CloCkWeRX have been discussed with 15 replies of this contributorCloCkWeRX have been discussed with 15 replies of this contributor| Changeset | # | Tmstmp UTC | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 138010036 by CloCkWeRX @ 2023-07-02 03:04 | 1 | 2025-07-02 13:21 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,659 | Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11018950280/history has amenity = fixme that was added in this editWhat kind of object is here? Is it a shop? What kind of a shop? (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shop ) |
| 165073846 by CloCkWeRX @ 2025-04-17 14:05 | 1 | 2025-04-23 08:27 | fortera_au ♦1,070 | Not sure whether the road way is wrong or the Liberty is wrong, but the street names don't match up, Claire vs Clare. Do you know which one is correct? |
| 2 | 2025-04-27 08:10 | CloCkWeRX | Clare is correct | |
| 157401911 by CloCkWeRX @ 2024-10-03 04:31 | 1 | 2025-04-23 09:10 | fortera_au ♦1,070 | Hey, you've added addr:housenumber as "a" here, was that intentional? |
| 156561900 by CloCkWeRX @ 2024-09-13 08:59 | 1 | 2025-04-16 07:56 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,659 | Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12174478020/history has fixme:type = shop that was added in this editWhat kind of shop is here?See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shop for common values - is any of them fitting? |
| 2 | 2025-04-17 01:45 | CloCkWeRX | It was a weird gift shop, I've removed it for now though. | |
| 149841556 by CloCkWeRX @ 2024-04-10 23:01 | 1 | 2025-03-20 12:03 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,659 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11808346620 - is it still there?Or is there parking there now? |
| 153019282 by CloCkWeRX @ 2024-06-22 08:04 | 1 | 2024-07-29 11:25 | Madi-Red ♦17 | Hello CloCkWeRXThank you for mapping!I restored a deleted way 1298939900 and aligned it according to Rio Mosaic 2022.Please inspect your task carefully before closing.Happy Mapping! |
| 46205938 by CloCkWeRX @ 2017-02-19 03:13 | 1 | 2024-02-05 17:36 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,659 | Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4693039042/history has access:bicycle that was added in this edit (if I checked things correctly)Would using bicycle access tag (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bicycle ) be fitting at least equally well? |
| 105650761 by CloCkWeRX @ 2021-06-01 03:17 | 1 | 2024-01-30 11:16 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,659 | Hello!You usedcuisine=vietnamese;1on https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8787747413/historyHave you maybe meantcuisine=vietnamese?I am pretty sure that it is a typo, but not sure enough to just replace it (I edited some objects where situation seemed more clear to me).Or have ... |
| 144781633 by CloCkWeRX @ 2023-12-05 08:12 | 1 | 2023-12-10 02:13 | fortera_au ♦1,070 | Hey, this has been constructed and was mapped during a survey, and the building you've added has been completely demolished. I've reverted this changeset due to those reasons. |
| 87602837 by CloCkWeRX @ 2020-07-06 12:52 | 1 | 2023-08-05 06:07 | Warin61 ♦2,666 | Hi,node 429521996 tagged as barrier .. OSM is not clear if this apples to both service roads or one only. I'd think it should be moved to where it looks like the fence is ? |
| 44673301 by CloCkWeRX @ 2016-12-26 02:07 | 1 | 2023-07-30 09:41 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,659 | Hello!Can you look at https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3806441#map=19 ? |
| 36350904 by CloCkWeRX @ 2016-01-04 01:32 | 1 | 2023-07-30 09:41 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,659 | Can you look at https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3806439#map=19 ? |
| 129693635 by CloCkWeRX @ 2022-12-04 02:58 | 1 | 2022-12-05 00:16 | Warin61 ♦2,666 | Before this changeset JOSM validator reports a "Warning; way unclosed". Now JOSM validator says "Error: way contains segment twice, Warning: self intersecting way". OSMinspector says there is a duplicate segment in the way. See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&... |
| 85710367 by CloCkWeRX @ 2020-05-25 09:09 | 1 | 2022-10-15 00:11 | Warin61 ♦2,666 | HiThe RSL looks to have been sold ...https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-house-sa-port+germein-134472910 |
| 124294205 by CloCkWeRX @ 2022-07-31 09:30 | 1 | 2022-08-01 04:03 | Warin61 ♦2,666 | Multipolygon outer ways cannot share segments. See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=138.62079&lat=-34.92119&zoom=19&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecti... |
| 2 | 2022-08-15 00:37 | Warin61 ♦2,666 | From https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:multipolygon"multipolygon are used to represent areas (polygons), typically complex areas with holes inside, or consisting of multiple disjoint areas" | |
| 3 | 2022-08-16 11:07 | CloCkWeRX | If you aren't actively surveying on the ground; in this area, don't delete buildings that you can *see in imagery*.Revert your changeset and correct rather than delete.Its not that hard to avoid being abrasive. | |
| 4 | 2022-08-17 08:36 | Warin61 ♦2,666 | You have made no attempt to fix the error .. and I have in the past done as you suggest by fixing your error .. getting tired of it .. with little to no response for you ... suggest you fix it rather than leave it for others to fix. Thank you. You will observe my normal response time ... it can be... | |
| 5 | 2022-09-09 12:03 | Warin61 ♦2,666 | The mapper has expressed views regarding this on an unrelated changeset of mine - Changeset: 124324306. I quote"Combine this with your pattern of remote mapping in an area - again, based on what a validator says are the "rules";"Not only a validator but also the OSM wiki ... | |
| 101218892 by CloCkWeRX @ 2021-03-18 01:00 | 1 | 2021-09-16 12:46 | Canal des Pangalanes ♦54 | Some of the buildings you wisely imported from Microsoft have already been deleted because they are demolished in reality: https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=88643133 |
| 93854786 by CloCkWeRX @ 2020-11-10 10:42 | 1 | 2020-11-10 11:33 | Frans S ♦9,820 | HelloYou did not move tall buildings to their groundplan ! |
| 93361854 by CloCkWeRX @ 2020-11-01 08:37 | 1 | 2020-11-05 14:17 | Frans S ♦9,820 | HelloThanks for validating on this project.However, you overlooked quite a lot of errors which should be solved before you can call it validated.It is also not of a great help that you validate in iDeditor, which report less errors than JOSMEver considered to change to JOSM?Best regardsP... |
| 93526574 by CloCkWeRX @ 2020-11-04 08:26 | 1 | 2020-11-04 15:46 | Frans S ♦9,820 | Hello. Thanks for mapping on this projectHigh buildings need to be mapped in a different way.You can see both the roof and a side of a building.Don't map everything you see.Map only the roof surface.Then move this object to where it touches the ground. (the groundplan) See as an ex... |
| 92291736 by CloCkWeRX @ 2020-10-11 04:47 | 1 | 2020-10-12 10:34 | tastrax ♦1,147 | Hi folks FYI - Phone numbers in Australia should be added according to the following format +61 x xxxx xxxx, (+61 xxx xxx xxx for mobiles) or use the phone:AU key if a 1300 or 1800 number as per the wiki guidelines https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines - I have just updat... |
| 89808951 by CloCkWeRX @ 2020-08-23 13:31 | 1 | 2020-08-23 14:40 | Bhatarsaigh ♦1 | No worries. I turned around when I saw the gates from a distance. I’ve also just set the tags of the gate nodes to public access. |
| 88091070 by CloCkWeRX @ 2020-07-16 13:13 | 1 | 2020-07-16 13:49 | vihrvy ♦2 | Thanks! |
| 84189109 by CloCkWeRX @ 2020-04-27 09:52 | 1 | 2020-05-05 01:29 | Warin61 ♦2,666 | The relation outer is self crossing... Seehttps://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=138.64158&lat=-34.94093&zoom=17Tag area=yes is not required on the inner way of the relation. |
| 2 | 2020-05-12 06:23 | Warin61 ♦2,666 | I have no interest in continuing to fix your errors. Shall I simply delete than from now on? | |
| 3 | 2020-05-12 08:16 | CloCkWeRX | Sure, delete away, if you are willing to resurvey from the ground.Otherwise, maybe don't threaten contributors making good faith mapping efforts because you aren't happy? | |
| 4 | 2020-05-14 23:53 | Warin61 ♦2,666 | Thank you for confirming that you are getting notifications of changeset comments. Saves me from contacting the DWG. I note this also confirms you are ignoring my comments on errors. You will note that the relation is not rendering so deleting it will have no effect on the rendered map, it simpl... | |
| 80825072 by CloCkWeRX @ 2020-02-11 04:12 | 1 | 2020-02-12 06:07 | Warin61 ♦2,666 | Merged nodes to remove close node vertices. Also squared up the way 771529041. |
| 79193540 by CloCkWeRX @ 2020-01-04 16:23 | 1 | 2020-01-06 06:28 | Warin61 ♦2,666 | Error Duplicated nodes on way 760790510. |
| 76885861 by CloCkWeRX @ 2019-11-11 04:11 | 1 | 2019-11-12 08:09 | Warin61 ♦2,666 | Relation needs fixing...https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=138.69778&lat=-34.82373&zoom=18 |
| 54879145 by CloCkWeRX @ 2017-12-24 07:09 | 1 | 2019-08-12 14:15 | Glen Turner ♦1 | Hi, just trying to track down why the Post Office was deleted? |
| 71780566 by CloCkWeRX @ 2019-07-01 11:08 | 1 | 2019-07-26 06:24 | Warin61 ♦2,666 | Problem in relation 9740788.See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=137.57700&lat=-33.03414&zoom=18 |
| 71772486 by CloCkWeRX @ 2019-07-01 06:15 | 1 | 2019-07-03 09:56 | Warin61 ♦2,666 | Hi againSame problem ... A multiplogon cannot have outers that share ways... See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=137.54620&lat=-33.02953&zoom=16andhttps://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=137.57731&lat=-33.03450&zoom=16 |
| 2 | 2019-07-26 06:21 | Warin61 ♦2,666 | Not fixed... no action? | |
| 71772383 by CloCkWeRX @ 2019-07-01 06:11 | 1 | 2019-07-26 06:19 | Warin61 ♦2,666 | Problem with relation 9736954 See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=137.54670&lat=-33.02906&zoom=18 |
| 71772453 by CloCkWeRX @ 2019-07-01 06:13 | 1 | 2019-07-26 06:18 | Warin61 ♦2,666 | This relation 9736957 has shared segments.See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=137.54670&lat=-33.02906&zoom=18 |
| 71014610 by CloCkWeRX @ 2019-06-07 08:19 | 1 | 2019-06-10 00:08 | aharvey ♦1,727 | https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/71014610 I think the original name which included the branch name may still be correct, and local knowledge should apply. Either way if the branch name is to removed, then it should at least go into the branch tag. |
| 2 | 2019-06-10 00:09 | aharvey ♦1,727 | I've reinstated the branch name via the branch tag for the time being. | |
| 65904906 by CloCkWeRX @ 2018-12-31 06:45 | 1 | 2019-01-31 00:14 | Warin61 ♦2,666 | Tower Hotel is the name. Fine Wines is an advertising description. Relation outer ways should not touch.Fixes -Buildings as separate ways- one as a roof the other as retail.shop as a simple node. |
| 2 | 2019-01-31 05:29 | CloCkWeRX | Ah, it's a trading name of the Celebrations bottle shop physically attached to the pub complex: "Tower Hotel Fine Wines"Bold claim, but it's what they have stuck on the side of their business!Annoyingly, the buildings physically touch in real life to make it this weird lu... | |
| 3 | 2019-02-03 06:51 | Warin61 ♦2,666 | Duplicate segment in relation 9170174 | |
| 4 | 2019-02-09 06:45 | Warin61 ♦2,666 | A multiploygon relation can not share outer ways.. https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=138.65113&lat=-34.92011&zoom=12Show 4 otehr relations with the same problem. And this one will pop up again too... Fix them. ---------------------------------------------- | |
| 66383446 by CloCkWeRX @ 2019-01-17 04:40 | 1 | 2019-02-03 06:52 | Warin61 ♦2,666 | Duplicate segment in relation 9226967 |
| 65954495 by CloCkWeRX @ 2019-01-02 10:52 | 1 | 2019-02-03 06:50 | Warin61 ♦2,666 | Duplicate segment in relation 9175901 |
| 65720440 by CloCkWeRX @ 2018-12-23 17:29 | 1 | 2019-01-07 12:20 | Pierce ♦41 | Thanks for doing this, i'm looking at these issues within Victoria myself. |
| 65492131 by CloCkWeRX @ 2018-12-15 06:17 | 1 | 2018-12-16 06:47 | Warin61 ♦2,666 | HiGetting a few 'duplicate nodes' indicated as you being the author. Don't know the cause? You can see them here https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=138.69466&lat=-34.89471&zoom=10 |
| 60374494 by CloCkWeRX @ 2018-07-03 10:43 | 1 | 2018-10-18 05:57 | Warin61 ♦2,666 | Looks like the Pioneer Womens Walking Track uses parts of Way: Centre Track (24692212) Think Pioneer Womens Walking Track would be better as a route relation - so it can use these other ways without conflicts. |
| 62540168 by CloCkWeRX @ 2018-09-13 05:10 | 1 | 2018-09-15 06:51 | Warin61 ♦2,666 | HiRelation: Hotel Bay View (8687586) .. has 2 ways ..as outers. But they share segments. Not likes by OSM inspector. So this would be better as a single way - no relation required? |
| 52443547 by CloCkWeRX @ 2017-09-28 12:49 | 1 | 2017-09-29 05:28 | TheSwavu ♦544 | Would be better to use the note key. The description key is really just for SEO spam (or at least that's what 99+% of the use appears to be). |
| 48933069 by CloCkWeRX @ 2017-05-24 03:05 | 1 | 2017-09-02 11:37 | aharvey ♦1,727 | I don't understand why https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/495578455 was added back in, did they temporarily reopen this northbound section, it seems very strange to me that they would.I deleted the northbound road in https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/46239272 6 months ago but it's be... |
| 2 | 2017-09-07 05:56 | CloCkWeRX | No probs, it was just a quick survey on my part from a moving taxi; plus referring to LPI imagery after. If you've looked at it more recently happy to roll with that. | |
| 3 | 2017-09-07 07:00 | aharvey ♦1,727 | Thanks for replying. I looked at it both just recently and about a year ago. Things change and imagery get's outdated. I know how easy it is to think it represents reality but it's not always the case. | |
| 4 | 2017-09-11 03:49 | aharvey ♦1,727 | Compare current https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/apyjQMjz2YwFit5wxfJBJA (was like that at least for the last 6 months) to historic https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/t_JhcTNCOkLpAevDZnB2JQ | |
| 48732514 by CloCkWeRX @ 2017-05-16 13:55 | 1 | 2017-06-18 23:55 | Warin61 ♦2,666 | Humm looses a lot because there are no heights . so the tower gains nothing over the rest of the building. The building:part ... that needs a building=* to sit in .. I have made the outline as a building=church way and then have the tower as a way with building:part=tower ... no multipoygon relati... |
| 2 | 2017-06-19 02:56 | CloCkWeRX | Yeah, happy with that, just don't ask me to ride out and survey it again! | |
| 48776359 by CloCkWeRX @ 2017-05-18 01:50 | 1 | 2017-05-18 03:53 | Qwertii ♦18 | I was wondering when this would happen, the maps.me data is months out of date so I can't see the latest nodes :SAlso I noticed you marked male, female and unisex all as no. Shouldn't one be yes? |
| 2 | 2017-05-18 04:15 | CloCkWeRX | All fixed re attributes.All good re the duplicates, I added the other one from survey like... 1-2 weeks ago max? I reckon it'll be pretty rare it crops up | |
| 48501424 by CloCkWeRX @ 2017-05-08 12:56 | 1 | 2017-05-09 11:50 | Qwertii ♦18 | Should the website be the site root instead of the individual stores page? When a user clicks to see the website the probably want to see the stores products and similar as they already have the contact info and location from OSM. |
| 2 | 2017-05-11 13:59 | CloCkWeRX | I've tended to err for the webpage most directly describing a specific physical location; ie so you can find contact details or hours. | |
| 46915950 by CloCkWeRX @ 2017-03-17 03:17 | 1 | 2017-03-17 03:18 | CloCkWeRX | I swapped some of these to 'farmland' (more for the paddocks and similar), as opposed to farmyard (the bit nearer the houses, usually with a shed or two that is bigger than a typical backyard) |
| 39560671 by CloCkWeRX @ 2016-05-25 16:45 | 1 | 2017-02-11 03:30 | TheSwavu ♦544 | I'm going to go out on a limb here but I'm not sure that the carriageways of Port Road cross over. Unless, of course, this is some sort of SA specific traffic calming ;-) |
| 2 | 2017-02-12 10:09 | CloCkWeRX | New thing we are trialling here - Car Gladiators. Two drive in, one drives out!Its weirdly shaped, because they've dug a bit hole where the northmost lane used to be and put the traffic right next to the other lane - previously separated by a wide median.I've tweaked the two not to... | |
| 45874504 by CloCkWeRX @ 2017-02-07 05:09 | 1 | 2017-02-07 07:45 | Qwertii ♦18 | Woah, how did you add so much so fast? |
| 42916419 by CloCkWeRX @ 2016-10-15 11:50 | 1 | 2016-10-15 13:36 | trigpoint ♦2,373 | Are you absolutely certain about this?Have you been there and checked? Did this Strava user send you a photo?Firstly a missing unclassified road in the Midlands has alarm bells ringing, there is as much chance of finding Elvis selling fruit and veg on Leicester Market.So did you check the av... |
| 2 | 2016-10-16 15:11 | Richard ♦220 | Geograph photos:http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/408432http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1036267http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/408921http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/408923http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/4019525http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/408927http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/4... | |
| 3 | 2016-10-16 16:28 | trigpoint ♦2,373 | I have changed this to a track | |
| 4 | 2016-10-16 21:07 | CloCkWeRX | Thanks, that seems a more appropriate modelling | |
| 40008148 by CloCkWeRX @ 2016-06-14 04:06 | 1 | 2016-06-14 10:56 | Hugo André Sousa ♦1 | Yes. It still's under construction.Part of it is constructed, the other is not.The road is blocked. |
| 2 | 2016-06-14 23:05 | CloCkWeRX | Yeah - I split the bits that were physically finished and visible in imagery off from the stuff that wasn't, changeset comment was perhaps a bit broad | |
| 39820820 by CloCkWeRX @ 2016-06-05 17:02 | 1 | 2016-06-05 19:21 | trigpoint ♦2,373 | Hi, you seem to have created an isolated way which is going to show up as a problem on QA tools.What was the source of this service road and should it not be connected to something? |
| 36457175 by CloCkWeRX @ 2016-01-09 02:34 | 1 | 2016-01-14 14:03 | SomeoneElse ♦13,390 | What was the routing problem that was previous reported? You've changed 2 derelict_canal ways only here; I can't see how that should affect routing? |
| 2 | 2016-01-16 08:22 | CloCkWeRX | The path was intersecting the waterway; but there was clearly not a bridge etc. I split the waterway either side of the bike path to better reflect was is on the ground/apparent from GPS traces, and satellite imagery.Given that the canal itself is filled in; I don't think it should be m... | |
| 3 | 2016-01-16 13:46 | SomeoneElse ♦13,390 | What is the problem with a path intersecting with a derelict_canal? I can think of several examples locally to me (just a bit north of here) where that happens, where the canal is still very much visible as a derelict_canal but a path crosses it or even runs along it.Did you try asking the prev... | |
| 4 | 2016-01-16 14:52 | CloCkWeRX | Feel free to revert/model it better if you have on the ground observations that are more accurate than the GPS traces and satellite imagery; however *even the original way had it documented that it had been filled in*. Routers really shouldn't direct riders through derelict canals without s... | |
| 16175239 by CloCkWeRX @ 2013-05-18 03:31 | 1 | 2015-10-25 08:37 | GerdP ♦2,751 | please review: highway=bump on node 2309010300which is not connected to a highway.What is meant? |
| 2 | 2015-11-19 10:22 | GerdP ♦2,751 | Ive removed that node now. | |
| 3 | 2015-11-22 04:01 | CloCkWeRX | That was a speed bump; should have been traffic_calming=bump | |
| 4 | 2015-11-22 07:51 | GerdP ♦2,751 | thanks for the feedback. Do you remember the road ? The bump was mapped close to the middle of the roundabout, in that case I see no need to map a bump.Bing seems to show another obstacle ~20m north of the node, maybe this was meant? |