| Changeset | No. | Date | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 63557754 by @gentle_tech | 1 | 2018-10-17 18:43:13 UTC | ralley | Welcome to OSM and thanks for your edit, as per your review request it looks good to me. If you want to discuss any aspects of OSM in NZ please check out https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/nzopengis or https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nz (they are both pretty quiet at the moment) |
| 63060494 by Andy R (NZ) | 1 | 2018-10-01 17:57:34 UTC | ralley | Hi Andy, you can try https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/nzopengis or https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nz if you are looking for helpers but both are very quiet. |
| 62724912 by Lukas357 | 1 | 2018-09-19 19:05:17 UTC | ralley | Welcome to OSM and thanks for your edit, as per your review request it looks good to me. Please feel free to join the NZ OSM community discussions at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/nzopengis or on the Talk-NZ mailing list https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nz. Both are pretty q... |
| 62326734 by perlywerly | 1 | 2018-09-06 00:47:15 UTC | ralley | This changeset looks to have some problems: 1) the footpath is not connected to Chapel Road at the Western end; 2) The crossings with Quattro Avenue etc do not have nodes. Both of these will result in routing issues. 1) would normally result in a warning in JOSM (at least it does for me) |
| 2 | 2018-09-06 18:18:04 UTC | perlywerly | Hi ralley, I fixed all the issues in the following changeset 62351662. Thanks for catching this, it also revealed an issue with my josm tool regarding validations. Please feel free to look at my other changes and let me know if there are any other issues. Thank You | |
| 62232089 by ralley | 1 | 2018-09-03 00:56:18 UTC | ralley | Title is wrong, this was Owairaka Domaina details |
| 61518995 by ShakyIsles | 1 | 2018-08-30 06:45:42 UTC | ralley | This changeset seems to have tagged the entire length of the river as being a culvert, did you just mean to tag a section? |
| 62024248 by Nick Cooley | 1 | 2018-08-27 20:38:14 UTC | ralley | Hi Nick, welcome to OSM and thanks for the edits. What do the two ways you have added represent? They have a name but no other key/values set to identify them. |
| 55337454 by Byuu | 1 | 2018-08-16 03:47:08 UTC | ralley | What do you mean by ignore speed limit sign? |
| 61488407 by PSivart | 1 | 2018-08-12 08:31:46 UTC | ralley | Hi, welcome to OSM and thanks for your edits. Unfortunately your change seems to have created a duplicate Ilam Gardens. This already exists as way 134841538. You can see the duplication by the name being displayed twice on the map. If the original tagging as a garden instead of a park was incorr... |
| 61511048 by ralley | 1 | 2018-08-09 20:57:57 UTC | ralley | Change set comment is wrong, this is actually adding Rosebank buildings |
| 61511881 by ralley | 1 | 2018-08-09 20:57:11 UTC | ralley | Change set description is wrong, this is actually more details of FPH grounds |
| 61407819 by CaptainVietnam | 1 | 2018-08-06 18:54:49 UTC | ralley | Which unrelated warnings? It might be worth bringing any issues up on the talk-nz mailing list, nzopngis group or perhaps another OSM mailing list. |
| 2 | 2018-08-07 22:28:00 UTC | CaptainVietnam | Thank you for bringing this up. I investigated these warning. These warnings seemed to have already existed and may not have been caused by edits I made. The following is the actual warning message "Route scheme is unspecified. Add pubic_transport: version( 2= public transport; 1= legacy)"... | |
| 3 | 2018-08-08 00:28:40 UTC | ralley | Yes I see those warnings crop up a lot in JOSM. Definitely not related to your change. | |
| 61308580 by Viewtiful_Joe | 1 | 2018-08-02 21:00:11 UTC | ralley | Can you please use more descriptive changeset descriptions? "#yourinstancename-project-2" doesn't describe the change made. Thanks. |
| 2 | 2018-08-02 22:18:53 UTC | Viewtiful_Joe | Hello Ralley,Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I wasn't aware of the vague comment being entered for my changeset. I have edited the comment section to better describe the changes that I make going forward. This changeset was me adding in a missing building to finish up this section of ... | |
| 60709461 by Marvin Wu | 1 | 2018-07-14 23:52:56 UTC | ralley | Hi Marvin, welcome to OSM and thanks for your edits. Just a couple of pointers:- The addr:city key just has the city not city and country (also New Zealand has been misspelled in this one).- Similarly addr:street just holds the street name, suburb can go in addr:suburb- Where there is an exi... |
| 2 | 2018-07-15 05:32:25 UTC | Marvin Wu | Dear Ralley,First, I want to thank you for your detailed comments - much appreciate. I will follow your suggestions and keep editing the OSM. I am a researcher working for the University of Auckland. I have a New Zealand church database which include all existing churches in the country. I h... | |
| 3 | 2018-07-15 05:32:56 UTC | Marvin Wu | By the way, I will review the churches I added yesterday. I will correct them according to your suggestions.Marvin | |
| 60669820 by Dave Leaver | 1 | 2018-07-13 09:38:39 UTC | ralley | Thanks for picking up that error and fixing it. It looks like the changeset that introduced the problem (59196634) also changed the name from Puhinui Road to Tom Pearce Drive that also seems to be wrong. |
| 2 | 2018-07-15 20:12:53 UTC | Dave Leaver | Good catch, yeah Tom Pearce ends at the roundabout | |
| 60334176 by MICUGR | 1 | 2018-07-02 19:02:28 UTC | pitscheplatsch | Hi MICUGR, welcome to OSM.May I know the reason behind deleting several mapped service ways? Thanks.See https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=60334176 |
| 2 | 2018-07-02 20:42:52 UTC | MICUGR | The reason for removal of several service ways is because they are on private residential properties and do not allow any public access/services, misleading users of OSM.The inclusion of the new service ways/foot paths/areas is public access and new services added to the community by local counc... | |
| 3 | 2018-07-07 01:07:07 UTC | ralley | MICUGR: the correct way to handle private access like this is through the access tags, not by deleting elements. | |
| 4 | 2018-07-07 02:14:07 UTC | MICUGR | Thank you ralley for identifying OSM features such as elements and tags. A simple tag update is incorrect for this change set, refer to the OSM wiki on map editing. OSM realise on local knowledge of services and features to be accurate and physically represented. Additionally; if you are disputing t... | |
| 5 | 2018-07-07 05:55:30 UTC | pitscheplatsch | @MICUGR: as already mentioned by ralley, "the correct way to handle private access like this is through the access tags, not by deleting elements"!See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access=private | |
| 6 | 2018-07-07 06:31:00 UTC | MICUGR | Thank you for quoting the reference which proves my point for the change. Private access (driveway) elements and tags are to be used to indicate access to a property only (ie from the street).Once you have reached the properties address, which is legally marked at a letterbox for posted mail, yo... | |
| 7 | 2018-07-07 12:33:44 UTC | Nakaner-repair | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 60488145 where the changeset comment is: Revert changeset 60334176. If a way is not accessible to the public, add the access=private tag and do not delete the way. | |
| 8 | 2018-07-07 12:35:26 UTC | Nakaner | Hi MICUGR,I have reverte all your deletions. As other users have already pointed out, deleting private ways is not correct. Please add the tag access=private instead. Any proper application will interprete this tag and exclude these ways from routing. If they don't use the tag and still route ov... | |
| 9 | 2018-07-08 02:45:29 UTC | MICUGR | Great to see remedial action taking place without consideration of the subject in question. Just to let you know I have a response from the developer about drive ways and private property. Firstly; the app developer is not impressed that you insulting them, they switched from Google to OSM because o... | |
| 60360521 by HLOSM | 1 | 2018-07-04 21:34:58 UTC | ralley | This change seems to have introduced duplicate ways. |
| 2 | 2018-07-09 15:46:56 UTC | HLOSM | Hello Ralley, I looked over the changeset and corrected the duplicate way that you mentioned in your comment. Sorry about the issue, I will be more careful in the future when making changes to the existing data. Please feel free to review other changes and provide feedback on any improvements we... | |
| 60109086 by gaddman | 1 | 2018-06-24 06:01:12 UTC | ralley | Something has gone a bit wrong in your edit - it's now tagged as a bridge. Also I think foot=yes should be removed |
| 59953195 by GreenApple11 | 1 | 2018-06-18 20:09:56 UTC | ralley | The residential road you added seems to be a duplicate of the existing way #7633408 (Mount Carmel Place) |
| 2 | 2018-08-29 18:19:16 UTC | GreenApple11 | Hey ralley, sorry for making this mistake. This has been fixed by another operator, but I will be more careful in the future. Please feel free to review my other changes and give any feedback. Thanks, GreenApple11 | |
| 59862644 by linz_robA | 1 | 2018-06-16 10:35:32 UTC | ralley | Description is wrong, this was actually Wairoa rural not just Bartlets |
| 59114379 by linz_robA | 1 | 2018-05-20 02:35:39 UTC | ralley | Actually Hamilton-Rototuna - JOSM cancel on an upload does not seem to work! |
| 59067885 by linz_robA | 1 | 2018-05-18 05:13:36 UTC | ralley | Actually Ngarua |
| 58859779 by ralley | 1 | 2018-05-10 19:48:10 UTC | ralley | Ironic I misspelled the changeset description |
| 58521950 by alspace | 1 | 2018-04-30 00:42:02 UTC | ralley | Hi, your edit of Way 115609854 looks to have wrongly placed a node in Hanlon Crescent. |
| 2 | 2018-04-30 04:53:17 UTC | alspace | Thanks for pointing that out, moving map with mouse while in edit mode, bad habit :) corrected now! | |
| 3 | 2018-04-30 04:54:11 UTC | ralley | No worries, thanks for the fix. | |
| 58161788 by Jim Pollard | 1 | 2018-04-18 19:34:46 UTC | ralley | This looks (compared to LINZ Topo maps, available as a background in the iD editor) to be in the wrong place. There is an older peak for Mount Nicholas to the NE that looks to be in more correct location (but has no elevation). Additionally Mount should be spelled out instead of abbreviated. Also... |
| 2 | 2018-04-29 20:11:30 UTC | ralley | No reply so I deleted duplicate and updated original peak with elevation | |
| 49432893 by AlwynWellington | 1 | 2018-04-13 03:01:37 UTC | Leigh | Hmmm - looks like I've been tagging my cycle paths incorrectly :-)There's a few that probably need updating (https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/xQd) not all mine, but I'll update them over the coming weeks.Thanks for the fix.Cheers,Leigh |
| 2 | 2018-04-16 19:11:19 UTC | ralley | This actually seems wrong to me - it should also be tagged cycle=yes. As it stands it is now a walking only path. | |
| 3 | 2018-04-17 00:37:29 UTC | Leigh | Agree - I'd missed that as it's implies bicycle=yes by default in iD editor - I've made it explicit. | |
| 4 | 2018-04-17 00:38:25 UTC | ralley | Sounds good, cheers. | |
| 58099848 by cole m | 1 | 2018-04-15 02:27:10 UTC | ralley | Why have you changed the morotcross raceways to be tagged as motorways?Also as previously requested can you please use meaningful changeset comments as per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments |
| 58100453 by linz_robA | 1 | 2018-04-15 00:52:53 UTC | ralley | Actually Matarau |
| 57201893 by cole m | 1 | 2018-03-20 05:43:08 UTC | lcmortensen | Reverted by changeset 57339094 - Road does not exist. |
| 2 | 2018-03-20 23:44:46 UTC | ralley | Have you reported this user to the DWG? They seem to be consistently adding changes Id'd as vandalism under useless commit messages and don't respond to communication. | |
| 56955421 by cole m | 1 | 2018-03-07 04:36:43 UTC | ralley | Can you please use proper comments on your changesets - 'S' is not descriptive. This change appears wrong - you have roads short cutting around the roundabout and going through houses. |
| 52500195 by Rudy355 | 1 | 2018-03-05 23:48:13 UTC | ralley | I see you've changed the skatepark to be tagged as a playground. As per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport=skateboard I believe the previous leisure=pitch was correct |
| 56863812 by linz_robA | 1 | 2018-03-04 17:31:55 UTC | ralley | Accidentally committed via import account, should have been under account 'ralley' |
| 56685379 by Izzy Junior | 1 | 2018-02-27 19:35:26 UTC | ralley | Welcome to OSM and thanks for your edits, they look good to me. You could look at deleting the previous address node for 18 March Place now that you have put the address on the building. Also you could connect the parking lot to March Place with a service way. To follow the NZ OSM communi... |
| 55798908 by kiwirick87 | 1 | 2018-01-30 18:21:47 UTC | ralley | Hi, welcome to OSM and thanks for your edits. It looks like the paths you added need a bit of clean up: 1) Some of them appear to be service roads and not paths 2) They are crossing buildings 3) Not connected to the roads |
| 2 | 2018-02-17 06:57:28 UTC | kiwirick87 | they are mostly paths/walking space, but are also used by cars now and again | |
| 3 | 2018-02-17 07:00:11 UTC | ralley | If they are used by cars then they shouldn't be tagged as paths - they are probably service roads. They definitely should not intersect building and need to be joined to the adjacent roads | |
| 56256008 by ispyisail | 1 | 2018-02-13 23:49:02 UTC | ralley | Reviewed against LINZ and ESRI imagery and looks good |
| 47859763 by EmmaJG | 1 | 2018-02-07 09:03:00 UTC | Constable | hi there, are you sure that playground is the right tag for this area?Here someone said it was supposed to be a rest area, not a kids play restricted areahttps://www.openstreetmap.org/note/544084Is it actually a playground for kids?thanks |
| 2 | 2018-02-08 17:54:16 UTC | ralley | I can confirm there is a playground here, visited in 2017. | |
| 3 | 2018-02-09 08:02:48 UTC | Constable | hi there, thanks for the reply. Well, if you've been there few months ago maybe we can give this area a little update. Looking at the aerial imagery it seems like the playground/park area extends far west, am I correct? are there public toilet or some other useful things?Thanks | |
| 4 | 2018-02-26 15:42:00 UTC | EmmaJG | Hi, I've been away but can confirm there is definitely a playground. I had just visited Ohakune before I made the update. | |
| 5 | 2018-02-26 16:05:14 UTC | Constable | hi, thanks for your reply. If you have a look at the aerial imagery you'll see that the playground shape (this one https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/487347394 ) doesn't really line up with a playground area. It looks to me like the park/playground extends west along the Mangateitei Stream, am I wron... | |
| 55873711 by steakunderscore | 1 | 2018-01-30 18:15:08 UTC | ralley | These paths look like they should be connected to the nearby roads - as they stand they cannot be used for routing. |
| 2 | 2018-01-31 00:50:12 UTC | steakunderscore | Thanks @ralley. I wasn't sure if I should do as you say. I didn't want to go and add _all_ the foot paths in the area as that would take a lot of time. | |
| 3 | 2018-01-31 00:52:51 UTC | ralley | No additional paths needed, just move the end nodes of the existing paths so they are also part of the roads. | |
| 4 | 2018-01-31 00:57:53 UTC | steakunderscore | Thanks. Done in changeset/55913650 | |
| 55759735 by ralley | 1 | 2018-01-28 02:07:28 UTC | ralley | Accidentally imported using my main OSM account, meant to import as linz_robA |
| 55764311 by ralley | 1 | 2018-01-28 02:07:18 UTC | ralley | Accidentally imported using my main OSM account, meant to import as linz_robA |
| 55818583 by ralley | 1 | 2018-01-28 02:07:05 UTC | ralley | Accidentally imported using my main OSM account, meant to import as linz_robA |
| 55818626 by ralley | 1 | 2018-01-28 02:06:50 UTC | ralley | Accidentally imported using my main OSM account, meant to import as linz_robA |
| 54410317 by ralley | 1 | 2017-12-06 18:55:29 UTC | ralley | Bridges tagged according to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bridge following this discussion: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/nzopengis/TLcY6KL-tFE |
| 54335739 by wilmaed | 1 | 2017-12-05 18:56:38 UTC | ralley | Should this be tagged "covered=yes" ? (as per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dreservoir) |
| 2 | 2017-12-06 13:31:31 UTC | wilmaed | I removed surface=grass and added covered=yes.What about natural=waterwater=reservoirlocation=underground ? | |
| 3 | 2017-12-06 17:30:26 UTC | ralley | I'm definitely no tagging expert but I wouldn't of thought they are needed and there don't seem to be any other examples using that combination of tags. Seems strange that this is being rendered to look like it is above ground though. Is it to try and not render it that layer was changed to -5... | |
| 54221075 by Sh3pathome | 1 | 2017-12-05 10:03:54 UTC | ralley | Hi, welcome to OSM and thanks for your edits. As previously discussed there are some issues with your changesets in this area. Will yoube able to fix up the issues? (Nodes shared between unrelated ways; overlapped buildings with strange shapes; dubious council reserve; Cambrai park has a building... |
| 54345953 by chrussell | 1 | 2017-12-04 23:48:16 UTC | ralley | Are you sure this is a residential road? It looks to be a driveway to me. |
| 54344695 by Monsv | 1 | 2017-12-04 23:43:54 UTC | ralley | Is this really a park? from the ESRI aerial imagery it looks to be a household back yard. |
| 2 | 2017-12-06 19:20:46 UTC | Monsv | Apologies, the park was a test (learning how to use the map) and thought it was unsaved as it didn't show on main. I've removed it.The P (parking) is private property, Buddhist Temple for members only (I've asked), no public access, big yellow gate | |
| 54260506 by mapchanger123 | 1 | 2017-12-03 23:56:09 UTC | ralley | Are you sure about a park being here? The ESRI photo imagery shows residential buildings |
| 52767039 by ralley | 1 | 2017-10-09 18:34:43 UTC | ralley | Inadvertently combined 2 changesets in JOSM, this also incorporates changes to reflect the extension of Herdman Street, Waterview which is under construction. |
| 52394030 by joelbeachman | 1 | 2017-09-27 16:49:21 UTC | ralley | Welcome to OSM and thanks for the edits. Strange but correct that the road is Green Lane while the suburb is Greenlane. Well spotted. |
| 52397568 by Theweb4u | 1 | 2017-09-27 16:42:51 UTC | ralley | Welcome to OSM and thanks for the correction. Looks fine to me. |
| 52397702 by Theweb4u | 1 | 2017-09-27 16:37:21 UTC | ralley | Hi, thanks for adding the walkway but I don't think this should be tagged as footway=crossing and crossing=zebra (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing) |
| 49976597 by myfanwy | 1 | 2017-09-21 23:59:22 UTC | ralley | My reading of XXX and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bridge is that double bridging is actually the correct way to tag. Is my interpretation wrong? OSMose is also flagging this as wrong: http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/#zoom=18&lat=-36.900635&lon=174.715112&layer=Mapnik&a... |
| 2 | 2017-09-22 00:00:20 UTC | ralley | Whoops XXX should have been https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:layer above. | |
| 51823707 by Vadoola | 1 | 2017-09-08 01:02:20 UTC | ralley | Correct way to handle a private road would be to add access=private as per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access |
| 2 | 2017-09-08 01:06:45 UTC | ralley | Further looking at this it seems to be a partial duplicate of an existing Abattoir Lane (zoom right in and you can see both). Needs to be cleaned up | |
| 51045305 by ralley | 1 | 2017-08-11 21:19:20 UTC | ralley | Changeset description is wrong - this was scrub not Forest |
| 50949923 by ralley | 1 | 2017-08-08 19:38:07 UTC | ralley | Comment should have been "Remove tags from outer way of multiploygon" |
| 50614775 by linz_robA | 1 | 2017-07-27 13:42:29 UTC | woodpeck | Has this import been discussed / documented somewhere? |
| 2 | 2017-07-27 17:08:30 UTC | ViriatoLusitano | https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/2017-June/005014.html | |
| 3 | 2017-07-27 18:27:28 UTC | ralley | LINZ imports were originally discussed staring 17/08/12 on the imports list. The imports have been going on intermittently since this time as tracked through http://linz2osm.openstreetmap.org.nz/workslices/list/?ws_state=&dataset=&layer=river_cl&user=&order_by=checked_out_atDocume... | |
| 50494664 by linz_robA | 1 | 2017-07-23 07:47:00 UTC | ralley | Arggh, thought I'd re-connected JOSM with my interactive account. This was not an import. |
| 50103970 by ralley | 1 | 2017-07-07 11:52:19 UTC | Nakaner | Hi ralley,I recently read about an address import from LINZ but not about an import of rivers. Could you please point me to the discussion of that import and its documentation on the OSM wiki?The Import Guidelines (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines) require you to use a d... |
| 2 | 2017-07-08 03:58:36 UTC | ralley | Michael, LINZ importing is covered at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/LINZ. There is nothing specific to river imports there though. I was not aware of the need for a dedicated account for import, will try and clear that up with the people overseeing the LINZ import.Cheers, Rob. | |