| Changeset | No. | Date | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 52962858 by annapolissailor | 1 | 2017-10-16 17:55:17 UTC | bdiscoe | Hi, this changeset seems to create 6000 new nodes. Are you sure that it is "fixes and merges"? Merging usually results in deleting, not creating nodes. What exactly is this changeset doing? |
| 52952377 by velmyshanovnyi | 1 | 2017-10-16 00:50:06 UTC | bdiscoe | velmyshanovnyi, you indicated "source=Bing" here, but the features are not from Bing. See for example: https://i.imgur.com/CVUVAo8.png Are they actually from LandSat or something else? If they are actually created using "scanaerial" from LandSat, then that should also be note... |
| 2 | 2017-10-16 01:41:15 UTC | velmyshanovnyi | server_api = bingserver_name = Bingserver_url = http://dev.virtualearth.net/REST/v1/Imagery/Metadata/Aerial?include=ImageryProviders&output=xml&key=Arzdiw4nlOJzRwOz__qailc8NiR31Tt51dN2D7cm57NrnceZnCpgOkmJhNpGoppU | |
| 3 | 2017-10-16 01:42:00 UTC | velmyshanovnyi | Copyright © 2017 Microsoft and its suppliers. All rights reserved. This API cannot be accessed and the content and any results may not be used, reproduced or transmitted in any manner without express written permission from Microsoft Corporation. | |
| 4 | 2017-10-16 01:44:08 UTC | velmyshanovnyi | see/read https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/Scanaerial | |
| 52813481 by bdiscoe | 1 | 2017-10-11 19:49:24 UTC | stevea | bdiscoe: Please redact this farmland removal polygon, or at least redact your changeset and update the polygon so it is landuse=residential.If you read https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Santa_Cruz_County,_California#Landuse (paragraph six) you'll see that the County does zone every single hec... |
| 2 | 2017-10-12 04:27:53 UTC | bdiscoe | Hi Steve, since you expressed concern, I took another look at this area in detail. It is a total mess. The so-labeled "farmland" was not just wood and residential, but also some meadow (redundant overlap), and adjacent to existing natural=wood which is, in turn, actually residential in pa... | |
| 3 | 2017-10-12 04:29:28 UTC | bdiscoe | As for "removing it without replacing it with anything better", if you have a large area marked "D" which is actually A, B, C, then removing the wrong "D" IS actually better, because it is actually less wrong. | |
| 4 | 2017-10-12 04:49:52 UTC | stevea | I don't think there is anything terribly wrong with meadow overlapping with other landuse, and nobody has said so in Santa Cruz County, where we have been doing this for at least 8 years. Look at Wilder Ranch State Park, what many have called "visually pleasing" (meadow overlapping with l... | |
| 5 | 2017-10-12 04:52:08 UTC | bdiscoe | I have now spend some time in the Happy Valley area to expand the natural=wood relation down from the hills to fill in where there is actually wood, which is most of the area left blank by the "farmland" removal. I also validated the relations to solve overlaps and degeneracies. | |
| 6 | 2017-10-12 04:56:33 UTC | stevea | Well, thanks for that; I'm watching. It's possible we posted Comments so temporally close together that we crossed each other, but I do await answers to my questions. Thank you in advance. SteveA | |
| 7 | 2017-10-12 05:02:19 UTC | stevea | However, if you "expand the wood" (e.g. as it appears you have from the east side of Happy Valley Road to its west side), you truly break many landuse semantics as published by our County GIS: landuse=forest really is timberland, natural=wood originated from "special_use" polygo... | |
| 8 | 2017-10-12 05:34:55 UTC | bdiscoe | "you can use Bing (and a guess and a prayer) to better define landuse than does our County GIS department?"If the County is marking forest as non-forest, and non-forest as forest - which they clearly are here - then absolutely. Detail based on aerial is based on detail that is just wr... | |
| 9 | 2017-10-12 05:35:26 UTC | bdiscoe | (...is better than...) | |
| 10 | 2017-10-12 05:38:47 UTC | bdiscoe | Also, somebody foolishly imported fields like "Shape_area" which will be wrong the moment that somebody comes along to fix the polygons. What on earth is the point of that? Surely nobody expects general OSM users to update the useless "Shape_area" when the move the nodes into a... | |
| 11 | 2017-10-12 05:49:20 UTC | bdiscoe | Yes, I have read the "County Page". As for "nobody has said so in Santa Cruz County, where we have been doing this for at least 8 years", if nobody has pointed out that this data is mostly wrong, then it's only because nobody has looked, which is highly believable since there ap... | |
| 12 | 2017-10-12 05:51:20 UTC | bdiscoe | My recommendation:1. Either remove all the bad landuse, or use a JOSM filter to hide it for step 2.2. Align the roads and fix the road topology!3. Only then, you can gradually start to add landuse, carefully, bit by bit, checking and correctly each batch before upload. | |
| 13 | 2017-10-12 18:49:09 UTC | stevea | bdiscoe: Your hostile and hyperbolic comments that "there appear to be no actual data here, ONLY IMPORTS" and "largely fictional" are unwelcome, untrue and show you to be a histrionic exaggerator. I have been mapping this county (lovingly, carefully, with my GPS, notebook and t... | |
| 14 | 2017-10-12 18:57:00 UTC | stevea | Regarding "fix the road topology," you will see (if you look, try http://product.itoworld.com/map/162?lon=-121.91947&lat=37.02996&zoom=12&fullscreen=true) that NOBODY has fixed more TIGER misalignments in this county besides me. By that Ito map, it is one of the most "blu... | |
| 15 | 2017-10-12 19:00:48 UTC | stevea | The answer to who "foolishly" imported the SHAPE... attributes is nmixter. He has been hugely admonished for a very sloppy import here, and I have literally spent YEARS cleaning it up. EVERY SINGLE ONE of the >3000 polygons he imported was visually and personally redacted in JOSM by m... | |
| 16 | 2017-10-13 01:48:09 UTC | stevea | I wait no longer to do what I have known to be the right thing to do since this dispute began: I'm redacting bdiscoe's polygon removal edits.Sadly, and I have never done this with any other OSM member with whom I have "friended," I also remove him as my friend in this project. His ar... | |
| 17 | 2017-10-16 21:04:33 UTC | stevea | In the spirit of "pour calming oil over troubled waters," I offer that this dispute largely resulted from tangles among the complex issues of landuse and landcover. They are misunderstood, confusing and fraught with ambiguities. There are a plurality of tagging strategies and histories, ... | |
| 52809320 by velmyshanovnyi | 1 | 2017-10-11 03:52:44 UTC | bdiscoe | velmyshanovnyi, PLEASE stop doing this. These features have way, way too many nodes - tens of thousands of colinear, inefficient, bad nodes. Please, please learn how to use Simplify to the correct level of detail. For these edits, I have to load them, delete most the points, and wait a long time f... |
| 2 | 2017-10-11 12:35:00 UTC | velmyshanovnyi | fastdraw https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/FastDrawI mapped exactly 10 meters highnow I will be at 40-50m+ autosimplificationok ??? | |
| 3 | 2017-10-11 16:04:44 UTC | bdiscoe | Hi, thank you. I'm not sure what level of detail that will produce, but, it sounds much better, and appropriate for remote regions. In OSM we usually speak of zoom level (e.g. 15), or meters of error on simplification (e.g. 0.1-1m). Perhaps by "40-50m" you mean the number shown on the sc... | |
| 4 | 2017-10-14 22:49:44 UTC | velmyshanovnyi | ok | |
| 52811016 by bdiscoe | 1 | 2017-10-11 06:38:02 UTC | velmyshanovnyi | Hi, your OVER-cleaning - in some places strongly broke the accuracy (((https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/60.8407/-164.9465 |
| 2 | 2017-10-11 06:56:40 UTC | bdiscoe | Hi, I ran simplify with a 90cm threshold. That is very conservative for a remote, wild area of mud and tundra. As for accuracy, I ran the JOSM validator and fixed many of the issues you left, with multipolygon ways intersecting each other, overlapping ways, and many other problems. It is fixed now... | |
| 3 | 2017-10-14 22:40:34 UTC | velmyshanovnyi | thnx )"That is very conservative for a remote, wild area of mud and tundra" (c)+100 carma ))) | |
| 48578492 by bdiscoe | 1 | 2017-09-25 17:55:49 UTC | g246020 | Hi, I wanted to link this route 37 to something official, but didn't see anything online except this https://www.adventurecycling.org/default/assets/File/USBRS/USBR37IllinoisMap.pdfDo you have any other references? |
| 2 | 2017-09-25 20:55:45 UTC | bdiscoe | Sorry i have no information on that highway. My own changes here are only on boundaries and waterways. | |
| 3 | 2017-09-27 20:24:29 UTC | g246020 | Thanks! | |
| 25189802 by Diego Sanguinetti | 1 | 2017-09-08 21:29:22 UTC | bdiscoe | Diego, you seem to have added "natural=wood" polygons which are fairly arbitrary; they mostly contains forest but are more frequently contained inside larger continuous sections of forest, which makes them cartographically confusing (they do no correspond well). Do you mind if I replace t... |
| 51090418 by Dguillen | 1 | 2017-08-14 06:19:20 UTC | bdiscoe | Dguillen, it looks like you accidentally "squared" and uploaded a very long tertiary route here, which destroyed its geometry. Please be careful! You should ask an experienced mapper how to undo your changeset, or manually fix the road you mangled. |
| 2 | 2017-08-15 07:46:04 UTC | bdiscoe | I have gone ahead and reverted this changeset and fixed all the geometry and topology it broke. | |
| 49549101 by bdiscoe | 1 | 2017-06-18 18:04:15 UTC | marek kleciak | Stop destroying detailed map using generalization tools. In developing countries like Nepal eactly map can save human life. Please first ask, then act. |
| 2 | 2017-06-18 18:34:03 UTC | SomeoneElse | Hi Marek,Can you please explain what were the actual problems caused by this changeset and the others on which you have similarly commented?Also, you may find that that using emotive language such as "stop destroying" is less effective at communicating what you want to get across than ... | |
| 3 | 2017-06-22 13:04:49 UTC | imagico | I would like to add that what bdiscoe did here was not in any way destroying a detailed map. He removed nodes which had a very little influence on the overall geometry because they were almost exactly in the middle between the next and the previous node. See http://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?change... | |
| 4 | 2017-06-22 16:25:02 UTC | SomeoneElse | For info, see also https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/1385 . | |
| 5 | 2017-06-23 05:46:26 UTC | bdiscoe | For what it's worth, I wrote OSM messages to marek kleciak explaining these edits, and even described the detailed steps he can do in JOSM to do the cleanup himself. | |
| 6 | 2017-06-23 07:16:50 UTC | marek kleciak | We are in touch with bdiscoe now. I wrote him about reasons for this mapping. We have opportunity to make an very exactly example for nepali authorities and show the results during SOTM Asia 2017. All old, too less forest areas should be removed/modified. I hope for help of you all: The goal would b... | |
| 7 | 2017-06-23 07:41:17 UTC | imagico | Who is 'we' here?Keep in mind that planning and organizing of mapping activities and development of mapping conventions should be public.Although there is not yet a formal policy on organized mapping activities it is good practice to document such activities and reference this in changeset c... | |
| 8 | 2017-06-23 07:50:00 UTC | marek kleciak | We, is Kathmandu Living Maps. As you probably know from german forum I do a lot for Nepal and try to inform communities in Germany and Poland about recent situation there.What you wrote about mapping activities is a part of old OSM communication problem, but you´re absolutely right, I should... | |
| 9 | 2017-06-26 05:49:54 UTC | marek kleciak | Hi everybody, KLL wil post information about this Project in the Wiki Project Nepal. Meanwhile I analyzed approach described by bdiscoe. Using generalization factor of 1.0 m we change the areas of smaller Farmlands in forests by up to 5%. I suggest the generalization factor of. 0.3m which make chan... | |
| 10 | 2017-06-26 15:32:38 UTC | SomeoneElse | @marek - having nodes closer together doesn't make for a map that matches reality better; it just makes it more difficult to edit. If you've got some specific examples perhaps write it up as a diary entry? | |
| 11 | 2017-06-26 16:14:53 UTC | marek kleciak | Absolutely. This matter needs an proposal and discusion of the community. | |
| 12 | 2017-06-28 03:50:12 UTC | bdiscoe | Marek the starting point of your analysis is incorrect. It assumes that the existing, hyper-noded wood areas are precisely correct with no uncertainty or error bars. Consider the factors involved - imprecise criteria, human variability, seasonality, poor resolution, loose rectification, etc. it is... | |
| 13 | 2017-06-28 04:39:19 UTC | marek kleciak | Ben wrote: imprecise criteria, human variability, seasonality, poor resolution, loose rectification.We have Premium Digital Globe images from last year for whole Nepal. Factors like human variability or seasonality are general for all OSM maps. Only activation of the community AND in this case l... | |
| 49779030 by ff5722 | 1 | 2017-06-24 06:24:44 UTC | bdiscoe | Could you please explain what these edits are? I truly hope it is not the "USGS treecover 2010" which is derived from low-resolution LandSat which is entirely inappropriate for mass-import into OSM. Or did you get this import discussed and approved? |
| 2 | 2017-06-24 06:26:16 UTC | bdiscoe | I spot-checked these imported forests and they bear no similarity to what is actually on the ground. | |
| 3 | 2017-06-24 06:59:54 UTC | ff5722 | They are derived from usgs data, I added everything in manually checked chunks with background imagery enabled. Some places need more refinement, but 'no resemblance at all' seems exaggerated.It was discussed in talk-cn. | |
| 4 | 2017-06-24 07:12:38 UTC | ff5722 | See my documentation here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Ff5722/USGS_treecover_dataI would say it is more comparable to using Scanaerial. Admittedly the data from this area is not that good, but as i trace around this area manually often, I also expected to refine it soon by hand. | |
| 5 | 2017-06-24 07:47:44 UTC | bdiscoe | OK, it's possible that the places i checked were worse than average, but consider the fine-grained nature of these features, like at http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/49780057#map=17/34.37226/104.93077 When the nodes are as close as 2.4m but the source data (Landsat) is 28m (!) then there is s... | |
| 6 | 2017-06-24 09:54:32 UTC | ff5722 | I have simplified the ways in JOSM with a 15 m threshold, and merged or deleted all ways with less than 17 nodes. Some abberations redrawn from Bing. It should be a lot better now. Later i'll refine it from imagery more. | |
| 7 | 2017-06-24 18:06:07 UTC | bdiscoe | OK, thanks! I am much reassured that quality is being cared for and you aren't just making work for me to clean up later :) | |
| 47241744 by bdiscoe | 1 | 2017-03-30 11:09:53 UTC | de vries | Hi bdiscoe,I need to ask you to be more careful with edits like these. In this changeset you seem to have targeted BAG buildings for mass simplification. The methods and software used for importing and actualization of the BAG data has been discussed in great length. So doing mechanical edits to t... |
| 2 | 2017-04-20 15:27:35 UTC | bdiscoe | Hi, if you take a close look, you will see that no "details" were removed. As part of other cleanup (maproullette farm->farmland), I've been run the JOSM validator on some of the nearby buildings and landuse, and tidying up the results. The BAG buildings have numerous issues (including... | |
| 3 | 2017-04-20 15:45:32 UTC | bdiscoe | For what it's worth, I recognize unlike other mass imports I'd had to clean up (Canvec, NHD, Tiger...) this data is much better in precision as well as accuracy. That's why i use thresholds not of 70-110 cm as with NHD, but as little as 6 cm for BAG, guaranteeing that cleanup stays within the accur... | |
| 4 | 2017-04-27 21:36:15 UTC | bdiscoe | For an example of BAG problems, see buildings like http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/277899879 which has a "sliver" which is 18cm wide and 3m long; it is clearly a mechanical error. I have manually fixed hundreds of these problems. | |
| 5 | 2017-04-28 20:32:31 UTC | Commodoortje | Hi bdiscoe,Thank you for fixing the JOSM validation errors on BAG import here.The person who did the BAG import is responsable for fixing duplicated nodes/crossing buildings/building inside building self-intersecting ways etc... | |
| 6 | 2017-05-01 15:23:38 UTC | de vries | You had me at "I am an expert at what I'm doing". But if you want an example: compare this two images:http://pix.toile-libre.org/?img=1493650984.pnghttp://pix.toile-libre.org/?img=1493651063.pngThe imagery resolution is 7,5 cm so your simplification is nowhere within the accuracy of ... | |
| 7 | 2017-05-01 15:51:38 UTC | Commodoortje | Het lijkt erop dat bdiscoe in JOSM de functie "Simplify Way" gebruikt.Wat deze tool doet: de contouren ontdoen van onnodige nodes.https://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Help/Action/SimplifyWay.Ik ben het met de vries eens dat dit niet structureel op gebouwen mag plaatsvinden. Dan wordt... | |
| 40298587 by Rps333 | 1 | 2016-07-16 03:36:26 UTC | bdiscoe | Hi there, many of the ways in this changeset are EXTREMELY overnoded. When you upload, you need to check the data FIRST for this problem and solve it before uploading. Otherwise it creates 26903 nodes in the OSM database, then someone has to come along afterwards and clean it up by deleting ~90% o... |
| 2 | 2016-07-16 03:45:46 UTC | bdiscoe | Example: before: http://i.imgur.com/HuJTxvi.pngAfter: http://i.imgur.com/VDAa6uE.pngNotice how the nodes for the selected are reduced from 1832 to 241, without affecting the accuracy of the data at all. | |
| 39057659 by JeopardyTempest | 1 | 2016-05-03 16:47:42 UTC | bdiscoe | Yes, it's NHD. Welcome to my world, Jeopardy. I've spent much of the last 6 months of my life cleaning up North Carolina's NHD (outdated wetlands just like these here in Florida). It's just a huge task, thanks for helping! |
| 2 | 2016-05-03 16:57:16 UTC | Harry Wood | The messiness of the data seems to be echoed by the messiness of the wiki page which is supposed to describe the dataset and the import process/status http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/National_Hydrography_Dataset | |
| 3 | 2016-05-04 01:54:36 UTC | JeopardyTempest | Good to know :-)Though it seems the wetlands are at least proximate... we also seem to have a messy import of a church dataset with scattered nonexistent churches that seems more problematic.So what do you guys do to clean them up? If there's development over what used to be wetlands, I'll ... | |
| 4 | 2016-05-13 06:17:52 UTC | bdiscoe | To answer your last question, Yes. | |
| 38886799 by Rps333 | 1 | 2016-04-26 18:15:45 UTC | bdiscoe | Rps, there are some serious issues with this import. For example, consider way http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/413668789 It is "water", but unclosed. It is also duplicated, as is all the other sections of water which should have been joined here. PLEASE stop importing millions of featu... |
| 2 | 2016-04-26 20:28:16 UTC | Rps333 | Hi, thanks for pointing it out. The JOSM validation did not pick that out. I will clean them up. cheers | |
| 3 | 2016-04-26 21:52:47 UTC | bdiscoe | When I load a small area around this feature, the JOSM validator reports "Errors: Duplicated ways (98), Duplicated nodes (s), Warning: natural type water - Unclosed way (46)" | |
| 4 | 2016-04-26 22:01:51 UTC | bdiscoe | Rather than import huge amounts (>500K changed features on the day of this changeset!), I'd strongly recommend doing smaller sections (like ~10K features/day) so you can check it for errors _before_ uploading, thanks. | |
| 5 | 2016-04-28 19:08:07 UTC | bdiscoe | It's two days later, and JOSM in this area still reports errors unclosed ways. Please fix your import before importing any more, thanks. | |
| 6 | 2016-04-28 19:13:33 UTC | Rps333 | Hi I have been checking the JOSM again and for what ever reason JOSM is not finding the errors. I am pretty sure most of the errors are on the edge of the AOI that I downloaded from NRCan. I will try checking with another version of JOSM and a different PC. | |
| 36059321 by Davaadulam_13b1sit0820 | 1 | 2016-01-22 23:08:26 UTC | bdiscoe | Hello Davaadulam, I see you changed the english name (name:en) of this street from "Olympic Avenue" to "Олимпийн өргөн чөлөө". The English name is actually "Olympic Avenue, correct? Why did you change it? |
| 35717824 by Kendall Hart | 1 | 2015-12-16 19:43:47 UTC | bdiscoe | Kendall, you added ways which should be paths or service roads, but you tagged them as "motorway" with names like "I-40 West" which is very odd and confusing. I will attempt to fix the tagging, but what did you intend here? |
| 35543670 by bdiscoe | 1 | 2015-11-24 22:02:17 UTC | gileri | Thank you, this looks like a good thing to do !May I ask how did you do it with JOSM ? |
| 2 | 2015-11-25 07:15:19 UTC | bdiscoe | In the preferences, under "advanced", there is a setting called "simplify-way.max-error". It is important to set this to a low number appropriate for the specific geometry; in the case of a very clear lake like this, sub-meter precision can be maintained, hence a value of 0.4 | |
| 3 | 2015-11-25 16:22:13 UTC | gileri | Thank you ! | |
| 34831985 by bdiscoe | 1 | 2015-10-24 15:52:53 UTC | bdiscoe | Testing ability to put emojis in chageset comments: 👍🏻👍🏼👍🏽👍🏾👍🏿😊😄😊 |
| 2 | 2015-10-24 15:54:42 UTC | bdiscoe | 👍 | |
| 21830388 by maykel_sipil13 | 1 | 2015-06-08 20:48:33 UTC | bdiscoe | Maykel, you used "service" incorrectly for the roads in the village. They are "residential" roads. |
| 2 | 2015-06-08 20:50:25 UTC | bdiscoe | Also, where two roads cross, they need to share a node. Please learn about connectivity. | |
| 31761407 by Albert Natanyel | 1 | 2015-06-08 20:26:20 UTC | bdiscoe | Albert, you damaged the main Pinrang-Rappang highway by incorrectly changing the secondary to a service road. I will fix it now, but please be careful in the future. |
| 2 | 2015-06-08 20:27:19 UTC | bdiscoe | Also, never name roads just "jalan". The name tag is only for the actual name of the road, e.g. "Jln Poror Pinrang-Rappang" | |
| 30944854 by bdiscoe | 1 | 2015-05-09 20:42:32 UTC | maraf24 | Is this tag removal and transformation discussed with polish community? |
| 2 | 2015-05-25 02:04:55 UTC | bdiscoe | Hi maraf24, I believe I only removed a few tags, which were uncontroversially incorrect or extraneous. If there is a page that describes the Wroclaw building import, please direct me to it. | |
| 30528688 by bdiscoe | 1 | 2015-04-27 18:50:03 UTC | trigpoint | HiI have spotted that you have edited the River Severn in Shropshire.The river forms parts of Montford/Ford parish boundaries and in moving the river flow you have moved the boundaries so that they no longer follow the official lines.I am not sure what source you used to determine the main flo... |
| 2 | 2015-05-01 16:48:35 UTC | bdiscoe | Hi tngpoint, mostly this changeset was fixing the riverbanks and adding the islands. The centerline moved only very slightly; it had a few places where it did not appear to correspond to the river flow. I did the best I could using the aerial, but if you have better local knowledge, please feel fre... | |
| 3 | 2015-05-01 16:52:47 UTC | bdiscoe | Also, I notice that it isn't quite consistent; in some places the parish boundaries share a way with the river, in other places they use two separate ways; perhaps someone determined that on that stretch the "official" boundary differed significantly enough from the river. Some boundaries... | |
| 4 | 2015-05-01 19:30:41 UTC | SomeoneElse | I've always wondered (where boundaries follow rivers) exactly how those boundaries are defined, given that rivers move? In this case is there a text description that says something like "follows the centreline of the river from blah to blah", or is it defined in terms of exact coordinates... | |
| 5 | 2015-05-25 02:01:45 UTC | bdiscoe | @SomeoneElse, it depends :) In some places the legal boundary is defined as the river, in other places the river was surveyed and that description of the course defined as legal boundary. It takes local knowledge to know the difference in different parts of the world. | |
| 6 | 2015-05-25 11:40:22 UTC | trigpoint | The boundaries are taken from the latest OS Boundaryline, so can be assumed to indicate the official boundaries.I part way through a project to add the Shropshire parish boundaries, some sections of the Severn have yet to be joined to the parish boundaries.I am not sure how "the main flow&q... | |
| 31027498 by bdiscoe | 1 | 2015-05-12 11:26:51 UTC | maraf24 | With over 30000 deleted nodes this is certainly a mechanical edit.http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct |
| 2 | 2015-05-22 06:44:57 UTC | bdiscoe | I reviewed it personally. There is decimation to remove noise and redundancy, but I also go over what remains manually to compare it to the aerial; many of these wetlands are no longer here and are adjusted accordingly. | |
| 24336845 by QDC | 1 | 2015-05-05 20:42:08 UTC | bdiscoe | This looks like a building import, but there were already buildings there. Was there no attempt to integrate and check for overlaps? Is there a plan to clean this up, or should I go ahead and clean it up manually? |
| 2 | 2015-05-07 20:00:05 UTC | bdiscoe | I've proceeded to clean it up now. | |