| Changeset | No. | Date | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 58893509 by jboltnz | 1 | 2018-05-14 09:00:30 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Ah fantastic work! I'd been chipping away, as had @didz (grange). Hopefully I'll have the time to join up the mapping from Glenelg to Henley over the next few months, which will give us a pretty well mapped coastline! |
| 2 | 2018-05-19 02:20:54 UTC | jboltnz | Cheers Clockwerx. | |
| 58104373 by DavidMcAfee | 1 | 2018-04-16 11:50:06 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Nice work; keep it up. Opening hours has a slightly funny syntax in OSM to be machine readable; so I've adjusted that for you. |
| 58126313 by jfmcculloch93 | 1 | 2018-04-16 11:46:14 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Nice work; keep it up!You might also be interested in StreetComplete, an android app which will prompt you (among other things) to capture attributes relating to bicycle infrastructure; publish it to OSM. |
| 57049570 by muzzamo | 1 | 2018-03-11 13:44:09 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Are you sure it's Rocky Hill Track, not Wandilla Track? |
| 56629496 by reeeeeee69 | 1 | 2018-03-01 10:26:06 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Please don't vandalise openstreetmap, useful contributions are welcome; this is not. |
| 46067908 by KNAPPO | 1 | 2018-02-25 12:43:37 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Collarbone Creek Downhill, this seemed to be called "Grand Canyon Downhill" from looking at it today - is this an older name? |
| 56059054 by WebSouth | 1 | 2018-02-06 00:54:37 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Ah nice work. I rode from Morgan to Eudunda back in November, keep meaning to map out most of the buildings/businesses/drinking water/etc. |
| 2 | 2018-02-06 04:30:15 UTC | WebSouth | Thanks CloCkWeRX, Good to see the sort of things you are looking to mark. i'll add more when I can. Great to know you come visit this way. | |
| 55822234 by Johnanime | 1 | 2018-01-28 14:39:32 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Hello! Thank you very much for your contributions to OpenStreetMap! I reviewed your changeset on OSMCha and found some errors or elements that could be mapped in a better way. Feel free to message me to know more about it or visit http://learnosm.o... |
| 2 | 2018-01-28 14:40:39 UTC | CloCkWeRX | This removes a well established park and removes tagging as a recreation ground on many of the others - that's not right. | |
| 55761757 by jboltnz | 1 | 2018-01-27 10:42:08 UTC | CloCkWeRX | With the footpaths, it might be best to tag them as 'pavement'. Its a bit of a funny bit of modelling with OSM, trying to decide when a footpath is 'part of' a road or seperate from it.https://blog.mapbox.com/improving-sidewalks-globally-in-openstreetmap-216bf34cca22 discusses it a bit |
| 2 | 2018-01-27 12:02:57 UTC | jboltnz | Thanks for the link. Will do. | |
| 55594751 by jboltnz | 1 | 2018-01-21 04:02:59 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Ah, nice work with the buildings in Semaphore. I've been chipping away at between West Lakes and Outer Harbour for a while, keep up the good work |
| 2 | 2018-01-21 05:25:25 UTC | jboltnz | Cheers, Ive been doing a openhistoricalmap.org of all the original Port Alberton LeFevre pubs. So I hope to help fill in these areas | |
| 55455974 by triducsuz | 1 | 2018-01-21 03:15:28 UTC | CloCkWeRX | https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=Um7MxzGi67dQJrxUphLdBg&focus=photo&lat=-37.8636418&lng=145.0098776&z=17&x=0.5154720076077769&y=0.6516418672121888&zoom=0 - have the sharrows there been removed? |
| 55456105 by triducsuz | 1 | 2018-01-19 02:50:46 UTC | Qwertii | Did you verify this data? Some of it seems to be incorrect. |
| 2 | 2018-01-21 03:02:30 UTC | CloCkWeRX | That... should probably be reverted. Orrong Road as 60? Maybe, but the rest? | |
| 3 | 2018-01-21 04:14:09 UTC | Qwertii | This user seems to enter a lot of incorrect data using streetcomplete and doesn't reply to comments. | |
| 4 | 2018-01-25 22:46:19 UTC | triducsuz | Hello to all,I will only respond to this matter out of all the alleged "issues" being flagged. I am new to this and only an occasional user. Not good at this and I was trying to learn it and add valued input. If you are flagging my inputs as issues, then I suppose you must have better ... | |
| 5 | 2018-01-30 10:18:57 UTC | SomeoneElse | Hi triducsuz - thanks for your reply. If you're using StreetComplete presumably you can say "yes, I've been to Lansdowne Road (just to pick an example), and the speed limit really is 60 all the way along it"? Or did you perhaps make a mistake? It's useful to fill in tags such as surface... | |
| 55368103 by Jonas Sonne | 1 | 2018-01-12 02:28:56 UTC | tonyf1 | Hi. You have mapped a shop=alcohol named Ron Gol Station. There's nothing there and an unlikely place for a shop to have been built since the last satellite photo. There is a farm nearby. What were you intending to map and what is your data source? Thanks. |
| 2 | 2018-01-14 06:57:45 UTC | CloCkWeRX | I think its meant to map the vineyard, see the "Ron Gol" farm POI further south. | |
| 3 | 2018-01-14 22:49:22 UTC | tonyf1 | Thanks CloCkWeRX. The Ron Gol Station node was moved south by user TheSwavu, renamed Ron Gol and retagged as a farm in Changeset #55374816 | |
| 54448421 by Robzilla666 | 1 | 2017-12-27 04:07:58 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Nice work on the housing! Another new user in your area has been doing a bit around Flaxmill Road/Southern Expressway. I reckon we could map out all of Christie Downs between flaxmill/gulfview and the river in the next few days with a bit of collaboration! |
| 2 | 2017-12-31 03:30:39 UTC | Robzilla666 | yeah, sounds like a plan :) | |
| 25195852 by nickbarker | 1 | 2017-12-23 09:19:01 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Mead street trail seemed quite different on the ground - is this from survey? |
| 54422071 by corvus_coronoides | 1 | 2017-12-07 17:48:31 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Nice work over the past few days :)With building tracing, its a bit more tedious but you want to try and match the roofline shape as much as possible - take a bit of a look at say City of Geelong.Luckily for new developments like this, a lot of the housing is actually built to the same desig... |
| 2 | 2017-12-08 04:15:11 UTC | corvus_coronoides | Understood :) I assumed for small buildings, like houses, a rectangular approximation would suffice. But I'll tidy them up before moving on. Thanks for the tip. | |
| 54307835 by Didz | 1 | 2017-12-04 04:20:29 UTC | CloCkWeRX | With a lot of these, whacking '50' indicates its a maxspeed from a sign; but there's another option around "there is no sign" which applies the 'default maxspeed for the country' which is a bit more useful if it changes by legislation. |
| 2 | 2017-12-13 16:15:53 UTC | Didz | I realised this and it is a pain to set there is no sign in StreetComplete so I will just focus on known signed roads and "40 area" posted boundaries. | |
| 15713816 by BRAGGANSTREPRESENTIMWATCHINGKLAÜS | 1 | 2017-11-29 08:18:09 UTC | CloCkWeRX | These seem to be residential housing |
| 53493615 by MapAnalyser465 | 1 | 2017-11-27 03:58:09 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Aitken Boulevard is visible now on Esri imagery at zoom 19, appears to be dual direction road |
| 54092668 by Leon K | 1 | 2017-11-26 23:42:45 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Ugh, when I added it originally it would have been for the boat shop on the corner of Tapleys/Old Port Road, and I've assumed it the commercial area stopped at Hardy Street |
| 2 | 2017-11-27 00:08:21 UTC | Leon K | No worries, might be worth adding a node but i've no idea what you'd use, shop=chandler, shop=marine and even shop=boat all exist but no one seems to use them much, | |
| 53279485 by GK1 | 1 | 2017-11-23 15:24:52 UTC | Didz | Construction is full on here now hey. |
| 2 | 2017-11-24 10:46:32 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Worth marking landuse=construction? | |
| 3 | 2017-11-24 10:53:22 UTC | Didz | Yes, I actually took a photo of the large project information sign on site that had a map on it a while ago I forgot about. It's now a residential area with new streets too. | |
| 4 | 2017-11-28 11:20:27 UTC | Didz | I've added detail now. | |
| 53545550 by atschulz7 | 1 | 2017-11-06 06:26:53 UTC | tonyf1 | Hi. You are editing a public map that lots of people depend on. Please stop adding imaginary features. |
| 2 | 2017-11-06 09:57:05 UTC | CloCkWeRX | At this point, I'm inclined to suggest reverting - this area had a whole lot of other fictional edits around ~2 years ago, its odd that it attracts them or its the same user with a new account vandalising. | |
| 3 | 2017-11-06 23:03:40 UTC | tonyf1 | Hi atschulz7, I'm sorry but I had to revert all your edits. OSM is for mapping real things only. | |
| 52997127 by Steve Rowe | 1 | 2017-10-17 01:01:27 UTC | CloCkWeRX | With this one, we can maybe add two points (Yangoora, the Restaurant; and Anderson Hill, the Winery) - what do you think? |
| 48456822 by TheHammer | 1 | 2017-10-06 06:37:40 UTC | CloCkWeRX | You might be interested in improveosm.org, which has a lot of GPS traces for roads - you've managed to get to a few of them, but plenty more in the area :) |
| 2 | 2017-10-06 07:30:41 UTC | TheHammer | Actually, ehm, this changeset was made via improveosm.org | |
| 51989970 by Wild Willy | 1 | 2017-09-29 01:02:35 UTC | CloCkWeRX | I'm going to revert this, as it has marked a whole town as an amenity=toilet |
| 49382077 by Humberto_Yances | 1 | 2017-09-28 02:29:00 UTC | CloCkWeRX | It's probably better to model a number of these as residential road or minor/unclassified road; with surface unpaved |
| 52319831 by samuelrussell | 1 | 2017-09-26 14:40:20 UTC | Harald Hartmann | Hello samuelrussell. At http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5125789083 you have tagged `road_sign:backward` instead of `traffic_sign:backward`, right? #typo |
| 2 | 2017-09-27 02:59:18 UTC | CloCkWeRX | I've tagged this as au:R2-20 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_Australia) | |
| 3 | 2017-09-27 03:41:03 UTC | samuelrussell | Great work! But how do we deal with W1-1 and W1-1 having the same code but being left and right turns respectively? | |
| 4 | 2017-09-27 23:57:21 UTC | TheSwavu | 1. W1-1(L) and W1-1(R). Sometimes written as W1-1L but more common to have parentheses.2. alpha-2 codes are upper-case so AU not au.3. Rather than "road_sign:backward" would be better as a note. | |
| 48837029 by cleary | 1 | 2017-09-26 03:03:31 UTC | CloCkWeRX | https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4865716957 and many of the others on this way seem to be duplicated nodes nowhttps://www.keepright.at/report_map.php?schema=50&error=103611445 |
| 2 | 2017-09-26 08:33:08 UTC | cleary | The way is actually the administrative boundary and is not necessarily that of the river. Another user added the "river" tag to the administrative boundary (which is an approximation) instead of mapping the actual river. I will contact the mapper and ask about mapping the river separately,... | |
| 52135309 by pergolassydneyauthority | 1 | 2017-09-19 00:06:07 UTC | aharvey | Hi, welcome to OSM.I think it's appropriate to add office=it, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:office.Also the format for the phone number is described at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:phone#Usage it needs the +61 country code. |
| 2 | 2017-09-19 02:42:54 UTC | CloCkWeRX | It's better to trace the individual building outline, not the entire block of land.I'm going to wager that it would be very difficult to or even impossible to confirm this via survey as a web design office, I tend to prefer to leave this kind of detail off the map | |
| 51924861 by Chunkit Ng | 1 | 2017-09-11 05:32:17 UTC | nevw | Would you care to elaborate why you deleted the poi with comment "delete useless Poi"I don't see any sign that you are improving the map with updated or improved mapping for the area. |
| 2 | 2017-09-11 06:19:39 UTC | CloCkWeRX | It seems like this should definitely be reverted; some of those appear to be useful internal POI. | |
| 3 | 2017-09-13 10:17:48 UTC | nevw | no response - reverted mass deletion of poi | |
| 51924320 by Arturo Carbajal | 1 | 2017-09-11 04:39:35 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Landuse=residential is more appropriate, I've fixed this now |
| 46798498 by erickdeoliveiraleal | 1 | 2017-09-06 04:49:42 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Hi, Way 428124147 looks very different to the available imagery from all providers; are you sure its correct? If so, is it from survey or another source? |
| 2 | 2017-09-06 13:39:54 UTC | erickdeoliveiraleal | You can see it in DigitalGlobal/ESRI | |
| 3 | 2017-09-08 04:02:21 UTC | CloCkWeRX | No problems; I must have accidentally been looking at digitalglobe premium/mapbox/bing only; though thought I checked the other layers. | |
| 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 | |
| 51735532 by mangrove group | 1 | 2017-09-05 03:40:24 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Hi!Thanks for contributing. With buildings, we tend to trace the roofline of the building - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Buildings talks a bit about how to do it.You've done the land around the house, which isn't necessarily wrong - but you might want to tag these as 'residential landuse... |
| 51735204 by Geoglyph | 1 | 2017-09-05 03:15:46 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Hi, welcome to openstreetmap. Avoid adding information that can't be verified on the ground by survey, such as events ("X happened here", "Bought Y from here"). |
| 51735432 by Matt J Kamp | 1 | 2017-09-05 03:04:10 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Hi!Nice work on tracing the buildings. One thing to keep in mind is we don't tend to put people's names in or other personal data - I'll just edit those out now. Keep it up! |
| 2 | 2017-09-05 03:05:08 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Oops, that might not have even been you adding the names on houses, my bad! | |
| 51326647 by Mjlotjc | 1 | 2017-08-23 22:14:26 UTC | Warin61 | HiYou have Way 479420783 tagged as industrial power plant yet the imagery shows a parking lot. You have that tagged on Way: 71190511. So what it is? If the parking lot is on top of the power plant then use the layer tag to indicate it? |
| 2 | 2017-08-24 05:13:31 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Maybe its confused with Southbank Zone Substation; which is nearby? | |
| 51267379 by grimpring | 1 | 2017-08-21 03:15:03 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Might be best to tag the overall relation as a cycleway/cycle route; so it shows up on https://www.opencyclemap.org/ better |
| 50877988 by Katie_gray | 1 | 2017-08-07 22:45:26 UTC | Warin61 | Hi,I think you are mapping the buildings? This is done from the roof outline and they are tagged building= See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building The name=* is not used to describe an object - that is a no no. See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only... |
| 2 | 2017-08-08 03:55:37 UTC | CloCkWeRX | I've cleaned up a few of these - thanks for the effort, and welcome to OSM! You might be interested in using the 'square' tool in ID to make neater outsides, you can access it via right clicking or using 'S' as a shortcut key.As others have said, if you type 'House' into the search box on th... | |
| 50732936 by Farras | 1 | 2017-08-06 13:15:06 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Hi! You might be interested in improve-osm.org or the JOSM plugins for it to find unmapped roads in this area |
| 50799344 by ouchjars | 1 | 2017-08-03 12:44:35 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Hard to decide if this is a Sidewalk, or a Pedestrian area - its all kind of paved and merged together with the benches ontop of it. |
| 2 | 2017-08-05 12:07:08 UTC | ouchjars | Makes sense. I made the Kintore Ave-Pulteney St consistent with the KWS-Kintore Ave section for the time being. | |
| 50768077 by Silvia_ed | 1 | 2017-08-02 03:40:36 UTC | CloCkWeRX | You might be interested in tagging individual turbines (visible on digital globe imagery) - http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5008627113 is an example |
| 50768213 by Rafaelparra | 1 | 2017-08-02 03:38:55 UTC | CloCkWeRX | With this, I traced roughly where the whole business is and moved the address/business name tags to that, left the building attributes on the buildings. |
| 37927047 by Original RMN not the fake - RMN | 1 | 2017-07-24 06:51:11 UTC | CloCkWeRX | With a lot of these, I marked them as a delivery company office or similar |
| 46153099 by MajorChuck | 1 | 2017-04-17 06:18:23 UTC | Warin61 | Errr ...Removed a node from relation 6987348 - parking .. node is on a street outside the parking area. This now looks reasonable. Way: 475189238 - parking ... looks bad. Please take a look at it. I have removed some nodes from it .. one of them the same one as the above parking relation. |
| 2 | 2017-07-24 04:12:29 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Fixed | |
| 50420114 by Braddles | 1 | 2017-07-20 06:00:04 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap :)I changed this from a 'path' to a driveway, and added the houses either side.You might like to add addresses on the individual houses instead of the driveway itself - that will make it show up in navigation apps and similar that use OSM. |
| 46570209 by Mikideez | 1 | 2017-07-19 05:40:19 UTC | CloCkWeRX | The prision is available on digital globe, and appears substantially constructed now |
| 44744415 by HCoz | 1 | 2017-07-13 01:33:13 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Should probably be building=hospital if its still a hospital, or building = yes if its not anymore |
| 50196723 by nevw | 1 | 2017-07-12 12:46:56 UTC | CloCkWeRX | This is actually Beech Avenue according to http://maps.sa.gov.au/plb/ (that is powered by the same data as is on data.sa.gov.au; which we have explicit permission to use) |
| 2 | 2017-07-12 13:05:12 UTC | nevw | Well spotted. | |
| 50191475 by Ok DaRa | 1 | 2017-07-11 06:51:13 UTC | nevw | The OpenStreetMap is not suitable for adding personal details like "Home in AEU" |
| 2 | 2017-07-12 09:00:53 UTC | CloCkWeRX | I've removed this for now as it seems very unlikely to be an actual confectionery store | |
| 3 | 2017-07-12 09:36:18 UTC | nevw | ThanksOk DaRa uses that pretty icon for most edits :/ | |
| 50164853 by DavidJH | 1 | 2017-07-10 19:52:13 UTC | yurasi | Hi DavidJHThanks for contributing to OSM. I noticed that you was added highways that not coincide with Bing imagery. Could you share the source you used? |
| 2 | 2017-07-10 23:25:35 UTC | DavidJH | Hi the source is satellite view of google maps. | |
| 3 | 2017-07-12 08:51:15 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Unfortunately that's copyrighted / not compatible with the OpenStreetMap licencing. | |
| 4 | 2017-07-12 08:58:43 UTC | CloCkWeRX | I've removed the service roads for now; we'll add a user note to recheck this when LPI imagery catches up to whats on the ground. | |
| 41867680 by Netto54 | 1 | 2017-07-11 09:39:15 UTC | aharvey | I've changed https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4380628789/history to use club=sport rather than shop=sport |
| 2 | 2017-07-11 09:39:36 UTC | aharvey | What's https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4380573190 ? | |
| 3 | 2017-07-12 03:14:21 UTC | CloCkWeRX | I think its better tagged as https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dfitness_station | |
| 4 | 2017-07-12 03:14:55 UTC | CloCkWeRX | SOme detail on it - http://www.haveyoursaywilloughby.com.au/gore-hill-exercise-equipment | |
| 5 | 2017-07-12 03:44:15 UTC | aharvey | I'll do a ground survey to confirm its a fitness station. I thought they might be adding some kind of fitness club which is run there. | |
| 44217086 by krl0z | 1 | 2017-07-05 09:41:47 UTC | CloCkWeRX | You might be interested in https://improveosm.org/#background=Bing&id=w458133607&map=16.64/25.85501/-100.14083 - you can see a lot of roads in the new residential area |
| 50021929 by _ThePieman_ | 1 | 2017-07-04 05:29:56 UTC | CloCkWeRX | With the Dick Smith shop, shop=vacant might be better tagging |
| 38015404 by dmilanovski | 1 | 2017-06-27 07:29:47 UTC | CloCkWeRX | I've fleshed out some of the newly visible roads in the development via digitalglobe imagery, but if you are in the area and can survey the names of some of them, that'd be handy! |
| 40050017 by porjo | 1 | 2017-06-27 07:13:08 UTC | CloCkWeRX | I added some of the roads being built visible in Digitalglobe imagery, but its far from well mapped. If you are familar with the area, did you want to have a look and possibly survey the current state? |
| 49789774 by _ThePieman_ | 1 | 2017-06-25 11:26:01 UTC | CloCkWeRX | With the playground on the beach, is that actually a playground? Imagery doesn't show it; and I don't recall seeing anything like that last time I was in that area... |
| 49786265 by _ThePieman_ | 1 | 2017-06-25 11:20:26 UTC | CloCkWeRX | With the buildings, try the 'S' shortcut to 'square' them (or right click, 'square') - can help get the edges.You can also disconnect houses from each other if they "snap" together accidentally. |
| 49761815 by Qwertii | 1 | 2017-06-23 08:07:35 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Is it better to maybe leave the address tags in place? I tend to use shop=vacant |
| 2 | 2017-06-23 13:57:27 UTC | Qwertii | Wasn't any address tags on it so nothing really of value left, I'll update it with whatever pops up there later though | |
| 49760308 by astonvilla91 | 1 | 2017-06-23 08:00:08 UTC | CloCkWeRX | You can see the actual buildings on the digital globe imagery (map layers -> background -> digital globe standard).I added the buildings as big 'blobs', you might like to add address points in if you know them |
| 2 | 2017-11-23 15:07:05 UTC | Didz | Bing also has updated imagery.Keep up the good work. | |
| 41994686 by Omegaville | 1 | 2017-06-21 05:37:18 UTC | CloCkWeRX | I've updated from newer imagery, if you know the road names/can survey around there that'd be helpful :) |
| 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! | |
| 49261124 by volpecurtains | 1 | 2017-06-05 23:29:07 UTC | aharvey | I wonder if this was entered by the business or by a 3rd party SEO business. Either way please these on how to tag accepted payments and opening hours:https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:paymenthttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:opening_hoursas the way you've entered them isn't ... |
| 2 | 2017-06-06 05:36:42 UTC | CloCkWeRX | I tweaked the tagging | |
| 29445769 by captain_slow | 1 | 2017-06-05 12:50:34 UTC | CloCkWeRX | A strava user says: "L'itinéraire ne passe pas par la route. Il coupe au travers la foret au lieu de suivre la route. Il n'y a pas de sentier de foret à cet endroit. Merci de corriger ce problème. " |
| 2 | 2017-06-05 13:00:24 UTC | captain_slow | can you provide a link to this problem on strava or put an osm note to the exact position of the problem? i think the osm note would be better because local mapper could see it (i am not a local mapper). unfortunately it is not very clear from your message where the problem exactly is.cheers | |
| 3 | 2017-06-05 13:06:26 UTC | CloCkWeRX | http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/391524290 - this section of path between the two roads is where they indicated. | |
| 4 | 2017-06-05 13:15:07 UTC | captain_slow | thank you for the clarification, i have put a note there because i am not familiar with the situation there.http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1020031 | |
| 49259727 by toxicantidote | 1 | 2017-06-05 09:24:55 UTC | nevw | These is no reason to delete these private roads which someone else has mapped. The information provided may serve the company staff and visitors quite well. You should instead add the tag access=no or access=private.http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access |
| 2 | 2017-06-05 10:33:46 UTC | toxicantidote | Noted. The location of these roads was incorrect anyway following a 2015 redevelopment.I'll try and update these more appropriately. | |
| 3 | 2017-06-05 12:01:10 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Have tweaked this a little further, based on DigitalGlobe imagery | |
| 49255400 by nrs1958 | 1 | 2017-06-05 03:53:45 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Interesting, I can see it on plb.sa.gov.au imageery but its not named yet.Do you know if its stage 2 or stage 3 of the development (http://www.news.com.au/national/south-australia/developer-veritas-liberte-marketing-delbridge-court-beaumont-to-chinese-buyers/news-story/3934815c5eaca3d851763b6c2... |
| 2 | 2017-06-06 11:29:54 UTC | nrs1958 | Not sure of status of development. Just drove that road the other day. I agree it appears the road may not yet be officially named. My guess it will be continuation of Delbridge but will amend if necessary. | |
| 49121071 by KNAPPO | 1 | 2017-05-31 03:59:27 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Does it need some kind of theme park tagging? |
| 2 | 2017-05-31 04:05:22 UTC | KNAPPO | Ive just added the name "Waterworld" to the building as it seemed the most appropriate place for a name marker. | |
| 49090054 by Malco! | 1 | 2017-05-30 06:22:03 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Is there a retaining wall or similar we should tag with waterway=dam near the spillway? |
| 47580891 by jorvime | 1 | 2017-05-26 02:21:25 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Howdy, can you add to the note on http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/909844#map=18/-30.63522/152.97526&layers=N ? Its a bit hard to tell the current state when looking at LPI imagery |
| 37623631 by Leon K | 1 | 2017-05-24 05:04:30 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Thoughts on classification of Ringwood Bypass (http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/979260) ? |
| 37452764 by rolandmwagner | 1 | 2017-05-24 04:56:10 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Howdy, thoughts on http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/909840 ? |
| 43110595 by Pizza1016 | 1 | 2016-10-23 22:26:17 UTC | Pizza1016 | Oops, got a little too trigger-happy with the upload button. Meant to say in edit summary: "Minor fixes to existing data" |
| 2 | 2017-05-24 03:58:16 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Hey, are you able to weigh in on http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/785503 ? | |
| 3 | 2017-05-24 04:21:40 UTC | Pizza1016 | Yup that should have been split. Fixed now. | |
| 37754429 by TheSwavu | 1 | 2017-05-24 03:30:12 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Howdy, thoughts on http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/909840 ? |
| 2 | 2017-05-24 03:56:17 UTC | TheSwavu | Not really. Might want to ask the original mapper:https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/37452764 | |
| 48929878 by Midliel | 1 | 2017-05-24 02:55:45 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Ah nice work, I never quite manage to get all of the addresses while travelling along here. Welcome [back to] OSM! |
| 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 | |
| 48666453 by triducsuz | 1 | 2017-05-15 03:17:25 UTC | Qwertii | Where are you sourcing this information from? Two of the tracks you have marked as asphalt look very much like dirt/gravel from satellite images. |
| 2 | 2017-05-17 06:23:46 UTC | CloCkWeRX | The one near heatherbank is definately loose gravel/dirt; from survey. Its easy to accidentally get a bit carried away with street complete and harder to undo mistakes. | |
| 48716896 by KNAPPO | 1 | 2017-05-16 03:15:03 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Ah nice work. If you like, I can help flesh out a bit of Wingfield, Dry Creek, Gepps Cross area |
| 48520531 by Phillip Jubb | 1 | 2017-05-13 12:02:15 UTC | CloCkWeRX | There's better imagery available in the Digitalglobe Standard layer |
| 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. | |
| 48493866 by Qwertii | 1 | 2017-05-08 12:58:25 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Any chance the rug place is "Hali Rugs" rather than Rugs Hall? |
| 2 | 2017-05-09 07:37:20 UTC | Qwertii | Yeah looks like it is, You can see how I got the two mixed up though https://i.imgur.com/KynzHHX.png | |
| 48117974 by ivanvanann | 1 | 2017-04-26 07:37:03 UTC | tonyf1 | Are you sure there is a shop here? There's nothing in the sat photo. |
| 2 | 2017-04-27 00:32:51 UTC | CloCkWeRX | I think its http://winetasmania.com.au/east_coast_wine_route/listing/devils_corner_cellar_door_lookout | |
| 3 | 2017-04-27 07:13:33 UTC | tonyf1 | Thanks. Then I suspect the correct placement is 1km south, near viewpoint #2283984229 and "Corner Tasman Highway and Sherbourne Road" | |
| 29736262 by karitotp | 1 | 2017-04-26 03:41:42 UTC | CloCkWeRX | This unfortunately seems very offset from GPS traces (see improve-osm.org) and imagery (which aligns to the improve-osm.org gps traces. Is it worth moving everything in one go? |
| 2 | 2017-04-27 23:38:27 UTC | karitotp | Hi CloCkWeRX,That seems to be one of my first editions in OSM, i am wondering if the imagery have been updated for that area or if I used a different source, because I do not understand which was the reason for the offset from the imagery.Anyway, thank you for notifying me about this. I see that... | |
| 19756287 by Softgrow | 1 | 2017-04-15 11:41:09 UTC | CloCkWeRX | http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/254751950 might not quite exist, isn't in http://maps.sa.gov.au/plb/ - have taken it out for now. |
| 47684752 by Pizzicato Wolf | 1 | 2017-04-15 01:12:06 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Nice work! If there's a particular area you'd like to flesh out a bit, more than happy to help (particularly roads with shops/other POI on them) - have done a bit around Glenside for example. |
| 47767444 by Rebecca Buser | 1 | 2017-04-15 01:09:10 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Adelaide railway station seems to be duplicated in this one.Bit hard to decide if airbnbs are tourist accomodation or not. |
| 47557891 by Qwertii | 1 | 2017-04-08 12:35:38 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Oh, let me see what's on my bike camera from today, rode around a bunch of Glenelg... will upload to mapillary |
| 2 | 2017-04-08 13:35:28 UTC | Qwertii | That would be sweet, loads of stores around here that need to be added. | |
| 46947849 by Shanegemhunter | 1 | 2017-03-19 00:30:55 UTC | nevw | Welcome to the Openstreetmap.orgYou have added a few shop=bookmaker to the map where none exist.Are you able to correct these edits in the 2 changesets you have uploaded? |
| 2 | 2017-04-03 05:05:37 UTC | CloCkWeRX | These are now removed | |
| 46947995 by Shanegemhunter | 1 | 2017-04-03 05:04:46 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Removed these, there's no evidence of any of them from imagery. |
| 47246789 by Shanegemhunter | 1 | 2017-04-03 05:03:36 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Removed this, its not verifiable |
| 47168855 by Shanegemhunter | 1 | 2017-04-03 05:03:29 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Removed this, its not verifiable |
| 47372202 by Shanegemhunter | 1 | 2017-04-03 02:37:48 UTC | tonyf1 | HiYou continue to add features which do not seem to exist. Maybe you are not aware you are editing a public map? Please reply to this comment as well as one two weeks ago.Thanks |
| 2 | 2017-04-03 05:02:21 UTC | CloCkWeRX | I removed this. | |
| 33522800 by InExtremis_an | 1 | 2017-03-26 12:14:09 UTC | CloCkWeRX | I think some of these buildings are double mapped; its a bit hard to tell which is the more accurate changeset |
| 47114178 by igbert | 1 | 2017-03-26 09:59:42 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Ah thanks for fixing that up, and welcome to OSM! |
| 30346989 by ruthmaben | 1 | 2017-03-23 02:47:16 UTC | CloCkWeRX | What's the source for these, bing doesn't appear to have the buildings.Unfortunately a lot of these seem duplicated as well; and I can't pick which is the most accurate version |
| 2 | 2017-03-23 12:40:56 UTC | srividya_c | Hi CloCkWeRX,Thank you for flagging this changeset. We have reverted changeset 30347008 which created the duplicates and cleaned up the area. The main source we used to trace these buildings was Mapbox Imagery. As a local mapper, it would be great if you verify these buildings existence ... | |
| 3 | 2017-03-25 10:43:19 UTC | CloCkWeRX | The current mapbox imagery seems to be blank, which is weird. Non free imagery suggests they do exist though. | |
| 21565224 by Leon K | 1 | 2017-03-23 22:49:14 UTC | Warin61 | Why layer=1 for these buildings? At the moment relationship 6592787 has 3 of these buildings .. all layer=1 ... and they over lap one another ... so in order to 'fix' the problem I'd like to understand the use of the layer tag here. |
| 2 | 2017-03-23 23:01:33 UTC | Leon K | Hi, not sure about the layer tag to be honest, I can't remember a specific reason for it. The reason for the three spearate parts is they are different heights and colours. It's part of the 3d tagging. The layer isn't associated with that but might be because of the underground car park. | |
| 3 | 2017-03-25 10:40:17 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Better to model the different chunks as building:part I reckon; and the building 'footprint' as a building.A bit hard to get them all in a relation properly with ID; dunno about other editors | |
| 4 | 2017-03-25 11:01:36 UTC | Warin61 | Interesting and dynamic architecture is hard to map... particularly from satellite imagery! :) Don't think any of the 2D editors handle it well. Now if we modeled the world in solid modeler? :)))My thinking at the moment is to map it by the roof over laps .. at least that is visible from the image... | |
| 5 | 2017-03-25 11:14:12 UTC | Leon K | I've been there plenty of times, only issue I can see was one overlap, which i've just removed. Hopefully that solves whatever error you're seeing. | |
| 6 | 2017-03-25 11:16:06 UTC | Leon K | A single building and building parts might work better, might look into that. 3D tagging isn't so bad, eventually you learn how to see the result from the tags. | |
| 7 | 2017-03-26 00:41:27 UTC | Warin61 | Thanks Leon. I'll have a look at it later .. There should be a method of tagging the roof too so that they don't clash. | |
| 45625260 by itzcorbinn | 1 | 2017-03-21 06:11:03 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Its probably better to map the individual cafes/restaurants as points |
| 40792459 by TheOldMiner | 1 | 2017-03-21 05:30:07 UTC | CloCkWeRX | With http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/431490830 I dropped it to landuse=commercial only, so that the individual buildings inside of it wouldn't overlap. |
| 44614403 by cameror lhpq | 1 | 2017-03-21 05:19:57 UTC | CloCkWeRX | This area might need a bit of cleanup to match the bing imagery available - its close, but not quite right.You might be interested to find the 'square' tool, or shortcut key = S in ID; which makes it a lot easy to get neat looking buildings.I've tweaked this a bit to remove overlaps |
| 46566316 by nibennett | 1 | 2017-03-17 02:48:40 UTC | CloCkWeRX | What's the source of this change, it doesn't match Bing, Mapbox or even some non-free aerial imagery very well |
| 2 | 2017-03-17 02:51:52 UTC | nibennett | The source is the developer of the estates maps, (I'm someone who has bought a block in the estate) I mapped out the whole estate on the developers maps since none of the other imagery is up to date yet | |
| 3 | 2017-03-17 03:47:56 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Ah hah. Probably shouldn't go from the potentially copyrighted developer maps; but since you've got a block there you've probably surveyed it directly :)Nice work on the detail around freeling and other areas, welcome to OSM! | |
| 4 | 2017-03-17 04:47:08 UTC | nibennett | Fair enough. Yeah I've definitely seen it all just used their map of it that they gave us to help do it when I was at the computer. Thanks | |
| 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) |
| 45465693 by nibennett | 1 | 2017-03-17 03:09:46 UTC | CloCkWeRX | This one is a bit odd, its not really a reservoir like a farm dam so much as an emergency? drainage area... and if the water was that close to the road/houses, would be a bit of a problem. May better as https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Ddrain for the main 'drain' part of it (centre/... |
| 46889500 by cleary | 1 | 2017-03-16 11:10:35 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Ah nice, we did some work to add names, but not so much work to find the ones that were slightly off from data.sa.gov.au info |
| 2 | 2017-03-17 04:50:48 UTC | cleary | Thanks for the feedback. | |
| 35547747 by Josh_G | 1 | 2017-03-15 23:52:02 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Ah nice, hadn't spotted the building mapping in Gawler! Will chip in a few hours to it at some point |
| 45592770 by tobster1013 | 1 | 2017-03-15 13:22:22 UTC | CloCkWeRX | This seems to have broken the Largs Bay admin boundary, and turned it into a highway, going to revert in a bit |
| 2 | 2017-03-15 23:28:19 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Alright, that's reverted now - the blue line through the park was actually an administrative boundary, not quite sure why it looked like a road | |
| 46698246 by Lee Drury | 1 | 2017-03-09 04:11:29 UTC | Martini097 | you've added the tag building=yes to some large areas of land that are also tagged landuse=commercial. the normal convention is to only place the tag building=yes on specific/individual buildings and not large areas. the tagging of landuse=commercial is enough to let people know that there will be b... |
| 2 | 2017-03-10 01:11:52 UTC | Lee Drury | Right, so if an area already has building=yes and it is a commercial property I would also tag as landuse=commercial?And if there is an area that is a known as landuse=commercial but lacks individually tagged buildings, I can designate the whole areas as landuse=commercial? | |
| 3 | 2017-03-11 08:36:25 UTC | CloCkWeRX | I've tweaked how http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/435898495 is modelled - tracing the individual buildings inside of it.It can be a little tricky with the ID editor making some assumptions about something being a building, when you are tracing the whole area. | |
| 46699348 by Shiboopy | 1 | 2017-03-09 11:49:39 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Ah nice work! For the buildings, try the 'S' shortcut key to square them.Keep up the mapping! |
| 44395211 by Liquid_Plasma | 1 | 2017-03-08 08:38:59 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Ah nice, I hadn't noticed the house mapping you added - thanks! We've finally fleshed out around here almost completely. |
| 46515381 by Qwertii | 1 | 2017-03-02 12:28:29 UTC | CloCkWeRX | One thing I've been meaning to do more of is indoor mapping - room=shop (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:room) combined with POI tagging kind of thing - http://openlevelup.net/ shows the results. For places around Rundle Mall, it might be a handy tool |
| 2 | 2017-03-03 06:28:39 UTC | Qwertii | Oh cool, I was wondering how multilevel buildings would be mapped. | |
| 43687158 by Velo Mapper | 1 | 2017-02-20 02:35:07 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Is it Strickland or Strickleland? Through work we have some (non free) documentation that suggests its not Strickleland. |
| 46066364 by Pizzicato Wolf | 1 | 2017-02-14 01:51:43 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Ah nice work. You can use the 'S' shortcut to square buildings, which makes them a bit neater/easier to trace. Keep it up |
| 2 | 2017-02-14 03:11:38 UTC | Pizzicato Wolf | Thanks for the tip. I'll amend all of them now. | |
| 3 | 2017-02-14 03:11:45 UTC | Qwertii | Oh neat, I didn't know there was a shortcut for it. That will make things much faster. | |
| 45996110 by Andrew Pikot | 1 | 2017-02-12 23:23:39 UTC | aharvey | This looks like a residential home, is it really a cosmetics shop named "home"? |
| 2 | 2017-02-13 03:17:12 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Could have meant http://www.revivebeautyclinic.com.au/ (presumably at the shopping centre up the road); or maybe https://www.facebook.com/maryannesbeautypadstow/ ... but that's in a different spot. | |
| 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... | |
| 32901399 by Heino craft | 1 | 2017-02-10 06:37:31 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Good start on the housing in this area. I've used the 'square buildings' tool in ID (shortcut: S) to straighten up a few of these to better match the imagery. Keep it up |
| 43844810 by boldnesz | 1 | 2017-02-07 04:35:47 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Fairly sure the HJ's on Glen Osmond Road is a lot further south east |
| 2 | 2017-02-07 10:16:37 UTC | boldnesz | I'm pretty sure of this one. I had lunch there, it's next to the gas station.It maybe changed meanwhile or there is another HJ's at the place you're talking about | |
| 3 | 2017-02-07 23:52:26 UTC | CloCkWeRX | http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2597881208 is the existing petrol station/HJ's combination. https://www.hungryjacks.com.au/stores puts only one there. | |
| 45854559 by Qwertii | 1 | 2017-02-07 04:05:58 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Ah nice work! I've been vaguely meaning to trace more housing/farmland along Flaxley Road - keep it up :) |
| 45713659 by hryciuk | 1 | 2017-02-02 12:37:57 UTC | CloCkWeRX | If you are around there, any chance of grabbing street numbers along Smith Street? |
| 45697144 by Ballisticv | 1 | 2017-02-01 05:37:52 UTC | nevw | This edit is incorrect. You have changed place=locality to natural=water for Port Douglas. Do you want me to correct it or are you able to fix it? |
| 2 | 2017-02-01 12:59:06 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Reverted this one for the moment | |
| 32507634 by Chad Wamsley-Taylor | 1 | 2017-01-25 03:38:27 UTC | CloCkWeRX | This doesn't match imagery, or a lot of GPS traces from improve-osm - how certain are you of the GPS traces you used? |
| 2 | 2017-01-27 03:20:49 UTC | Chad Wamsley-Taylor | you might want to check any "updated" satellite imagery. I personally travel on this road at least once per week. you are looking at old imagery of the old road before construction was completed. Road is still accessible to Mine personal, which could explain updated GPS traces, Public have... | |
| 3 | 2017-01-27 05:29:55 UTC | CloCkWeRX | > Road is still accessible to Mine personalMaybe that bit could be tagged with highway=service access=private or similar?Are you able to upload your GPS traces into OSM by any chance?The data in improveosm.org is fairly dense and recent - 2016-8-23 2:55:34, 9+ trips/50 gps points per ti... | |
| 4 | 2017-01-27 05:34:31 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Looking at non-free imagery, I can see the new road - I might just re-add the old one with appropriate tagging/notes | |
| 5 | 2017-01-27 05:37:35 UTC | Chad Wamsley-Taylor | The road has been physically blocked off at the northern end, so only accessible by mine authorized vehicles, GPS tracks could have been a external float carrying mine equipment in from mine site. road is all overgrown. can't upload our GPS tracks unfortunately. | |
| 6 | 2017-01-27 05:43:10 UTC | Chad Wamsley-Taylor | its also blocked off at the south, at Railway crossing, no Physical connection at either end to Peak Downs Mine Road | |
| 45458629 by Hiimbraydon | 1 | 2017-01-26 08:37:01 UTC | nevw | This appears to be a residential area and you have mapped a river, pier, water??Has this much development occurred recently? This is a public map. |
| 2 | 2017-01-26 12:21:52 UTC | CloCkWeRX | There's no river in Sunbury, I think its safe to say this can be reverted | |
| 3 | 2017-01-26 12:39:03 UTC | nevw | Deleted now | |
| 32200880 by Zhent | 1 | 2017-01-14 11:52:39 UTC | CloCkWeRX | I've checked a lot of these against LPI basemap imagery, and most are pretty accurate. A few (Evergreen Drive) aren't in LPI; suggesting maybe the master plan was revised. Are you able to find out if anything has been dropped from the development? |
| 2 | 2017-01-15 06:36:10 UTC | Zhent | Not sure. I would recommend on the ground surveys as the best way to keep up from here on out. | |
| 21594756 by vanessalaro | 1 | 2017-01-09 03:52:14 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Hi - http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/273080558 doesn't appear on bing imagery or mapbox imagery, are you sure its right? |
| 44722191 by kidudjjwjwehxu | 1 | 2017-01-02 10:39:24 UTC | sb9576 | Please remove your graffiti. Any contributions you make to improve the OSM are most welcome, but your graffiti is not an improvement. |
| 2 | 2017-01-02 11:49:08 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Reverted, think thats all | |
| 44722240 by kidudjjwjwehxu | 1 | 2017-01-02 10:40:15 UTC | sb9576 | Please remove your graffiti. Any contributions you make to improve the OSM are most welcome, but your graffiti is not an improvement. |
| 2 | 2017-01-02 11:48:11 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Reverted | |
| 44816515 by kidudjjwjwehxu | 1 | 2017-01-02 10:37:48 UTC | sb9576 | Please remove your graffiti. Any contributions you make to improve the OSM are most welcome, but your graffiti is not an improvement. |
| 2 | 2017-01-02 11:46:37 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Reverted | |
| 44722258 by kidudjjwjwehxu | 1 | 2017-01-02 10:40:52 UTC | sb9576 | Please remove your graffiti. Any contributions you make to improve the OSM are most welcome, but your graffiti is not an improvement. |
| 2 | 2017-01-02 11:44:34 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Reverted | |
| 44722266 by kidudjjwjwehxu | 1 | 2017-01-02 10:41:30 UTC | sb9576 | Please remove your graffiti. Any contributions you make to improve the OSM are most welcome, but your graffiti is not an improvement. |
| 2 | 2017-01-02 11:43:23 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Reverted | |
| 44722276 by kidudjjwjwehxu | 1 | 2017-01-02 10:41:57 UTC | sb9576 | Please remove your graffiti. Any contributions you make to improve the OSM are most welcome, but your graffiti is not an improvement. |
| 2 | 2017-01-02 11:41:47 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Reverted | |
| 44816501 by kidudjjwjwehxu | 1 | 2017-01-02 10:42:37 UTC | sb9576 | Please remove your graffiti. Any contributions you make to improve the OSM are most welcome, but your graffiti is not an improvement. |
| 2 | 2017-01-02 11:40:56 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Reverted | |
| 39701720 by keeponpedalling | 1 | 2016-12-31 02:16:26 UTC | keeponpedalling | A deleted section of track named 'Creek Loop' is visible in strava mapping. It is an obsolete section that I deleted some time ago but I can't figure out how to deleted it from strava. If someone can help it would be appreciated.Thanks |
| 2 | 2017-01-01 10:26:07 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Strava will (eventually) update, though it may take a number on months | |
| 44677015 by tycoonz | 1 | 2017-01-01 03:59:26 UTC | CloCkWeRX | With these, it's probably better to tag them as 'sidewalk'. https://www.mapbox.com/blog/mapping-sidewalks/ talks about it a bit in detail |
| 44780775 by Antony333 | 1 | 2017-01-01 03:21:07 UTC | CloCkWeRX | I've tweaked how these are modelled - leisure=pitch and sport=tennis for example are a bit better. Welcome to openstreetmap :) |
| 44103987 by Qwertii | 1 | 2016-12-03 23:24:18 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Ah nice work, I don't get up there to survey often enough |
| 2 | 2016-12-04 04:10:43 UTC | Qwertii | Im up in Aldgate most days. If there was a mobile editor that wasn't extremely difficult to use I would have added some more by now. | |
| 44128921 by Liquid_Plasma | 1 | 2016-12-03 23:22:02 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Nice work! I should probably expand the coverage of Glenelg down south till it meets up with your work |
| 28320164 by Yorx | 1 | 2016-11-19 09:45:17 UTC | CloCkWeRX | I don't see much GPS activity for http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/323574984 ; do you know if its accurate? Do you have any more information on the construction? |
| 35522157 by lcmortensen | 1 | 2016-11-17 14:36:17 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Its a bit hard to make sense of http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/247800173 - improve-osm suggests one set of GPS traces, strava heatmap another; neither are quite how its traced at the moment.http://strava.github.io/iD/#background=Mapbox&id=w247800173&map=17.06/174.05481/-41.60812htt... |
| 2 | 2016-11-19 00:32:32 UTC | lcmortensen | The road here was realigned in 2015 with the replacement of the Dashwood Pass rail overbridge (see https://www.nzta.govt.nz/projects/sh1-dashwood-rail-overbridge-replacement/). The current route is a best guess awaiting an accurate GPS trace. | |
| 22788688 by xtianetkti | 1 | 2016-11-14 11:07:16 UTC | CloCkWeRX | I updated a few roads like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/286706063 which seemed to have completed construction - do you know if the speed limit of 15km/h is still valid? Did you want to trace the other nearby areas just to the north as well? |
| 42305900 by stev | 1 | 2016-11-11 02:39:28 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Do you know if the road works have started or similar? There's no GPS traces via http://strava.github.io/iD/#background=Bing&id=w194715172&map=18.38/-0.55229/51.90851 yet, so I'm assuming its very early days |
| 37787713 by Glucosamine | 1 | 2016-11-11 02:37:37 UTC | CloCkWeRX | http://strava.github.io/iD/#background=Bing&map=17.64/-0.65949/51.99354 shows a bit of a different story with http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/46910762 - are you able to take a look with your knowledge of things on the ground and decide if that bridleway is right; or the gps trace a bit over fro... |
| 30490468 by NigelThornberry | 1 | 2016-11-10 04:01:45 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Hey, just wanted to say nice work with the house mapping around here!We use mapbox streets at work as a property industry company - http://imgur.com/a/CpPTU is what it looks like in our system.The stuff on the left, blurred, are recent sales along Danks street, which includes things like Lan... |
| 43433614 by Sam Carman | 1 | 2016-11-08 12:37:50 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Keep it up with the building mapping :) |
| 22647040 by bigalxyz123 | 1 | 2016-11-05 10:56:48 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Do you happen to know the surface of http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/243064597 ? From a strava user note: there is a route but it is not a official road more like a farm track and unsuitable for road bikes |
| 2 | 2016-11-05 11:13:08 UTC | bigalxyz123 | Hi - I had a look on Google Street View at both ends of the route. It's a narrow farm road but has a good surface. I've added it as a service road, but with the original footpath way still there in the same place. I'm never quite sure - with public footpaths that are also roads - what the best way t... | |
| 3 | 2016-11-07 08:03:21 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Track can be a good compromise in that case. | |
| 43044791 by deptho | 1 | 2016-11-07 03:20:14 UTC | CloCkWeRX | http://strava.github.io/iD/#background=Bing&map=18.15/-0.11229/50.98508 shows a bit better layout of some of the roads which you might be interested in |
| 41675069 by AlwynWellington | 1 | 2016-11-05 13:24:20 UTC | CloCkWeRX | I think this might have misaligned http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1684996913 |
| 32910775 by KikeTM | 1 | 2016-11-05 10:32:46 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Is this cycleway better modelled as part of the footpath, with bicycle=yes? http://strava.github.io/iD/#background=Bing&id=w362607270&map=19.54/-0.97000/37.59444 |
| 25744404 by aharvey | 1 | 2016-11-04 01:00:41 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Do you know if the bridge (see http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/771693) is actually there still? |
| 2 | 2016-11-04 03:46:09 UTC | aharvey | The bride is there but it's a pipeline not a footbridge. I've fixed this up via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/43394284.Not sure why it was marked as a path in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/38993006 | |
| 42722923 by Baconcrisp | 1 | 2016-10-29 12:02:43 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Do you know if http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/60703903 is a private road at all?A strava user reports: "Camino privado cerrado" |
| 2 | 2016-10-31 15:15:58 UTC | Baconcrisp | I'm not sure. | |
| 36233507 by Charles Murray | 1 | 2016-10-29 10:48:39 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Ah, thanks for adding Herron Todd White :) We're more of a valuation company though! |
| 15363567 by Fledge | 1 | 2016-10-27 04:56:37 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Hi, you might know if http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/762754 is resolvable or accurate |
| 2 | 2016-10-27 14:57:35 UTC | Fledge | Sorry, I just used OS OpenData Locator. They could be wrong, of course. | |
| 37910029 by fayor | 1 | 2016-10-27 04:45:19 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Do you know if the intersection at http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/614616601 is accurate? Imagery suggests something different to what is mapped.Strava users report: "it will always send me up this road against traffic. I must deviate around it one block and then cut over.", which I ... |
| 2 | 2016-10-27 13:36:15 UTC | fayor | A quanto mi risulta l'incrocio è mappato correttamente. L'immagine si riferisce a un periodo precedente. | |
| 39241078 by oglord | 1 | 2016-10-27 04:42:49 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Do you happen to know what the condition of http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/46707418 is on the ground?Strava users report a problem, and the heatmap suggests the imagery is out of date ... but you've mapped accurately to aerial imagery.http://strava.github.io/iD/#background=Bing&map=17.... |
| 2 | 2016-10-27 11:08:18 UTC | oglord | Yes the heatmap is correct. The cycle path has been realigned as per the Apple Maps aerial imagery. | |
| 42909719 by humin0129 | 1 | 2016-10-19 05:28:01 UTC | nevw | You are meant to enter the tags name=* in English in this country.If you want to add name=* in Chinese use name:zh=* instead. |
| 2 | 2016-10-19 23:28:12 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Lets revert the renames and move it to the right tags, I think! | |
| 3 | 2016-10-19 23:33:20 UTC | nevw | Agreed. | |
| 4 | 2016-10-19 23:49:54 UTC | CloCkWeRX | All sorted out; some merged with the better features, some removed. | |
| 38279670 by samsavvas | 1 | 2016-10-16 03:06:21 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Hi! I notice you've added a lot of notes for the bikeway; probably something more suited to a bike routing engine - are they in there for a specific purpose? |
| 2 | 2016-10-16 04:37:09 UTC | samsavvas | Hi, I'm afraid that this was an unsuccessful (or at least an uncompleted) experiment on my part to see if OSM could be used to develop a guide to the Outer Harbour Greenway. I'm very happy to remove these notes but I can't figure out how - any guidance would be appreciated. I have no real idea what ... | |
| 3 | 2016-10-16 21:14:01 UTC | CloCkWeRX | No probs, I can clean these up. A good end user routing engine would be something like Strava's route builder - lets you generate a course with elevation, based on popularity. Others: RideWithGPS, mapmyride, runkeeper, etc, though they dont use open data under the hood.http://wiki.openstreetmap.... | |
| 4 | 2016-10-16 22:26:15 UTC | samsavvas | Thanks a lot for these suggestions - I’ll follow them up and get back to this project. The PortBUG (of which I’m secretary) has had a long interest in providing maps and directions to using this Greenway for naive or younger users, principally because the Gov’t seems reluctant to d... | |
| 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 | |
| 22634422 by Sander H_BAG | 1 | 2016-10-15 10:45:29 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Strava user report - "Geen doorgaande weg (ook voor fietsers)" for http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/6869718 - but I'm not really sure if that means access private or something else. Do you happen to know? |
| 2 | 2016-10-15 14:54:06 UTC | Sander H | No idea, I only cleaned up an old tag on this road that originated from the AND import in 2006 while performing the BAG import cleanup steps in this area. Maybe it's better to add a note so that local mappers can check. | |
| 27853478 by Ronnie Nys | 1 | 2016-10-13 14:48:15 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Is this complete? Strava GPS traces suggest it is.There are also Strava user error reports:Temos um circuito muito bom neste local e não podemos marcar como rota. Aguardo ajuda. |
| 2 | 2016-10-13 21:05:38 UTC | Ronnie Nys | The Google satellite images are very recent (2016) and show that these new roads are already in use. When zooming in on the following link you can see the details.https://www.google.be/maps/@-12.7086332,-38.3050097,1191m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=nl | |
| 3 | 2016-10-14 01:11:14 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Thanks, I've updated it based on the GPS traces | |
| 9891203 by bgamberg | 1 | 2016-10-13 14:56:01 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Strava user error report: "I'm trying to take the Main Road onto 460, but it keeps backtracking and taking an imaginary street through the woods. " with http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/136663375 - I think mapbox imagery might be viewable to double check some of these paths |
| 11828192 by Jomegat | 1 | 2016-10-13 13:42:14 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Hi,There's strava user error reports like:"Won't allow route through a paved bike path. Shows as a dashed line path on map but it is an established paved bike path. "and"There is a sidewalk here, but no vehicle access. Should be able to route. "Are the fences (htt... |
| 42238300 by kalanz | 1 | 2016-10-13 13:23:13 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Hi, I've got an old (2 years ago) report from strava errors: "Although there is currently construction on the longfellow bridge, it is open to bicycle traffic in both directions. I can't get the my route to go over the bridge though."Do you know if that's the case currently? |
| 42750593 by Medina Huzejrovic | 1 | 2016-10-10 13:08:28 UTC | nevw | You have mapped a Post Office here with the name HOME.Is there really a Post Office here called HOME?Is it instead your home?Please review this object and tag correctly thanks. |
| 2 | 2016-10-10 14:11:28 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Looking at Australia post, there's several offices on Sydney Rd; and the already mapped post office on Grantham Street. | |
| 42744803 by Restaurant El Concón | 1 | 2016-10-10 05:08:41 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Hi - http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/741825 - you added what looks to be a phone number for this restaurant, is that the case? |
| 40150679 by nitrofurano | 1 | 2016-10-08 05:33:57 UTC | CloCkWeRX | http://strava.github.io/iD/#background=Bing&id=w405980926&map=17.00/-39.37608/-11.24524 suggests that these roads need to be realigned to GPS traces |
| 4074648 by werner2101 | 1 | 2016-09-23 05:37:36 UTC | CloCkWeRX | http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/31605383 and similar don't appear to be visible on imagery |
| 2 | 2016-10-07 07:46:33 UTC | werner2101 | Do you think it's usefull to discuss a 6 year old changeset? If fixed an import error long time ago. | |
| 3 | 2016-10-07 08:29:45 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Given that imagery which is seemingly more recent doesn't appear to show the buildings... its worth spot checking and removing obviously wrong data probably.I've picked this up from reviewing GPS errors via improve-osm.org. Feel free to track down the original import changeset and raise it there... | |
| 15089129 by mrcookie | 1 | 2016-10-02 16:57:52 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Strava users report: "Should be able to cross from south to north here" re http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/279628742 - but imagery is inconclusive. Do you know if this is a wall for certain, or could it be a tunnel? |
| 2 | 2016-10-03 21:12:15 UTC | mrcookie | I was there 2 times. The first time there was no MA-3440 and the Cami was uninterrupted. The second time the MA-3440 was REALLY new and interrupted the Cami, and no way to cross. A car had to go backwards up the hill to Llubí, because there even was no way to turn the car and te navi didn't k... | |
| 39510919 by aytfadc | 1 | 2016-09-27 05:15:38 UTC | CloCkWeRX | http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/122500205 looks complete according to bing imagery, is that the case? |
| 2 | 2016-09-27 08:26:22 UTC | SomeoneElse | One of the Edinburgh locals will have more info, but the current road state looks like it mirrors the work being done to support the (as yet unopened) new bridge, and the imagery looks like the old road state before any of the work started. | |
| 42329663 by Level | 1 | 2016-09-27 04:39:02 UTC | CloCkWeRX | These are close, but don't align to strava gps traces (http://strava.github.io/iD/#background=Mapbox&map=16.00/-112.02065/40.56063 vs http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/383642261 for example) |
| 41280543 by flippinego | 1 | 2016-09-24 09:39:26 UTC | CloCkWeRX | There's no imagery for https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/435897007 that seems to match up with the road |
| 38212940 by tms13 | 1 | 2016-09-23 05:01:17 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Theres no GPS traces or imagery matching Cawburn Road, do you have any photos or similar? |
| 2 | 2016-09-23 14:18:07 UTC | tms13 | Yes, I have the photos, but I don't generally publish my survey photos or GPS tracks. Is there something in particular that you want a picture of? | |
| 39383459 by BoxBike | 1 | 2016-09-21 19:16:03 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Do you know when this bike path will open? |
| 2 | 2016-09-21 20:31:44 UTC | BoxBike | no, they are still working. | |
| 36142942 by EdgarDS | 1 | 2016-09-12 05:12:34 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Bing suggests http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/63636407 is finished, as well as strava user reports:"There's a trail here, but I can't route thereCreated 2016-08-29 (13 days ago)Existe un puente en este lugar para cruzar la ría pero no la reconoce el constructor de rutas. Me ma... |
| 2 | 2016-09-12 07:30:25 UTC | EdgarDS | Teoricamente, esta prohibida la circulacion por el puente por la situacion del mismo, pero ni se han empezado las obras, ni es muy dificil colarse para transitar por el. http://www.eldiariomontanes.es/bahia-centro-pas/201606/10/reparacion-antiguo-puente-sobre-20160610215407.html | |
| 41074965 by Peter VK4IU | 1 | 2016-08-09 04:24:36 UTC | CloCkWeRX | This duplicates existing data |
| 31236628 by srbrook | 1 | 2016-08-05 02:50:23 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Strava users report way 345760205 is just farmland now, imagery tends to concur. Can you resurvey and perhaps add notes to it to reflect whats on the ground? |
| 2 | 2016-08-05 15:38:02 UTC | trigpoint | Historic OS 1-25k mapping shows a PROW on this line, unless it has been legally extinguished it should not be removed.There is a legal right to walk a PROW irrespective of condition. | |
| 40940552 by B 67 | 1 | 2016-07-27 13:19:27 UTC | CloCkWeRX | This seems to add a few 'almost junction' errors in according to keepright - http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?schema=50&error=89670790 - and it's a little off from the bing/mapbox imagery. I don't suppose you could grab photos of it via mapillary next time you are in the area? |
| 2 | 2016-07-27 13:35:47 UTC | B 67 | Hi, I've never been here. Had never heard of keepright or mapillary until now either. So much to learn. I'm sure the paths are are a little off as I only based them on photos elsewhere. Feel free to make corrections. Or I'll try to do so myself when I can. | |
| 40111697 by aytfadc | 1 | 2016-06-27 04:42:53 UTC | CloCkWeRX | What's the source for https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/320322817 - there's no mapbox/bing imagery for it afaict |
| 37681086 by TheSwavu | 1 | 2016-03-29 12:39:36 UTC | inas | I notice this changeset changed Crookwell from a GNB town to a GNB locality. This isn't the case - Crookwell is still a GNB town. There is also a locality Crookwell. Was this a scripted change? |
| 2 | 2016-03-29 22:05:41 UTC | TheSwavu | No this was a manual edit. I did a comparison between all of the place nodes in NSW tagged with ref:nswgnb and checked to make sure that their place:nswgnb were still correct. These are all the places that needed their place:nswgnb changed to "LOCALITY".In the case of Crookwell the pla... | |
| 3 | 2016-03-29 22:21:00 UTC | inas | I'm really sceptical that GNB are changing towns to localities in their database - especially for places like Crookwell. Perhaps we need to understand the changes actually being made to reflect these in OSM. | |
| 4 | 2016-06-21 14:28:44 UTC | CloCkWeRX | http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/113764320 is still marked as a village, but it doesn't really look too inhabited - is it better tagged as place=locality? | |
| 5 | 2016-06-22 00:38:52 UTC | TheSwavu | I didn't change the place tags on any of these only the place:nswgnb:http://osm.mapki.com/history/node.php?id=113764320Personally if a place doesn't make it onto the list of UCLs:http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/05773C1D8C9F2022CA257A98001399F7?opendocumentI'd t... | |
| 6 | 2016-06-22 00:48:22 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Yup, that prompted it | |
| 7 | 2016-06-22 04:48:28 UTC | TheSwavu | Good-O. I won't bother then. | |
| 6376832 by hulius | 1 | 2016-06-14 04:31:23 UTC | CloCkWeRX | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/85389940 - do you know if this is still under construction? Imagery is inconclusive |
| 2 | 2016-06-20 09:03:37 UTC | hulius | Well, these are actually abandoned works on this road. As you can see, it's an alternative way a few meters southern completely functional so I'm afraid it never going to be concluded. What do you think it's the better option to tag this situation? | |
| 3 | 2016-06-20 09:14:08 UTC | CloCkWeRX | I think if its physically ok to drive on and connects to places, marking it as a highway service/residential/etc is OK. I just rechecked bing/mapbox imagery and it looks as though road is physically there... | |
| 18845320 by coco33 | 1 | 2016-06-18 08:05:06 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Do you know if the proposed roads have been built? Satellite imagery is inconclusive |
| 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 | |
| 24263524 by zvenzzon | 1 | 2016-06-14 01:42:18 UTC | CloCkWeRX | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/293600476 - is this still under construction? |
| 2 | 2016-06-14 06:40:11 UTC | zvenzzon | Mapped this during travel, cannot resurvey. I have looked at Bing, Mapquest Mapbox and the Spain-specific image layers available in JOSM. Cannot however see any plan of the new Road or confirmation that is has been finished. However, I would be surprised if this is not finished at this point. If i r... | |
| 3 | 2016-06-14 06:46:21 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Much appreciated :) | |
| 10983671 by peines | 1 | 2016-06-14 04:30:11 UTC | CloCkWeRX | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/155076555 do you know if this is completed? Imagery is inconclusive |
| 21734648 by Julian Lozano | 1 | 2016-06-14 04:29:06 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Do you know if https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/274833008 is still under construction? Imagery is inconclusive |
| 2 | 2017-02-23 21:58:41 UTC | Julian Lozano | As far as I saw 2 months ago, that was still under construction. | |
| 10229175 by Daniel Garcia | 1 | 2016-06-14 04:25:23 UTC | CloCkWeRX | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/143088024 - is this still being built? Imagery shows cars parked where the road would go |
| 16375708 by erlenmeyer | 1 | 2016-06-14 04:22:22 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Do you know if https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/172947802 is finished? Imagery is inconclusive |
| 12318228 by MrWebber | 1 | 2016-06-14 04:21:04 UTC | CloCkWeRX | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/251154876 Do you know if this is still under construction? Imagery is inconclusive |
| 17437914 by jacksparrow | 1 | 2016-06-14 04:15:33 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/234400672 still under construction? |
| 10683759 by Lübeck | 1 | 2016-06-14 04:14:05 UTC | CloCkWeRX | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/150359112 - is this built now? Imagery shows unpaved roads |
| 15426340 by gpesquero | 1 | 2016-06-14 04:12:51 UTC | CloCkWeRX | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/211046542 - small parts of this are built, do you know if the connecting parts are under construction? |
| 2 | 2016-06-14 14:36:32 UTC | gpesquero | Hello CloCkWeRX... I haven't been in this place for years, so I don't know about it.I've checked aerial imagery (Bing & PNOA dated 2013) and it looks like they're doing some works, but nothing worth editting for the moment.... | |
| 16805608 by cronoser | 1 | 2016-06-14 04:11:14 UTC | CloCkWeRX | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/228518877 - do you know if surrounding construction work has taken place? |
| 10761321 by gsantos | 1 | 2016-06-14 04:08:58 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/151515618 being built? Imagery doesn't show anything |
| 13738265 by Hugo André Sousa | 1 | 2016-06-14 04:07:17 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/37235417 still being built? Imagery isn't very conclusive |
| 6744799 by antecessor | 1 | 2016-06-14 04:03:39 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/91238988 still under construction? |
| 116550 by jakomo | 1 | 2016-06-14 04:01:15 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/26100001 still being built at all? Imagery suggests nothing is there |
| 6936413 by ACarmona | 1 | 2016-06-14 03:59:38 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/94522235 being built? Imagery suggests no |
| 8573167 by Winid | 1 | 2016-06-14 03:58:30 UTC | CloCkWeRX | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/119484116 - is this finished construction? |
| 3483721 by jmorais | 1 | 2016-06-14 03:56:14 UTC | CloCkWeRX | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/47148068 - is this being built any further? Imagery suggests no |
| 12109733 by LucianaCardoso | 1 | 2016-06-14 03:55:18 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/170089306 finished to your knowledge? |
| 13150085 by Picholeiro | 1 | 2016-06-14 03:52:27 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/181521518 still under construction? Imagery doesn't show it finished, but it was under construction approx 3 years ago so may be finished |
| 14170215 by jasonez | 1 | 2016-06-14 03:51:12 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/172936462 still under construction? The imagery shows some improvements around it that may be worth updating |
| 34982571 by pg510negro | 1 | 2016-06-14 03:49:50 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Is this being built, or just proposed (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/377625726) ? We should update the name or the tagging to clear it up |
| 10331770 by Picholeiro | 1 | 2016-06-14 03:46:25 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/117551653 being built? Imagery doesn't show any indication of it |
| 37324286 by pedrojuan01 | 1 | 2016-06-14 03:44:03 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/398862506 under construction? Imagery doesn't suggest it is |
| 2 | 2016-06-14 09:33:20 UTC | pedrojuan01 | Take a look to the lastest "orto" image at: http://www.conselldemallorca.net/sitmun/idemallorca.jsp | |
| 22919034 by numbfew | 1 | 2016-06-12 05:26:49 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Are The Clifford Apartments still under construction? |
| 2 | 2016-06-12 07:40:34 UTC | TheSwavu | No. Currently for sale on AllHomes. | |
| 3 | 2016-06-12 07:44:40 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Thanks for updating that. I was trawling through all contruction=* via osm turbo, looking for stuff over a few years old. To find these new developments, are you just working from survey/local knowledge or subscribing to something like planningalerts? | |
| 4 | 2016-06-12 09:40:27 UTC | TheSwavu | I'm not putting new developments in. I just checked the local real estate website to see if they had been finished ie: are there now properties for sale. | |
| 38443615 by mark_rat | 1 | 2016-06-12 05:36:03 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Is this finished construction? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/286594384 ? Still tagged as construction / can't tell from bing |
| 2 | 2016-06-12 07:27:22 UTC | TheSwavu | Yes. | |
| 3 | 2016-06-12 07:38:24 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Thanks! | |
| 8088976 by Emmertex | 1 | 2016-06-12 06:25:04 UTC | CloCkWeRX | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/112423824 doesn't seem to exist, can you confirm? |
| 37610204 by aaronsta | 1 | 2016-06-12 06:06:56 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/401616172 still under construction? |
| 2 | 2016-06-12 06:22:05 UTC | aaronsta | Contruction is still in progress for landscaping. All traffic movements are now open. It was completed in late March 2016 when this changeset went live. http://gatewaywa.com.au/news/latest-news/filter&archive=true?start=30 | |
| 17200783 by GeoffC | 1 | 2016-06-12 05:28:17 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Is this area still under construction (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/50845458 specifically) |
| 2 | 2016-06-12 07:32:35 UTC | TheSwavu | Not for quite a few years now.Still needs to be better aligned using NSW LPI imagery. | |
| 25640781 by mrpulley | 1 | 2016-06-12 05:23:35 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/107948769 still under construction? Bing suggests no |
| 2 | 2016-06-12 07:50:58 UTC | TheSwavu | It has been finished:http://investment.infrastructure.gov.au/projects/ProjectDetails.aspx?Project_id=050891-13NSW-NPbut it's been a while since I've been on the Barton so I don't know what was built. | |
| 3 | 2016-06-13 13:06:57 UTC | mrpulley | The construction=minor tag was added 3 years ago. I don't recall any work when I went through a year ago., so it should be safe to delete this tag. | |
| 13656791 by jpanther | 1 | 2016-06-12 04:54:17 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Was https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/159018215 ever built? |
| 23983316 by AlexOnTheBus | 1 | 2016-06-12 04:44:17 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Do you know if https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/291616515 has finished construction? |
| 2 | 2016-06-12 06:31:21 UTC | AlexOnTheBus | No - at this time there is no track installed there. When the Middleborough Road grade separation was built the space was left for a third track to be built to handle peak-period express trains through Laburnum - what could be called "active provision". For rendering purposes I would have ... | |
| 13901273 by Beager | 1 | 2016-06-12 04:41:30 UTC | CloCkWeRX | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/123184536 - is construction finished on this? It shows at least a footpath on bing imagery |
| 2 | 2016-06-15 03:16:08 UTC | Beager | This small section of path (the way you've referred to) was gravel when last visited it.I've ridden past it since, but wasn't looking if it's still gravel or not.The path of Gardiner's Creek: Warrigal Rd - Burwood Hwy is complete and has been for a while. | |
| 38992355 by nevw | 1 | 2016-06-12 04:30:52 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Ah neat, she (Sarnya) used to be my landlord. |
| 13693573 by marquisite | 1 | 2016-06-12 04:26:09 UTC | CloCkWeRX | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/188426204 - that should probably be completed by now, safe to mark it as no longer under construction? |
| 13234902 by MapperCat | 1 | 2016-06-12 03:47:42 UTC | CloCkWeRX | There's a few weird polylines; like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/119575757 which were added here. It looks like some kind of import, but lacks correct tags / some of the buildings are way off from imagery. Can you take a look at this and clean it up? |
| 39796593 by InputMan | 1 | 2016-06-04 16:37:18 UTC | CloCkWeRX | So with tracing places like this; you don't need to add both an area and an individual node with the same information - the area tracing will set the right name and other details.You might be interested in tracing the car parking and building itself separately - right now this is tagged as one b... |
| 2 | 2016-06-04 21:56:48 UTC | InputMan | I see. I was concerned over the parking as some of the parking came from a parking place (like an automated "parking" spider, or something), which may indicate on the map that the parking was for the general public. I wasn't sure about that, so I removed it from some of the buildings, as... | |
| 19084608 by schadow1 | 1 | 2016-05-29 12:28:16 UTC | CloCkWeRX | I'm guessing from strava user reports this (w247960495) is now built? |
| 38136746 by Warin61 | 1 | 2016-03-30 10:17:38 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Nice work! I spent a bit of time with a list of Canberra schools (via the JOSM opendata plugin and data.gov.au); adding buildings, tennis courts, etc and a lot more detail. I wonder if there's a similar list for SA schools we could use to find other likely sporting grounds |
| 2 | 2016-03-30 21:17:14 UTC | Warin61 | I'm using overpass turbo with the wizard entry sport=football for the football... I think I have most of those done for OZ.. there are a great many in Europe though if you want to reduce their numbers. I'm also targeting leisure=pitch without sport=* again using overpass turbo with the wizard e... | |
| 35811731 by frantz58 | 1 | 2016-03-30 02:27:26 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Why is Grand Tunnel du Chambon marked as access=no ? http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/384864359 |
| 21324284 by matthewsheffield | 1 | 2016-03-19 12:22:53 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Rosedale drive doesn't match imagery etc at all - does it exist? |
| 37822280 by unicorno19 | 1 | 2016-03-14 14:55:20 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Please stop mapping like this, what you are contributing is not as per the HOT task or the actual content on the ground. Please ask your instructor or mapping party organiser to stop the activity and discuss with the HOT-OSM mailing list. |
| 2 | 2016-03-17 11:01:46 UTC | geo_prof | okay we stop with exercises | |
| 37822320 by miri98 | 1 | 2016-03-14 14:52:49 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Don't map like this; it's wrong and will need to be reverted. Can you tell your instructor or mapping party host that this is inappropriate and to stop the activity. |
| 2 | 2016-03-17 12:29:24 UTC | geo_prof | ok! understood will refer you but how many trees ... :-) | |
| 37822319 by Martyhorse00 | 1 | 2016-03-14 14:47:43 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Don't map like this; the task doesn't require forests |
| 37822293 by EDEN CANO | 1 | 2016-03-14 14:42:44 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Why are you mapping like this, it has no relationship to the imagery or HOT task |
| 37822178 by Aute00 | 1 | 2016-03-14 14:40:27 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Why are you mapping forest? This little or nothing to do with the imagery or task |
| 37278664 by nickbarker | 1 | 2016-02-18 05:25:31 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Ah the building for the Reepham already seems tagged as a pub etc |
| 27489144 by fbello | 1 | 2016-02-18 02:32:13 UTC | CloCkWeRX | http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/317410025/history causes a lot of errors in keepright - is this better modelled as highway=proposed or not even as a highway at all (just part of a relation)?http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?zoom=13&lat=-25.58087&lon=-48.5838&layers=B0T&ch=... |
| 2 | 2016-02-19 00:53:32 UTC | fbello | This unbuilt part of the route (using tag=dummy) is important to periodically check the relations of national routes for inconsistencies. highway=proposed may be rendered in some maps, which is not the intent. The errors in keepright can probably be avoided by adding a layer tag with an unused layer... | |
| 3 | 2016-02-19 00:59:48 UTC | fbello | added layer=-5 instead | |
| 33798853 by luiz Fernando Kuhn Seibel | 1 | 2016-02-01 02:54:35 UTC | CloCkWeRX | This causes a lot of errors in keepright, and the main highway should probably be highway=proposed, not highway=planned. Specifically http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/296110059 |
| 2 | 2016-02-04 02:43:18 UTC | naoliv | I have fixed the proposed highway. | |
| 36893260 by Conquest | 1 | 2016-01-30 11:25:08 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Ah neat. If you are keen, there's a few others via http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/South_Australian_Roads that we know of - there's a generated .osm file with the details |
| 36753797 by muzzamo | 1 | 2016-01-24 23:28:24 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Ah nice! |
| 24527950 by perry22sl | 1 | 2016-01-20 12:10:54 UTC | CloCkWeRX | What's "Household Code" ? |
| 36641372 by venerdi | 1 | 2016-01-18 10:39:02 UTC | CloCkWeRX | What's the error osmose is coming up with? The wiki suggests that combination of tags (direction=clockwise, highway=mini_roundabout), and in Australia that's consistent with the traffic flow... |
| 2 | 2016-01-18 16:42:33 UTC | venerdi | Osmose signals the tag as unrequired because, by law, in the country the roundabouts are clockwise. A similar rule is applied by Osmose to the tag junction=roundabout that does not need any tag oneway=yes because the junction classified rondabout have the oneway by default. | |
| 3 | 2016-01-18 23:33:44 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Ah hah! Thanks | |
| 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... | |
| 36311838 by Leon K | 1 | 2016-01-13 02:48:01 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Do the various offramps intersect with the Cross city tunnel? It's also at layer -2 and showing up in missing-junctions checks on keepright |
| 2 | 2016-01-13 07:53:31 UTC | Leon K | The tunnel doesn't intersect with the surface roads except where the ramps surface and are already marked.It does pass directly below the surface roads though. I'd class the junction errors as false positives. As for the layer, yes the tunnel is below the surface so -2 seems appropriate. | |
| 26633310 by Josh_G | 1 | 2016-01-08 02:44:44 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Ditto http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?schema=50&error=71070414 |
| 26614517 by Josh_G | 1 | 2016-01-08 02:43:45 UTC | CloCkWeRX | There's a couple of routing errors with this one; like http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?schema=50&error=71074868 - could you take a bit of a look? |
| 29167691 by themapedit | 1 | 2015-04-07 16:00:19 UTC | CloCkWeRX | There's no evidence of much of this in mapbox or bing imagery, nor is there anything in Property Location Browser. What's the source of these roads? |
| 2 | 2015-12-28 14:00:18 UTC | CloCkWeRX | I'm removing these. | |
| 31264913 by volatile_ant | 1 | 2015-12-28 11:25:02 UTC | CloCkWeRX | This intersects a lot of buildings; also sourced from digitalglobe - which is more accurate? The existing building data, or road? |
| 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? | |
| 34094562 by muscatelle | 1 | 2015-10-03 08:57:17 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Ah neat, someone else in the area who knows the details/can survey :) |
| 34019448 by nikhilprabhakar | 1 | 2015-09-15 03:08:41 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Ah nice, thanks. Keepright either didn't tell me about it or I missed it :S |
| 2 | 2015-09-20 05:13:43 UTC | nikhilprabhakar | :) | |
| 33845035 by sliceo | 1 | 2015-09-07 07:12:39 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Oops, accidentally tagged a road name as the petrol station there. I like to tag these with a landuse=commercial, name=Shell Inglewood, brand=Shell combo which works well for larger petrol stations. Either way, keep on adding :) |
| 2 | 2015-09-08 22:04:47 UTC | sliceo | ok thankyou, are there any projects going on at the moment that I can help out with. | |
| 3 | 2015-09-09 03:56:50 UTC | CloCkWeRX | I have been doing a bit of work with missing road names - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/South_Australian_RoadsIts not the most thrilling of jobs but it does help with routing. | |
| 33674611 by TheSwavu | 1 | 2015-09-02 06:24:33 UTC | CloCkWeRX | http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Victorian_Government_data - afaik, we've never managed to successfully get explicit permission. Fantastic if you've got it, but you'll want to be mindful of http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines#Ensure_that_the_data_license_is_OK |
| 2 | 2015-09-03 06:45:29 UTC | TheSwavu | Hmm, that's an interesting point. I had used the data on the basis of this:https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2013-October/010086.htmlwhich is the closest thing I could find to formal permission to use any data.vic stuff. But I suppose you could interpret this to only cover th... | |
| 3 | 2015-09-04 09:07:24 UTC | TheSwavu | I emailed data.vic yesterday asking them to confirm or deny any permission we may have. I'll post any response I get to list-au and revert this changeset (and the other) or update the contributors page depending. | |
| 33743132 by TheSwavu | 1 | 2015-09-02 06:13:57 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Be careful with a few of these, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/South_Australian_Suburb_Boundaries was done a while ago - swapping to relations makes it harder to refresh from the source data. http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/beD gives a good view of what's present. |
| 2 | 2015-09-03 11:02:48 UTC | TheSwavu | May I suggest that if you have a cunning plan that you should let other mappers know. Perhaps by tagging with a note to that effect or mentioning it in the changeset comment. Relying on our ability to read your mind is not going to work. | |
| 26428028 by datristanthefirst | 1 | 2015-08-17 03:37:37 UTC | CloCkWeRX | This doesn't seem right at all: apartments and roads named all of the same thing?If its a vanity suburb or similar community, it's better to draw a landuse=residential around it and name those. |
| 31766522 by hryciuk | 1 | 2015-06-10 10:37:41 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Ah nice work on the buildings! |
| 2 | 2015-06-10 11:00:06 UTC | hryciuk | Thanks. | |
| 29242784 by danafer | 1 | 2015-05-28 14:10:01 UTC | CloCkWeRX | What are these amenities? They are showing up as wrongly tagged - http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/#zoom=17&lat=27.690871&lon=85.33511&layer=Mapnik&overlays=FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFT&item=0%2C3030&level=1%2C2&tags=&fixable= |
| 30968090 by osmapb1 | 1 | 2015-05-11 22:00:43 UTC | CloCkWeRX | This has caused a lot of conflicts with existing buildings traced via Bing imagery |
| 27683421 by geesona | 1 | 2015-04-17 19:24:30 UTC | CloCkWeRX | You might be interested in seeing the impact of your work with addresses - http://qa.poole.ch/ ; click the 'no address' tickbox. |
| 30157108 by metaodi | 1 | 2015-04-13 14:33:35 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Ah nice :) Good to see the building mapping is being fleshed out |
| 28085092 by nrs1958 | 1 | 2015-03-30 22:17:24 UTC | CloCkWeRX | All of the dams here should be landuse = reservoir |
| 29747843 by shravan91 | 1 | 2015-03-26 10:21:15 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Ah thanks re these, I'm doing a lot for https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/South_Australian_Roads and planning to come back and do a pass of 'way ends near other road', but all help is appreciated :) |
| 28998087 by kustere | 1 | 2015-02-22 00:27:18 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Ah nice work on the buildings etc! I've mapped heavily from Port Adelaide in to Brompton, maybe between us we can knock off parts of Hindmarsh, Welland, etc. |
| 28440627 by nrs1958 | 1 | 2015-01-28 14:35:53 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Nice work on the buildings! Let me know if you want a hand tracing a few in the area |
| 27039182 by Pierce | 1 | 2015-01-17 14:37:44 UTC | CloCkWeRX | For the new buildings here, what's your source? I can't see much on bing, mapbox or http://data.gov.au/dataset/geelong-roofprints-kml |
| 28081123 by nrs1958 | 1 | 2015-01-13 06:14:18 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Ah nice :) I tried cleaning the buildings up a bit, and I never have enough energy after riding through here to remember the details of what I saw well! |
| 25910092 by Leon K | 1 | 2014-12-27 16:50:21 UTC | CloCkWeRX | http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?schema=50&error=69263475 |
| 17098732 by mark_rat | 1 | 2014-12-27 16:49:08 UTC | CloCkWeRX | These are better traced as polygons - they are coming up as errors on http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?schema=50&error=49257263 |
| 25572312 by Noah's_Nails | 1 | 2014-12-23 23:18:45 UTC | CloCkWeRX | This doesn't match up with satellite imagery for the area at all. |
| 26547106 by Josh_G | 1 | 2014-11-05 10:17:51 UTC | CloCkWeRX | Neat, moar buildings!How far are you keen to trace? I'd be happy to help do rural housing or detail on a place like Lyndoch, making it easy for you to add in shops/landmarks/etc. |
| 2 | 2014-11-05 10:44:32 UTC | Josh_G | That'd be great - just trying to get as many of the rural landmarks/buildings traced as possible in the area. Hike all around here so its all useful data. | |