| Changeset | # | Tmstmp UTC | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 167422895 by ZeLonewolf @ 2025-06-10 01:08 | 1 | 2025-06-24 15:44 | SD Mapman ♦39 | FYI this pulled in a number of SD township wikidata links, am going through individually and linking the right ones |
| 2 | 2025-06-24 15:44 | SD Mapman ♦39 | unfortunately my forefathers did not take duplication across state lines into account | |
| 3 | 2025-06-24 15:49 | ZeLonewolf | Ahh snap. If it's easier, we can do a revert and do.over | |
| 4 | 2025-06-24 18:37 | SD Mapman ♦39 | not that many of them, I can get to them this week | |
| 158990316 by ZeLonewolf @ 2024-11-11 01:11 | 1 | 2024-11-11 01:12 | ZeLonewolf | Ooops, sorry about the large bounding box! |
| 2 | 2025-06-14 02:26 | snoozingnewt ♦82 | Only now noticing that node 4 was resurrected to make a manhole cover. Node 5 next? | |
| 3 | 2025-06-14 11:09 | ZeLonewolf | Unfortunately the bounding box treatment on undeleting nodes is not ideal | |
| 167356853 by ZeLonewolf @ 2025-06-08 15:28 | 1 | 2025-06-10 16:35 | SD Mapman ♦39 | So the road has two names since it's on the state line, if you have a house south of the line it would be off of 100th St while north of the line it would be off of 102nd St SE... I have the state line roads along the SD border set up with the semicolon identifier is that incorrect? |
| 2 | 2025-06-10 16:36 | SD Mapman ♦39 | mainly just asking because this was a colossal pain in iD to do and I don't want to mess with it again haha | |
| 3 | 2025-06-10 16:37 | SD Mapman ♦39 | alternatively the name could change depending on who maintains it | |
| 4 | 2025-06-10 16:38 | SD Mapman ♦39 | see https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1120136215, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/14065864 for other examples | |
| 5 | 2025-06-10 18:31 | ZeLonewolf | Oh huh, for that case, name:right and name:left are supposed to indicate what the name is on each side (relative to the direction of the way). Which of course, is also a colossal pain to do. Semi-colon delimiters in name tags throw a warning in JOSM because you're supposed to use the various ??... | |
| 6 | 2025-06-10 18:47 | SD Mapman ♦39 | I have name:left and name:right on some of the others as well (was moving too quickly for these and forgot). I'll post something in the forum and see what people think. I'm fine with whatever, just want the best way to do it. | |
| 167158443 by ZeLonewolf @ 2025-06-04 03:31 | 1 | 2025-06-08 23:46 | StreetSurveyor ♦103 | Hi there! Curious, is there a new "no trespassing" sign? I surveyed this pretty recently and the only sign aside from the road name was a "beware of turtles" on each end. |
| 2 | 2025-06-09 00:59 | ZeLonewolf | Hi Nick. Yes, there is a no trespassing sign, at least, on the Fishing Cove Road side. No, it is not a new sign. It was there when I surveyed it a year ago, and it was there a half hour ago when I went to check.Here is the photo I took of it:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:No_trespassi... | |
| 3 | 2025-06-09 16:31 | StreetSurveyor ♦103 | Thanks! Should this be a residential road instead of service? | |
| 4 | 2025-06-09 16:43 | ZeLonewolf | I haven't gone past the sign, but I think you could make an argument for either. It has attributes of either type. It's really narrow and looks like it goes to only one house. I'm not sure the distinction matters too much. | |
| 86589334 by ZeLonewolf @ 2020-06-13 03:11 | 1 | 2025-04-22 23:14 | aduxas ♦30 | I just hiked this trail today and it does not go close to Wilbur Pond, but somewhat higher inland. It is blue/orange/red combined here. Did they move the trail or was your GPS signal off? Mine is here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/aduxas/traces/11963911 |
| 2 | 2025-04-23 01:16 | ZeLonewolf | Hi aduxas. I mapped what I hiked back in 2020, but that was five years ago! My GPS data is here:https://www.strava.com/activities/3580163692We attempted to follow the trail as best we could as it was marked on the ground at the time. However, the trail alignment has changed at times over the ... | |
| 3 | 2025-04-23 01:25 | aduxas ♦30 | OK. FYI I missed where the trails fork, but I looked for your trail where it joins the current one, and could not find it. I'm sure I'll go back; it's a great spot. I asked a ranger but they had no idea. | |
| 4 | 2025-04-23 01:37 | aduxas ♦30 | BTW your Strava activity shows the trail in agreement with mine; I'll move it. | |
| 159938084 by ZeLonewolf @ 2024-12-05 00:59 | 1 | 2025-04-09 01:35 | partytax ♦5 | Hello. I'm an active local mapper in Lynchburg and noticed you deleted a bunch of low-level administrative boundaries in the city. Could you explain why you did this? They were imported from the city's open data portal. |
| 2 | 2025-04-09 01:40 | OptikalCrow ♦43 | I'll admit this was something I did early on in my mapping career- so the topology of them was probably bad. I take responsibility for any mistakes there. I'd be happy to import them the right way as I think it's useful information, unless there are other objections than just the ... | |
| 3 | 2025-04-09 08:23 | ZeLonewolf | The geometries were broken in various ways. Not in boundary relations, not connected to adjoining boundaries, and so forth. They are also not listed in Virginia's entry on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_admin_level which suggests no community discussion occurred to add an adm... | |
| 4 | 2025-04-09 14:57 | OptikalCrow ♦43 | Makes sense. If we were to re-add these with the proper geometry, could we still add them, using a non-administrative boundary tag and no admin_level? Or would you suggest leaving them as nodes with no established boundaries? | |
| 5 | 2025-04-09 16:37 | ZeLonewolf | I think that needs a community discussion that's worth opening a thread. There's several folks I can think of off the top of my head that ought to weigh in. Sub-municipal boundaries can be a controversial topic and I don't think there's a strong community consensus. Therefore I d... | |
| 162641812 by ZeLonewolf @ 2025-02-18 02:07 | 1 | 2025-02-28 14:03 | aol_austin ♦1 | 1567 |
| 160932242 by ZeLonewolf @ 2025-01-03 02:13 | 1 | 2025-02-17 18:20 | ElliottPlack ♦926 | This one is a little tricky. I set up duplicates because there is a CDP called Friendship Heights Village and then there is an incorporated placed called Village of Friendship Heights. The latter is what this represented.What is tricky about this is that the incorporation is via something called... |
| 162028704 by ZeLonewolf @ 2025-02-01 22:51 | 1 | 2025-02-17 17:55 | ElliottPlack ♦926 | Thanks Brian! What are the updates, in general, for my understanding? |
| 2 | 2025-02-17 18:08 | ZeLonewolf | Should be change to boundary=statistical + border_type=census_designated_place. This was after I curated the CDP list to match the census bureau. | |
| 160228441 by ZeLonewolf @ 2024-12-13 02:16 | 1 | 2025-02-06 18:18 | GA_Kevin ♦22 | Hello, this seems to have resulted in approx. 100 nodes with no tags (orphaned nodes), was this intended? Overpass query: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1Ynb |
| 2 | 2025-02-07 01:56 | ZeLonewolf | Good catch. Sometimes this happens after an edit conflict. I'm not quite sure how to make that OP query work in JOSM though to delete them | |
| 3 | 2025-02-07 02:53 | GA_Kevin ♦22 | I believe if you select export JOSM is an option, unsure about after that though. | |
| 4 | 2025-02-07 16:30 | GA_Kevin ♦22 | I was able to figure it out and updated on changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162252021#map=15/30.94029/-83.00205 :) | |
| 5 | 2025-02-07 16:32 | ZeLonewolf | Thank you! | |
| 161402791 by ZeLonewolf @ 2025-01-16 04:31 | 1 | 2025-01-16 14:10 | pkoby ♦110 | I know I saw some discussion about removing place tags from boundaries, but I can't find it. Do you have a reference so I can familiarize myself? I got confused when my Overpass queries stopped displaying as expected... |
| 2 | 2025-01-16 14:22 | ZeLonewolf | Best explanation here:https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/proposal-to-tag-boroughs-of-new-york-as-place-boroughs/123015/2 | |
| 3 | 2025-01-16 14:23 | ZeLonewolf | Also check out this project, where I maintain validator findings: https://github.com/ZeLonewolf/wikidata-qa | |
| 160852235 by ZeLonewolf @ 2025-01-01 02:06 | 1 | 2025-01-01 15:58 | ratrun ♦231 | Hi, this change does not seem to be a good idea. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/448845172: you left the descriptive tags of the highway but removed the highway tag itself. Now there are unconnected ways.Please fix this on that location and also here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/467... |
| 2 | 2025-01-01 16:36 | ZeLonewolf | Whoops, must have fat fingered the wrong key. Thanks for alerting me | |
| 3 | 2025-01-01 22:56 | ZeLonewolf | Ok, everything should be set now. I reverted this changeset and re-created it correctly in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160888051. Please confirm that everything looks as expected. | |
| 4 | 2025-01-02 05:01 | ratrun ♦231 | Thanks, looks good now. | |
| 160376042 by ZeLonewolf @ 2024-12-19 03:38 | 1 | 2024-12-19 03:38 | ZeLonewolf | Intended changeset description was to update the Jennings boundary and conflate it to the FL/GA boundary |
| 152826629 by ZeLonewolf @ 2024-06-18 03:30 | 1 | 2024-12-17 23:09 | aduxas ♦30 | I left the following comment to version #8 (AaronFitz):---------The sign at the entrance says NO TRESPASSING. No exceptions. It is not because it "looks walker friendly" that the sign is open for interpretation. It looks bike friendly too, and I did ride my bike there. Yet, you only ch... |
| 2 | 2024-12-17 23:15 | ZeLonewolf | Good catch, I would remove the foot=yes tag. | |
| 3 | 2024-12-18 14:20 | aduxas ♦30 | Just checked and noticed I commented on version #7. I had not seen you commented on #8. The wikipedia article says: "The Rhode Island Supreme Court held in 2020 in Clark v. Buttonwoods Beach Association that the streets are public"Does that mean the roads are public after all? | |
| 4 | 2024-12-18 14:23 | aduxas ♦30 | I assume the 2023 ruling supersedes? | |
| 5 | 2024-12-19 03:00 | ZeLonewolf | A few years back there was some drama with the neighborhood association where it was murky about the roads were private (and therefore the residents allowed to post things like the no trespassing sign). However, the 2023 document seems to resolve that as far as I can tell (am not a lawyer). | |
| 160112257 by ZeLonewolf @ 2024-12-10 01:29 | 1 | 2024-12-10 16:05 | DavidKarlas ♦49 | Was deletion of https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/417316 intential? |
| 2 | 2024-12-10 16:29 | ZeLonewolf | Oof, looks like that got boogered up, thanks for catching it | |
| 3 | 2024-12-11 03:11 | ZeLonewolf | Fixed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160151297 | |
| 4 | 2024-12-11 04:24 | DavidKarlas ♦49 | Thank you, https://nightwatch.openstreetmap.si/AdminsState helps catching this kind of stuff :P | |
| 146011520 by ZeLonewolf @ 2024-01-08 01:38 | 1 | 2024-12-06 13:29 | scarapella ♦36 | Hey Zelonewolf,Looks like this edit broke r13363410. Not sure how important or not the zip code boundaries are in OSM, but I noticed it so I thought I'd mention it. Anyway you are the boundary guy so I leave it to you to decide :-)Cheers,scarapella |
| 2 | 2024-12-06 13:39 | ZeLonewolf | Grumble grumble ok thanks! | |
| 3 | 2024-12-06 13:41 | ZeLonewolf | All set! | |
| 4 | 2024-12-06 21:54 | scarapella ♦36 | Don’t think of me as bringing bad news. Think of me as bringing you another opportunity to edit OSM! ;-) | |
| 159639768 by ZeLonewolf @ 2024-11-27 01:55 | 1 | 2024-11-27 22:58 | ☆Finvenkulo ♦91 | Nazwa (klucz «name») powinna być zgodna z tym co jest na ziemi, ewentualnie powinna być w lokalnym języku. Zostało to opisane na wiki:https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name#Multiple_namesPolska znajduje się na kontynencie europejskim, więc nazwa powinna być równ... |
| 2 | 2024-11-28 00:42 | ZeLonewolf | Please discuss with the community before making further changes, see:https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/16924 | |
| 157231839 by ZeLonewolf @ 2024-09-28 23:07 | 1 | 2024-11-12 15:48 | aduxas ♦30 | You marked these trails as private, but I believe the owner is the City of Providence. Wouldn't it be better just to set "access=no" instead? Same for trails to the South of the reservoir. |
| 2 | 2024-11-12 16:54 | ZeLonewolf | Sounds good to me | |
| 152703949 by ZeLonewolf @ 2024-06-15 02:52 | 1 | 2024-11-06 12:23 | aduxas ♦30 | Shouldn't the tracks here be marked as private? This seems to be a private nursery. Possibly customers/permissive -- I don't know this business. |
| 2 | 2024-11-06 13:03 | ZeLonewolf | Access is unclear so I didn't tag it | |
| 153915305 by ZeLonewolf @ 2024-07-14 03:28 | 1 | 2024-07-15 09:51 | TrickyFoxy ♦961 | 👋 https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11624636leaf_type=broadleaved ->= broadleavedDid you want to delete this key or is it just a mistake? |
| 148573004 by ZeLonewolf @ 2024-03-13 02:06 | 1 | 2024-03-14 11:51 | emersonveenstra ♦1,457 | This changeset created https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11726182278 on top of the already existing place=village node, might want to check that out |
| 2 | 2024-03-22 12:55 | emersonveenstra ♦1,457 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6685254023 is the already existing one, btw | |
| 3 | 2024-04-04 12:28 | ZeLonewolf | Not quite sure how that happened but I agree the nodes should be merged | |
| 146745470 by ZeLonewolf @ 2024-01-27 14:06 | 1 | 2024-03-06 14:07 | Kai Johnson ♦162 | Substantial portions of this relation include former highway alignments that haven't existed for more than 50 years. Does it really still belong in OSM? |
| 2 | 2024-03-06 14:44 | ZeLonewolf | Which of the 1200 relations are you referring to? | |
| 3 | 2024-03-06 15:06 | Kai Johnson ♦162 | Ah! Sorry! I didn't see how big that changesets was. This one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8534013 | |
| 4 | 2024-03-07 13:02 | ZeLonewolf | Might need to be tagged as a historic route. I'm not sure what the on the ground situation is | |
| 5 | 2024-03-21 23:52 | Kai Johnson ♦162 | Sorry it took me a while to get back to this. I'm interested in the things in the super relation for the historic alignments of US 80 that are no longer roads.relation(8534013);(._; >>;) -> .old80;way.old80[!highway];out count;way.old80["abandoned:highway"];out ... | |
| 111519317 by ZeLonewolf @ 2021-09-22 02:18 | 1 | 2024-03-19 15:13 | JamesChevalier ♦7 | Did you intend to delete Grant Creek?https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4249539https://citystrides.com/cities/13515 |
| 2 | 2024-03-19 15:23 | ZeLonewolf | Well that was two years ago, but likely deleted it for not being a city (it seems to be a section of Missoula, Montana).I dropped a note on Slack in the Montana channel to see if these neighborhood boundaries should be mapped in the hierarchy.https://app.slack.com/client/T029HV94T/CDN6LLF37 | |
| 148322432 by ZeLonewolf @ 2024-03-07 04:15 | 1 | 2024-03-09 10:57 | mueschel ♦6,560 | Hi,you uploaded some ways with only strange tags, could you check this?e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1258474072 |
| 2 | 2024-03-09 11:05 | ZeLonewolf | Ugh ok thanks for catching this | |
| 146592684 by ZeLonewolf @ 2024-01-23 13:12 | 1 | 2024-01-23 14:43 | SekeRob ♦1,433 | Thank you but we/me had it all under control |
| 2 | 2024-01-23 14:48 | ZeLonewolf | It's always acceptable to correct an error. I don't need permission. | |
| 3 | 2024-01-23 14:51 | SekeRob ♦1,433 | Yes, and you would not have known lest you were reading the forum Q&A with Mateusz. I was uploading and got a JOSM conflict message. | |
| 4 | 2024-01-23 15:00 | ZeLonewolf | It happens sometimes, and it's not a big deal. | |
| 146463108 by ZeLonewolf @ 2024-01-20 01:45 | 1 | 2024-01-21 13:01 | wireguy ♦548 | fyi, this change broke relation 191205 relation 11582238, fixed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/146511776 |
| 2 | 2024-01-22 12:43 | wireguy ♦548 | odd but relation 2554044 showed as broken today, I believe also from this changeset. Not sure why it didn't show the other day. Fixed. | |
| 3 | 2024-01-22 12:45 | ZeLonewolf | Thanks! | |
| 146463085 by ZeLonewolf @ 2024-01-20 01:43 | 1 | 2024-01-21 19:44 | s222121 ♦33 | It looks like South Dallas County had a "Superparcel Remover". |
| 2 | 2024-01-21 20:31 | ZeLonewolf | I'm not sure what you're trying to say. | |
| 146428133 by ZeLonewolf @ 2024-01-19 04:45 | 1 | 2024-01-20 10:34 | mueschel ♦6,560 | Hi,could you have a look here? 5 imported areas reappeared yesterday after you deleted them two days ago.E.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1205090454/history |
| 2 | 2024-01-20 14:55 | ZeLonewolf | Thanks, I think I got them all this time. Let me know if you find any others I've missed. | |
| 146303934 by ZeLonewolf @ 2024-01-16 01:51 | 1 | 2024-01-16 21:59 | CjMalone ♦233 | Woops, looks like this one removed brand:wikidata, not brand:wikipedia. Let me know if you need any help with reverting it. |
| 2 | 2024-01-16 22:34 | ZeLonewolf | Ugh, I was afraid I missed one 😬 Feel free to revert and do-over if you can get to it before late this evening. | |
| 3 | 2024-01-17 02:37 | ZeLonewolf | Resolved in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/146344539Thanks for catching this! | |
| 4 | 2024-01-17 14:48 | CjMalone ♦233 | Thank you | |
| 146233212 by ZeLonewolf @ 2024-01-14 03:55 | 1 | 2024-01-14 17:12 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,574 | link: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/possible-error-in-the-mass-retagging-of-natural-cape-to-place-locality-in-hawaii/107959 |
| 145684122 by ZeLonewolf @ 2023-12-30 04:41 | 1 | 2023-12-30 15:54 | Glassman ♦5,211 | Was this mass edit discussed anywhere? --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/145684122 |
| 2 | 2023-12-30 16:14 | ZeLonewolf | If it's wrong, feel free to revert. | |
| 3 | 2023-12-30 18:41 | Glassman ♦5,211 | The question isn't is it wrong, but where was it discussed? --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/145684122 | |
| 4 | 2023-12-30 21:59 | ZeLonewolf | Cliff, you know the answer and now you're just unnecessarily busting my balls here with rule lawyering. This edit updates the tagging on TIGER-imported CDPs identifed by TIGER tagging that indicates that it's a CDP.For example:https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/237313Tagged\... | |
| 144951230 by ZeLonewolf @ 2023-12-09 23:49 | 1 | 2023-12-16 09:21 | Dimitar155 ♦656 | Thanks for adding it! The only thing to note is that the one you added is for the town and not for the municipality. You can match them relatively safely if you check the ekatte tag. |
| 144581288 by ZeLonewolf @ 2023-11-29 10:00 | 1 | 2023-11-29 10:07 | ZeLonewolf | Slack discussion also at https://osmus.slack.com/archives/CCJ2P6KCH/p1701209510983289 |
| 144457428 by ZeLonewolf @ 2023-11-26 00:40 | 1 | 2023-11-26 01:10 | StreetSurveyor ♦103 | This portion of Gammell is open prior to the gate based on my survey. The majority that is marked private was the accurate placement of the private tag. A while back, you gave kudos to my adjustment of leaving this small section unrestricted when you had marked all of Gammell private. |
| 2 | 2023-11-26 01:11 | StreetSurveyor ♦103 | Cliff and Barclay had no restrictions so permissive seems the most appropriate. | |
| 3 | 2023-11-26 01:18 | ZeLonewolf | There is a gate on Cliff with a no trespassing sign at this location:https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11186999734#map=19/41.48193/-71.29910 | |
| 4 | 2023-11-26 01:19 | ZeLonewolf | I can go survey it tomorrow and take an updated photograph if you'd like to see it. | |
| 5 | 2023-11-26 01:20 | ZeLonewolf | Note that a number of new gates and fences have gone up over the past year in this area. | |
| 6 | 2023-11-26 01:37 | StreetSurveyor ♦103 | Okay. I surveyed it in May and at the time, the only thing restricted was the part originally marked on Gammell which completely threw off my route! | |
| 144457386 by ZeLonewolf @ 2023-11-26 00:36 | 1 | 2023-11-26 01:00 | StreetSurveyor ♦103 | This portion of the road is open and the gate is another aesthetic gate. We both have it marked further down where the access is restricted. |
| 2 | 2023-11-26 01:25 | ZeLonewolf | It's clearly marked as private. There's nothing permissive about this road. | |
| 143908833 by ZeLonewolf @ 2023-11-11 17:30 | 1 | 2023-11-11 17:31 | ZeLonewolf | Intended CS description was "updated foot paths and surface attributes.JOSM somehow uploaded my changeset on me prematurely. |
| 135174608 by ZeLonewolf @ 2023-04-21 02:58 | 1 | 2023-10-24 14:07 | murble ♦26 | expressway=yes seems unlikely here. given there is cycling infrastructure etc. what is your reasoning? |
| 2 | 2023-10-24 14:43 | ZeLonewolf | On the satellite view it looked expressway-like to me, but if you have a better local understanding feel free to adjust it. | |
| 140937342 by ZeLonewolf @ 2023-09-07 11:55 | 1 | 2023-09-08 09:41 | StreetSurveyor ♦103 | This change is not appropriate. There is no gate here. This section is open and should not be private. |
| 125373826 by ZeLonewolf @ 2022-08-25 18:12 | 1 | 2022-08-27 01:08 | Retired Account ♦104 | This changeset is an automated edit, solely based on your personal perception that this is nonsense.The Wiki page itself is meant to document what is the tag meant to be. Woodpeck comment is regarding the removal of the Wiki page (which it is up to the discretion of the Wiki Administrators), but... |
| 2 | 2022-08-27 01:15 | Retired Account ♦104 | As a sidenote, this change also illustrates that whatever you have wrote as your values do not match the action seen here. | |
| 3 | 2022-08-27 01:45 | ZeLonewolf | I disagree. | |
| 4 | 2022-08-27 01:59 | Retired Account ♦104 | Your change will be reverted as you are not able to provide any substantiation of your stand. | |
| 5 | 2022-08-27 02:22 | ZeLonewolf | The community consensus is that service=driveway2 is nonsense. | |
| 6 | 2022-08-27 02:28 | Retired Account ♦104 | As stated, there is no banned tags and what you or your community perceives as nonsense does not apply beyond your community. Further, you have no valid justification for any such change, and are in no position to dictate what mappers use. | |
| 7 | 2022-08-27 02:30 | ZeLonewolf | The justification is that the tag provides no specific meaning not already present in highway=service. | |
| 8 | 2022-08-27 02:34 | ZeLonewolf | If you feel my stance and actions are unreasonable, I invite you to submit your objection to the Data Working Group at data@openstreetmap.org, and I will happily submit to and comply with whatever judgment they determine. | |
| 9 | 2022-08-27 02:34 | Retired Account ♦104 | "To define a service way in more detail, see service=*." You are missing the point stated above by saying it provides no specific meaning.If we apply this logic to service=driveway, I can similar say that that particular tag also provides no specific meaning. Your logic is not valid. | |
| 10 | 2022-08-27 02:36 | Retired Account ♦104 | Your stance and actions are unreasonable, and contradicts the infobox stating the following..."The reason is documented in Deprecated features. You are still free to continue to use or interpret this tag as you see fit since OpenStreetMap does not have “banned features”.Under no... | |
| 11 | 2022-08-27 04:33 | snoozingnewt ♦82 | Can you tell me what driveway2 is supposed to mean then? | |
| 12 | 2022-08-27 04:35 | snoozingnewt ♦82 | If it has no meaning or you don’t know one then it is a nonsense tag. If i add h=oefotprkf to 489 reservoirs across the US and someone automatically removes all of them I wouldn’t consider that to be against the rules. | |
| 13 | 2022-08-27 04:58 | jmarchon ♦425 | I would agree that service=driveway2 is nonsense. At least until someone documents in the wiki its meaning and intended usage. | |
| 14 | 2022-08-27 05:03 | Retired Account ♦104 | Defines "driveway is a minor service road providing access from the highway to an offstreet area used for driving, servicing, parking, or otherwise accommodating motor vehicles", which can include minor roads linking to parking aisles, or minor roads linking to other minor roads. Your stat... | |
| 15 | 2022-08-27 05:12 | jmarchon ♦425 | service=driveway2 is labeled as deprecated, and a possible tagging mistake in the wiki. Therefore, I think it is reasonable to be removing those tags. The wiki states the automated edits should only be done by people who really know what they are doing. I trust ZeLonewolf to be doing it correctly. | |
| 16 | 2022-08-27 05:18 | Retired Account ♦104 | With your response, it will mean that the official policy should change to...1) OSM has banned features.2) Users can and should do automated edits to something that they have not mapped, even if it is different from the intent of the person mapping it.3) Automated edits can be done without any... | |
| 17 | 2022-08-27 05:29 | jmarchon ♦425 | 1) I wouldn't call service=driveway2 banned, just deprecated. If someone has a better tag for it, they are welcome to fix it, in my opinion.2) Yes, if they really know what they are doing, as the wiki states.3) I trust ZeLonewolf to have followed the proper procedures, as they are a very ex... | |
| 18 | 2022-08-27 05:51 | Retired Account ♦104 | If simply deleting off all custom tags across several changesets #125373826, #125428168, #125428245 in the middle of an active dispute does not consititute banning, without seeing logical rationale or procedures illustrates a experienced mapper, I am humbled by how such actions can be taken and furt... | |
| 19 | 2022-08-27 07:52 | woodpeck ♦2,417 | I think that using "highway=driveway2" is a very bad idea - it is a bad choice of tags, and it will mean that the information is lost to 95% of software which simply ignores this unknown and esoteric highway category. I would never use it, and if I came across it on an object I was editing... | |
| 20 | 2022-08-27 08:27 | woodpeck ♦2,417 | Two corrections: 1. I was mistaken when I spoke of highway=driveway2 above, of course it is service=driveway2 and the fact that this is not known to most of software will make these highways look MORE prominent than a standard driveway. One wonders why e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1087... | |
| 21 | 2022-08-27 14:02 | snoozingnewt ♦82 | Your definition was just the definition of driveway, which is no different than just using service=driveway versus service=driveway2. Why not use driveway? I still don’t understand how there is any meaningful difference | |
| 22 | 2022-08-27 15:28 | Woazboat ♦80 | > seek community consensus for this. Then you may make the change again.Adding my 2 cents here to support the removal of `service=driveway2`. It does not provide any value whatsoever and does not convey any additional information. All service ways that can be considered drveways should be tag... | |
| 23 | 2022-08-27 15:38 | Woazboat ♦80 | Your interpretation of "there are no banned tags" is incorrect. It does not mean that you are free to add whatever nonsensial tags you like. What it means that you can add any information that is (among other things but most importantly):1) Verifiable2) Useful (i.e. actually provide ... | |
| 24 | 2022-08-27 16:35 | Retired Account ♦104 | @WoazboatYour interpretation will likewise apply to service=driveway. That tag itself des not add much value in itself, so do you mean that all service=driveway tags should be removed?How one determines additional value/information differs from another person. There is value that you do not see ... | |
| 25 | 2022-08-27 16:37 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,574 | > That tag itself des not add much value in itselfThis is untrue, it allows to identify roads very likely to be less important | |
| 26 | 2022-08-27 16:40 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,574 | (nevertheless, as far as I see: this edit has not passed https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct )though I agree that this tag is broken and we would benefit from purging it | |
| 27 | 2022-08-27 16:43 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,574 | Though main problem with Automated Edits code of conduct it is that it is really strict and vast majority of automated edits violates it, while people are refusing to drop unnecessary parts. | |
| 28 | 2022-09-02 18:50 | woodpeck ♦2,417 | @ZeLoneWolf, please revert your edit as you were asked to by me, in this discussion, 6 days ago. | |
| 29 | 2022-09-02 18:58 | ZeLonewolf | Completed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/125711868 | |
| 30 | 2022-09-03 09:19 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,574 | continues in https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2022-September/087734.html | |
| 31 | 2023-07-11 20:06 | Matija Nalis ♦116 | also https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/proposed-bulk-removal-of-service-driveway2 | |
| 135313241 by ZeLonewolf @ 2023-04-24 17:59 | 1 | 2023-04-25 11:10 | ianlopez1115 ♦365 | Way 546646344 (structure close to the southern edge of Bluff Avenue) may have been mistagged as landuse=residential, retagged as building=house in changeset 135337952 --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/135313241 |
| 2 | 2023-04-25 11:28 | ZeLonewolf | Thanks for fixing it! | |
| 134460255 by ZeLonewolf @ 2023-04-03 15:32 | 1 | 2023-04-08 09:13 | AaronFitz ♦14 | Hey man! Haven't run this one yet but what do you usually use as a authority reference guide? Found Rolling Green Road listed in NPT's official town GIS, but it does seem like the addresses are building numbers and not attached to Admiral Kalbfus. https://newportri.mapgeo.io/datasets/pro... |
| 2 | 2023-04-08 11:07 | ZeLonewolf | In Newport I go with what's signed on the ground as they're generally pretty good about putting signs on their roads and it lines up with OSM's "on the ground" rule. There isn't a sign here like there is for every other city street, so I figured it was more appropriate... | |
| 91193502 by ZeLonewolf @ 2020-09-21 02:30 | 1 | 2023-03-05 17:36 | Kai Johnson ♦162 | Should the protected areas in this changeset have admin_level=4? |
| 2 | 2023-03-05 17:42 | ZeLonewolf | At the time there were active discussions on how to tag State Parks, and this was something I came up with at the time to express the concept. If I were tagging it today, I'd probably change it to leisure=nature_reserve or boundary=protected_area + protected_area=recreation, perhaps with a prot... | |
| 3 | 2023-03-05 17:48 | Kai Johnson ♦162 | I was doing a query on admin_level=4 features in the US to collect some information about state boundaries and these relations ended up in the data set. At the very least, I might drop that tag from the relations. | |
| 101439678 by ZeLonewolf @ 2021-03-21 13:37 | 1 | 2023-02-23 03:49 | CurlingMan13 ♦2,039 | Heads up, a golf mapper changed Lake Livingston into a Lateral Water Hazard about a month ago. I have corrected it. |
| 130767988 by ZeLonewolf @ 2023-01-02 00:38 | 1 | 2023-01-07 15:03 | Friendly_Ghost ♦635 | Thank you for this. What is https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/305639190/history, is it the old label node? |
| 2 | 2023-01-07 15:06 | ZeLonewolf | Looks like it was. How did you manage to find that? | |
| 3 | 2023-01-07 15:21 | ZeLonewolf | Restored the original node history in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/130984993 | |
| 4 | 2023-01-07 15:56 | Friendly_Ghost ♦635 | I was curious what nodes you deleted here, and I found it by looking at the version number, as this one was the only one with version 18 and the others were all on version 2 after you deleted them.Thank you for restoring the old node. | |
| 130872742 by ZeLonewolf @ 2023-01-04 15:53 | 1 | 2023-01-05 02:56 | wireguy ♦548 | I think this change broke relation 13677933 |
| 2 | 2023-01-05 03:07 | ZeLonewolf | Fixed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/130888580 | |
| 3 | 2023-01-05 14:42 | wireguy ♦548 | missed relation 1269710 was also broke, fixed it | |
| 4 | 2023-01-05 14:56 | ZeLonewolf | Thanks! | |
| 129381468 by ZeLonewolf @ 2022-11-25 20:07 | 1 | 2022-11-29 01:40 | ZeLonewolf | Looks like I had some kind of issue with JOSM not closing my changesets. Sorry about the large bounding box! |
| 128540845 by ZeLonewolf @ 2022-11-06 00:52 | 1 | 2022-11-06 01:00 | ZeLonewolf | I apologize for the trans-atlantic changeset. I accidentally had the auto-close changeset box unchecked in JOSM! |
| 125711868 by ZeLonewolf @ 2022-09-02 18:58 | 1 | 2022-09-03 09:22 | rtnf ♦21 | Apparently, there is a new proposal to mass delete service=driveway2 on OSM-talk mailing list.https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2022-September/087734.html |
| 96793031 by ZeLonewolf @ 2021-01-02 02:29 | 1 | 2022-07-02 01:34 | heretofore ♦25 | There's a broken poly just south of the dam. |
| 2 | 2022-07-02 01:46 | ZeLonewolf | Can you be more specific? | |
| 3 | 2022-07-02 16:56 | heretofore ♦25 | Yes, sorry. I should have included the link to https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12122181 | |
| 4 | 2022-07-02 21:56 | ZeLonewolf | Thanks for the note, I think we got it squared away. I removed the fragment relation and reordered the actual watershed boundary relation, which is https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12122180 | |
| 5 | 2022-07-02 22:05 | heretofore ♦25 | Excellent. Thank you! | |
| 121952460 by ZeLonewolf @ 2022-06-04 20:15 | 1 | 2022-06-04 20:22 | Tomas Straupis ♦1,949 | Feeling lucky? :-) |
| 110044625 by ZeLonewolf @ 2021-08-21 23:23 | 1 | 2022-05-17 01:15 | sarawaremono ♦5 | What's going on with this way? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/975314136 It has no tags, and seems to follow forest edge with an offset. |
| 98322753 by ZeLonewolf @ 2021-01-28 22:36 | 1 | 2022-04-22 02:52 | A Hall ♦53 | Should this have an Admin level? Looks like Cary was unincorporated in 2019 and joined Maine's Unorganized Territory. |
| 2 | 2022-04-22 11:23 | A Hall ♦53 | I slept on it. You can ignore my comment. | |
| 117367129 by ZeLonewolf @ 2022-02-13 19:46 | 1 | 2022-03-10 19:08 | ThreeOutOfFourCorners ♦7 | Hi, ZeLoneWolf. I noticed in this changeset that you removed ref=MEX 2 from the primary that goes from this way (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/771587035) at the northern end to this way (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/300568314) at the southern end. Checking the Mexican government’s INE... |
| 2 | 2022-03-11 22:01 | ZeLonewolf | Hey thanks for the note. I was working on mapping the Mexico federal highways (e.g. highway 2: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/70954). I found these cases of ref=MEX 2 which looked like they were in error. So I guess I'm confused - do the federal highways and state highways use the sa... | |
| 3 | 2022-03-11 22:14 | ZeLonewolf | I've restored the way tagging and added a route relation:https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13915662Can you determine whether the northernmost section is supposed to be there? It was tagged that way originally. | |
| 4 | 2022-03-11 22:15 | ZeLonewolf | I could use a hand untangling this MEX 1 / BCS 1 routes as they're mixed up in the changeset where I updated the federal highway 1 route. | |
| 5 | 2022-03-15 21:12 | ThreeOutOfFourCorners ♦7 | Hello ZeLonewolf,Thank you for the response!Distinguishing Mexico State refs from Federal refs is a topic of discussion in the community. Here is a conversation between our team and mdelatorre (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/109486687). The discussion considers using ref tags &ldquo... | |
| 6 | 2022-03-18 16:30 | ZeLonewolf | Hey, sorry got distracted and forgot to respond.On ways that are part of a route, the ref tag contains both network and route number information packed into a single tag. In the US, we might do something like ref=I-80 for Interstate 80 or ref=I-80;I-90 for places where a road is concurrent with... | |
| 7 | 2022-03-23 16:19 | ThreeOutOfFourCorners ♦7 | Hello Zelonewolf, Thank you for explaining the different ref tagging you used for the ways and route relation. I can understand the reasoning behind specifying the network as its own tag and I do see that indicated in the “Examples on relations” section here (https://wiki.openstreetm... | |
| 118572828 by ZeLonewolf @ 2022-03-17 02:37 | 1 | 2022-03-17 03:22 | ZeLonewolf | Sorry, I accidentally conflated two uploads in JOSM. Did not intend for the BBOX to be this big. |
| 118449421 by ZeLonewolf @ 2022-03-14 00:25 | 1 | 2022-03-15 00:43 | Fred73000 ♦223 | Hi,why did you add the role label for the village/town/city/suburb and not the role admin_centre ?https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:boundary#Relation_membersBest regards |
| 2 | 2022-03-15 01:36 | ZeLonewolf | admin_centre is only used for administrative centers such as capitals and county seats. Label is used for holding the ordinary place node associated with a boundary. Typically entities below county wouldn't have an admin_centre role. | |
| 3 | 2022-03-16 12:57 | Fred73000 ♦223 | Hi,wiki (copy/paste) = "Node representing the administrative centre (a capital, county seat etc.), usually a town, city or village (depending of the boundary level, see place=*). This role is for capitals (as in capital cities), not capitols (as in legislative buildings).""villa... | |
| 4 | 2022-03-16 13:05 | ZeLonewolf | Yes, it was discussed on the tagging list, most recently in Oct 2021.A village would not typically be the "capital" of a city or town. | |
| 5 | 2022-03-16 13:13 | ZeLonewolf | To elaborate, simply assigning the node associated with the most prominent built-up area of a city or town the admin_label role is not good geodata. admin_label specifically represents a capital/territory relationship. | |
| 6 | 2022-03-16 13:14 | ZeLonewolf | Typo... meant "admin_centre" in comment above. | |
| 7 | 2022-03-16 13:42 | Fred73000 ♦223 | Maybe you should add a link to the talk in your future changesets because I think many users don't know this specific rule for your country and it will prevent (or try to prevent) that some people change these rolesBest regards | |
| 8 | 2022-03-16 13:50 | ZeLonewolf | This isn't a rule specific to the US, though of course capital/territory relationships will be quite different from country to country. In any case, I would expect that any contributor working in a country other than their own to have the responsibility of understanding what the local conventi... | |
| 118433131 by ZeLonewolf @ 2022-03-13 15:01 | 1 | 2022-03-15 16:25 | wireguy ♦548 | fixing Tulsa broke the Jenks boundary. Admin center for Jenks is also incorrect. Can you investigate? |
| 2 | 2022-03-15 16:30 | ZeLonewolf | There also appears to be an unattached place node for Jenks:https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/151731482 | |
| 117588441 by ZeLonewolf @ 2022-02-19 01:46 | 1 | 2022-02-20 22:31 | 蝦夷狼 ♦1 | Where is the documentation of your https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct ? |
| 2 | 2022-02-20 22:42 | ZeLonewolf | Go away Michael. | |
| 117368263 by ZeLonewolf @ 2022-02-13 20:26 | 1 | 2022-02-13 20:27 | ZeLonewolf | Corrected description: Mexico Federal routes 2 and 2D |
| 116862075 by ZeLonewolf @ 2022-02-01 10:41 | 1 | 2022-02-01 12:51 | ElliottPlack ♦926 | Thanks for fixing the missing link in the network! |
| 84843710 by ZeLonewolf @ 2020-05-07 16:41 | 1 | 2022-01-18 08:08 | zyphlar ♦52 | What is `layer=POCKET`? Shows as a validation error in JOSM. |
| 2 | 2022-01-19 09:58 | ZeLonewolf | It was there from the original import, looks like. I'd recommend deleting it. | |
| 100560876 by ZeLonewolf @ 2021-03-07 05:13 | 1 | 2022-01-08 15:13 | Gopnik McBlyat ♦15 | Hi ZeLonewolf.,why have you not included https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/106338075 into the Suwannee River relation https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2193563 ? I think this is wrong. |
| 2 | 2022-01-08 16:16 | ZeLonewolf | Great catch! I just improved the river relation to follow USGS's definition. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suwannee_River#/media/File:Suwanneerivermap.png) Thanks for reviewing. | |
| 96224041 by ZeLonewolf @ 2020-12-22 02:35 | 1 | 2022-01-06 09:49 | ivanbranco ♦2,693 | Hi ZeLonewolf,https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12075123you used place=beach instead of natural=beach here. Also this beach is inside another beach area (Second Beach), is this intended? |
| 2 | 2022-01-06 13:04 | ZeLonewolf | Surfer's End is the local name given to the westernmost section of Second Beach. I'm open to other ways to tag this. | |
| 115022294 by ZeLonewolf @ 2021-12-16 19:32 | 1 | 2021-12-16 20:47 | COLA_MAP Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. |
| 2 | 2021-12-16 20:51 | ZeLonewolf | Restoring deletion of objects that exist in reality is a standard and accepted practice. | |
| 114640110 by ZeLonewolf @ 2021-12-07 02:07 | 1 | 2021-12-07 02:10 | metagascar Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. |
| 2 | 2021-12-07 02:25 | ZeLonewolf | The OpenStreetMap community will not permit vandalism. | |
| 3 | 2021-12-07 07:58 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,574 | Is "Zzyzx Road" also a vandalism? | |
| 4 | 2021-12-07 11:59 | ZeLonewolf | I'm not sure, that got added before. I made a comment on the changeset where that got added. | |
| 5 | 2021-12-07 16:25 | archpdx ♦542 | After looking at Streetside through iD, it looks like the name for exit 239 is "Zzyzx Rd" | |
| 6 | 2021-12-08 09:56 | SomeoneElse ♦13,357 | Zzyzx is pretty famous, actually:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zzyzx%2C_California(although it certainly gave me a WTF moment moment when I first saw the sign while driving past!) | |
| 114640163 by ZeLonewolf @ 2021-12-07 02:11 | 1 | 2021-12-07 02:14 | metagascar Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. |
| 2 | 2021-12-07 02:24 | ZeLonewolf | Please stop. The OpenStreetMap community will not permit this vandalism. Go to OpenGeoFiction if you want to create a fake map. | |
| 111737389 by ZeLonewolf @ 2021-09-26 19:22 | 1 | 2021-11-20 13:16 | zluuzki ♦224 | And now can should do the same with foot/bicycle=no, horse=no, hgv=designated.... |
| 2 | 2021-11-20 13:16 | zluuzki ♦224 | we can do the same* | |
| 3 | 2021-11-20 18:18 | ZeLonewolf | We discussed some of these, and the bicycle tag has implications because some interstates do allow them. But I'm definitely open to starting a discussion on what makes sense for motorway defaults. | |
| 113832150 by ZeLonewolf @ 2021-11-16 03:48 | 1 | 2021-11-16 03:50 | ZeLonewolf | Texas and New Mexico, too. Wouldn't want anyone to feel left out! |
| 99486691 by ZeLonewolf @ 2021-02-18 03:43 | 1 | 2021-11-16 00:50 | ZLima12 ♦252 | Looks like part of the river (https://openstreetmap.org/node/7805262616) was glued to a bridge that carries I-86 here, resulting in a misshapen bridge when you fixed the river's geometry. I'll unglue the bridge from it. |
| 2 | 2021-11-16 01:00 | ZeLonewolf | My bad, thanks for fixing this! | |
| 113206672 by ZeLonewolf @ 2021-10-31 19:41 | 1 | 2021-10-31 20:29 | ZeLonewolf | Apologies for the large bounding box, This was not intentional - I must have somehow mixed two different edits. |
| 112050588 by ZeLonewolf @ 2021-10-03 22:12 | 1 | 2021-10-08 17:00 | tekim ♦696 | These mechanical edits should be discussed on the official OSM mailing list. |
| 99626158 by ZeLonewolf @ 2021-02-20 05:34 | 1 | 2021-10-05 08:34 | laflovver ♦9 | Hello ZeLonewolf thanks for improvement osm data, but in this changeset u made a mistake by merge wrong nodes |
| 111813465 by ZeLonewolf @ 2021-09-28 11:12 | 1 | 2021-10-03 23:33 | Coinsrus4sale ♦1 | Can meet at wawa on believe route 71 Or my home address at time is 39 N Dragon DrBear D.E. 19701Or can meet at post office |
| 110763543 by ZeLonewolf @ 2021-09-05 19:46 | 1 | 2021-09-06 18:24 | ZeLonewolf | Hello,This appears to be an attempt to circumvent the blocks listed below with new user accounts and new referral domains. This type of behavior will not be tolerated by the US mapping community, and we will swiftly revert and report future attempts to bypass community standards of behavior. P... |
| 2 | 2021-09-06 18:48 | ZeLonewolf | Whoops, put that on my own changeset :-D | |
| 3 | 2021-09-07 13:59 | alectrocute ♦1 | I love the no-nonsense warning from yourself, to yourself.. hah! | |
| 4 | 2021-09-28 03:29 | MapSpot ♦96 | The only one strong enough to stop ZeLonewolf is ZeLonewolf. | |
| 88425001 by ZeLonewolf @ 2020-07-23 20:57 | 1 | 2021-08-26 16:30 | James214 ♦1 | Why was the boundary removed? Hicksville should have a boundary like all the other towns around it. |
| 2 | 2021-08-26 16:46 | ZeLonewolf | Well it's been a year, but most likely this was one that was so badly mangled that it wasn't worth preserving. I fixed as many as I could where the geometries were sufficiently preserved.Hicksville is technically a CDP and the town is Oyster Bay from my understanding. This and other ... | |
| 3 | 2021-08-26 18:17 | James214 ♦1 | Hi,Thank you so much for getting back to me and the explanation. I use a site named CityStrides for keeping track of what streets I run on in various places. On Saturday, I did my first run that included Hicksville and that is when I discovered the issue with the boundary. I also put ... | |
| 4 | 2021-08-26 18:24 | ZeLonewolf | Cool, that boundary looks pretty good offhand from casual inspection. I did just fix the boundary to tag it as a CDP. I operate a site with similar functionality called StreetFerret and I'm constantly fixing broken boundaries as a result. I'm actually up in RI but I end up doing boundar... | |
| 109431912 by ZeLonewolf @ 2021-08-09 23:32 | 1 | 2021-08-12 16:41 | romeodelta ♦10 | Bonjour,après vérification sur le terrain, ce ne sont pas des pistes agricoles mais les traces de passage d'un tracteur dans le champ. traces qui varient à chaque nouvelle culture.Cdlt |
| 2 | 2021-08-12 17:31 | ZeLonewolf | Merci pour l'avis, j'ai supprimé les routes. | |
| 93033483 by ZeLonewolf @ 2020-10-26 01:45 | 1 | 2021-08-12 06:25 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,574 | Note node duplicates: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8045618254 https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7915146098Can you fix it in your imports? |
| 2 | 2021-08-12 06:27 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,574 | BTW, where this import was discussed?It is a good idea to link Wiki documentation page in changeset tags (doable in JOSM) | |
| 3 | 2021-08-12 13:30 | ZeLonewolf | Thanks for noting these issues (and comments on other changesets), I'll be starting to work through these areas and address problems noted. | |
| 93150714 by ZeLonewolf @ 2020-10-28 03:30 | 1 | 2021-08-12 06:32 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,574 | How this import handled existing landuse? Note https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/685277039 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/864514999 |
| 91736465 by ZeLonewolf @ 2020-09-30 03:20 | 1 | 2021-08-10 15:13 | DerHexxer ♦2 | Dear ZeLonewolf,why is https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/357470644/history straight in the river? |
| 2 | 2021-08-11 01:32 | ZeLonewolf | Hello and welcome again to OpenStreetMap! This particular historic district is based on the former location of a mill which sat along that river. Though I agree that putting it directly in the river is probably not the right location, so I've moved it a few meters south to where descriptions ... | |
| 109487515 by ZeLonewolf @ 2021-08-11 00:07 | 1 | 2021-08-11 01:24 | ZeLonewolf | JOSM swallowed my changeset comment. Should have said: "Move historic district node over the mill ruins" |
| 109369310 by ZeLonewolf @ 2021-08-09 01:14 | 1 | 2021-08-09 01:57 | ZeLonewolf | JOSM swallowed my changeset comment, should have read "Cleanup water and natural features, retrace and align to imagery" |
| 108992435 by ZeLonewolf @ 2021-08-02 02:55 | 1 | 2021-08-04 13:43 | StephaneP ♦467 | Hi!Why did you remove these polygons ? Do you think aerial imagery taken during spring is the good answer to draw or remove stream aeras ?Stéphane |
| 2 | 2021-08-04 13:57 | ZeLonewolf | Hi,It seemed like this tiny stream was better represented by a waterway=stream. The areas looked like they were bad import data. Is there a better imagery source I should be using? I was using "Ortho HR" which indicated it was less than a year old? Is there a different source that ... | |
| 3 | 2021-08-04 19:14 | StephaneP ♦467 | I don't know if deleting these polygons was a good idea or not. The best answer would be a real survey during winter, when there is much more water. | |
| 4 | 2021-08-04 19:46 | ZeLonewolf | Yeah, I'm not sure either, except that I'm confident this funny looking polygon is not actually what's real on the ground. But in any case, I just resurrected, merged, and simplified the original stream geometry here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/76748067I guess it's a ... | |
| 109056392 by ZeLonewolf @ 2021-08-03 02:14 | 1 | 2021-08-04 14:01 | pyrog ♦333 | The stream is under the trees, so you couldn't see it.The import of the waterway=riverbank could be discussed (it was in France)But deleting the stream itself is not appropriate.Please, could you revert your changeset ? --- #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA Pu... |
| 2 | 2021-08-04 19:40 | ZeLonewolf | Thanks for the note, I've restored the missing section of stream in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/109162161 and marked it intermittent as it is completely dry in the Ortho HR imagery. Note that there is not much of an issue with tree cover in that spot and the water geometry was clea... | |
| 99661584 by ZeLonewolf @ 2021-02-20 21:55 | 1 | 2021-08-02 11:33 | Arlo James Barnes ♦100 | Out of curiosity, what kind of fixes were needed? |
| 2 | 2021-08-02 13:52 | ZeLonewolf | Generally speaking, these changes were all corrections to issues identified by the JOSM validator on a sparse download of river areas and waterways. The most common issues were geometry overlaps and islet tagging. | |
| 108541844 by ZeLonewolf @ 2021-07-24 18:12 | 1 | 2021-07-24 18:13 | ZeLonewolf | JOSM swallowed my commit message. Changeset comment should have said "Fix tagging issues on Ohio boundaries" |
| 84372158 by ZeLonewolf @ 2020-04-30 02:23 | 1 | 2021-06-16 00:51 | ElliottPlack ♦926 | This appears to have deleted a township relation that CityStrides has flagged as needing a fix (see https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1F9eB2cteelcdHXMTmMuXg4dIp_lkHWopKajzhJnhCpw/edit#gid=1175818776 )Perhaps the relation was wiped in error? Just trying to help out with that list. |
| 2 | 2021-06-16 02:39 | ZeLonewolf | Do we have a source for it? Pretty sure the original wasn't salvageable but we can reuse the relation ID. | |
| 3 | 2021-06-16 20:38 | ElliottPlack ♦926 | If it is in the Census 2020 place file than we can add it back no problem. It should be if it is still incorporated. | |
| 91794863 by ZeLonewolf @ 2020-10-01 03:32 | 1 | 2021-06-15 13:40 | Yessica25 ♦1 | urabá --- #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/91794863 |
| 2 | 2021-06-15 13:41 | Yessica25 ♦1 | CoastMap --- #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/91794863 | |
| 104743621 by ZeLonewolf @ 2021-05-15 17:38 | 1 | 2021-06-03 19:57 | techtimo ♦7 | Hi ZeLonewolf,to me it looks like it should rather be a line then an area for all the waterareas you created here.IN some of them you missed to flag "intermittent=yes"Cheers, techtimo |
| 2 | 2021-06-04 17:56 | ZeLonewolf | Thanks, I will take a look at adding more intermittent tags in this area. The areas were already there before I changed them to streams. Personally I would draw them as lines also, but I didn't want to deconstruct the existing polygons that were there. What do you think? | |
| 3 | 2021-06-04 18:31 | techtimo ♦7 | Ahhh okay I was thinking you also added those polygons. I'm still quite new to OSM edititng. I only starting to trace the cahnges to those areas becasue in a favorite map of mine (OpenTopoMap) those features are heavily over represented. Indeed noramlly I see the river area only for "real&... | |
| 104790160 by ZeLonewolf @ 2021-05-17 01:59 | 1 | 2021-05-18 04:24 | jamillikesapplejuice ♦1 | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=trunkTypically, trunk in the US has been meant an expressway, ie, basically a freeway, but it might have intersections. Or it might be fully controlled, but only a single carriageway. Or it's dual carriageway, but only one lane on a carriagewa... |
| 2 | 2021-05-18 04:35 | ZeLonewolf | Hi,This interpretation is inconsistent with how highway classifications are used in the rest of the world. There is an emerging consensus, at least in New England, to properly apply functional highway classifications so they can be used as intended. This is one such application. The physical hi... | |
| 104745474 by ZeLonewolf @ 2021-05-15 18:43 | 1 | 2021-05-15 18:43 | ZeLonewolf | Corrected changeset comment: tagging stream areas |
| 104479854 by ZeLonewolf @ 2021-05-11 02:36 | 1 | 2021-05-15 12:14 | Alex-a ♦7 | Hi! I reverted part of this changeset (104730590) because of large dragged nodes here --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/104479854 |
| 2 | 2021-05-15 14:23 | ZeLonewolf | Thanks for catching that! | |
| 103922743 by ZeLonewolf @ 2021-04-30 15:50 | 1 | 2021-04-30 16:02 | ZeLonewolf | JOSM messed up my changeset comment. This change was to fix inconsistent highway classifications in the Warwick area so there's continuity. |
| 96736656 by ZeLonewolf @ 2020-12-31 13:55 | 1 | 2021-04-18 16:30 | b-jazz ♦644 | Not sure what you were trying to do with https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/853443159, but it has no tags. Can you take a look? |
| 2 | 2021-04-18 21:58 | ZeLonewolf | Thanks! I did some cleanup in that area, so should be good now. | |
| 102367003 by ZeLonewolf @ 2021-04-06 04:26 | 1 | 2021-04-06 04:27 | ZeLonewolf | Intended changeset comment: fixing Los Alamos boundary |
| 102255646 by ZeLonewolf @ 2021-04-04 01:56 | 1 | 2021-04-04 01:58 | ZeLonewolf | Intended changeset comment: tagging quonset huts |
| 101945534 by ZeLonewolf @ 2021-03-30 01:23 | 1 | 2021-03-30 21:25 | OddlyAngled ♦100 | I'm not sure what the right tagging is but now this is inconsistent, https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1167181 is still using waterway=riverbank --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/101945534 |
| 2 | 2021-03-30 21:59 | ZeLonewolf | Hi there! So, I'm actually working through a defined procedure to clean up river tagging nationwide and I'm currently working California. This was the first step which is to look for untagged river areas and give them the missing water=river tag. The link below describes the procedure I... | |
| 3 | 2021-03-30 23:00 | OddlyAngled ♦100 | cool, just didn't know if you were missing riverbank relations by accident or if you'd come back on a second pass. thx | |
| 101938517 by ZeLonewolf @ 2021-03-29 20:02 | 1 | 2021-03-29 20:05 | ZeLonewolf | Missing comment is: "adding lake tagging" (JOSM bug: https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/20690) |
| 101916258 by ZeLonewolf @ 2021-03-29 12:00 | 1 | 2021-03-29 12:21 | ZeLonewolf | JOSM mangled my changeset comment. Should be: change "Brick" to "brick". |
| 101916282 by ZeLonewolf @ 2021-03-29 12:01 | 1 | 2021-03-29 12:21 | ZeLonewolf | JOSM mangled my changeset comment. Should be: change "Brick" to "brick". |
| 101916302 by ZeLonewolf @ 2021-03-29 12:01 | 1 | 2021-03-29 12:21 | ZeLonewolf | JOSM mangled my changeset comment. Should be: change "Brick" to "brick". |
| 101894645 by ZeLonewolf @ 2021-03-29 02:05 | 1 | 2021-03-29 02:34 | ZeLonewolf | Corrected changeset description: Upgrading tagging and fixing geometry errors on Washington's river system, as discussed on the OpenStreetmap US Slack, channel #local-washington-state and as documented at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:ZeLonewolf/Procedure/River_modernization |
| 101888396 by ZeLonewolf @ 2021-03-28 20:18 | 1 | 2021-03-28 20:18 | ZeLonewolf | Merging duplicate nodes |
| 101885299 by ZeLonewolf @ 2021-03-28 18:34 | 1 | 2021-03-28 18:41 | ZeLonewolf | Upgrading tagging and fixing geometry errors on Washington's river system, as discussed on the OpenStreetmap US Slack, channel #local-washington-state and as documented at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:ZeLonewolf/Procedure/River_modernization |
| 101753602 by ZeLonewolf @ 2021-03-26 03:32 | 1 | 2021-03-26 13:27 | aweech ♦369 | Hi,The dangling sections you added are evaporation basins that have been completely cut-off from the main body of the lake. I'm not sure that these should be included in the lake relation? I went ahead and removed them from the relation and tagged them evaporation basin tags. I don't kno... |
| 2 | 2021-03-26 14:38 | ZeLonewolf | Sounds good, thanks for the QA. | |
| 91794784 by ZeLonewolf @ 2020-10-01 03:29 | 1 | 2021-03-25 09:32 | kapazao ♦909 | Hello, can you explain this changeset? --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/91794784 |
| 2 | 2021-03-25 12:05 | ZeLonewolf | It looks like I mistakenly tagged parking lots as historic districts based on the name. Sorry for the mistake and thanks for fixing it! | |
| 101456199 by ZeLonewolf @ 2021-03-21 20:24 | 1 | 2021-03-24 17:14 | mueschel ♦6,560 | Could you check this way, it got a strange tag:https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/508954901 |
| 2 | 2021-03-24 18:28 | ZeLonewolf | Good catch! Not quite sure how that happened. All fixed now. | |
| 101458544 by ZeLonewolf @ 2021-03-21 21:42 | 1 | 2021-03-22 17:58 | Baloo Uriza ♦2,103 | Looks like you removed "natural=water" without replacing it with anything. --- #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/101458544 |
| 2 | 2021-03-22 18:03 | ZeLonewolf | Thanks, let me check on this. | |
| 3 | 2021-03-22 18:03 | ZeLonewolf | Was there a specific object that you noticed? | |
| 4 | 2021-03-22 18:11 | ZeLonewolf | I am not seeing a problem here - the places where natural=water was removed was the case of member ways of water body relations, which would be a correct removal. On a multipolygon, the water tagging only goes on the relation and not on the members. | |
| 5 | 2021-03-23 03:35 | Baloo Uriza ♦2,103 | I forget the object, but if there was a relation I missed, that would make sense. | |
| 93086015 by ZeLonewolf @ 2020-10-27 01:38 | 1 | 2021-03-21 10:03 | martiensch ♦75 | Hi,Which convention are you referring to? I am not sure why details like population are to be excluded from the place tag.Regards,Martien |
| 2 | 2021-03-21 12:47 | ZeLonewolf | Hi, the convention I was referring to was the fact that the place node and boundary relation were separate (I combined them). You're right about the population tag, it looks from the wiki that it's supposed to be on the place node as well, and not just on the relation. I just copied that... | |
| 92321995 by ZeLonewolf @ 2020-10-12 04:36 | 1 | 2021-03-17 11:07 | JBible92 ♦4 | @ZeLonewolf Is there a particular reason why these additions of historic=district were given a leisure=park tag? |
| 2 | 2021-03-17 12:36 | ZeLonewolf | Well, they had it before, and I left them alone as a TODO in case they were supposed to be converted into a a proper park polygon (as some historic districts are like that), or merged with a nearby one. But if that's definitely no the case for these, my recommendation would be to remove the pa... | |
| 3 | 2021-03-17 14:43 | JBible92 ♦4 | I tend to agree that removing the park tag from leisure is the best course of action. The reason I called for your assistance was because you seemed to have had some history with updating records for historic districts, and I didn't know if by removing park as a tag, I may disrupt a process... | |
| 4 | 2021-03-17 14:48 | ZeLonewolf | Happy to help, and feel free to join us on the OSM US Slack! https://slack.openstreetmap.us/ | |
| 100156671 by ZeLonewolf @ 2021-02-28 21:06 | 1 | 2021-03-02 09:11 | vaccine ♦2 | Hi Lone wolf,IMHO it's a little bit childish to run a mechanical changeset just to remove the old "created_by" tags and then calling it "Fixing geometry errors". This sounds innocuous ...Please learn about https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/What%27s_the_problem_wi... |
| 2 | 2021-03-02 09:40 | vaccine ♦2 | Please don't remove duplicated nodes through "blind validating" when the underlying NHD data is outdated and geometrically wrong. This is a case for manual cleanup: Be inspired by https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/ELadner/history great work in the Mississippi delta. | |
| 3 | 2021-03-02 13:21 | ZeLonewolf | Hello Mister Vaccine,I've been working hard over several days to clean up river issues in SC. As you know there's quite a mess in the data set and I've been doing my best to try to sort it out. Overlapping geometry, features that don't match imagery, stream objects in the mid... | |
| 99789356 by ZeLonewolf @ 2021-02-23 05:14 | 1 | 2021-03-01 10:12 | Kseniya_Nekrasava ♦30 | Hi! Sorry, but you added a lot of drag nodes to the map with your changes. Be more careful in next time!) --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/99789356 |
| 2 | 2021-03-01 11:26 | ZeLonewolf | Thanks for catching this! There's a lag issue in JOSM that caused this problem :( | |
| 91736751 by ZeLonewolf @ 2020-09-30 03:28 | 1 | 2021-02-16 02:04 | TheSwavu ♦543 | Hi,Historic areas are protect class 22 not 5. If something is IUCN cat V in Australia they'd be listed on CAPAD, which neither of these are.Thanks. |
| 2 | 2021-02-16 02:13 | ZeLonewolf | Great, thanks. Is the Australian usage of protect_class documented somewhere? I've been attempting to track and maintain global usage of protect_class on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:protect_class, and there isn't a lot of detail on Australia. Some of the more obscure values ... | |
| 3 | 2021-02-16 04:11 | TheSwavu ♦543 | They are documented on the page you linked to. However I noticed that someone has replaced protect class 1 with 1a and 1b. These were never a thing and only appeared when people tagged incorrectly. In general AUS is no different to anywhere else. A conservation area managed to a IUCN Category is... | |
| 4 | 2021-02-16 04:24 | ZeLonewolf | So there's actually no such thing as IUCN Category I -- there is only Ia and Ib -- protect_class=1 was an OSM invention. Of course mappers simply used 1a and 1b if that's what the IUCN category was. We've been working to slowly eliminate protect_class values outside of (1a,1b,2-6) i... | |
| 91475504 by ZeLonewolf @ 2020-09-25 03:06 | 1 | 2021-02-16 02:12 | TheSwavu ♦543 | This isn't protect_class 5 either. As I said in AUS if something is Cat V it would be listed on CAPAD. This isn't listed. |
| 97723126 by ZeLonewolf @ 2021-01-18 21:58 | 1 | 2021-01-18 22:12 | WeChat ♦6 | Are you following the https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct ? |
| 2 | 2021-01-18 22:32 | ZeLonewolf | Yes, I am working directly with the Maine mapping community on this effort. Extensive discussion on #local-maine in US Slack and also menioned with respect to correct admin_level on the talk-maine-us mailing list. | |
| 3 | 2021-01-19 03:00 | blackboxlogic ♦458 | @WeChat, Welcome to OSM! I don't think any part of this is automated, so maybe the "import guidelines" would be a more appropriate concern. You can find the documentation here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Maine_Admin_Boundary_ImportWe'd appreciate any feedback yo... | |
| 93002850 by ZeLonewolf @ 2020-10-24 23:53 | 1 | 2020-12-31 01:45 | bhietsch ♦66 | Hi, do you mind explaining what the proper technique for mapping this feature is if it's incorrect to have it as an inner member of Bald Eagle SF? Poe Valley is an IUCN class III state park, which I believe would qualify it to have the tags that you removed... |
| 2 | 2020-12-31 01:48 | bhietsch ♦66 | Actually, disregard my comment about it being class III, I was thinking of Poe Paddy. Regardless, this is still a state park so I would think it would be appropriate to have boundary=protected_area and leisure=nature_reserve | |
| 3 | 2020-12-31 02:19 | ZeLonewolf | Yup, looks like my bad mangling this property, good call on the inner member.I built this utility from the national protected area database that should help:https://zelonewolf.github.io/openstreetmap-pad-us-inspector/state/Pennsylvania.htmlIf I read it correctly, this should actually be ta... | |
| 4 | 2020-12-31 02:32 | bhietsch ♦66 | Thanks! I've actually been using your PAD-inspector... HUGE time saver, thanks for putting it together! Glad to see you're trying to create formal definitions for parks. I'm in the process of putting together a wiki to document proper tagging and progress of mapping public lands in ... | |
| 5 | 2020-12-31 02:51 | ZeLonewolf | That looks great! Heck of a project you're wrapping your hands around. The one thing that would help us coalesce in that direction is for mappers to work towards elimination of non-rendering protect_class values and document them as unused in the United_States/Public_Lands wiki page.Here&... | |
| 96122941 by ZeLonewolf @ 2020-12-19 21:47 | 1 | 2020-12-28 17:42 | woodpeck ♦2,417 | Data imports have to follow a process that includes thorough discussion with other community members and documentation of the process and methods. I see that you have deleted a lot of existing land cover information and replaced it with something else. Where was this discussed? |
| 2 | 2020-12-29 02:36 | ZeLonewolf | Oh hey my bad. Looks like I've got some work to do to document/follow the process better. I did document the RIGIS data source on the Rhode Island wiki page. Although I did start from that data source, I spent two days hand-matching the polygons to imagery, deconflicting/merging/stitching to... | |
| 96472178 by ZeLonewolf @ 2020-12-27 04:53 | 1 | 2020-12-28 18:39 | Orozcu ♦12 | Me toca volver a editar el trabajo, usted no debio restablecer el cambio. |
| 2 | 2020-12-28 19:22 | ZeLonewolf | ¿Por qué dejas el límite en una condición rota? | |
| 3 | 2020-12-28 23:07 | Orozcu ♦12 | No tenia internet en esos días. pero ya estoy de vuelta | |
| 4 | 2020-12-28 23:07 | Orozcu ♦12 | Disculpe quien es usted? | |
| 5 | 2020-12-28 23:14 | ZeLonewolf | Programé una aplicación que consume datos de límites. Cuando los límites se rompen, mi aplicación ya no puede usarlos. Lo siento si mi español es malo, estoy usando un traductor. | |
| 95655098 by ZeLonewolf @ 2020-12-11 04:53 | 1 | 2020-12-11 14:57 | Betanyahoo ♦18 | Hi ZeLonewolf,may I ask why you are clipping landuses to streets, which is less correct than before? |
| 2 | 2020-12-11 16:11 | ZeLonewolf | Can you clarify where I've made an error so that I might correct it? Sometimes in the polygon cleanup I might grab a nearby street node inadvertently, and sometimes the street does separate adjacent landuses. | |
| 94854817 by ZeLonewolf @ 2020-11-26 18:05 | 1 | 2020-11-27 01:17 | eternaltyro ♦3 | Thank you. I still don't see the feature rendered in the base-map. It did not render even when before you updated the way to area. Is that a bug? |
| 2 | 2020-11-27 01:22 | ZeLonewolf | I'm pretty sure Carto doesn't support this tag. Perhaps open a ticket? https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues | |
| 93570666 by ZeLonewolf @ 2020-11-05 03:27 | 1 | 2020-11-19 04:50 | ElliottPlack ♦926 | Ha, you came across a bunch of my edits importing military areas. At the time there was a protect_class 25 for military, but I see that it has been deprecated. Have you fixed them all or do I need to go and look for some? |
| 90986924 by ZeLonewolf @ 2020-09-16 12:24 | 1 | 2020-11-06 23:39 | Firemix ♦17 | You've created many useless ways only tagged with "admin_level", e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/143914792/history Are you not checking what you are doing?Kind regards,Firemix |
| 2 | 2020-11-06 23:49 | ZeLonewolf | Let me investigate and get back to you. Thanks for alerting me. | |
| 3 | 2020-11-06 23:51 | ZeLonewolf | Yes, I see what you are describing. admin_level is clearly not required on these boundary relation ways. Fortunately this is an easy fix. | |
| 4 | 2020-11-07 00:10 | ZeLonewolf | Okay, should be all set for Rhode Island town/city boundaries!Are you local? | |
| 93571473 by ZeLonewolf @ 2020-11-05 03:53 | 1 | 2020-11-05 15:05 | SomeoneElse ♦13,357 | I'm not sure I understand the "more standard tagging" here. Can you explain the changes to http://osm.mapki.com/history/relation.php?id=8590110 in a bit more detail?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2020-11-05 15:12 | ZeLonewolf | Hello, yes, on further review, my edit was probably a step too far as protect_class=22 "cultural area" as probably a better characterization of these sites versus merely "historic". I have restored the original tagging and apologies for the churn. | |
| 3 | 2020-11-05 23:11 | SomeoneElse ♦13,357 | Thanks. I was worried about potentially causing an international incident considering the subject matter, the location, and today's news (the president resigning).Best Regards,Andy | |
| 93568090 by ZeLonewolf @ 2020-11-05 01:27 | 1 | 2020-11-05 11:57 | woodpeck ♦2,417 | Further to my previous comment on a different changeset, I now see that this is a systemic problem and that you have executed a mechanical edit changing boundaries to "aboriginal_land" without first-hand knowledge of the regions involved. I will revert these changes. The adopotion of a new... |
| 2 | 2020-11-05 19:25 | stevea ♦304 | Frederik, with what justification do you incorrectly re-tag these three areas? Having a protect_class=24 tag means that you must have a boundary=protected area tag. However, these have a boundary=aboriginal_lands tag AND a protect_class=24 tag, clearly wrong.I'd be OK with changing bounda... | |
| 93565271 by ZeLonewolf @ 2020-11-04 22:30 | 1 | 2020-11-05 08:08 | streckenkundler ♦1,040 | That's wrong! The border of the Sorbian settlement area is not the same as aboriginal_lands.The border only marks official bilingualismThat's wrong! The border of the Sorbian settlement area is not the same as aboriginal_lands.The border only marks official bilingualism in the region..... |
| 2 | 2020-11-05 12:09 | streckenkundler ♦1,040 | Is this mass edit announced? I asked the DWG... | |
| 3 | 2020-11-05 13:06 | ZeLonewolf | My bad, I researched this area on Wikipedia and it seemed like aboriginal_lands alone was a sufficient fit (which is also supported by renderers). I understand if you wish to revert the change. | |
| 4 | 2020-11-05 13:21 | streckenkundler ♦1,040 | The whole proposal of boundary=aboriginal_lands was nonsense.The boundary=protected_area scheme is exquisite and nicely structured. It is applicable to everything.Even the other efforts such as https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:_Named_protection_class_for_protected_areas are pure no... | |
| 5 | 2020-11-05 13:23 | ZeLonewolf | Yes, I understand your preference for protect_class=24 in this case. | |
| 93570275 by ZeLonewolf @ 2020-11-05 03:14 | 1 | 2020-11-05 11:52 | woodpeck ♦2,417 | The changeset comment here is misleading; it sounds as if you were simply removing a redundant tag. What you have done instead is change boundary=protected_area,protect_class=24 to boundary=aboriginal_lands. This should have been clearly stated in the comment. |
| 93317991 by ZeLonewolf @ 2020-10-31 03:12 | 1 | 2020-11-01 22:52 | VictorIE ♦903 | Hi,I'm just wondering what your basis for selecting place nodes is.admin_level=8 represents subdivisions of counties that are used for electoral constituencies and council area committee purposes. They have no 'capital city' equivalent. Their administrative centres are likely ... |
| 2 | 2020-11-01 23:02 | ZeLonewolf | I attached the place nodes that had the same name as the surrounding boundary, ignoring subdivisions that didn't have a place node with a matching name. If that was not a correct assumption, my apologies and this changeset can easily be reverted. | |
| 91012750 by ZeLonewolf @ 2020-09-17 02:24 | 1 | 2020-11-01 04:42 | Joseph E ♦137 | I would recommend creating small areas formed with closed ways, rather than the huge multipolygons with over 1000 members (e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11634595) - these huge relations will be hard to maintain and easy to break. Also, the woodland does not continue across roads, so it... |
| 93033850 by ZeLonewolf @ 2020-10-26 02:11 | 1 | 2020-10-26 02:24 | Firemix ♦17 | Hi Brian,is there any information on this import at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Rhode_Island ?Kind regards,Firemix |
| 2 | 2020-10-26 02:52 | ZeLonewolf | I have added this information. | |
| 92927850 by ZeLonewolf @ 2020-10-23 04:43 | 1 | 2020-10-23 13:15 | pallih ♦4 | Hi.I reverted this change (and changeset 92927840). The removal of boundary:protected_area tag is wrong. The changeset message suggests that this was a change made in error. Did you intend to make this change? All the best, pallih. |
| 2 | 2020-10-23 13:19 | ZeLonewolf | No worries, thanks. | |
| 92928207 by ZeLonewolf @ 2020-10-23 04:55 | 1 | 2020-10-23 05:26 | ZeLonewolf | Oops, didn't mean to make a changeset this big, sorry :( |
| 91394339 by ZeLonewolf @ 2020-09-23 23:49 | 1 | 2020-09-24 06:51 | InsertUser ♦443 | The wiki clearly defines protect_class=3 as for a natural feature, which this isn't. Is this a typo? |
| 2 | 2020-09-24 10:39 | ZeLonewolf | quite correct, thanks for noticing this! | |
| 91394464 by ZeLonewolf @ 2020-09-23 23:59 | 1 | 2020-09-24 00:48 | muralito ♦2,014 | Hi. Please explain your changes. of heritage=1 to 8 (1 is for world heritage)and the deletion of protect_class=26 |
| 2 | 2020-09-24 01:18 | ZeLonewolf | Hi, I changed heritage to 8 to match admin_level=8 which was previously tagged. I see you've updated both to 1 which seems fine.protect_class=26 is not conventionally used, and is sufficiently described by heritage=* | |
| 3 | 2020-09-24 02:06 | muralito ♦2,014 | Thank you. Yes, .admin_level=8 was a mistake that i just saw today.protect_class=26 is documented in the wiki. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:protect class as "Historic: for colonial-era entities and protectorates...".The wiki is wrong? | |
| 4 | 2020-09-24 02:38 | ZeLonewolf | It's a bit complicated (and there's work underway to fix protect_class generally and clean up the wiki) but essentially class=26 isn't used as historic= and heritage= already exists and thus it's redundant.If you'll look at the taginfo stats (https://taginfo.openstreetma... | |
| 90732704 by ZeLonewolf @ 2020-09-11 04:55 | 1 | 2020-09-16 05:56 | Zol87 ♦42 | Thanks for clarifying |
| 90796903 by ZeLonewolf @ 2020-09-12 15:12 | 1 | 2020-09-12 16:51 | user_5359 ♦19,340 | Hello! You added a bigger number of unknown tagsADDR=850 Waukegan RdCITY=DeerfieldCODE2=DFDDIST_ID=M08DEELEAF=NLMH2O=YMAPURL=https://maps.lakecountyil.gov/output/districtmaps/city/VillageOfDeerfield.pdfMUNID=0490492400022NAME1=DEERFIELDOBJECTID=9ORG_NAME=Village of DeerfieldS... |
| 2 | 2020-09-14 03:52 | user_5359 ♦19,340 | Hello! I correct this import to https://www.osm.org/relation/11621119. | |
| 90385410 by ZeLonewolf @ 2020-09-04 01:51 | 1 | 2020-09-05 07:43 | user_5359 ♦19,340 | Hello! You added a bigger number of unknown tags AGENCY=1AGENCY_DES=NORTHFIELD TWPGlobalID={287063E1-63BD-423A-B04C-E30384522FC3}OBJECTID=2SHAPESTAre=1.6558210500769043E8SHAPESTLen=322344.7624470328cbasOptIn=NOin this change set. Please explain the source of this information and the ... |
| 2 | 2020-09-05 14:10 | ZeLonewolf | Those should have been cleaned up, can you tell me which relation you're seeing that on? | |
| 3 | 2020-09-05 14:55 | mueschel ♦6,560 | Here you go:http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/XJc | |
| 4 | 2020-09-05 14:57 | user_5359 ♦19,340 | mueschel was faster :) | |
| 5 | 2020-09-05 17:52 | ZeLonewolf | Thanks guys, I think I've got it squared away now! | |
| 6 | 2020-09-12 00:18 | ZeLonewolf | Folks: I've started a wiki page specifically to document Cook County issues. Please feel free to contribute thiere: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/Illinois/Cook_County | |
| 90053740 by ZeLonewolf @ 2020-08-28 04:02 | 1 | 2020-08-30 11:39 | mueschel ♦6,560 | Please check this way, it has no proper tags:https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/841576849 |
| 2 | 2020-08-31 17:17 | mueschel ♦6,560 | Actually, there are several more: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/XyW | |
| 3 | 2020-08-31 20:29 | ZeLonewolf | I've made additional edits that should take care of all the stray tagging. | |
| 89456667 by ZeLonewolf @ 2020-08-15 20:55 | 1 | 2020-08-22 00:06 | b-jazz ♦644 | Hello Wolf, do you know what the purpose of http://osm.org/way/837453838 is? It has no tags, is the length of the state of R.I. and appears very close to the border. I don't think it should exist. I'm not sure if there are others similar to it, but I noticed this will looking at some other... |
| 2 | 2020-08-22 00:24 | ZeLonewolf | It's an accident is what it is! One of many versions of the CT/RI border that I had import in JOSM and I must have accidentally uploaded it. | |
| 86494740 by ZeLonewolf @ 2020-06-11 05:16 | 1 | 2020-06-14 20:31 | Benjamin Muller ♦5 | The convention in MA has been to include the waterways within the municipal boundaries (see neighboring communities). I believe the MassGIS layer is just for aesthetic use? |
| 2 | 2020-06-14 22:07 | ZeLonewolf | Hi,I've been using the GIS data (dated Sep 2019) at: https://docs.digital.mass.gov/dataset/massgis-data-community-boundaries-towns-survey-pointsIt states "This layer is the most accurate representation of Massachusetts' municipal (city and town) boundaries; this representation i... | |
| 3 | 2020-06-14 22:31 | Rassilon ♦18 | I just finished updating all the admin boundaries in the state to conform to the 2019-09 MassGIS boundary lines a couple weeks ago. But yes, for boundaries that go over water we use a different data set. You can see those lines on the USGS Topo map. The wiki recommended setting up a separate boundar... | |
| 4 | 2020-06-14 22:52 | ZeLonewolf | I see now that one of the sets of polygons includes the over-water parts. Thanks for pointing this out. I'll work on putting that back. | |
| 85969313 by ZeLonewolf @ 2020-05-29 23:36 | 1 | 2020-05-30 21:37 | blackboxlogic ♦458 | Thanks for adding the Cape Boundary! I've found a bunch of Maine municipal boundaries which are wrong or missing but I don't feel confident fixing them. Would you consider collaborating on such an effort? --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.or... |
| 2 | 2020-05-30 22:42 | ZeLonewolf | Sure, what towns do you have in mind? | |
| 3 | 2020-05-30 23:14 | blackboxlogic ♦458 | The first one I noticed was Scarborough, which exists in OSM but seems to be just the Oak Hill (central) part of town. I found a data source I trust (from the state) for boundary data, but I wasn't sure how best to proceed. I had questions like "should I delete the existing and start from ... | |
| 85285628 by ZeLonewolf @ 2020-05-16 01:30 | 1 | 2020-05-16 01:31 | stevea ♦304 | That might have been me. Please excuse my eraser crumbs and thank you for sweeping up after me! |
| 85229776 by ZeLonewolf @ 2020-05-15 02:30 | 1 | 2020-05-15 03:16 | ppjj ♦56 | Great work! |
| 72328911 by ZeLonewolf @ 2019-07-17 03:50 | 1 | 2019-07-31 13:49 | azakh-world ♦282 | Hi.You've done not a good thing. With it the world has lost an object with place=country and name:en=Indonesia. A whole country has disappeared from the dataset! Such a change should have been accompanied by creation of a node tagged with place=country and attaching it to the country boundary... |
| 2 | 2019-08-02 09:03 | ZeLonewolf | I removed a tag from a relation that was not valid according to the spec. Any processing that depended on that tag was invalid. Only a few countries were incorrectly tagged in this way.Please feel free to add a place=country node. | |
| 3 | 2019-08-02 11:29 | azakh-world ♦282 | By removing a tag you've also removed a feature from the database. According to "Do correct errors" clause of https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice, you should have not removed an object but fix it. Countries are too important features to approach them in such careless way... | |
| 4 | 2019-08-02 15:56 | ZeLonewolf | I have added a proper center point for Indonesia, and added to the Indonesia relation, so this should satisfy the objection. | |
| 5 | 2019-08-05 09:49 | azakh-world ♦282 | Well, an unnamed node with place=country has not returned Indonesia to the map, moreover it was connected to the boundary relation (which does contain name information) via wrong role. I've fixed it. Somebody has brought back Vatican. Cyprus, Monaco and Djibouti are on turn. I'll do correc... | |
| 6 | 2019-08-05 16:24 | ZeLonewolf | Thank you for helping to get this corrected in spec, Alexey.I encountered this issue when developing an application that was attempting to load a list of countries. Imagine my surprise when only Indonesia, Djibouti, Cyprus, Monaco and Vatican City showed up in the data set! | |
| 72256378 by ZeLonewolf @ 2019-07-15 10:01 | 1 | 2019-07-17 01:01 | alester ♦187 | Can you explain what in that wiki article led you to do this? As far as I can see, the documentation indicates that place=country is used on nodes, and we already have such a node in place for each country. In the case of Canada, we now duplicate objects tagged with place=country (see https://www.op... |
| 2 | 2019-07-17 03:54 | ZeLonewolf | Thanks for catching this. You're right, place is intended to be a node key. I undid this.I ran into 5 other countries coded this way: Monaco, Vatican City, Indonesia, Cyprus, and Djibouti so I went ahead and removed the place tags from those relations as well. | |
| 72273309 by ZeLonewolf @ 2019-07-15 16:38 | 1 | 2019-07-16 02:13 | vorpalblade ♦101 | This looks good (and it appears you corrected your typo from https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/72256121 -- thanks for doing that). |
| 72256121 by ZeLonewolf @ 2019-07-15 09:54 | 1 | 2019-07-15 12:04 | kartonage ♦987 | Hej ZeLonewolf,you might want to check again what you have added as value for the place key. A small typo can make a big difference. ;-)Best regards |