| Changeset | No. | Date | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 52443547 by CloCkWeRX | 1 | 2017-09-29 05:28:45 UTC | TheSwavu | 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 | 1 | 2017-09-02 11:37:38 UTC | aharvey | 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 been added b... |
| 2 | 2017-09-07 05:56:51 UTC | 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 07:00:18 UTC | aharvey | 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 Things change and imagery get's outdated.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 03:49:25 UTC | aharvey | 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 | 1 | 2017-06-18 23:55:49 UTC | Warin61 | 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 02:56:37 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Yeah, happy with that, just don't ask me to ride out and survey it again! | |
| 48776359 by CloCkWeRX | 1 | 2017-05-18 03:53:15 UTC | Qwertii | I was wondering when this would happen, the maps.me data is months out of date so I can't see the latest nodes :SAlso I noticed you marked male, female and unisex all as no.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 04:15:05 UTC | 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 | 1 | 2017-05-09 11:50:28 UTC | Qwertii | 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 13:59:51 UTC | 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 | 1 | 2017-03-17 03:18:20 UTC | 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 | 1 | 2017-02-11 03:30:09 UTC | TheSwavu | 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 10:09:06 UTC | 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 intersect... | |
| 45874504 by CloCkWeRX | 1 | 2017-02-07 07:45:49 UTC | Qwertii | Woah, how did you add so much so fast? |
| 42916419 by CloCkWeRX | 1 | 2016-10-15 13:36:12 UTC | trigpoint | 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 15:11:08 UTC | Richard | 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 16:28:12 UTC | trigpoint | I have changed this to a track | |
| 4 | 2016-10-16 21:07:12 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Thanks, that seems a more appropriate modelling | |
| 40008148 by CloCkWeRX | 1 | 2016-06-14 10:56:34 UTC | Hugo André Sousa | Yes. It still's under construction.Part of it is constructed, the other is not.The road is blocked. |
| 2 | 2016-06-14 23:05:46 UTC | 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 | 1 | 2016-06-05 19:21:55 UTC | trigpoint | 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 | 1 | 2016-01-14 14:03:06 UTC | SomeoneElse | 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 08:22:43 UTC | 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 mapped... | |
| 3 | 2016-01-16 13:46:42 UTC | SomeoneElse | 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 14:52:11 UTC | 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 some k... | |
| 16175239 by CloCkWeRX | 1 | 2015-10-25 08:37:02 UTC | GerdP | please review: highway=bump on node 2309010300which is not connected to a highway.What is meant? |
| 2 | 2015-11-19 10:22:14 UTC | GerdP | Ive removed that node now. | |
| 3 | 2015-11-22 04:01:40 UTC | CloCkWeRX | That was a speed bump; should have been traffic_calming=bump | |
| 4 | 2015-11-22 07:51:02 UTC | GerdP | 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? | |