Changeset No. Date Contributor Comment
12018-04-11 19:52:12 UTCjleedev Looks like at least one multipolygon goofed up here:
22018-04-15 09:51:56 UTCthetornado76 Thanks for remove the duplicate building
12018-02-25 21:43:35 UTCjleedev It looks like a large number of nodes without ways were added here.
12018-02-24 21:03:07 UTCjleedev Hello, was the label node on Elizabeth Township deleted for any reason?
12018-02-04 00:40:30 UTCjleedev Looks like a duplicate here:
22018-02-09 16:30:05 UTCGeoKitten Good eye. I was about to fix it but it looks like you already did. Thanks.
32018-02-09 16:32:12 UTCjleedev I've caught several of these actually — are you properly searching for multipolygon buildings that are already mapped?
42018-02-10 19:42:27 UTCGeoKitten Actually, I might not be. Maybe JOSM's validator doesn't work for multipolygon buildings. I will investigate the issue and manually inspect the data I upload for multipolygon building-releated issues.
12017-12-16 14:33:49 UTCjleedev 547060418 looks pretty bogus to me.
12017-10-20 12:05:22 UTCjleedev Way 533697829 overlaps an existing building
22017-10-20 20:18:46 UTCYaten_import D'oh, thanks! Thought I grabbed them all.
12017-03-14 16:06:28 UTCjleedev I would argue that putting multiple SR numbers on a roadway is complete nonsense here: The entire premise is that it refers to the whole roadway itself, not any particular direction. In particular, if a traffic route continues in an uninterrupted straight line, it's pretty clear that the roadway car...
22017-03-15 02:10:45 UTCRoadsguy I only did that in this one case because internally PennDOT keeps track of that portion of road as two separate one-way roads as if it were dual-carriageway, with one being SR 0011 and the other SR 8027. However, the road has no actual physical divider and is thus a single-carriageway road for purpo...
32017-03-15 12:43:49 UTCjleedev WOW that's confusing. Their interchange diagram does point at that segment, and the distances given are perfectly consistent. It just didn't look right to me. Forward/backward is probably right.
12017-02-28 16:14:53 UTCjleedev I'm tempted to delete this, since a large footway area does not adequately describe this feature, and the default tile layer does not seem to like it. However, a retail/commercial landuse doesn't seem right to me either. Thoughts?
12017-01-25 04:49:21 UTCjleedev Oil City to Titusville is incorrectly under Business.
22017-01-25 15:36:55 UTCRoadsguy D'oh! Fixed...
12017-01-16 18:15:42 UTCmaxerickson Are you researching the administrative boundaries here? I really doubt that a town ends on the centerline of one side of the Long Island Expressway.

The goal should be to make the boundaries legally accurate, which will frequently conflict with merging them with convenient nearby features.
22017-01-21 14:36:30 UTCjleedev +1. Welding a boundary to a road or waterway is dubious and brittle at best, but using a divided highway is obviously incorrect.
32017-01-24 05:08:40 UTCmiluethi If you think I should move it back in the center between the two highways, I can do it. No problem.
42017-01-24 15:06:58 UTCmaxerickson I would say don't worry about it unless you go find the legal documents incorporating the town and set the boundary from that.

My main concern is the structural one, I don't see merging other features into the sloppy Tiger boundaries as "cleaning up boundaries", it's mostly churn that m...
12017-01-16 16:05:21 UTCjleedev Can you please explain what you're doing in changeset comments? It's not obvious to me why, for example, the Edgeworth-Coraopolis border should be moved to the south to lie on the Dashields Lock and Dam. says to avoid connecting boundaries to phy...
12017-01-11 18:47:29 UTCjleedev Pittsburgh neighborhoods do not extend into the rivers.
12016-11-30 15:39:35 UTCjleedev the tiger: keys don't actually do anything and should mostly be deleted. change the name instead.
12015-12-21 21:43:22 UTCjleedev Has this reopened?
22016-01-30 11:51:56 UTCrickmastfan67 I assume so. I haven't been able to go out there to check. And sorry for the late response. I've been having major computer problems the last 2+ months.
12015-11-11 10:50:24 UTCrickmastfan67 Just so I understand, both sides of Marlin Dr must turn right onto Bower Hill Rd with an 'All Traffic Must Turn Right' sign, correct? Then you should use the 'Only Right Turn' relation instead ( ). Simple, and to the po...
22015-11-11 10:51:16 UTCrickmastfan67 If I'm correct, let me know and I can fix this up for ya and eliminate the unnecessary relations.
32015-11-11 14:16:37 UTCjleedev Yes, that's right.
42015-11-15 01:26:06 UTCrickmastfan67 So, would you like me to fix up the relations here to properly reflect that?
52015-11-15 20:07:49 UTCjleedev Ok, I did it in

It's tough with iD but not impossible. :/
12015-11-12 14:07:47 UTCjleedev This looks really nice.
22015-11-12 18:24:07 UTCMCollar Thank you. =]
12015-10-24 01:26:57 UTCrickmastfan67 Just so you know, when a road has 'two' names for a segment like this, you should use 'name:right' & 'name:left' depending on which direction the way itself in OSM is going. See:
22015-10-24 01:31:44 UTCrickmastfan67 So, I would in this case per your changeset comment, leave just 'Washington Road' in the 'name' tag, and add 'West Liberty Avenue' to the 'name:left' tag, and also add Washington Road to the 'name:right' tag (just for clarity) on Way 376546213.
32015-10-24 01:32:15 UTCrickmastfan67 If you would like me to do this, please let me know here in the comments and I'll get to it as soon as I hear back from ya. :)
42015-10-24 17:17:22 UTCjleedev Done.
jleedev has contributed to 17 changeset discussions(s) with a total of 37 comment(s)