| Changeset | # | Tmstmp UTC | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 55582259 by mapEditorMe @ 2018-01-19 16:17 | 1 | 2018-01-19 23:41 | Captain_Spork ♦83 | Hi MapEditorMe,Not sure if you speak Dutch so I'll continue in English.The leisure=park polygon you created is correct in a sense that it lies like a blanket over the landuse. However, the leisure=park polygon should be detached from the landuse. Currently it sticks to the landuse on va... |
| 2 | 2018-01-20 00:15 | mapEditorMe | Hi Mark,I will propose a fix for the area sticking to the landuse later today. As for the tag layer:-1, that is to conform to the already existing part of the park just a tad south of the added area.Thank you for the feedback! Kind regards, | |
| 3 | 2018-01-20 21:52 | mapEditorMe | Hi Mark,I have proposed changeset 55614365. Please have a look at that commit.Kind regards, | |
| 4 | 2018-01-21 18:24 | Captain_Spork ♦83 | Hi MapEditorMe,Thanks for your reponse.Ah I see. Well in that case the existing leisure=park polygon should be expanded. One park should be mapped as one leisure=park polygon.Is this something you can do yourself? If you need any help let me know.Thanks and regards,Mark | |
| 5 | 2018-01-21 19:43 | mapEditorMe | Hi Mark,See changeset 55636266 where I merged the two areas. Learned some new tricks on the way, so please check :)Thank you for your feedback!Kind regards, | |
| 6 | 2018-01-21 20:15 | Captain_Spork ♦83 | Hi MapEditorMe,This looks good to me :). And of course also great that you learned some new tricks! I started of in ID but was advised by a few other mappers to start using JOSM because it has many more capabilities. I have been using JOSM for a month now but I'm still learning as I... | |
| 55058432 by mapEditorMe @ 2017-12-31 13:44 | 1 | 2018-01-03 11:54 | Digne ♦386 | Hi mapEditorMe,I noticed this review request was still open.I went through the other discussions and everything seems to be in order now. |
| 55036635 by mapEditorMe @ 2017-12-30 15:01 | 1 | 2017-12-30 19:17 | eggie ♦40,679 | landcover=trees is een tag niet niet zal renderen op de kaart. Vanwaar dit omtaggen van landuse naar landcover? Wellicht beter om op nodes natural=tree te taggen. Dan zie je losse bomen op de kaart.Graag reactie |
| 2 | 2017-12-31 11:19 | mapEditorMe | This piece of land is just grass with some trees around, if that would be a 'forest' every pair of trees would be a 'forest'. Instead a cover of grass and trees seems more accurate. It should be up to all the renderers how to render the area, mislabeling the area to fit only the ... | |
| 3 | 2017-12-31 13:45 | mapEditorMe | Fixed in changeset 55058432 | |
| 4 | 2017-12-31 14:30 | eggie ♦40,679 | Okay... enjoy further mapping! | |
| 55037023 by mapEditorMe @ 2017-12-30 15:19 | 1 | 2017-12-30 19:19 | eggie ♦40,679 | Dit lijken me geen goede tags. Het bos zal van de kaart verdwijnen. Graag reactie.Beter wellicht natural=tree op lossen nodes. Graag reactie. |
| 2 | 2017-12-30 19:21 | eggie ♦40,679 | lancover=trees is not a tag for rendering in OSM.Better solitary nodes with natural=tree or landuse = forest. Please reply. | |
| 3 | 2017-12-31 11:18 | mapEditorMe | This piece of land is just grass with some trees around, if that would be a 'forest' every pair of trees would be a 'forest'. Instead a cover of grass and trees seems more accurate. It should be up to all the renderers how to render the area, mislabeling the area to fit only the ... | |
| 4 | 2017-12-31 11:47 | eggie ♦40,679 | Okay.. You are right.... it's not a forest. That's the reason I suggested to map solitary trees with the tag at a node. natural=tree like the trees at the northern part of the IJ-tunnel. Thanks anyway for reply. | |
| 5 | 2017-12-31 12:28 | mapEditorMe | Instead of mapping each single tree, mapping tree-rows will be sufficient? If so I will create a new commit with tree rows instead of hard to define areas. | |
| 6 | 2017-12-31 12:59 | eggie ♦40,679 | Sure.. if there is a line shape.. Why not ? natural=tree_row :) | |
| 7 | 2017-12-31 13:45 | mapEditorMe | Fixed in changeset 55058432 | |
| 8 | 2017-12-31 14:29 | eggie ♦40,679 | Yep... I noticed... It's okay this way!Rendering will last some time. | |
| 54323655 by mapEditorMe @ 2017-12-04 09:46 | 1 | 2017-12-04 11:27 | arvdk ♦302 | 'De groene kapper', you added address information to it. That is almost always wrong, since in the Netherlands, all address information is already present, due to BAG Imports. If you now search for the address*, you get 2 hits. Could you please merge them? In next eddits, try to search for... |
| 2 | 2017-12-04 11:36 | mapEditorMe | Thank you for the clear information. I have removed the new duplicate and added the information to the existing BAG import. Please find the commit here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/54326381 | |
| 3 | 2017-12-04 11:59 | arvdk ♦302 | Perfect. Thank you for your contribution. | |
| 54325637 by mapEditorMe @ 2017-12-04 11:02 | 1 | 2017-12-04 11:23 | arvdk ♦302 | Removed pedrestrian crossing. Took a while before I got that. Yes, that also resolves the issue. :) |
| 54322374 by mapEditorMe @ 2017-12-04 08:54 | 1 | 2017-12-04 09:22 | arvdk ♦302 | PB met welkom verstuurd. |
| 2 | 2017-12-04 10:05 | arvdk ♦302 | hoi MapEditorMe, Bedankt voor je toevoeging. Bekijk even dit zebra die je hebt toegevoegd: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/544489522Als de wegen niet aan elkaar verbonden zijn en welk kruisen, betekent dat ze over elkaar heen gaan (viaduct) of onder elkaar door (tunnel). Dit zebra pad moet dus... | |
| 3 | 2017-12-04 11:03 | mapEditorMe | I think I fixed it here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/54325637 |