| Changeset | # | Tmstmp UTC | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 155956727 by UW Maddie @ 2024-08-30 06:02 | 1 | 2024-08-30 06:08 | UW Maddie | I also made some images for mapillary in parts of the surveyed area where new street level imagery was missing. they seem to still be processing though and haven't been made available as of the changeset submission time though |
| 86690920 by UW Maddie @ 2020-06-16 00:21 | 1 | 2024-08-16 06:58 | watmildon ♦255 | I was curious what was the idea with https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11207531/history I've not seen anything like it. Maybe an experiment that didn't pan out? hmmm |
| 2 | 2024-08-16 07:04 | UW Maddie | Yes, I was under instruction to make relations out of "complex intersections" at the time. I do not know what these relations were supposed to be for, but they don't seem to need me to add them anymore so I stopped a while ago. | |
| 3 | 2024-08-16 07:11 | watmildon ♦255 | Gotcha. No problem. I'll clean 'em up if I get a chance. | |
| 4 | 2024-08-16 07:13 | UW Maddie | Before you do that could I ask what they're for? In case there's some software need for them. It was different work from what I do in Seattle | |
| 5 | 2024-08-16 07:15 | watmildon ♦255 | Oh yeah, no problem. No rush on my side. They aren't causing me any issues. Just curiosity.I will await more info. | |
| 6 | 2024-08-16 22:01 | UW Maddie | I've confirmed that these intersection relations were a now unused experiment that can be removed. | |
| 7 | 2024-08-16 22:19 | watmildon ♦255 | Awesome. Thanks for the quick reply! | |
| 8 | 2024-08-20 02:46 | watmildon ♦255 | I have removed the Seattle area ones in this changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/155487954 | |
| 153014054 by UW Maddie @ 2024-06-22 03:25 | 1 | 2024-06-23 13:24 | Sajeevini sivajothy ♦119 | Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work, and it looks good.#OMGuru#OSMCha --- #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153014054 |
| 153015998 by UW Maddie @ 2024-06-22 05:52 | 1 | 2024-06-22 06:55 | Sajeevini sivajothy ♦119 | Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work, and it looks good.#OMGuru#OSMCha --- #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153015998 |
| 153013359 by UW Maddie @ 2024-06-22 02:15 | 1 | 2024-06-22 03:00 | UW Maddie | forgot to add "local knowledge" as a source |
| 140355962 by UW Maddie @ 2023-08-25 07:13 | 1 | 2023-09-03 08:02 | pesticides ♦31 | The path between the end of 28th Ave S and the I-90 Trail is paved and open to the public. I reverted the changes to that path in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140745936 |
| 127623663 by UW Maddie @ 2022-10-16 15:33 | 1 | 2023-07-21 05:37 | user_5359 ♦20,267 | Hello! Please take a look on https://www.osm.org/way/855690602/history. Which surface value is correctsurface = asphaltsurfaces = paved (older entry with typo)? |
| 2 | 2023-07-21 05:46 | UW Maddie | "surfaces" with an S is a typo, I guess I forgot to delete that after pasting in my surface=asphalt | |
| 81888428 by UW Maddie @ 2020-03-07 02:12 | 1 | 2023-03-26 13:46 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦8,328 | Why you added also project=opensidewalks tag on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/778993112/history ? |
| 133134267 by UW Maddie @ 2023-02-28 15:41 | 1 | 2023-03-20 18:24 | VigilantPenguin ♦32 | Hi there, did you intentionally delete part of Olive Way (between 9th Ave and Boren Ave)? |
| 2 | 2023-03-20 21:40 | UW Maddie | No, that must be a mistake when deleting crossing nodes to improve the crossings. Sorry about that | |
| 3 | 2023-03-20 21:46 | UW Maddie | I don't know how to use them but there are apparently tools for restoring deleted objects like potlatch and whodidit. Do you want me learn to fix this myself or are you doing it? | |
| 4 | 2023-03-20 22:24 | VigilantPenguin ♦32 | No worries, mistakes happen! I'll plan on undeleting it, just wanted to double check if there was a reason for it so I didn't trample anything. Thanks! | |
| 126041250 by UW Maddie @ 2022-09-11 09:19 | 1 | 2022-12-07 03:58 | wislander ♦30 | Hi 0wu,I think you're being much too generous with what counts as a "footway" in changesets like this. I just walked along Dayton Ave N an hour ago, and some of the sections you've tagged as footway are just a gravel shoulder. The east side, just north of N 85th St, doesn... |
| 126919133 by UW Maddie @ 2022-10-03 06:37 | 1 | 2022-10-03 09:00 | Cy R ♦21 | Hello, I noticed that this changes the tactile paving status on some curb ramps. The texture on these ramps are designed as grips for slippery weather conditions, but they're not compliant with ADA recommendations for a detectable warning surface. Does OpenSidewalks consider this type of surfac... |
| 126885375 by UW Maddie @ 2022-10-02 09:21 | 1 | 2022-10-02 16:53 | Cy R ♦21 | Hello! This changeset reverts the updated alignment of reconstructed curb ramps and crossings along N 80th St. This is one of the streets that I sent in the list that you asked for.Please check the version history of an element before adjusting it with outdated imagery.Thanks! |
| 2 | 2022-10-03 03:22 | UW Maddie | I wasn'y using outdated imagery for this, I saw your message about the construction, this is referencing the streetside imagery which is new enough to include the newly constructed curbs, some of which were actually missing | |
| 3 | 2022-10-03 03:28 | UW Maddie | And I know they're all new because they have tactile pads absent from the aerial imagery and match mapillary feeds from 2021 and 2022 | |
| 4 | 2022-10-03 04:03 | Cy R ♦21 | Hi 0wu, thanks for the reply. I'm referring to the angles of the curb ramps which changed after the construction. For example, this changeset moves some ramps back to the ~45 degree angle shown in the older Bing aerial imagery. However, the construction replaced a few of these with straight ang... | |
| 5 | 2022-10-03 04:21 | Cy R ♦21 | Oh... Dr. Caspi introduced me to the OpenSidewalks Tasking manager today. I just noticed that the iD instance in this tool doesn't have the newer King County aerial imagery option. You may wish to cross-reference changes made through the tasking manager with KC 2021 imagery available in the... | |
| 6 | 2022-10-03 04:36 | UW Maddie | That sounds good, but how do I access this imagery within the editor? Also I was using the 2021 streetside imagery for 80th, not the aerial imagery, for example the southwest corner of Densmore and 80th had an extra wide single curb added rather than 2, so now I have this question: should that type ... | |
| 7 | 2022-10-03 07:19 | Cy R ♦21 | To access the imagery in the editor on openstreetmap.org, open the "Background Settings" panel on the right, and choose the "King County Orthoimagery (2021)" option. The imagery offset settings are at the bottom of the panel.And good question about those newer "elbow mac... | |
| 8 | 2022-10-03 07:23 | Cy R ♦21 | To improve the representation of those wide curbs when using two nodes, we could connect both nodes with a way tagged with:barrier=kerbkerb=*tactile_paving=yesThis way they're connected by a single feature for anyone who happens to want that data. | |
| 9 | 2022-10-03 07:25 | Cy R ♦21 | Ah, I figured out how to get the KC 2021 imagery into the tasking manager:1. Open the background settings panel2. Choose the "Custom" option3. Paste this URL: https://gismaps.kingcounty.gov/arcgis/rest/services/BaseMaps/KingCo_Aerial_2021/MapServer/WMTS/tile/1.0.0/BaseMaps_KingCo_A... | |
| 10 | 2022-10-03 07:40 | UW Maddie | I got it to work. And yes I like this idea of mapping the wide curbs as 2 rather than 1 for this purpose so I'll start doing that, but I'm not sure if the extra way is necessary | |
| 126889323 by UW Maddie @ 2022-10-02 11:25 | 1 | 2022-10-02 17:16 | Cy R ♦21 | Hello! This changeset reverts the updated alignment of reconstructed curbs/bulbs on Green Lake Dr N. I've tried to align sidewalks very carefully south of 85th St to account for all of the new construction. |
| 125605462 by UW Maddie @ 2022-08-31 10:30 | 1 | 2022-08-31 20:20 | Cy R ♦21 | Hello again! This changeset removes a new curb ramp and reverts updated crossing alignments. The city rebuilt most of the crossings along Lake City Way. I've been working on correcting the alignment and details in these areas. |
| 2 | 2022-08-31 20:23 | Cy R ♦21 | (At the intersection of Lake City Way and Northgate Way, that is). | |
| 3 | 2022-08-31 20:27 | Cy R ♦21 | By the way, why do you split sidewalks ways into multiple redundant segments? I've been merging these together when I see them, but I can stop doing that if there's a good reason to keep the extra ways. | |
| 4 | 2022-08-31 20:28 | Cy R ♦21 | (Other mappers have been merging these back together as well). | |
| 5 | 2022-08-31 21:04 | UW Maddie | I split the lines where they are intersected by another walkable path. I was instructed to do this for some reason to do with routing in other software but it's been 3 years so I don't remember the reason, but I'm now awaiting a refresh on that so I'll get back to you on that lat... | |
| 83121689 by UW Maddie @ 2020-04-06 05:21 | 1 | 2022-08-13 22:34 | goldfndr ♦59 | At least ways 788344891 and 788344901 appear (at ground level) to be shoulders, not footways. Is there some indication I'm not seeing that would make them footways instead of shoulders? |
| 2 | 2022-08-31 07:42 | UW Maddie | How do we tag shoulders? We're tagging these as footways to specify a walkable path separated from the road for opensidewalks. I don't see any documentation about how to tag shoulders for this purpose. The only thing the wiki calls "shoulders" is something for cars to pull aside ... | |
| 3 | 2022-08-31 07:45 | UW Maddie | The reason why I didn't label them as sidewalks is because these paths are not separated from the road in any way like a proper sidewalk, making them not technically sidewalks but rather a type of foot path without a specific tag designated for them. I cannot use the existing shoulder tag becau... | |
| 125040034 by UW Maddie @ 2022-08-18 01:54 | 1 | 2022-08-19 15:41 | Cy R ♦21 | Hello! Seattle has not implemented request buttons and sound signals at every signalized crossing. No need to add these tags unless you're sure. I've fixed a few of these, but it's easier to keep track of what needs to be resurveyed when the tags are not already present.In a simil... |
| 2 | 2022-08-30 14:05 | UW Maddie | But those were not sound signal tags, they're foot signals tags I was told to input for when visual pedestrian signals are present. If I add that or add button operated tags, it's always after verifying that the signals and buttons exist with street level imagery, so I am sure about those.... | |
| 3 | 2022-08-30 14:32 | UW Maddie | Wait a minute, I see what you mean. Yeah it appears that there are some sound tags still from here from last year. I don't add those anymore, but some still remain, and should be removed if they're inaccurate. But it looks like some of my "traffic_signals:foot=yes" tags are being... | |
| 4 | 2022-08-30 20:38 | Cy R ♦21 | I apologize--I didn't notice that you stopped using the traffic_signals:sound tag. I must have clicked on an older element while reviewing this changeset (which looks good to me). Sorry for the confusion!I removed some traffic_signals:foot tags when converting a few crossings to the crossin... | |
| 122438555 by UW Maddie @ 2022-06-15 23:44 | 1 | 2022-06-16 01:41 | bohemio ♦1 | Testing messaging with @[0wu] by adding a comment in the messaging function within the OSMCha.org changeset 122438555. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/122438555 |
| 116819994 by UW Maddie @ 2022-01-31 11:55 | 1 | 2022-05-26 05:27 | wislander ♦30 | Hi 0wu,I was biking down Sand Point Way today, and the sidewalks you added along that street mostly don't seem to exist. Rather, I just saw a regular shoulder on each side, which can be used for car parking and isn't dedicated to pedestrians. --- ... |
| 97661088 by UW Maddie @ 2021-01-18 03:35 | 1 | 2021-04-09 08:51 | pnorman ♦318 | You've added a bunch of project=opensidewalks tags. In OSM we don't indicate data like that on objects. If needed someone can look at the history and see who added it and their changeset tags. I've fixed this in the local area in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/102625007 |
| 90139800 by UW Maddie @ 2020-08-30 09:24 | 1 | 2020-08-30 09:25 | UW Maddie | additional source: Bing bird's eye view. can be accessed via right click on Bing maps aerial imagery |
| 2 | 2020-08-30 20:11 | seattlefyi ♦377 | Hi, according to the Bing license (and further inquiries in the forums as of 2018) using Bing bird's eye view is not permitted. (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/d/d8/Bing_license.pdf) My understanding is that it is only really safe to use the imagery provided in our standard tools; any ... | |
| 3 | 2020-08-31 03:23 | UW Maddie | What should I do about this aside from not using that as a source any longer | |
| 4 | 2020-09-01 23:24 | seattlefyi ♦377 | That is a good first step, I've sent an email separately with suggestions. Thanks! | |
| 5 | 2020-09-02 03:31 | UW Maddie | I can individually remove the objects that were created with that as a reference, fortunately they make up a very small amount of the things I added, generally done when a tall building is misshapen or is blocking adjacent features due to being fragmented in the standard aerial imagery, though 2 day... | |
| 6 | 2020-09-02 12:53 | UW Maddie | all of them have been deleted | |
| 7 | 2020-09-03 00:44 | seattlefyi ♦377 | Thanks so much for following up with the changes! | |
| 90038018 by UW Maddie @ 2020-08-27 16:48 | 1 | 2020-09-02 12:56 | UW Maddie | all bing bird's eye sourced objects have been deleted |
| 2 | 2020-09-02 13:11 | UW Maddie | bing bird's eye is a banned source here due to not having the license to use it as a source, so i have deleted everything that used it | |
| 89641160 by UW Maddie @ 2020-08-19 14:47 | 1 | 2020-09-02 12:58 | UW Maddie | use of bing bird's eye is not allowed so all features that are based on its imagery are deleted |
| 2 | 2020-09-02 13:10 | UW Maddie | bird's eye is not allowed here because of not having the proper licensing, so i deleted the features that used it to follow rules | |
| 87326586 by UW Maddie @ 2020-06-30 06:02 | 1 | 2020-09-02 13:02 | UW Maddie | every feature added from bing bird's eye imagery are completely deleted |
| 2 | 2020-09-02 13:06 | UW Maddie | the reason i deleted them was because use of bing bird's eye is not allowed here due to licensing concerns | |
| 87226351 by UW Maddie @ 2020-06-27 13:15 | 1 | 2020-09-02 13:04 | UW Maddie | bird's eye can't be used as a source so i have completely deleted every object based on it |
| 87275930 by UW Maddie @ 2020-06-29 06:55 | 1 | 2020-09-02 13:03 | UW Maddie | use of bird's eye is not allowed on osm, so i have deleted all of the features that were based on bird's eye |
| 87388956 by UW Maddie @ 2020-07-01 08:58 | 1 | 2020-09-02 13:01 | UW Maddie | every object that was based on bing bird's eye imagery has been deleted, because bird's eye is not allowed here |
| 88179055 by UW Maddie @ 2020-07-18 15:27 | 1 | 2020-09-02 12:59 | UW Maddie | all objects sourced from bing bird's eye, which is not allowed, have been deleted to follow osm rules |
| 89706857 by UW Maddie @ 2020-08-20 18:24 | 1 | 2020-09-02 12:58 | UW Maddie | all objects based on bing bird's eye imagery have been deleted to align with osm rules |
| 85608633 by UW Maddie @ 2020-05-22 11:31 | 1 | 2020-09-02 10:02 | UW Maddie | anything only visible with bing bird's eye (unauthorized source) has been removed |
| 87351940 by UW Maddie @ 2020-06-30 13:46 | 1 | 2020-09-02 10:01 | UW Maddie | objects drawn based on bing bird's eye imagery have been deleted |
| 84682110 by UW Maddie @ 2020-05-05 09:35 | 1 | 2020-09-02 10:00 | UW Maddie | bird's eye (banned source) based objects have been removed now |
| 84516491 by UW Maddie @ 2020-05-02 11:09 | 1 | 2020-05-02 11:13 | UW Maddie | additoinal source: Bing Bird's Eye View |
| 2 | 2020-09-02 09:59 | UW Maddie | features created based on bird's eye imagery have been deleted | |
| 84509429 by UW Maddie @ 2020-05-02 08:01 | 1 | 2020-05-02 08:48 | UW Maddie | additional source used: "bing bird's eye"forgot to add it in the submission |
| 2 | 2020-09-02 09:58 | UW Maddie | bird's eye is not allowed so objects only visible with it have been deleted | |
| 85595145 by UW Maddie @ 2020-05-22 07:55 | 1 | 2020-09-02 08:49 | UW Maddie | removed objects from unauthorized source (bing bird's eye) |
| 85541038 by UW Maddie @ 2020-05-21 08:34 | 1 | 2020-09-02 07:51 | UW Maddie | deleted objects only visible with bird's eye (unauthorized source) |
| 83098105 by UW Maddie @ 2020-04-05 12:43 | 1 | 2020-04-05 15:04 | Glassman ♦5,487 | I noticed the footways on the South 216th Street bridge are missing layer=1. Adding the layer will help with rendering, routers and validating software. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/83098105 |
| 76014837 by UW Maddie @ 2019-10-21 19:07 | 1 | 2019-10-26 08:15 | mueschel ♦6,717 | Hi,you created many small areas with amenity=parking inside a large parking area - this is not allowed. Please use amenity=parking_space instead to mark individual spots for disabled people.https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dparking_spaceThanks |