| Changeset | # | ⏱️ Last updated | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 125579038 by Jeff Underwood @ 2022-08-30 16:50 ~ 3 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | Minh Nguyen ♦618 | Reverted in changeset 174229200: short_name is for conventional abbreviations (e.g., AP abbreviations). USPS/GPO state codes go in ref. |
| 131279509 by Jeff Underwood @ 2023-01-14 21:09 ~ 3 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | Natfoot ♦115 | This edit needs to be reviewed again. |
| 2 | ~ 2 years ago | Jeff Underwood | Can you be more specific? 'ele=f' is not a valid tag as far as I know. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 years ago | Natfoot ♦115 | Have you looked at the location of this mark? Probably should have been reverted / removed at the time you made the edit. | |
| 131631004 by Jeff Underwood @ 2023-01-24 03:03 ~ 3 years ago | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | Devdatta ♦44 | Hi Jeff!I see that you have added dispute=yes here.Is there any specific reason why you preferred that disputed=yes? |
| 2 | ~ 3 years ago | Devdatta ♦44 | Additionally, this page (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Disputed_territories) talks about tagging such boundaries with ) boundary=disputed + disputed=yes tagging these with boundary = administrative & adminlevel=2 is causing them be interpreted by most software to be authentic and accep... | |
| 3 | ~ 3 years ago | Jeff Underwood | Hello,No particular reason for 'dispute' over 'disputed'. The overall tag usage is fairly evenly split between them among the features I track, although 'disputed' is slightly more common. When I was actively working with these features, I just filtered for either t... | |
| 4 | ~ 3 years ago | Devdatta ♦44 | Thanks for changing the tags! I didn't want to change them myself, incase there was some specific reason for you having used these tags.I'm relived to see that my understanding of the tags was correct, but I have posted this question on the OSM India Telegram group, just to be sure... | |
| 115187152 by Jeff Underwood @ 2021-12-21 02:18 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | mueschel ♦7,065 | Hi,this way can be removed? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1013928481 |
| 2 | ~ 4 years ago | Jeff Underwood | Oh totally, just cleaned it up. Sorry about that. I had some NE ways in JOSM to help with the digitization and missed cleaning up one of them. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 years ago | zstadler ♦1,125 | In https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120591354user BodhidharmaI placed several questions in the fixme tag for the relation "1949 Israeli–Syrian DMZ" https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13574166 :1. What does "disputed_by" represent here (at the boundary of ... | |
| 4 | ~ 3 years ago | zstadler ♦1,125 | May I add that https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13574166 is a strange disputed boundary. I believe a boundary cannot be "disputed" when it is not "claimed_by" any country. Specifically, Syria is not claiming this boundary. The Syrian claims were apparently mapped by htt... | |
| 5 | ~ 3 years ago | BodhidharmaI ♦19 | @Jeff Underwood. Additionally, you mentioned a “public domain reference map” in your original edit when you added this boundary. Can you explicitly provide a reference to this source? | |
| 6 | ~ 3 years ago | zstadler ♦1,125 | @BodhidharmaI see the source tag for this changeset -https://www.loc.gov/item/92682948/ | |
| 7 | ~ 3 years ago | Jeff Underwood | Hello zstadler and BodhidharmaIThanks for reaching out. I believe I’ve covered most of what you asked below. Let me know if you still have more questions. Disputed borders are complicated to map and tricky to visualize using typical OSM tooling unfortunately.To preface, this is the tag... | |
| 8 | ~ 3 years ago | zstadler ♦1,125 | Thanks Jeff for the elaborated answer.It seems that the justification for mapping the DMZ line is for historic and/or future purposes, as you wrote:> For the DMZ, none of the main parties currently claim it as their border, but it is one possible border with some historical precedent.... | |
| 9 | ~ 3 years ago | Jeff Underwood | Hi zstadler,Forgive me if I’m mistaken as I’m not an expert on the conflict, but the DMZ line seems to correspond to the 1923 border which appears to be the last mutually agreed border while everything since has been enforced or de facto borders. So while this may not be an active cl... | |
| 10 | ~ 3 years ago | zstadler ♦1,125 | Hi Jeff,It seems like we agree that OSM is not about capturing potential future political agreements.Could you summarize why, in your opinion, this relation should be part of OSM despite the fact that it does not fall under the definition of a disputed border, since no nation is calming it.\... | |
| 11 | ~ 3 years ago | Jeff Underwood | Hi zstadler,In the interest of avoiding conflict I'll just pull out that relation for now. -Jeff | |
| 12 | ~ 3 years ago | zstadler ♦1,125 | Thank you, Jeff! | |
| 116978459 by Jeff Underwood @ 2022-02-03 19:49 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | zstadler ♦1,125 | Hello Jeff,Could you please clarify the purpose of the "Viewpoints on Disputed Administrative Boundaries" relation https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13658967As far as I know, none of its members is disputed. |
| 2 | ~ 4 years ago | Jeff Underwood | Hi zsadler, This is an uncommon sort of dispute, where a country does not recognize another's provinces or believes them to be of a different classification. In this case, it is marking that Palestine does not view Israel's province boundaries as admin_level=4. The purpose of the relat... | |
| 3 | ~ 4 years ago | zstadler ♦1,125 | Hello Jeff,For the sake of verifiability, what is the source of the claim that "Palestine does not view Israel's province boundaries as admin_level=4"?By the way, if I'm not mistaken, these provinces have been around since before 1948, during the British mandate over Pale... | |
| 4 | ~ 4 years ago | Jeff Underwood | Hello zstadler,It sounds like the source on Natural Earth is generally from Palestine not recognizing Israel therefore not recognizing its province boundaries. Regardless, to avoid further controversy on this particular relation, I've deleted it as you are not the first to be skeptical ... | |
| 115134395 by Jeff Underwood @ 2021-12-19 17:52 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | user_5359 ♦20,551 | Hello Jeff! Please move your admin_level:PS to a relation. By the way the admin_level value 4;8 is wrong, it must 4;5;8:10 (this is the reason, why a way isn't a good idea for admin_level location. |
| 2 | ~ 4 years ago | Jeff Underwood | Hey user_5359,Just want to give an update that I'm looking into how best to move these onto a relation and will get back to you soon.-Jeff | |
| 3 | ~ 4 years ago | Jeff Underwood | Just an update that I have moved the tags onto a relation in both Israel and Palestine now.Thanks for your patience and feedback!-Jeff | |
| 116003292 by Jeff Underwood @ 2022-01-11 00:47 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | assanges ♦41 | Sauce? Any proofs of disputed boundaries? Such a claim is rather confusing, didn't find any justification yet. |
| 2 | ~ 4 years ago | Jeff Underwood | Hello, sorry I forgot to update the source. These edits are based on disputed borders contained in the Natural Earth dataset. Province level admin level viewpoints are part of the admin 1 dataset here. https://www.naturalearthdata.com/downloads/10m-cultural-vectors/10m-admin-1-states-provinces/\... | |
| 3 | ~ 4 years ago | Supaplex ♦11,285 | Could you have any conversation at Taiwan community's channels like Facebook Group, Telegram, Mailing list, Slack. No discussion with the locals or interested parties is not a good practice --- #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.o... | |
| 115859202 by Jeff Underwood @ 2022-01-07 02:02 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | ivanbranco ♦2,878 | Hi Jeff, just curious, what's the difference between the node you created and this one? https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1696874354Don't they represent the same thing? |
| 2 | ~ 4 years ago | Jeff Underwood | Hey ivanbranco,You are totally right. I missed it somehow when I was looking for an existing feature to attach to the relation. I removed my duplicate and add the existing one to the relation instead.Thanks for the heads upJeff | |
| 115223909 by Jeff Underwood @ 2021-12-21 19:54 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | Supaplex ♦11,285 | Hi, could you explain your tag. Because neither China nor USA rule Taiwan. --- #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115223909 |
| 2 | ~ 4 years ago | Jeff Underwood | Hello Supaplex,This is tagging related to disputed borders. These admin_level:iso_code tags allow for ways to be reclassified for certain country views in downstream maps. nvk has a good diary detailing the use case here https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/nvk/diary/390496. This is definitely... | |
| 115068140 by Jeff Underwood @ 2021-12-17 18:44 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | user_5359 ♦20,551 | Hello! Please have a look on http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1eh2. What is the meaning of admin_level:GR on the ways? To handel different admin_level please create a relation and move the value to the relation.If you need help: You are welcome! |
| 2 | ~ 4 years ago | Jeff Underwood | Hello!This is follow disputed tagging work that user nvk started. You can read his diary post about his previous work here. https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/nvk/diary/390496We are using relations for all the country border disputes but for these lower level perspective differences we plann... | |
| 3 | ~ 4 years ago | Jeff Underwood | Hello again!Currently, our map renderer expects these tags on ways. Is there any particular concern with them remaining there? They will not affect any rendering on the OSM website or any downstream map that doesn't specifically choose to use them.Totally open to dialogue on this so hop... | |
| 4 | ~ 4 years ago | user_5359 ♦20,551 | I understand the idea (and I particularly support this use of OSM) and now also the technical approach. If I think of anything else on the subject of relation between the years, I will get in touch with you. | |
| 115070570 by Jeff Underwood @ 2021-12-17 20:09 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | mueschel ♦7,065 | Hi,you used "admin_level:ps" here. Country codes are typically written with capital letters, i.e. it should be "admin_level:PS".Could you change that? |
| 2 | ~ 4 years ago | Jeff Underwood | Hey mueschel,Good call. I just cleaned that up. Thanks for letting me know!-Jeff | |
| 3 | ~ 4 years ago | highflyer74 ♦2,451 | Hi Jeff!Those malformed tags still seem to be here... Check out https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1eoG for details. | |
| 4 | ~ 4 years ago | Jeff Underwood | Hi highflyer74,These admin_level:iso_code tags are used specifically to redefine boundaries to alternate levels such as a country border being defined as a state border instead. nvk's diary here shows a good example of the use case using India, Pakistan, and China here. https://www.openstr... | |
| 5 | ~ 4 years ago | highflyer74 ♦2,451 | Ah, didn't know that. In that case: disregard and have a good one ;-) | |
| 115030772 by Jeff Underwood @ 2021-12-17 02:08 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | NM$L ♦90 | The Chinese claim line in Pangong Lake area is line823046242, according to the standard map of Chinese government. |
| 2 | ~ 4 years ago | NM$L ♦90 | And also, I think the eastern section (South Tibet) should be included in the relation. | |
| 3 | ~ 4 years ago | Jeff Underwood | Hey NM$L, thanks for quick feedback. This is sensitive work that I want to make sure is done right.For the first issue, I had included way823046242 in the new relation (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13559369) but missed pulling out the old incorrect ways from the parent relation. Good c... | |
| 4 | ~ 4 years ago | NM$L ♦90 | Thanks for your reply and fixing. So this is the boundary relation of the west section, and I think if it only includes the west part, we should add "- West Part" or "to Aksai Chin" to its name after "Chinese claim". How about you? If you don't mind, I will do it m... | |
| 5 | ~ 4 years ago | NM$L ♦90 | Sorry, there is a relation of Aksai Chin, so I mean we should add "- West Part". Thx. (〃°ω°〃) | |
| 6 | ~ 4 years ago | Jeff Underwood | Yeah go for it. The current names for the disputes are not necessarily the best names. | |
| 115030624 by Jeff Underwood @ 2021-12-17 01:51 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | user_5359 ♦20,551 | Hello (again!) Additional information to https://www.osm.org/changeset/115068140: The country code will be written in two uppercase letter (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Nominatim/Country_Codes , ISO-3166-1). |
| 2 | ~ 4 years ago | Jeff Underwood | Hello!I fixed the lower case typo. Thanks for pointing it out.-Jeff | |
| 91779493 by Jeff Underwood @ 2020-09-30 16:30 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | literan ♦7,081 | why did you deleted tags from multipolygon? Make, if you need, type=building relation, but do not delete existing objects. Reverting. |
| 2 | ~ 5 years ago | Jeff Underwood | Hi Literan,This relation captures connected building sections which multipolygons are not really designed to do as they don't work with the normal inner and outer roles. Building relations function similar to multipolygons but work to model these situations better. A building relation will ... | |
| 3 | ~ 5 years ago | alexey_zakharenkov ♦243 | Jeff Underwood,no, building relation is not similar to multipolygon relation, neither it's a replacement for the latter. Mechanical replacement of type=multipolygon tag with type=building and 'outer' member roles with 'part' almost never gives you a correct building relati... | |
| 4 | ~ 5 years ago | Jeff Underwood | Hi Alexey,I see your solution was to simplify the relation and break the interior pieces into smaller school relations. Is that how you would recommend resolving similar malformed multipolygons while retaining the intent of the creator?-Jeff | |
| 5 | ~ 5 years ago | alexey_zakharenkov ♦243 | That relation was a pile of ways not conforming the definition of a valid multipolygon. Look "Valid Multipolygon conditions" section of the Relation:multipolygon wiki article, in particular "Graphical examples of OGC validity" link.A building relation should contain several par... | |
| 91311723 by Jeff Underwood @ 2020-09-22 17:20 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | jdd 3 Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. |
| 2 | ~ 5 years ago | Jeff Underwood | Hi jdd 3,This changeset was just to address some presumably unintentional damage to these relations from https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/90385410If someone wants to tackle breaking up this river into more manageable pieces, they are welcome to of course. :) -Jeff | |
| 68122991 by Jeff Underwood @ 2019-03-14 04:26 ~ 7 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | goldfndr ♦66 | Could you explain why you removed the landuse tags? From what I can see, the polygons from which you removed the landuse tags aren't enclosed within larger polygons that have landuse tags. |
| 2 | ~ 5 years ago | goldfndr ♦66 | (or point to an explanation; I'm guessing there's *some* precedent) | |
| 3 | ~ 5 years ago | Jeff Underwood | Hi goldfndr,At the time, I believe I was thinking that landuse=residential were unnamed features so these named polygons were more describing a place=neighborhood. However, looking at the wiki, I see that it is less common but perfectly acceptable so I've reverted them back now.-Jeff | |
| 4 | ~ 5 years ago | goldfndr ♦66 | 👍 | |
| 65176337 by Jeff Underwood @ 2018-12-04 22:12 ~ 7 years ago | 1 | ~ 7 years ago | woodpeck ♦2,614 | Jeff, have you contacted the mapper who created the circular buildings you reverted here, and explained the problem? |
| 2 | ~ 7 years ago | wupiccsss ♦1 | woodpeck, as you are writing here with your private and not your DWG account: Why is this your department?If company mappers would get some mandatory education this will benefit all of us. Do you have any contact to Accenture? | |
| 3 | ~ 7 years ago | Jeff Underwood | I've sent them a message explaining the issue and the associated HOT task was invalidated with an explanation so if they do further crisis mapping they will also get a message on the tasking manager. | |
| 4 | ~ 7 years ago | woodpeck ♦2,614 | The DWG has received a complaint about a different changeset comment that was disparaging to the original mapper (and that was written by a third party unrelated to either Accenture or Facebook as far as we know). I was just trying to understand the sequence of events. -- Jeff, do you have a link to... | |
| 5 | ~ 7 years ago | Jeff Underwood | Yeah its here https://tasks.hotosm.org/project/5170?task=2977#bottom | |
| 41626323 by Jeff Underwood @ 2016-08-22 22:49 ~ 9 years ago | 1 | ~ 9 years ago | stephankn ♦321 | which provider did you use for DigitalGlobe? Was it Bing? so best to document it in this way. Digital Globe sells their imagery to different customers. Only a few of them allowed us to use it for OSM tracing. |
| 45987173 by Jeff Underwood @ 2017-02-11 00:00 ~ 9 years ago | 1 | ~ 9 years ago | SomeoneElse ♦13,755 | Hello,Can you please explain who you are and who you are working for? Your changeset comments (such as they are) suggest that you may be performing an undiscussed import on behalf of Facebook. Can you please ensure that you do not perform any more imports until they have been properly discussed,... |
| 45986721 by Jeff Underwood @ 2017-02-10 23:27 ~ 9 years ago | 1 | ~ 9 years ago | manoharuss ♦252 | Hi federali,I see that you have reverted http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/45982079. Could not visualize that changeset either in osmcha(http://osmcha.mapbox.com/45982079/) or achavi(https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=45982079) because it was so huge. May I know the reason why you ha... |
| 41626601 by Jeff Underwood @ 2016-08-22 23:17 ~ 9 years ago | 1 | ~ 9 years ago | Johnny Carlsen ♦97 | Hi Federali,When you mark roads as paved, you should only add the surface tag to the way, not each individual node.Regarding the cleanup, I am not sure if there is an easy way in JOSM to remove the surface tag from the all nodes again. |