| Changeset |
No. |
Date |
Contributor |
Comment |
|
| 49324605 | jj1bdx | Thanks! |
| sebastic | You're welcome. |
|
| 46961809 | MrKooken | Op de plek van weg 309568632 zie ik in mapnik weergave een zwart blok, misschien een foutje ergens in de multipolygoon? |
| sebastic | De mapping hier is voor verbetering vatbaar. Ga je gang zou ik zeggen. |
| MrKooken | Ik zou zo niet weten wat hier verder nog voor verbetering vatbaar is, hou me al bezig met 1001 verbeteringen. Ben geen groot talent als het om multipolygonen gaat dus.. |
| sebastic | way:309568632 heeft als tags waterway=canal bridge=yes, op basis van de luchtfoto's lijkt het echter een glijbaan en is dit waarschijnlijk een geval taggen voor de renderer, wat wel meer het geval is in dit waterpark. |
| MrKooken | Het is inderdaad een glijbaan. Zo'n 5m hoog en breed en zo'n 25m lang. |
|
| 48808503 | MarcoR | With this changeset, you didn't fix old-style multipolygons; in fact the multipolygons were already being mapped with the "new-style". You just changed some landcover=grass and landcover=trees respectively to landuse=grass and landuse=forest (which is just wrong, since the land as far ... |
| sebastic | The old-style multipolygon was next to these areas and I changed their tagging because landcover is not rendered. Feel free to change it back. |
| MarcoR | Thanks for the answer! If there are not "enough" objects with a tag they will never be rendered on map :) it's a vicious circle...I won't revert your changeset as it's not a big issue but please don't make these conversions from landcover to landuse in the future. |
|
| 48344189 | mueschel | Hi,this way got rather strange tags, could you check and correct that?http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/34792962Cheers, Jan |
| sebastic | Please adjust the tags as you see fit.The the tags from the outer way were simply moved to the relation as part of the old-style multipolygon fixing effort.There is a lot of import data in these regions, that is for the local community to deal with. |
| mueschel | Hi,thanks for the reply. I think the situation is different for this way, have a look to the full history: https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/34792962It was natural=wood until a week ago, then all tags were deleted by someone else and you added some new tags. I don't see that this w... |
| sebastic | There were a lot of duplicate node issues in this area. Those were fixed after the JOSM validator reported the issues before uploading the previously old-style multipolygons. |
| mueschel | I guess natural=wood is right and the rest can be removed? |
| sebastic | The tags seem to imply so, double check with satellite imagery. |
| mueschel | Looks fine. I just changed it. |
|
| 48323870 | Greg_Rose | Hey Sebastic. I need to know what I'm doing wrong with my riverbank polylines and relations. Based on your changes, it appears that as soon as a riverbank is part of a relation, it loses the riverbank tag. Is that correct?I wasn't aware that I was doing anything incorrectly - you've been cleaning ... |
| sebastic | The tags are moved from the outer way to the relation. I process the newly introduced old-style multipoloygons on an almost daily basis.This is part of the area fixing project by Jochen Topf. See: http://area.jochentopf.com/If a riverbank consists only of a single closed way, having the tags... |
| Greg_Rose | Thx very much for the quick reply and explanation. Just so you know, the script you're running to fix these multipolygons made it appear that I was doing these correctly - I just thought that there was an automatic translation going on (the multipolygon relation would correctly change not long after... |
| sebastic | I don't use a script, I use the 'Update multipolygon' feature in JOSM. This is a mostly manual process.Automated edits in OSM are frowned upon, so your edits won't automatically get fixed. Your edits are just easily spotted due to the ongoing area project.My experience with pointing out flaw... |
| Greg_Rose | Well no worries here - if you see flaws/errors in my work going forward, please let me know. I'll greatly appreciate it! I'm passionate about doing this right - and I want to make sure I'm not creating more work for others. |
|
| 48256309 | ImreSamu | Big Thanks for the correction! |
| sebastic | You're welcome. |
|
| 48054049 | woodpeck | Sebastic, if you delete polygons and someone else undoes your deletion, the correct approach is to discuss the issue, not stubbornly delete them again. |
| Kostik | https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=6129&p=120 |
| Kostik | Do not remove the relationship 3767168, 3767169 and the like! |
| Kostik | 3919370, 3919098 |
| Kostik | 4471401 |
| Kostik | 5372735 |
| sebastic | Please give these relations proper tags so that they don't qualify as old-style multipolygons. |
| Kostik | Before removing something, a good tone to write to the author of editing. |
| Kostik | Is the tag "note" not enough for you? |
| Kostik | I added a tag to the "note:de" for more of your understanding. |
| sebastic | Neither the "note" nor "note:de" tag is sufficient to not have those relations be considered old-style multipolygons.If you want to keep those relations in OpenStreetMap you should improve their tagging so they are not considered old-style multipolygons.I'm not german BTW... |
| Kostik | If you do not want to roll back your vandal corrections, do not touch my relations. |
| sebastic | If you don't want people to touch your relations, they shouldn't be in the OSM database that anyone with an account can edit. They should live in your own system to which only you have access. |
|
| 48053844 | Kostik | Löschen Sie nicht 6227760 |
| sebastic | Please give these relations proper tags so that they don't qualify as old-style multipolygons. |
| Kostik | Is the tag "note" not enough for you? |
| Kostik | Before removing something, a good tone to write to the author of editing. |
| sebastic | No, the "note" tag is not sufficient to not have those relations be considered old-style multipolygons.If you want to keep those relations in OpenStreetMap you should improve their tagging so they are not considered old-style multipolygons. |
| Kostik | I do not have enough of your explanation to not roll back your vandalizing! |
| sebastic | Have a look at this project currently underway:http://area.jochentopf.com/On the comparison map, and in the old-style.osm.pbf file, you'll find your relations. If you improve your relations so that they won't be considered old-style multipolygons, neither I nor anyone else working on this pr... |
|
| 48053806 | Kostik | Löschen Sie nicht 6134725 |
| sebastic | Please give these relations proper tags so that they don't qualify as old-style multipolygons. |
| Kostik | Before removing something, a good tone to write to the author of editing. |
| sebastic | Likewise for reverting edits.If you want to keep those relations in OpenStreetMap you should improve their tagging so they are not considered old-style multipolygons. |
| Kostik | I added a tag to the "note:de" for more of your understanding. |
|
| 48053821 | Kostik | Löschen Sie nicht 3371968 |
| sebastic | Please give these relations proper tags so that they don't qualify as old-style multipolygons. |
| Kostik | Before removing something, a good tone to write to the author of editing. |
| sebastic | Likewise for reverting edits.If you want to keep those relations in OpenStreetMap you should improve their tagging so they are not considered old-style multipolygons. |
|
| 47571523 | dudka | did you run any script or made changes one by one reviewing each multipolygon? |
| sebastic | I iterate over the relations one by one using the JOSM todo plugin. |
| dudka | for buildings please also replace ways by multipolygons in associatedStreet relations |
|
| 46551152 | FTA | Hi sebastic,It looks like you deleted the full relation of this university in your changeset (http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3744410). The way you added tags to (http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/281974224) is only one part of the full campus. Please try to be a bit more careful in the futur... |
| sebastic | The relation was invalid and broken beyond repair. Having it recreated by someone else was exactly my intent. |
|
| 47323455 | nyuriks | hi, thanks for adding wikipedia tags! Please use the Wikipedia plugin to also fetch the corresponding Wikidata tags - makes it very useful for many quality and usecases. Thanks! |
| sebastic | I only moved the tags from the outer ways to the relation. |
|
| 47299272 | emvee | Hi Sebasic,Goed bezig; ik was ook bezig maar toen ik wilde uploaden kwamen er allerlei conflicten op dus ben ik maar richting Duitsland verhuist ;-)Groeten,Martin. |
| sebastic | Yeah, I'm working my way up the old-style.osm.pbf issues per country. Belgium had the smallest file size now. I think I can thank you for making that happen. :-) |
|
| 47163503 | Carnildo | Could you do this in smaller chunks? I suspect this changeset is responsible for deleting the banks of the Columbia River between John Day Dam and McNary Dam, but it's such a huge changeset that none of the usual review tools works well with it. |
| sebastic | The tags we simply moved from the outer ways to the relation.Can you be more specific (e.g. map link) where between John Day Dam & McNary Dam the riverbanks are missing? |
| Carnildo | I've fixed it already, but about ten hours ago, the ways making up the relation created in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/47194830#map=9/45.8153/-119.9671 had no tags and were not part of any relation. However, stale rendering of map tiles showed that they had recently been tagged and/or p... |
|
| 47077291 | nyuriks | Hi, thanks for adding wikipedia tag. Please install "wikipedia" plugin, and use "fetch wikidata IDs" too - it will add both wikipedia and wikidata tags for you. Thanks! |
| sebastic | I only moved the tags from the outer ways to the relations. The wikipedia tag was already present on the outer way. |
|
| 46960750 | MrKooken | I don't see any change. Like to know what an "old style" multiploygon is... |
| sebastic | The multipolyons are rendered the same. For more information, see:http://area.jochentopf.com/ |
| MrKooken | Thanks. |
|
| 24558382 | eggie | Hoi, Een nieuw mapper heeft hier aan de adm. boundery gezeten. De laatste revert mislukte wegens te veel conlicten. 'k Weet dus niet of-ie nog goed ligt.http://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=46171197Groet,Eggie |
| sebastic | De way leek nog goed te liggen, waarschijnlijk waren alleen non-boundary objecten aan de boundaries geknoopt. Voor de zekerheid heb ik het segment geupdate m.b.v. de officiele geometrie. |
| eggie | klopt.. er zat een pad aan vastgeplakt. Dat heb ik verwijderd. |
|
| 31883029 | waldhans | Thank's for destroying the boundary DE/NL! Can you tell why you did this? The boundary was defined by the most precise informations, and you changed it without checking or asking into something. What source did you use?If possible, revert the changes ASAP. |
| sebastic | > Thank's for destroying the boundary DE/NL!Thanks for your constructive feedback. Your passive aggressive stance is very motivating.> Can you tell why you did this?Because I maintain the administrative boundaries of the Netherlands using the official government open data.Every... |