manoharuss have been discussed with 9 replies of this contributormanoharuss have been discussed with 9 replies of this contributor| Changeset | # | Tmstmp UTC | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 105507651 by manoharuss @ 2021-05-28 18:25 | 1 | 2021-07-04 16:02 | DaveF ♦1,563 | HiWhy have you removed two of the networks serving Romford?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romford_railway_station |
| 71193825 by manoharuss @ 2019-06-12 20:17 | 1 | 2019-06-13 03:13 | bye12 ♦34 | Rise of the Resistance is not open yet, hence the Label in the POI |
| 2 | 2019-06-14 16:43 | manoharuss | Thanks for identifying the mistake bye12. I would like to add "building= construction" tag to specify that this POI is not yet open. or construction=yes property. Does that sound good to you? | |
| 3 | 2019-06-16 19:36 | bye12 ♦34 | Yeah "building=construction" seems good | |
| 4 | 2019-06-17 20:09 | manoharuss | I added building=construction for this building. | |
| 53661824 by manoharuss @ 2017-11-10 09:45 | 1 | 2019-02-02 02:20 | FTA ♦201 | Hi, this turn is valid, so I have gone ahead and deleted the turn restriction. Cheers, Ethan |
| 58035916 by manoharuss @ 2018-04-12 13:17 | 1 | 2018-04-13 19:26 | user_5359 ♦19,376 | I have reverted your changeset: See changeset comment 57952110 for the reason. |
| 54196769 by manoharuss @ 2017-11-30 06:42 | 1 | 2018-03-01 08:10 | Amisha Singla ♦1 | test --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/54196769 |
| 2 | 2018-03-01 08:10 | Amisha Singla ♦1 | test --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/54196769 | |
| 53665076 by manoharuss @ 2017-11-10 12:08 | 1 | 2017-11-10 15:30 | n76 ♦60 | Care to explain this restriction? I Don't see any evidence on aerial imagery that there could be a restriction here. And I don't see any mapillary images in JOSM for this. I guess I'll drive there today to check in person but I think a left turn restriction is highly unlikely here. |
| 2 | 2017-11-13 11:07 | manoharuss | hi n76,thanks for flagging and fixing the wrong turn restriction. this was a mistake.Manohar | |
| 50172265 by manoharuss @ 2017-07-10 10:20 | 1 | 2017-07-10 16:59 | Øukasz ♦163 | Hi there,Thanks for doing this. I was actually trying to contact the guy who deleted it asking him to bring it back but i guess you were faster.Why did you undelete both points? I believe they are duplicates of the same city.By the way - how did you find out it was deleted? I only realis... |
| 2 | 2017-07-17 05:33 | manoharuss | Hi Øukasz,Sorry for the delayed reply. I did not check my mail for a few days. So for some reason, the deleted city was still there on Mapbox maps. I went through histories of surrounding features in that area and checked them out on OSMCha. I found the changeset by chance by seeing the h... | |
| 3 | 2017-07-17 09:54 | Øukasz ♦163 | thanks for the response. okay, i will have another look and correct if needed.on a side note, does mapbox have a dedicated arabic-speaking data team? | |
| 4 | 2017-07-17 12:30 | manoharuss | @Øukasz I am afraid no. But @planemad can read Arabic :p | |
| 47010209 by manoharuss @ 2017-03-20 11:45 | 1 | 2017-03-20 15:05 | mjkab108 ♦1 | Why was the name of this park removed. It has been known as "The Battlefield" for decades. It is where all rally's for the football team as well as bonfires for the local football team are held. At this point I feel that your simply just picking on my submissions. |
| 2 | 2017-03-20 15:49 | manoharuss | @mjkab108 I am not. I apologize for assuming this was a wrong edit and removing the name. But from your initial mapping of park on a residential area made me think this was not a right addition to the map http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/46968599 | |
| 45421807 by manoharuss @ 2017-01-24 05:58 | 1 | 2017-01-24 18:19 | coolwhip4864 ♦1 | Water features were added to fountains and ponds, as I see in many other parts of the map, and are easily seen in the Potlatch satellite images. The footways added are in fact intersecting footpaths that criss-cross through a park, which are also easily seen in the satellite images. |
| 43187605 by manoharuss @ 2016-10-26 10:04 | 1 | 2016-10-26 12:49 | zeromap ♦81 | The wikidata tag you added refers to the administrative division and is already present on this relation. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4196753Tagging towns as points was done from a TIGER import, before boundary data was available. To make things more confusing, the point location refe... |
| 2 | 2016-10-27 09:48 | manoharuss | @zeromap Thanks for keeping an eye out. The point location from satellite imagery does seem like a hamlet as in small number of buildings around the intersection along the roads. Do you think it would be a good idea to tag the point as a hamlet and remove the wikidata tag I added?Best,Manohar | |
| 3 | 2016-10-27 12:21 | zeromap ♦81 | Yes, but this problem is more widespread. There are many town administrative divisions mapped as nodes, at least in New York State. They all need to be checked to see if, like in this case, they correspond to a hamlet or other place tag and if a relation exists with the proper information. In the ca... | |
| 4 | 2016-11-02 05:15 | manoharuss | @zeromap starting to understand the problem. This point is now a hamlet(https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/43342659) and wikidata I added was deleted, according to our discussion. But now, I feel like the census and population tags which are at 20658 does not correspond to this hamlet but indee... | |
| 5 | 2016-11-02 11:07 | zeromap ♦81 | The population tag should be added to the relation: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4196753 | |
| 6 | 2016-11-09 03:11 | PlaneMad ♦450 | zeromap, what do you estimate is the scale of the problem? it would be great if you could point to any previous discussion that talks about a potential cleanup effort. | |
| 7 | 2016-11-09 08:07 | PlaneMad ♦450 | Have extracted the GNIS place where wikidata tags were added that are <v4:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1B9AOAixeLPdYIcvxR-mR4CVbaZQD8TdWY-YpC3neiEc/edit#gid=0Looked into a sample of 20 and they all look like well urbanised areas. My hunch is that these cases are more of a minority... | |
| 8 | 2016-11-12 13:57 | zeromap ♦81 | >these cases are more of a minority than a majorityYes, I believe so.>What would be the best way to find out how many incorrectly tagged towns there are?Hard to say, but I noticed they are more common among towns without eponymous larger settlements. Consider this map of Onondaga C... | |
| 41707974 by manoharuss @ 2016-08-26 07:12 | 1 | 2016-08-27 09:55 | scai ♦267 | You did remove the tag natural=coastline from a lot of ways. Now the coastline seems to be broken. |
| 2 | 2016-08-27 12:15 | manoharuss | Hi scai,Thanks for your comment, otherwise I would not have known my mistake. My intention was to fix the relation (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3753553) as it was incomplete and cross interesecting at a place. The members of the relation did not have roles either. During that I accid... | |
| 40848774 by manoharuss @ 2016-07-19 06:34 | 1 | 2016-07-19 06:35 | manoharuss | This was a test to see if iD editor gives warnings on overlapping buildings. Going to revert it, now. |
| 40756340 by manoharuss @ 2016-07-15 08:58 | 1 | 2016-07-15 09:01 | manoharuss | Mistake: Cleanedup duplicates from this changeset 40742858 |
| 39922470 by manoharuss @ 2016-06-10 05:40 | 1 | 2016-06-10 06:32 | manoharuss | Wrong changeset comment. Changed footway highway tag to unclassified based on Bing imagery. |