OSM changeset discussions of EdSS

Changeset	#	Tmstmp UTC	Contributor	Comment
57439445 by EdSS @ 2018-03-22 22:18	1	2020-04-28 20:20	azsr ♦81	Hey, it seems like this changeset broke a lot of really precise details on buildings. Is there some way that I could manually revert some of them?
	2	2020-04-28 21:33	EdSS	The changes tried to fix truly duplicated nodes so I would not revert them but by all means edit any details back on the buildings.
	3	2020-04-29 00:12	azsr ♦81	On further review, it seems that I mangled these buildings first :/ I'll go back through and redraw them. Thanks.
	4	2020-05-05 00:04	azsr ♦81	I think I've gone through and fixed all of them today. Sorry for wrongly blaming you.
57922756 by EdSS @ 2018-04-08 20:34	1	2018-04-09 00:06	Mashin ♦557	Hi EdSS, Any reason for disconnecting these and all the other buildings? This two buildings are physically attached without any passageway leading to the court. So far I see it as a candidate for revert.
	2	2018-04-09 02:33	EdSS	Hi Mashin, I am afraid I do not recognize the area you show but I have separated touching buildings that generate a duplicate segment fault because they share a touching outer relationship for one multipolygon object. The only two ways I know to clear the fault are to separate the outer segments f...
	3	2018-04-10 22:40	Mashin ♦557	What tool does report this as an error? As far as I know it is common practice to draw buildings that are touching as areas that have overlapping line segments (and it doesn't matter if it is a simple area or a multipolygon).
	4	2018-04-11 19:26	EdSS	The tool is the website 'tools.geofabrik.de' using 'OSM INSPECTOR'. The issue in the change is Branford College and Saybrook College both claim an outer relationship to Memorial Quadrangle. This is just wrong because where they touch it is not an outer at all. The slight gap b...
	5	2018-04-12 13:42	Mashin ♦557	The whole structure of the two Colleges is called Memorial Quadrangle and hence the multipolygon was created to avoid double naming. I searched different sources about whether two touching outer members are valid an not, but only I could find is that two outer members touching in two nodes is val...
	6	2018-04-12 19:23	EdSS	I still don't see the touching line having an outer relationship to Memorial Quadrangle but you are evidently the one with local knowledge. My only interest is to reduce the number of errors in the map and one error more or less is not earthshaking. If you are convinced that reconnecting the ...
	7	2018-04-13 15:42	Mashin ♦557	From my point of view, since the two buildings are physically attached without any air gap, we should have them attached here as well, because we are mapping the reality. What I agree is controversial is the Quadrangle multipolygon and its validity. The Quadrangle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wik...
46562137 by EdSS @ 2017-03-04 00:37	1	2017-03-17 06:02	Warin61 ♦2,664	Congratulations. You have removed a race track.
	2	2017-03-17 17:10	EdSS	Hi Warin61, The entire Skellatar Park area is tagged as sport horse_racing and all fences etc seem to be there. Is there something important missing from the map?
	3	2017-03-17 21:55	Warin61 ♦2,664	The sport is on a race track .. where is the tack? Relation: 6422036 is tagged as leisure=track.. had outers and inners .. now has one outer .. that is not closed. So the relationship is broken Possibly this was broken before your changes? Don't know... but you certainly have not 'im...
	4	2017-03-18 15:14	EdSS	I appreciate the landcover comment. The original mapping was flagged as having a problem that would eventually prevented proper rendering. Skellatar Park and OSM are very lucky to have someone so concerned with excellent mapping. I look forward to your revised version that will be even better tha...
36164400 by EdSS @ 2015-12-25 19:36	1	2016-03-22 21:04	zeromap ♦81	Hi EdSS, I believe it is standard practice to expand abbreviations. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Abbreviation#Abbreviation_.28don.27t_do_it.29 I've corrected some of your edits on I 88, but you may want to go back and check your work if you've done so elsewhere. Thanks for...
	2	2016-03-23 17:00	EdSS	Hi zeromap, This is not an earthshaking issue but I do have to take exception to your comment. Your abbreviation reference to at the Names section of the Wiki. However Destination is something different. The Destination section of the Wiki says unequivocally "Value: Just take the text of the...
	3	2016-03-23 17:18	zeromap ♦81	I appreciate the response! Many people don't bother. May I suggest we move the conversation here? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:destination#Abbreviations_on_signs
	4	2016-03-23 17:30	EdSS	That is agreeable to me.
	5	2016-03-26 17:18	EdSS	Thanks for the even-handed edit to the Wiki. I assure you I will comply and will comply with whatever consensus is reached.
	6	2016-03-27 12:36	zeromap ♦81	Great, as will I. Happy mapping!
27473793 by EdSS @ 2014-12-15 03:49	1	2015-01-16 20:54	ajashton ♦17	A node isn't necessary, it's duplicating all the information on the way: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/55204821
	2	2015-01-16 23:41	EdSS	The node is necessary because without it a navigating system tries to navigate to the airport centroid which is between two runways and says 'Route not found'.Would the node better be labeled "Albany International Airport car entrance" ?? The node has to be an airport to search p...
	3	2015-01-17 00:22	ajashton ♦17	Hm, perhaps a navigation system should try to navigate to the terminal buildings and not the centroid of the whole airport. I'm not sure what the best approach is for mapping entrances to large facilities to help with routing. While it helps solve a routing issue, having multiple aeroway=aer...
	4	2015-01-18 19:20	EdSS	I think it would be possible to add 'entrance=yes' or 'entrance=main' to the node. Would this be an improvement?