j03lar50n participated in the following changeset discussionsj03lar50n participated in the following changeset discussions| Changeset | # | Tmstmp UTC | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 84949544 by sestaller @ 2020-05-09 19:49 | 1 | 2020-05-11 17:02 | j03lar50n | Hi, I'm curious why you would delete the old building way here and then add a new one of lesser quality (e.g. not orthogonalized) ?https://osmcha.org/changesets/84949544/ |
| 78853620 by Heli2reg @ 2019-12-25 18:24 | 1 | 2020-01-03 05:41 | j03lar50n | It should be 'Tiburon' not Triburon, right? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/10561657#map=17/35.26080/-120.62886&layers=D |
| 2 | 2020-01-03 15:17 | Heli2reg ♦1 | Great catch! Thank you! Corrected. | |
| 76937386 by iandees @ 2019-11-12 03:00 | 1 | 2019-11-14 21:03 | j03lar50n | thanks, Ian. I missed that one |
| 76858515 by GallonWater @ 2019-11-10 02:21 | 1 | 2019-11-12 02:43 | j03lar50n | Hey GallonWater/Tom ...stop vandalizing! |
| 2 | 2019-11-12 02:45 | j03lar50n | I've reported this user | |
| 75338503 by user_5359 @ 2019-10-06 11:36 | 1 | 2019-10-06 18:12 | GallonWater ♦1 | This is inaccurate. I am a student here. They demolished the old buiding and built a new one that has the square-shape. |
| 2 | 2019-10-06 20:05 | user_5359 ♦19,360 | In the existing aerial photos one could recognize two different buildings, unfortunately without a clear temporal allocation. Also your first version of the outline did not allow an unambiguous assignment. Unfortunately I decided for the wrong version of the aerial photos. Therefore I thank for the ... | |
| 3 | 2019-10-06 23:03 | j03lar50n | Why was the name changed to "Tom's Weiner Shop"? | |
| 4 | 2019-10-07 03:40 | user_5359 ♦19,360 | Definitely not caused by me. Following the history the user GallonWater set the name in version 3 so. | |
| 71157650 by Megan112 @ 2019-06-11 21:08 | 1 | 2019-06-11 21:21 | j03lar50n | I think "address is not populating" because the name tag will override address tag. |
| 2 | 2019-06-11 21:49 | Megan112 ♦1 | Do you know why half of the addresses I've plotted are working and for example this one is not? When I search for the address it does not locate it. | |
| 57190122 by svdsrfr6 @ 2018-03-14 20:37 | 1 | 2018-03-14 20:57 | j03lar50n | I'm not sure that is valid reasoning to remove this data. Please stop deleting the data. I think this changeset possibly warrants a revert. Have you broached this topic elsewhere? Is there another discussion happening that one can follow? |
| 2 | 2018-03-14 21:01 | svdsrfr6 ♦1 | Believe me, I wish it could remain as I use it often. There was an in-person meeting with the Forest Service a few days ago and one of the rangers was very upset about the trails on the ridge and actively wanted to block them. I think it's a good idea to leave them off the map for awhile unti... | |
| 3 | 2018-03-14 21:03 | svdsrfr6 ♦1 | If you want to revert you can, I don't know much about openstreetmap, I'm just doing what I think is in the best interest of keeping the "off the radar" trails open rather than getting them blocked and creating hassles. | |
| 4 | 2018-03-14 21:10 | j03lar50n | I will be reverting the deletion of this data. I understand your concern, but the physical features on the ground are what the Forest Service is worried about - not a digital map. Until things change - this map is a correct representation of what is on the ground...and many of us have put in a lot o... | |
| 5 | 2018-03-14 21:13 | svdsrfr6 ♦1 | But a digital map is what makes people discover and ride the illegal trails, which is a large part of why the problem exists. By mapping illegal trails, people think they're legal, and ride/maintain them. According to the Forest Service that is illegal activity. I really think illegal trails... | |
| 6 | 2018-03-14 21:15 | svdsrfr6 ♦1 | Users have unwittingly followed the trails I deleted onto Camp San Luis (military) property and gotten $400 tickets, bikes confiscated, and misdemeanors on their records. I don't think trails like that should be on OSM! | |
| 7 | 2018-03-14 21:25 | j03lar50n | Fair points! But I really think that this should be discussed before outright deleting features. I also think that until the trail is physically blocked or altered on the ground - that these are legitimate features to include on the map. Perhaps their tags can be modified - have you explored doing t... | |
| 8 | 2018-03-14 21:31 | svdsrfr6 ♦1 | Gotcha - sorry, I didn't know about OSM etiquette and discussion capabilities. I have not explored modifying tags, I'll look into it. I've never viewed tags when exploring the OSM map and doubt most users do. Please consider the real-world implications of having these trails visible... | |
| 9 | 2018-03-14 21:34 | svdsrfr6 ♦1 | ...maybe you're already aware of this, but many trail guide apps pull data from OSM. Ridewithgps.com and trailforks.com are two that come to mind but there are many others. It's not just people seeing the trails here - they're seeing them on trail guide apps too, which is probably a... | |
| 10 | 2018-03-14 21:43 | j03lar50n | Please take a look at tagging with the 'access' key https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access ...these _are_ still physical features, but it's up to whomever is rendering the data _how_ that data gets 'drawn'/rendered. If an app uses OSM data, it should make a distincti... | |
| 11 | 2018-03-14 21:45 | svdsrfr6 ♦1 | thank you! | |
| 12 | 2018-03-14 21:47 | hpanno ♦2 | I would hate to have features on the map deleted for lack of appropriate tagging. There are tags available that describe data as non-accessible. I would think that the responsibility falls on those who create the apps referencing any OSM data to filter and grab the appropriate data based on its attr... | |
| 13 | 2018-03-14 22:00 | svdsrfr6 ♦1 | I think it's wiser to not map illegal trails at all, or trails that lead users to trespass on military land or private property, rather than to put the onus on those using the data. | |
| 55309000 by SLO Jon @ 2018-01-10 01:43 | 1 | 2018-01-10 01:57 | j03lar50n | why should it be removed? |
| 2 | 2018-01-10 02:11 | SLO Jon ♦1 | It may have been a bit rash it deleting it, my mistake. I did not realize the City had incorporated an outdated plan in the area. My main goal was to fix the area surrounding the bike path, and could not find any documentation on the commercial area till I did a bit more digging and found this http:... | |
| 3 | 2018-01-10 02:51 | j03lar50n | Thanks for the reply. SLO Jon and I have moved this discussion to a message. | |
| 53602659 by fulmar2 @ 2017-11-08 08:06 | 1 | 2017-11-09 15:37 | j03lar50n | at a quick glance, looks good to me |
| 53468180 by BinaryOne @ 2017-11-03 04:37 | 1 | 2017-11-03 13:32 | dave_in_ag ♦6 | Why is there a small section with an Asia timezone in the US? |
| 2 | 2017-11-03 21:42 | j03lar50n | good catch, @dave_in_ag. I have reverted this changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/53490417 | |
| 53305804 by SpenSolo @ 2017-10-27 23:05 | 1 | 2017-10-28 19:32 | j03lar50n | looks good - thanks! |
| 53219528 by Erin OConnell @ 2017-10-24 20:40 | 1 | 2017-10-24 21:06 | j03lar50n | 😍 nice! |
| 53184855 by Erin OConnell @ 2017-10-23 17:06 | 1 | 2017-10-23 17:19 | j03lar50n | This looks fantastic - thank you! |
| 50706322 by oranv @ 2017-07-31 02:45 | 1 | 2017-07-31 14:01 | j03lar50n | Interesting! I didn't know about this route. Thanks 👍 |
| 50116764 by cjohn105 @ 2017-07-07 19:36 | 1 | 2017-07-07 20:04 | karitotp ♦123 | Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap. Could you please share the source for these highways https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/505911060/history? They do not match with the satellite imagery. ThanksKarito |
| 2 | 2017-07-08 00:41 | j03lar50n | Hi cjohn105 and karitotp. Yes, welcome to OSM, cjohn105. It looks like you have digitizing tracks that perhaps fire equipment made during the suppression of a wildfire, sometime around 2011 ... as per this source tms:http://gis.slocounty.ca.gov/arcgis/rest/services/Aerials/2011_Combined_WGSWMAS/MapS... | |
| 49732985 by ghelete @ 2017-06-22 00:02 | 1 | 2017-06-22 02:19 | j03lar50n | wow, looking better in DT SLO! |
| 49439377 by TheDutchMan13 @ 2017-06-11 10:38 | 1 | 2017-06-12 17:05 | j03lar50n | Thank you, TheDutchMan13. I'm curious how this inquiry came in to you? I don't see it as a Note. |
| 2 | 2017-06-29 01:13 | TheDutchMan13 ♦243 | http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/ritarocks | |
| 3 | 2017-06-29 01:13 | TheDutchMan13 ♦243 | This user sent me a private message on osm | |
| 4 | 2017-06-29 01:15 | TheDutchMan13 ♦243 | My apologies for not getting back to you sooner. | |
| 48775343 by hpanno @ 2017-05-17 23:14 | 1 | 2017-05-17 23:24 | j03lar50n | w00t 🙌 |
| 2 | 2017-05-17 23:37 | hpanno ♦2 | Back at it! | |
| 48327144 by Richard @ 2017-05-02 08:06 | 1 | 2017-05-03 15:37 | j03lar50n | >Most of this area just wants deleting tbhugh, yeah...because of all the poor landuse/landcover imports? |
| 2 | 2017-05-03 15:42 | Richard ♦220 | I was thinking more the really rough TIGER roads around the oilfield - most rural TIGER highway=residentials are an approximation at best, but this bunch is really bad and actively misleading. If all the oilfield roads were deleted, and a few access roads traced afresh, the map would be a lot better... | |
| 47078716 by zhackney @ 2017-03-22 20:45 | 1 | 2017-03-22 21:37 | j03lar50n | I would suggest changing the road type and possibly only removing the name tag, instead of deleting the entire feature. Having driveways included in the road network can assist with routing. |
| 2 | 2017-03-23 06:53 | srividya_c ♦57 | @zhackney and @ j03lar50nI have reverted the changeset at #47087298 changeset. @zhackney do improve the existing highways and not delete them if it exists in imagery. | |
| 46970755 by FranBoiii @ 2017-03-19 02:26 | 1 | 2017-03-19 16:01 | j03lar50n | Hello, are you certain this is a park? Does it have a name? |
| 46701835 by dcwiggin13 @ 2017-03-09 07:55 | 1 | 2017-03-09 19:22 | j03lar50n | Hello, your edit was reverted by another member of the local SLO OpenStreetMap community. The flooding may be a temporary situation, but it's not a permanent feature and not an appropriate addition. Please let us know if you have any questions - we're glad to help! |
| 46353406 by e*holtz @ 2017-02-23 23:56 | 1 | 2017-02-24 02:53 | j03lar50n | thanks for cleaning up those vineyard tags! |
| 46328558 by fulmar2 @ 2017-02-23 07:24 | 1 | 2017-02-23 15:05 | j03lar50n | Awesome! You continue to make great additions to our local OSM - thank you!! |
| 45959501 by edson b @ 2017-02-09 22:49 | 1 | 2017-02-10 22:30 | j03lar50n | Hello, can you explain this edit? It does not seem appropriate from my evaluation of the aerial imagery for this area. Please advise. |
| 45220427 by Bman @ 2017-01-16 17:04 | 1 | 2017-01-17 14:29 | j03lar50n | Hello, what exactly are you up to with all the edits you're making on this campground? I am not seeing any benefits gained from your edits and believed the data was already in a good/usable state. I am local to this area and have worked with others to map this in-person. Please advise your inte... |
| 2 | 2017-01-18 07:20 | Bman ♦6 | Hi @j03lar50n, my apologies for the multiple edits with no visible changes.In short, I was originally trying to improve things, then realized I made a mistake and tried to get things back to the way they originally looked on OSM tiles.I initially noticed that they all had identical addr:*, and w... | |
| 44356961 by e*holtz @ 2016-12-12 20:23 | 1 | 2016-12-13 15:39 | j03lar50n | Nice! Thanks, bro |
| 41612271 by manings @ 2016-08-22 11:24 | 1 | 2016-08-22 15:46 | j03lar50n | Thank you so much for this fix! |
| 40071280 by e*holtz @ 2016-06-16 16:31 | 1 | 2016-06-17 03:26 | j03lar50n | nice add! |
| 39829462 by edgrmdna @ 2016-06-06 04:09 | 1 | 2016-06-11 02:02 | j03lar50n | nice adds! |
| 2 | 2016-06-14 04:25 | edgrmdna ♦3 | Thanks! I worked on a project to see if there was enough ag land in SLO county to supply all craft breweries with hops (all hypothetical ,of-course) so I had to update tags for all craft breweries in SLO cnty to extract from overpass. | |
| 3 | 2016-06-16 03:53 | j03lar50n | that's so freaking awesome. keep on rocking it, yo! | |
| 39561529 by jsauder @ 2016-05-25 17:31 | 1 | 2016-05-30 20:42 | j03lar50n | nice adds! |
| 2 | 2016-05-31 02:19 | jsauder ♦1 | Thanks j03lar50n! | |
| 36687018 by chadbunn @ 2016-01-19 19:33 | 1 | 2016-01-19 20:21 | j03lar50n | :thumbsup: |
| 36642218 by jfire @ 2016-01-17 20:51 | 1 | 2016-01-18 17:20 | j03lar50n | Thanks (again), John! |
| 36642199 by jfire @ 2016-01-17 20:50 | 1 | 2016-01-18 17:19 | j03lar50n | Thanks, John! |
| 35994426 by j03lar50n @ 2015-12-16 18:12 | 1 | 2015-12-16 18:13 | j03lar50n | not 'Cheda Ranch' as changeset comment indicates...my bad. It is beach access. |
| 35540075 by chris@zontine @ 2015-11-23 22:04 | 1 | 2015-11-24 21:50 | j03lar50n | nice add, thanks! |
| 35229163 by JonCPSU @ 2015-11-10 23:40 | 1 | 2015-11-11 18:16 | j03lar50n | please use 'local_knowledge' instead of 'Local knowledge' for your Value in the Source Key. http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=local_knowledge#values |
| 34049002 by bwarren @ 2015-09-15 20:22 | 1 | 2015-09-17 06:34 | j03lar50n | why didn't you add this information to the existing building way? How do you know Rancho Grande Subaru occupies that specific location? |
| 26356220 by nmixter @ 2014-10-27 05:59 | 1 | 2015-06-12 22:06 | j03lar50n | The way that you've imported individual parcels as landuse=residential is questionable as to how effective & worthwhile it really has been. Why not just hand-draw ways around the entire block and tag landuse=residential? Example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/61148678This has resulte... |
| 30105847 by LanceEchols @ 2015-04-09 22:26 | 1 | 2015-04-17 15:52 | j03lar50n | Lance, looks good. Remember to 'square' your buildings with the 'Q' key in JOSM |
| 29894291 by nickher @ 2015-04-01 00:06 | 1 | 2015-04-01 06:30 | j03lar50n | please use the keyboard shortcut 'Q' with JOSM to Orthogonalize Shape https://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Shortcuts |
| 28826550 by MannequinBaby @ 2015-02-13 17:51 | 1 | 2015-02-13 19:44 | j03lar50n | I think A74 is more appropriate than A51 for this way http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/10535225 ...as per this reference http://proximityone.com/tgrcfcc.htm |
| 2 | 2015-02-13 19:50 | j03lar50n | I think A51 is more appropriate than A41 for this way http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/10552398 ...as per this reference http://proximityone.com/tgrcfcc.htm | |
| 27963476 by Estrada92 @ 2015-01-06 19:22 | 1 | 2015-01-09 16:05 | neuhausr ♦331 | hey just wondering why you're adding nodes only tagged with josm/ignore on them? if it's notes for yourself, maybe there are better ways to do it? |
| 2 | 2015-01-09 16:59 | j03lar50n | @neuhausr thank you for this catch. This is an honest mistake we've made in which we did not adjust a setting in our JOSM Remote Control to 'Download objects to new layer' when we're using HOTOSM's Task Manager. We will fix this right now, thanks again. | |
| 27921381 by chadbunn @ 2015-01-04 21:57 | 1 | 2015-01-04 22:36 | j03lar50n | I think you can delete this node. Duplicate. Way already exists https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/96026787 |
| 24036473 by Estrada92 @ 2014-07-08 23:45 | 1 | 2014-11-10 16:32 | j03lar50n | How do you know this https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/200341595 is content=water ? |