| Changeset | # | Tmstmp UTC | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 163863772 by tekim @ 2025-03-20 13:39 | 1 | 2025-03-27 15:13 | astotes ♦2 | This is a real trail accessible to the public. I have personally used this trail. I know from on the ground knowledge this trail is not as well maintained as nearby trails due to lack of use. It is not well known or popular, but it is there. |
| 2 | 2025-03-27 15:24 | tekim | Super strange that there is no Strava heat even though all of the nearby trails do have heat. Ok, so the trail exists, but without heat, or it being visible in imagery we can't be sure this location is accurate. We can't rely on the data from your agency as it has been shown to have many... | |
| 3 | 2025-03-28 13:48 | astotes ♦2 | I understand you have a lack of trust in our data, but we assure you we will not be adding trails that do not exist as that goes against our entire mission. We have been made aware of these errors and as discussed previously to a great extent, much of these data are older tracks that need updating a... | |
| 151206774 by tekim @ 2024-05-12 01:04 | 1 | 2024-05-12 01:37 | NoReRolls ♦1 | I don't know if you just don't live here or if you've never actually walked the trail, but there are sure as hell beaches. And lose gravel and sand. How about your fat ass gets out and walks around. Or get your eyes checked, you can even see it in the satellite view. Clown. |
| 150968186 by tekim @ 2024-05-06 14:30 | 1 | 2024-05-06 14:50 | archie ♦1,356 | I think you revertet the wrong cs. I changed the cs, which you would have reverted, with name and outline of road. So you reverted my cs! This revert of yours has been reverted by me now. I have stated in my comment of cs that cs has been made with info from NVDB, which is open data! So after my... |
| 2 | 2024-05-06 19:49 | tekim | Thanks for your response. I can understand how having your changeset reverted is upsetting. However, I checked and I did revert the correct changeset, one that cited "Google Maps" as its source. This isn't about "copyright" but rather contract law. When you accessed Goog... | |
| 3 | 2024-05-06 21:32 | archie ♦1,356 | Well, I have been around on osm for a while, so don't expect me to cite Google as source.You got it wrong again I am afraid. The order in time was this:1. The first cs which cites Google was this one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/150963789Made by a newbie. I think this is t... | |
| 4 | 2024-05-06 21:44 | tekim | Ok, something strange happened. What might have happened is that I reverted the newbie changeset, but you had edited the same feature between the time when they edited it and I reverted, so the revert wiped out both their change and yours? Anyway, I apologize if that is what happened. I thought t... | |
| 5 | 2024-05-06 21:56 | archie ♦1,356 | Never mind. These things can happen. | |
| 150512026 by tekim @ 2024-04-25 19:48 | 1 | 2024-04-25 20:05 | Silvio Kennecke ♦4 | Re added the change with official source from operator in https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/16476538 |
| 2 | 2024-04-25 20:13 | tekim | Thank you! | |
| 150453388 by tekim @ 2024-04-24 15:26 | 1 | 2024-04-24 15:37 | Justman10000 ♦2 | And what's this dirt? |
| 2 | 2024-04-24 15:41 | tekim | Hello again, Did you see my comment on your changeset? You are not allowed to use Google Maps when editing OpenStreetMap. | |
| 3 | 2024-04-24 15:42 | Justman10000 ♦2 | I only saw it after that | |
| 4 | 2024-04-24 18:09 | tekim | Sorry about that, I had assumed that the message on the actual changeset would be visible first. I did see that there is another changeset that cites Google Maps as a source, which will have to be deleted too - sorry. | |
| 149663828 by tekim @ 2024-04-06 16:56 | 1 | 2024-04-07 05:07 | Jeremyzzz ♦2 | Why |
| 2 | 2024-04-07 05:07 | Jeremyzzz ♦2 | This is real | |
| 3 | 2024-04-07 05:14 | Jeremyzzz ♦2 | ? | |
| 149636947 by tekim @ 2024-04-06 00:46 | 1 | 2024-04-06 15:25 | Trekrider2001 ♦1 | I did not take the information from Google. I guess my reference to Google was misleading. That was just supposed to point out that Google had this street named and that Google matched my local knowledge. So what do I need to do? Resubmit the change without any mention of Google? |
| 2 | 2024-04-06 16:50 | tekim | Hello again, Thanks for your reply. The Google Maps terms of use don't just talk about copying (i.e. "taking"), but more broadly "using." Therefore, *using* Google Maps to confirm/verify/validate another source, such as seems to be the case here, is also prohibited. It c... | |
| 149359281 by tekim @ 2024-03-30 16:30 | 1 | 2024-03-31 03:18 | RDE FUN ♦3 | google maps shows that theres no foley ave |
| 2 | 2024-03-31 13:34 | tekim | Sorry if I didn't provide enough explanation. We are not allowed to use Google Maps when editing OpenStreetMap due to Google's terms of use. | |
| 3 | 2024-03-31 18:54 | RDE FUN ♦3 | ohhh ok | |
| 4 | 2024-03-31 19:15 | RDE FUN ♦3 | but when i look at satellite images i dont see foley | |
| 5 | 2024-03-31 20:35 | tekim | The issue isn't whether this edit reflects reality or not, nor whether you can find a source with an OSM-compatible license that supports the edit, but rather whether or not this edit violated the Google Maps terms of use by using it to improve OSM. | |
| 149391745 by tekim @ 2024-03-31 13:56 | 1 | 2024-03-31 18:54 | RDE FUN ♦3 | the road has a name on google maps |
| 2 | 2024-03-31 18:56 | RDE FUN ♦3 | i read your last comment im sorry for righting this one | |
| 149153700 by tekim @ 2024-03-25 23:51 | 1 | 2024-03-26 19:17 | DSMmainline ♦1 | Ok. Thank you for letting me know and it makes sense. I only used Google maps for a small portion, the rest I gathered while running the area from within a couple miles of my house. Is there a time amount I need to wait to resubmit the rest in a new batch? I use Wandrer.earth which uses the data for... |
| 2 | 2024-03-26 19:59 | tekim | Thanks for the reply. You are free to edit OSM at any time as long as you are only using acceptable sources, which includes your own first hand observation. | |
| 148967148 by tekim @ 2024-03-21 14:35 | 1 | 2024-03-21 14:44 | stanis_geops ♦2 | Hi, I did not copy data from Google Services. I just used Street view as an additional source to verify the position that is also available in public datasets such as DIDOK: https://opentransportdata.swiss/de/dataset/service-points-actual-date |
| 2 | 2024-03-21 15:20 | tekim | Hi, Thanks for the response, however, you are not allowed to use Google Maps, Google Earth, Google Street View, or Google Imagery as a source, including an "additional source." Google's terms of use state "you may not... use Google Maps/Google Earth to create or augment any othe... | |
| 148865748 by tekim @ 2024-03-19 14:59 | 1 | 2024-03-20 10:12 | b0ssi ♦19 | Thanks for the catch; will see if this can be confirmed through local knowledge/survey by someone instead. |
| 2 | 2024-03-20 13:57 | tekim | Thanks! | |
| 3 | 2024-03-21 04:39 | b0ssi ♦19 | No worries! I have surveyed and redone the changes alongside another new restaurant in the corner (changeset 148942273). | |
| 148657985 by tekim @ 2024-03-14 19:24 | 1 | 2024-03-14 20:22 | CurlingMan13 ♦2,074 | you're doing the lord's work! --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148657985 |
| 2 | 2024-03-14 21:11 | tekim | Thanks! Some of the way this stuff is mapped is crazy! Another thing I am seeing is greens overlapping fairways. --- #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148657985 | |
| 136500424 by tekim @ 2023-05-24 13:18 | 1 | 2023-05-24 15:59 | kechan ♦56 | Congrats on ten thousand changesets! |
| 2 | 2023-05-24 18:40 | tekim | @kechan Thanks for the congrats, and thanks for all of the trail edits in OSM. I have been focusing on improving the trail data in OSM for Colorado and S. Wyoming, and it is good to have some others doing the same. | |
| 107668651 by tekim @ 2021-07-09 03:36 | 1 | 2021-07-09 13:29 | gpserror ♦228 | Is there a need to retain buildings that were destroyed in the flood, and then rebuilt with a completely new one? Perhaps at best the history should be kept with the new building but it seems best to let go of the past and just leave it in the logs? |
| 2 | 2021-07-09 13:53 | tekim | Sorry for not contacting you first (or at least earlier). Normally I would agree with you, no reason to have buildings that are long gone. Unfortunately some of the imagery sources available in OSM still show these buildings (Esri World Premium Imagery (Clarity) Beta still shows the building in que... | |
| 3 | 2021-07-09 14:30 | gpserror ♦228 | Yeah I got tricked by old imagery before, but now at least I try to see if things exist anymore. How often are incorrect buildings added here?I figured that since there was a larger building was built on top of the old one it was sufficient to delete the small one, and people would generally as... | |
| 4 | 2021-07-09 14:51 | tekim | We had an effort last fall to map in order to support the fire fighting efforts, mainly buildings and driveways. This was requested specifically by one of the firefighters who is involved OSM, rsavoye. He is a normally a volunteer fire fighter in rural boulder county, but was deployed here for the... | |
| 5 | 2021-07-09 20:31 | gpserror ♦228 | yes indeed...also waterway/highway collisions need to be addressed too.. West Creek itself has shifted too. | |
| 89000104 by tekim @ 2020-08-05 20:22 | 1 | 2020-08-10 22:11 | rbradt ♦3 | Data is differentially corrected Trimble data. |
| 2 | 2020-08-11 13:06 | tekim | Hi rbradt,It is great that you have access to a professional grade GPS, and made the effort to apply a differential correction. If you cite this in your change set comments and source, other mappers will be less likely to reposition the feature in question using a less accurate source. I have had... | |
| 87161555 by tekim @ 2020-06-25 23:17 | 1 | 2020-06-26 01:36 | phidauex ♦194 | Thanks for updating the Forks Park boundaries. However, didn't they buy that little "notch" that is along Big Thompson Canyon and make it part of the park? --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/87161555 |
| 2 | 2020-06-26 13:10 | tekim | Yes, I was conflicted about that. Larimer County does own that parcel, but it still has a house on it, so is it currently part of the park or not? As a park user I probably would not be welcome to wander around that house. I could go either way though. | |
| 3 | 2020-06-26 16:00 | phidauex ♦194 | If you were just there and the house is still present, then you are probably right that it isn't part of the park (yet). | |
| 86294894 by tekim @ 2020-06-06 23:47 | 1 | 2020-06-07 22:00 | phidauex ♦194 | It isn't super well supported, but if you are interested in adding it, this is the conditional syntax for bicycle access on a highway: bicycle:conditional=no @ (Apr-15-Oct 15) --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/86294894 ... |
| 2 | 2020-06-07 22:18 | tekim | Thanks! I searched the wiki for "seasonal closure", but didn't come up with anything. I will add that tag. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/86294894 | |
| 30489582 by tekim @ 2015-04-26 02:57 | 1 | 2015-04-27 22:08 | Mr_Brown ♦19 | Loveland is now in RMNP? Heh, lol. :) |
| 30313603 by tekim @ 2015-04-18 18:46 | 1 | 2015-04-18 21:21 | maxerickson ♦234 | The current modeling of the Great Lakes is actually to use natural=coastline.The addition of natural=water to the lake superior relation is probably what caused the bad rendering at z13.If you check the history of the relation, you can see people repeatedly adding and removing natural=water. |