Copyright © Pascal Neis | Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors | ResultMaps | Latest OSM discussions | Autoreload 5:00 min | Page limited to max. 500 changesets
22 changesets created by Rukkhadevata have been discussed with 9 replies of this contributor
Participated changeset discussions | More details | Discussions (Include blocked users) | Discussions without answer | Discussions without own answer | RSS feed
Changeset # Tmstmp UTC Contributor Comment
175137330
by Rukkhadevata
@ 2025-11-26 04:53		12025-11-26 08:26Kovoschiz
♦2,731		 Hi can you please discuss this? This is to be consistent with the Kowloon `=city` , and the HKI `admin_level=5`
There's already `place=state` https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/24330691
Otherwise Kowloon should be changed to eg `=region` (if "twin city" is not literal)
22025-11-26 08:26Kovoschiz
♦2,731		 Notice the `=city` is `admin_centre` , and `=state` the `label`
32025-11-26 08:34Rukkhadevata Hong Kong is divided into three traditional areas which do not have administrative status: HKI, Kowloon, and the New Territories. However, locals in Hong Kong seem to think that "Hong Kong" refers only to Hong Kong Island, while "Kowloon" is a separate part. Given that Hong Kong&...
42025-11-26 23:41旧加卷
♦30		 "place=city" does not necessarily have to be tied with the administration status?
52026-01-14 06:15Aleksandar Matejevic
♦233		 I think that Hong Kong Island node can not be admin_center but label of Hong Kong, and node of the city should have admin_center role because it is always a place which have administrative body controlling the area
165465644
by Rukkhadevata
@ 2025-04-26 13:24		12025-04-27 00:34蕉饼电脑
♦35		 对于阁下的编辑，我有以下疑点：
行政级别（admin_level）为6的平潭县关系仍作为行政级别由5降至7的平潭综合实验区的subarea？
福州市关系的范围重新包括平潭，但平潭不作为福州的subarea？
平潭应当独立绘制于福州市。平潭...
22025-12-24 11:52Aleksandar Matejevic
♦233		 Hi Rukkhadevata, can you answer to the 蕉饼电脑 comment since I have very similar question?
32025-12-24 12:05Rukkhadevata Hello.
Simply put, "平潭综合实验区" is an exception: it does not belong to China’s legally defined administrative division system, even though it has a management body independent of Fuzhou City. There are many such special cases in China, and most of them we label as admin_...
42025-12-24 18:02蕉饼电脑
♦35		 Functional areas with independent administration (e.g. Pingtan) -> still as a part of the original upper administrative region, and the only exception gives to Xiong'an because it's the "most important";
functional areas whose administration has been transferred to another ad...
176029277
by Rukkhadevata
@ 2025-12-17 02:08		12025-12-17 02:22MetroBot
♦8		 通常在一个route=subway中只包含一个方向，两个方向的route放在同一个type=route_master中

参考
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Metro_Mapping#Route_Relations

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/China/Transport/Urban_Rail_Transit#%E7%AB%99%E7%82%B9%E5%85%B3%E7%B3%BB%E5...
22025-12-17 02:26Rukkhadevata 这个关系表示的是线路的物理设施，没有方向，跟列车的运行路线不同（尽管在地铁中两者经常重合）
32025-12-17 02:37MetroBot
♦8		 我理解你的意思，但和现有的其他线路规范不同。下面是成都地铁30号线和成都地铁9号线（现有规范）的区别。

成都地铁9号线（现有规范）
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13088859

成都地铁30号线
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relatio...
42025-12-17 02:39MetroBot
♦8		 另外这是地铁相关的检查工具。你可以参考
https://maps.vk.com/osm/tools/subways/latest/china.html
52025-12-17 13:05Rukkhadevata 已修复 https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13367011/history/9
173549983
by Rukkhadevata
@ 2025-10-20 17:55		12025-10-21 03:12蕉饼电脑
♦35		 引用自https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Role:admin_centre 中文译文
“代表行政中心（首府、县城等）的节点，通常是镇、市或村（取决于边界级别，参见place=*）。这一作用是针对首都（如首都城市），而不是国会大厦（如立法大楼...
173359340
by Rukkhadevata
@ 2025-10-16 10:47		12025-10-19 09:14mueschel
♦6,901		 Hi,
could you check this lake? It got a strange "wlw" tag:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1261455
22025-10-20 04:12Rukkhadevata Thanks for pointing out my mistake! It should be "ele" and I have fixed it in #173517027.
168768699
by Rukkhadevata
@ 2025-07-11 04:13		12025-07-11 04:51honnip
♦9		 Hello.
It has been agreed in the Korean community that the name should include the word '특별시' (and '광역시', '도', '시' etc)
Please refer https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/topic/85627
160308129
by Rukkhadevata
@ 2024-12-17 16:12		12025-02-04 09:54Karma Howlin
♦4		 Thanks you.
149786023
by Rukkhadevata
@ 2024-04-09 16:46		12024-04-20 05:42理塘丁真
♦56		 茂县不是藏族县
22024-04-20 06:32Taksine
♦142		 你不写双语不舒服吗？？？？
149680556
by Rukkhadevata
@ 2024-04-07 07:35		12024-04-07 09:38Rukkhadevata Source
汉南区(武汉经开区)：https://www.whkfq.gov.cn/xxgk/fdzdgk/tzgg/202304/P020230422690973874003.pdf
蔡甸区：https://www.caidian.gov.cn/zwgk/zwdt/gsgg/202304/t20230422_2190017.shtml#:~:text=%E8%94%A1%E7%94%B8%E5%8C%BA%E5%9B%BD%E5%9C%9F%E7%A9%BA%E9%97%B4%E6%80%BB%E4%BD%93%E8%A7%84%E...
22024-04-07 09:45快乐的老鼠宝宝
♦569		 武汉经开区挂着法定汉南区的牌子，但是占了蔡甸区的沿江部分和汉阳区的一部分,实际管辖范围比法定行政区大，按照OSM实控为准的原则修改
148470770
by Rukkhadevata
@ 2024-03-10 16:39		12024-03-10 16:44Rukkhadevata Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20240310164232/https://www.fxqhm.gov.cn/content/2019/219020.html
147320553
by Rukkhadevata
@ 2024-02-11 09:45		12024-02-12 12:08ljc_jlyb
♦46		 ??请求来源
146467354
by Rukkhadevata
@ 2024-01-20 07:00		12024-01-21 09:05gscholz
♦2,863		 Hi Rukkhadevata,
this changeset has created errors in the OSM database regarding self intersecting ways:

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=129.36650&lat=42.80281&zoom=13&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=self_intersection_ways%2Cself_intersection_points...
22024-01-22 23:23ljc_jlyb
♦46		 现有边界与国土空间规划有出入 http://www.longjing.gov.cn/hd/yjzj/202311/P020231122340228226446.pdf
140658836
by Rukkhadevata
@ 2023-09-01 02:26		12023-09-14 07:17pzs111111
♦1		 what?
22023-09-14 11:09Rukkhadevata According to the on the ground principle of OSM, this boundary is consistent with the actual situation (i.e. the actual jurisdiction area of ​​the local authorities in the two provinces).
32023-12-01 00:40Nazlyn
♦2		 The boundary line between Qinghai and Tibet is completely wrong, and there is no such thing as the two provinces actually controlling the line.
143818470
by Rukkhadevata
@ 2023-11-09 11:34		12023-11-18 15:55YPGGUUY
♦33		 If you are really unsatisfied with the unclosed border, you can temporarily move them out of relation. But you don't have to delete the whole relation, do you?
136937815
by Rukkhadevata
@ 2023-06-04 15:34		12023-09-22 16:09Vson
♦1		 Please check the real information on map.baidu.com or other products. Your data are years before
138601060
by Rukkhadevata
@ 2023-07-17 03:33		12023-07-28 10:25λnko
♦23		 你好，根据多方面观察，新光快速的性质应该算是高速，请悉知
22023-07-28 10:29Rukkhadevata 新光快速路是城市快速路，而城市快速路（没有高速公路编号）在交通法规中与高速公路并列，因此不能简单地将其标签改为高速公路。欢迎到相关社群与更多mapper交流～
138630671
by Rukkhadevata
@ 2023-07-17 16:51		12023-07-18 13:51TaraV
♦43		 Hi, I've noticed you are creating new administrative boundaries in this region. Some of these (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/16101594, https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/16101597 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/16101596) are not closed. Are you still working on these?
...
22023-07-18 14:08Rukkhadevata I have fixed them in the follow-up changesets & thanks for your pointing out.
138564250
by Rukkhadevata
@ 2023-07-16 03:39		12023-07-16 03:40Rukkhadevata Error correction: #138522282
135138331
by Rukkhadevata
@ 2023-04-20 08:51		12023-04-20 14:08Kovoschiz
♦2,731		 Please check that the merge on HZMB already has `lanes=4`. Don't over-extend the `=motorway_link`. It is ugly and unrealistic. Follow the physical separation rule for best results.
22023-04-20 14:08Kovoschiz
♦2,731		 * `=service`
As well as `placement=`
132392204
by Rukkhadevata
@ 2023-02-11 07:20		12023-02-25 06:30Supaplex
♦11,168		 name:zh 有繁中與簡中，應該是要並列處理的，要顧慮不同變體的話，請善用 name:zh-Hans 與 name:zh-Hant
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/132392204
22023-02-25 17:16电子烟假
♦21		 如果要并列处理，谁在前谁在后是不是也要争议一下？如果要讲并列，强行按照某种先后顺序去填充name:zh是不是也是一种钦点？
32023-02-28 17:14快乐的老鼠宝宝
♦569		 后续： https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/132993934

> revert changeset 132392204: name:zh should be filled with both traditional Chinese and simplified Chinese
130626117
by Rukkhadevata
@ 2022-12-29 03:59		12022-12-29 12:06DavidKarlas
♦49		 Hi,

looks like https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/15058963 is broken, could you try to close it?

Thank you!
22023-01-10 16:24Rukkhadevata I've done demarcating the border around here, thanks for the reminder!
123031630
by Rukkhadevata
@ 2022-06-30 07:31		12022-06-30 11:06ivanbranco
♦2,826		 Hi Surcrose,

I saw you just edited this place name: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3048801807/history

but the place has no specific value, just a generic "yes", since you changed its name I guess you know what kind of place it is so we can fix it with a proper place value? :)