| Changeset | # | Tmstmp UTC | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 157896586 by tuttiton @ 2024-10-14 21:16 | 1 | 2024-10-15 11:19 | emersonveenstra ♦1,457 | Hey there,I'm not sure https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1323957813 is supposed to be tagged as a railway, could you double check that please? |
| 2 | 2024-10-15 12:27 | tuttiton | Hello, it's of course a mistake. fixed, thanks for checking! | |
| 115385676 by tuttiton @ 2021-12-26 13:00 | 1 | 2024-01-21 04:57 | rjccviii ♦1 | whatever happened when this update was made, screwed up the location of my house in a lot of mapping software. |
| 2 | 2024-01-22 23:06 | tuttiton | are you sure this changeset is the problem? it was made 2 years ago and I'm reasonably sure I didn't touch the addresses. just added building footprints and changed the roads geometry slightly. | |
| 3 | 2024-01-22 23:21 | tuttiton | you can seee actual changes from this changeset here https://osmcha.org/changesets/115385676/I checked your change history and as far as I understand from it is that you're talking about this buildinghttps://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1015680380And indeed I added it 2 years ago. here h... | |
| 4 | 2024-01-28 22:03 | rjccviii ♦1 | Yo, thanks for responding! I've been doing some digging and checking, and I think there's a combination of factors that happened. I'd fixed this area in a bunch of maps years ago, but for some reason after the street was updated, a lot of maps pulled address info from...somewhere that... | |
| 5 | 2024-01-29 02:06 | tuttiton | Ah ok. yeah I think some maps may be getting addresses from the public address database which has it incorrect for whatever reason. hopefully if you update it in OSM they'll switch to the correct ones (but it's not guaranteed).just a heads up, I don't think it's a right appro... | |
| 146610935 by tuttiton @ 2024-01-23 22:38 | 1 | 2024-01-25 12:25 | emersonveenstra ♦1,457 | Hi there,When you created https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1242371736#map=19/42.76837/-84.42100, you accidentally made it cross over itself, which prevents it from being rendered on the map. Would you mind fixing it? Thanks! |
| 2 | 2024-01-25 14:04 | tuttiton | Hi, sure, fixed now. Thanks for checking | |
| 3 | 2024-01-25 14:17 | emersonveenstra ♦1,457 | Thanks for the quick fix! | |
| 143052467 by tuttiton @ 2023-10-24 08:14 | 1 | 2023-10-24 12:24 | emersonveenstra ♦1,457 | Hi,There's several nodes with "crossing=2", would you mind double-checking to make sure that's what is intended?https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11285670963https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11285670965https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11285671152https://www.open... |
| 2 | 2023-10-24 15:42 | tuttiton | definitely not. thanks for checking, fixed | |
| 3 | 2023-10-24 15:43 | tuttiton | sorry i mean it was definitely not intended like thathere is a fix changesethttps://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/143071538 | |
| 142991899 by tuttiton @ 2023-10-22 23:09 | 1 | 2023-10-23 11:59 | emersonveenstra ♦1,457 | Hi there,Not sure what you mean with crossing=w https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1217641282 crossing=only_road_w https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1217641310Would you mind going back and fixing those? Thanks! |
| 2 | 2023-10-23 12:57 | tuttiton | thanks for checking. updated | |
| 124051974 by tuttiton @ 2022-07-25 13:05 | 1 | 2022-07-25 13:11 | tuttiton | also don't know heights of porches and small domes at the sides |
| 2 | 2023-03-05 17:46 | Kai Johnson ♦162 | Hi! I think the convention in the US is to reserve the admin_level=4 tag for the official state boundary relation. Mind if I remove it from this building so that it doesn't pop up in query results? | |
| 3 | 2023-03-06 11:14 | tuttiton | I didn't add the admin_level tag as far as I remember. but anyway sounds like you may want to update your querysee https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:admin_level(Usage with office=government + government=*) | |
| 4 | 2023-03-06 15:53 | Kai Johnson ♦162 | That might be true for mapping in other parts of the world, but in the entire US, this is the only building with an admin_level=4 tag. | |
| 5 | 2023-03-06 17:09 | tuttiton | I mean I don't particularly mind removing the tag per se, it's pretty obvious what the building is. but I'm not sure that removing it is the right approach. I think the tag is descriptive and used correctly in a reasonably documented way... I don't think it's a good argument... | |
| 6 | 2023-03-06 17:44 | Kai Johnson ♦162 | It doesn't really affect what I was doing. But I was curious so I did a little more searching, and while this is the only building mapped as a relation with admin_level=4, there are other buildings with the admin_level tag mapped as ways. So, I guess this is an appropriate tag for the building.... | |
| 7 | 2023-03-06 23:13 | tuttiton | Thanks! and also thank you for checking other admin_level buildings and the discussion! much appreciated | |
| 111210848 by tuttiton @ 2021-09-14 19:03 | 1 | 2022-08-19 23:12 | treestryder ♦184 | Are service ways under roofs really tunnels? |
| 2 | 2022-08-20 00:03 | tuttiton | well i guess not really. i've seen it made this way in a few places and continued to use it this way for a while but i supppose adding level tag l to the building is probably a better way to do it | |
| 3 | 2022-08-20 04:19 | treestryder ♦184 | I think you would want to make the roof a separate building part. Otherwise you'll levitate the entire building. 😏Not sure if I can make the next one, however, I'd like to invite you to join other Michigan mappers who have been meeting each month. See the community section of our Wi... | |
| 4 | 2022-08-20 04:21 | treestryder ♦184 | Wait a minute... I think I know who this is. Changed your username? | |
| 5 | 2022-08-20 12:03 | tuttiton | yeah i changed my nickname here about half a year ago:) and i'm a frequent visitor to Michigan mappers meeting | |
| 6 | 2022-08-22 14:42 | treestryder ♦184 | Hmm... * https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Droof * https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:coveredI would lean toward "covered=yes" on the way, connected to the edges of the building's roof, as they suggest.<shrug> | |
| 124971244 by tuttiton @ 2022-08-16 12:47 | 1 | 2022-08-18 11:44 | emersonveenstra ♦1,457 | Hi,The three one-way sections you put on the West Saginaw Highway here https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/42.74066/-84.62766 all have `turn:lanes:both_ways` tags, could you please fix that? Thanks! |
| 2 | 2022-08-18 12:21 | tuttiton | Hi, thanks for letting me know. removed these tags in the change set https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/125059769 | |
| 123613890 by tuttiton @ 2022-07-14 14:52 | 1 | 2022-07-14 19:45 | emersonveenstra ♦1,457 | Hi,This doesn't look correct. `highway=unclassified` is for public roads only, and ways like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/42412502 are not public and therefore are actually service roads. Please look at the wiki definitions for both if you are confused --- ... |
| 2 | 2022-07-17 00:22 | tuttiton | Hello,Yeah I think I did it a bit freely. I see that you already rolled back some of that. I'll revisit this change soonHighway classification efforthttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidancewas discussed on the Michigan mappers meeting last... | |
| 119875729 by Halfdeaf007 @ 2022-04-18 19:39 | 1 | 2022-04-19 23:23 | tuttiton | Hello Halfdeaf007,one way part of East Malcolm X street was disconnected from the Aurelis road after the latest construction on the sitesee discussion based on the surveyhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119520515Please revert the change |
| 2 | 2022-04-20 02:47 | baumann3141 ♦57 | Please revert your changes, previous edits were just done a few days ago and reflect reality. Aerial images are out of date. Please check before deleting/changing recent edits! Thanks. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119875729 ... | |
| 3 | 2022-04-21 15:59 | Halfdeaf007 ♦4 | Sorry, about that. I went and revert the changes. So I don't know for sure it got fix back to old one. Thank you and sorry! --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119875729 | |
| 4 | 2022-04-21 21:15 | tuttiton | Not sure I understand, I still see the connection in iD editor. did you requested the reversion of the changeset? That's fine too but deleting the connection by hand would be enough, I'd say. | |
| 5 | 2022-04-22 02:54 | baumann3141 ♦57 | Yes it can be fixed easily, it's a very small edit. I don't see that it has been fixed yet. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119875729 | |
| 119823910 by tuttiton @ 2022-04-17 16:41 | 1 | 2022-04-17 20:42 | tuttiton | Sorry for the giant change set box, the reason is:I updated tags of Flint Subdivision railroad with iD suggestion (checked that its actually operated by Canadian National Railway before doing that), didn't though it'll be this big |
| 119520515 by baumann3141 @ 2022-04-10 00:03 | 1 | 2022-04-17 18:00 | tuttiton | Does it correspond to reality that East Malcolm X Street (one way part) is disconnected from Aurelius Road? |
| 2 | 2022-04-17 20:30 | baumann3141 ♦57 | Hello tuttiton, yes, they removed the connection to Aurelius and blocked the rest of the roadway. I marked the part that is no longer accessible as "no access". This work was done in connection with the railroad overpass bridge replacement. --- Publi... | |
| 3 | 2022-04-17 20:36 | tuttiton | Hello baumann3141,ah ok, was mapping in the area around and wondered if something went wrong.thank you for the fast reply! | |
| 4 | 2022-04-21 16:25 | Halfdeaf007 ♦4 | Sorry about that what I did. I went and revert the change. Not sure it got fixed! I didn't look to see what the last edit was so I just found out about 12 days ago by someone else. | |
| 113013897 by craftyho @ 2021-10-27 00:00 | 1 | 2021-10-27 09:08 | tuttiton | So apparently instead of fixing the damage you did, you decided to continue and just not mark your vandalism as such... a shame really |
| 2 | 2021-10-27 09:58 | marczoutendijk ♦2,755 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 113028971 where the changeset comment is: DWG reverting fictional edits and vandalism | |
| 110627977 by craftyho @ 2021-09-02 15:48 | 1 | 2021-10-23 15:37 | tuttiton | please remove fictional information from the map |
| 2 | 2021-10-27 09:58 | marczoutendijk ♦2,755 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 113028971 where the changeset comment is: DWG reverting fictional edits and vandalism | |
| 110598486 by craftyho @ 2021-09-02 06:34 | 1 | 2021-10-23 15:34 | tuttiton | please remove fictional information from the map |
| 2 | 2021-10-27 09:58 | marczoutendijk ♦2,755 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 113028971 where the changeset comment is: DWG reverting fictional edits and vandalism | |
| 110684477 by craftyho @ 2021-09-03 15:39 | 1 | 2021-10-23 15:31 | tuttiton | please revert fictional edits |
| 2 | 2021-10-27 09:58 | marczoutendijk ♦2,755 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 113028971 where the changeset comment is: DWG reverting fictional edits and vandalism | |
| 112863334 by craftyho @ 2021-10-23 06:21 | 1 | 2021-10-23 15:27 | tuttiton | Please remove fictional information from the map |
| 2 | 2021-10-23 15:58 | marczoutendijk ♦2,755 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5405Marc Zoutendijk OpenStreetMap Foundation Data Working Group | |
| 3 | 2021-10-27 09:58 | marczoutendijk ♦2,755 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 113028971 where the changeset comment is: DWG reverting fictional edits and vandalism | |
| 112799329 by craftyho @ 2021-10-21 16:03 | 1 | 2021-10-23 15:27 | tuttiton | Please remove fictional information from the map |
| 2 | 2021-10-27 09:58 | marczoutendijk ♦2,755 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 113028971 where the changeset comment is: DWG reverting fictional edits and vandalism | |
| 112771391 by craftyho @ 2021-10-21 04:52 | 1 | 2021-10-23 15:26 | tuttiton | Please remove fictional information from the map |
| 2 | 2021-10-27 09:58 | marczoutendijk ♦2,755 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 113028971 where the changeset comment is: DWG reverting fictional edits and vandalism | |
| 111834072 by Be-You-tiful Body Piercing @ 2021-09-28 19:06 | 1 | 2021-09-29 18:53 | tuttiton | Hello, thank you for adding your businessI think tattoo shop is close enough, it seems like dedicated tag for piercing shop is not widespread (less than 100 worldwide).I updated phone and opening hours to the agreed format and added social media accounts and email from the note, but otherwise se... |
| 2 | 2021-10-08 21:54 | treestryder ♦184 | I changed it to shop=piercing, now there are 101. Best to shoot for accuracy than to tag for the renderer. Another option would be shop=jewelry. | |
| 111546794 by tuttiton @ 2021-09-22 14:35 | 1 | 2021-09-24 00:45 | baumann3141 ♦57 | The west-most building in this edit has been razed since the aerial image was taken. Parking lots and angled bldg (former car sales) are still in place. Directly west of this edit is the new Red Cedar Development (in the flooded area). Some mapping to be done once new aerials become available! ... |
| 2 | 2021-09-24 09:31 | tuttiton | Thanks for checking! updated | |
| 111515558 by tuttiton @ 2021-09-21 21:36 | 1 | 2021-09-21 22:42 | treestryder ♦184 | Most of those houses are better classified as building=detached .https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Michigan#Places --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111515558 |
| 2 | 2021-09-22 11:11 | tuttiton | Thanks, updated these and some I added before. Will update others in time. found some houses i missed while doing that! | |
| 111307440 by tuttiton @ 2021-09-16 19:50 | 1 | 2021-09-18 02:00 | baumann3141 ♦57 | You deleted a new pathway that was just put in place a couple of months ago and that I had traced w/ GPS and mapped. Please add this back if possible! Please check before deleting other's entries what the situation on the ground is, rather than using outdated aerial images. Thank you. ... |
| 2 | 2021-09-18 03:28 | tuttiton | Sorry for that, my bad.I think you're referring to this place. I hope I didn't break anything else.https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/42.73735/-84.48505not sure how to revert the change but tried to reproduce it to how it was. --- Published ... | |
| 3 | 2021-09-18 16:40 | baumann3141 ♦57 | Thanks for fixing it so quickly, very much appreciated! I might have reacted a bit harshly b/c this is the second time this happened in this area. Another mapper put a whole street back in place that the city just had removed and undid the realignment of Albert St right there. I also appreciate your... | |
| 4 | 2021-09-18 17:37 | tuttiton | ah, yeah no worries I understand how frustrating it can be. I requested mapbox imagery update for the greater lansing area, hopefully we'll get it in coming months. thanks for recognition and for being vigilant --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.o... | |
| 48727814 by tuttiton @ 2017-05-16 10:59 | 1 | 2017-05-16 11:36 | literan ♦6,687 | Здравствуйте. Тег leisure=park не предназначен для благоустроенных дворовых территорий, он - для публичных парков и скверов. |
| 2 | 2017-05-16 11:47 | tuttiton | Здравствуйте. Хорошо, но я не нашел какой тег лучше описывает публично доступный сквер с дорожками и лавочками (не отметил, т. к. не помню точного расположения). Пред... | |
| 3 | 2017-05-16 12:10 | literan ♦6,687 | если вы настаиваете, что это публичный сквер, дайте, пожалуйста, источник этой информации (например, инфа на сайте управы и т.п.). Если же речь идет о дворе - то надо от... | |
| 4 | 2017-05-16 12:18 | tuttiton | Я не настаиваю, прошу прощения, если так прозвучало. Просто вчера там прошел и обратил внимание, что эта территория выглядит как парк который не отмечен на карте. Сп... | |
| 5 | 2017-05-16 12:25 | literan ♦6,687 | в OSM несколько нервная реакция на участников, добавляющих парки - идет перманентный наплыв вандалов-покемоноводов, с чего-то вдруг решивших, что парки привлекают ре... | |
| 6 | 2017-05-16 13:32 | tuttiton | Любопытно:) Чтож, буду аккуратнее с парками в таком случае | |
| 47468412 by Evelyn Desouzaa @ 2017-04-05 08:36 Active block | 1 | 2017-04-12 10:09 | tuttiton | I don't think that this change was for the good. it's obviously not true that this island is all forest. And tidal area was marked as island which I believe is incorrect. |
| 2 | 2017-04-14 23:25 | Evelyn Desouzaa Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 3 | 2017-04-17 09:35 | tuttiton | No worries, I was just trying to understand what's going on. I think new edit is really good, thanks! |