Changeset No. Date Contributor Comment
12017-04-23 09:25:59 UTCwoodpeck Sebastic, if you delete polygons and someone else undoes your deletion, the correct approach is to discuss the issue, not stubbornly delete them again.
22017-04-23 09:48:10 UTCKostik https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=6129&p=120
32017-04-23 09:55:36 UTCKostik Do not remove the relationship 3767168, 3767169 and the like!
42017-04-23 09:56:31 UTCKostik 3919370, 3919098
52017-04-23 10:17:54 UTCKostik 4471401
62017-04-23 10:23:28 UTCKostik 5372735
72017-04-23 11:18:02 UTCsebastic Please give these relations proper tags so that they don't qualify as old-style multipolygons.
82017-04-23 14:40:01 UTCKostik Before removing something, a good tone to write to the author of editing.
92017-04-23 14:42:42 UTCKostik Is the tag "note" not enough for you?
102017-04-23 14:52:47 UTCKostik I added a tag to the "note:de" for more of your understanding.
112017-04-23 15:31:03 UTCsebastic 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...
122017-04-23 16:28:04 UTCKostik If you do not want to roll back your vandal corrections, do not touch my relations.
132017-04-23 17:28:15 UTCsebastic 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.
12017-04-23 10:48:30 UTCKostik Löschen Sie nicht 6227760
22017-04-23 11:19:02 UTCsebastic Please give these relations proper tags so that they don't qualify as old-style multipolygons.
32017-04-23 14:34:13 UTCKostik Is the tag "note" not enough for you?
42017-04-23 14:39:15 UTCKostik Before removing something, a good tone to write to the author of editing.
52017-04-23 15:27:52 UTCsebastic 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.
62017-04-23 16:52:21 UTCKostik I do not have enough of your explanation to not roll back your vandalizing!
72017-04-23 17:16:27 UTCsebastic 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...
12017-04-23 10:08:38 UTCKostik Löschen Sie nicht 6134725
22017-04-23 11:18:42 UTCsebastic Please give these relations proper tags so that they don't qualify as old-style multipolygons.
32017-04-23 14:39:45 UTCKostik Before removing something, a good tone to write to the author of editing.
42017-04-23 15:31:54 UTCsebastic 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.
52017-04-23 16:23:36 UTCKostik I added a tag to the "note:de" for more of your understanding.
12017-04-23 10:42:33 UTCKostik Löschen Sie nicht 3371968
22017-04-23 11:18:55 UTCsebastic Please give these relations proper tags so that they don't qualify as old-style multipolygons.
32017-04-23 14:39:34 UTCKostik Before removing something, a good tone to write to the author of editing.
42017-04-23 15:29:04 UTCsebastic 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.
12017-04-11 08:30:56 UTCdudka did you run any script or made changes one by one reviewing each multipolygon?
22017-04-11 10:16:37 UTCsebastic I iterate over the relations one by one using the JOSM todo plugin.
32017-04-11 11:10:41 UTCdudka for buildings please also replace ways by multipolygons in associatedStreet relations
12017-04-10 01:52:49 UTCFTA 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...
22017-04-10 05:37:08 UTCsebastic The relation was invalid and broken beyond repair. Having it recreated by someone else was exactly my intent.
12017-04-03 02:41:02 UTCnyuriks 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!
22017-04-03 16:18:50 UTCsebastic I only moved the tags from the outer ways to the relation.
12017-03-30 20:15:22 UTCemvee 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.
22017-03-30 20:56:06 UTCsebastic 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. :-)
12017-03-27 08:39:41 UTCCarnildo 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.
22017-03-27 08:58:34 UTCsebastic 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?
32017-03-27 17:59:19 UTCCarnildo 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...
12017-03-23 05:03:49 UTCnyuriks 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!
22017-03-23 07:13:21 UTCsebastic I only moved the tags from the outer ways to the relations. The wikipedia tag was already present on the outer way.
12017-03-20 15:49:05 UTCMrKooken I don't see any change. Like to know what an "old style" multiploygon is...
22017-03-20 16:11:05 UTCsebastic The multipolyons are rendered the same. For more information, see:
http://area.jochentopf.com/
32017-03-20 16:48:23 UTCMrKooken Thanks.
12017-02-17 20:12:47 UTCeggie 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=46171197
Groet,
Eggie
22017-02-17 20:54:14 UTCsebastic 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.
32017-02-17 21:03:17 UTCeggie klopt.. er zat een pad aan vastgeplakt. Dat heb ik verwijderd.
12015-06-17 08:10:09 UTCwaldhans 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.
22015-06-17 08:49:44 UTCsebastic > 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...
13 changeset(s) created by sebastic have been discussed with a total of 51 comment(s)