too. I saw it on the map, and was surprised for there to be so many buildings in a park, but your response and some googling has convinced me that it's tagged correctly.As per the CoV website some buildings have come down, and others ha... | |
| 17760389 by j-beda @ 2013-09-10 04:37 | 1 | 2017-06-14 06:55 | keithonearth | This changeset adds the `name=Sunrise Bikeway` tag to an alley. This seems like it is likely an error, as I am not aware of any alleys with names in Vancouver, and this is not part of the (nearby) Sunrise bike route. If I am mistaken please let me know, otherwise I plan to delete the name tag. I... |
| 49404053 by Alan Trick @ 2017-06-09 17:58 | 1 | 2017-06-13 19:50 | keithonearth | Thanks for these edits Alan! I added the first roads to Wood Lake Park just the other day, it's great to see so many details in the park now. :-) |
| 45071340 by keithonearth @ 2017-01-11 09:00 | 1 | 2017-05-13 07:34 | PlaneMad ♦450 | Theres some amazing new imagery from DigitalGlobe that has coverage for all the missing areas! |
| 2 | 2017-05-22 21:08 | keithonearth | Thanks for letting me know. I just took a quick look, and the DigitalGlobe imagery looks great! I'll have to spend a bit more time looking over the area. The improved Bing imagery didn't come out very long ago (was that 6 months ago?), so I'd think there's *lots* of room for ... | |
| 48284185 by amandaemcee @ 2017-04-30 15:29 | 1 | 2017-05-08 17:20 | kartler175 ♦556 | Why two highways at the same place?https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/336789306https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/490528720 |
| 2 | 2017-05-22 18:33 | keithonearth | Welcome, and thanks for your contribution to OSM. I did notice that this edit did contain an error, where a postal code boundry was retagged as a footway. This may have been done when you didn't relize you had more than one object selected, or it may have been that you did not check what tags w... | |
| 3 | 2017-05-22 18:35 | keithonearth | I should have added a link to the object (the post code boundary) in question. Here it is: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/364312266 | |
| 47827793 by keithonearth @ 2017-04-16 00:42 | 1 | 2017-04-26 22:05 | pnorman ♦317 | This has made https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5981481, a relation with the name of Bear Island but is the waterway. |
| 2 | 2017-05-01 20:23 | keithonearth | Thanks for letting me know. I had noticed that this naming error was present, but had thought it'd originally be someone else's error. Maybe it was me. In any case I'd discussed it previously on this changeset discussion: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/37239468.I've n... | |
| 37239468 by BC Trail Guides @ 2016-02-16 07:00 | 1 | 2017-04-16 00:40 | keithonearth | Any idea why the riverbank relation of the Seymour River has the `name=Bear Island` tag on it? This seems like a mistake. If I don't hear otherwise I'll delete this tag, and may try to simplify the relation. |
| 2 | 2017-04-16 01:58 | BC Trail Guides ♦5 | Error on my part. Bear Island is located directly south of the Seymour Falls Dam (the foot bridge crosses it). | |
| 3 | 2017-05-01 20:19 | keithonearth | I've edited the riverbank relation's and island's name tags (http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/48317592) and think it should be good now. Please feel free to take a look and let me know if there are any issues. | |
| 3966436 by pvimos @ 2010-02-24 20:37 | 1 | 2017-04-13 08:22 | keithonearth | I'm wondering about the place_of_worship that was added by this edit. It is a very odd location for some sort of place_of_worship, and I suspect that it is an error. There is certainly not a place_of_worship visible from outside the building. Nor is it particularly useful to have a node tag... |
| 2 | 2017-04-13 14:53 | pvimos ♦1 | The node should be deleted as the worship place (indoors) left the area. | |
| 3 | 2017-04-21 03:49 | keithonearth | Thanks for the info, and the quick response. I've deleted the place_of_worship: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/47989901 | |
| 47829368 by keithonearth @ 2017-04-16 04:18 | 1 | 2017-04-16 05:08 | keithonearth | This was me experimenting with editing capabilities of OsmAnd+. One thing I noticed is that it does not allow a source tag to be added. In this case the source was me surveying the buildings. Also it just lets me add nodes, not to add the address to the building. |
| 47799655 by keithonearth @ 2017-04-14 23:55 | 1 | 2017-04-15 00:07 | keithonearth | I probably should say that I took off the oneway=yes tag from the section of the sidewalk between the Mt Seymour Parkway & Lillooet Rd intersection and cross-walk across the Trans-Canada off ramp because there is no signage specifying it as oneway. The sidewall continues further south, and I lef... |
| 40795369 by venza @ 2016-07-17 10:37 | 1 | 2017-04-14 20:55 | keithonearth | "thang" is a suffices that indicates a plataux or plane in Tibetan and Ladakhi, this is an odd name for such a minor crag. Also tagging it as a peak does not seem very accurate, as it is a small hill within a valley. |
| 47761599 by tippytoes @ 2017-04-14 01:09 | 1 | 2017-04-14 04:16 | keithonearth | This edit changes a building into a park, inaccurately. I see that this is tippytoes first edit, I will assume that it was accidental, though the edit summery makes that a tenuous assumption. Please take a look at http://learnosm.org/en/ for a great introduction on editing OSM, and use care when... |
| 47555873 by keithonearth @ 2017-04-08 00:45 | 1 | 2017-04-08 00:51 | keithonearth | oops, the source wasn't bing, it was a survey. |
| 47528964 by keithonearth @ 2017-04-07 06:42 | 1 | 2017-04-07 06:46 | keithonearth | I'm not sure if this is the best way to map these structures, but I can't come up with a better one. |
| 47310313 by keithonearth @ 2017-03-31 01:34 | 1 | 2017-03-31 03:04 | keithonearth | I was messing around with the Maps.me app to see how easy it is to add addresses with it. It's ok, still a few more taps then I'd like, and would be nice if it gave a source tag to the changeset, "survey" in this case. |
| 21702908 by thevikas @ 2014-04-15 06:23 | 1 | 2017-01-09 22:14 | keithonearth | Where did this data come from? It appears to be an import. Was it discussed prior to importing? If so please provide a link to the discussion.Thank you for any information that can be provided. |
| 2 | 2017-01-09 22:20 | keithonearth | Oops, I see that the second edit (http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/21877729) by thevikas provides a source of "election commission of india - public data". So it was an import. As such I'd like more information about any discussion that took place before the import was done. Mor... | |
| 3 | 2017-02-06 08:11 | keithonearth | In addition to my concern about potential lack of discussion prior to an import, I have concerns about the quality and accuracy of this data. Of the 1270 nodes originally added with this edit 183 of them have identical coordinates with one or more other nodes. They were originally added as polling s... | |
| 4 | 2017-03-23 11:59 | thevikas ♦1 | Just reached here. I did not have any discussion before importing it. Actually it was also my first large scale import. So I also dont know the practises. I just figured out josm changeset format and made myself. The schools were marked since most (99%) polling stations are govt schools. POIs of Kas... | |
| 5 | 2017-03-23 19:27 | keithonearth | It would be a good idea to read https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines. The short story is that imports should only be done with great care. I'm still not convinced that this import is beneficial, and will ask the DWG to take a look. | |
| 6 | 2019-10-03 12:46 | SomeoneElse ♦13,390 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 75232380 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some polling stations imported as schools in order to render in India. Attempts to contact the mapper on changeset 21702908 failed. See also the discussion on changeset 36460852. | |
| 46154902 by fmarier @ 2017-02-17 05:25 | 1 | 2017-02-24 05:08 | keithonearth | Thanks for adding this Francois. I've seen a couple new stations, but both times I checked and you've already added them. |
| 2 | 2017-02-24 07:34 | fmarier ♦62 | I have a cronjob which runs daily so I can find out about new stations and survey them in person :)https://github.com/fmarier/mobi-stations | |
| 3 | 2017-03-14 21:15 | keithonearth | That's rad. It sure beats my method of checking OsmAnd when I ride past a new station. I wish I had your python skills. | |
| 46644342 by keithonearth @ 2017-03-07 08:21 | 1 | 2017-03-07 08:29 | keithonearth | If you are like me, and feel a kind of thrill when you download the data for an area through JOSM, and it returns "No data found in this area" then try to do some mapping in this area. Its pretty fun, with lots of rivers, streams, lakes, and road completely unmapped. :-) |
| 45640455 by mapgdd1 @ 2017-01-30 05:43 | 1 | 2017-03-02 08:49 | keithonearth | Hi mappered1, this edit is an error. There may have been a gas station at the 7-11 at one point (a few years back?), but there is not one there at present, Well, wasn't a couple hours ago, when I double checked. |
| 46075999 by katpatuka @ 2017-02-14 11:12 | 1 | 2017-02-14 19:50 | keithonearth | Hi katpatuka,Do you have any idea why an edit like this, to a region in Turkey, shows such a huge bounding box? It seems really common, but I don't understand the reason. |
| 2 | 2017-02-15 05:19 | katpatuka ♦194 | I edited in Laos and had been downloading just a single node in Avanos district in Turkey to change a tag without creating an extra josm layer for it ;) | |
| 3 | 2017-02-15 19:01 | keithonearth | That's really interesting. So you'd uploaded all the changes in Laos, but the area was still included in the bounding box! That's kind of shitty. I guess I'm not the first one to find the history function on OSM.org to be not very useful, but this was one weakness that I'd n... | |
| 4 | 2017-02-16 05:53 | katpatuka ♦194 | No, I hadn't uploaded the change in Laos - I edited something in Laos AND in Turkey THEN did the upload. So the behavior is normal :) | |
| 5 | 2017-02-16 19:21 | keithonearth | That is normal behaviour on the part of the software. Somehow I missed that there was that relation in Laos that had also been modified. I ran the edit through a history viewer (http://osmhistory.appspot.com/ I think) and didn't notice the change in Laos, but all I needed to do was look just un... | |
| 45767064 by Purple Platapus @ 2017-02-03 04:23 | 1 | 2017-02-03 19:30 | keithonearth | Hi Purple Platapus, thanks for your edits, good to see new people mapping on OSM. You seem to have local knolage of these schools, and that's always a great addition to the map.I did notice a few things that seem to be errors in Kerrisdale Park and Point Grey School. I've made an edit,... |
| 2674085 by barh @ 2009-09-29 09:02 | 1 | 2017-02-03 03:52 | keithonearth | This edit introduces some nodes with bad tagging. The ones that stand out for me are the ones with name and ele tags, and no more. The ele value is non-numerical and identical with the name. If no info is added as to what these names represent (locality, piste, etc) then I'm going to remove the... |
| 45706684 by Greg_Rose @ 2017-02-01 05:35 | 1 | 2017-02-01 18:50 | keithonearth | Thanks for answering my note (http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/835213), your knowledge on the Mackenzie river crossing, and the ice_road tag, I didn't know about that one. I did do a minor edit to following yours, as you had applied the ice_road tag to a large length of road, that was both... |
| 2 | 2017-02-01 19:18 | Greg_Rose ♦175 | Hey Keith - No worries, you were completely clear, and I understand completely. I actually left the ice-road designation there on purpose, as those roads are impassible once snowmelt happens: they turn into pure mud. Even though most of the road isn't on lake or river ice, the roadbed depends o... | |
| 3 | 2017-02-01 19:29 | Greg_Rose ♦175 | Another dead giveaway: Staging areas next to rivers on the lower/down side (side of the river that goods are coming in from). On the south bank of the McKenzie where that ice-road comes ashore, you can see in the satellite imagery a couple of cleared out staging areas. When Fall comes, there eventua... | |
| 4 | 2017-02-01 20:00 | Greg_Rose ♦175 | Well.... Just saw a source that argued that when they go over land, locals call them "snow-roads". So... whatever."Seasonal" it is. | |
| 5 | 2017-02-02 10:21 | keithonearth | I think seasonal is the best choice too. Especially after looking at the OSM wiki entry on ice_roads (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ice_road). Keep in mind that OSM tags may have different meaning that in common usage. So whether or not locals call the roads that are only passible when... | |
| 41309400 by sBadri @ 2016-08-07 18:14 | 1 | 2017-01-13 09:14 | keithonearth | This is a highly political edit, and OSM is interested in the reality on the ground, not Historic agreements. |
| 45061663 by FrViPofm @ 2017-01-10 20:56 | 1 | 2017-01-11 02:08 | keithonearth | Species? What does this edit summary mean? |
| 2 | 2017-01-11 10:06 | Karthoo ♦214 | He edited the species tag at trees and hedges | |
| 3 | 2017-01-11 18:44 | gileri ♦1,003 | I agree it's sort of short for a changeset this large | |
| 4 | 2017-01-31 09:50 | Chrysopras ♦151 | And this kind of mass-change of many objects should probably be considered as a mechanical edit. See: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct and the discussion at another changeset of the same kind: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/45649120 | |
| 45019660 by kyleb3 @ 2017-01-09 07:50 | 1 | 2017-01-11 02:05 | keithonearth | Why are these two nodes tagged as tailors, but have the names of tattoo studios? |
| 21877729 by thevikas @ 2014-04-23 04:54 | 1 | 2017-01-10 07:55 | keithonearth | I also left comments on changeset (http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/21702908) that originally added this (and 1269 other similar nodes) if there's been discussion before importing this data.I'm a bit concerned by the edit summary of this changeset, as it states "so they can ... |
| 2 | 2019-10-03 12:46 | SomeoneElse ♦13,390 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 75232380 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some polling stations imported as schools in order to render in India. Attempts to contact the mapper on changeset 21702908 failed. See also the discussion on changeset 36460852. | |
| 44908746 by keithonearth @ 2017-01-04 20:54 | 1 | 2017-01-04 21:05 | keithonearth | This seems to be a common pattern, especially in India. The older route takes a more roundabout route, as roads get upgraded a bigger bridge, with more direct routing is built. I'd say that anytime the the main road takes a detour at a side valley, and a minor road takes the direct route, i... |
| 44797187 by keithonearth @ 2016-12-30 23:09 | 1 | 2016-12-30 23:12 | keithonearth | This edit is an improvement over the previous lack of waterways. |
| 2684661 by barh @ 2009-09-30 07:44 | 1 | 2016-12-27 08:02 | keithonearth | This changeset changes the name of Tangmarg to "Tangmarg, Jammu&Kashmir". I am changing the name back, as it is incorrect to include the state name in a village's name. |
| 2 | 2016-12-30 17:03 | barh ♦1 | Sure. ))Happy New Year ! | |
| 44633922 by keithonearth @ 2016-12-23 21:20 | 1 | 2016-12-23 21:45 | keithonearth | I forgot to add GPS to the source. There are plenty GPS tracks on the main highway, and I used these to confirm tile alignment. |
| 44460697 by keithonearth @ 2016-12-17 00:04 | 1 | 2016-12-17 00:07 | keithonearth | Once again I forgot to update the source field in JOSM. The imagery used was *BC Mosaic* not Bing. I pretty much always use BC Mosaic for the area it covers, only occasional comparing it with Bing, as the Bing imagery seems to be more up to date. |
| 43338879 by Adrian Procter @ 2016-11-01 22:20 | 1 | 2016-12-06 22:08 | keithonearth | This edit has moved a Mobi bike station to the middle of False Creek. I don't have time to figure out what happened, and fix it at the moment. Is there any chance someone else could? |
| 2 | 2016-12-07 08:59 | keithonearth | Sorry if my last comment seemed a bit curt. I'm sure the edit was benificial, I'm happy to get speed limits and turn restrictions added. Accidentally dragging and dropping a node is an easy thing to do. I've looked into the edit history of the node, and it seems like it'd alr... | |
| 43527018 by Quetron @ 2016-11-10 07:45 | 1 | 2016-12-02 07:18 | keithonearth | Thanks for this edit, Quetron. I was just looking at the dirt jumps on the map, having realized that I'd made the area too large, and found that you'd already fixed it. :-) |
| 2 | 2016-12-02 07:24 | Quetron ♦1 | No problem! It may have been bigger at the time you'd added the feature, but I think they've make it smaller in the last couple years. :) | |
| 41120381 by Aboudrar Said @ 2016-07-30 00:32 | 1 | 2016-11-30 06:56 | keithonearth | It is helpful to other people if you give more information in the edit summary then just saying "mapping". Please do so. |
| 43807682 by keithonearth @ 2016-11-19 19:12 | 1 | 2016-11-19 19:22 | keithonearth | Oops. I forgot to update the source field in JOSM, this was done with BC Mosaic imagery. |
| 43807391 by keithonearth @ 2016-11-19 18:38 | 1 | 2016-11-19 19:21 | keithonearth | oops. I forgot to update the source field in JOSM, this was done with BC Mosaic imagery. |
| 43690970 by keithonearth @ 2016-11-16 07:22 | 1 | 2016-11-16 07:37 | keithonearth | I was hesitant to make this edit, as there has been construction in the area since the Bing imagery was taken. In the end I decided to make the edit, as previous edit summaries did not mention any info source other than the Bing imagery. |
| 43089272 by wentworth4 @ 2016-10-22 20:45 | 1 | 2016-11-11 04:05 | keithonearth | Hi wentworth4, thanks for your edits. From what I've seen they are good. Also, I was wondering if you'd be willing to leave more meaningful edit summaries. For example "adding address". Or "retagging bus_stop as bus_station" which is, as best as I can figure, what t... |
| 43225677 by keithonearth @ 2016-10-27 18:52 | 1 | 2016-10-27 18:55 | keithonearth | I forgot to update the source field in JOSM. I did not use Bing imagery here, as it is useless for this area. I used Mapbox. It is far better quality for this area. |
| 39965987 by Julan @ 2016-06-12 07:45 | 1 | 2016-10-27 08:38 | keithonearth | 对不起，我不会说中国话This edit seems to have some errors. 阳关中路 was duplicated, and a new road was added on top of the old road, with a name tag, instead of the name being added to original road. Also the name=* tag should contain Chinese, not "Chinese (and English)"... |
| 42876490 by keithonearth @ 2016-10-13 17:51 | 1 | 2016-10-13 17:56 | keithonearth | The construction of the new road and bridge is visible on the Bing imagery. |
| 42841141 by keithonearth @ 2016-10-12 21:21 | 1 | 2016-10-12 21:26 | keithonearth | This monastery has been one of the most important within Tibetan Buddhism, the town it is located in is of little importance. People often use the name of the Monastery to refer to the town as a whole, as it is more well known.The tagging of the two was a mess, with some of the name:lang tags re... |
| 42339522 by Chalit Kaewjaroon @ 2016-09-22 06:45 Active block | 1 | 2016-09-23 05:04 | keithonearth | I'm sorry to do this again, but I've not gotten any clarification on why you're adding Thai language name (and name:hi) tags to places in India, so I've reverted this edit. I can't say definitively that any of these tags are inaccurate, but that camp-site looks pretty un... |
| 2 | 2016-10-07 15:38 | PlaneMad ♦450 | Keith, thanks for looking into the edits, there's a block on the user now https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/1056 to force them to read the messages. Is there still some cleanup to do? | |
| 3 | 2016-10-11 18:26 | keithonearth | I reverted their edits as I came across nodes with Thai names. I was not methodical in making sure I got all of this users edits fixed, so I would think that there is still clean up to do.Thanks for the heads-up about the user being blocked, I'm glad to hear that happened. | |
| 4 | 2016-10-11 18:47 | SomeoneElse ♦13,390 | Just to be clear, the block isn't to stop them editing, it's to alert them to the fact that they're editing a shared map :)Hopefully they'll read the message and engage with other mappers. Unfortunately MAPS.ME doesn't make this very clear (and it's more complicated h... | |
| 5 | 2016-10-12 19:17 | keithonearth | Hi SomeoneElse. I have a hard time believing these edits are not vandalism. Did you see my edit (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/42477487) that removed one of their caravan sites that had been placed in the middle of an airport taxiway? While I did not survey that location in person, it... | |
| 6 | 2016-10-12 19:39 | SomeoneElse ♦13,390 | Well, until they login to the osm.org site to clear the message http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Chalit%20Kaewjaroon/blocks they're still not able to edit the map. Whether you'd call this "vandalism" rather depends on whether they realise they're actually updating a shared... | |
| 7 | 2016-10-24 17:12 | indigomc ♦187 | Having put the Thai content into a dictionary, they seem to represent things of interest for travellers, e.g. cafe's, viewpoints, et.c.. I suspect that they are not names and actually describe the mapping feature. Until a Thai speaker can be found to check, the thing to do might be to at least ... | |
| 22325209 by Daungg @ 2014-05-14 03:41 | 1 | 2016-10-07 01:26 | keithonearth | There's a note (https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/183932) that discusses the buildings that you've tagged as commercial close to the bridge. There's confusion, because they look like ruins in the imagery you've used for this edit. |
| 42642496 by keithonearth @ 2016-10-04 20:41 | 1 | 2016-10-04 20:45 | keithonearth | I don't normally delete things that are not in the imagery, but in this case the track had the same name tag as the highway. This "highway" was unpaved until recently, and I think this is a fragment of the original mapping. |
| 36657453 by Rohit Michael @ 2016-01-18 13:41 | 1 | 2016-09-28 21:07 | keithonearth | This changeset seems to have been reverted also. I didn't do the main reversion, but cleaned up the last remaining nodes.The issues are the same as the others, disconnected nodes with only a name tag, that means meaningful information.Additionally, I would point out that this edit did n... |
| 36395111 by Rohit Michael @ 2016-01-06 03:22 | 1 | 2016-09-28 20:31 | keithonearth | I've reverted this changeset, due to the same issues as the others. (many disconnected nodes, with meaningless tags) |
| 36395107 by Rohit Michael @ 2016-01-06 03:22 | 1 | 2016-09-28 20:31 | keithonearth | I've reverted this changeset, due to the same issues as the others. (many disconnected nodes, with meaningless tags) |
| 36395059 by Rohit Michael @ 2016-01-06 03:15 | 1 | 2016-09-28 20:28 | keithonearth | I've reverted this changeset, due to the same issues as the others (it consists of many disconnected nodes with meaningless names) |
| 36395071 by Rohit Michael @ 2016-01-06 03:17 | 1 | 2016-09-28 20:12 | keithonearth | I've reverted this changeset, as I am unable to find anything constructive in it. Please feel free to ask me any questions if you have any. |
| 36395095 by Rohit Michael @ 2016-01-06 03:20 | 1 | 2016-09-28 20:08 | keithonearth | I've reverted this changeset. It consists of a large number of disconnected nodes, that are tagged in a way that has no meaning in the OSM context, nor am I able to interpret them. |
| 42441119 by Chalit Kaewjaroon @ 2016-09-26 10:08 Active block | 1 | 2016-09-27 18:50 | keithonearth | Please let us know where you are getting all these oddly located caravan sites. A number of them locations that I was familiar with did not have the caravan sites that you mapped. As I am no longer in India I can not check any more locations, but I have a hard time believing that there is a caravan ... |
| 42205143 by Chalit Kaewjaroon @ 2016-09-16 14:55 Active block | 1 | 2016-09-27 04:31 | Upendrakarukonda ♦134 | Hello, Welcome to OpenStreetMap, you have added many `caravan_site`. It seems to be not correct. Can you please cross check and verify it?Thank you,upendrakarukonda. |
| 2 | 2016-09-27 17:42 | keithonearth | Sorry not to leave more time after your comment upendrakarukonda, but I've contacted this user in the past about errors (often carivan_site nodes), and not received a reply. I've now reverted this changeset, as it contains a number of identifiable errors, and inexplicably uses Thai lan... | |
| 42315186 by Chalit Kaewjaroon @ 2016-09-21 06:32 Active block | 1 | 2016-09-27 17:20 | keithonearth | I've reverted this edit, as I have been to the location of the caravan site, and there is not one in this location. Thai language is not appropriate for use in name tags in India. While I do not know that the other additions are inaccurate, I do not feel that the edit is reliable. |
| 36395080 by Rohit Michael @ 2016-01-06 03:18 | 1 | 2016-08-09 20:38 | keithonearth | All of the nodes added by this edit contain only name tags, with no other tags. The name tags make no sense, eg "name=522 - STRAIGHT AT JUNCTION",or just "name=512". Because of this I reverted this edit, with the changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41354365 |
| 2 | 2016-09-23 18:09 | keithonearth | I'd be interested to hear abou the meaning of your edit, and the process you used to come up with these nodes in either way. | |
| 36395051 by Rohit Michael @ 2016-01-06 03:13 | 1 | 2016-09-23 17:37 | keithonearth | I'm sorry to have to inform you that I have reverted this changeset. I have not been able to find any nodes that are correctly tagged in it. The majority of the nodes are just name=`xxx`, with `xxx` being a 3 digit number. The odd node has name=`note`, with `note` being a some sort of descr... |
| 42352817 by keithonearth @ 2016-09-22 16:46 | 1 | 2016-09-22 16:48 | keithonearth | The route with less switchbacks is the main road now, what had been tagged as the NH3 is an old fragment of it that is the unfavoured route, is very rough and very steep. I mistakenly took it, to my regret. |
| 36395097 by Rohit Michael @ 2016-01-06 03:21 | 1 | 2016-08-10 00:28 | keithonearth | This also seems to be a bunch of nodes that have been erroneously uploaded. They seem to refer to directions provided by a GPS devise for someone's trip at some point. Also this is not in HP, as the summery states. |
| 39849339 by keithonearth @ 2016-06-06 21:13 | 1 | 2016-06-06 21:17 | keithonearth | Please see: https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/50049 for more info on this edit. |
| 39610486 by keithonearth @ 2016-05-27 18:29 | 1 | 2016-05-27 18:41 | keithonearth | Porpoise Bay Park was divided up into 4 blocks, with the road dividing it east/west, and an additional north south divide that did not seem to be for any reason, or correspond with any physical feature. Nor is it shown on other maps. As such I have joined the north sections with the south sections. ... |
| 39465507 by spatially_yours @ 2016-05-21 08:18 | 1 | 2016-05-24 08:06 | keithonearth | Thanks! That's a nice restaurant. |
| 2 | 2016-05-27 22:17 | spatially_yours ♦1 | Thanks Keith. Yeah, it's a good restaurant. Not sure if you knew, but I also organize an OSM group in Vancouver with a friend: http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Vancouver/ I hope you can join our OSM meetup group and come out to an event. Peter | |
| 39518856 by keithonearth @ 2016-05-23 20:27 | 1 | 2016-05-23 20:29 | keithonearth | Oops, this was a Bing trace, not the strava data. |
| 38903889 by keithonearth @ 2016-04-26 21:17 | 1 | 2016-04-27 07:56 | keithonearth | I'd like to add a bit more info on my paper maps I mentioned in the edit summery source tag.I have 5 paper maps that have this town noted on it, from 4 publishers. These maps are from China, the UK, and the Tibetan refugees in India. All the maps note either 安多, ཨ་མདོ, or Amdo... |
| 38468226 by keithonearth @ 2016-04-11 07:34 | 1 | 2016-04-11 07:40 | keithonearth | I provided the wrong source in the changeset tags. I forgot to update it in JOSM. The correct source is Bing. |
| 37301813 by keithonearth @ 2016-02-19 06:13 | 1 | 2016-02-19 06:17 | keithonearth | Well, I have no idea why, but after my meaningless edit, and refreshing my browser, the buildings all showed up. Most odd. I hope I didn't make a mistake when I first added them... |
| 36731313 by keithonearth @ 2016-01-22 01:01 | 1 | 2016-01-22 01:14 | keithonearth | I mistakenly forgot to update the source tag. I used Bing imagery for this edit, not BC Mosaic. |
| 36309477 by keithonearth @ 2016-01-02 01:15 | 1 | 2016-01-02 02:08 | keithonearth | Once again I forgot to change the Source field in Josm. This actually used BC Mosaic, and not Bing, as a source. |
| 36171891 by keithonearth @ 2015-12-26 07:48 | 1 | 2015-12-26 07:55 | keithonearth | oops, I forgot to update the source field, this edit was just a Bing trace. Only my last edit was from wikipedia. |
| 35892837 by keithonearth @ 2015-12-11 20:39 | 1 | 2015-12-11 20:43 | keithonearth | I wouldn't normally make such major changes to a trail w/o surveying it, but there was enough information contradicting the version mapped, that I felt it appropriate to change it. The main thing was there was far more river crossings than I did while taking this trail, and that river is big en... |
| 35120429 by keithonearth @ 2015-11-06 08:28 | 1 | 2015-11-06 09:10 | keithonearth | I don't know if anyone reads the notes here, but my edit summary was wrong, as I forgot to update it after my previous summary. This time I was, in fact, adding farmland and wooded areas. |
| 2 | 2015-11-06 13:56 | PlaneMad ♦450 | Wow, Leh looks amazing! Thanks for all the mapping! :D | |
| 3 | 2015-11-09 09:21 | keithonearth | Thanks for the complement PlaneMad! I appreciate it very much, especially coming from a professional like you. | |
| 34734075 by Sanjar_94 @ 2015-10-19 14:35 | 1 | 2015-11-06 20:37 | keithonearth | This edit removed all tags from Issyk Kul (Lake) except the name, that was changed to name=тер-я школа (Ter-ya School). This prevented the 182km lake from rendering. This was a big mistake. At first I thought it was vandalism, but the other things that this edit did seemed to be improvement... |
| 34978694 by keithonearth @ 2015-10-30 18:50 | 1 | 2015-10-30 18:52 | keithonearth | Damn it, forgot to change the edit summery in JOSM. Not streams, just the main building in the Gompa. |
| 34978238 by keithonearth @ 2015-10-30 18:24 | 1 | 2015-10-30 18:27 | keithonearth | I've re-tagged the area tagged as meadow, to farmland, as the it is clearly terraced, and only land worked as farmland is terraced in Ladakh. Due to the time of year the Bing Imagery was taken it was at times difficult the exact boundary, however I'm confident that it's an improvement... |
| 31954205 by keithonearth @ 2015-06-14 02:32 | 1 | 2015-06-14 17:01 | keithonearth | Oops, I forgot to update the source field. The source was not BC Mosaic (that doesn't cover this area) but was almost exclusively my GPS tracks and survey. I looked at Bing imagery a little. |
| 29841283 by Andre68 @ 2015-03-30 04:34 | 1 | 2015-03-30 06:01 | keithonearth | Hi,I noticed that a short time after this edit the Tower of London is flooded. As it is a huge area that was edited I can't say if other areas were effected. I don't know if your edit was the cause, but I thought a heads up was in order. |
| 29036007 by Spacecookies @ 2015-02-23 04:27 | 1 | 2015-02-27 19:40 | keithonearth | I'm not convinced that the Riley Park site should be tagged as a constructing site. There is no active construction going on there now, and the area tagged as such includes one completed building that has been completed, and is occupied. |
| 2 | 2015-03-01 08:30 | Spacecookies ♦1 | That's fair enough. I figured it was under construction after I read the city's plan for the site (http://vancouver.ca/docs/planning/little-mountain-policy-statement.pdf), and saw the whole area was fenced off and looked sort of like a construction site when I biked past it last weekend. I... |