emem have been discussed with 5 replies of this contributoremem have been discussed with 5 replies of this contributor| Changeset | # | Tmstmp UTC | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 69739838 by emem @ 2019-04-30 15:47 | 1 | 2019-05-02 05:40 | Carnildo ♦905 | If you check the Bing Streetside imagery for this area, you'll see that the parking aisle you deleted because it intersected the Mountain Valley Inn does, in fact, exist, and it passes through the building just as the tags on it indicated. |
| 2 | 2019-05-02 05:55 | emem | As - I see. But that service road had no tags, no nodes designating entry/exit into the building. Please put those in at all times - otherwise its simply intersections that just look like when new buildings are added where there were previously just roads. | |
| 49170774 by emem @ 2017-06-01 16:50 | 1 | 2017-06-01 20:38 | Glassman ♦5,240 | Can you tell me what was wrong with the farmland multipolygon? |
| 2 | 2017-06-02 03:46 | emem | Clifford,the farmland was drawn with two closed ways that had a number of common segments in between them and were combined in a multipolygon. The OSM area checker flagged these, as such polygons are not rendered at all in some software (mostly openGL based ones). | |
| 48986087 by emem @ 2017-05-25 23:03 | 1 | 2017-05-26 09:44 | Carnildo ♦905 | On straight segments of ways, it's generally considered good practice to leave nodes at periodic intervals. Because of the way the OSM API works, if you download a region containing a way, but that way has no nodes in the area, the way isn't visible. |
| 2 | 2017-05-26 15:17 | emem | I simplified the boundary to 33ft (which is grated, relatively coarse, but the staircases were 31ft on average, possibly resulting from 10m/pixel bitmaps) which took out about 90% of the nodes.The average spacing between nodes is now about 300ft, comparable to node spacing of roads and other featu... | |
| 3 | 2017-05-28 19:08 | Carnildo ♦905 | It looks like you're taking out far more nodes than you intend. For example, way 409571420 went from 72 nodes relatively evenly spaced over three miles, to just eight nodes, with a maximum gap between nodes of 2.25 miles. | |
| 48826523 by emem @ 2017-05-19 16:48 | 1 | 2017-05-19 21:54 | Carnildo ♦905 | It's not clear what happened, but it looks like this edit may have broken the banks of the Spokane River. |
| 2 | 2017-05-20 02:01 | emem | I just checked the updated slippy map tiles and they look fine. Also re-downloaded the data, which looks fine is JOSM, too. Plus I'm still the last editor of these traces, the changelog suggest no inintended edits done in that changeset to the river (just moved 3 nodes of it).I do see when zo... | |
| 3 | 2017-05-20 02:28 | emem | I tagged the mapnik tiles within this changeset dirty and most of them re-renderd now. I see no issue with the Spokane river. Can you confirm ? | |
| 4 | 2017-05-20 03:56 | Carnildo ♦905 | Looks good in both JOSM and the website map. | |
| 48825282 by emem @ 2017-05-19 15:43 | 1 | 2017-05-19 21:24 | Carnildo ♦905 | Why did you delete a section of the Little Pend Oreille NWR boundary? According to the official map (https://www.fws.gov/refuge/Little_Pend_Oreille/map.html), that's an inholding in the refuge, presumably consisting of privately-owned land. |
| 42881021 by emem @ 2016-10-13 20:24 | 1 | 2017-03-11 00:37 | LeTopographeFou ♦81 | Hi, you used access=permissive but according to the wiki access=private would better fit as soon as the airport is not open to general traffic. What do you think? |
| 2 | 2017-03-20 10:12 | LeTopographeFou ♦81 | Modified to access=private in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/47007664 | |
| 10554530 by emem @ 2012-01-31 22:50 | 1 | 2015-05-28 05:16 | srividya_c ♦57 | Hey, does these footway trail exist now? Imagery doesn't show any path there. |