| Changeset | No. | Date | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 57573132 by henke54 | 1 | 2018-03-29 14:01:04 UTC | Tim Couwelier | Even volledigheidshalve checken:Ik hoop dat je geen grenzen overneemt uit CadGIS?CadGIS is een vectorisatie van de oude kadasterplannen, en daar zitten ruimtelijk vaak significante afwijkingen op. De oude meetplannen werden telkens vanuit de centra opgestart, en hoe verder van het centrum hoe ... |
| 2 | 2018-04-03 10:34:50 UTC | henke54 | Wees gerust, ik zie het voor bekeken met dat OSM taggen ... ik geef er de brui aan ;) | |
| 3 | 2018-04-04 14:12:55 UTC | Tim Couwelier | Dat was helemaal het punt niet van de bemerkingen. Het was een legitieme bezorgdheid van waar je de grenzen hebt overgenemen, en daar wandel je in dit antwoord wel even om heen.. | |
| 4 | 2018-04-04 14:30:06 UTC | Glenn Plas | volgens menig forum commentaar gebruikt hij het inderdaad zo op deze manier. | |
| 48787428 by henke54 | 1 | 2017-05-18 12:28:30 UTC | toeklk | Hi,These corrections are not corresponding to reality. Due to the (very new) cyclepath, there is only a link between the Kromme Dreef and the cyclepath, and _not_ with the road anymore. And given the altitude difference between the road and the cyclepath, it doesn't look like this is a tempora... |
| 2 | 2017-05-18 16:53:05 UTC | henke54 | OK, but i saw that you did not remove the connection between the road (Naamsesteenweg) and Kromme Dreef, so, i did .Maybe now it is "actual/correct" ? | |
| 3 | 2017-05-18 17:56:43 UTC | toeklk | Almost, there is now some kind of 'cycleway_link' (as in 'motorway_link') to go from the kromme dreef to the cyclepath which turns north. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/48798584#map=16/50.7966/4.7109For now, I've left the 'highway=construction', but as I mentioned above, I'm not su... | |
| 4 | 2017-05-18 18:36:28 UTC | henke54 | I have in JOSM the most recent airphoto from AGIV, and your "placement" for the crossing seems to be "not exactly correct" ->https://smartshare.be/s/yLa1BO2aUcV3zlM | |
| 5 | 2017-05-18 20:31:12 UTC | toeklk | I'm pretty sure that nowadays there is _no_ crossing anymore. The crossing that is visible on the imagery is a bicycle crossing place (fietsoversteekplaats), and was only useful before, i.e. as long as the official cycleway was on the other side from the Kromme Dreef on. Now, the whole cycleway is... | |
| 48161900 by henke54 | 1 | 2017-05-06 19:40:21 UTC | toeklk | Hi, In this changeset you renamed the Kromme Dreef into St-Joris-Weert straat. I've never seen any reference to that name on ground. If you would have googled a little bit, you would see that the name "Kromme Dreef" definitely exists (and is indicated using signs) on ground. Hence, cou... |
| 2 | 2017-05-07 09:18:30 UTC | henke54 | I just followed Geopunt and Cadgis , complain to them ->https://smartshare.be/s/PEEvMlAdSgv9gxuhttp://www.geopunt.be/https://ccff02.minfin.fgov.be/cadgisweb/?local=nl_BE | |
| 3 | 2017-05-07 12:01:48 UTC | toeklk | No, I shouldn't... You should never just copy information from external sources[quote]If there is existing data in openstreetmap, you should assume that existing data has been mapped by local people on the ground. Sometimes you will be able to tell this by seeing source tags or just by contac... | |
| 4 | 2017-05-08 11:13:17 UTC | henke54 | I must admit, that 'Kromme Dreef' is a better name for the street in the forest and at boshuis Het Spoor and Boswachterij De Warande, because that street DOES NOT 'lead to' Sint Joris Weert, and there is already a St-Joris-Weertstraat in Bierbeek,more to the center, 'far away' from that place in the... | |
| 5 | 2017-05-13 08:08:03 UTC | toeklk | Given the above reasoning, I've reverted the part of this changeSet and changed the name back to Kromme Dreef in ChangeSet 48642370 | |
| 6 | 2017-05-13 14:01:38 UTC | henke54 | Ok, but what is now then the address of boshuis Het Spoor and Boswachterij De Warande ??? | |
| 7 | 2017-05-18 12:19:42 UTC | henke54 | The "problem" is solved -> https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=58297;) | |
| 8 | 2017-05-18 12:25:37 UTC | toeklk | Thx for figuring out! | |
| 46833419 by mobiliteit Putte | 1 | 2017-03-17 22:43:07 UTC | henke54 | Waarom heb je de naam van dit stuk weg van Aarschotbaan veranderd in Liersesteenweg ?? -> winkel Noordkaap is Aarschotbaan 42 volgens hun website ->http://www.noordkaap.be/ |
| 35832821 by Jakka | 1 | 2015-12-08 21:24:19 UTC | henke54 | [quote]Where a river or stream goes under a road, railway or similar the upper way should be tagged with bridge=yes and layer=1, or [url=http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Waterways]alternatively tag the watercourse with layer=-1[/url] and tunnel=yes or tunnel=culvert (used for streams and drains).[... |
| 2 | 2015-12-08 21:29:20 UTC | Jakka | Correct. this waterway was/is tagged over long lenght -1 not correct That was my correction at that point. | |
| 3 | 2015-12-08 21:37:22 UTC | henke54 | long length = whole watercourse length ; so ; "or alternative tag the watercourse with layer = -1 "http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Waterways | |
| 4 | 2015-12-09 04:50:39 UTC | escada | I'm not in favour of -1 for the total waterway. This was discussed a long time ago on the tagging mailing list, and the outcome was different from what the wiki page states. Adding bridges or culverts is more precise anyway. The layer tag should only be used when 2 or more ways cross. You do not ta... | |
| 5 | 2015-12-09 08:56:02 UTC | henke54 | what are then the disadvantages from tagging the whole watercourse with layer -1 , besides the advantages ?? | |
| 6 | 2015-12-09 09:15:41 UTC | Jakka | See: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:layer | |
| 35833489 by Jakka | 1 | 2015-12-08 21:45:55 UTC | henke54 | to avoid this, just tag the whole watercourse with layer = -1 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Waterways |
| 2 | 2015-12-08 22:19:24 UTC | Jakka | I do not think you may tag whole watercourse with -1. Only where "Where a river or stream goes under a ...something + tag of the something... | |