| Changeset | # | Tmstmp UTC | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 149772070 by Martin Ligabue @ 2024-04-09 11:04 | 1 | 2024-04-10 17:11 | stephankn | Does Museum cost really an extra fee, additional to garden entrance? If not, tag sounds not right. As you are only able to enter via garden, it's free to enter it then. |
| 2 | 2024-04-10 18:17 | Martin Ligabue ♦20 | I tought about it a while, and by what I understood from the consensus on the wiki is that the museum is not free, if you want to visit it you need to pay a fee, the fact that you have to walk through the garden to reach it doesn't mean it's free from a fee. it still has it. the only way t... | |
| 3 | 2024-04-10 23:55 | ivanbranco ♦2,697 | I once used fee=included for a similar case. I remember I raised this problem here: https://t.me/OpenStreetMapOrg/96365 | |
| 4 | 2024-04-11 16:55 | Martin Ligabue ♦20 | I've updated the tags to better reflect what I've learned from this discussion, it's still not perfect. I still don't think a more detailed discussion should take place here, should we open a proposal in osm? there are already many in the discussion of the wiki page | |
| 5 | 2024-04-11 19:45 | stephankn | Yes, this changeset comment is not the best way to discuss the tagging.It seems that the wiki has also no established solution for such nested POI. The other way round exists as well. You paid already a basic fee, but you have to pay extra for something. The later case is correct with a fee=yes, b... | |
| 10697748 by stephankn @ 2012-02-15 23:20 | 1 | 2024-03-12 11:51 | ppnplus ♦11 | Hello! Regarding the Death Railway route to Kanchanaburi (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/150571886, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/950096004 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/376022255), I've noticed "fixme=yes" that was probably added in an error, which I've removed be... |
| 2 | 2024-03-12 14:59 | stephankn | Thank you for your time to clean up the data in Thailand.Please remove it. "fixme" tags on data elements are not that relevant in OSM at all. Check if it looks roughly correct and if no further hint is available what to fix, then remove the tag.As you have noticed, this way was cre... | |
| 118867122 by Afanasovich @ 2022-03-24 14:19 | 1 | 2023-04-06 17:56 | stephankn | These signs indicate maxweight: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Thailand_road_sign_%E0%B8%9A-33.svg |
| 128077659 by GrabTH_Napittha @ 2022-10-26 10:57 | 1 | 2023-04-06 17:10 | stephankn | I removed maxspeed tagged on way 1107067205. I am very certain that 12 is not right. Please check your sources again. Please pay attention to not confuse weight limits with speed limits, see: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Thailand_road_sign_%E0%B8%9A-33.svg |
| 2 | 2023-04-10 02:41 | GrabTH_Napittha ♦4 | I think I split the road and edited accuracy geometry that made a new way ID, but I don't check the attribute because I added the road name only. Maybe the incorrect speed limit was added before I edited. And I thank you for your editing. | |
| 20401381 by stephankn @ 2014-02-05 21:14 | 1 | 2023-03-22 13:20 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,632 | Hello!I know that it is an ancient edit, but maybe you are still mapping in this area...What you mapped as shop=internet in this edit ?Is it an internet cafe (amenity=internet_cafe)?Office where you can sign up for internet service?Something related to online shopping (pickup poi... |
| 2 | 2023-03-23 16:54 | stephankn | It was certainly a shop where you could use the internet for money. I do not know what was the tagging style in use ten years ago. I guess presets pointed to the shop key.I reviewed the area on Mapillary imagery which is plenty available in this area. The shop is gone, so I removed it. | |
| 3 | 2023-03-24 07:02 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,632 | Thanks for checking! | |
| 112641972 by hanzlan @ 2021-10-18 08:45 | 1 | 2021-10-23 15:08 | stephankn | somewhere around the 18th the relation 2108121 (malaysia boundary) was broken and disappeared from region extract. I am uncertain which specific edit broke it. I found two ways without admin level and a mysterious josm warning about subare which should actually be fine. Maybe you have an idea what ... |
| 76028591 by MamaJib @ 2019-10-22 05:57 | 1 | 2021-07-14 06:45 | stephankn | node 6904655056name:en=Som Yot Home Martname=สมยศโฮมมาร์ทWhat kind of shop is this? Is it a doityourself similar to HomePro? |
| 107439308 by Nithinat S @ 2021-07-05 12:14 | 1 | 2021-07-05 18:20 | stephankn | thanks for the quick response on this one. I noticed broken boundary last night, but was busy with work for living during the day. Pleasant surprise to see it already fixed. |
| 90966094 by mCloud00 @ 2020-09-16 07:06 | 1 | 2021-07-04 18:11 | stephankn | that over-detail mapping does not align with recent imagery. I propose that you simplify it into a simple customer parking node |
| 105886981 by Peetang618 @ 2021-06-05 15:27 | 1 | 2021-06-26 13:32 | stephankn | Is this 7-Eleven really part of the temple grounds? Sounds quite unusual. Please double-check. |
| 2 | 2021-07-01 07:32 | Peetang618 ♦1 | I couldn't believe it at first. But after looking at the photos, I found that it's really, may that temple is now cutting spece for renting out commercial.You can check with this photohttps://www.img.in.th/image/t3v6u2 | |
| 3 | 2021-07-02 06:36 | stephankn | I removed that section. This is just not land used for religious purposes. I am uncertain regarding their huge parking spaces. Could it be that the north-east part is used for the school, like for teacher parking? | |
| 4 | 2021-07-06 03:13 | Peetang618 ♦1 | That are probably the temple's public parking lot because it is in the temple's area of wall but for Thailand, public parking should be owned by anyone, it doesn't matter because anyone can use it especially the area's temple, market or department store, unless in the area is a r... | |
| 102364295 by kobelin @ 2021-04-06 03:18 | 1 | 2021-06-30 07:19 | stephankn | not residential. Overlaps existing way. way 926444800 |
| 102515244 by yumichang @ 2021-04-08 03:00 | 1 | 2021-06-30 07:18 | stephankn | there are only fields. Not residential. way 927422745 |
| 102364332 by YAOYAOCHEN_M @ 2021-04-06 03:19 | 1 | 2021-06-30 07:17 | stephankn | track. unconnected. way 926445048 |
| 102438466 by ehsu @ 2021-04-07 02:08 | 1 | 2021-06-30 07:16 | stephankn | track, not major highway. Also not connected. way 926929822 |
| 102364234 by YAOYAOCHEN_M @ 2021-04-06 03:16 | 1 | 2021-06-30 07:15 | stephankn | do not invent major highways in the middle of rice fields way 926444183 |
| 102835728 by christychen @ 2021-04-13 02:30 | 1 | 2021-06-30 07:13 | stephankn | do not add imaginary stream |
| 102763562 by peijungchung @ 2021-04-12 02:36 | 1 | 2021-06-30 07:11 | stephankn | do not add imagery stream all over the place way 929471022 |
| 102762703 by LIGUORIH @ 2021-04-12 02:06 | 1 | 2021-06-30 07:10 | stephankn | do not imaginary stream way 929463884 |
| 102835724 by hattieteng @ 2021-04-13 02:30 | 1 | 2021-06-30 07:03 | stephankn | do not add imaginary stream way 929987628 |
| 102677050 by wuellen @ 2021-04-10 02:21 | 1 | 2021-06-30 07:01 | stephankn | do not add imaginary stream way 928723500 |
| 102677084 by wuellen @ 2021-04-10 02:23 | 1 | 2021-06-30 07:00 | stephankn | do not add imaginary waterway (way 928723778) |
| 102763658 by kateyang @ 2021-04-12 02:40 | 1 | 2021-06-30 06:58 | stephankn | do not add imaginary, unconnected streams way 929471581 |
| 102677106 by choul @ 2021-04-10 02:24 | 1 | 2021-06-30 06:57 | stephankn | do not add imaginary streams, unconnected to anything. way 928723836 |
| 70470029 by tongchai @ 2019-05-21 09:10 | 1 | 2021-06-30 06:53 | stephankn | Please confirm that all that M17, M18, M19, ... as well as H... are actual house numbers in this area. In northern Thailand, we only have numbers, no letters. |
| 102762862 by WANGYUDA_M @ 2021-04-12 02:12 | 1 | 2021-06-30 06:48 | stephankn | way 929464723 is no stream |
| 102677296 by LIYAOJUN @ 2021-04-10 02:36 | 1 | 2021-06-30 06:48 | stephankn | do not tag roads as stream |
| 93593528 by Kassim TRAORE @ 2020-11-05 09:50 | 1 | 2021-06-30 06:47 | stephankn | way 867250201 is certainly no unclassified highway in the middle of the jungle |
| 93592687 by Kassim TRAORE @ 2020-11-05 09:36 | 1 | 2021-06-30 06:46 | stephankn | do not add "invented" names. A reservoir is a reservoir. Do not add a "name", if you don't know it. Certainly do not place descriptions inside the name tag |
| 93592308 by Kassim TRAORE @ 2020-11-05 09:30 | 1 | 2021-06-30 06:43 | stephankn | you added multiple agriculture tracks tagged as high-level roads. Please pay more attention to tracking, as this destroys the routing network. I fixed it |
| 2 | 2021-06-30 06:44 | stephankn | way 867245465 is no parking aisle. it is still agriculture | |
| 102023447 by t_ramya @ 2021-03-31 05:07 | 1 | 2021-06-30 06:16 | stephankn | Please do not tag as highway, in case it is not there. This is a stub reserved for potential future extension. At most it is construction. I changed it. Please take care in the future. way 894844312 |
| 106310814 by arpit_a @ 2021-06-14 06:06 | 1 | 2021-06-30 06:05 | stephankn | please do not add random tertiary highways: way 954144618 |
| 2 | 2021-07-02 13:08 | arpit_a ♦1 | Hi stephankn,Trust your are doing well.Appreciated for the correction done and apology for accidental tagging.Regards,Arpita | |
| 106322019 by sagarla01 @ 2021-06-14 08:56 | 1 | 2021-06-29 19:09 | stephankn | you duplicated existing road way 91234596 and caused additional connectivity issues. I removed this section. Please check your other edits. |
| 102899396 by sujatha_1 @ 2021-04-14 04:58 | 1 | 2021-06-26 08:30 | stephankn | way 930501167 is certainly no primary highway. I changed it to residential. Please be careful about tagging |
| 2 | 2021-07-02 13:19 | sujatha_1 ♦9 | Hi stephankn,Trust your are doing well.Appreciated for the correction done and apology for accidental taggingThanks for giving suggestion Regards,Sujatha | |
| 105299606 by oum13928 @ 2021-05-25 14:49 | 1 | 2021-06-22 22:00 | stephankn | you broke the country relation of Myanmar. I repaired it. As you also broke Thailand relation, please read up the wiki regarding the geometry requirements of boundary relations to prevent such issues in the future. |
| 106662213 by oum13928 @ 2021-06-20 11:30 | 1 | 2021-06-22 21:55 | stephankn | you broke the country relation. I repaired it. Please be extra careful when editing relations to keep them continuous. |
| 22101856 by Russ McD @ 2014-05-03 10:51 | 1 | 2021-06-11 06:01 | stephankn | Is there a specific reason why you removed the "Black" from "B2 Black"? According to their website, they still call it "Black": https://www.b2hotel.com/detail.php?id=36 |
| 2 | 2021-06-11 14:54 | Russ McD ♦223 | Because the sign on the Hotel did not have the word "black" - of course it may have changed by now. | |
| 3 | 2021-06-12 06:26 | stephankn | Hotel was always called "black". B2 chain has individual names for their branches. Big sign on roof always is just the "B2" brand. I changed it back. | |
| 71626843 by InnerPace @ 2019-06-26 08:22 | 1 | 2021-05-21 21:50 | stephankn | I am fixing spelling mistake of Soi. Please check other spellings |
| 68771459 by Tamangfella @ 2019-04-01 22:01 | 1 | 2021-05-20 06:28 | stephankn | I fixed spelling mistake of Soi for you. Please check other names. Also please note, that the RTGS English names are in name:en, not int_name. The later has a very specific meaning and is quite rare in this use (if internationally a different name is used, like Bangkok instead of Khrung Thep). |
| 68967043 by Johnny Carlsen @ 2019-04-07 04:33 | 1 | 2021-05-20 06:25 | stephankn | You had multiple typos in the name. I fixed them. Please check other edits. |
| 71666695 by InnerPace @ 2019-06-27 10:10 | 1 | 2021-05-20 06:25 | stephankn | you spelled Soi wrong. I am going to fix this. Please check the spelling of other names as well. |
| 70707748 by InnerPace @ 2019-05-28 18:39 | 1 | 2021-05-17 18:07 | stephankn | way 330169648name=ซอย ซ้างวัด is wrong. has to be name=ซอย ข้างวัด. Please check your other spellings as well |
| 70710225 by InnerPace @ 2019-05-28 20:00 | 1 | 2021-05-17 17:59 | stephankn | you seemed to have mis-spelled soi quite frequently. I am fixing at least some of them. Please double-check other characters as well for spelling mistakes. See https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=72796 |
| 66918392 by Russ McD @ 2019-02-05 00:13 | 1 | 2021-05-13 07:50 | stephankn | way 495778858all imagery I saw, also after your edit date hint that UOB is still a bank, not a cafe. Can't be certain that I saw all imagery, as Mapillary is very crowded that area. But even our competition imagery has no hint of cafe. Please double-check |
| 2 | 2021-05-13 14:54 | Russ McD ♦223 | Human error I guess, Tia Cafe was added by Maps.me user as a node. But when I convert nodes to buildings and they become ways & the origin of way gets transfered to me. Guess thats the way OSM works.Corrected now. | |
| 3 | 2021-05-14 06:47 | stephankn | Thanks for confirming. I also removed the wifi tagging, which came in with the cafe and added extra tags for UOB. | |
| 80742736 by SpaceFishie @ 2020-02-09 06:50 | 1 | 2021-05-13 09:10 | stephankn | your 7-Eleven sounds unlikely at this position. Can you confirm, that it is hidden after the Gateway down the small soi? |
| 91931579 by mCloud00 @ 2020-10-04 12:45 | 1 | 2021-05-08 18:36 | stephankn | these mapped trees do not match up with aerial imagery. Please give details on how you derived the position of trees |
| 766123 by stephankn @ 2008-11-18 21:34 | 1 | 2021-05-06 05:29 | Elyana IRM-ED ♦65 | I just modified the object base on Maxar Premium Imagery |
| 2 | 2021-05-06 06:10 | stephankn | great. These water features had been created 12 years ago, based on Landsat imagery, which at that point was also a bit older already. Water line might have changed over the years and Maxar imagery provides much higher resolution. Cross-check alignment of imagery against GPS tracks before doing larg... | |
| 71661391 by InnerPace @ 2019-06-27 07:20 | 1 | 2021-05-02 14:26 | stephankn | I fixed a lot of spelling mistakes. It is Soi, not Choi. ซอย |
| 79591887 by Aekkaphan @ 2020-01-15 04:33 | 1 | 2021-04-16 19:42 | stephankn | Certainly no clinic. Maybe a doctor's office? please confirm what this is supposed to be. |
| 102940425 by Nithinat S @ 2021-04-14 15:52 | 1 | 2021-04-15 06:59 | stephankn | I am uncertain what exactly happened, but after your edit the boundary relation disappeared from my extract database. Rendering shows a gap at the ways you added in relation 2067731:https://thaimap.osm-tools.org/?zoom=14&lat=20.36553&lon=99.47434&layers=BTCan you spot something wro... |
| 2 | 2021-04-15 07:37 | Nithinat S ♦50 | I'm not sure what is wrong but the new way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/930711920 is already there as part of every relation the former one is used to be.Maybe the administrative boundary relation on your database is not updated? | |
| 3 | 2021-04-15 11:46 | stephankn | Thank you for double-checking this edit.I also checked this relation and it looks technically OK. Somewhere in the database update process this change triggered osm2pgsql to delete the relation from the database. My initial guess was that the geometry was no longer valid and this triggered it to b... | |
| 89878849 by gnomerock @ 2020-08-24 21:36 | 1 | 2021-04-11 21:35 | stephankn | Could you please give details where exactly your business is? What kind of business is it? |
| 71948240 by Solra @ 2019-07-06 01:11 | 1 | 2021-04-08 21:24 | stephankn | what do you mean with fixme comment on Pa Phai Nuea Soi 3? ป่าไผ่ เหนือซอย 3 (77658212, v7) |
| 71700997 by InnerPace @ 2019-06-28 09:51 | 1 | 2021-04-08 21:14 | stephankn | Shouldn't it be Soi? ซอย? |
| 2 | 2021-04-08 22:30 | InnerPace ♦6 | Corrected the typos 04/08/2021 | |
| 71656444 by DerekBev @ 2019-06-27 02:54 | 1 | 2021-04-02 13:17 | stephankn | Can you please give a source why this small section of road supposed to be unpaved in the middle of all paved roads? way 700017741 |
| 2 | 2021-04-02 15:01 | DerekBev ♦6 | Hi stephankn,Thanks for asking about this tag. I was there in Chiang Mai two years ago when I added that tag, so I personally saw the road before adding it. I noticed there are other individual roads with unpaved tags in the area as well, some of which I added, and some of which I did not. I don... | |
| 3 | 2021-04-03 07:19 | stephankn | Thanks for confirming the ground survey. I worried the detail was somehow deducted from aerial imagery. There are still macadam roads around which are just compacted gravel. So well possible. | |
| 71941933 by Solra @ 2019-07-05 18:23 | 1 | 2021-04-02 12:42 | stephankn | had you been there on survey? Road surface looks more like concrete. Please confirm unpaved surface added in this area |
| 2 | 2021-04-03 07:14 | stephankn | I meanwhile found the related mapillary imagery. Looks like compacted gravel, macadam surface | |
| 94833570 by Nithinat S @ 2020-11-26 10:56 | 1 | 2021-04-01 19:50 | stephankn | what is your source to tag Cheong Doi as Town? Or others? |
| 2 | 2021-04-02 02:33 | Nithinat S ♦50 | Choeng Doi is a subdistrict municipality (เทศบาลตำบล), so it should be town according to Thailand OSM wiki. | |
| 3 | 2021-04-02 07:32 | stephankn | I understand the classification. But what was your source of these roughly 100 places you added or modified? Did you copy them from some database? In OSM we care very much that the license permits us to do so. This is one fundamental pillar. | |
| 4 | 2021-04-02 08:21 | Nithinat S ♦50 | I manually added it one by one, some of them is already there but with wrong classification. For the new one I use the Ratchakitchanubeksa (law) which indicates the area of municipality, then find the roughly center of each town by the satellite images. | |
| 86297490 by mCloud00 @ 2020-06-07 05:24 | 1 | 2021-03-27 11:13 | stephankn | I understand that you like the way your parking lots are rendered. But comparing them with different imagery sources hints, that they are not nearly as accurate as they appear now. Better avoid "mapping for the renderer", just to have something look nice on the "default" map. |
| 101450781 by Alpha1976 @ 2021-03-21 17:46 | 1 | 2021-03-21 18:44 | stephankn | what is the purpose of adding a quite long source tag to so many elements? Wouldn't it be better on the changeset? |
| 2 | 2021-03-22 20:28 | stephankn | Sorry, just noticed the source tag was not touched by you. I leave it to the local community to decide what to do with them: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=72291 | |
| 100083852 by txsasdx @ 2021-02-27 06:11 | 1 | 2021-03-21 21:42 | stephankn | way 911428986way 911428970so not exist, like others. Do you think this is funny? |
| 101429571 by Cidomo Beruntung @ 2021-03-21 08:24 | 1 | 2021-03-21 17:32 | stephankn | how certain are you regarding the tagging style? I have no longer the relation 2067731 in planet_osm_polygon. Probably, because it is no longer a valid multipolygon? |
| 2 | 2021-03-21 21:36 | stephankn | I fixed it. One way had a wrong direction and the ways had been on wrong position in both relations, so they did not form a closed loop. | |
| 3 | 2021-03-22 11:43 | Cidomo Beruntung ♦2 | Thx Stephan.Thanks a lot for fixing the order in the relation. I must have missed that. For the geometry/trajectoryI am pretty sure about the 2 alternative (disputed version), one can also be seen on Gistda web portal while the Myanmar version matches with data produced by Myanmar Survey Departm... | |
| 101229946 by txsasdx @ 2021-03-18 05:58 | 1 | 2021-03-21 20:47 | stephankn | only upload real, existing data |
| 100095650 by txsasdx @ 2021-02-27 12:32 | 1 | 2021-03-21 20:46 | stephankn | do not add invented roads |
| 100123797 by txsasdx @ 2021-02-28 06:19 | 1 | 2021-03-21 20:45 | stephankn | we want only existing features in OSM. Not "invented" bridges and roads |
| 100102520 by txsasdx @ 2021-02-27 15:25 | 1 | 2021-03-21 20:35 | stephankn | Please STOP to draw not existing roads through nowhere, like way 918536056 |
| 101386398 by txsasdx @ 2021-03-20 13:10 | 1 | 2021-03-21 19:59 | stephankn | what is "reupload2"? What kind of changes are you doing? your comment does not give any hint. |
| 2 | 2021-03-21 20:12 | stephankn | why are you drawing a "highway construction" dozens of kilometers? What is your source? Are you making it up? | |
| 3 | 2021-03-22 12:44 | marczoutendijk ♦2,755 | User blocked:https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4837Marc Zoutendijk OpenStreetMap Foundation Data Working Group | |
| 100100619 by txsasdx @ 2021-02-27 14:37 | 1 | 2021-03-21 19:58 | stephankn | you really messed up this area. Non-existing roads hundreds of meters cross-country. I will revert this and check what else is to clean up. Please be extra careful what you edit in the future |
| 94554833 by Nithinat S @ 2020-11-21 17:42 | 1 | 2021-03-21 11:18 | stephankn | I will not judge on your re-classification of highways into trunk. But if you do so, please do it in a proper way. I corrected lots of links with not matching classification. |
| 98438335 by mloliconpop @ 2021-01-31 07:46 | 1 | 2021-03-09 15:16 | stephankn | thanks for adding building outlines. As you can easily see in the rendering, these outlines suffer from a low-quality geometry. Could you please re-visit the area are use the orthogonalize tool of your editor to get right angles of the building corners right?. Thank you. |
| 86916680 by 2003Bucky @ 2020-06-20 17:27 | 1 | 2021-02-26 21:41 | stephankn | please do only add what is there. For example the traffic lights are quite certainly not there. you specified Bing as imagery source. Neither on Bing nor on other imagery sources are structures visible which could be traffic lights. |
| 2 | 2021-02-26 21:44 | stephankn | I fixed node 5914707437 and node 5914651106 and node 5914650830 and node 7638446078. Please also do not wildely classify roads as secondary. They certainly are not. At most tertiary. | |
| 3 | 2021-02-26 21:52 | stephankn | another traffic signal in the middle of a road in the woods node 5916344428? the road is connected with a 50m stub you marked as secondary. Is your comment about mapping quality serious? | |
| 4 | 2021-02-26 21:54 | stephankn | another stub tagged as secondary. way 817893637 why are you doing this? I feel I should have reverted this change instead of trying to repair it. | |
| 86917143 by 2003Bucky @ 2020-06-20 17:48 | 1 | 2021-02-26 21:46 | stephankn | why tagging a short section of agriculture track as unclassified? way 817897608 I changed it back. |
| 2 | 2021-02-26 21:47 | stephankn | I removed the imaginary traffic signals | |
| 93134313 by Peetang618 @ 2020-10-27 17:09 | 1 | 2021-02-24 21:07 | stephankn | way 864217443 is at most agriculture track. Certainly no tertiary. I fixed it for you. |
| 53413186 by djmorkman @ 2017-11-01 03:28 | 1 | 2021-02-15 16:47 | stephankn | a pharmacy is a pharmacy, not a clinic. I fixed it for you. |
| 62628730 by Philipp Zwicker @ 2018-09-16 07:51 | 1 | 2021-02-15 09:04 | stephankn | amenity=post_boxname:en=Ernstsounds unrealistic. Please explain. |
| 71626221 by DerekBev @ 2019-06-26 08:01 | 1 | 2021-02-09 22:32 | stephankn | what is บ้านธีรพร? It is untagged node 1123529565 |
| 2 | 2021-02-10 15:55 | DerekBev ♦6 | บ้านธีรพร is the name of a หมู่บ้าน, or neighborhood/village. I have added a place=village tag to reflect this. | |
| 78952722 by DemoLogin @ 2019-12-28 11:17 | 1 | 2021-02-02 19:33 | stephankn | Singer does manufacture all kinds of vending machines. This is not a brand name of places selling fuel. It also is a duplicate to another POI already describing this |
| 2 | 2021-02-02 19:33 | stephankn | I removed the duplicate | |
| 97416827 by om_mmyexplorer @ 2021-01-13 06:52 | 1 | 2021-01-19 14:48 | stephankn | you messed up geometry and tagging of a major highway. I reverted your change and fixed the remaining issues in this area |
| 95728109 by Nithinat S @ 2020-12-12 16:24 | 1 | 2020-12-12 20:37 | alessandrocarmeli ♦235 | not make massive edits --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95728109 |
| 2 | 2020-12-13 02:57 | DP24PH ♦418 | You may have encroached on the Republic of the Philippines, and to avoid such encroachment on the changeset boundary, kindly reduce the editing into your local area (unless mapping international ferry routes) | |
| 3 | 2020-12-13 04:33 | Nithinat S ♦50 | Sorry abount large changeset boundary. Since I edited the coastline, I then also fix the coastline error around the world to make osm able to render the coastline. | |
| 4 | 2021-01-18 21:57 | stephankn | What is this kind of import? I do not remember that it was discussed beforehand. Also you created a lot of invalid geometries. | |
| 5 | 2021-02-13 13:30 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,632 | Are you aware that you deleted what was mapped there previously?For example see https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/390010502/history | |
| 6 | 2021-02-13 14:04 | Nithinat S ♦50 | I was carefully checked before delete anything, to make sure that the new geometry which was mapped instead is better than the old one.Regards | |
| 84962890 by Russ McD @ 2020-05-10 08:28 | 1 | 2021-01-18 21:30 | stephankn | maybe an issue with your editor? way 802107405 had multiple self-intersections, making the polygon invalid. I fixed it. |
| 77477246 by Kibour @ 2019-11-24 09:22 | 1 | 2021-01-14 20:00 | stephankn | you added A LOT of duplicate ATMs, sometimes also duplicating the ones part of already tagged bank branches. I fixed them as I detected them. In the future, please double-check for existing features before adding new things. |
| 82752490 by Man77 @ 2020-03-28 12:53 | 1 | 2021-01-13 08:13 | stephankn | Osmose tries to analyze "Daman and Diu", which now no longer exists. You mention "new Union Territory": Was there a re-organization of Indian territories? |
| 2 | 2021-01-13 08:19 | stephankn | seem I found details. Wikipedia states it was merged. Looks bot being part of relation 1952530 Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu | |
| 3 | 2021-01-13 13:28 | Man77 ♦3 | Hi. Yes, the two former union territories of "Dadra and Nagar Haveli" and "Daman and Diu" were merged to become "Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu" last year. "Dadra and Nagar Haveli" now is one of the territory's three districts, with "Daman&... | |
| 94757441 by katpatuka @ 2020-11-25 08:24 | 1 | 2021-01-12 23:06 | stephankn | could you please check relation 913101. It has a huge gap and is broken. |
| 2 | 2021-01-13 05:14 | katpatuka ♦194 | Fixed - thanks for notification ;) | |
| 69713263 by Tamangfella @ 2019-04-29 21:45 | 1 | 2020-12-11 21:03 | stephankn | how many lanes has Mittraphap here? You added more destination:lanes than lanes. Please re-visit this area |
| 29478553 by PeterNon @ 2015-03-14 19:08 | 1 | 2020-12-09 10:06 | stephankn | you added a Buddha statue on a hill without further tags. Can you please re-visit node 3398595486 and add further details, like a name? |
| 58598574 by lekja @ 2018-05-01 23:20 | 1 | 2020-11-30 19:46 | stephankn | you created a lot of untagged tourist attractions. Like this they provide no value to OSM. Please contact me on how to proceed fixing them, otherwise I have to remove them. |
| 59623697 by lekja @ 2018-06-07 06:59 | 1 | 2020-11-29 20:39 | stephankn | you created multiple "tourist attrictions" in maps-me, but gave no additional details like names. What did you try to add? Like this it is no value for OpenStreetMap. Please respond back. |
| 54502038 by CPnine @ 2017-12-10 04:56 | 1 | 2020-11-25 08:02 | stephankn | are you certain, that this is artwork? Samran Garden sounds more like a restaurant. Please respond. Similar Earth Fish. |
| 46084510 by yurasi @ 2017-02-14 17:02 | 1 | 2020-11-22 18:14 | stephankn | you connected a highway crossing a barrier=wall, node 4685558607. This looks wrong. Please go back and review your edits. |
| 85757594 by chenjing4976 @ 2020-05-26 08:54 | 1 | 2020-11-21 09:42 | stephankn | traffic signals, parks and cafes in are certainly not there. What are you trying to do here? OpenStreetMap is a serious project and we map only features that exist. I'm reverting your changes. |
| 85755359 by chenjing4976 @ 2020-05-26 08:27 | 1 | 2020-11-21 09:41 | stephankn | traffic signals, parks and cafes in are certainly not there. What are you trying to do here? OpenStreetMap is a serious project and we map only features that exist. I'm reverting your changes. |
| 85751845 by chenjing4976 @ 2020-05-26 07:43 | 1 | 2020-11-21 09:17 | stephankn | another traffic light in the rice fields? This is not funny! |
| 85752292 by chenjing4976 @ 2020-05-26 07:48 | 1 | 2020-11-21 09:16 | stephankn | OpenStreetMap is a serious database. Please do not try to be funny by leaving personal graffiti tags in the data like motorway junctions or traffic signals. I am going to revert your edits. |
| 70302347 by JASSU2019 @ 2019-05-16 05:33 | 1 | 2020-11-21 09:11 | stephankn | Hello, it is nice that you tried to help with a HOT project, but please ask your mentors at HOT for a review of changees and a proper introduction into OSM. At node 6477111339 might be a building with some fantasy, but certainly no motorway junction. Or did you try to be funny by leaving a personal ... |
| 90937050 by sudteerak @ 2020-09-15 16:28 | 1 | 2020-11-20 08:28 | stephankn | This restaurant is certainly not a member of Mittraphap route relation. I removed it for you. Similar node 369493329 is not the admin centre of the province. This edit looks much like spam to promote restaurants. Such spam is not tolerated within OpenStreetMap! |
| 58146902 by VLD018 @ 2018-04-16 18:42 | 1 | 2020-11-16 17:37 | stephankn | you crossed a wall to connect a residential road with another residential road with way 580578021 and others in this area. Please re-visit this area for corrections |
| 2 | 2020-11-16 18:22 | VLD087 ♦9 | Readjusted way 580578021 and other surrounding residential roads so that they do not cross over any wall barriers. | |
| 90515890 by tonson @ 2020-09-07 08:30 | 1 | 2020-11-15 22:22 | stephankn | you have created a park here with a single node. This looks wrong. The name suggests you maybe wanted to add a flower shop (florist). Is this correct? If so, please change the tag from "leisure=park" into shop=florist |
| 55916324 by pisit l @ 2018-01-31 03:16 | 1 | 2020-11-15 21:55 | stephankn | what kind of tourist attraction did you want to add here? You did not name it. |
| 55917998 by pisit l @ 2018-01-31 04:19 | 1 | 2020-11-15 21:55 | stephankn | you have not named it. What kind of tourist attraction did you add here? Please respond |
| 80228087 by Russkii @ 2020-01-29 03:38 | 1 | 2020-11-15 19:42 | stephankn | Can you please comment, what kind of shelter you tried to add here? |
| 55919681 by pisit l @ 2018-01-31 06:15 | 1 | 2020-11-11 18:40 | stephankn | what did you want to add? Is this a restaurant? Or a shop? |
| 93338112 by Aruno @ 2020-10-31 13:25 | 1 | 2020-11-01 14:55 | stephankn | Please check maps.me presets and their meaning in OpenStreetMap (reference in wiki). For example, you added a "wilderness_hut" node 8068823789 and tagged it "cottage in rice farm". As a cottage is a small house where people typically live, this looks wrong. I checked different so... |
| 2 | 2020-12-26 12:18 | AlaskaDave ♦167 | @stephanknThis person does not respond to questions about his mapping. I've been deleting these "wilderness_huts" as I encounter them. | |
| 93338576 by Aruno @ 2020-10-31 13:40 | 1 | 2020-11-01 14:48 | stephankn | I have seen you adding a lot of valuable content to OpenStreetMap over the years. Great! Have you considered using a more professional editor than maps.me? Some of your edits suffer from inconsistencies very likely introduced by the editor you are using. Here for example I am quite certain you adde... |
| 80998102 by Asv Travel Tour @ 2020-02-14 08:59 | 1 | 2020-11-01 14:27 | stephankn | adding your travel agency as "center" of an administrative region is SPAM we do not tolerate! |
| 81059101 by Walk for together @ 2020-02-16 00:35 | 1 | 2020-10-26 18:51 | stephankn | a community centre has a specific meaning in OSM. I suppose that you wanted to put a place node at the centre of a village to have its name, right? |
| 2 | 2020-10-26 23:36 | Walk for together ♦1 | Yes sir. | |
| 3 | 2020-10-27 18:49 | stephankn | Thank you for confirming and for adding this data in the first place. I have corrected the tagging. It should now show up properly on the map. Check out the wiki for hints regarding the tagging. Or reach out to the community in the forum. | |
| 65691809 by Sirilak_Kaewkasorn @ 2018-12-22 12:06 | 1 | 2020-10-26 18:48 | stephankn | your building tracing in this area severely lacks precision. Would you mind re-visiting this area and orthogonalizing the building outlines as well as adjusting them to the real houses position? |
| 79211165 by Aruno @ 2020-01-05 12:16 | 1 | 2020-10-25 17:32 | stephankn | what are these "wilderness_huts" you added? the definition is quite clear and the few samples I checked have no indication of any man-made structure near the locations where you added nodes. |
| 85672544 by Russ McD @ 2020-05-24 06:46 | 1 | 2020-10-06 19:14 | stephankn | why are you re-tagging a residential into living_street? You had been part of the thread in which we decided, that due to the missing legal concept of living_streets in Thailand we are not using this. speed limits are always tagged when signed, access tags describe it in case the road is not open to... |
| 2 | 2020-10-07 08:02 | Russ McD ♦223 | That was 8 years ago, and of course, since then, we have had the massive pollution caused by Facebook tagging everything as "residential". While there may not be a legal definition of a living street as such, in Thailand... roads in walled & secure gated communities in my mind, are ... | |
| 3 | 2020-10-25 15:04 | stephankn | we should discuss this in the forum. Please bring up your arguments https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=19316 | |
| 83467076 by Bernhard Hiller @ 2020-04-13 09:56 | 1 | 2020-10-17 10:32 | stephankn | way 665184558 is certainly no tertiary. I changed that. Probably it came from a bad Kaart edit nearby. What is that undocumented "hwpi" tag you are adding? |
| 2 | 2020-10-17 12:39 | Bernhard Hiller ♦26 | You're right, that's a residential. I checked roads connecting to it, they seem to be tagged correctly (though the path to the south could be connected to the road there; done).I use "hwpi" as a temporary key when I create maps; if we could some when agree on a good tagging sch... | |
| 3 | 2020-10-18 20:15 | stephankn | you missed some road classifications when you upgraded roads. I trust you re-assesment of classifications, so for example changed the missing piece way 262736966 also to tertiary. Check Osmose for highway continuity to find more. | |
| 73418575 by AnonJason @ 2019-08-16 14:20 | 1 | 2020-10-18 20:00 | stephankn | Please don't blindly re-classify sections of roads into tertiary |
| 2 | 2020-10-22 22:02 | AnonJason ♦7 | Hi stephankn, Thank you for updating and bringing this area to my attention.Best regards,AnonJason | |
| 71607963 by Te-Ika @ 2019-06-25 17:31 | 1 | 2020-10-17 10:29 | stephankn | please do not re-tag residential roads as tertiary. way 665184555 |
| 69838527 by Daryna 01 @ 2019-05-03 11:27 | 1 | 2020-10-17 10:25 | stephankn | way 687550096 is tagged as unspecific "road" type. It looks like a track. If you are uncertain what it is, better not map at all. I changed to track based on aerial. |
| 69838314 by Daryna 01 @ 2019-05-03 11:21 | 1 | 2020-10-17 10:23 | stephankn | way 687549501 is at most an agricultural track, not a primary highway. I repaired it for you. In the future, please pay more attention to your tagging. |
| 68345207 by KimLarisaDimitrovic @ 2019-03-20 17:11 | 1 | 2020-10-17 10:19 | stephankn | Hello, you classified way 678210128 as a secondary highway, even it is much closer to an agriculture track. I fixed that for you. Please be more careful when mapping in the future. Also your buildings lack on the geometry precision. Please use the tools of the editor to draw orthogonal buildings. It... |
| 69049688 by Te-Ika @ 2019-04-09 14:56 | 1 | 2020-10-17 10:16 | stephankn | Dear Kaart, please only change the classification of highways in case you have a good source. For a tertiary we usually expect a highway reference like a four digit classification. Reverting the change. way 238460834 |
| 92481683 by mCloud00 @ 2020-10-14 15:36 | 1 | 2020-10-17 09:49 | stephankn | please do not use OSM for testing purposes. Way 858964360 is no tertiary highway. |
| 83904066 by Monica Montero @ 2020-04-21 23:15 | 1 | 2020-10-04 17:58 | stephankn | you are re-tagging unpaved tracks into tertiary roads. Why? way 794576719 You also re-tagged surrounding roads. Your change-set comment is not helpful. Please give other mappers more hints about why you are doing such drastic changes and what source it is based on. |
| 55818041 by nuestro @ 2018-01-28 00:32 | 1 | 2020-10-03 11:08 | stephankn | you removed all tagging on way 552240191. Why? Tagging as lake looks reasonable... |
| 79445202 by Apichart Bas Kaewwiset @ 2020-01-11 08:15 | 1 | 2020-10-03 10:53 | stephankn | do not add invented features. reverting 552240187 |
| 79752459 by Apichart Bas Kaewwiset @ 2020-01-19 11:39 | 1 | 2020-10-03 10:51 | stephankn | are you trying to cheat pokemon? way 764548751 covers houses and more. it is not a park. Similar way 764548752 which is the bus terminal. Please do not game with OSM, otherwise we will get you blocked. |
| 91849549 by Friendly_Ghost @ 2020-10-01 23:55 | 1 | 2020-10-03 10:38 | stephankn | I personally would not map individual patches of farmland. I think this level of detail is a bit excessive at the current time. way 854082331 is on maxar imagery not a water feature but looks like a dried out pond. So you could add additional tags like pond and maybe some tagging indicating that wat... |
| 2 | 2020-10-04 16:04 | Friendly_Ghost ♦635 | Thank you very much for the feedback. I've just made another changeset and revisited most things you had comments about. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/91937436#map=13/15.4937/103.0619Unfortunately I don't know the name of the temple, but I do know that it is a temple which is... | |
| 66693658 by Russ McD @ 2019-01-28 04:42 | 1 | 2020-10-03 10:18 | stephankn | you added additional tags to geometries not corresponding to the situation on the ground/aerial. For example way 662952977 is not reflecting the shape of the building. How to proceed with these shapes? If you want to keep the building=yes, at least remove the area=yes. I cleaned up other parts, but ... |
| 2 | 2020-10-03 10:49 | Russ McD ♦223 | Yes , it was a futile attempt to correct the poor work by the M S Uni. I have since asked you to do a mass deletion of these, with no comment back. I now just delete them when I'm bored, but you cud do for me en masse if you agree. | |
| 84210050 by Russ McD @ 2020-04-27 16:23 | 1 | 2020-10-03 08:18 | stephankn | how confident are you that the data source regarding tertiary 4049 is correct? On all aerial sources it still looks like an agricultural track. Also lots of bridges are missing. Could it be that this road is or was some planned extensions which did not (yet) make it? I feel we should only tag existi... |
| 2 | 2020-10-03 08:19 | stephankn | May' 19 situation: https://www.google.com/maps/@17.0463448,100.2168566,3a,75y,123.81h,73.38t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sBHt72AF-pEsoQQdellqaKQ!2e0!5s20140201T000000!7i16384!8i8192 | |
| 3 | 2020-10-03 11:29 | Russ McD ♦223 | As shown in the source tag, the Data originated from the DRR database. Its possible the road will be asphalted in the future, but as of today, no aerial images bear this out. If a road has a ref, I add it. The construction tag was not appropriate as there was already a track there, and I had no ... | |
| 74575514 by MarcelBag @ 2019-09-17 11:58 | 1 | 2020-10-03 08:07 | stephankn | while whether shelters are technically a sort of building, what purpose does it serve to map them for fighting malaria? Maybe consider tagging them appropriately? example way 690768512please also make sure you get the geometry right. |
| 71130122 by panawan @ 2019-06-11 08:01 | 1 | 2020-10-03 07:22 | stephankn | please draw building outlines with proper shapes. your editor has a function to do this. please use your editor accordingly. Please re-visit this area and fix your edits, for example way 696327722 |
| 74067291 by ่่jak @ 2019-09-04 06:44 | 1 | 2020-10-03 07:21 | stephankn | please use tags on elements according to their documented meaning. maxspeed documents a signed legal speed limit, not what you consider is appropriate. Also a ford has a very specific meaning. Similar a living_street for which the legal equivalent is not existing in Thailand. The road is a simple re... |
| 89660929 by ่่jak @ 2020-08-20 03:05 | 1 | 2020-10-03 07:17 | stephankn | way 838864874 is tagged as ford. given the surrounding, this is quite unlikely. Other ways nearby have the same wrong tagging. Also you did not connect the ways to the road network.We also do not create "areas" to label village. Please use the established and documented tags from the wik... |
| 85757283 by shijinchiang @ 2020-05-26 08:51 | 1 | 2020-10-02 17:16 | stephankn | you did overdraw existing shapes. Also your geometries has nothing to do with reality. use editor properly. Reverting this changeset, |
| 85756024 by Kai Lin C @ 2020-05-26 08:35 | 1 | 2020-10-02 17:14 | stephankn | you did overdraw existing shapes. Also your geometries has nothing to do with reality. use editor properly. Reverting this changeset, |
| 85756682 by Kai Lin C @ 2020-05-26 08:43 | 1 | 2020-10-02 17:13 | stephankn | you did overdraw existing shapes. Also your geometries has nothing to do with reality. use editor properly. Reverting this changeset, |
| 85752449 by JayadevMarol @ 2020-05-26 07:50 | 1 | 2020-10-02 17:12 | stephankn | please learn how to use the editor to draw proper shapes. Buildings have right-angled corners, even in Thailand |
| 85752536 by Patrick Goh @ 2020-05-26 07:51 | 1 | 2020-10-02 17:11 | stephankn | you did overdraw existing shapes. Also your geometries has nothing to do with reality. use editor properly. Reverting this changeset, |
| 85756417 by Patrick Goh @ 2020-05-26 08:40 | 1 | 2020-10-02 17:10 | stephankn | you did overdraw existing shapes. Also your geometries has nothing to do with reality. use editor properly. Reverting this changeset, |
| 85757081 by zhou yan @ 2020-05-26 08:48 | 1 | 2020-10-02 17:08 | stephankn | you did draw new outlines on top of existing ones. And you not even got the geometry right. Use the editor to have right-angled corners on the buildings. reverting this changeset. |
| 85750474 by Patrick Goh @ 2020-05-26 07:25 | 1 | 2020-10-02 17:05 | stephankn | please do not draw new ways on top of already existing ones |
| 70341449 by Tarun Aggarwal @ 2019-05-17 03:59 | 1 | 2020-10-02 17:00 | stephankn | there is no highway=secondary there. Stop inventing these things |
| 70304359 by Karthik Shivram @ 2019-05-16 06:25 | 1 | 2020-10-02 16:57 | stephankn | do not map imaginary POIs for whatever reason. There is no guest_house |
| 70366159 by Fergusch @ 2019-05-17 16:56 | 1 | 2020-10-02 16:56 | stephankn | do not invent tertiary highways in the middle of fields |
| 70287763 by N_w @ 2019-05-15 17:50 | 1 | 2020-10-02 16:55 | stephankn | these are no buildings. Stop mapping imaginary houses |
| 86507005 by akalimut @ 2020-06-11 09:02 | 1 | 2020-10-02 16:51 | stephankn | please be more careful what you map and what tag you are using. The geometry of your ways does not follow reality. Tagging as primary highways has nothing to do with reality. Buildings need right-angles in the corners. Use the provided functionality of the editor to draw proper shapes. |
| 76374850 by MamaJib @ 2019-10-30 05:04 | 1 | 2020-10-02 16:36 | stephankn | your edit is already a bit older. For way 737033495 a tagging as ford is certainly wrong. Please check the wiki for a description of the meaning of the individual tags. Do not rely on the editor. Check out the forum to get in contact with experienced mappers who are happy to assist. |
| 58873296 by Penpak S @ 2018-05-11 09:42 | 1 | 2020-10-02 15:49 | stephankn | this is a live database your testing actually created garbage in the database. I cleaned it up. |
| 70927761 by BaldJJMaster @ 2019-06-04 15:42 | 1 | 2020-10-02 15:41 | stephankn | thanks for improving, but this road was not just a snake road, but also wrongly tagged. Feel free to correct obviously wrong tags as wellway 631786877 |
| 89698596 by HealthGeoLab @ 2020-08-20 14:55 | 1 | 2020-09-29 06:23 | stephankn | you claim to edit in Lao PDR, but this is in the middle of Thailand. Also tagging service roads a tertiary (way 839053969) to make them more visible is not acceptable. Please stop doing such edits as part of your covid campaign. You are always welcome to contact the community in the forum if you hav... |
| 52003573 by Tom Layo @ 2017-09-13 11:41 | 1 | 2020-09-13 09:52 | stephankn | village node 5103129950 has two names, see node 2491429256 |
| 40532766 by Tom Layo @ 2016-07-07 02:03 | 1 | 2020-09-13 09:51 | stephankn | village has two names, see node 5103129950 |
| 88123595 by MapAnalyser465 @ 2020-07-17 06:38 | 1 | 2020-09-13 09:49 | stephankn | you copied in tags from a multi-polygon. What happened to the multi-polygon? Tagging is also quite bad. "Roi Et Airport" is a name:en, not name:th |
| 90803110 by stephankn @ 2020-09-12 19:36 | 1 | 2020-09-12 19:38 | sbbth ♦1 | Knight@SBBth2526 |
| 2 | 2020-09-12 19:38 | sbbth ♦1 | Knight@SBBth2526 | |
| 3 | 2020-09-13 08:48 | stephankn | Glad to see that you just signed up to OpenStreetMap for leaving this comment. | |
| 50716193 by EndlessRoundabout @ 2017-07-31 10:20 | 1 | 2020-09-12 07:37 | stephankn | strange. In this area you did add ways and POI on top of already existing features you added two years before. Probably Potlatch had issues. If you have some time please review this greater area for nearby duplicate features and overlapping duplicate ways. |
| 70468527 by pranom pho @ 2019-05-21 08:29 | 1 | 2020-09-07 18:54 | stephankn | way 691379856 is not a 39/1 meter height building.Also: they key to tag house-numbers is "addr:housenumber". Please use the right tags and not abuse the name tag. Please revisit this area and fix your tagging. While you are at it, please also make the building footprints rectangular (�... |
| 90482223 by ccaputo @ 2020-09-06 14:22 | 1 | 2020-09-06 19:34 | stephankn | similar to your other edits: Please make sure to draw rectangular buildings. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/90482223 |
| 2 | 2020-09-07 02:14 | ccaputo ♦5 | OK Thank you, I will put more attention to draw rectangular. | |
| 90481076 by ccaputo @ 2020-09-06 13:49 | 1 | 2020-09-06 13:58 | stephankn | please make sure that building outline is having a valid geometry. Buildings in Thailand have right-angled walls. Please check out the functionality in iD to draw square buildings. Also make sure you align the outline with the buildings in the imagery. Before using an imagery also check the position... |
| 87728012 by pcnash30 @ 2020-07-08 20:19 | 1 | 2020-09-06 13:09 | stephankn | buildings have no right-angles (simple step in ID editor by pressing q) and do not line up with aerial imagery. Removing this, as one-by-one repair is way more work than simple drawing it right from the beginning. Please read at least some basic tutorial before doing large-scale edits like this. |
| 87729315 by pcnash30 @ 2020-07-08 20:48 | 1 | 2020-09-06 13:06 | stephankn | these fantasy-shaped polygons tagged as "buildings=yes" do not even remotely follow the outline of buildings on aerial imagery. Adding an artificial primary highway on top of existing ways and adding railway crossings might look nice on the map, but we are mapping what is on the ground. Re... |
| 71238718 by krisana422 @ 2019-06-14 04:31 | 1 | 2020-09-06 12:53 | stephankn | บ้าน simply means "house". This is nothing you place into the "name" tag. The "building" key already gives this detail. Please go back to this area and fix your mistakes. Also buildings have rectangular walls. Please fix this as well (key q) and make sure they a... |
| 70497938 by varinthanat @ 2019-05-22 03:06 | 1 | 2020-09-06 12:47 | stephankn | way 691557377 is certainly not a 396 meter height building.Also: they key to tag house-numbers is "addr:housenumber". Please use the right tags and not abuse the name tag. Please revisit this area and fix your tagging. |
| 2 | 2020-09-06 12:48 | stephankn | way 691557378 as well | |
| 3 | 2020-09-06 12:49 | stephankn | and way 691557376 | |
| 80115072 by Amy@96 @ 2020-01-27 03:11 | 1 | 2020-09-06 12:45 | stephankn | you created a lot of false path entries, eg way 766808480. Please fix that. See the wiki for definitions of tags, eg for path: "highway=path is a generic path, either multi-use or unspecified usage, open to all non-motorized vehicles and not intended for motorized vehicles". Yours look ver... |
| 70497596 by tongchai @ 2019-05-22 02:45 | 1 | 2020-09-06 09:24 | stephankn | Thailand culture might be unfamiliar to you, but a temple is not a retail building... way 691555047 |
| 70502633 by piyarat Chawna @ 2019-05-22 06:55 | 1 | 2020-09-06 08:47 | stephankn | way 691589061 is certainly not a 65 meter height building.Also: they key to tag house-numbers is "addr:housenumber". Please use the right tags and not abuse the name tag. Please revisit this area and fix your tagging. |
| 70907063 by พิชัย บุญทัน @ 2019-06-04 03:54 | 1 | 2020-09-06 08:44 | stephankn | way 694420371 is certainly not a 122 meter height building.Also: they key to tag house-numbers is "addr:housenumber". Please use the right tags and not abuse the name tag. Please revisit this area and fix your tagging. |
| 71167255 by พิชัย บุญทัน @ 2019-06-12 06:41 | 1 | 2020-09-06 08:43 | stephankn | way 696594467 is certainly not a 182 meter height building.Also: they key to tag house-numbers is "addr:housenumber". Please use the right tags and not abuse the name tag. Please revisit this area and fix your tagging. |
| 69034702 by mookchaa @ 2019-04-09 08:28 | 1 | 2020-09-06 08:31 | stephankn | This is a pond. There is no KFC. I reverted your change. Please be careful what tags you add at which location. |
| 2 | 2020-09-06 08:35 | stephankn | sorry, KFC was a different bad edit.This one is about your 150m building in the fields | |
| 69034356 by mookchaa @ 2019-04-09 08:18 | 1 | 2020-09-06 08:32 | stephankn | This is a pond. There is no KFC. I reverted your change. Please be careful what tags you add at which location. |
| 69034978 by mookchaa @ 2019-04-09 08:35 | 1 | 2020-09-06 08:29 | stephankn | I guess you changed the road classification to primary by accident. I fixed it for you. |
| 89478963 by Maisha Mahboob @ 2020-08-16 17:36 | 1 | 2020-09-06 07:43 | stephankn | again (!). You added a tertiary highway to a hospital as part of whatever campaign.way 837618691 |
| 89585143 by Maisha Mahboob @ 2020-08-18 16:03 | 1 | 2020-09-06 07:40 | stephankn | way 838283380 is a service road to the hospital, not a tertiary highway. On top of that you simply added this on top of already mapped roads. This is the second time I see such a misuse of tags from you. Please respect the tagging of the OSM community. If you are not willing to follow the mapping st... |
| 89632099 by Maisha Mahboob @ 2020-08-19 11:49 | 1 | 2020-09-06 07:35 | stephankn | way 838534871 is a service road to the hospital, not a tertiary highway. I fixed it for you. |
| 71157296 by Arkman @ 2019-06-11 20:54 | 1 | 2020-09-06 07:30 | stephankn | dear #Kaart, please do not re-tag paved residential roads into tertiary dirt roads. Especially not without proper survey. way 251492110 |
| 73218100 by nathanwright120 @ 2019-08-10 10:48 | 1 | 2020-08-20 15:03 | amapanda ᚛ᚐᚋᚐᚅᚇᚐ᚜ 🏳️🌈 ♦363 | https://www.kotaku.com.au/2020/08/microsoft-flight-simulator-added-a-giant-monolith-to-melbourne/ 🤣 |
| 2 | 2020-08-20 16:07 | Discostu36 ♦206 | Congratulations for becoming famous by accident 👍 | |
| 3 | 2020-08-20 16:14 | S-zation ♦108 | The 212 floor Melbourne Monolith was way 712475718 | |
| 4 | 2020-08-20 20:59 | stephankn | problem still visible in bing maps: https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=a70eec59-f17b-4f79-805a-517b8faa9bb7&cp=-37.714705~144.965212&lvl=19&v=2&sV=2&form=S00027also way 712592055 suffered from the same problem. | |
| 5 | 2020-08-20 21:01 | stephankn | way 712591996 with 1233 floors nearby is also impressive. | |
| 6 | 2025-05-20 10:21 | CasGroenigen ♦43 | Never forget https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/20/flight_simulator_bing_fawkner_tower/ | |
| 81798823 by SixSenses @ 2020-03-05 02:42 | 1 | 2020-03-05 12:06 | Faisal454 ♦1 | كراج بدر التويجري |
| 2 | 2020-08-10 18:25 | stephankn | Why did you add noname=yes for the market node? You can find the sign road-facing: https://www.google.com/maps/@15.2339805,104.8550059,3a,15y,76.12h,97.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHUdprmyrakL7abwJ9m2_EA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 | |
| 60818674 by VLD016 @ 2018-07-18 03:41 | 1 | 2020-08-02 08:39 | stephankn | these roads and all others in this area had been imported from a badly aligned imagery. They are all shifted by approximately 60 meters. Please re-visit this area and re-align with correct imagery. |
| 87609474 by Nithinat S @ 2020-07-06 15:46 | 1 | 2020-07-23 20:23 | stephankn | Please document import. https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=70103 |
| 2 | 2020-07-23 21:26 | stephankn | node 7688192100โรงพยาบาลสรรพสิทธิประสงค์looks like a duplicate to already existing hospital nearby node 3326559851 โรงพยาบาลสรรพสิทธิประสงค์ | |
| 72169906 by piyarat Chawna @ 2019-07-12 09:17 | 1 | 2020-07-23 21:02 | stephankn | STOP abusing OSM as a place to document whatever results you consider important. OSM is not the place for it. |
| 2 | 2020-11-03 00:03 | SomeoneElse_Revert ♦70,576 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 93445035 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some medical data prior to redaction. | |
| 66521095 by rosanna_gug @ 2019-01-21 23:07 | 1 | 2020-07-16 20:49 | stephankn | node 6226110359: a crossing in the middle of a field? are you kidding? |
| 66519690 by Gurpreet1468 @ 2019-01-21 22:19 | 1 | 2020-07-16 20:38 | stephankn | please stop doing phantasy mapping of nonexisting major highways |
| 66519046 by Matarazzo @ 2019-01-21 22:04 | 1 | 2020-07-12 17:50 | stephankn | the road is not called "unpaved service road". Please add this to the correct tags. |
| 66519189 by kbarta @ 2019-01-21 22:07 | 1 | 2020-07-12 17:49 | stephankn | This is a serious project. Please stop adding non-existing "slipway" or aerialway platter in a village. |
| 72118604 by piyarat Chawna @ 2019-07-11 04:59 | 1 | 2020-07-12 16:13 | stephankn | หมู่ที่ 8 not on village sign. We also tag on place=village and not on landuse |
| 66490651 by odchen @ 2019-01-21 02:38 | 1 | 2020-07-11 10:09 | stephankn | please connect new roads to existing ones and not simply end the road nearby without connection |
| 66719784 by Adrian Ishak @ 2019-01-28 21:58 | 1 | 2020-07-11 10:01 | stephankn | please make sure new roads are connected to the existing ones |
| 66718757 by Adrian Ishak @ 2019-01-28 21:16 | 1 | 2020-07-11 10:00 | stephankn | changing a track into a secondary is unjustified here. I assume it was by mistake and fixed it, but please be more cautious when modifying existing streets. |
| 87605507 by mCloud00 @ 2020-07-06 13:59 | 1 | 2020-07-08 09:46 | stephankn | please use English language and not Morse code for your comments.We are a community and like to know what and why you mapped here. It is not helpful that you "editied many things". Try to give us a hint what was broken and why you modified it. Especially with large changes like these c... |
| 83920348 by mCloud00 @ 2020-04-22 07:11 | 1 | 2020-07-08 09:43 | stephankn | You are adding here details down to a very high resolution. Unfortunately the available imagery is not well suitable for this detail. While on Esri the parking lots roughly match what you mapped, they don't on other imagery sources. Be aware that especially the imagery from satellites often h... |
| 87374264 by Siriwan Khonyuen @ 2020-07-01 04:17 | 1 | 2020-07-04 21:45 | stephankn | what areas are you adding? What is the source of these polygons? |
| 2 | 2020-07-04 21:48 | stephankn | why have you moved the school? I am quite certain the school is closer to the original coordinates, then where you placed it. | |
| 87374745 by Siriwan Khonyuen @ 2020-07-01 04:29 | 1 | 2020-07-04 21:29 | stephankn | what kind of area are you trying to add here? How can we, the community verify the edit? |
| 36320851 by stephankn @ 2016-01-02 15:59 | 1 | 2020-06-29 03:40 | Riyadi IRM-ED ♦140 | @stephanknjust to inform you. i change road 389218303 to tertiary road, i use maxar premium. its should be more update and proper. thank you |
| 2 | 2020-06-29 06:11 | stephankn | Thank you. Please feel free to improve the map data as needed.I used http://compare.osm-tools.org/ to find areas with gaps in the data. Then I used aerial imagery to derive roads from these images. It can well be that also the alignment is not perfect. Maxar Premium is usually quite good. If the... | |
| 76089404 by Vi som bor i Udon @ 2019-10-23 08:43 | 1 | 2020-06-14 17:54 | stephankn | please do not leave private notes. This is a public map database. |
| 65730274 by Nirada rawiwet @ 2018-12-24 05:17 | 1 | 2020-03-10 05:38 | stephankn | are you aware that by using this tagging style you are adding nothing meaningful to the database? Did you try to map buildings? |
| 52198491 by Jame Thomas @ 2017-09-20 05:14 | 1 | 2018-11-19 19:56 | stephankn | Where did you get all these road-names from? Especially those on the Thai side do not sound familiar to me. |
| 52049156 by VLD011 @ 2017-09-14 19:16 | 1 | 2018-10-25 12:37 | Beddhist ♦41 | Way 524747125 is clearly unpaved. This is what it looks like on the ground: https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/OwqAoRkXf0F_J2uKaHjR1Q |
| 2 | 2018-10-25 13:03 | Beddhist ♦41 | Ways 524747117 & 524747118 are both dirt tracks. | |
| 3 | 2018-10-25 14:00 | Beddhist ♦41 | Ways 524747147, the N-S section of 524747105, 524747145, 524747244, 524747158, 524747157, 524747154, 524747153, 524747160, 524747130 are all dirt. There are probably many more, but for this one a mass-tagging as track is in order. This is what I mean when I say that the map is "polluted" w... | |
| 4 | 2018-10-26 06:12 | stephankn | Beddhist, I checked way 52049156. From aerial it is not visible whether this is a track or a residential. Even it could be a service driveway to the building on the east. Just to be explicit as it sounds a bit like you suggested to automatically convert everything unpaved into an agricultural ro... | |
| 5 | 2018-10-26 06:14 | stephankn | The others are a bit more borderline, as they could serve the purpose of providing access to the fields, or a service road to reach the farm building. Certainly for roads which could be used as a "via" shortcut by routing software, a bit more caution is needed before even mapping such road... | |
| 6 | 2018-10-26 11:12 | Beddhist ♦41 | Sorry, there has been a paste error, that way number is not one I commented on.No, I'm not concerned whether a particular track is a road or not. Even on the ground I often can't tell and even my wife can't tell me whether a particular piece of concrete way in our village is a pub... | |
| 60357602 by VLD062 @ 2018-07-02 19:45 | 1 | 2018-10-23 06:09 | stephankn | what interconnection is way 604380751 serving to justify unclassified? Besides it ending half-way on a clearly visible road, it looks much like an agricultural road, so highway=track |
| 2 | 2018-11-15 23:38 | Jeff Underwood ♦68 | Hi Stephan,Yikes, this should have been fixed in the initial publishing and we haven't cleaned up the entire project yet. I have fixed many of the issues in the area and will have this area fully cleaned up ASAP.Thanks for the feedback,Jeff | |
| 61409489 by VLD042 @ 2018-08-06 16:37 | 1 | 2018-10-23 06:06 | stephankn | way 614519089, way 587273653, way 587297594 have no function as interconnecting the grid. From the aerial is seems the only function of these ways is to serve access to the fields. So probably more agricultural, thus highway=track. From aerial it looks a bit like surface=paved. |
| 2 | 2018-11-15 23:43 | Jeff Underwood ♦68 | Hi Stephan,Agreed, that these don't fit the definition of unclassified despite their surprisingly high road quality. I changed them to track past the residential portion but just removed the surface tag rather than explicitly marking paved as its possible its gravel of some sort.Thanks ... | |
| 43688635 by ทิว สิงห์เหลือ @ 2016-11-16 04:40 | 1 | 2018-10-22 11:22 | stephankn | how do you think วัดไทรงาม is a castle?`https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4503640890 |
| 60588245 by VLD012 @ 2018-07-10 20:04 | 1 | 2018-10-21 10:53 | stephankn | way 606823695 goes through buildings on some layers. Needs timestamps of layers.Also: why service and not residential? |
| 2 | 2018-11-16 01:14 | Jeff Underwood ♦68 | Hi Stephan,I think regardless, the roads should be disconnected as its not clear that the road really connects even in standard.I upgraded the road to residential as these are significant streets so it seems appropriate. We tend to use service for driveways if there are only a building or tw... | |
| 61553853 by VLD018 @ 2018-08-10 22:08 | 1 | 2018-10-20 16:44 | stephankn | why is way 615994900 not connected to way 615994806? |
| 2 | 2018-10-20 16:45 | stephankn | why is way 615994782 not continued to the east? Probably also connected to the road along the temple? | |
| 3 | 2018-10-22 16:08 | RVR002 ♦32 | Hi Stephan,Way 615994900 and 615994806 are connected. Do you mean merged?For the second comment, we train our editors to be cautious about making unclear connections to avoid adding incorrect data which may have been the cause here. However, way 615994782 is a clear enough connection so I�... | |
| 62075953 by VLD033 @ 2018-08-28 15:47 | 1 | 2018-10-15 03:22 | stephankn | way 620651838 is just floating around unconnected to anything else |
| 2 | 2018-10-15 03:23 | stephankn | way 620651765 clearly continues to the north | |
| 3 | 2018-10-16 16:20 | RVR002 ♦32 | Hi Stephan,For these issues, we just hadn't published the task to the north of this one yet. I just added the data myself and these should be resolved. Due to the gridded nature of our data these issues will happen from time to time in the short term but we will eventually fill in the neigh... | |
| 63103608 by VLD060 @ 2018-10-01 18:51 | 1 | 2018-10-15 03:01 | stephankn | why is the service road way 629603266 not connected to the main highway? Right now it is an unreachable island. Connection is clearly visible on aerial imagery. Please fix it. See here the current situation: https://i.postimg.cc/wjkykhmC/osm-way-629603266.jpg |
| 2 | 2018-10-15 03:03 | stephankn | same image as above, why is way 629603208 not continued south, at least towards that building and connected using the bridge? | |
| 3 | 2018-10-15 03:13 | stephankn | seems this changeset is quite buggy. Further west, why is way 629603200 not connected to the road via the gate clearly visible on the western side of the temple?https://i.postimg.cc/tRhXP9Pf/osm-way-629603200.jpg | |
| 4 | 2018-10-15 03:20 | stephankn | not another one... way 629603275 ends just in the middle... see https://i.postimg.cc/LscpYWs2/osm-way-629603275.jpg | |
| 5 | 2018-10-15 03:20 | stephankn | and again this changeset. way 629603226 as well | |
| 6 | 2018-10-16 16:12 | RVR002 ♦32 | Hi Stephan,These were all along a task boundary where one side kept data and the other deleted it. The editor should have cleaned these up as part of publishing the data to OSM and I have talked to them and reiterated this point to the team. However, I want to assure you that we would have c... | |
| 7 | 2018-10-17 17:25 | VLD060 ♦2 | Hi Stephan, Our tools rarely suffer from bugs. This was very much an honest human error. I have fixed the issues that you brought to our attention. We appreciate your feedback and efforts to help us make the map better for everyone. -Alvaro. | |
| 62080760 by VLD033 @ 2018-08-28 18:29 | 1 | 2018-10-15 03:08 | stephankn | Why is the way (track) north of way 620684047 not continued? this makes a small section of the way next to the canal missing. Other ways along the canal had been added.Other less important tracks are mapped, so this section certainly also needs to be mapped.see https://i.postimg.cc/mrtLFMNN/os... |
| 2 | 2018-10-16 18:04 | RVR002 ♦32 | Hi Stephan,This is a task edge inconsistency we will definitely cleanup.-Jeff | |
| 59187071 by VLD015 @ 2018-05-22 17:29 | 1 | 2018-10-12 12:56 | stephankn | Why not continuing the way 590239237 towards the west to the main road? Does not need more imagination than what was already done. Compare with other imagery. And north of that big tree seems to be the road visible in the shade. |
| 2 | 2018-10-12 12:58 | stephankn | fixed it. see here the original situation: https://i.postimg.cc/Bn3FqKmh/osm-way-590239237.jpg | |
| 3 | 2018-10-12 18:53 | RVR002 ♦32 | Hi Stephan,I agree. I think this editor was being overly cautious about making a false connection but the imagery makes it quite clear that the road continues. I will let the team know about this example.As always, thanks for the feedback!-Jeff | |
| 4 | 2018-10-25 04:39 | Beddhist ♦41 | Way 590239182: Bing images are 12 years old here, but it doesn't show a connection to สห.3064 and I think it's unlikely that there would be one, as that would make the jct. more dangerous. | |
| 5 | 2018-11-15 19:23 | Jeff Underwood ♦68 | Hi Beddhist,Good catch, that looks like a false connection. I've removed it. Thanks for the feedback.-Jeff | |
| 60444110 by VLD017 @ 2018-07-05 18:06 | 1 | 2018-09-16 21:19 | stephankn | why are the two roads not connected?way 605386407way 605365277They also lead from the major highway 2333 to the village, so unclassified seems to be a much better fitting that for them. |
| 2 | 2018-09-17 21:57 | RVR002 ♦32 | Hi Stephan,We agree. The connection was clear so we added it and upgraded the road to unclassified.Thank you for your feedback.-Jeff | |
| 60446779 by RVR005 @ 2018-07-05 20:17 | 1 | 2018-09-16 21:06 | stephankn | way 605386379 looks very paved for me (on DG premium). Why tagged as unpaved?why is way 604736514 not connected to this way? road is clearly visible... |
| 2 | 2018-09-17 21:56 | RVR002 ♦32 | Hi Stephan,I completely agree. The road is definitely paved and the connection is quite clear. Adrian is no longer with us but I have corrected this mistake. As always, thank you for your feedback. -Jeff | |
| 61613504 by dasari1 @ 2018-08-13 06:19 | 1 | 2018-09-09 18:59 | stephankn | new way 616499875 as tertiary, along others, but no reference number. Why do you think these roads are higher than unclassified? |
| 54076821 by BeKri @ 2017-11-25 16:44 | 1 | 2018-08-27 16:47 | stephankn | way: 188319087This was just a ditch between paved parking lots. Since a year or a bit longer there is now a building with offices and a gym. Next to it is a construction site for a milti-storey parking. Check out city of garching "Bauausschuss" for plans. Also Opposite site building is n... |
| 2 | 2018-08-27 22:24 | BeKri ♦713 | Servus Stephan,nett von Dir zu hören, noch im zunehmend subtropischen Bayern oder doch schon nach Thailand übersiedelt ;-)) ?Das alte OSM-Dilemma, Luftbild hinkt Entwicklung hinterher ...Auch das Freiraum scheint ja "gewachsen zu sein". An Bebauungsplan hab ich nur was vo... | |
| 54701103 by Dani CS @ 2017-12-17 11:46 | 1 | 2018-08-26 17:56 | stephankn | My Secret Cafe is a cafe/gallery and already mapped. How certain are you that there should be a guest-house of the same name? |
| 2 | 2018-08-26 19:14 | Dani CS ♦64 | Hi Stephankn,I stayed for a few nights right around the corner (at the other guest house added in this changeset), 10 months ago. I noticed that there are both a café/gallery and a guest-house. They share the same name (and probably the same owner), but they have separate entrances. That�... | |
| 3 | 2018-08-26 20:06 | stephankn | Thanks for the quick response.I found it listed at Airbnb, as "My Secret Cafe's Flat In Town". I am not certain if a single apartment should belong to the category "guesthouse". Currently I couldn't come up with a better tag. I'll leave it to you to either keep ... | |
| 59489131 by WJtW @ 2018-06-02 16:12 | 1 | 2018-07-03 08:06 | Druzhba ♦13 | Hi WJtW,at http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/197532513/history something went broken! |
| 2 | 2018-07-19 09:51 | stephankn | you removed the railway to the main station. Why? | |
| 3 | 2018-11-30 04:31 | Nutchanon Wetchasit ♦99 | Whew, I finally found the reason why one of the main SRT railway track in Bangkok was missing from OSM.Attribute changes from this edit are now partially reverted in changeset 65031702 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/65031702>, from inside Bangkok Railway Station to Urupong Statio... | |
| 60340409 by Pusanisa Dookaew @ 2018-07-02 08:39 | 1 | 2018-07-02 19:59 | stephankn | Thanks for trying to help improving OSM. Please try to contact some local mappers nearby to get some guidance in how to best tag features. The way "ถนนทางเข้า - ออก โรงเรียนเวียงชัยวิทยามค" is a service road in a schoo... |
| 60096385 by Russ McD @ 2018-06-23 09:31 | 1 | 2018-06-29 19:31 | stephankn | way 601014603 with area=yes is a broken polygon as it is no closed area. With the building being already tagged as the office I see no reason why to tag the property surrounding it as well as office. Would you mind removing the area tag from the wall and fence? |
| 2 | 2018-06-30 07:34 | Russ McD ♦223 | If it keeps u happy, done. | |
| 59979663 by edumap @ 2018-06-19 13:38 | 1 | 2018-06-27 18:05 | stephankn | I fixed the broken polygon way 599383160. It might be worth to reconsider the level of landuse-mapping. You exclude small patches with little trees from landuse=forest. For me it would still belong to the forest, even if in this area currently less trees grow. Also keep in mind that aerial imagery c... |
| 59925422 by edumap @ 2018-06-17 23:00 | 1 | 2018-06-27 17:59 | stephankn | Hello, the natural=wood polygon you edited was broken as it had self-intersecting geometry. I fixed it. Please try to avoid this in the future as it will cause problems with map rendering. |
| 60034644 by rudroju @ 2018-06-21 08:13 | 1 | 2018-06-27 17:50 | stephankn | Hello, you deleted the outbound direction of Kamphaeng Phet 6 Road. Why? Are you planning to restore it? |
| 2 | 2018-06-28 03:07 | rudroju ♦4 | Hello Stephankn,Thanks for your time in sharing the feedback.Apologize for the error done. While merging the nodes segment got deleted and created a new road.Basis your suggestion we are reverting the change and retained the old segment.Thanks,Rudroju. | |
| 59687715 by Teerathorn Moonlu @ 2018-06-09 10:10 | 1 | 2018-06-12 19:44 | stephankn | you tagged way 595796608 as a major highway (tertiary) which is certainly wrong here. With it being a very narrow way (you tagged lanes=1, so only 1 car wide), it might be a highway=service. Maybe service=alley as well. Please check with other experienced mappers in your area to get more support in ... |
| 55899896 by Spunnoi @ 2018-01-30 16:43 | 1 | 2018-05-28 21:33 | stephankn | all your highways overlap as they form duplicate "rings". Please fix it. Roads are lines, not areas... |
| 56539566 by julymoe @ 2018-02-21 06:02 | 1 | 2018-05-28 21:25 | stephankn | you created polygon way 562939256 with broken geometry. I fixed that. Please try to avoid in the future. Besides this your way of tagging the area is at least unusual. Please clarify with local mappers about the mapping style. |
| 57267882 by rr2m @ 2018-03-17 14:12 | 1 | 2018-05-27 06:05 | stephankn | Thank you for trying to contribute. Please do not just draw lines and label them roads. At least try to have them follow the road in reality. DigitalGlobe imagery show the road clearly and you painted straight across the building. You might want to get in touch with some experienced mappers for supp... |
| 59138640 by Jame Thomas @ 2018-05-21 05:12 | 1 | 2018-05-23 06:27 | stephankn | Please pay attention to not add duplicate ways on top of existing ones. I had to delete way 589745353 |
| 53056931 by Russ McD @ 2017-10-19 03:41 | 1 | 2018-05-15 06:10 | stephankn | Regarding way 533509802:Did you check on the ground? How did you come to the "unpaved" conclusion? |
| 2 | 2018-05-15 08:02 | Russ McD ♦223 | On the aerials, take a look at the colour, the contrast to the asphalt at either end, the lack of defined edge, the absence of white lines... why I should I not come to an "unpaved" conclusion... unless of course you are looking at Google Maps again.I do my best from the info I'm al... | |
| 3 | 2018-05-15 08:25 | stephankn | Pure coincidence. A neuronal network came to the same conclusion that you came to. For me in person it would have not been clear enough to add unpaved.Check out the forum and give feedback on that different approach: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=62138 | |
| 58360643 by Russ McD @ 2018-04-24 04:50 | 1 | 2018-05-15 06:22 | stephankn | way 583106592:What was your source of the unpaved tag here? |
| 58948777 by Tom Layo @ 2018-05-14 11:10 | 1 | 2018-05-14 22:12 | stephankn | Can you please double-check way 588093805It ends in the no-where. It has the same tagging as the major highway it connects to. Probably unclassified and continuation along the hamlet at the canal sounds better. |
| 56299002 by Wachira Jirarattanarangsri @ 2018-02-12 16:23 | 1 | 2018-05-11 05:24 | stephankn | Polygon of Rama IX park was invalid (self-intersect). Please also do no glue to ways. In addition it overlaps the ways to stretch to the other side which is certainly wrong. |
| 58775310 by Tom Layo @ 2018-05-08 03:27 | 1 | 2018-05-10 05:52 | stephankn | Hello Tom,how certain are you regarding the ref 3233 on that small side road? way 586453172 is just 600m long. It does not look like a secondary road. More like a residential or even a service road for the industrial estate there. Please also do not set oneway=no on roads which are obviously not o... |
| 2 | 2018-05-10 06:37 | Tom Layo ♦37 | Hi Stephan,Must have hit 'r', fixed. Also, I never set oneway=no, not ever. Should I remove them when I see them? I asked about this at last meeting and didn't get an answer. Cheers! | |
| 3 | 2018-05-10 06:44 | stephankn | I would remove oneway=no on roads where it is obvious. Otherwise we can tag hundreds of default values. Also check your settings on how the oneway=no ended up on that road. It looks like you created it from scratch. All nodes and the way had been in version 1 created by you. | |
| 4 | 2018-05-10 07:25 | Tom Layo ♦37 | I hit 'r' by mistake, adding the 'oneway=no' tag along with other tags from road 3233. This is an easy mistake to make, and thanks for pointing it out. | |
| 58773513 by Tom Layo @ 2018-05-08 00:17 | 1 | 2018-05-10 05:57 | stephankn | I fixed the missing religion=buddhist on the temples you added here. In the future, please add this. |
| 58094509 by Aholo @ 2018-04-14 17:56 | 1 | 2018-05-07 06:35 | stephankn | please don't duplicate data which is already there. OSM is a volunteer project. You create extra work...Please also follow the established tagging convention |
| 57345591 by ChiangMaiMoto @ 2018-03-20 10:08 | 1 | 2018-05-06 16:36 | stephankn | It is unusual to add source tags to the individual elements, especially for such common things like GPS or survey. In case you plan to continue doing it: Please use the correct spelling of the tag, which is "source". Note the small "s". You did hundreds with a capital S. |
| 2 | 2018-05-06 17:57 | ChiangMaiMoto ♦1 | I have done 146 edits, not all of them related to positioning. How can I have done 'hundreds' of the tags you find so offensive? | |
| 3 | 2018-05-06 18:45 | stephankn | What is your point? You do bad tagging in a large portion of your tagging. Does the exact number matter? Run the query yourself: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/yzi366 nodes, 62 ways | |
| 4 | 2018-05-18 04:25 | ChiangMaiMoto ♦1 | If you really feel a need to be a smart-arse to someone, you should at least have the courtesy to get your facts straight.I really do not appreciate the unhelpful tone on here and I shall stop adding new stuff. If you have any say in the matter, kindly see to it that the contributions I have mad... | |
| 58436395 by Russ McD @ 2018-04-26 09:17 | 1 | 2018-05-02 06:42 | stephankn | what is north of the bridge of the bypass? Currently a major road suddenly ends. You would be stuck in front of the bridge. Can you add connection to the road network? Can you add the roads still under construction in the north? Walking there with GPS to get the track? |
| 2 | 2018-05-03 08:40 | Russ McD ♦223 | My mistake, got called away during mapping. Connected with temp links until I can GPS properly.It does carry on Northwards, but is not completely open yet so no GPS trace and I'm not walking 12 km in this heat ! lol | |
| 58238111 by Andrey_Kokorev @ 2018-04-19 16:24 | 1 | 2018-04-27 07:04 | stephankn | the way 581633062 does not look like a major highway. Why is it tagged tertiary? Looks more like a track... |
| 58234217 by Russ McD @ 2018-04-19 13:55 | 1 | 2018-04-26 21:19 | stephankn | way 535043410This is a 500m stretch of road which looks at most like a residential. How certain are you regarding the tertiary status and the reference number just added? |
| 2 | 2018-04-26 21:33 | stephankn | as no Mapillary available, here is the area on streetview: https://www.google.com/maps/@18.401278,98.8761412,3a,75y,78.25h,72.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3TZAF8meZKAmqVow3hABcQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656I see the ref number listed on the rural road website, but is this really reflecting the reality? | |
| 3 | 2018-04-27 01:17 | Russ McD ♦223 | I rode down the 1184 last week and a lot of the Lampang rural roads have new signs and are freshly tarred. Did I rid down this Soi ? Well, No I didnt, I used the highways website to check the accuracy.Sometimes when plotting, you need to make certain assumptions, and in this case I just assumed... | |
| 58287044 by Cyberavis @ 2018-04-21 10:27 | 1 | 2018-04-23 17:38 | stephankn | you changed the name from Thai into English for some features. Please don't do this. The country is Thailand, so the official language is Thai. English can be in "name:en" tags. Way: Karon Beach (134394729)Also Phuket should be in Thai, not English |
| 58330810 by Osm_mmm @ 2018-04-23 07:56 | 1 | 2018-04-23 17:33 | stephankn | you deleted a lot of features there without much comment. Why had the features been deleted? |
| 46392080 by Johnny Carlsen @ 2017-02-25 12:43 | 1 | 2018-04-23 17:03 | stephankn | Way: 477111624landuse=1 doesn't make sense. Is it lanes=1? Or a service=alley? |
| 2 | 2018-04-27 09:18 | Johnny Carlsen ♦94 | Thanks, it was supposed to be lanes=1. I have fixed it now. | |
| 57677217 by Russ McD @ 2018-03-31 00:57 | 1 | 2018-04-19 05:27 | stephankn | way 574903669: how certain are you about "no evidence on the ground"? When had you been there? Google shows a very nice wide paved road there. OSM looked quite up-to-date before you removed the road classification. https://www.google.com/maps/place/15%C2%B034'30.0%22N+102%C2%B026'... |
| 2 | 2018-04-19 05:28 | stephankn | Why did you delete 549451125? It is clearly visible on recent aerial images, even not yet in OSM. Did you contact the original mapper? | |
| 3 | 2018-04-19 10:57 | Johnny Carlsen ♦94 | @Russ, I can see you are still adding highway=living_street, I thought we all agreed that Thailand didn't have this legal definition yet and we should abstain from using it. I recommend that you use highway=residential. | |
| 4 | 2018-04-19 11:07 | Johnny Carlsen ♦94 | @Russ, it also looks like you are still tagging residential roads as highway=service.A few examples:https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/574902193https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/574902171I keep fixing these as I come across them, I didn't realize you were still doing this.If you ... | |
| 5 | 2018-04-19 12:07 | Russ McD ♦223 | Firstly, Yes. I rode through there about three weeks ago and stopped at the PTT. There is massive construction going at the moment, and there were routing issues on the GPS which made me give it my attention when I got home.From memory, it has not been plotted well with lots of tertiary tags on... | |
| 46159033 by katpatuka @ 2017-02-17 09:16 | 1 | 2017-10-15 21:36 | stephankn | For example at node 997415485 you did not add the "Ban" to the village name, despite it being written like this on their village sign. Any specific reason for not doing so? I think it should be ບ້ານຫ້ວຍຊຽງ |
| 2 | 2017-10-16 04:47 | katpatuka ♦194 | ບ້ານ "Ban" means village. When being rendered it should IMHO render without the village ending - would you add "Village" to every village in England? One could of course add the village name including ban to the alt_name - I sometimes do that in China with 村 (meaning vi... | |
| 3 | 2017-10-16 07:41 | stephankn | Right. But locals seem to consider it so important that they print it on the limited space available on the signs.Typically in OSM we avoid abbreviations in the data. So we add Street instead of St. If a data consumer wants to generally avoid it then it can be filtered at nearly no cost. See... | |
| 4 | 2017-10-23 20:27 | webrian ♦2 | As far as I remember I rarely added "ban" to village names since it seemed redundant to me.BUT probably it would be better to add it, since in 98% of all villages it is basically part of the name. Locals always say "ban......" when speaking of a village.There are only a few c... | |
| 5 | 2018-04-16 22:10 | ivss_xx ♦13 | I cycled through here a while ago and made waypoints and noted the village names. My notes are in some cases a bit different from what you have added. What is the most correct way? Also, the actual village name signs were not in Lao script but in Roman script, as far as I recall, because I was able ... | |
| 6 | 2018-04-16 22:19 | ivss_xx ♦13 | What's on map now - My note (from sign)Paktho - Pak ThorHouaykhot - Houay KhodPhonxai - Phon SayBeu 10 - Ber Sib | |
| 7 | 2018-04-17 04:24 | katpatuka ♦194 | I've never been to Laos so feel free to edit those names which are 'on the ground' :) | |
| 8 | 2018-04-17 05:18 | stephankn | It's been a while since I was in Luang Prabang. I got a few hundred georeferenced photos. With some help I got part of it entered in Lao script as well. In general I suggest to follow the successful tagging scheme also used in Thailand. Put the local name in Lao script in the name tag. Avoi... | |
| 9 | 2018-04-17 21:26 | ivss_xx ♦13 | @stephankn I guess I wasn't clear enough asking about what's the correct way - I wasn't meaning about the way of tagging. I too think that the way you described is correct but I was merely asking about what would be the correct case of the English name about the specific names I menti... | |
| 10 | 2018-04-18 06:54 | stephankn | Ok. in general, we put in the tags what is on the signs. Corner-cases make it a bit more complex here. Signs can have shortened names due to limited space you have to expand. Spelling mistakes can exist on signs and here we suffer from different ways to do transliteration into the Latin alphabet.\... | |
| 52854662 by Jediemark Go @ 2017-10-12 09:57 | 1 | 2018-04-05 01:51 | stephankn | a variety_store is not the corner shop you wanted to add. shop=convenience is the tag |
| 56642160 by 4719341 @ 2018-02-24 18:02 | 1 | 2018-03-18 21:05 | stephankn | this is clearly a highway=residential. Why do you tag everything as tertiary? |
| 56722071 by 4719341 @ 2018-02-27 12:51 | 1 | 2018-03-18 20:57 | stephankn | please stop tagging everything as highway=tertiary |
| 57275263 by sodastudio @ 2018-03-17 20:15 | 1 | 2018-03-18 08:30 | stephankn | Hello,please take caution about the classification of highways. The way 570532245 is only a dead-end residential road. A classification as tertiary is wrong. I have corrected it for you. |
| 57049386 by Cibien @ 2018-03-10 02:50 | 1 | 2018-03-17 11:17 | stephankn | you added many ways with a temporary highway=road. Please take care to do a correct tagging, otherwise data can't be used in OSM. seems most are agricultural, so highway=track |
| 56426351 by VLD009 @ 2018-02-16 21:28 | 1 | 2018-03-17 09:52 | stephankn | why was way 504117425 not connected to the main road at the eastern end near the bridge? |
| 50261630 by VLD007 @ 2017-07-13 15:33 | 1 | 2018-03-16 21:43 | stephankn | way 507348977: leads to farmland. residential not justified |
| 57126584 by VLD003 @ 2018-03-12 22:27 | 1 | 2018-03-13 20:38 | stephankn | way 526553099:It might have been fine, that the correctly tagged tertiary highway extends a bit further from the village onwards from the point where the road turned into unpaved. Residential sounded not too bad. Tertiary looks certainly wrong. It is leading only to agricultural areas. So probabl... |
| 57033416 by Cibien @ 2018-03-09 14:09 | 1 | 2018-03-12 00:25 | stephankn | roads ragged with temporary type highway=road. Shouldn't they be highway=unclassified as they connect villages? way 568266427way 568266426way 568263878 |
| 57034508 by Cibien @ 2018-03-09 14:52 | 1 | 2018-03-12 00:22 | stephankn | What happened here? A (service?) road leading to the temple tagged as tertiary, nearby highway=road. eg way 568301907Are you going to revisit that tagging? |
| 56923082 by 4719341 @ 2018-03-06 05:37 | 1 | 2018-03-09 07:26 | stephankn | why is nearly everything tagged as highway=tertiary? Most of them are clearly not... |
| 56849152 by gede0n @ 2018-03-03 14:53 | 1 | 2018-03-04 22:50 | stephankn | While I agree, that way 384629995 is not necessarily an agricultural track, it is certainly no major highway of the arterial network. So highway=tertiary is absolutely unjustified. I'm changing it to a highway=service as it seems the only thing it serves is the cemetery.In case the area nearb... |
| 2 | 2018-03-05 00:27 | gede0n ♦2 | You're absolutely right, thanks for the fix. | |
| 41119995 by RichelleG @ 2016-07-29 23:25 | 1 | 2018-03-02 08:28 | stephankn | you deleted a lot of highway=* classifications when adding the durface. Did you replace/rename existing tags instead of adding a new one? I fixed some, bout would be nice if you could review the other edits you did during this time to ensure that others got their tags back as well |
| 56513607 by TrevorTG @ 2018-02-20 08:37 | 1 | 2018-02-20 22:53 | stephankn | I repaired your bad tagging before. Why are you breaking it again? Are you trying to destroy data? a residential road is no tertiary highway. Will you fix it yourself? |
| 2 | 2018-02-21 23:01 | stephankn | you repaired some, but for example residential way 559328577 is still tagged as secondary | |
| 56136947 by TrevorTG @ 2018-02-07 04:16 | 1 | 2018-02-20 23:00 | stephankn | residential roads are no major highways. please use appropriate tagging |
| 56340849 by sarawoo122 @ 2018-02-14 03:32 | 1 | 2018-02-15 08:09 | stephankn | Do not use highway=tertiary for residential roads. The key "maxspeed" is for tagging signed speed limits. So there has to be an official speed limit sign. It is not used to tag the typical/recommended speed. Please double-check this. |
| 55776925 by sarawoo122 @ 2018-01-26 16:06 | 1 | 2018-02-15 08:03 | stephankn | In English there are spaces between words. Use Thai script in "name" and English/RTGS in "name:en" |
| 56341699 by sarawoo122 @ 2018-02-14 04:20 | 1 | 2018-02-15 08:01 | stephankn | Hello and welcome to OSM.Thank you for your contributions around ซอย 3 หมู่ 9 ตำบล นครปฐม. Please double-check the tags you choose. Here you selected highway=tertiary for residential roads. This will lead to problems when the map is rendered. Also make certain tha... |
| 2 | 2018-02-19 03:02 | sarawoo122 ♦1 | Thanks so much | |
| 55881406 by TrevorTG @ 2018-01-30 05:12 | 1 | 2018-02-12 21:09 | stephankn | Please do not use abbreviations for names. It is impossible for an algorithm to expand these in all conditions while it is simple to shorten them by software. So write "Road" instead of "Rd." |
| 55865039 by TrevorTG @ 2018-01-29 16:28 | 1 | 2018-02-12 21:02 | stephankn | As mentioned in another comment, please make sure to use correct tags. Otherwise data consumers can't make sense of your contributions. Worst case it won't be considered at all. I fixed residential roads tagged as highway=road instead of highway=residential. Also parking isles also have th... |
| 2 | 2018-02-12 21:04 | stephankn | Please also avoid using the tag highway=unclassified. This does not mean that you don't know the classification. It is actually a way to mark roads which for example connect villages to the main highway network but have not yet received a classification (from DRR, like the 4 digit numbers) | |
| 56206267 by TrevorTG @ 2018-02-09 05:33 | 1 | 2018-02-12 21:00 | stephankn | Welcome to OSM.The way you added is a typical residential way. So please tag it as highway=residential. It is important that we use the correct tags in OSM as the data will be used for many purposes extending the simple display of a map. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/559992740Please feel f... |
| 55868470 by alohabank @ 2018-01-29 18:21 | 1 | 2018-02-11 21:42 | stephankn | way 555897421:is tagged as footway. But has additional tags to allow cars/motorbikes. Could it be simply a very narrow road? Maybe highway=service together with service=alley. Or is it a one-lane residential just wide enough people can get their car in&out? would be lanes=1. There is a note me... |
| 56092090 by iMekkikiTH @ 2018-02-05 17:50 | 1 | 2018-02-05 21:02 | stephankn | what are you doing? First you deleted hundreds of way, and now adding them from scratch? |
| 2 | 2018-02-10 12:46 | SomeoneElse_Revert ♦70,576 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 56239058 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some deletions and (few) re-adds in Thailand; see https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=61244 | |
| 55851095 by Surachet unma (บอสตั้ม) @ 2018-01-29 07:14 | 1 | 2018-01-30 07:59 | stephankn | A nice first edit. Check out the different imagery layers you can use. You will notice that some offer details others don't. Also take note that sometimes the roads look shifted on different layers. Best is to compare the imagery position with GPS traces available and choose the best fitting on... |
| 55851203 by Surachet unma (บอสตั้ม) @ 2018-01-29 07:21 | 1 | 2018-01-30 07:48 | stephankn | Hello,welcome to OSM.You added a short way leading to administrative buildings (way 556677629). The road classification in OSM is quite important. unfortunately "secondary" is the wrong type for such a way. I changed it to "service" which matches much better the function of i... |
| 55600154 by Bernhard Hiller @ 2018-01-20 10:54 | 1 | 2018-01-29 07:51 | stephankn | what happened here? node 4990576441a huge gap in a major highway. I have re-connected the ways based on aerial imagery to have a routable network again... |
| 2 | 2018-01-29 18:12 | Bernhard Hiller ♦26 | Thanks for finding and fixing that. Looks like I forgot to join the ways after creating the parallel way with JOSM (that large section was previously mapped as a "simple" highway, but it is already dual carriage). Strange that I did not see a warning regarding that problem in JOSM. | |
| 55763360 by alohabank @ 2018-01-26 07:54 | 1 | 2018-01-27 06:47 | stephankn | Hello and welcome to OSM Thailand.way 555900975: Please explain what you mean with oneway=reversible. I know that sometimes entry to a road from one side gets blocked, eg during busy hours. But infrequently reversind the one-way? With this being in Bangkok nothing is impossible, but please clari... |
| 53851714 by Nikita Kozlov @ 2017-11-16 18:34 | 1 | 2018-01-10 07:00 | stephankn | You might be really knowledgeable, but hundreds of them including exact elevation? Your source statement sounds a bit strange. Can you please document this import including the source of the data? |
| 2 | 2018-01-17 10:51 | Nikita Kozlov ♦6 | Source is 1:50000 AMS maps available via TMS done by webrian, with position adjustment by comparing with digitalglobe imagery, and few 1:25000 maps of 1993 year, which I have from Berlin library: http://staatsbibliothek-berlin.de/fileadmin/user_upload/zentrale_Seiten/kartenabteilung/topo/2k8963.jpg.... | |
| 3 | 2018-01-24 19:59 | stephankn | It sounded like an import, so I wondered what source was used and whether it would also contain data for Thailand. Rendering of all those unnamed peaks is a bit weird, but this is a different story.Can you document on how to get the AMS maps on the main page of Laos together with other data sour... | |
| 55538728 by Bay Pronthep @ 2018-01-18 04:14 | 1 | 2018-01-22 08:12 | stephankn | Welcome to OSM. Your newly created roads do not follow the reality. They are away from the real geometry of up to 200m. Please also make use of the other imagery providers available. In this case Digital Globe imagery is available and allows you to draw roads without guessing. Be aware that sometime... |
| 2 | 2018-01-22 08:14 | stephankn | For node 5346112259:I don't want to discourage teachers around, but โรงเรียนบ้านโนนเพชร is *not* a place of worthip. amenity=school is much more appropriate for schools. | |
| 3 | 2018-01-22 08:17 | stephankn | for node 5346112257:a mini mart is most likely a shop=convenience, not supermarket | |
| 4 | 2018-01-22 08:19 | stephankn | node 5346112258:This was placed at the exact same location than the mistagged school above. Please check the location, as imagery does not show any building there or nearby looking like a health center | |
| 5 | 2018-01-22 08:23 | stephankn | way 553888009Residential roads (the roads in areas where people typically live) are tagged as highway=residential | |
| 6 | 2018-01-22 08:25 | stephankn | node 5346112262a health center is also no place of worship. Please take extra care to select the right tagging, as this is the way in OSM data is described. | |
| 7 | 2018-01-22 08:29 | stephankn | node 5346112264For Wat Ban Chot I added religion=buddhist, as this helps to later render the right symbol on the map. | |
| 8 | 2018-01-22 08:31 | stephankn | I notice that your added POI line up very well with the few POI listed on google maps. Might be coincidence. But please be aware, that it is NOT allowed to copy details from google maps to OSM. We want to have the features verified on the ground. This is what makes OSM better than google. The featur... | |
| 55537093 by Sal73x @ 2018-01-18 01:32 | 1 | 2018-01-19 07:10 | stephankn | You created a lot of unconnected roads to highway 24, eg node 5345963620.I hope it is due to you being in the process of making it separated by direction. Please check all the road connections to have a routable network. Thanks |
| 2 | 2018-01-21 12:29 | stephankn | These are the unconnected ones. Are you in the process of adding a separate highway lane for 24 or shall I connect the to the existing road? I didn't want to interfere with ongoing mapping...node 5345965541node 5345963620node 5345965527node 5345965565node 5345965705node 5345965544... | |
| 49657161 by YiBomination @ 2017-06-19 06:31 | 1 | 2017-11-25 07:39 | stephankn | I guess you did with best intentions, but your mapping needs a massive rework. Micro-Mapping mostly not justified by landuse pattern. Geometries uneven and partially overlapping/duplicating other features. Guess your teacher is to blame. Can you please give details who directed you here and failed... |
| 49657489 by Woon @ 2017-06-19 06:43 | 1 | 2017-11-25 07:28 | stephankn | Let me guess: You had been mapping for a class, right? Please give details who directed you.I guess you (and others) did with the best intentions, but unfortunately your edits lack in many ways. |
| 49656052 by Alan Ziegler @ 2017-06-19 05:31 | 1 | 2017-11-25 07:26 | stephankn | That tagging is broken. Had you been there at all? "unknown" or "house" are not names. |
| 49626030 by Alan Ziegler @ 2017-06-18 02:49 | 1 | 2017-11-25 07:25 | stephankn | "not sure" is certainly not the name of way 501292972.Are you going to revert your things? |
| 49654922 by Alan Ziegler @ 2017-06-19 03:44 | 1 | 2017-11-25 07:24 | stephankn | A Volcano? No further details and wrong tagging?I am very tempted to count this as vandalism. Please give some details regarding this.This is not a playground. It is a live database used by people... |
| 44075647 by thailand-edits @ 2016-12-01 04:21 | 1 | 2017-11-18 07:32 | stephankn | this is clearly a mechanical edit. I do not see any documented prior discussion. Please give some details, as I am not convinced that replacing addr:* with is_in:* is the current standard. |
| 2 | 2017-11-18 18:40 | thailand-edits ♦1 | This wasn't a mechanical edit but a mass JOSM edit based on towns which contained addr:* tags.I agree this was a large changeset, however each case was properly inspected.Could you point out which nodes were mistagged? If you find a lot of them we can always revert this changeset, howev... | |
| 3 | 2017-11-19 23:02 | stephankn | Thanks for responding to the comment.Doing a mass change of tags is considered a mechanical edit. Whether you are using JOSM or other tools is not relevant in this context.It seems this change was not discussed with the community. Or was it somewhere?I see the problem that some details h... | |
| 4 | 2017-11-20 08:04 | thailand-edits ♦1 | I agree, this changeset is a bit large for a mass edit, but it was discussed and posted on the OSM mailing list, I can't find the exact thread but I've got a response from Miroff which was one of the users who added the addr:* in the first place.https://github.com/osmottawa/osm-changes... | |
| 5 | 2017-11-20 13:00 | stephankn | I recommend to move the discussion to the forum thread mentioned above. That way we can document the decision better.Might be an interesting decision whether to go for addr:*. is_in:* or completely remove those where admin boundaries are available.I am not too keen on investing time to do a ... | |
| 6 | 2019-02-02 14:34 | Johnny Carlsen ♦94 | I just noticed that "is_in:state" does not contain the local language. Shouldn't "is_in:state" be in Thai? | |
| 7 | 2024-03-29 03:38 | Johnny Carlsen ♦94 | I was just looking at this changeset again and I can see a lot of valuable information were removed by it.Before:addr:continent\tAsiaaddr:country\tTHaddr:district\tเมืองอุดรธานีaddr:district:en\tMueang Udon Thaniaddr:hamlet\tหมู่ที่ 3addr:provi... | |
| 52270384 by Subhalakshmi @ 2017-09-22 09:43 | 1 | 2017-11-01 11:02 | stephankn | Thanks for trying to contribute. Unfortunately your edits need much improvement. Please seek out for some guiding on how to correctly add things to OSM. For example you created some artificial boundaries to the woos which clearly not exist in this way. Also your road classification needs improvement... |
| 52345483 by Manjunath Raj @ 2017-09-25 06:30 | 1 | 2017-11-01 10:59 | stephankn | Why are you tagging ways which are at best agricultural track as highway=tertiary?I see you are participating in organized mapping. Please contact your organizer for some training |
| 17266799 by Mishari @ 2013-08-08 13:17 | 1 | 2017-10-19 06:12 | stephankn | This is a Buddhist graveyard? As you changed it from cemetery you indicate it belongs to the temple next to it. I know this concept mostly from Europe where a graveyard is next to the church.The aerial looks much more like the Chinese cemeteries I have seen before... |
| 2 | 2017-11-19 02:11 | Mishari ♦57 | You're right, it is a cemetery, but by definition in the wiki I thought it's to be tagged a graveyard. Perhaps a clarification needs to be added to the wiki? | |
| 49731273 by RVR002 @ 2017-06-21 21:31 | 1 | 2017-10-16 06:30 | stephankn | You did not create the tagging, but should have noticed that for most of the ways the highway=tertiary is absolutely not reasonable. eg way 274228028and way 274228023. In tsuch cases please change to something more appropriate. |
| 2 | 2017-10-19 16:29 | RVR002 ♦32 | Hi stephankn,Thank you for your comment! We very rarely change existing tags because we are not on the ground to verify them and are conscious not to undo the hard work of local mappers who maybe adding these tags. We hope that mappers with a better context for Thailand like yourself can help in t... | |
| 51185249 by RVR007 @ 2017-08-16 19:49 | 1 | 2017-10-10 19:06 | stephankn | why is for example way 516234777 not connected to the rest of the network? |
| 2 | 2017-10-19 16:58 | RVR007 ♦1 | Hi stephankn,Thank you for your comment! We can't find the disconnected way you're mentioning here. Please let us know if you find anything else. Also please note we are using the OSM Tasking Manager to map small squares one at a time. The areas we are working in now in the North East ha... | |
| 52610070 by VLD003 @ 2017-10-03 22:29 | 1 | 2017-10-06 20:24 | stephankn | way 529811317way 529811311way 529811338and others in that area are clearly residential roads in a newly constructed residential area. Should be tagged as such, not service. |
| 52601821 by VLD003 @ 2017-10-03 17:00 | 1 | 2017-10-06 20:09 | stephankn | You have (at least) those two roads newly created on top of existing highways. I am deleting them now. Please double check for existing roads before uploading.way 529718919way 529718917 |
| 2 | 2017-10-06 20:12 | stephankn | also deleted way 529718916 | |
| 46101364 by Noshyaar @ 2017-02-15 09:29 | 1 | 2017-09-25 19:32 | stephankn | openstreetmap is a public geo database. We collect facts. Please stop adding your noted into name-tags... |
| 2 | 2017-09-25 19:36 | stephankn | sorry, comment belonged to one changeset earlier. Changeset: 45285727 Thanks for fixing bad tagging. That maps.me user had a near 100% fail rate with the tagging... | |
| 45285727 by Olivia Heitz @ 2017-01-19 00:08 | 1 | 2017-09-25 19:35 | stephankn | openstreetmap is a public geo database. We collect facts. Please stop adding your noted into name-tags... |
| 45088533 by sairkarseven @ 2017-01-11 21:54 | 1 | 2017-09-10 14:34 | stephankn | Can you please check the spelling of the monument? It does not render correctly. The unicode string looks broken. Seems you have broken characters at the beginning and in the end. |
| 45087495 by Mike Stellar @ 2017-01-11 21:08 | 1 | 2017-04-19 10:52 | stephankn | Do not abuse the name tag for comments. "Entrance fee to pass" is not the name of this feature. I removed it and replaced it by fee=yes which is the correct way to indicate this. |
| 47153722 by stephankn @ 2017-03-25 14:29 | 1 | 2017-04-18 18:45 | Mike Stellar ♦1 | Why have you deleted 2 points I added? 4602564707 and 4602564706? |
| 2 | 2017-04-19 02:05 | stephankn | You did duplicate geometry so I fixed it. In addition the node you refer to had inappropriate tagging on it there is an entrance fee for the national park, not for the lift gate. Park already has fee=yes. | |
| 3 | 2017-04-19 02:09 | stephankn | "Entrance fee 100 Baht" is certainly not the name of it. So you abuse the tagging. Please don't do that. I understand your frustration about having to pay a fee. Still: abusing name tags to have this highlighted on the map is not appropriate. | |
| 4 | 2017-04-19 09:47 | Mike Stellar ♦1 | There should be an alternative then instead of simply removing this information. It's not a park, it's just 2 view points with lift gates. | |
| 5 | 2017-04-19 10:49 | stephankn | Sorry that you did not get it the first time. What you are doing is wrong!The name tag is only for the official name of a feature. It is not meant for you to express your frustration about paying an entrance fee to whatever attraction it is.In addition to that you uploaded duplicate data ove... | |
| 6 | 2017-04-19 11:44 | Mike Stellar ♦1 | Okay, thanks for clarifying. | |
| 47088238 by sela @ 2017-03-23 07:46 | 1 | 2017-03-26 11:23 | stephankn | Crazy Horse seems to be a common name for the rocks. On that "alternative" map there are multiple reviews mentioning this (search for "Crazy Horse Buttress"). Maybe keep it as "alt_name:en"? |
| 2 | 2017-03-27 04:01 | sela ♦1 | ok, added "Crazy Horse" under "alt_name:en". Thanks for the hint. Wasn't aware that it's a common name used by the climbers. | |
| 47170959 by stephankn @ 2017-03-26 09:45 | 1 | 2017-03-26 09:51 | tookay ♦2 | There is indeed a shop there called Casa Lapin. |
| 2 | 2017-03-26 11:01 | stephankn | I did only fix the tagging of the data. With the wrong format the data can not be evaluated. Shop is still there. Also I did not change the name. Thanks for cross-checking. | |
| 46540518 by stephankn @ 2017-03-03 06:45 | 1 | 2017-03-26 09:35 | AlaskaDave ♦167 | Every time I drive along here I wonder if the name of the road after passing Doi Saket should actually be Chiang Mai-Chiang Rai? As you know, road names in Thailand are poorly marked and I think I was the one who originally added the names to this highway. Not sure how I arrived at the naming anyway... |
| 2 | 2017-03-26 10:58 | stephankn | I didn't add the name, but just turn lanes to give a nice example on how it can be modeled. Regarding the name: Hard to tell whether it is official. If I had to guess I would say it is not the official name, but colloquial name. Sort of "loc_name". The highway 118 (which would be ... | |
| 3 | 2017-03-26 11:55 | AlaskaDave ♦167 | I agree it's a local name but I like it anyway. I don't want to get rid of it. My question really was, would you object if I changed the name of the section north of Doi Saket to Chiang Mai-Chiang Rai Road? Once it passes Doi Saket, that seems to be a more appropriate name. | |
| 45096543 by Bombabble @ 2017-01-12 07:18 | 1 | 2017-03-25 14:54 | stephankn | why are you adding no-u-turn relations on every junction? This doesn't make much sense. Also doing a cross-check with streetview shows no such restriction. Please explain why are you adding this massive amount of restrictions. |
| 45779697 by konhin121 @ 2017-02-03 14:18 | 1 | 2017-03-25 12:45 | stephankn | you did not tag your ways. Like this they won't show up. In case they are supposed to be buildings: In Thailand houses are typically build with walls having right angles. Your ways have random shapes. |
| 41626323 by Jeff Underwood @ 2016-08-22 22:49 | 1 | 2017-03-25 11:05 | stephankn | which provider did you use for DigitalGlobe? Was it Bing? so best to document it in this way. Digital Globe sells their imagery to different customers. Only a few of them allowed us to use it for OSM tracing. |
| 45831462 by Nantawat Boonruengnam @ 2017-02-05 15:08 | 1 | 2017-03-21 00:06 | stephankn | some of your buildings overlap |
| 45823663 by Nuttapong @ 2017-02-05 09:00 | 1 | 2017-03-21 00:06 | stephankn | some of your buildings overlap. |
| 2 | 2017-03-22 14:00 | DenisCarriere ♦31 | +1 agreed.@Nuttapong, please look at the existing OSM data to prevent having any overlapping buildings. | |
| 45744077 by konhin121 @ 2017-02-02 11:21 | 1 | 2017-03-20 23:11 | stephankn | Are you involved with Facebook? Please document this on your user page. |
| 45824846 by Tanavut @ 2017-02-05 10:11 | 1 | 2017-03-20 22:50 | stephankn | Are you related to Facebook? Please document this on your user page. |
| 40706300 by Bogumil @ 2016-07-13 08:44 | 1 | 2017-03-20 07:33 | stephankn | You did a lot of mechanical edits without discussing them in the forum first.Despite writing in your changeset comment the source is "knowledge", at least here you are wrong. "Seven & I Holdings" does not operate 7-Eleven stores in Thailand. This can be figured out quickl... |
| 44156335 by Сметана Владимир @ 2016-12-04 12:12 | 1 | 2017-03-19 12:49 | stephankn | please only put Thai script names in name:th. Use a proper editor if your software can't handle this. |
| 46117993 by RVR007 @ 2017-02-15 20:02 | 1 | 2017-03-18 09:47 | stephankn | This uploads duplicate geometry already uploaded in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/46112980 |
| 46112980 by VLD005 @ 2017-02-15 17:37 | 1 | 2017-03-18 09:47 | stephankn | This changeset geometry was uploaded later again in 46117993 with a different user's account |
| 45986910 by dehr @ 2017-02-10 23:38 | 1 | 2017-02-11 09:39 | pitscheplatsch ♦5,393 | Hi dehr. May I know the reason behind deleting many mapped highways in this changeset? See http://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=45986910 |
| 2 | 2017-03-08 00:13 | SomeoneElse ♦13,368 | Hi Pascal,This changeset is I think related to https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=632747#p632747 . Essentially Facebook created some "clever" workflow to add roads (like they did last year that resulted in every wadi and wall in Egypt bing added as a "road" befo... | |
| 3 | 2017-03-10 21:22 | stephankn | @Andi: It's quite difficult to properly use changeset discussions as long as there is no way to find your own comments. There is code fragments to add this to the wiki page but no one works on it. Thailand has a forum where more people participate in discussions. | |
| 4 | 2017-03-10 21:58 | dehr ♦3 | Hi Pascal, Andi, and Stephan.Sorry for the late response on this changeset as this is my personal account and does not see much usage. I work for Facebook and my name is David. We were working in the dev environment and an editor accidentally uploaded their practice edits to live OSM inste... | |
| 5 | 2017-03-10 22:25 | SomeoneElse ♦13,368 | @stephankn - it is possible to find your own comments (thanks to Pascal!):http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=61891&commentedCheers,Andy | |
| 45441857 by Balthus★MC @ 2017-01-24 17:03 | 1 | 2017-03-02 22:36 | stephankn | please restore named junctionhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2899862480/history |
| 2 | 2017-03-05 10:05 | Balthus★MC ♦11 | In this delete I assigned the junction to the same node as the Traffic Signal. Is this wrong? Has junctions to be separated from the road line and to be defined as separate points?? | |
| 3 | 2017-03-10 21:19 | stephankn | having it on the highway is fine. On more complex junctions it is more difficult to decide where to place it. | |
| 44819749 by Balthus★MC @ 2017-01-01 10:17 | 1 | 2017-03-02 22:35 | stephankn | please restore named junctionhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2711548441/history |
| 2 | 2017-03-05 09:38 | Balthus★MC ♦11 | Done - is it correct? I am not 100% sure about it. | |
| 3 | 2017-03-10 21:18 | stephankn | Named junction is back. Not a restore of the deleted node but a new one with the same tags than before. Lost the history, but ok, minor thing... | |
| 44914682 by Thomas Fuegert @ 2017-01-05 03:26 | 1 | 2017-03-09 08:43 | stephankn | "Villa Bestfriend" is not thai script, so not suitable for being entered in the "name:th" key. Please enter only Thai script name here.In many cases the Thai script name is better stated in the "name" tag in the first place, in case their typical used name is that. ... |
| 46182730 by Thomas Fuegert @ 2017-02-18 01:51 | 1 | 2017-03-09 08:40 | stephankn | "Tax Office" is not suitable for "name:de" key. I assume your software can't handle names correctly. Please consider using a proper editor. Please also correct the name tag. "name:en" for English names is more suitable. If you can get the Thai script name entered i... |
| 44905831 by Balthus★MC @ 2017-01-04 18:59 | 1 | 2017-03-04 20:59 | stephankn | We are not allowed to systematically use Google Street View to get map details. Please do your own survey or use images from Mapillary who gave us permission to use it for OSM. |
| 2 | 2017-03-05 10:26 | Balthus★MC ♦11 | Yes I am aware of it – the source was actually my own personal survey. In step 2 of my review I fixed the wrong sources but in this case Russ removed the my wrong name:en value – so I missed this road in the overpass turbo query. When I made this «minor change» I just let map... | |
| 44616342 by BankJakkapan @ 2016-12-23 09:36 | 1 | 2017-03-01 22:15 | stephankn | you seemed to have missed to take over the tagging of highway 12 when you turned it into a dual carriage highway. Would be great if you could re-visit that area and add the tags to your newly created ways.For example this is a start: way 461335048If you need support in finding the ways with miss... |
| 2 | 2017-03-02 11:24 | Russ McD ♦223 | Hwy 12 west of here is NOT a dual carraigeway ... it may have painted islands in areas, but OSM convention dictates we draw as a single carraigeway.Also, the where the 2372 and 2278 one way sections cross the 12, the western lanes are NOT connected to the rest of the road, making routing impossibl... | |
| 3 | 2017-03-02 22:07 | stephankn | Please check out the forum for further discussion:https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=634589 | |
| 46462776 by Balthus★MC @ 2017-02-28 09:33 | 1 | 2017-03-02 21:40 | stephankn | We should not discuss tagging in the fixme/note tags. Why does this tagging need more validation than any other tags in OSM to justify a dedicated fixme tag? If Johnny was able to provide a good source for why this is a village a proper change message is fine to document it.https://www.openstreetm... |
| 2 | 2017-03-05 09:27 | Balthus★MC ♦11 | Okay - I got it, I guess I got too much overcautious. Do we discuss tagging in the changeset comments then? | |
| 46144803 by VLD001 @ 2017-02-16 18:37 | 1 | 2017-02-24 13:17 | SomeoneElse ♦13,368 | Hello,Can you please explain who you are and who you are working for? Your changeset comments (such as they are) suggest that you may be performing an undiscussed import on behalf of Facebook. Can you please ensure that you do not perform any more imports until they have been properly discussed,... |
| 2 | 2017-02-28 01:29 | VLD001 ♦3 | Dear Andy (DWG),Thank you for your message. Yes, I work for Facebook. My name is . Per your requests on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:AI-Based_Country_Scale_Road_Import and https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=57387 we have stopped making any edits. My profile has ... | |
| 3 | 2017-02-28 01:33 | VLD001 ♦3 | Dear Andy (DWG),Thank you for your message. Yes, I work for Facebook. My name is Jaclyn.Per your requests on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:AI-Based_Country_Scale_Road_Import and https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=57387 we have stopped making any edits.My profile has b... | |
| 4 | 2017-02-28 16:24 | stephankn | a highway=track indicates a way used for agricultural purposes. How do you distinguish these from simply unpaved roads? Do you consider it itelligent to place roads in the middle of nowhere without proper connection to the highway network? Please stop doing such low-quality edits! | |
| 5 | 2017-03-01 00:38 | VLD001 ♦3 | Stephan,Thank you for your feedback. We based our tagging on a few things;1. The commonly used tags in this area are highway=track. For Example https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?edit … 68/99.49212. This area looks like an agricultural area based on our recent high-resolution satellite... | |
| 42902119 by Kmerkel @ 2016-10-14 17:33 | 1 | 2017-02-28 16:08 | stephankn | You painted "Huai Tha Son" on top of an existing reservoir (Tham Nop). What is the source of your data? I wonder which one is the correct one. |
| 44678909 by bd life @ 2016-12-26 10:13 | 1 | 2017-02-27 06:17 | stephankn | here is clearly no casino with wifi. Please only map what is there. |
| 46105333 by Balthus★MC @ 2017-02-15 12:33 | 1 | 2017-02-23 21:32 | stephankn | what is the source of the updated ref number 2018? |
| 2 | 2017-02-28 09:27 | Balthus★MC ♦11 | As remembered by Survey Dec-2016, but I go there again in about 1 or 2 weeks and I will check again and I will make a photo of the road sign for Mapillary - ok? | |
| 45751977 by Balthus★MC @ 2017-02-02 16:30 | 1 | 2017-02-23 20:34 | stephankn | In this change you deleted a perfectly valid Thai scrip name in name:th. Why? Please restore it. Also don't change name:en to int_name. International does not always means english. Leave it to the map-maker to decide what language to use. |
| 2 | 2017-02-28 09:42 | Balthus★MC ♦11 | Ok, you are right of course! Job done. Additionally I just found a wrong typo: <name:Tha> instead of <name:th> and corrected it… | |
| 45655913 by Balthus★MC @ 2017-01-30 15:55 | 1 | 2017-02-18 20:48 | stephankn | why did you remove ref number 1001? is your stated source DDR Local Road Base map allowed to use in OSM? |
| 2 | 2017-02-26 17:31 | Balthus★MC ♦11 | Because of survey I removed, not because of DRR LMP. I rode this road many times and I noticed, that the first road sign รย.1001 comes after the police station (just below the «See you again») when you come from south-east… After that I double-checked the official Thai source ... | |
| 44857164 by Balthus★MC @ 2017-01-02 21:45 | 1 | 2017-02-18 08:17 | stephankn | why the re-classification of ways? EG 29421587 does not justify to be reclassified from residential to unclassified. Already the geometry is a clear indication that this is wrong. |
| 2 | 2017-02-28 10:03 | Balthus★MC ♦11 | You are are right! I changed it back to residential - can't see the logic either why I did it but I cannot remember why I did it… | |
| 46012401 by Balthus★MC @ 2017-02-12 06:17 | 1 | 2017-02-15 21:25 | stephankn | STOP braking bilingual names! They had been correctly tagged as name:en.Are you going to change it back? |
| 2 | 2017-02-28 09:21 | Balthus★MC ♦11 | Yes, done. Correct? | |
| 45754505 by Balthus★MC @ 2017-02-02 17:45 | 1 | 2017-02-14 20:12 | stephankn | please don't change valid name:en entries into int_name which is discouraged. the correct way for english names is in name:en. Please also explain a bit in detail why you upgraded it to a town (usually 10.000 inhabitants is the limit). According to wikipedia we talk about less than 6.000. https... |
| 2 | 2017-02-28 10:15 | Balthus★MC ♦11 | I have now replaced int_name with name:th – I have been there recently and had the impression it is at least a Thesaban Tambon – but actually I am not qualified to make a decision wether it is a town or village… I have added a fixme=place | |
| 45828756 by Микола Фендак @ 2017-02-05 13:20 | 1 | 2017-02-11 15:18 | stephankn | what did you try to do here? Especially way 472322394? |
| 2 | 2017-02-11 15:26 | Микола Фендак ♦3 | я роблю зміни в карті у зв'язку із змінами на місцевості чи з уточненням і доповненням даних (бо я тут живу). Конкретно по 472322394 не скажу, бо не знаю, як це знайти. | |
| 3 | 2017-02-12 23:07 | stephankn | You added many artificial polygons. That is certainly nothing on the ground. Why did you add this? | |
| 4 | 2017-02-13 20:00 | Микола Фендак ♦3 | You are in Facebook?There will be more convenient to communicate.My akaund - https://www.facebook.com/fendakk | |
| 42157278 by Nueng Monthanaa Keawtatip @ 2016-09-14 19:30 | 1 | 2017-02-01 07:52 | stephankn | that name "Coffee" hints a bit that it is a coffee shop (consume there), not a shop selling beverages for consumption at home. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3DbeveragesIf so. please change to amenity=cafeAlso check spelling of the name. It is more likely called Coffe... |
| 42664446 by PHL Consulate CNX @ 2016-10-05 17:55 | 1 | 2017-02-01 07:22 | stephankn | It is very uncommon (and in this case wrong) to create a relation for a single POI node. I believe this was not doen intentional and created a bugreport with iD: https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/3812POI tagging is cleaned up. Please pay special attention on future edits. |
| 43721560 by quico orozco @ 2016-11-17 08:40 | 1 | 2017-01-01 17:53 | stephankn | So your spring has the Spanish word for massage school in the tag for Thai script? Please stop nonsense edits. |
| 43827565 by quico orozco @ 2016-11-20 17:33 | 1 | 2017-01-01 17:45 | stephankn | name:th is ONLY for the name in Thai script. Please follow the tagging standard as outlined in the wiki. |
| 43937075 by quico orozco @ 2016-11-25 06:10 | 1 | 2017-01-01 17:42 | stephankn | Please do not add duplicates. Manee House is already listed here. |
| 43792240 by quico orozco @ 2016-11-19 07:34 | 1 | 2017-01-01 17:40 | stephankn | Please stop adding fake features. If you are not willing to learn how to map in OSM, please stop using maps.me |
| 41919667 by Pathumthani @ 2016-09-05 02:01 | 1 | 2016-09-27 18:42 | stephankn | please follow the naming standards of the community. Do not mix Thai/English names in the name tag. Put Thai script in name and name:th, the English name in name:en. In case of brand names which use Latin script also in Thailand as their main description use that in the name tag. |
| 38106786 by plutos @ 2016-03-27 20:20 | 1 | 2016-06-12 10:04 | stephankn | Auch in Thailand haben Gebäude in der Regel rechte Winkel im Grundriss. Bitte beim Abmalen von den Luftbildern mehr darauf achten, bzw. die Hilfsmittel aus dem Editor verwenden. |
| 29235157 by Iain Turner @ 2015-03-04 01:06 | 1 | 2015-03-15 12:40 | stephankn | you created self-intersections on way 331158501maybe a multipolygon would be a better choice? |
| 29324452 by Russ McD @ 2015-03-08 08:12 | 1 | 2015-03-15 11:36 | stephankn | Potlatch created single-node way: 244696164 |
| 29281311 by Pathumthani @ 2015-03-06 03:17 | 1 | 2015-03-15 10:35 | stephankn | You have changed the name tag to be mixed Thai/English in this changeset. This is not the usual way we do in Thailand. Please check the wiki on bilingual name tags. name is supposed to be in Thai script. English names are in name:en for map makers to decide whether to include it in their individual ... |
| 26248111 by AlaskaDave @ 2014-10-22 05:00 | 1 | 2015-01-31 03:20 | stephankn | regarding mini hydro: I think the main reservoir is a bit upstream. It it a pump storage plant? so maybe the empty reservoir is the lower basin? |
| 2 | 2015-01-31 06:00 | AlaskaDave ♦167 | I don't know. I merely moved an existing reservoir to where I thought it might be when more water is present. I think the reservoir you tagged is probably the actual location.I think the original reservoir should be deleted. By the way, are you sure the name is spelled Meatian? I think it i... | |
| 3 | 2015-01-31 08:34 | stephankn | It is a wrong spelling on their sign. I put in both spellings and removed the riverbank. | |
| 4 | 2015-01-31 09:07 | AlaskaDave ♦167 | Sounds good. | |
| 27170191 by jedsada101 @ 2014-12-02 01:33 | 1 | 2014-12-10 06:42 | stephankn | A major change like this could have deserved a changeset description. Especially when it is done by a user who did not edit anything before.Based on the physical road characteristics as visible from aerial imagery and the road also being part of the AH network the upgrade itself seems reasonable... |
| 2 | 2014-12-10 08:10 | AlaskaDave ♦167 | I agree with the previous comment. I am aware that highway 101 is being upgraded and perhaps deserves the reclassification but there is more to it than that. Reclassifying the links, making sure bridges also get the changed ref number and classification is part of the process. Such "loose ends&... |