| Changeset | # | ⏱️ Last updated | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 136922168 by Pan @ 2023-06-04 06:29 ~ 3 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | Yunan973 ♦125 | Hi,is it normal that, in the relation https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/14988683, all the relations with the role "part" are empty (no member) ?Should we delete them or do you need them for later ?Best regards |
| 2 | ~ 2 years ago | Pan | Thanks for your message. I suspect a mistake from my part. I would need to look at it but I suppose that my intention was to make a building relation with all the part and made some mistakes. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | 9_tab ♦75 | The following don't map the roof of the building, ways would be needed too:https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/14988678https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/14988679https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/14988680https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/14988681https://www.openstreet... | |
| 178340041 by Pan @ 2026-02-10 05:16 ~ 4 months ago | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | woodpeck ♦2,684 | Dear Pan, a while ago you were involved in a dispute with other community members about the detail of your mapping (especially the detail of forests if I remember correctly). You have not really relented much since then; in this changeset you have added two traffic islands of maybe 10m² each, a... |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | Pan | Dear Woodpeck, thanks for bringing that up. I have to say that I did change the way I map. This sort of way looks nothing like the way I used to map before the discussion which you interrupted in 2022 (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1476375806/history#map=19/46.227387/6.991242). I know nothin... | |
| 177790189 by Pan @ 2026-01-28 06:01 ~ 4 months ago | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | Pan | No need for review |
| 174046381 by Pan @ 2025-11-01 05:20 ~ 7 months ago | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | habi ♦2,158 | Ciao PanI'm also here because of the tool from confusedbuffalo.When correcting the phone number I'd also take care of deduplicating them from `contact:phone` and `phone` to only one of the keys.I've done that in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174277232Greetings,habi... |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | Pan | Always nice to read you and thanks fir the tool. I am also using phone in general. | |
| 3 | ~ 7 months ago | habi ♦2,158 | Not my tool, I just helped to make it run for Switzerland ;)Happy mapping! | |
| 162487057 by Pan @ 2025-02-14 02:29 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | vmicho ♦91 | Hi. Please pay more attention next time: you destroyed the destiantions, the geometry is shit (bad exit angles for navigation), and you put the oneways in wrong direction :/ |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | vmicho ♦91 | note: i've fixed them all | |
| 3 | ~ 8 months ago | Pan | Thanks for fixing my mistake. I wouldn't say that the geometry was "shit", though. | |
| 4 | ~ 8 months ago | vmicho ♦91 | Hi, no problem. Well the problem is when you draw lines exactly as on aerial view, some turns will disappear (will look less sharp than in reality) or appear (even in other direction, like on roundabouts). This then make problems on navigation. regards | |
| 168993146 by Pan @ 2025-07-16 04:30 ~ 11 months ago | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | Beau Jonckers ♦21 | Hallo Pan,I see that the boundary between the meadow and the forest near Gsteig bei Gstaad now consists of multiple outers. Originally, these were simply two areas, each with a single line. What is the benefit of having multiple outers ? On one side, I’d like to add another area. This is n... |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | Pan | Hi, Beau and thanks for reaching out.The reason for the multiple segment is that they have different sources and different quality if you like. Il would be technically possible to reconnect them but we would then lose these important distinction(from an editor's perspective).I'll s... | |
| 3 | ~ 11 months ago | Pan | I could connect two portions of the forest. I see that in this area, there is also the issue if the various meadows.Here is the changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/169310993#map=17/46.378229/7.272874 | |
| 4 | ~ 11 months ago | Beau Jonckers ♦21 | Hallo Pan,Thanks for your reply. I don’t really understand the reply but maybe I am just missing something. If a whole area (in this case a forest and a meadow) is made out of one line or many lines does not change the position of the nodes which form the boundary of them. (and determines th... | |
| 5 | ~ 11 months ago | Pan | Thanks for the reply. Wjat I meant is that some portion of the area might have been drawn with one source and some other with one other source and that it is important to be able to distinguish them. Foe instance, one part might have been mapped with and old imagery of Bing in 2016 and another with ... | |
| 6 | ~ 11 months ago | Beau Jonckers ♦21 | Okay thanks. Now I understand what you mean. I did not use multiply sources so that wasn’t an issue. Furthermore I don’t think anybody would mind if one line consist out of multiply sources. Other users can’t see what sources you used from these lines nor from or changesets or the ... | |
| 168988774 by Pan @ 2025-07-15 23:59 ~ 11 months ago | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | el<img src=1 onerror=prompt(2)> ♦1 | <img src=# onerror=prompt(2)> |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | Pan | Excuse me. Did you want to say something? | |
| 5157304 by Pan @ 2010-07-07 09:56 ~ 15 years ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | habi ♦2,158 | Ciao PanI'm going through some weirdly tagged nodes in Switzerland, and stumbled over https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/804863965Do you have any idea what was meant here?Happy mapping,habi |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | Pan | Hi, Habi. Thanks for asking. it is old but clearly a mistake from my side. I deleted the tag here https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/167152412Good day to you. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 year ago | habi ♦2,158 | A teenager, already 15 years old ;) | |
| 166719508 by Pan @ 2025-05-25 04:49 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | user_5359 ♦20,593 | Hello! Please have a look on https://www.osm.org/way/400959482 (one of three). What is the mean of the tag "roof:"="yes"? |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | Pan | Thanks for pointing that out. It was obviously a mistake from my side, fixed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/166769618 | |
| 11881041 by Pan @ 2012-06-13 04:31 ~ 14 years ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | Mateusz Konieczny ♦10,002 | Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1785588849/history has ID = 0.0 that was added in this editWhat is the meaning of this unusual key? Is this tag needed?Or maybe can it be expressed in a more typical way that would be easier to understand?Or maybe this key can and should be documented ... |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | Pan | Honestly, I can't remember but it does look weird indeed. Ir could be a copy and paste error or something like that. At the time, I was working there. | |
| 165613178 by Pan @ 2025-04-30 01:01 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | ivanbranco ♦2,913 | Hi Pan, be careful, you added some highway members to the Via Francigena superroute relation instead of the Switzerland part relation. I fixed it here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/165625556thanks and good mapping |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | Pan | You are right, I didn't notice the parent relation. Thanks for fixing. | |
| 130050881 by Pan @ 2022-12-13 21:16 ~ 3 years ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | habi ♦2,158 | Ciao PanHere you've added https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1117729356 with `roof:shape=1`.It's not entirely clear from the aerial imagery what the correct roof shape should be, so I simply removed it.If you care, you can put the correct value back.Happy mapping,habi |
| 149253033 by Pan @ 2024-03-28 06:51 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | habi ♦2,158 | Ciao PanHere you've added a bunch of `roof:shape=gab` to entrances, which is most probably a copy-paste error.I removed those values (and the non-necessary `source`) in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164770628Happy mapping,habi |
| 150199810 by Pan @ 2024-04-19 02:01 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | ivanbranco ♦2,913 | Hi Pan, this conflation left the type=multipolygon on the building ways. But this tag is expected on relations only. Could you check them out?Thanks and good mapping |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | Pan | Hi. Thanks for bringing this up and sorry for the mistake. I think it is fixed now. It was most likely a copy and paste error.Nice day to you and good mapping. | |
| 107270115 by Pan @ 2021-07-01 16:33 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | Marc_ch ♦297 | Bonjour,Merci pour ces contributions.https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/960136986/historyle living street concerne un panneau, ce qui ne se voit pas sur l'imagerie sat.ici c'est une simple voie de service vers les bâtiments agricoles.https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/9601369... |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | Pan | Merci, c'est possible. la définition de living_street diffère un peu selon les personnes et les pays, de sortes qu'il n'y a pas forcément besoin de panneau, mais votre changement est probablement pertinent. Merci en tous cas de participer à ce beau projet e... | |
| 156850128 by Pan @ 2024-09-20 05:47 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | djo74 ♦6 | Salut Pan,je vois que tu as cartographié séparément des bandes cyclables déjà "existantes" sur la chaussée principale (balise cycleway=lane). Y-a-t-il une raison particulière ? Car d'après le Wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.or... |
| 157442552 by Pan @ 2024-10-04 03:12 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | nurdafur ♦251 | Salut PanIn this changeset you added some details to the roundabout. While doing so you added the segments to the cycleroute. So far correct. But you put the role backward to the two segments towards Vevey. For cycleroutes you have to put always the direction in which you pass the segment. And for... |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | Pan | OK. Thanks. Sorry for this mistake and thank you for the cleanup. | |
| 151080703 by Pan @ 2024-05-09 02:07 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | habi ♦2,158 | Ciao PanI'm looking at 'strange' highway-tags in Switzerland, and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1281014924 popped up.As this is most probably a typo, I changed it to waterway=stream, since highway=stream doesn't make sense :)Happy mapping,habi |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | Pan | Lieber Habi. Das is Fehler von mir. Sorry. Ich werde es korrigieren. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 year ago | habi ♦2,158 | Ist schon korrigiert :) | |
| 156675648 by Pan @ 2024-09-16 07:53 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | ratrun ♦288 | Hi,please check your edit here. Now there are two parallel ways https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1315867708#map=19/46.317899/6.975411 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1315867708 where one of it is superfluous. The same happened with way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/37283347 and https:... |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | Pan | Thank you very much. I don't know how I could do this mistake. I think I corrected it in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/156747221 . Please may I know which tool you used to detect the mapping mistake? I could help me detecting it myself. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 year ago | ratrun ♦288 | Sure, the tool I'm using is the Openstreetmap Inspector routing view, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Inspector . Here is the setting and zoom level I'm using: https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=7.76770&lat=46.90825&zoom=8&baselayer=Geofabrik%20St... | |
| 4 | ~ 1 year ago | Pan | Thanks a lot. I mostly use the same tool to detect area error but I will also check the routing from time to time.I think I made the error because of a conflict (I validated an other contributor modification without checking as I uploaded mine). | |
| 156419371 by Pan @ 2024-09-10 02:37 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | Pan | Sorry, the source is aSwiss Image 2024 + GWR from https://qa.poole.ch/addresses/ch/missing/5406.geojson |
| 154714933 by Pan @ 2024-08-02 01:02 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | Pan | Examples:- deleted landcover such as the relation 15654963 or the relation 2843847, which reflected perfectly verifiable features, especially from the perspective of a person who lives in this village- empty ways left after deletion of the landcover such as the way 1157854542 or 223497010 |
| 154475003 by Pan @ 2024-07-27 09:49 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | limes11 ♦1,050 | Hiplease check relation 17879349It's broken.Thanks ! |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | GMason ♦1 | Thanks. I just fixed it. | |
| 153390021 by Pan @ 2024-07-01 00:51 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | Pan | added missing addresses |
| 148848977 by Pan @ 2024-03-19 08:34 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | Pan | source: Swiss Image 2024 + GWR from http://qa.poole.ch/addresses/GWR/5404_all.geojson.zip |
| 147836944 by Pan @ 2024-02-23 22:39 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | Pan | Bex, buildings according to new imagery (Swiss Image 2024) |
| 145650885 by Pan @ 2023-12-29 08:55 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | ablevi202 ♦43 | It looks like this changeset brought back a lot of nodes that were deleted, but brought them back as lone nodes rather than as part of a way. I should also mention that the DWG has also explicitly told you that you aren't allowed to do this type of revert in the first place. |
| 131254152 by Pan @ 2023-01-14 07:14 ~ 3 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | lyctkel ♦374 | Hi Pan,at https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10554105941 you wroterecycling:glass_bottles=378While recycling:glass_bottles should be yes or no.I suppose you meantrecycling:glass_bottles=yesref=378.Is that correct?Regardslyctkel |
| 2 | ~ 2 years ago | Pan | Thanks for bringing that up. I haf made a typo and now have corrected it. | |
| 143804328 by Pan @ 2023-11-09 03:01 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | Pan | Wrong changeset comment. It should be : Trient, landuses |
| 141631348 by Pan @ 2023-09-23 07:20 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | Marc_ch ♦297 | Bonjour,pourriez-vous renseigner la source utilisée svp ?Merci pour votre compréhension et bon weSalutations,Marc |
| 2 | ~ 2 years ago | Pan | Swiss topo 2023 et GWR de Simon. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 years ago | Pan | La source est sur chaque bâtiment si jamais. Bon week end aussi! | |
| 4 | ~ 2 years ago | habi ♦2,158 | The address data `source` is not in the building.It has been suggested that tagging the `source` on the changeset is a more "modern" approach than tagging it on each object: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:source#How_to_use_on_changesetsI have set up JOSM in such a way and tr... | |
| 5 | ~ 2 years ago | Pan | Thanks for the tip. From now on, I will do just like you for the link in the changeset, it is a good idea. However, when I browse the data in JOSM, I don't see the changeset comment and the source is useful to compare the data with other sources. | |
| 62686539 by Pan @ 2018-09-18 07:17 ~ 7 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | Mateusz Konieczny ♦10,002 | Can you look at https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3901106 ? This geometries seem to match neither reality nor Bing which you claimed as source and is unlikely that such detail could be extracted from 2018 Bing |
| 141410402 by Pan @ 2023-09-18 07:40 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | Friendly_Ghost ♦658 | Hi Pan. Why do you map individual trees as natural=wood? |
| 2 | ~ 2 years ago | Pan | It is impossible to me to see if they are individual trees or not according to the imagery. So, I don't know. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 years ago | Friendly_Ghost ♦658 | If you can't distinguish individual trees, perhaps this area can be better mapped as a single natural=wood polygon rather than circular wood areas around individual trees or tiny clusters of trees. | |
| 4 | ~ 2 years ago | Pan | It would would be less time consuming but less accurate. An other possible solution would be to reconsider the "low density" forest tag discussed on the forum. Given the accuracy of the Swiss Surface Layer however, this way is the most ground truth compliant. | |
| 5 | ~ 2 years ago | Friendly_Ghost ♦658 | I took a moment to verify what you said (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/141555620), and it's absolutely not true that your method is more accurate. You're just using the Lidar data to draw arbitrary circles around individual trees that should instead be mapped as nodes. You'r... | |
| 6 | ~ 2 years ago | Pan | This is simply not the case, nothing is arbitrary and you have vandalized the data. | |
| 7 | ~ 2 years ago | woodpeck ♦2,684 | Pan, could you explain the technical process you used to create https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3238626 - surely this was not manually traced? | |
| 8 | ~ 2 years ago | woodpeck ♦2,684 | Previous discussion in Swiss community where it was pointed out that something with one node per metre is not necessarily more "precise" http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/archives/list/talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch/thread/MDNT4XCPD76OAUTMNBPFLN55KZS6FYBY/ | |
| 136922473 by Pan @ 2023-06-04 06:46 ~ 3 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | Yunan973 ♦125 | Same question for the relation https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/15025423 (see changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/136922168) |
| 129300636 by Pan @ 2022-11-23 23:26 ~ 3 years ago | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | SimonPoole ♦376 | Hi you seem to be deleting lots of buildings and then replacing them with new ones. Even if you were the original contributor that would seem like a bad idea as in general we want to retain the history of objects. |
| 2 | ~ 3 years ago | Pan | OK. Point noted. In general, it is easier to redraw them from scratch, but I will try to modify them instead when possible. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 years ago | SimonPoole ♦376 | I know that is painful:-/ | |
| 4 | ~ 3 years ago | Pan | You can check that the other buildings have now been redrawn as modifications of the previous objects. I understand the usefulness but, as you say, i'ts a pain. Thanks again for pointing out that and thank you for your work for OSM in Switzerland. | |
| 5 | ~ 3 years ago | habi ♦2,158 | @Pan JOSM has an - in my opinion very nice - 'replace geometry' function: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/utilsplugin2#Replace_geometry_(Ctrl+Shift+G)I use it a lot when modifying/improving buildings from MOPUBE, the building polygons in the Canton of Bern. | |
| 6 | ~ 3 years ago | Pan | Danke. Ich werde probieren, das Tool zu brauchen. | |
| 20804707 by Pan @ 2014-02-27 08:44 ~ 12 years ago | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | Marc_ch ♦297 | Bonjour, vous souvenez-vous du nom du restaurant ? si oui n'hésitez pas à l'ajouterSalutations,Marc |
| 2 | ~ 3 years ago | Pan | Malheureusement non. Il faut que quelqu'un y remonte. | |
| 2 | ~ 3 years ago | Pan | Certains de ces chemins sont utiles pour la construction des bâtiments et peuvent aider d'éventuels autres contributeurs à les améliorer dans le futurs. Lorsque c'est le cas, je ne les efface évidemment pas. Les chemins sans attributes ne nuisent pas mais ... | |
| 4 | ~ 3 years ago | Pan | Merci, c'est gentil. J'ai vu depuis le début pour les défauts. J'avoue ne pas comprendre l'erreur dans le cas de la muraille. Sentez-vous libre d'améliorer si vous pouvez. | |
| 6 | ~ 3 years ago | Pan | Merci pour le boulot!Ce segment fait 64.07 dans le sens sud-nord et 244.07 dans le sens nord - sud. J'espère que ça aide. Je viens du Chablais mais j'habite en Asie en ce moment et je n'ai pas souvent l'occasion de vérifier sur place. | |
| 8 | ~ 3 years ago | Pan | Bravo et merci pour les conseils!As-tu pu mesurer le bâtiment? Je n'avais que les photos aériennes et ma mémoire pour essayer de documenter le manoir. En tous cas, on dirait que c'est réussi (à par l'avant-toit sur la rue pour le moment).Bravo... | |
| 11 | ~ 3 years ago | Pan | Aha! Je n'avais pas compris qu'il s'agissait d'un avant-toit. Le bâtiment est donc désormais une très bonne approximation de la réalité. Le système OSM 3D est ceci très démodé et peu pratique. Bravo encore en tous cas. | |
| 119885336 by Pan @ 2022-04-19 04:23 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | kartler175 ♦580 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1052897176Une distance entre les nœuds inférieure à 1 m n'est pas appropriée pour un contour d'atterrissage. Il n'existe aucune possibilité réaliste d'atteindre cette précision avec des photos a... |
| 2 | ~ 4 years ago | Pan | Oui, c'est un peu du micro mapping. Très utile pour se repérer ou suivre l'historique de l'évolution du paysage. Bonne suite de journée. | |
| 111473286 by Pan @ 2021-09-21 04:21 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | habi ♦2,158 | Ciao PanI came by your changesets due to https://osmstats.neis-one.org/?item=countries&country=Switzerland :)Would you mind putting 'real' changeset comments into what you do?The last few days you're only mentioning "Orsières adresses", but only touching fo... |
| 110371949 by Pan @ 2021-08-28 09:08 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | Jonathan Masur ♦26 | Bonjour Pan,La ligne électrique CFF Vernayaz-Puidoux a été déplacée dans ce changeset. A-t-elle vraiment été déplacée où l'avez-vous fait par accident ?Meilleures salutations. |
| 15577700 by Pan @ 2013-04-02 07:02 ~ 13 years ago | 1 | ~ 8 years ago | nlehuby ♦120 | Bonjour,je sais que ça date un peu, mais les batiments du chemin des Dents de Morcles sont étranges : le nom de la rue est indiqué dans un tag "undefined". Et pourquoi ce sont des multipolygones ?Cordialement |
| 2 | ~ 8 years ago | Pan | Bonjour à vous. Quel plaisir de lire d'autres mappeurs dans le coin! Pour le nom de la rue, c'est vraiment une erreur de ma part.Pour les multipolygones, c'était nécessaire pour faire jouxter les bâtiments avec les gazons. | |
| 39950272 by Pan @ 2016-06-11 11:09 ~ 10 years ago | 1 | ~ 10 years ago | maraf24 ♦5,349 | Duplikat. |
| 39947488 by Pan @ 2016-06-11 07:48 ~ 10 years ago | 1 | ~ 10 years ago | maraf24 ♦5,349 | Duplikat. |