| Changeset | # | ⏱️ Last updated | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 183379012 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2026-05-30 00:51 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | CAM-Gerlach ♦264 | I guess I must have forgotten to mention in the report that I already manually removed the remaining SEO spam tags for their changesets, so it seems I ended up wasting both of our times here without anything to show for it. Oh well--lesson learned for the future. |
| 183006413 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2026-05-22 06:42 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | Fizzie-DWG | Previous CS also redacted |
| 142995346 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2023-10-23 02:27 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | pitscheplatsch ♦6,819 | Partly reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182896368 |
| 141362761 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2023-09-17 00:31 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | stillhart ♦246 | Hi, maybe you can help me.This node was many times vandalized and reverted. But now in fact, I am pretty certain there is no supercharger in Moscow, if at all, it probably would be destination charger. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4143311990/history |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | Fizzie-DWG | Sorry, but no I can't help you at all with this. I was only across it due to a mass vandalism attack & hav eno local knowledge at all. If you're not local, maybe a Note may help? Good luck! | |
| 142995153 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2023-10-23 02:20 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | pitscheplatsch ♦6,819 | Partly reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180171064 |
| 179423294 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2026-03-06 03:40 ~ 4 months ago | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | 007Transformer ♦70 | Revert of 179417023 |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | Wildsharky ♦629 | Revert of 179416843 | |
| 174886728 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2025-11-20 01:14 ~ 7 months ago | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | Taya_S ♦2,690 | Reverted incorrect reversion. This changeset accidentally restored the vandalism.https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174891266 |
| 173957805 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2025-10-30 05:35 ~ 8 months ago | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | Warin61 ♦2,795 | Hi,Problem: Relation 2204423 (wetland is no longer closed ... needs ways along the coast? |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | Fizzie-DWG | Thanks. Am aware of that but need help trying to sort out the various MPs that are tied to each other? | |
| 3 | ~ 8 months ago | Fizzie-DWG | I think that's now fixed? Could you please check & confirm? (Don't worry about the alignment - that's the next job!) | |
| 4 | ~ 7 months ago | pepsi_max2k ♦13 | Noticed the changes to Shoal Bay Recycling Centre are inaccurate too - I physically mapped out the trails and borders on foot a year ago and some have now been reverted to incorrect areas. I'll try and put them back from memory as it's only minor stuff. | |
| 174457238 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2025-11-10 11:06 ~ 8 months ago | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | pepsi_max2k ♦13 | Is the new military area correct? Now covers various public roads / businesses / cemetery / open land / trails that, as of a year ago, were very much not restricted (eg. Border ran north from eastern edge of micket shooting complex, designated by fence and signs along track). Unless they’ve ta... |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | pepsi_max2k ♦13 | This is the beat map of the robertson area from earlier this year. aA few differences. https://www.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-05/Robertson-Barracks-2025-Ongoing-Monitoring-Plan.pdf | |
| 3 | ~ 7 months ago | Fizzie-DWG | I think so? Worked off https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4210582, discussions with a local mapper, & also comments I saw from teh Micket Creek Shooting Complex that said that their danger area extends into Defence ground to their immediate north. | |
| 4 | ~ 7 months ago | pepsi_max2k ♦13 | Re shoal bay I’ll stick this back up to litchfield boundry but not sure this is correct. Micket Creek probably mean north east, and I jogged the boundry last year and the fencing / signage to restrict access to defence land is along the eastern edge (where the area was originally mapped), but ... | |
| 173912396 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2025-10-29 06:07 ~ 8 months ago | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | pepsi_max2k ♦13 | As with Shoal Bay area, where's the source for this change? Official DoD maps (produced by Tera Tech Coffey, Feb 2025, https://www.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-05/Robertson-Barracks-2025-Ongoing-Monitoring-Plan.pdf ) show area matching local knowledge (roads and various amenities are... |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | Fizzie-DWG | Started from a DWG issue concerning land use in Holtze area that mentioned Defence land immediately to their north, together with https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4210847 & aerial imagery showing firing ranges etc | |
| 3 | ~ 7 months ago | Fizzie-DWG | & sorry to be a pain, but AFAIK we don't have approval to copy Defence maps as they are all copyright. | |
| 4 | ~ 7 months ago | pepsi_max2k ♦13 | Thanks. Re. Robertson, the area I’ve put in is the correct area afaik, i last jogged around the area a year ago. Area matches the fenced and signposted area on the ground, and current osm sat images of fencing / boundry roads. Theyve always owned land to right so nothing new if there’s c... | |
| 174313786 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2025-11-07 02:26 ~ 8 months ago | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | aharvey ♦1,953 | I see you added a new address for 11 Burrendong Pl at https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13286395669/history but it already exists at https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7066252214.I don't believe we should duplicate it as that leads to ambiguity and it's best to place it at the residen... |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | aharvey ♦1,953 | 2. I'm not sure how you can tell the surface=paved, at least for me looking at the imagery it's not clear and there's no street level imagery here. I think best to leave off the surface until it can be surveyed on the ground. | |
| 3 | ~ 8 months ago | aharvey ♦1,953 | 3. You've changed the geometry of the driveway, in a way that no longer matches the aerial imagery, you've moved it to run through trees and garages, apparently based on the Land Parcels alone. | |
| 4 | ~ 8 months ago | aharvey ♦1,953 | 4. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1445927361/history "abandoned:" is best suited where there's evidence that it was once a driveway which is now no longer used. If you simply want to make it clear to future mappers that this is no a driveway since they might assume that from the lo... | |
| 5 | ~ 8 months ago | aharvey ♦1,953 | I've fixed 1, 2 and 3. I've left 4 since I checked the historical 1982 imagery which shows it's possible there was once a driveway there, but still in general "not:" would be better when just trying to indicate this to other mappers. | |
| 166953369 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2025-05-30 06:02 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | B252697 ♦52 | Hi Fizzie-DWG,Speaking as a resident in Singapore and from my own personal knowledge of Singapore HDB estates, I find it quite surprising and unusual that there would be a high number and concentration of bicycle rental points in the Hougang HDB estates, specifically Hougang Spring and Angsana ... |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | Fizzie-DWG | Thank you for your comments. Virtually all of their edits have already been reverted, but some couldn't be, usually as changes had already been made to some details. All I can suggest is that if find incorrect items still mapped, then please correct them. | |
| 3 | ~ 8 months ago | B252697 ♦52 | Dear Fizzie-DWG,Thanks for the update, and for looking into the edits!Given a history of mass imports by user DeepScanBot for that area, would appreciate if other users and members of the OSM community who are familiar with Hougang can help check and rectify any errors that might still be th... | |
| 173656608 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2025-10-23 06:04 ~ 8 months ago | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | dankarran ♦113 | Glad to see this as a number of their questionable edits affected the Isle of Man. Thanks! |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | dmjab13 ♦113 | why is this changeset so wide... | |
| 3 | ~ 8 months ago | fortera_au ♦1,556 | @dmjab13, it's a revert of a number of changesets, these changesets often end up large just because it's quite time consuming to break them down geographically, or because one of the original changesets is large. | |
| 4 | ~ 8 months ago | Fizzie-DWG | @dmjab13, as Fortera said & as by my CC, it's part of reverting the work of a sockpuppet vandal, doing poor quality mapping, using unknown sources, worldwide. Attempting to reduce things to small geographic areas is unfortunately just not feasible with the existing tools at our disposal. | |
| 5 | ~ 8 months ago | Fizzie-DWG | @dankarran Thanks! If you ever notice this sort of thing happening, please report it ASAP! | |
| 171293258 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2025-09-01 02:46 ~ 10 months ago | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | dmjab13 ♦113 | try and keep edits to one country or region! |
| 171002446 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2025-08-26 00:53 ~ 10 months ago | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | LachlanTansey2009 ♦41 | How was the relation invalid? |
| 168425179 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2025-07-03 05:02 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | Snusmumriken ♦160 | Could you explain in more detail the reason behind this revert?For example, this node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1255318511/you removed the cuisine tag, that was easily deduced from the name tag. Here https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12881012501you deleted a store that exist... |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | somehundred ♦116 | The two shops, Lotte's papery and Stag, that you deleted in Riga exist in real life and they can be seen in Mapillary. Lotte's papery even had their website linked in tags. These reverts did damage to correct and valid data. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 year ago | Fizzie-DWG | I have no doubt that they are, but the person who mapped them has used an unknown source, & also done things like make ~150 edits on one cafe in Taiwan, but without actually changing anything? Please feel free to add any details that you are personally aware of! | |
| 168424850 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2025-07-03 04:52 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | somehundred ♦116 | The two shops that you deleted in Riga are real, actual places. I have walked past Oshii asian mart a few times. The node added by this user was off by few meters so I had moved it to right location. You can Google both of these places and you will find lots of proof that they exist, there's pl... |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | Fizzie-DWG | I have no doubt that they are, but the person who mapped them has used an unknown source, & also done things like make ~150 edits on one cafe in Taiwan, but without actually changing anything? Please feel free to add any details that you are personally aware of! | |
| 164876633 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2025-04-13 01:13 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | Javierpf ♦107 | Thank you for contributing :-). Your changeset crosses many regions.In the future, please retain your changeset as smaller (local). Let reviewers and other mappers check your edit more easily. It's impossible (almost) to keep track of the database and changes if changes in huge areas.So I k... |
| 164877285 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2025-04-13 02:10 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | JSR1781 ♦7 | Why place one in south america and taiwan, your gonna span the whole earth! --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164877285 |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | Fizzie-DWG | Unfortunately, when you are fixing incorrect worldwide mapping, there's always going to be side-effects :-( | |
| 165095601 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2025-04-18 04:51 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | Maplev ♦17 | To whoever is running this bot: could you please, perhaps, revert changes in smaller chunks, instead of creating bounding boxes that cover half the goddamn globe? It makes it harder to track actual changes in my local area. |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | Fizzie-DWG | Sorry, but some of what we've been doing does exactly that! :-( e.g. a CS with 1 edit in Egypt & another in Argentina, a different one spanning US > India. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 year ago | Nater Kane ♦11 | +1 to @Maplev's comment from yesterday. These reversions make it impossible to example the history of an area that I'm working on. So when edits I make disappear it's functionally anonymous and horrible for everyone else. | |
| 4 | ~ 1 year ago | MaciekMma ♦74 | Yep, due to vandalism, some OSM features turn out to be useless.But it could still be done. A changeset could be virtually divided into smaller bboxes that are logically related to each other. When? Whenever it exceeds a certain size threshold. | |
| 5 | ~ 1 year ago | MxxCon ♦3,557 | The new Osmcha is much better at handling global bounding boxes, you folks might consider using that for reviews👍🙂 --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/165095601 | |
| 6 | ~ 1 year ago | Fizzie-DWG | Quite possibly, but when the CS we are reverting bounce all over the planet: South America > Europe > East Asia > Central America > Africa, there's no real way of restricting the area, unless we only revert one at a time? & seeing that this batch was ~10000, that would take a lo... | |
| 7 | ~ 1 year ago | Nater Kane ♦11 | So creating a different problem by trying to solve the first problem isn't really a solution to the first problem then is it?These mass reversions are vandalizing the history/changesets for everyone who's made legitimate updates across close to half of the entire planet. | |
| 164190605 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2025-03-28 04:22 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | greyim ♦22 | Hi I wonder were any streams in Tasmania reverted I notice many gone since last looked end Feb25cheers Graham Alex TAS |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | Fizzie-DWG | Hi Graham. By "streams" do you mean creeks? If so, then probably not by this revert, as everything here was power related. | |
| 164656046 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2025-04-07 23:47 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | Spaghetti Monster🍝 ♦2,170 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/saraswathi89 appears to be related to this organized mapping effort. |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | Fizzie-DWG | Certainly does! Thanks! | |
| 3 | ~ 1 year ago | Spaghetti Monster🍝 ♦2,170 | Another onehttps://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Reddi%20chandu%20boda | |
| 163671335 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2025-03-15 23:56 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | iandees ♦1,395 | What is an "OEG Import"? |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | GeeMaps! ♦41 | Organised Editing Group doing an Import | |
| 3 | ~ 1 year ago | iandees ♦1,395 | Gotcha. | |
| 4 | ~ 1 year ago | Fizzie-DWG | I'll modify the comment a bit for the rest of them still to do! :-) | |
| 161437180 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2025-01-16 23:15 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | GOD84 ♦9 | Unlock |
| 161474983 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2025-01-18 00:10 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | GOD84 ♦9 | Unlock |
| 162591054 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2025-02-16 23:43 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | Flynn Marquardt ♦54 | Hello,after this change the borders of Italy, Slovenia and others are borken, look here:1.) https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/218657#map=19/46.523038/13.7145042.) https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/218657#map=16/46.20854/13.42627Can you please fix or revert this? |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | Fizzie-DWG | Unfortunately, reverting vandalism often results in creating errors :-( Now apparently fixed though. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 year ago | Flynn Marquardt ♦54 | If editing administrative borders it is always a good idea to verify your work in JOSM! That's what I always do: if JOSM still shows errors I do not upload. | |
| 162336919 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2025-02-10 06:13 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | LordGarySugar ♦332 | Can you revert all the changesets made by this user? The deletions took place over a number of changesets and cover a much wider area |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | Fizzie-DWG | When I looked at their other CS it appears that they've already deleted everything else they did? If you spot anything still outstanding, could you please PM me with the details? Thanks! | |
| 3 | ~ 1 year ago | SD Mapman ♦86 | There's some other stuff I saw in the area while doing township stuff, think I can salvage it. My family homesteaded in Spink County so I kind of know the area. | |
| 4 | ~ 1 year ago | Fizzie-DWG | Thanks! | |
| 5 | ~ 1 year ago | SD Mapman ♦86 | So this user is back at it again, and is making some rather odd edits (3-mile-long bridges, rural county roads as highway=track). I've commented on the changesets but have not received a response. There's additionally a jaxman005 account that was created to avoid the earlier block I think. | |
| 162556382 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2025-02-16 01:31 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | SomeoneElse_Revert ♦72,718 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 162556509 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious edits around LA (and a partial revert). See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17237 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17238 |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | SomeoneElse_Revert ♦72,718 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 162556567 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious edits around LA (and a partial revert). See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17237 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17238 | |
| 156377022 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2024-09-09 05:10 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | Tech Dec ♦44 | Thanks for resolving this one Fizzie. |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | GeeMaps! ♦41 | Not a prob! | |
| 133538803 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2023-03-11 02:46 ~ 3 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | b0ssi ♦19 | Hi @Fizzie41,out of interest, what was your reasoning behind marking these paths as bridges instead of keeping them grounded footways? |
| 2 | ~ 2 years ago | GeeMaps! ♦41 | Hi b0ssi. I've listed the source as OSM Notes, so it would have been from clearing a note that said that they are suspended or similar. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 years ago | b0ssi ♦19 | Hi GeeMaps!,The change was made by Fizzie41 if I look at the history but I can't see your username in the history of these ways, what am I missing?Ah yes, that makes sense if you worked off of that information, I was presuming that to be the cause. Technically not wrong but the entire p... | |
| 4 | ~ 1 year ago | Fizzie-DWG | Sorry to take so long to get back to you! Other comment was made using secondary user name, so I don't blame you for being confused. I was only working on aerial imagery & a vague memory of being there a number of years ago, so as you obviously have local knowledge, please feel free to edit... | |
| 5 | ~ 1 year ago | b0ssi ♦19 | Thanks for the clarification, Fizzie41, I've dropped the "bridge" properties from the path alongside the promenade and pier. | |
| 141138196 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2023-09-12 00:59 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | Taya_S ♦2,690 | Hey, I noticed that someone reverted a bunch of deleted POI's. All of those POI's were deleted by you due to vandalism. Most of those POI's completely changed (ex: a fake town was restored and turned in to a fitness centre). Not sure whats going on here, but you might want to look i... |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | Fizzie-DWG | Thanks. Yeah, it's strange? I've asked them what they're doing? | |
| 153351828 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2024-06-30 00:36 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | Warin61 ♦2,795 | Hi,Not certain what is going on... but there are a number of issues with both the coast line and the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area relation 10156269 - self crossing ways e.g. Way: 20670282 and relation not closed. Is this a reverter fault??? |
| 2 | ~ 2 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Yeah, it could be, sorry, Warin? We had to delete a heap of beach names that had been imported from a bad source & that may have damaged things? | |
| 3 | ~ 2 years ago | Warin61 ♦2,795 | Ok .. I hjave locally reverted this changeset .. and that looks like it confirms that this changeset is the cause of the issue.. I have fixed up 2 problems down in Vic. that may also be caused by these reversions. Is the name of the beaches the only issue? Might be better off using a differen... | |
| 4 | ~ 2 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Thanks for fixing them, Warin. Yep, beach names were the issue. PM also sent. | |
| 5 | ~ 2 years ago | nevw ♦2,260 | Hi, I have begun repairing the osmi areas along the Qld coast following the beach revert. | |
| 6 | ~ 2 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Thanks, Nev. | |
| 7 | ~ 2 years ago | nevw ♦2,260 | Qld coast repairs now complete. | |
| 8 | ~ 2 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Awesome! | |
| 147114179 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2024-02-06 00:40 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | DavidFactChex Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. |
| 2 | ~ 2 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | If I remember correctly, when the CS that created a number of fictitious roads, & also incorrectly extended other valid roads, was reverted, it deleted the good roads as well, so I had to remap them. & that source is my way of saying that it refers to a problem that has been raised to the Da... | |
| 152927191 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2024-06-20 06:54 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | My apologies - typo when entering a CS number :-( |
| 152927109 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2024-06-20 06:52 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Incorrectly reverted than correctedhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/152927191 |
| 141362331 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2023-09-17 00:03 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | BodhidharmaI ♦20 | Fizzie41, why did your revert omit name:ru tags which were present in the latest revisions before vandalism? |
| 142746020 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2023-10-18 06:54 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | Mateusz Konieczny ♦10,064 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/759955556surface=bark? I expect it to be woodchips made out of bark. Maybe it should be tagged surface=woodchips, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:surface%3Dwoodchips(with optional woodchips=bark)maybe if surface=bark is valid and should not b... |
| 147839878 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2024-02-24 02:30 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | Theo J Fagundes ♦4 | Erro entrou em Estado Unico |
| 115143479 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2021-12-20 01:01 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | Yunan973 ♦132 | Hi,Why did you create the relation 13569827 : a relation with only one member seems useless, no ? Did you forget to add some other members ?Best regards |
| 2 | ~ 2 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | No, it's just that I hadn't yet (& still haven't!) mapped more of the "collection". There are about 15 of these spread out all over the GC. | |
| 147114294 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2024-02-06 00:48 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | blackboxlogic ♦459 | In case the original editor sees this. These names would be great in a "name:aaq" tag to specify the language. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/147114294 |
| 147038841 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2024-02-04 01:24 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | Kovoschiz ♦2,953 | Hi Fizz thx for this first. I didn't change it as the situation is complicated here. This service does everything for the government aside from rescue and medical, including law enforcement, firefighting, surveying, VIP transport, weather, and construction. So I simply used `=air` and not even ... |
| 2 | ~ 2 years ago | GeeMaps! ♦41 | Yeah, I looked at it myself & thought Ugh! Considered possibly even ditching emergency altogether & just leaving it as government office, but thought that as it's on an airfield, aircraft probably operate from it? | |
| 143094623 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2023-10-25 05:23 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | Maloss34 ♦8 | ho visto che hai modificato da city a town sull'etichetta place. Evidentemente hai considerato solo il numero di abitanti che NON è l'unico elemento da prendere in considerazione per classificare la città. Questo in base alle istruzioni le quali avvertono che "Per centro... |
| 2 | ~ 2 years ago | ivanbranco ♦2,915 | Ciao Maloss34, Fizzie41 ha semplicemente revertato le modifiche di un utente pluri-bloccato (quando leggi "DWG" vuol dire "Data Working Group", il gruppo che tra le altre cose gestisce le accuse di vandalismo con blocchi e/o revert). Dal momento che non é sempre possibile ... | |
| 3 | ~ 2 years ago | Maloss34 ♦8 | OK grazie procedo. Colgo l'occasione per informarvi che è in programma un azione volta all'identificazione di molti dei sentieri del Comune di Ascoli Piceno (strade forestali, sentieri ecc.) nell'ambito del progetto ATA Ascoli Trail Area patrocinato dal Comune di Ascoli Picen... | |
| 4 | ~ 2 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Mi scuso per non aver risposto prima e ringrazio Ivan per la sua spiegazione! Per quanto riguarda la mappatura dei sentieri proposta, si prega di controllare sia https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing che https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines. Grazie!________________... | |
| 5 | ~ 2 years ago | Maloss34 ♦8 | Si certo conoscevo le dinamiche e ad ogni inserimento (nomi dei sentieri) sarà richiesta, per evitare fraintendimenti, il controllo sui dati inseriti al fine di giungere alla corretta mappatura. E' interesse di tutti. Grazie | |
| 6 | ~ 2 years ago | Maloss34 ♦8 | ciao, hanno nuovamente modificato da city a town considerando solo il valore quantitativo degli abitanti che secondo le linee guida non dimostra l'importanza della città https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/IT:Key:place per tali ragioni ho contattato l'autore per esortarlo a correg... | |
| 145454235 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2023-12-24 00:28 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Done to test how marking GC Hwy as construction area during GC Light Rail building will work? |
| 145353858 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2023-12-21 03:31 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | Mateusz Konieczny ♦10,064 | Note that it is not reverting edit that added them, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10153825297/history(also, there was contact attempt in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/128584200 ) |
| 2 | ~ 2 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Thanks, that one now also reverted: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/145391334 | |
| 144460639 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2023-11-26 05:49 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Other CS redacted by error when personal info was removed |
| 144076115 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2023-11-16 03:26 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | citrula ♦997 | Is the trail actually abandoned? |
| 2 | ~ 2 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | According to the property owner, there is no actual trail there, but people just cut through their private property. This then creates a very distinct track on Strava, which then leads other people to follow it! Hopefully, this will stop it. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 years ago | citrula ♦997 | If you look at MassGIS 2021 imagery and 3DEP there is definitely a trail there. I don't think it's a good idea to use abandoned tag in this way when the trail is definitely still present. access=no or access=private on the trail should be sufficient. Almost all trails-oriented data consume... | |
| 4 | ~ 2 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Where are you seeing the path, thanks? I can see what may be a loop off the rail-trail to the North, which I believe may be public land? But I can't see anything off Pine St, or between the houses (48-76 Upland Rd) & the river, which is the private property in question? | |
| 5 | ~ 2 years ago | citrula ♦997 | Yes, you are right about it only being visible on aerial in the north part due to tree cover. However, using 3DEP layer you can pretty clearly see that the trail continues.https://imgur.com/a/ZCg82R6For clarity, I have no problem with the trail having restrictive access tags as the landowner r... | |
| 6 | ~ 2 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | OK! I thought that may have just been part of the riverbank? No, you're right in that as long as there is something there, that should be sufficient. | |
| 7 | ~ 2 years ago | TomPar ♦124 | The town recently acquired land just NNE and designated conservation land. See here: https://www.concordland.org/project/the-campaign-for-assabet-river-bluff/This page, by the very well-respected local land trust, speaks of "A network of well-used neighborhood trails traverses the site and... | |
| 8 | ~ 2 years ago | TomPar ♦124 | I walked this path today. There is a clear path. There are no "no trespassing" signs. There are no barriers. There are actually built steps, out of masonry blocks, from Pine Street to the trail.https://i.postimg.cc/50kRtPFs/IMG-8720.jpgIf I didn't know about this thread, I... | |
| 9 | ~ 2 years ago | citrula ♦997 | Thank you for going out and surveying. I don't think that the DWG ticket/reference is publicly visible, so I will write the part that I know. I escalated to DWG after they had made numerous edits without responding or acknowledging my comment or those left by other people, and deleting the trai... | |
| 10 | ~ 2 years ago | TomPar ♦124 | FYI this newly created wiki page is a helpful reference for future cases like this:https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F | |
| 11 | ~ 2 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Tom, thank you very much for all of that! It was put to me "somewhat" differently, so I guess that one of the neighbours may not be so enthusiastic about the project! The idea of having a public pathway crossing private property does bother me somewhat though? | |
| 12 | ~ 2 years ago | TomPar ♦124 | You're welcome. I'm not a lawyer but my understanding of trespass laws in Massachusetts is for unimproved and non-enclosed land, notice must be posted: a "no trespassing" sign, etc.Regardless, this path clearly exists. So it should at least be mapped with some kind of acces... | |
| 13 | ~ 2 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Thanks again! I've now updated it via changeset #: 144228329 to a permissive, informal walkway. | |
| 14 | ~ 2 years ago | citrula ♦997 | Our friend is back and has deleted the trail and stairs which are outside of the "Assabet River Bluff" area! | |
| 15 | ~ 2 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Reverted! | |
| 143091238 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2023-10-25 02:54 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | zstadler ♦1,137 | I believe this changeset is corrupt.It moved the marina and the breakwater westward, into the sea.It can be seen in in the editorhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=id&#map=16/32.1625/34.7935I suggest there will more repairs in parallel with the repair bot launched by SomeoneEl... |
| 2 | ~ 2 years ago | zstadler ♦1,137 | My suggestion is also to delay the repair of this changeset. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 years ago | SomeoneElse ♦13,824 | @zstadler can you link to actual objects that have been reverted to incorrect values? | |
| 4 | ~ 2 years ago | zstadler ♦1,137 | For example, https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1033293880/historywas at location 32.1601065, 34.7915587 prior to the vandalism (version 3).It is in location 32.1611790, 34.7846907 after this changeset (version 12).I also do not understand why would there be new (version 1) nodes in a rev... | |
| 5 | ~ 2 years ago | zstadler ♦1,137 | Another example:https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/26508703/history had 13 nodes prior to the vandalism (version 8).It has 12 nodes after this changeset (version 13). | |
| 6 | ~ 2 years ago | SomeoneElse ♦13,824 | @zstadler The 13 nodes to 12 is as a result of a manual tidying exercise (this changeset). What is incorrect about https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/26508703/history now? | |
| 7 | ~ 2 years ago | zstadler ♦1,137 | IMHO, reverts should be separated from edits so we could compare their outcome with the expected pre-vandalism state of the map.@SomeoneElse, Do you mean that this changeset is not a DWG revert!? | |
| 8 | ~ 2 years ago | SomeoneElse ♦13,824 | No, this changeset _is_ by someone from the DWG trying to manually repair the data. | |
| 9 | ~ 2 years ago | zstadler ♦1,137 | What should be done with this changeset? | |
| 10 | ~ 2 years ago | SomeoneElse ♦13,824 | With this changeset right now, nothing. When we come to review the objects that were initially deleted and edited we (or the community) will need to do that on an object by object basis, not a changeset by changeset one. | |
| 11 | ~ 2 years ago | SomeoneElse ♦13,824 | (for the benefit of anyone stumbling on this changeset) further discussion is at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/vandalism-and-blocks-in-israel/105176 . | |
| 143047060 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2023-10-24 05:31 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | augxcgrwxo ♦59 | this revert does not seem to work well, there are streets going into the sea |
| 2 | ~ 2 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Thanks for pointing it out. Problem was caused by multiple reverts being done at the same time, but should now hopefully be fixed. | |
| 143049662 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2023-10-24 07:01 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | zstadler ♦1,137 | Hello Fizzie41,A major revert of the recent vandalism is still on-going.Please avoid fixing things in parallel as this could further damage the revert efforts.You can follow the situation on the community channelhttps://community.openstreetmap.org/t/vandalism-and-blocks-in-israel/10517... |
| 2 | ~ 2 years ago | SomeoneElse ♦13,824 | Hi,Fizzie41's from the DWG as well and we've discussed internally what we can do in parallel Regards,Andy | |
| 3 | ~ 2 years ago | zstadler ♦1,137 | Thanks! | |
| 4 | ~ 2 years ago | zstadler ♦1,137 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/143091238 | |
| 143045986 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2023-10-24 04:29 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | Реdактор ♦24 | Исправляй! |
| 143043383 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2023-10-24 01:54 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | Реdактор ♦24 | DWG revert |
| 143046007 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2023-10-24 04:30 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | Реdактор ♦24 | Зачем отменять |
| 142943813 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2023-10-21 23:55 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | vng_me ♦147 | Unfortunately, revert is not complete. There are still a lot of mess like way id=97503875 |
| 2 | ~ 2 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Thanks or spotting it! Unfortunately, that's been caused by data getting corrupted during the vandalism & reversion process. Leave it with us & we'll try to sort it out, but doing so may also mean a loss of some information :-( | |
| 3 | ~ 2 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Workign on fixing it but will be very slow as data massively corrupted, so cannot be reverted as such | |
| 142998845 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2023-10-23 05:28 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | ☆Finvenkulo ♦92 | Używanie klucza wikipedia= wg wiki: / Using of key wikipedia= according to wiki:https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Key:wikipedia„…który powinien być napisany w języku ojczystym tagowanego obiektu…”https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:wikipedia&q... |
| 142943722 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2023-10-21 23:50 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | mmd ♦48 | It seems this changeset has reverted back to a version, which has been vandalized by another user. Example would be https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/358530861/history : revert brought back #10. However, #9 would be a good version in this case. Maybe this is already being taken care of right now. |
| 142548318 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2023-10-13 21:40 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | SomeoneElse ♦13,824 | Thanks |
| 142459556 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2023-10-12 04:36 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | Mateusz Konieczny ♦10,064 | Thanks for processing that notes!(and if you would prefer this format: I can generate list of shops with suspect and unusual values across Australia or its part and share it with you) |
| 2 | ~ 2 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | PM sent. | |
| 142168920 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2023-10-05 02:44 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Fix incorrect reversionhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142251971 |
| 141971602 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2023-10-01 01:39 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | willkmis ♦218 | If you don't mind me asking, why was this reverted? Other than being huge, from a quick perusal, the original changeset looks like it mostly made worthwhile changes, and I think this revert has significantly lowered the map quality in the areas it touched.Best,Will |
| 2 | ~ 2 years ago | willkmis ♦218 | For instance, this revert has deleted existing crosswalks (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1198901851), removed new buildings (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1198917796), and restored demolished ones (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/427818140), problems which, frankly given the number of loca... | |
| 3 | ~ 2 years ago | willkmis ♦218 | Perusing other changesets by this mapper, they look like they've added a number of other buildings that appear to exist from aerial imagery, but based on one somewhat rude interaction resulting from slightly out of date imagery in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140611357, you've r... | |
| 4 | ~ 2 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Yes, unfortunately, quite a bit of it was good, but it was still an undiscussed import from an unknown source. I attempted to get details from the mapper concerned but they refused so we were left with no option :-( Other of their CS were left as they stated they had used MS Building Footprints etc.... | |
| 5 | ~ 2 years ago | willkmis ♦218 | This particular changeset lists Bing as a source. And from the edit pattern, it doesn't look like an import to me: they've added stop signs, parking=surface tags on existing lots, crosswalks, and marked torn down buildings. What makes you think it is an import, and from where could it poss... | |
| 6 | ~ 2 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Sorry, went through too much with this mapper to be certain, but I think they were also adding names to businesses, which is a bit hard to do from Bing! & multiple 10000 edit CS doesn't really seem to = new mapper uncertain of what they're doing. | |
| 141367301 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2023-09-17 06:12 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | gscholz ♦2,947 | Hithis changeset has created a mess of self intersecting lines:https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=141367301Can you please fix this?Kind regardsGuido |
| 2 | ~ 2 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Hi Guido. Wow! Absolutely no idea how that happened? I will fix it, but please leave it for a little while so we can try to figure out what went wrong? Thanks! | |
| 3 | ~ 2 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Thanks for spotting that, Guido. Apparently caused by some sort of weird Overpass / API hiccup while doing the mass reversion, possibly linked to reverting multiple changes? | |
| 141009111 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2023-09-09 04:23 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | Mappin' Jack Flash ♦267 | Arigatou gozaimasu!(= Thank you so much!) |
| 140570003 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2023-08-30 06:00 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | SekeRob ♦1,512 | Hi,Please be aware of this revert made by a now deleted account.https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140693054 |
| 140566268 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2023-08-30 02:57 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | ivanbranco ♦2,915 | Hi Fizzie41,I don't know if someone reported it already but apparently someone reverted your revert and then deleted their account, e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140692285 |
| 2 | ~ 2 years ago | ivanbranco ♦2,915 | Probably a sockpuppet of https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/meowscle6969 | |
| 3 | ~ 2 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Thanks, Ivan. Yes, we are across it. | |
| 140567091 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2023-08-30 03:49 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Reverted by DWG due to poor quality mappinghttps://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140567255 |
| 140436996 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2023-08-27 05:58 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | tastrax ♦1,208 | Is this actually a place or is this a personal marker for something? |
| 2 | ~ 2 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Where I'm up to mapping from viewing dash-cam footage! I know it's not "right" but I couldn't think of a better way of leaving a visible marker? | |
| 139160724 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2023-07-29 06:45 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | griffonboi ♦17 | Hi we edited this area at the same time, I made some fixes since there were a few conflicts after closing my own changeset 139161590. Just cleaned up duplicates after that, if you're happy with how it is now then don't worry |
| 2 | ~ 2 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Not a prob! Thanks! | |
| 134675031 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2023-04-09 06:18 ~ 3 years ago | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | Lindenwold Lions ♦1 | Thank you |
| 133960460 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2023-03-22 00:33 ~ 3 years ago | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | mueschel ♦7,235 | Hi,something went wrong here. All these objects now have a '@relations' and some a '@id' tag. Usually this only happens when somebody loads data to JOSM from a json file and uploads them. In that case, all the objects are duplicates of existing ones. Could you have a look an... |
| 2 | ~ 3 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | No idea what happened there? No errors came up when I did the reversion, but looking at a couple of them, Op had already deleted at least some of their changes before asking us to revert them all? | |
| 3 | ~ 3 years ago | Mateusz Konieczny ♦10,064 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1155750097/history seems restored by DWG revert that tried to delete it? Maybe just delete https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1155750097/ manually? | |
| 4 | ~ 3 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Thanks, still trying to work out the @id & @relations tags? Should they just be deleted? | |
| 5 | ~ 3 years ago | mueschel ♦7,235 | I don't know what went wrong here. I guess we should just revert this changeset. E.g. the relation you touched is now completely destroyed - it had 78 seemingly correct members before and now has 11.This way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1155750097 doesn't make any sense, it i... | |
| 6 | ~ 3 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | No, sorry, but I just tried to revert my reversion in JOSM, but it throws up errors & warnings that I just don't understand? It's a mess :-( Anybody that can sort it, please do so! | |
| 7 | ~ 3 years ago | NorthCrab ♦4,531 | This all happened most likely by some sort of bug in the revert software (which is my fault and not Fizzie41). Reverting many changesets at once is definitely a no easy task and some bugs may occur sometimes. Sorry, I will investigate this case in ETA<7 days and attempt to apply necessary correct... | |
| 8 | ~ 3 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Thanks! | |
| 9 | ~ 3 years ago | Spaghetti Monster🍝 ♦2,170 | These tags were added by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/133960460 according to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1155750097/history. The relation the tags came from https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/14608521 appears to be intact. I've removed the way. | |
| 132282300 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2023-02-09 00:15 ~ 3 years ago | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | Polarbear ♦947 | Hi Fizzie41,have you verified the speed limit? |
| 2 | ~ 3 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Working off a report to DWG, so no, nothing beyond that? | |
| 3 | ~ 3 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Note added to please confirm maxspeed | |
| 4 | ~ 3 years ago | wermak ♦135 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3558142. | |
| 133192444 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2023-03-02 00:40 ~ 3 years ago | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | Stahlmatt ♦1 | Here's your source:Buellton City Council Meeting from 1/28/21, agenda item number 7.https://www.cityofbuellton.com/files/City%20Council%20-%20Packets/01-28-21.pdf |
| 2 | ~ 3 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Umm, I'm not too sure how minutes of a Council meeting in California affect mapping of properties across the entire US? | |
| 3 | ~ 3 years ago | Stahlmatt ♦1 | It doesn't. I accidentally commented on the wrong space. | |
| 4 | ~ 3 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | LOL! :-) | |
| 132733300 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2023-02-19 00:59 ~ 3 years ago | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | Jon Snow 47 ♦55 | Thank you |
| 80059464 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2020-01-25 05:17 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | Warin61 ♦2,795 | Hi,These numbers you have added to th eend of the fire station names... they seem to be 'station numbers' and not part of the name? Possibly they would be better tagged as ref= x where x is the station number??? See https://www.fire.nsw.gov.au/station_list/ |
| 2 | ~ 3 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Hey Warin, I'm named them all a while back working of the Oz Guidelines that were agreed to at the time: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Australian_features#Emergency_Services. If you want to change that layout, you better bring it back on AU first. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 years ago | Warin61 ♦2,795 | Dam! I missed that - just went straight to the long table under it . mutter mutter... ! | |
| 131864740 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2023-01-30 06:17 ~ 3 years ago | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | Aleksandar Matejevic ♦236 | Hi, I saw that you have reverted the Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan border, but the current state is also not correct. On the changeset that you commented on before doing this, you mentioned that you should be informed if someone is trying to fix the issue. I would like to make changes to their relations as ... |
| 79365626 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2020-01-09 05:58 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | Warin61 ♦2,795 | HiMaxar has a building here now. They got a new truck donated from Flemington Markets... so I have detailed it. |
| 80010888 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2020-01-24 06:04 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | Warin61 ♦2,795 | Station does not exist ... not listed of RFS website .. and looks like building gone on Maxartagged as razed. |
| 2 | ~ 3 years ago | nevw ♦2,260 | Could this article be related to this RFS site move? I don’t think the new station is mapped yet.https://www.newsofthearea.com.au/rfs-solitary-brigade-moves-into-new-home-79214 | |
| 3 | ~ 3 years ago | Warin61 ♦2,795 | New site ? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/761615318 | |
| 4 | ~ 3 years ago | nevw ♦2,260 | Yes, that seems to be the new RFS location. | |
| 131493591 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2023-01-20 06:21 ~ 3 years ago | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | NorthCrab ♦4,531 | One thing to keep in mind is that when you see for example: revert:dmp:fail:way:id, it's always a good idea to manually verify the objects. Such fails mean that it didn't revert that object due to too heavy modifications (it's unrecognizable). Most of the time it should be fine, but i... |
| 2 | ~ 3 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Thanks. Yes, there were a few issues do the number of changes involved over multiple CS - 113000+! Made even harder by teh same item apparently being changed in different CS | |
| 116487840 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2022-01-23 05:40 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | TheSwavu ♦657 | Is this all Oracle? On their website it appears to be a hotel that operates in one of the buildings here. |
| 2 | ~ 3 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | "Oracle" covers most of the block Charles - Surf - Elizabeth, & includes two towers, which I think are both Peppers Broadbeach, but there are also low sections with shops & offices. It's a complicated mess in a tourist area that I don't usually go up to! | |
| 127940933 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2022-10-23 00:28 ~ 3 years ago | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | danieldegroot2 ♦732 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10122780329This is signed as an emergency bay. I would suggest tagging it as such.https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Demergency_bayThere's also one on the other side a bit to the left / west. |
| 118386845 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2022-03-12 05:20 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | bob3bob3 ♦60 | Hi! Regarding https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1039494686 Halfway Creek RA.Captured Mapillary imagery 23/9/22 and the service road and RA doesn't seem to exist. I note that the old Camps database has it listed as a stop. Is this planned or does traffic us the U turn bays? Have left Fixme&#... |
| 2 | ~ 3 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Thanks, Bob. Sorry, don't remember this at all but think I may have added it from a Note? Your info is up-to-date, so yep, just scrub it! | |
| 126722616 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2022-09-28 05:45 ~ 3 years ago | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Updated: Changeset: 126722574 |
| 115550187 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2021-12-30 07:18 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | Mateusz Konieczny ♦10,064 | Can you look at https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3344901 ?Can this playground surface be described as woodchips? |
| 89273825 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2020-08-12 01:39 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | Warin61 ♦2,795 | HiWhat do you mean by the tag sport=beachvolleyball;q ... in particular 'q'? |
| 2 | ~ 4 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | I probably would have been squaring the court & hit the button at the wrong moment! Fixed! | |
| 3 | ~ 4 years ago | Warin61 ♦2,795 | I wondered if you were questioning the tag... | |
| 123501164 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2022-07-12 06:22 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | georift ♦12 | Thanks, I wondered how to tag this. I kinda felt like the path had right of way? I guess roads are always the priority? |
| 2 | ~ 4 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Wouldn't say they're a priority as such, just that they're always mapped before footpaths! I've always worked on crossing=unmarked when you just have a ramp at each side of the street, & crossing=marked when there's any sort of line marking, together with =traffic_signal... | |
| 3 | ~ 4 years ago | georift ♦12 | Makes sense, thanks for the context :) | |
| 89716576 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2020-08-21 01:53 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | Warin61 ♦2,795 | I do hope you have stopped mapping leisure=pitch as more that the playing area of the sport... in this case I think the Bowls Club was better mapped as sports centre.. alternate landuse=recreation_ground. |
| 2 | ~ 4 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Thanks, but I think I only did the Club House & surrounds, as the playing greens were already mapped, which is certainly what I usually do? Note made to check in future though! | |
| 119093902 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2022-03-30 03:02 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | Diacritic ♦271 | Reverted in 119151901 - this edit based on questionable licensing status of notes from anonymous, per Discord conversation. road names appear unable to be sourced with licensed data. |
| 119093920 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2022-03-30 03:04 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | Diacritic ♦271 | Reverted in 119151901 - this edit based on questionable licensing status of notes from anonymous, per Discord conversation. road names appear unable to be sourced with licensed data. |
| 119093947 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2022-03-30 03:05 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | Diacritic ♦271 | Reverted in 119151901 - this edit based on questionable licensing status of notes from anonymous, per Discord conversation. road names appear unable to be sourced with licensed data. |
| 119094031 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2022-03-30 03:11 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | Diacritic ♦271 | Reverted in 119151901 - this edit based on questionable licensing status of notes from anonymous, per Discord conversation. road names appear unable to be sourced with licensed data. |
| 119094402 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2022-03-30 03:38 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | Diacritic ♦271 | Reverted in 119151901 - this edit based on questionable licensing status of notes from anonymous, per Discord conversation. road names appear unable to be sourced with licensed data. |
| 119094459 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2022-03-30 03:42 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | Diacritic ♦271 | Reverted in 119151901 - this edit based on questionable licensing status of notes from anonymous, per Discord conversation. road names appear unable to be sourced with licensed data. |
| 119094490 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2022-03-30 03:44 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | Diacritic ♦271 | Reverted in 119151901 - this edit based on questionable licensing status of notes from anonymous, per Discord conversation. road names appear unable to be sourced with licensed data. |
| 119094563 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2022-03-30 03:48 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | Diacritic ♦271 | Reverted in 119151901 - this edit based on questionable licensing status of notes from anonymous, per Discord conversation. road names appear unable to be sourced with licensed data. |
| 119095201 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2022-03-30 04:24 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | Diacritic ♦271 | Reverted in 119151901 - this edit based on questionable licensing status of notes from anonymous, per Discord conversation. road names appear unable to be sourced with licensed data. |
| 119095281 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2022-03-30 04:27 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | Diacritic ♦271 | Reverted in 119151901 - this edit based on questionable licensing status of notes from anonymous, per Discord conversation. road names appear unable to be sourced with licensed data. |
| 119095290 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2022-03-30 04:27 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | Diacritic ♦271 | Reverted in 119151901 - this edit based on questionable licensing status of notes from anonymous, per Discord conversation. road names appear unable to be sourced with licensed data. |
| 119095985 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2022-03-30 04:55 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | Diacritic ♦271 | Reverted in 119151901 - this edit based on questionable licensing status of notes from anonymous, per Discord conversation. road names appear unable to be sourced with licensed data. |
| 119096157 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2022-03-30 04:59 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | Diacritic ♦271 | Reverted in 119151901 - this edit based on questionable licensing status of notes from anonymous, per Discord conversation. road names appear unable to be sourced with licensed data. |
| 119096333 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2022-03-30 05:04 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | Diacritic ♦271 | Reverted in 119151901 - this edit based on questionable licensing status of notes from anonymous, per Discord conversation. road names appear unable to be sourced with licensed data. |
| 119096382 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2022-03-30 05:06 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | Diacritic ♦271 | Reverted in 119151901 - this edit based on questionable licensing status of notes from anonymous, per Discord conversation. road names appear unable to be sourced with licensed data. |
| 119096583 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2022-03-30 05:13 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | Diacritic ♦271 | Reverting this edit based on questionable licensing status of notes from anonymous, per Discord conversation. road names appear unable to be sourced with licensed data. |
| 118967668 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2022-03-27 03:36 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | Scottie0001 ♦46 | How do you know if the roads are open yet? Was a survey conducted or was other sources used? |
| 118653600 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2022-03-19 04:04 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | JoeG ♦71 | How was the location of the shops determined? Neither the note not the imagery would show this?Could you please confirm that a permitted source was used? |
| 2 | ~ 4 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | The Anaconda website has a photo that shows them at this corner of the building. I must admit that the others are just assumption on my part, but I think that getting them listed as being here is more important than saying that each business is at this spot in the building? | |
| 3 | ~ 4 years ago | JoeG ♦71 | Thanks! In future it would be good to have a mention of this either in the source field (e.g. "locations approximate") or as fixme text on the individual nodes. Otherwise closing the OSM note removes the only indication we have that the locations are actually not accurately mapped. | |
| 4 | ~ 4 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Do that for tracks, paths & so on, but never thought about doing it for shops! Thanks! | |
| 118684961 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2022-03-20 04:38 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | slice0 Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. |
| 2 | ~ 4 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Thanks! Yeah, Legoe Rd / Riverlea Blvd is a bit of a question? Location SA still has Legoe Rd running in but their map is a different layout to what's visible in Maxar, so not sure if it should be Riverlea Blvd right out to the Hwy? Also not sure what happens to Legoe Rd in between Buckland Rd ... | |
| 3 | ~ 4 years ago | slice0 Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 4 | ~ 4 years ago | slice0 Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 5 | ~ 4 years ago | slice0 Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 6 | ~ 4 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Thanks! I'll update that now. The other bit I'm not sure about is the creek / pond? On their website they've got this beautiful lake but there's only a long skinny puddle in imagery :-) Is it a creek or supposed to become a pond / lake? | |
| 7 | ~ 4 years ago | slice0 Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 117966207 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2022-03-01 05:24 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | kurisubrooks ♦60 | Hi mate. Just wanted to check why you deleted the building part of the apartments over the shop layer below, as the previous history appears to have been correct as of Feb 2021 imagery. Thanks. |
| 2 | ~ 4 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | It looks like the building has the same outline all the way around. We usually only map an additional "building part" when it's distinct from the rest of the roof e.g. a high rise tower coming up out of a flat roof | |
| 3 | ~ 4 years ago | kurisubrooks ♦60 | Hi again. Checking a third-party source for reference for the shape of the building, I believe the original building part was correct. The first floor is consistent with the building outline the whole way around, but levels 2-10 are indeed different from the base outline, which the building:part ref... | |
| 4 | ~ 4 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Not a prob! Just checking - the driveway on the north side is actually elevated? & the "cut out" facing Broughton St - does that go all the way down to ground level or is it on top of the first level? | |
| 5 | ~ 4 years ago | kurisubrooks ♦60 | From DCS and Bing, it's hard to tell but I think the road is flat (not elevated), up to where it goes into the cut out on the right-hand side (parking lot under the northern side on the ground floor), but continuing on is then a steep drop into an underground garage. From Bing imagery, I can se... | |
| 6 | ~ 4 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | That should hopefully now fix it? Thanks for your suggestions! | |
| 117867621 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2022-02-26 02:09 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | CloCkWeRX ♦344 | Ah, thanks! |
| 117869922 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2022-02-26 05:52 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | aharvey ♦1,953 | reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117869922 |
| 2 | ~ 4 years ago | aharvey ♦1,953 | per https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2941525 | |
| 117869930 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2022-02-26 05:54 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | aharvey ♦1,953 | Hey Graeme, the note was for the missing steps from the path here up to the lookout. I left a note until we can get a gps trace to map it. So I've reverted this changeset in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117870564 and will re-open the note. Mapillary also shows no steps on the cyclepa... |
| 2 | ~ 4 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Must be going too hard! I could swear I could see steps on that footpath! | |
| 117503466 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2022-02-17 06:14 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | Mateusz Konieczny ♦10,064 | Thanks! I now feel a bit silly that I have not checked imagery and just opened note |
| 116487794 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2022-01-23 05:36 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | Scottie0001 ♦46 | The "Oracle Boulevard" should not be tagged as a Tertiary road: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/216566993.Is there a reason tagging it as Tertiary? |
| 2 | ~ 4 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | It was previously tagged as a service=alley, which just doesn't seem right! Unclassified may be better, because I don't really think it's residential? | |
| 3 | ~ 4 years ago | Scottie0001 ♦46 | Yes, it's just a little awkward with a tertiary road with a max speed of 10 km/h and residential roads all around the road. | |
| 4 | ~ 4 years ago | Diacritic ♦271 | This popped up on the list of recent comments, so I had a look. If it is a shared_zone, if might be best tagged as a living_street? :) | |
| 5 | ~ 4 years ago | Scottie0001 ♦46 | By the looks from satellite, I would say it's a living_street | |
| 6 | ~ 4 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Good thought, so changed! (Living-street are not a thing I think about) We'll see how the current discussion goes & maybe change it again later? | |
| 116942364 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2022-02-03 02:32 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | stragu ♦33 | Thanks! I separated the traffic lights to the actual stopping points so it wouldn't be double-counted by routing software when coming from Beaudesert road: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116986624 |
| 2 | ~ 4 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Yep, I also much prefer having the lights on the stop line, rather than out in the middle of the intersection. | |
| 115965268 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2022-01-10 05:03 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | user_5359 ♦20,639 | Hello! Please have look on http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9406595962. What is the meaning of the tag phoneAU = 1800 603 503 ? Please use the international phone number (with country code). |
| 2 | ~ 4 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Sorry, typo - should be phone:AU, These are Australian only numbers that cannot be called from overseas: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#13.2C_1300.2C_1800_and_1900_numbers | |
| 115657685 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2022-01-02 04:29 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | Warin61 ♦2,795 | Outer way cannot share segments with an inner way. See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=153.40644&lat=-28.10141&zoom=18All yours to fix. |
| 2 | ~ 4 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Thanks! Hopefully now fixed so I'll check it tomorrow. Bit of an issue when they do actually meet though! | |
| 115408243 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2021-12-27 05:03 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | Warin61 ♦2,795 | HiThe relation for Robina Waters 6467511 is very confused. A section of water to the north of Robina Island is not part of Robina Waters yet to both the east and west those sections of water are part of Robina Waters. As an error Robina Island is mapped as an inner for Robina Waters .. yet it... |
| 2 | ~ 4 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | G'day Warin. Thanks for that! Yep, it's a mess! :-( Over time, Robina Waters Lake has been mapped in 3 seperate bits: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6467511#map=16/-28.0569/153.4127, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/45715912, & https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/45715910#... | |
| 3 | ~ 4 years ago | Warin61 ♦2,795 | Done. Place all the ways in the relation. Delete the duplicate tags on the ways.Break the ways where they overlay each other. Delete the overlaps. ----------------I have also removed landuse=forest and replaced with natural=wood. | |
| 4 | ~ 4 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Thanks, mate! | |
| 113466072 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2021-11-07 02:42 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | radiotrefoil ♦124 | Hi, just wanted your opinion on way/999030026, I realise that on the wiki page for club=cadet it says not to tag the grounds as landuse=military; do you think this is accurate assuming that this lot is administered by the ADF? If you think it's inappropriate then I think this way should be dele... |
| 2 | ~ 4 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Thanks! Is the Cadet block of ground actually inside the Base? From overhead imagery, it would appear that RAAF Glenbrook is across the other side of Knapsack Street? Are you local to there & able to have a look at ground level to see where the fences are? Yes, we could take the area "way&q... | |
| 3 | ~ 4 years ago | radiotrefoil ♦124 | Hi, yes the public road separates the cadets club grounds from the RAAF base. I think I'll just delete that area way. Cheers and good work on the wiki by the way. | |
| 4 | ~ 4 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Thanks! :-) | |
| 111709037 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2021-09-26 06:51 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | Warin61 ♦2,795 | The relation 13263246 for Bilinga Beach has several problems:Shared segments in outer ways - see https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=153.50362&lat=-28.15080&zoom=18More than one object is tagged: landcover and natural - either one or the other. The name .. one of th... |
| 2 | ~ 4 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Thanks for spotting that. I've deleted the relation for beach outer, but can't find where it's tagged as both landcover & natural, or duplicate names? | |
| 101014956 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2021-03-15 03:08 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | aharvey ♦1,953 | I added access=private to indicate they aren't accessible to the general public. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/101014956 |
| 2 | ~ 5 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Thanks Andrew! I was wondering if they (& everything else) needed it as the whole area of the Base is already "Private"? | |
| 3 | ~ 5 years ago | aharvey ♦1,953 | I see what you mean, but I don't think it's harmful to mark everything inside as private too, just avoids uncertainty and makes it easier for data consumers. | |
| 4 | ~ 5 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | OK. Lot's more changes to make then! | |
| 79824513 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2020-01-21 02:25 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | ortho_is_hot ♦252 | G'day Fizzie41,Just letting you know I've moved (what appears to be) an accidentally moved node in changeset #79962124 as part of 2 roads.Cheers,ortho_is_hot |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Thanks, ortho. Don't remember doing anything around there that would have affected the road, so must have been a click in error? Fizzie | |
| 3 | ~ 5 years ago | ScottWalkerAU ♦166 | Hi, I fixed a power pole you accidentally moved in changeset #92332364 | |
| 4 | ~ 5 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Thanks! I was obviously not concentrating that day! :-( | |
| 82137751 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2020-03-13 03:12 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | CloCkWeRX ♦344 | Nice work! I might do a pass over the buildings you've done for solar |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Thanks! There were quite a few with solar, but I wasn't worrying about that, just the buildings themselves, water tanks, reservoirs & other things that caught my eye at the time! | |
| 80000000 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2020-01-23 23:33 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | southglos ♦122 | Congratulations on getting changeset number 80000000 :-) |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Wow! Hadn't even noticed! Thanks :-) | |
| 3 | ~ 6 years ago | Pieter Vander Vennet ♦469 | Congratulations. You are the 80 millionth editor today! Click [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ) to claim your prize! | |
| 4 | ~ 6 years ago | TheSwavu ♦657 | Hey, I've got 2008 on the phone here. They want their meme back. | |
| 80012078 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2020-01-24 06:26 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | TheSwavu ♦657 | Brigade got a new tanker in June 2019, so let's assume it's still operational. https://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/104652/190628-Castlereagh-Zone-station-opening,-tanker-handovers-and-medals.pdf |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Yeah, saw that, but I can't see anything else that says it's actually still operational? It's not marked on the LPI Base map & I can't find any other reference on the RFS site. The only other mention I can find of it is an interview with the Captain in 2017? | |
| 3 | ~ 6 years ago | TheSwavu ♦657 | The problem is that there is no definitive list of RFBs. The RFS website says that there are 2002 brigades in NSW but the LPI Base Map only has 1697 POI's and these include the ACT and things like training centres and regional control centres. The EMSINA list has less again; 1567. So there is ... | |
| 4 | ~ 6 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Valid points, all of them! I have raised the discrepancy in numbers on the AU mailing list but no real response. I'm not in NSW, but was always under the impression that the LPI Map was the Bible? | |
| 5 | ~ 6 years ago | TheSwavu ♦657 | It's pretty good, but it does have errors in it. | |
| 80057464 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2020-01-25 02:37 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | TheSwavu ♦657 | Is this actually a fire station? It's a training facility, so I don't think there is a brigade based here. |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | HI Swavu. Must admit I wasn't certain about this, Happy to take out the actual fire station tag if you think that's better? Thanks | |
| 80087379 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2020-01-26 01:47 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | camelCaseNick ♦174 | Hey,you have used a source tag here. The value suggest, you have used Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia has a CC-BY-SA license, one cannot just it as a source.CamelCaseNick |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Sorry, must have got mixed up! Was working off the LPI Base Map, but also reading wiki & the RFS site. | |
| 3 | ~ 6 years ago | camelCaseNick ♦174 | Okay, thanks. And I have removed the second Q in the wikidata id there. Just, to let you know, if you use JOSM's auto completion. | |
| 79778015 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2020-01-20 06:07 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | mueschel ♦7,235 | Please watch out for the correct spelling of keys. It's 'phone:AU' instead of 'phoneAU' and 'branch' instead of 'ranch'. I just fixed a few dozen of these. |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Ooops! Thanks - could have sworn I included the : on the Master, but obviously didn't. Branch is spelt OK though so not sure what's gone on there? Where did you find these? Did they report on the phone number formatting error? I'll go back over the last couple of days & check them... | |
| 3 | ~ 6 years ago | mueschel ♦7,235 | Currently there are no 'phoneAU' left:http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/PWxThe branch thing seemed to a be one-time issue.Thanks for taking care! | |
| 4 | ~ 6 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | & thanks for fixing them all up for me! | |
| 79099842 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2020-01-02 05:33 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | ortho_is_hot ♦252 | Hi there,Would the phone number not be +61 4 2319 9859 instead of +61 423 199 859 as 4 is technically an area code?Cheers,ortho_is_hot |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Hi ortho. Yes, technically you are quite correct - mobiles do indeed actually have a 04 area code with a 8 digit number, but they are supposed to be written as 04xx xxx xxx, which then translates internationally as +61 4xx xxx xxx. I know that akes them different to all other numbers, but have... | |
| 3 | ~ 6 years ago | ortho_is_hot ♦252 | That's a fair point, I wasn't aware of that page Cheers | |
| 65457718 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2018-12-13 23:36 ~ 7 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | emvee ♦414 | Hi Fizzie,In this changeset you added bicycle=no to some ways that have cycleway:left = lane and that does not really make sense.You seem to be known in Sidney so can you have a look at these problems reported by Osmose and try to fix them?http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/#source=16... |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | emvee ♦414 | More problems in the same area ;-)http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/#source=16390&item=3032&class=30329&zoom=15&lat=-28.09387&lon=153.43447&level=2&tags=&fixable= | |
| 3 | ~ 6 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Hi Martin.You're right - it doesn't make sense?& what's got me even more confused is that I have absolutely no memory of making these changes, & I don't map bike ways!I can tell you that there is a marked bike lane going west along Christine Ave, & another... | |
| 4 | ~ 6 years ago | emvee ♦414 | Hi Graeme,Thanks for coming back on this, yes, I think it would be good to remove bicycle=no. Changing it into bicycle=yes is not really necessary as the default access restrictions for Australia, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions#Australia indicate tha... | |
| 69393046 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2019-04-20 02:04 ~ 7 years ago | 1 | ~ 7 years ago | Warin61 ♦2,795 | Hi,multipolygon relations outer ways cannot touch - against the 'rules'.. |
| 2 | ~ 7 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Thanks Warin, but I don't why it's shown as a multipolygon in the first place? & when you look at it further, it's apparently there twice?https://www.openstreetmap.org/query?lat=-28.11472&lon=153.47003https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/594795760#map=14/-28.1120/153.4700ht... | |
| 3 | ~ 7 years ago | Warin61 ♦2,795 | The relation 8360927 has it as a members Way 28108798 as outer Way 594795762 as outer Way 594795760 as outerWay: 594795760 duplicates the relation tags.. it can be removed from the relation. But the relation will still not be closed .. it does need to be closed. ----------------... | |
| 4 | ~ 7 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Thanks for that Warin. In regard to the dog area https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/553680482, it does include the beach & the full south-east spit of Rockview Park, & is signposted & gazetted as such. | |
| 52811877 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2017-10-11 05:28 ~ 8 years ago | 1 | ~ 7 years ago | Warin61 ♦2,795 | Hi,I have re tagged this as disused:highway=track. This should decreases its visibility on the maps. |
| 62626306 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2018-09-16 04:27 ~ 7 years ago | 1 | ~ 7 years ago | Warin61 ♦2,795 | Way 625872547 tagged as building=retail .. in not a single building. I have removed this tagging. |
| 62626667 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2018-09-16 05:03 ~ 7 years ago | 1 | ~ 7 years ago | Warin61 ♦2,795 | Reverted. The relation created was not an area. The deletion of existing areas last information. There were no relations changed by this changeset. |
| 59115941 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2018-05-20 05:51 ~ 8 years ago | 1 | ~ 8 years ago | Warin61 ♦2,795 | As the Tallebudgera Creek river bank is already part of the relation that has the same tags .. these tags are duplications .. deleted. |
| 56647196 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2018-02-24 22:12 ~ 8 years ago | 1 | ~ 8 years ago | Joel Hansen ♦20 | Just be warned that the area you made is actually a building. The only way to make an area around a group of apartments is to make a residential area, like you would to houses. |
| 56254068 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2018-02-11 02:24 ~ 8 years ago | 1 | ~ 8 years ago | Joel Hansen ♦20 | Hi, I just noticed that this edit deleted a few things and then re-added them. Was this justified? A good rule is to keep history, only deleting objects which really need to be deleted. |
| 2 | ~ 8 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Hi. Part of it was shown as an industrial area, which is now a park & car park, & part as retail which is Council chambers, The Centre (which we were in) & the Council works depot!. The disused railway line was also an industrial area? Tried to break relations & so on to rename &... | |
| 3 | ~ 8 years ago | Joel Hansen ♦20 | The only problem it could cause is if you didn't carry over any metadata from the old object, Things like addresses could get deleted with it. In iD editor scroll to the bottom of the left sidebar of the object, and under all tags just make sure those get transferred. | |
| 4 | ~ 8 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Didn't have any addresses or anything other than the area tags, so all should be good | |
| 15047437 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2013-02-16 05:33 ~ 13 years ago | 1 | ~ 8 years ago | aharvey ♦1,953 | how about adding https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/club=surf_life_saving to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/41751839 ? |
| 2 | ~ 8 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | G'day Andrew. I've been playing with that tag over this last week or so for both Burleigh & Palm Bh SLSCs https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/315566900 & https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/546969971, but it appears that if you use it, the building disappears?! | |
| 3 | ~ 8 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Sorry, forgot to add: I was going to raise it on the Oz list to see what everybody's thoughts were but have been trying various changes | |
| 4 | ~ 8 years ago | aharvey ♦1,953 | Howdy, it's correct to tag it against a building of that building is mostly designated for the club, in that case you still need building=* in addition to club=. If it's simply a node that's a different story. | |
| 5 | ~ 8 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | I did that on the Palm Beach Club & it disappeared off the map? Had it as either building=yes or building=commercial which showed normally, when I added club=sls it disappeared, then when I removed the club= tag it re-appeared? | |
| 40127396 by Fizzie-DWG @ 2016-06-19 04:30 ~ 10 years ago | 1 | ~ 9 years ago | Warin61 ♦2,795 | Bing used to determine a boundary ? You have a lot of these ... and I don't think you are using bing as the source for these changes. |
| 2 | ~ 9 years ago | Fizzie-DWG | Hi Warin. Sorry, at the time I thought there were 2 boundaries shown for Lamington / Springbrook National Park, almost but not exactly the same, so I deleted 1 of them. Turned out that 1 was for NP & the other was Gondwana World Heritage area, which is very close, but not identical, to the Park ... |