| Changeset | # | Tmstmp UTC | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 168800715 by ratrun @ 2025-07-11 14:47 | 1 | 2025-07-11 15:11 | flohoff ♦2,363 | Moin,ich hab hier nur den changeset gesehen und da hast du das highway crossing komplett gelöscht. Das wundert mich so ein bisschen. Da ist keine Querungshilfe?Und was hat das mit dem OSMI Routing View zu tun?Flo |
| 2 | 2025-07-11 15:12 | flohoff ♦2,363 | Hier gibts sogar ein Foto von der Querungshilfe auf Mapillary:https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1876180046501127&focus=photo | |
| 3 | 2025-07-11 15:13 | flohoff ♦2,363 | Hmmm - oder ich verstehe den changeset nicht. | |
| 4 | 2025-07-11 15:47 | ratrun | Hallo!Vor meiner Änderung gab es den Knoten doppelt an der selben Stelle.Daher habe ich Knoten https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12989346224 gemerged mit https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/43641823#map=19/52.025266/8.513235, wodurch einer der Knoten gelöscht wurde.OSMI Routi... | |
| 167158528 by ratrun @ 2025-06-04 03:36 | 1 | 2025-07-05 18:42 | CENTSOARER ♦36 | Hi ratrun.Could you please revert this changeset? A local mapper had already fixed it this false connection. The local mapper states in the previous version of some related highway that "Huemyla street does NOT (sic) connect with Segunda cerrada de Franciso I. Madero, both are deadends. |
| 2 | 2025-07-06 04:17 | ratrun | Thank you, adopted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/ratrun/history#map=2/16.3/-101.2 | |
| 3 | 2025-07-07 18:44 | CENTSOARER ♦36 | Thank you, ratrun | |
| 160379707 by ratrun @ 2024-12-19 06:59 | 1 | 2025-06-06 13:05 | Kovirii ♦30 | For some reason this changeset left a bunch of disembodied points along but path of path "1896" |
| 2 | 2025-06-06 13:49 | ratrun | Can you please better describe what you mean with "path of path "1896"", I have no idea what you mean by that. | |
| 166375569 by ratrun @ 2025-05-17 04:04 | 1 | 2025-05-19 19:08 | JezCrow ♦150 | I've reverted this changeset in order to re-instate mass-deletions from user:WCCAlexhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/166492869 |
| 166131874 by ratrun @ 2025-05-12 03:34 | 1 | 2025-05-12 09:55 | yelisey90 ♦137 | rv - the segment contains turn lanes, should be fixed differentlyhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/166143149 |
| 166131950 by ratrun @ 2025-05-12 03:40 | 1 | 2025-05-12 04:20 | Kovoschiz ♦2,540 | The `=service` road obviously doesn't connect with the `=footway` . I haven't edited whether it's for Wu Chung House's carpark, loading zone, or private. |
| 165244092 by ratrun @ 2025-04-21 14:48 | 1 | 2025-04-21 18:19 | Palamito ♦2 | Hallo, could you kindly explain what was the problem with the following way? I am new to the community and I want to know how I could use the OSM inspector tool and what was the routing error. Thanks in advance |
| 2 | 2025-04-22 03:30 | ratrun | Hi,the two nodes in the north https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12771048444 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12660784502 were very close, but not connected. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Inspector/Views/Routing why connections are important. | |
| 74752159 by ratrun @ 2019-09-21 15:21 | 1 | 2025-03-28 14:25 | Allroads ♦420 | Although five years ago, this node should not be connected to the path, there is a wall. The path lays much lower.Better to use Dutch areal layer PDOK 8cm, when checking. Bing is not correct.Pdok aerial change every year.https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=74752159I change it.\... |
| 163971565 by ratrun @ 2025-03-23 05:05 | 1 | 2025-03-23 09:03 | t_ja ♦205 | Thank you for reverting this mess 👍 |
| 163695604 by ratrun @ 2025-03-16 16:02 | 1 | 2025-03-16 21:35 | Glassman ♦5,240 | It appears that you are connecting the sidewalk to the road when they don't. There has been quite a bit of discussion on this subject but I don't think any consensus has been reached. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/16369560... |
| 160661274 by ratrun @ 2024-12-27 04:21 | 1 | 2024-12-29 01:02 | donovaly ♦37 | Why did you make this change? You prolonged a street under construction but there is no construction yet (checked personally this Monday)Please only map what you see live. |
| 2 | 2024-12-29 05:10 | ratrun | Please check the complete history in the future before you make statements about a change. I only connected unconnected ways to newly created constructions, which were added by another user https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Jonaianimail. See the history here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/134... | |
| 3 | 2024-12-30 00:10 | donovaly ♦37 | > I only connected unconnected ways to newly created constructionsBut you did not check that these additions were real. The user you mentioned is a vandal, he changed administrative boundaries, even the position of Tirana's main river.Please only add things you are sure they exist.(F... | |
| 159993657 by ratrun @ 2024-12-06 13:06 | 1 | 2024-12-12 09:03 | steko ♦3 | this change does not reflect the current situation as updated in changeset #159946528 |
| 160192427 by ratrun @ 2024-12-12 04:27 | 1 | 2024-12-12 07:22 | Metzor ♦369 | Danke! |
| 160018830 by ratrun @ 2024-12-07 08:29 | 1 | 2024-12-08 03:29 | Spaghetti Monster🍝 ♦2,069 | vandalism revertedhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160045056 |
| 156935563 by ratrun @ 2024-09-22 04:54 | 1 | 2024-12-02 07:29 | Глеб ♦134 | thanks |
| 158894589 by ratrun @ 2024-11-08 12:54 | 1 | 2024-11-08 14:48 | gurglypipe ♦873 | For anyone looking at this later, this isn’t just an arbitrary deletion of a barn, it’s resolving a merge conflict. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/158898865 |
| 158894582 by ratrun @ 2024-11-08 12:53 | 1 | 2024-11-08 14:48 | gurglypipe ♦873 | For anyone looking at this later, this isn’t just an arbitrary deletion of a track, it’s resolving a merge conflict. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/158898865 |
| 157930224 by ratrun @ 2024-10-15 17:02 | 1 | 2024-10-15 20:02 | ToniE ♦1,233 | Servus,In dem Gebiet habe ich zwei CS entdeckt, die vor deinem Edit massive Schäden vor allem an Bus-Relationen verursacht haben.https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/157862753https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/157871107Ich habe die Mapperin schon angeschrieben und wollte... |
| 2 | 2024-10-16 05:15 | ratrun | Hallo!Zu: "Könntest du evtl. ermitteln, ob dieser Edit hier von den beiden Reverts dann betroffen sein könnte?"Da ich Verbindungsprobleme ausgebessert habe, die durch diese Changesets entstanden sind, wirst du ziemlich sicher Konflikte bekommen falls du versuchst die gena... | |
| 3 | 2024-10-16 06:37 | ToniE ♦1,233 | Danke, habe die CS gerade revertiert. | |
| 4 | 2024-10-16 06:46 | ToniE ♦1,233 | 157949161, 157949196, 157949260 | |
| 156935455 by ratrun @ 2024-09-22 04:45 | 1 | 2024-09-23 20:43 | goedegazelle ♦241 | Er ligt ook geen boot. |
| 156825419 by ratrun @ 2024-09-19 15:08 | 1 | 2024-09-23 09:33 | Afrandez ♦8 | Would like to note deleted nodes in this changeset are based on the following gps trace:https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Afrandez/traces/11467329 |
| 146993646 by ratrun @ 2024-02-02 17:08 | 1 | 2024-09-21 23:48 | marc__marc ♦1,265 | Hello,https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1227587011/historyI don't see any reason to delete this route to solve a routing problem, so I've restored it.feel free to explain what's wrong and if it's necessary to delete it, also delete the nodes in the path instead of leaving l... |
| 156195644 by ratrun @ 2024-09-04 16:39 | 1 | 2024-09-06 06:45 | BCNorwich ♦4,856 | Hi, I've removed two highways that you placed on top of existing highways, Way: 1313007960 and Way: 1313007939. This duplication disrupts routing.Regards Bernard |
| 2 | 2024-09-07 05:17 | ratrun | Thanks, it seems I overlooked some, probably because of the amount of the problems in this area. | |
| 156235690 by ratrun @ 2024-09-05 15:00 | 1 | 2024-09-05 17:33 | TheodoreTNB ♦3 | You have removed an existing tunnel, that had been built in 1914, and it still exists today. (The proposed part, is that the city plans to renovate it for motor traffic). |
| 2 | 2024-09-06 04:42 | ratrun | I'm sorry for modifying it, I could not believe this as the location is within a town. I reverted my change and added the layer tag. | |
| 155307573 by ratrun @ 2024-08-16 03:28 | 1 | 2024-08-16 07:08 | habi ♦1,844 | Thanks for fixing my error.(I'm subscribed to my Osmose errors via RSS, you've fixed it before the notifiction arrived :) ) |
| 155046406 by ratrun @ 2024-08-10 04:07 | 1 | 2024-08-10 15:38 | OSM_RogerWilco ♦723 | Hi ratrun,das ist nicht richtig, jetzt hast Du die beiden Zufahrten auf der unteren und oberen Ebene vom Parkdeck miteinander verbunden. Siehe die unterschiedlichen layer von den beiden ways.Gruß Roger Wilco |
| 2 | 2024-08-11 04:55 | ratrun | Hallo,Sorry und danke fürs richtigstellen! | |
| 154739119 by ratrun @ 2024-08-02 14:25 | 1 | 2024-08-02 16:00 | mcliquid ♦1,858 | Why is the specification of surface wrong for a bicycle parking? I haven't looked at the changes in Africa. |
| 2 | 2024-08-02 16:21 | ratrun | thanks a lot for detecting this. I'm very sorry for creating this changeset with a way to big bounding box. It was an accident when I removed many way nodes in Africa, which were tagged with a surface tag. I forgot to click the search invert in JOSM when I searched for the nodes. I reverted the... | |
| 3 | 2024-08-02 16:23 | mcliquid ♦1,858 | Thank you for the revert! Have a nice day of mapping! | |
| 154471773 by ratrun @ 2024-07-27 08:14 | 1 | 2024-08-01 09:59 | jorgeyp ♦2 | I've reverted this changed and fixed the junctions after surveying the area. The imagery is outdated and doesn't reflect the current situation. |
| 152907294 by ratrun @ 2024-06-19 17:32 | 1 | 2024-06-26 05:56 | CycleStreets ♦27 | Way 1292824574 should be removed because the cycleway along Huntingdon Road is more correctly modelled by the cycleway=track or cycleway=lane properites of the highway=primary. Cyclists riding on the cycleway on Huntingdon Road do not have to give way when passing side roads, which is one of the mai... |
| 2 | 2024-06-26 09:23 | CycleStreets ♦27 | The above comment is moved to https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/152755535 where the way was created. | |
| 153016923 by ratrun @ 2024-06-22 06:33 | 1 | 2024-06-24 15:08 | simonschaufi ♦12 | @ratrun, what exactly did you change here? Unfortunately OSM doesn't really show the changes here in the history. At least the line is not showing up anymore. |
| 2 | 2024-06-24 16:31 | ratrun | Hi,I fixed a routing error by merging the separate unconnected end points of your new ferry line to node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/83560399#map=19/37.90583/20.70649 such that it got connected to the pier https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/77669809#map=19/37.90522/20.70794. I cannot provide... | |
| 3 | 2024-06-24 18:11 | simonschaufi ♦12 | Yes, I got some help because the rendered line wasn't rendered anymore with your change. CharliePlett has fixed that again. | |
| 146038182 by ratrun @ 2024-01-08 17:47 | 1 | 2024-05-27 06:44 | Sajeevini sivajothy ♦119 | This app requires that I review everything as good or bad. There is not in-between. When I mark it as bad, it may only be that it doesn't fit the OSM tagging scheme. I'll leave a changeset comment with what I found. #Osmcha#OMGuruPlease give a Proper tag for the Map features. please re... |
| 146075500 by ratrun @ 2024-01-09 17:48 | 1 | 2024-05-27 06:35 | Sajeevini sivajothy ♦119 | Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work, and it looks good.#OMGuru#OSMChaBut Please Use a proper Changest Comment for your Edits. For Example, If you Digitized Roads, 'Added Roads, Place Name, District Name, Country Name and Use Suitable Hashtag" --- #... |
| 151559464 by ratrun @ 2024-05-20 04:31 | 1 | 2024-05-27 06:21 | Sajeevini sivajothy ♦119 | Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work, and it looks good.#OMGuru#OSMCha --- #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151559464 |
| 151800526 by ratrun @ 2024-05-25 08:49 | 1 | 2024-05-26 13:40 | Intrinsical ♦87 | [undeleted in changeset 151852021] |
| 150738491 by ratrun @ 2024-05-01 08:29 | 1 | 2024-05-20 09:11 | kowaw ♦11 | Hello! I found you made a mistake in fixing something (path 1185647749). Now I fix it in correct, thanks.https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/151568315 |
| 151016900 by ratrun @ 2024-05-07 15:36 | 1 | 2024-05-08 04:06 | fortera_au ♦1,070 | Hi, there is a turning circle there, removing valid info just to fix a QA "error" shouldn't happen. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151016900 |
| 2 | 2024-05-08 14:14 | ratrun | It looks as if you only checked osmcha and sow that nodes were deleted. But the turning circle was duplicated before and I only merged the two of them. So I really didn't remove anything. | |
| 3 | 2024-05-08 22:51 | fortera_au ♦1,070 | Ahh, thanks for explaining, yeah looked like you'd just removed the tag but I missed it marking it as not visible, sorry! | |
| 147267998 by ratrun @ 2024-02-09 18:21 | 1 | 2024-02-13 00:17 | Doulland ♦2 | This doesn't represent the path on the ground, Dawson Street South has recent street view for you to check. |
| 146747450 by ratrun @ 2024-01-27 15:02 | 1 | 2024-01-28 17:51 | wireguy ♦548 | Ratrun, can you review this change? It appears to have deleted a section of us 40 and also the relation 140774 (unclosed boundary Bates City relation). Thx. |
| 2 | 2024-01-28 18:25 | ratrun | Hi, I only connected unconnected segments. The deletion of the segments you mentioned was done in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/146722280. | |
| 3 | 2024-01-28 18:43 | wireguy ♦548 | ok when you connected us 40, you didn't connect it fully. The josm validator would show the error. | |
| 146602006 by ratrun @ 2024-01-23 17:32 | 1 | 2024-01-23 22:18 | s222121 ♦33 | A Lyft fanboy is trying to take over Landing at Creekside using Service Roads? |
| 2 | 2024-01-24 17:03 | ratrun | I didn't check the history who created the duplicated service roads. Instead of creating additional duplicated ways the correct method would have been to verify that the already mapped highway=construction ways and change these into highway=residential in case that the construction work is over... | |
| 146412978 by ratrun @ 2024-01-18 16:46 | 1 | 2024-01-18 21:49 | felipeeugenio ♦2,352 | Hello, this was set as disused by a local mapper 3 months ago. Do you have further information about this? |
| 2 | 2024-01-19 16:08 | ratrun | Sorry that I messed this up. I do not have local knowlege. From remote the most likely oneway highway=primary situation which just ended without any connection was that this was an accident. Thanks for correcting the situation now! | |
| 3 | 2024-01-19 16:19 | felipeeugenio ♦2,352 | Ok, don´t worry. Thanks for the good attitude.regards | |
| 144728631 by ratrun @ 2023-12-03 18:30 | 1 | 2023-12-21 05:16 | jacobwhall ♦41 | Thanks for this fix! The end was not yet connected because we have an active pedestrian mapping project underway, see here:https://tasks.openstreetmap.us/projects/438/tasks/?search=603 --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/144728631 ... |
| 144105142 by ratrun @ 2023-11-16 17:12 | 1 | 2023-11-17 08:17 | zstadler ♦1,055 | Hello,Thank you for assisting in reverting the vandalism in Israel.As a result of the massive corruption and its co-existant with various revert attempts, a proper revert is hard to do.For example, this changeset deleted https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/702077917/historywhich was previo... |
| 2 | 2023-11-17 15:13 | ratrun | I'm following the community forum and as you (or somebody else, I don`t remember) announced that the revert has finished I thought that now is the time again to re-start with improving the data. If this is not the case please announce the status in a clear way on the community forum. Thanks! | |
| 3 | 2023-11-17 15:38 | zstadler ♦1,055 | Thank you for your feedback! It seems I was too eager to claim success in the forum :-)I've tried to clarify the situation in this post:https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/vandalism-and-blocks-in-israel/105176/92Please let me know if it needs further improvements or refinements | |
| 4 | 2023-11-17 15:45 | ratrun | Thanks for the clarification. Just for your information: I did check the history before and to me user https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Charmscobb didn't look to be a vandal to me. | |
| 5 | 2023-11-17 16:48 | zstadler ♦1,055 | I agree. His edits fall into the category of "trying to re-map the vandalized area". | |
| 144106827 by ratrun @ 2023-11-16 18:06 | 1 | 2023-11-17 04:47 | MxxCon ♦3,359 | Hello.Could you please explain what kind of fix is this? What was wrong here? --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/144106827 |
| 2 | 2023-11-17 15:07 | ratrun | The kerb in the west of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1223987957 was not connected and marked as error by the OSM Inspector. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Inspector/Views/Routing | |
| 143165930 by ratrun @ 2023-10-26 14:43 | 1 | 2023-10-26 19:05 | SomeoneElse ♦13,389 | Please DO NOT apply "osmi routing view fixes" while the revert of this data is ongoing. |
| 2 | 2023-10-27 04:58 | ratrun | Sorry, I thought it was finshed. | |
| 141687304 by ratrun @ 2023-09-24 15:16 | 1 | 2023-09-27 10:31 | karussell ♦15 | Thanks for the fixes. Did the user goislandadventures corrupt the highway? If yes, did you report it to the DWG? |
| 2 | 2023-09-27 17:57 | ratrun | Hi,yes it was this user who destroyed it. And no, I did not report this vandalism. | |
| 140722112 by ratrun @ 2023-09-02 14:36 | 1 | 2023-09-02 16:35 | Metzor ♦369 | Hi ratrun,How do you come to the conclusion that the service way (description=Zufahrt P 1) connects to the street Christian-Völter-Straße instead of the building tagged as parking garage named P1?The service way actually is a tunnel below the Hotel building, below Christian-V-str... |
| 2 | 2023-09-03 05:54 | ratrun | Hi,thanks for pointing this out. I was confused because I didn't see the undergroud parking and on esri the underground part was not visible.I fixed it by splitting, putting an layer=-1 on the segment and amenity=parking_entrance tag on the entrance node. | |
| 3 | 2023-09-03 06:05 | Metzor ♦369 | Hi,thanks a lot :-) | |
| 139972855 by ratrun @ 2023-08-16 16:23 | 1 | 2023-08-21 10:45 | ntzm ♦39 | I'm sorry but these changes aren't correct, please could you revert? |
| 2 | 2023-08-21 10:47 | ntzm ♦39 | Apologies, wrong changeset | |
| 138677237 by ratrun @ 2023-07-18 16:10 | 1 | 2023-07-19 09:33 | yasslay ♦93 | Thank you! |
| 138071672 by ratrun @ 2023-07-03 16:18 | 1 | 2023-07-04 13:40 | monhiko ♦34 | Hello!Are you live in China? I have seen that you had mapped this area 21 hours ago based in Bing,but the Binshan Road you mapped should be primary all but not one is primary while another is tertiaty. And if you mapped by Bing, I want to know which year`s satellite image did you use? Thank you ! |
| 2 | 2023-07-05 16:11 | ratrun | Hello! I'm not from China and have just connected two ways according to Bing as shown in JOSM. Sorry, but I'm not familiar how to find out the date of a JOSM satellite image. | |
| 3 | 2023-07-16 02:39 | monhiko ♦34 | Hello!You says you mapped here based in Bing , but the Bing satelite image in this area(the Jingxi city) is only updated in 2018, here are many changes happened in 4 years,so I suggest that it this the best to map here by natives.Thank you! | |
| 136769915 by ratrun @ 2023-05-31 04:31 | 1 | 2023-06-19 10:22 | Frans S ♦9,817 | Thanks for your contribution to this project.This changeset is reviewed by a Global Validator. I am sorry to say, but your mappings are often tagged with the wrong tag.Please read and follow the tagging info on this linked document.Decision tree, which tag to be used for roadshttps://drive... |
| 2 | 2023-06-19 15:41 | ratrun | Please note that I'm usually not changing way tags as long as they aren't obvious errors. I'm just work on way-connectivity. So to me it looks as if you haven't analyzed my changes deeply enough and intend your comments to the original author, but maybe I'm wrong. If you cou... | |
| 3 | 2023-06-20 10:18 | Frans S ♦9,817 | Hi. I tried to isolate the changes I made to your taggings, but that don't work. In general, I changed wrong taggings, like footway, living_street into path, residential, depending on what I can make of it.And yes, another mapper could tag those wrongly, and when you are the last who edited ... | |
| 136871431 by ratrun @ 2023-06-02 14:42 | 1 | 2023-06-04 20:55 | george1201 ♦226 | Hi ratrun,why did you delete way 1059978660? It is the way to a door (node 9738631561) in the noise_barrier wall. How can the door reached now without a way? |
| 2 | 2023-06-05 15:04 | ratrun | The way 1059978660 was not connected to the way 1178221564. I connect both ways via their shared node and merged them into a single way as the tags were identical. So no information was lost. | |
| 3 | 2023-06-05 20:29 | george1201 ♦226 | Oh sorry, I think that the previous CS 136850669 of W0lle is the reason for the loss of the connection. The way to the door was modified and the connection to the door was interrupted. See my comments to CS 136850669. Sorry for my false accusation. | |
| 136466579 by ratrun @ 2023-05-23 17:27 | 1 | 2023-05-23 23:45 | Baloo Uriza ♦2,114 | Not sure I understand the description or what changed. Could you be more specific? --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/136466579 |
| 2 | 2023-05-24 15:19 | ratrun | Please take a look on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Inspector/Views/Routing to get information about the Openstreetmap Inspector Routing view.The connectivity quality in the US is not the best as can be seen on e.g. https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=-76.65727&lat=... | |
| 135818990 by ratrun @ 2023-05-07 16:27 | 1 | 2023-05-08 13:57 | monhiko ♦34 | 在把龙潭路和百丘桥连接的时候请做两个单向桥谢谢 |
| 2 | 2023-05-08 14:57 | ratrun | Sorry, I do not understand Chinese. Google translate gave me a translation result, but I do not understand which brige you mean by "Baiqiu Bridge" | |
| 129938919 by ratrun @ 2022-12-10 16:24 | 1 | 2023-05-01 09:09 | javbw ♦37 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/583622305sidewalk is badly mapped. It seems very little care was put into mapping it properlyThe sidewalk *must* share nodes with all ways it crosses. this way shares ~50%, meaning it is useless for routing data. mapping this way. Please do not map sidewa... |
| 2 | 2023-05-01 09:22 | ratrun | Please check the detailed version information for that way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/583622305/history. I only fixed some of the errors which were there previously. If you want to address the original author who is to blame for bad editing you need to contact user neutan in this case. | |
| 3 | 2023-05-01 10:34 | javbw ♦37 | sorry for the error. I was mistaken ! =) | |
| 135435348 by ratrun @ 2023-04-27 16:25 | 1 | 2023-04-27 19:37 | cyton ♦217 | what'd i do wrong? did i miss to merge a driveway, and made a duplicate? --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/135435348 |
| 2 | 2023-04-28 12:18 | ratrun | Yes, you created two overlapping ways: one tagged as highway=service service=driveway, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1058401874/history I kept the additional way which containes the additional width tag: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1165046320/historyNot a big deal! | |
| 3 | 2023-04-28 12:20 | ratrun | I just checked: as you are using JOSM it should have given a warning before the upload, do you remember it popping up? | |
| 4 | 2023-04-28 12:54 | cyton ♦217 | Yes i remember the warning.My workflow is kind of awkward, though.I merged all others, and must have missed this one.I should orobably write a diary entry about how i did this with josm -> vespucci -> josm | |
| 134927634 by ratrun @ 2023-04-15 05:40 | 1 | 2023-04-15 06:39 | cartofy ♦76 | Hello! Please try and keep your changes limited to smaller geographic areas. Thanks. |
| 97038799 by ratrun @ 2021-01-06 10:05 | 1 | 2021-10-15 14:31 | Myazyk ♦575 | А чому ти видалив (-ла) вулицю Верхній Кінець у селі Хащів? |
| 2 | 2021-10-15 14:32 | Myazyk ♦575 | І вулицю Шумина для чого ти знищив (-ла)? | |
| 3 | 2021-10-15 14:49 | ratrun | Sorry, I don't understand your language. My changes corrected overlapping ways. | |
| 4 | 2021-10-18 19:45 | Myazyk ♦575 | You don't need to make changes (edit) in the area you don't know!In the village Khashchiv you deleted 2 streets: Shumyna and Horishniy Kinets. Why did you do that? Please return the names of the streets in the village! | |
| 5 | 2023-04-01 13:36 | Myazyk ♦575 | Hey! Where is Shumyna Street and Verkhniy Kinets Street? | |
| 132264388 by ratrun @ 2023-02-08 16:11 | 1 | 2023-02-13 04:01 | adiatmad ♦446 | Hi ratrun, hope you are doing well.You added layer=-1 here (https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/135625570) but I only see from Maxar imagery it is flat, no underground, etc. Do you want to share your knowledge?Thanks |
| 2 | 2023-02-13 17:06 | ratrun | Hi,What I did is that I merged way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/135625587/history where the "layer=-1" was already present. I didn't notice this tag when I merged. Now I removed this tag, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/132500263 . Thanks for detecting this! | |
| 132315124 by ratrun @ 2023-02-09 16:01 | 1 | 2023-02-10 12:36 | DaveF ♦1,564 | Why have you removed this kissing gate?https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10562962453/history |
| 2 | 2023-02-10 14:28 | ratrun | I removed this one because it was there twice. See the remaining node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/453231102 | |
| 3 | 2023-02-10 14:38 | DaveF ♦1,564 | Got you - Thanks. | |
| 130203282 by ratrun @ 2022-12-18 06:22 | 1 | 2022-12-26 11:06 | Gabriel Vigneault ♦1 | Bonjour / Hi |
| 10303436 by ratrun @ 2012-01-05 17:41 | 1 | 2022-12-15 12:25 | kuhni74 ♦363 | ist noch rekonstruierbar, woher die Bezeichnung "L19" für die Nochalmstraße her ist? Siehe https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3478036 |
| 2 | 2022-12-15 12:25 | kuhni74 ♦363 | Nockalmstraße hätte das heißen sollen | |
| 3 | 2022-12-15 16:23 | ratrun | Laut https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/30760869/history habe ich das vor 11 Jahren aus den plan.at Daten so übernommen.Erinnern kann ich mich da dran natürlich nicht mehr. | |
| 129572143 by ratrun @ 2022-11-30 18:31 | 1 | 2022-12-06 09:42 | Carto'Cité ♦1,139 | Thanks for the fix ! |
| 128780149 by ratrun @ 2022-11-11 14:36 | 1 | 2022-11-11 14:48 | SekeRob ♦1,433 | Hi,I may have hand in this, whole or part while removing the Agnello dello Bregonze. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/128767398It's on my watch list for when Osmose or Inspector pop up more issues. I've sent notes to ascanio12 without response. Seems CS comments mostly d... |
| 127922485 by ratrun @ 2022-10-22 13:30 | 1 | 2022-10-23 11:26 | DaveF ♦1,564 | Why have you split a public footpath leaving an undesignated section:https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/841354437What OSMI rule flagged it as a problem? |
| 2 | 2022-10-23 13:22 | ratrun | Thanks for detecting my fault. OSMI complained about unconnected ways. I improved the modification in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/127957244, please check now. | |
| 125480994 by ratrun @ 2022-08-28 14:43 | 1 | 2022-10-05 18:09 | messpert ♦65 | You seem to have added a higway tag to a node. Why? |
| 2 | 2022-10-06 14:56 | ratrun | Looks that I merged node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9738428710/history where this was already present.I just deleted those two tags now. | |
| 126744523 by ratrun @ 2022-09-28 14:54 | 1 | 2022-09-29 14:38 | SHARCRASH ♦752 | Thank you! Totally forgot to reconnect it, there is so much to do in this area that i got carried on other issues. |
| 126002281 by ratrun @ 2022-09-10 05:28 | 1 | 2022-09-10 06:45 | Saeed SJ ♦47 | سلام دوست عزیزلطفا برای قرار دادن نام به زبان محلی از تگ loc_name استفاده کنید. متشکرم |
| 2 | 2022-09-10 06:49 | Saeed SJ ♦47 | با عرض پوزش، این کامنت برای چنجست قبلی بوده که اشتباه برای شما ثبت شد.لطفا این کامنت را نادیده بگیریدممنون | |
| 125759946 by ratrun @ 2022-09-04 06:04 | 1 | 2022-09-04 20:33 | Msiipola ♦245 | Vad jag se har väg väster om Vällingsjön har raderats av dig. Vägen finns i Trafikverkets lager, NVDB och syns på Lantmäteriets ortofoto. Är detta ett misstag? Om så behöver vägen återställas. |
| 2 | 2022-09-05 07:18 | Msiipola ♦245 | The road west of lake Vällingsjön has been deleted by. This is an error. The road exist according to Swedish national databas NVDB. This changeset should be reverted. | |
| 3 | 2022-09-05 07:19 | Msiipola ♦245 | ...deleted by you... | |
| 4 | 2022-09-05 14:45 | ratrun | Sorry, I deleted too much of an overlapping track. Fixed with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/125818697 | |
| 124327122 by ratrun @ 2022-08-01 06:05 | 1 | 2022-08-01 08:52 | voiden ♦16 | hi, may I ask what this description means? thanks --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/124327122 |
| 2 | 2022-08-01 08:58 | ratrun | See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Inspector/Views/Routing | |
| 123122273 by ratrun @ 2022-07-02 14:34 | 1 | 2022-07-03 10:45 | marczoutendijk_repair ♦11,120 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 123145984 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert on request from user |
| 68557430 by ratrun @ 2019-03-26 18:03 | 1 | 2022-06-15 15:26 | alesarrett ♦130 | This editing is wrong. Via Spinelli doesn't connect with via Vernise Frascà nor with via Brandt. Corrected in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/122424056 |
| 121306680 by ratrun @ 2022-05-22 07:24 | 1 | 2022-05-22 16:58 | Msiipola ♦245 | Flera vägar i området är satta till residential, men bör vara cykel/service., eftersom dessa vägar inte har namn. Till skillnad från vägarna norr om detta område. |
| 2 | 2022-05-25 12:21 | Msiipola ♦245 | Jag har nu ändrat samtliga dessa till cykel/gång-vägar | |
| 3 | 2022-05-25 14:50 | ratrun | Sorry, I don't speak Swedish. Please note that my changes only connected some unconnected nodes and that I do not have local area knowledge such that I could say anything to the classification of the ways. | |
| 119627416 by ratrun @ 2022-04-12 15:39 | 1 | 2022-04-13 13:41 | julcnx ♦404 | hey, I appreciate your work fixing routing issues but you are not helping if the previous mapper disconnected both road segments because maybe there is a wall in between, and you come and put them back together remotely without any local knowledge. I have suggested the user use noexit=yes because m... |
| 2 | 2022-04-13 15:53 | ratrun | Yes, in case that nodes comes close to a way it is the correct way to enter noexit=yes at the node if someone knows the situation. From remote it is sometimes hard to detect if there is a barrier in between or not, so sometimes I cannot avoid errors by detecting from the image. Sorry for this. | |
| 116392554 by ratrun @ 2022-01-20 16:19 | 1 | 2022-01-26 10:38 | jmty8 ♦69 | Hello ratrun, can you check if Rue des Magnolias and Boulevard Louis Campi should be connected? --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/116392554 |
| 2 | 2022-01-26 16:51 | ratrun | Sorry, I cannot answer your question. I only reverted obvious errors. I would ask you to raise this question in changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116228316#map=16/41.9418/8.7522 | |
| 113532149 by ratrun @ 2021-11-08 17:45 | 1 | 2021-11-09 06:19 | pyrog ♦337 | Hi,Why did you delete these path in forest ?Your changeset comment is not clear.These path are cutlines but also path with sometimes routes.Could you reverse your changeset please ?Best regards,Yves --- #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA Published using OS... |
| 2 | 2021-11-09 16:56 | ratrun | Hi,If you look in detail you will see that I only deleted overlapping duplicated ways. At least one of your new ways is still there. | |
| 15355898 by ratrun @ 2013-03-13 20:15 | 1 | 2021-10-28 10:41 | Luzandro ♦907 | s.: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2668025 |
| 110574102 by ratrun @ 2021-09-01 15:37 | 1 | 2021-09-02 11:40 | julcnx ♦404 | Hi! I am curious what is OSMI router? and what was the exact problem? --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110574102 |
| 2 | 2021-09-02 16:54 | ratrun | See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Inspector/Views/Routing for a description what OSMI is.The problem was unconnected nodes. | |
| 3 | 2021-09-02 17:01 | julcnx ♦404 | Thanks! --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110574102 | |
| 110416512 by ratrun @ 2021-08-29 15:06 | 1 | 2021-09-01 17:12 | Msiipola ♦245 | Anslutning av E18 till rondellen är felaktigt länkad. Jag antar det var gjort av dig då du är sist i historiken, efter min föregående rättning. Länkningen var tidigare ok och jag har nu ändrat tillbaka så att det inte blir valideringsfel. |
| 2 | 2021-09-02 16:59 | ratrun | Sorry, I don't understand Swedish and Google translate does not provide an reasonable translation. Anyhow it looks as if you corrected the problem you found. Thank you. | |
| 108260353 by ratrun @ 2021-07-19 14:53 | 1 | 2021-07-25 11:02 | Dino Michelini ♦321 | hi, in the changes you broke the route 12989647. Please rebuild the route. Thank you |
| 2 | 2021-07-25 13:43 | ratrun | Thank you, fixed it in changeset 108565987. | |
| 105612607 by ratrun @ 2021-05-31 09:35 | 1 | 2021-06-01 00:05 | Lee Carré ♦665 | Care to explain what was done, here? It's not clear from the set's data. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105612607 |
| 2 | 2021-06-01 07:56 | ratrun | I merged a not connected node of two ways and two separate ways which had the same tags. | |
| 3 | 2021-07-01 03:44 | Lee Carré ♦665 | Ah, good.I wondered if it might have been related to the new bus-lane road-layout change.Kudos for hunting down duplicates. | |
| 106218862 by ratrun @ 2021-06-11 14:01 | 1 | 2021-06-29 21:35 | gileri ♦1,003 | Thank you ! |
| 106723146 by ratrun @ 2021-06-21 15:00 | 1 | 2021-06-22 07:37 | PT-53 ♦3,642 | Hallo ratrun,Du hast in diesem Änderungssatz einige von "Ein Engener" neu eingezeichnete Wege gelöscht.Warum?Und hast Du "Ein Engener" entspr. informiert?Fragende Grüße |
| 2 | 2021-06-22 14:48 | ratrun | Die Wege waren doppelt (übereinanderliegend), deshalb hab ich einen davon jeweils gelöscht. | |
| 3 | 2021-06-22 15:03 | PT-53 ♦3,642 | Danke für die Rückmeldung.Wäre es da nicht sinnvoll. den Verursacher zu informieren? Lernfähig bzw. lernwillig (Fehlerkorrekturen) scheint er aber nicht besonders zu sein, leider.Grüße | |
| 4 | 2021-06-22 15:24 | ratrun | Es macht keinen Sinn den user zu informieren. Es passiert hin und wieder, dass ways doppelt hochgeladen werden. Der user kann da zu 99% nichts dafür. | |
| 5 | 2021-06-22 16:17 | PT-53 ♦3,642 | Ich habe gerade mal einen highway "verdoppelt" und der JOSM-Validator hat das leider nicht bemängelt. Blöd. | |
| 105919959 by ratrun @ 2021-06-06 14:45 | 1 | 2021-06-06 18:05 | TobiasFischer00 ♦254 | Thank you Sir! And keep up the good work! --- #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105919959 |
| 105613704 by ratrun @ 2021-05-31 09:48 | 1 | 2021-05-31 17:19 | TobiasFischer00 ♦254 | Perfect! keep up the good work! --- #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105613704 |
| 105613794 by ratrun @ 2021-05-31 09:49 | 1 | 2021-05-31 17:18 | TobiasFischer00 ♦254 | Thank you and keep up the good work! --- #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105613794 |
| 97849427 by ratrun @ 2021-01-20 16:34 | 1 | 2021-03-14 14:21 | SomeoneElse ♦13,389 | Hello ratrun,It looks like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/892186003/history was added by someone accused of fictional mapping (see http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=11940952 ) who I'm now reverting. Can you please check that any edits that you have made have not be... |
| 100293980 by ratrun @ 2021-03-02 16:49 | 1 | 2021-03-12 18:21 | Puxan ♦184 | con tantos cambios en este changeset se han colado 2 vías duplicadas: 912401344 y 912401345Parece que se han borrado muchas vías que luego se volvieron a dibujar o se revirtió el cambio --- #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA Published using OSMCha: ht... |
| 100062370 by ratrun @ 2021-02-26 16:16 | 1 | 2021-02-26 16:36 | canfe ♦1,117 | tolti tagaccess:customers\tyesaccess:residents\tyesnon esistenti in wiki. |
| 96443559 by ratrun @ 2020-12-26 09:11 | 1 | 2020-12-26 13:47 | berndw ♦588 | Danke, da habe ich wohl etwas übersehen ;-) |
| 94951172 by ratrun @ 2020-11-28 16:14 | 1 | 2020-11-28 16:15 | Trax45 ♦1 | https://downloads.apache.org/eagle/KEYS |
| 90795884 by ratrun @ 2020-09-12 14:28 | 1 | 2020-09-12 15:19 | wurzelast ♦1,560 | Welcher Fehler wurde da im Inspector genau behoben? Die gelöschten Wege/Fließgewässer (!) wurden erst vor kurzem neu eingepflegt? |
| 2 | 2020-09-12 15:44 | ratrun | Ich habe Routing Fehler von http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=14.78493&lat=48.24178&zoom=8&overlays=snap_points,unconnected_open_ends_1 ausgebessert.Offensichtlich gab es den Weg doppelt. | |
| 3 | 2020-09-12 16:15 | wurzelast ♦1,560 | Der Link bezieht sich auf eine komplett andere Stelle, deine Changesets heißen alle gleich, keine Chance da irgendwas zuzordnen. Ich bin draußen :-) | |
| 90709585 by ratrun @ 2020-09-10 14:52 | 1 | 2020-09-10 15:30 | wurzelast ♦1,560 | Da sollte vermutlich der Straßentyp geändert werden? |
| 2 | 2020-09-11 14:06 | ratrun | Der Typ war schon gesetzt, ich hab es jetzt aber geändert auf "service". | |
| 90421563 by ratrun @ 2020-09-04 14:48 | 1 | 2020-09-07 07:50 | SekeRob ♦1,433 | Hi, any reason you reversed the one way direction north side and removed the traffic lights from the new situation of the brand new plant situated south of that SS602 section? The entrance road to that plant also has a traffic light but could not remember it was plant side or at the traffic island w... |
| 2 | 2020-09-07 14:57 | ratrun | These changes were already present from changes of https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/90291739 . I only connected the track with the way, see the history: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/843445757/history | |
| 3 | 2020-09-07 17:18 | SekeRob ♦1,433 | Strange, as I was the one who originally drew the road separation and later added the traffic lights, but I did find out today that my web browser does not fully clear the cache on exit and then on next visit pulls stale OSM images. Anyway momentarily it looks fine but for the 3rd traffic light I sa... | |
| 87662626 by ratrun @ 2020-07-07 15:19 | 1 | 2020-07-07 16:17 | WalkerB ♦80 | Dear Ratrun,I see your imagery source is Bing. Bing imagery for Afghanistan is very very old. You may want to check Maxar Premium for the newest imagery.Best,Walker |
| 2 | 2020-07-08 14:47 | ratrun | Thank you for the hint! | |
| 87662764 by ratrun @ 2020-07-07 15:23 | 1 | 2020-07-07 15:53 | mosstreet ♦232 | Зачем вы занимаетесь правками) безграмотность или специальное вредительство? Warum bearbeitest du Analphabetismus oder spezielle Sabotage? |
| 87301988 by ratrun @ 2020-06-29 15:32 | 1 | 2020-06-30 20:13 | mosstreet ♦232 | You need to change your edit, in Afghanistan we rule the Maxar Premium Imagery (Beta) |
| 82831309 by ratrun @ 2020-03-30 15:15 | 1 | 2020-04-11 23:49 | Polarbear-repair ♦690 | Hi ratrun, could you kindly explain what you mean with "osmi routing view fixes" in this particular changeset? It is hard to guess since you seem to give the same comment in all your changesets. I had to revert this CS since it was creating conflicts when reverting fiction from 8274923... |
| 2 | 2020-04-12 08:47 | ratrun | OSMI is the OpenStreetmap inspector , see tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=14.78493&lat=48.24178&zoom=8&overlays=snap_points,unconnected_open_ends_1I check with Bing before I connect two ways. | |
| 82831482 by ratrun @ 2020-03-30 15:19 | 1 | 2020-04-09 15:42 | amapanda ᚛ᚐᚋᚐᚅᚇᚐ᚜ 🏳️🌈 ♦363 | FYI I tried to engage the paid mapper who added some of these https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/82721841#map=12/-5.0633/38.9482 |
| 82579146 by ratrun @ 2020-03-24 15:57 | 1 | 2020-03-25 12:10 | Axelos ♦102 | Bonjour, pouvez-vous donner la raison de suppression des chemins autour de l’hôtel de Ville ? Ceux-ci furent insérés suite à repérages sur terrain.Bien cordialement. |
| 2 | 2020-03-25 12:56 | ratrun | Sorry, I do not speak French, but Google Translate helped me to understand what you commented.I only deleted duplicates of ways and nodes. As you can see on the map they are still there. | |
| 3 | 2020-03-25 13:16 | cyel ♦15 | Ok, sorry for these duplicates | |
| 14936387 by ratrun @ 2013-02-06 18:13 | 1 | 2020-03-14 20:00 | fkv ♦585 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 82202527 where the changeset comment is: CS 14936387 revertiert, weil dabei Wege entgegen der Ortskenntnis lokaler Mapper wie mir verändert wurden |
| 81832166 by ratrun @ 2020-03-05 17:06 | 1 | 2020-03-06 18:11 | abrensch ♦674 | Hallo Ratrun,was hast Du denn hier gefixt?Das ist hier alles komplett kaputt, die ganzen Nebenstrassen sind nicht angeschlossen, und die Tiroler Strasse hat auch noch mindestens einen unverbunden Node...Gruss, Arndt |
| 2 | 2020-03-06 19:09 | ratrun | Ich hatte nur die Tirolerstraße verbunden, die aufgetrennt war. Die unverbundenen Nebenstrassen sind mir dabei nicht aufgefallen. Ich habe dafür soeben ein paar weitere Fixes hochgeladen. | |
| 76164195 by ratrun @ 2019-10-24 15:58 | 1 | 2019-10-24 18:15 | rarad74 ♦278 | Hi you damaged residential poligon of Bucharest. |
| 2 | 2019-10-25 15:11 | ratrun | I don't think that it was me who destroyed this relation. I checked the history of way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/258887891 and the culpit probably was user Himawari207 with changeset 76099635. Anyway, it looks as you have already repaired it. Thank you! | |
| 75021015 by ratrun @ 2019-09-27 17:53 | 1 | 2019-10-05 04:55 | Luzandro ♦907 | Dieser "fix" war wieder einmal rein geraten. Auf der angegebenen Quelle "bing" ist nicht erkennbar, ob es da eine Verbindung zum Fuß- und Radweg gibt. Auf der basemap ist sogar eine Verbindung der Straße eingezeichnet. |
| 54462723 by ratrun @ 2017-12-08 16:02 | 1 | 2019-07-06 06:59 | kreuzschnabel ♦801 | Der Kreisverkehr in Fauerbach (Dorfgemeinschaftshaus) ist nur ein Minikreisel (Insel ist überfahrbar). Ich bau das mal zurück :) Die Info, ob richtiger Kreisel oder Minikreisel, ist für große Fahrzeuge wichtig. |
| 69121583 by ratrun @ 2019-04-11 16:29 | 1 | 2019-05-19 09:37 | aceman444 ♦2,570 | Sorry, but this change is wrong. The old road are really split with the cycleway. |
| 2 | 2019-05-19 09:40 | aceman444 ♦2,570 | I have now made it more explicit by adding a small path inbetween. | |
| 3 | 2019-05-20 16:57 | ratrun | Thank you! | |
| 70326158 by ratrun @ 2019-05-16 16:21 | 1 | 2019-05-16 18:33 | PT-53 ♦3,642 | Hallo ratrun,Du hast an diesem Knoten 5403620664 noexit=yes und gleichzeitig fixme=check eingetragen.Du hast also keinerlei Ortskenntnisse (fixme=check), trägst aber noexit=yes ein.Warum?Fragende Grüße |
| 2 | 2019-05-17 15:02 | ratrun | Ich behebe Fehler, die der Open Streetmap Inspector (OSMI) in seiner "Routing View" anzeigt. Siehe https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Inspector/Views/Routing. In dem Fall konnte ich aus dem Luftbild nicht erkennen ob es zwischen Hofäckerweg und der Ringstrße eine Verbindung... | |
| 3 | 2019-05-17 15:41 | PT-53 ♦3,642 | Das ist doch keine Fehlerbehebung wenn Du - ohne Ortskenntnisse - einfach noexit=yes einträgst damit im OSM-Inspector ein Routing-Hinweis weniger angezeigt wird. Dafür wird nun im OSM-Inspector View Tagging ein zusätzlicher Hinweis Fixme angezeigt.Ich erwarte, daß Du Deine &qu... | |
| 4 | 2019-05-17 15:45 | PT-53 ♦3,642 | PS:Siehe auch OSM-Forum-Beitrag "Zweifelhafte QS-Arbeiten: noexit=yes + fime=check"https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=66258 | |
| 5 | 2019-05-17 15:51 | ratrun | Aus meiner Sicht ist das die eleganteste Möglichkeit, dass sich das Problem zeitnah jemandem vor Ort wirklich einmal angeschaut wird, da ich davon ausgehe, dass mehr Leute vor Ort Fixmes bearbeiten können und möchten als OSMI Fehler. | |
| 6 | 2019-05-17 16:10 | PT-53 ♦3,642 | In meiner Gegend hat ein Mapper so viele Fixme erstellt, daß man den Wald vor lauter Bäumen nicht mehr sieht. Ich blende deshalb im OSMI Fixme generell aus. Den Routing-Hinweis hatte ich aber im Auge und wollte dort in den nächsten Wochen mit dem Rad vorbeifahren.Ich wiederhole:I... | |
| 7 | 2019-05-17 16:50 | ratrun | Da ich kein Forum Benutzer bin möchte ich ich das Thema gerne hier weiter diskutieren und ich bitte um Verständnis, dass ich Deiner forschen Aufforderung hier vorerst einmal nicht nachkomme. Ich konnte nicht wissen, dass in dieser Gegend alles mit Fixmes zugemüllt worden ist. In meine... | |
| 8 | 2019-05-17 16:57 | Nakaner ♦3,149 | Hallo ratrun,"your good judgement" heißt halt in dem Fall, dass man nachdenkt und überlegt, welche Folgen ein scheinbares Beheben des Problems hat. Von den Nutzern eines Qualitätssicherungsdienstes außerhalb der Validierungsregeln des OSM Inspectors kann meiner Me... | |
| 9 | 2019-05-17 17:26 | ratrun | Hallo Michael!ich werde Eurer Bitte nachkommen wenn ihr mir bitte erklärt wie ich mit dem OSMI dauerhaft sinnvoll arbeiten soll, wenn ich nicht immer wieder auf die selben unklaren Fälle hingewiesen werden möchte. | |
| 10 | 2019-05-17 19:50 | PT-53 ♦3,642 | Hallo ratrun,Du schreibst, daß Du kein Forum-Benutzer bist und zitierst gleichzeitig die Aussage von Nakaner.Wie paßt das zusammen?Der OSMI zeigt Hinweise auf "mögliche Fehler" an. Ob das ein echter Fehler ist oder eben nicht kann man oft nur mit Ortskenntnissen / ... | |
| 11 | 2019-05-18 05:45 | ratrun | Hallo PT-53!Ich wusste nicht, dass man keinen neuen User anlegen muss um im Forum mitzudiskutieren. Danke an Nakaner für den Hinweis.Langfristig sinnvolle Arbeit ist mit OSMI nur dann möglich wenn es eine Möglichkeit dessen Hinweise auch irgendwie loszuwerden. Jedenfalls fin... | |
| 12 | 2019-05-18 05:50 | PT-53 ♦3,642 | Da gehen unsere Meinungen, was sinnvolle Arbeit mit OSMI ist, sehr weit auseinander. | |
| 13 | 2019-05-19 04:54 | PT-53 ♦3,642 | Und, machst Du Deine Bearbeitungen an diesem Knoten rückgängig oder muß ich das machen? | |
| 14 | 2019-05-19 09:10 | Luzandro ♦907 | "Aus meiner Sicht ist das die eleganteste Möglichkeit, dass sich das Problem zeitnah jemandem vor Ort wirklich einmal angeschaut wird, da ich davon ausgehe, dass mehr Leute vor Ort Fixmes bearbeiten können und möchten als OSMI Fehler."Genau das Gegenteil ist der Fall. Du... | |
| 68269303 by ratrun @ 2019-03-18 18:52 | 1 | 2019-03-18 18:57 | Enock4seth ♦548 | That was quick! Left conflict for me :) |
| 64334038 by ratrun @ 2018-11-09 17:55 | 1 | 2019-01-21 13:09 | Thomas Summer ♦4 | Why you have set this note noexite=yes ?on the german-wiki It is said that you should not set this marker at entrances to buildings. |
| 63730962 by ratrun @ 2018-10-21 15:53 | 1 | 2018-10-22 15:00 | Markus366 ♦189 | Hi. These roads are (currently) not connected in real. osmi false positiv Markus |
| 60187518 by ratrun @ 2018-06-26 16:01 | 1 | 2018-06-26 16:49 | TM-TM-TM-TM ♦6 | Danke für den raschen "osmi routing view fix". Die Änderung wurde im betreffenden Änderungssatz (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/60150892) angefragt. |
| 53267533 by ratrun @ 2017-10-26 16:23 | 1 | 2017-10-27 13:27 | yzal ♦53 | I am looking at bing maps and the road is not there. So how do you know the footway and road are connected? Whats the real source of your edit? |
| 2 | 2017-10-27 16:30 | ratrun | The node was such close to the footway that OSMI (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Inspector/Views/Routing) detected an error. Now I set "noexit=yes" with "fixme=check". | |
| 3 | 2017-10-30 07:22 | kayle ♦265 | My fault, bad tagging. :(Road is not connected to footwayhttps://www.mapillary.com/map/im/iIv2VH3kajpL4Yy0Oa8lEw | |
| 52245930 by ratrun @ 2017-09-21 14:44 | 1 | 2017-09-25 18:36 | joost schouppe ♦1,178 | Hi Ratrun,This was a wrong correction. It wasn't mapped properly, but I was pretty sure there was no through traffic allowed. Your change allows quite strange routing options. There was a note on this bit of road, to mark it for surveying (846771). |
| 2 | 2017-09-27 15:57 | ratrun | Thanks for the correction. I didn't notice the note, it was not visible in the data and also not from bing images. | |
| 3 | 2017-09-27 16:40 | joost schouppe ♦1,178 | Thanks for the reply!You might consider switching on notes in your editor. Also, in Brussels and Flanders "AGIV Flanders most recent aerial imagery" is much better, in terms of age and resolution. A bit of a pity that JOSM doesn't seem to have an indication of "best available&q... | |
| 51621510 by ratrun @ 2017-08-31 16:43 | 1 | 2017-08-31 22:39 | MrKooken ♦107 | I don't understand what you have fixed. |
| 2 | 2017-09-01 13:22 | ratrun | See the changeset, it is very small. One node was overlapping, duplicated and not connected to "Kotkampplein".The best method I know to look at the details is to try to revert the change in JOSM. You can use the validator and the problem will show up. | |
| 45164172 by ratrun @ 2017-01-14 16:28 | 1 | 2017-08-27 08:44 | GerdP ♦2,751 | Hi!please check typo highway=tre on some ways. Not sure if you meant residential or track. Seehttp://overpass-turbo.eu/s/rhf |
| 2 | 2017-08-28 16:50 | ratrun | Thank you -> Fixed. | |
| 44121121 by ratrun @ 2016-12-02 18:44 | 1 | 2017-08-23 12:46 | GerdP ♦2,751 | Hi!Please review typo highway=drt on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/418702547 |
| 2 | 2017-08-23 15:43 | ratrun | Hi. Thank you. Fixed. | |
| 34908323 by ratrun @ 2015-10-27 17:19 | 1 | 2017-06-28 07:13 | Sanniu ♦570 | http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/374692783 - is it roundabout? |
| 2 | 2017-06-28 15:42 | ratrun | Yes, it looks like a roundabout. I changed it now. | |
| 48538337 by ratrun @ 2017-05-09 17:41 | 1 | 2017-05-10 14:46 | Jørn-osm ♦77 | Bing is to old to use here, so I have changed it back.https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/48563977 |
| 47480284 by ratrun @ 2017-04-05 15:38 | 1 | 2017-04-27 11:25 | emvee ♦369 | Hi ratrun,Please be careful fixing osmi problem without knowing the exact local situation. The Tibullushof is not connected to the footpad, actually there is a fence in between.Just corrected it this changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/48191451Greetings,Martin. |
| 47878304 by ratrun @ 2017-04-17 16:57 | 1 | 2017-04-20 05:44 | MiroJanosik ♦139 | Ahoj, myslim ze nie je spravne ze cely chodnik 486560828 ma oznacenie ako 'crossing', asi si to chcel dat iba na mensi usek chodnika. |
| 2 | 2017-04-21 15:05 | ratrun | Sorry, I do not understand your language. Please write in German or English. | |
| 3 | 2017-04-21 18:13 | MiroJanosik ♦139 | Hello, I think that it is not correct that whole sidewalk 486560828 is marked as crossing. As written at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:footway=crossing?uselang=en-US - it should be a path lying on the road that is connecting two sidewalks. | |
| 4 | 2017-04-21 18:15 | MiroJanosik ♦139 | But never mind that - I will fix it right away, now. | |
| 5 | 2017-04-21 18:20 | MiroJanosik ♦139 | Ok, changed. | |
| 6 | 2017-04-22 12:21 | ratrun | Thank you. Anyhow it was not me who added the crossing tag. All these sidewalks are mapped badly as they are missing the shared crossing points with the roads on the crossing. It means that they are mostly useless for foot routing. From my perspective it would be bettter to add sidewalk tags to the ... | |
| 7 | 2017-04-22 23:30 | MiroJanosik ♦139 | I agree, but missing crossing points are probably valid in this situation, as they look like a small streets with low traffic, so there are no pedestrian crossing symbols. | |
| 46113871 by ratrun @ 2017-02-15 18:03 | 1 | 2017-04-05 01:34 | alesarrett ♦130 | Hi, I've seen your fix and I'd like to understand what you've modified and why. I see from the description that this is related to "osmi routing view fixes" so I'd like to understand how to improve my mapping if this is not helping some routing functionalities. Thank yo... |
| 2 | 2017-04-05 15:36 | ratrun | Please see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Inspector/Views/Routing. There everything should be explained. | |
| 3 | 2017-04-05 18:04 | alesarrett ♦130 | Thank you for sharing this. | |
| 46744815 by ratrun @ 2017-03-10 17:50 | 1 | 2017-03-10 20:50 | aufachse ♦34 | Hallo ratrun,du hast in diesem changeset etwas 'gefixt'. Als Quelle gibst du bing an. Auf bing maps ist die Verlängerung der Magister-Dorn-Straße noch nicht zu sehen, auch nicht eine Verbindung mit dem Feldweg. Bitte um Angabe der Quelle, die diese Änderung rechtfertigt. ... |
| 2 | 2017-03-16 19:19 | aufachse ♦34 | Hallo ratrun,nachdem keine Reaktion von dir kam, habe ich den ursprünglichen Zustand wieder hergestellt. | |
| 3 | 2017-03-17 20:15 | aufachse ♦34 | Hallo ratrun,Schade daß du nicht reagierst hast und wieder 'fixt'. Mein erster Kommentar ist nachwievor gültig. Wir können hier nun ein Spielchen spielen oder wie vernünftige Menschen das Problem lösen. Dazu bedarf es allerdings gegenseitiger Kommunikation. Du h... | |
| 4 | 2017-03-18 09:48 | ratrun | Bei OSMI handelt es sich um den OSM Inspector http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Inspector/Views/Routing. In der Routing View werden nicht verbundene nahe nebeinanderliegende "highway" Knoten angemeckert. Für diese Knoten ändere ich unter Berücksichtung von Bing und vers... | |
| 5 | 2017-03-19 09:04 | aufachse ♦34 | Hallo ratrun,Schön daß du Qualitätsmanagement betreibst. Leider ist das mit dem 'erraten' so eine Sache. In diesem Fall ist auf 'bing' nämlich noch garnichts zu sehen. Bitte verwende beim Korrigieren aktuelle Quellen (hier Bayern 80cm). Habe mich aufgrund d... | |
| 46817798 by ratrun @ 2017-03-13 16:43 | 1 | 2017-03-13 18:11 | Zbigniew_Cz ♦974 | What is a matter of this change? |
| 2 | 2017-03-14 15:58 | ratrun | See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Inspector/Views/Routing for an explaination of OSMI routing view. | |
| 3 | 2017-03-14 16:09 | Zbigniew_Cz ♦974 | What was wrong with this way? | |
| 4 | 2017-03-14 16:30 | ratrun | There was an unconnected node. | |
| 45723230 by ratrun @ 2017-02-01 18:11 | 1 | 2017-02-01 18:22 | wwweg ♦18 | Vielen Dank fürs Korrigieren. |
| 44431982 by ratrun @ 2016-12-15 20:16 | 1 | 2016-12-24 09:02 | rainerU ♦274 | Il ne faut trop se fier aux images Bing : il y a un muret qui sépare la Rue du Conflent de la voie de service. |
| 44065558 by ratrun @ 2016-11-30 17:27 | 1 | 2016-11-30 17:38 | Hjart ♦4,116 | Please note that Bing is outdated here and that official danish imagery (currently from this spring) should be used instead |
| 2 | 2016-11-30 17:40 | Hjart ♦4,116 | When mapping in Denmark you can select this imagery in the imagery menu. | |
| 3 | 2016-11-30 17:42 | Hjart ♦4,116 | Also note that I had shortened this to its actual length a few minutes ago. | |
| 33009372 by ratrun @ 2015-07-31 15:15 | 1 | 2016-11-24 17:22 | Smiljan_02 ♦58 | Hallo ratrun, du hast an der L204 zwischen Lustenau - Autobahnanschluß Dornbirn-Süd mit deinem pauschalen Edit ein motorroad=yes gesetzt, obwohl diese Straße zumindest von Lustenau aus nicht als Autostraße ausgewiesen ist.Ein highway=trunk kennzeichnet nur die baulich getre... |
| 2 | 2016-11-25 06:08 | ratrun | Bitte lies dir die Diskussion unter http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/22299654 dazu durch. | |
| 3 | 2016-11-25 10:14 | Smiljan_02 ♦58 | Das hatte ich mir schon angesehen, du hast ja in deinem Kommentar darauf verwießen. Das ist aber keine Diskussion, sonder eine Dialog zwischen dir und fkv . Solche großflächigen Änderungen gehören ins Forum und die Mailingliste.Ein highway=trunk ist auch in Österrei... | |
| 4 | 2016-11-26 08:24 | ratrun | Das ganze hat eine Historie. Die dazu Disukussion wurde hier geführt. Siehe http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Austria/Schnellstraßen, dort ist "festgelegt", dass in Österreich "trunk" für eine Autostrasse mit baulicher Trennung verwendet wird. Ic... | |
| 5 | 2016-11-26 09:35 | Smiljan_02 ♦58 | Das ist ja auch für Schnellstraßen richtig, passt aber nicht für den Streckenabschnitt der L204 zwischen Lustenau - Autobahnanschluß Dornbirn-Süd .Da ist eine Landesstraße (ehemalige Bundesstraßr) als "trunk" gemappt und du hast sie zur Autostra&szl... | |
| 6 | 2016-11-26 10:12 | Smiljan_02 ♦58 | So, noch mal 5 Minuten nachgedacht und im Wiki bei highway=trunk gelesen. Die L204 zwischen Lustenau - Autobahnanschluß Dornbirn-Süd ist eigentlich gar keine "trunk" da die zweite Eigeschaft - Kreuzungsfreiheit besteht. Da gibt es 2 Kreuzungen auf gleichem Niveau, also ehr kein ... | |
| 7 | 2016-11-26 16:15 | ratrun | Genau das hatte ich mit meinen Antworten gemeint. Die "note" könntes Du auch weglassen nach meinem Geschmack. | |
| 8 | 2016-11-27 14:46 | zimba ♦212 | Ich bin fuer das "highway=trunk" an dieser Strasse (das "motorroad" halte ich aber auch fuer falsch). Abgesehen von 1,2 Bauern die die Kreuzungen verwenden um an ihre Felder zu kommen, verwendet man diese Strasse nur um von Lustenau Richtung Autobahn zu kommen. Hier wird nicht im... | |
| 41564672 by ratrun @ 2016-08-19 20:01 | 1 | 2016-09-25 14:55 | aceman444 ♦2,570 | Hi, what is this change doing? Does it mean also pedestrians on the footway can't ho through that fence that is now a node on the footway? |
| 2 | 2016-09-25 17:18 | ratrun | As I do not know the location, I cannot answer. But you are right, probably it would have been better to leave the node disconnected and add a "noexit=yes". But from my understanding usually a barrier is usually tagged in case that the way continues beyond. | |
| 3 | 2016-09-25 20:34 | aceman444 ♦2,570 | It's not great to edit places you do not know and change the meaning. The pedestrians going on the footway along Eotvosova do not need to cross any fence. Only the ones coming from Sturova have to. So you have now completely blocked passage along the footway as I think by default nothing can pa... | |
| 39197407 by ratrun @ 2016-05-09 18:07 | 1 | 2016-05-12 12:08 | vmalep ♦2 | Is there a way to put this orad back. It does exist and was correctly designed. |
| 2 | 2016-05-12 16:52 | ratrun | I'm sorry, I cannot guess which way you are talking about. There were multiple geometrical problems in the data. The most prominent was way 261675844, which was obviously acciditially moved to an incorrect location such that it overlapped with other existing data. | |
| 3 | 2016-05-12 17:58 | ratrun | In a private message I got the folllowing information "I just realized you have deleted the road between Manono and Mpiana and wonder why."-> Now I see what you mean. I'm sorry for that, this happened by accident and I didn't notice. It seems that you already did restore i... | |
| 4 | 2016-05-13 06:20 | vmalep ♦2 | Hi Ratrun,Thanks for responding. I did recreate the road, but quickly while for the one you deleted by mistake, I had spent time putting it on the right place, etc. More importantly, I noticed that there are more road missing (that can be found tracing the history of Manono town.I am still n... | |
| 37191819 by ratrun @ 2016-02-13 18:08 | 1 | 2016-02-13 20:44 | Meillo ♦30 | thx |
| 36665847 by ratrun @ 2016-01-18 19:39 | 1 | 2016-01-19 07:42 | Superadlen ♦170 | merci |
| 35731213 by ratrun @ 2015-12-03 17:09 | 1 | 2015-12-23 18:16 | alphensebezorger ♦393 | No direct traffic is possible from Wilhelminastraat 24D to Sint Maartenstraat 6A. There is a barrier which even pedestrians can not pass without some climbing. |
| 2 | 2015-12-23 20:25 | ratrun | Thank you. I tagged the information you gave here. | |
| 35670332 by ratrun @ 2015-11-30 17:30 | 1 | 2015-12-02 13:29 | brunesto ♦5 | Thanks for fixing it!,Please I would like to know: do you use an automatic script or a website to detect when a road is non routable?Bruno |
| 2 | 2015-12-02 17:17 | ratrun | I'm using OSMI.OSMI is the Open Streetmap Inspector. This is the view I'm using most of the times:http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=12.61778&lat=49.40295&zoom=6&overlays=unconnected_major1,unconnected_major2,unconnected_major5,duplicate_waysDocumentat... | |
| 3 | 2015-12-02 18:08 | brunesto ♦5 | Thanks! | |
| 34953605 by ratrun @ 2015-10-29 16:51 | 1 | 2015-10-31 12:58 | Papa Schlumpf ♦3 | Da besteht keine Verbindung |
| 2 | 2015-10-31 16:36 | ratrun | Falls wirklich keine Verbindung besteht, dann setzt bitte ein noexit=yes auf den östlichen Endknoten. Laut Bing Lufbild sollte aber zumindest eine Verbindung mit dem Fussweg bestehen. Wenn der östliche Ausgang für Taxis gesperrt ist, dann sollte wohl das westliche Ende verbunden wer... | |
| 3 | 2015-10-31 16:52 | Papa Schlumpf ♦3 | Es ist absolut schlechter Stil, Bing als Vorlage zu benutzen! Was vor Ort ist, ist wichtig. Also: selber hingehen und anschauen und nicht einfach planlos ändern und behaupten. | |
| 34694233 by ratrun @ 2015-10-17 13:48 | 1 | 2015-10-18 09:14 | species ♦74 | Warum wurden an https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1244503896/historyhighway=traffic_signals entfernt?Iirc ist genau an der Stelle die Haltelinie für die Ampel... |
| 2 | 2015-10-18 13:06 | ratrun | Weil der 2.5 Meter entfernte Eintrag auf https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1115213365 für die selbe Ampel reicht. | |
| 3 | 2015-10-18 13:52 | species ♦74 | Leider nein - hier gehts um die penalty-Zeiten fürs Auto-Routing.OSRM zB. ignoriert highway=crossing, crossing=traffic_signals.Aus gutem Grund, Beispiel:https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/17322899#map=19/48.17779/16.37917&layers=DWenn man hier in Ost-West-Richtung fährt, hat ... | |
| 4 | 2015-10-18 14:26 | ratrun | Als Contributor von graphhopper kann ich Deinen Einwand mit jetzigen Erklärung nun verstehen, aber das doppelte Tagging kann nicht die Lösung sein - hier handelt es sich doch eindeutig um Tagging für den Router. | |
| 5 | 2015-10-18 14:48 | species ♦74 | Dein Verständnis freut mich!Aber warum ist doppelt getaggt schlecht?highway=traffic_signals ist ja für die Haltelinie der Autos da, highway=crossing, crossing=traffic_signals dafür, dass der Fußgängerüberweg ampelgeregelt ist.„Wir taggen nicht für die ... | |
| 6 | 2015-10-18 15:10 | ratrun | Sorry und danke, ich habe erst jetzt mein Missverständnis bemerkt. Ich habe mich irritieren lassen durch die ähnlichen Ampel Icons von JOSM. Aber eigentlich sind es die Icons für highway=traffic_signals und crossing=traffic_signals eh leicht unterschiedlich. Ich habe es revertiert je... | |
| 7 | 2015-10-18 15:11 | species ♦74 | Danke! :-) | |
| 34618614 by ratrun @ 2015-10-13 18:28 | 1 | 2015-10-13 20:06 | d3mol3k ♦168 | Czemu dopiąłeś uliczkę do chodnika? |
| 2 | 2015-10-14 15:34 | ratrun | I'm sorry I only understand German or English. | |
| 34391428 by ratrun @ 2015-10-02 15:21 | 1 | 2015-10-02 17:59 | flohoff ♦2,363 | Hi,ich verstehe diesen Changeset nicht so ganz. Du schreibst das das aus dem OSMI Routing View kommt. Du entfernst hier aber eine Ampel.Kriege ich gerade nicht zusammen!??!Flo |
| 2 | 2015-10-02 18:23 | ratrun | Weil sie doppelt war auf zwei unverbundenen Knoten | |
| 33498586 by ratrun @ 2015-08-22 04:57 | 1 | 2015-09-26 16:01 | SomeoneElse ♦13,389 | I think that something's gone a bit wrong with the tagging of http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/120317629/history . Currently it has "yes=no". I'm guessing that perhaps that should be "oneway=no" or some other access mode = "no"? |
| 2 | 2015-09-27 14:04 | ratrun | Thans for informing me. I fixed it. It would be interesting to know how that happended, because I'm 100% sure that I didn't tag this intentionally. I tried to figure out what could have happend using JOSM, but I couldn't. I know that it must be related with the JOSM feature th... | |
| 33510847 by ratrun @ 2015-08-22 18:21 | 1 | 2015-08-23 12:21 | abdeldjalil ♦36 | Why delete primary road exist ????!!!!! |
| 2 | 2015-08-23 13:47 | ratrun | If I understood the question right you are asking why I deleted the primary road. The answer is because it was duplicated. There is one primary left (see https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/313924829).But the data is still a mess in this area. See the overlapping ways 313959913 and 313924829. Th... | |
| 22299654 by ratrun @ 2014-05-12 20:02 | 1 | 2015-07-24 19:29 | fkv ♦585 | Die Änderung gehört meiner Meinung nach rückgängig gemacht. Erstens ist sie ein unerlaubter Massenedit (siehe automated edits policy), und zweitens gilt der Grundsatz "we map what we see". Ein Fahrverbot gehört gemappt, wo es angeschrieben ist. Alle Implikationen g... |
| 2 | 2015-07-25 10:38 | ratrun | Geht es noch ein bisschen unfreundlicher?Diese Änderung ist ein Jahr alt und hat bisher niemanden gestört. Ich habe nur konsequent durchgezogen, was großteils allerdings lückenhaft bereits eingetragen war.Länderspezifisch abhängige Regeln unterstützen noch... | |
| 3 | 2015-07-25 17:23 | fkv ♦585 | Die Änderung hat deshalb niemanden gestört, weil sie keiner bemerkt hat. Wenn du sie, wie es Pflicht gewesen wäre, vorher in der Mailingliste diskutiert hättest, dann hätte es Gegenstimmen gegeben, zumindest von mir.Da du den ganzen Tag nur Routingfixes machst, nehme ich a... | |
| 4 | 2015-07-27 17:25 | ratrun | Das tag motorroad=yes kannte ich bisher nicht. Es wäre tatsächlich besser geeignet gewesen. Teilweise ist es mittlerweile schon entsprechend angepasst worden.Eine länderspezifisches Routing Logik in einem der Router löst das Problem nicht. Man müsste das in allen implement... | |
| 5 | 2015-07-27 19:04 | fkv ♦585 | Eine länderspezifische Logik ist sowieso nötig, weil die gesetzlichen Regelungen je nach Land unterschiedlich sind. Konkret heißt das, dass die Tabellen von http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions und http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for... | |
| 6 | 2015-07-30 18:59 | ratrun | Ja. Ich werde es in ein paar Tagen ansehen. | |
| 7 | 2015-07-31 15:23 | ratrun | Nach etwas Spielerei mit der Overpass API und der JOSM Filterfunktion habe ich die vorgeschlagene Änderung hochgeladen im Changeset 33009172. Ich habe dabei so wie damals highway=trunk und highway=trunk_link berücksichtigt. | |
| 31289505 by ratrun @ 2015-05-19 16:43 | 1 | 2015-05-21 12:19 | SomeoneElse_Revert ♦70,576 | Hi, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/346189094/history was added as part of a changeset http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/31276346 that duplicated significant amounts of data in Malaga, and was reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/31340378 following a request made on the help si... |
| 30911923 by ratrun @ 2015-05-08 15:58 | 1 | 2015-05-08 21:24 | jozo ♦2 | Are you sure? |
| 2 | 2015-05-09 13:49 | ratrun | No I'm not sure, therefore I added fixme=yes. On Bing it looks as Linnankatu continues to an underground parking. If you have lokal knowledge please check node 429907226, if this can be marked as noextit=yes in case that may guess with the underground parking is not valid. It is unlikely that t... | |
| 3 | 2015-05-09 14:09 | jozo ♦2 | barrier=retaining_wall and noextit=yes added | |
| 4 | 2015-05-09 14:39 | ratrun | Thank you! | |
| 29831336 by ratrun @ 2015-03-29 16:28 | 1 | 2015-03-30 05:43 | species ♦74 | Bitte building=entrance nicht mehr verwenden, ist deprecated.https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dentrance |
| 29760165 by ratrun @ 2015-03-26 18:24 | 1 | 2015-03-27 14:18 | Intemelio ♦1 | Hi, I'm #Intemelio from Italy.I look that you have made a little modification on the street "Via Palestro". Maybe I've done some drawing mistakes? |
| 2 | 2015-03-27 16:45 | ratrun | Hello Intemelio,For routing applications it is important that nodes at crossings are identical and not just close to each other. Therefore I'm repairing mapping errors detected by the Open Streetmap Inspector based on Bing or other satellite images, see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org... | |
| 3 | 2015-03-27 17:15 | Intemelio ♦1 | Hello ratrun,thanks for your reply and for your advice.I began to map the streets and squares of my small town, but it's not so easy. I am a newbie, I read some of the documentation of OpenStreetMap, and I hope to do better in the future.with regard,Intemelio | |
| 28799534 by ratrun @ 2015-02-12 16:47 | 1 | 2015-02-13 16:41 | zool ♦50 | You're contributing some changesets with a lot of deletions to tagged ways, and they stretch right across Europe. There's too much going on in each changeset to easily explore the consequences, so it would be good to have a clear description of what you are changing and why, rather than th... |
| 2 | 2015-02-13 18:56 | ratrun | Yes. OSMI is exactly the tool for which you provided the documentation link above.The wiki already explains what I'm doing and also includes an answer to your question about deletions in the changes-sets. This is what the wiki says about deletion. It is located in the "What you can do ... | |
| 3 | 2015-02-13 19:26 | tyr_asd ♦440 | Why don't you simply save each individual OSMI fix in an individual changeset? | |
| 4 | 2015-02-15 08:41 | ratrun | I don't do this because it spams the displayed amount of changset if one fixes bugs in small areas with many problems. This is the usual case. Every single upload would generate a small changeset, all containing the same comment. My experience is that it is good to perform multiple uploads and ... | |
| 5 | 2015-02-15 09:25 | SomeoneElse ♦13,389 | Actually, it would be better if each small change didn't "all contain the same comment". For example, rather than simply "osmi routing view fixes" the one that replaced http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/304192905/history with http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2971905214 coul... | |
| 6 | 2015-02-15 09:40 | ratrun | This is impractial. Connecting two nodes is a matter of 1 second, writing the comments would take at least 40 seconds. If you are working on such granuarity, then congratulations from me, but I won't do that. | |
| 7 | 2015-02-15 10:00 | SomeoneElse ♦13,389 | OpenStreetMap is a community - together we benefit from all the work that all other mappers have done. If a new mapper doesn't know that they're "doing it wrong" simply because no-one has been bothered to tell them, then they'll continue to do so, because they don't kn... | |
| 28823119 by ratrun @ 2015-02-13 15:08 | 1 | 2015-02-13 17:08 | tyr_asd ♦440 | Thank you for fixing so many routing data issues! But, can you please try to generate less continent-spanning changesets in the future? That would be great. |
| 2 | 2015-02-13 19:01 | ratrun | I slowly increased my action radius and obviously went too far, as I nearly synchrounously got a similar comment for changesethttp://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/28799534Please look up my answer there. | |
| 28425194 by ratrun @ 2015-01-26 18:45 | 1 | 2015-01-31 12:56 | BeKri ♦713 | What are you doing ?Is sehr a special problem to delete a komplett part of a street athttp://www.openstreetmap.org/way/89979654/history#map=17/48.21507/11.46298 ???be so kind to fix it. |
| 2 | 2015-01-31 14:19 | ratrun | Hello,thanks that you noticed this. I have an idea how and why this happened: I believe that it was triggered by concurrent fixing the change triggered by user nickel715 in version 6 and OSMI fixing done by user "kartler175" uploaded with version 7 at 26.1 at 19:06 and my my OSMI... |