| Note | # | ⏱️ Last updated | Event | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3365121 | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | opened | MrSledge ♦239 | The borders of this object(relation/169443) are incorrect here. They should be fixed to match the adminLevel-1 or at least the state borders. |
| 2 | ~ 2 years ago | commented | CurlingMan13 ♦54,213 | Has this been fixed? | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | dannmer ♦20,382 | Has this been fixed? | |
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | MrSledge ♦239 | This hasn't been fixed yet. The borders of Hubbell(relation/169443) still transpose state(Nebraska, relation/161648) and county(Thayer County, 1425393) boundaries, where I've placed this note. They extend onto Kansas(relation/161644) and Republic County(relation/1070361). Hubbell should match County and State boundaries. | |
| 5 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | MrSledge ♦239 | Following the recent corrections to Chester and Byron, the Hubbell village boundary (relation/169443) still needs to be snapped to the Nebraska/Kansas state line. It currently creates a triangular overlap into Republic County, KS. Since the state and county lines (admin_level 4 and 6) take precedence over the village (admin_level 8), the southern edge of Hubbell should be merged with the existing state line nodes. | |
| 6 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | ICT_maps ♦13,575 | Yeah, this is another weird one where the county GIS showed it extending across state lines... | |
| 3365123 | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | opened | MrSledge ♦239 | The borders of this object(relation/169450) are incorrect here. They should be fixed to match the adminLevel-1 or at least the state borders. |
| 2 | ~ 2 years ago | commented | CurlingMan13 ♦54,213 | Has this been fixed? | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | dannmer ♦20,382 | Has this been fixed? | |
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | MrSledge ♦239 | This hasn't been fixed yet. The borders of Byron(relation/169450) still transpose the state boundaries of Nebraska(relation/161648) where I've placed this note. They extend onto Kansas(relation/161644) and Republic County(relation/1070361). Byron's boundaries should match the boundaries of the County(Thayer County, relation/1425393) and State(Nebraska, relation/161648). | |
| 5 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | ICT_maps ♦13,575 | Weird quirk in that the county GIS even shows this... moved it over to be in line with the rest of that boundary. | |
| 3365122 | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | opened | MrSledge ♦239 | The borders of this object(relation/169448) are incorrect here. They should be fixed to match the adminLevel-1 or at least the state borders. |
| 2 | ~ 2 years ago | commented | CurlingMan13 ♦54,213 | Has this been fixed? | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | dannmer ♦20,382 | Has this been fixed? | |
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | reopened | dannmer ♦20,382 | ||
| 5 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | MrSledge ♦239 | This hasn't been fixed yet. The borders of Chester(relation/169448) still transpose the state boundaries of Nebraska(relation/161648) where I've placed this note. They extend onto Kansas(relation/161644) and Republic County(relation/1070361). | |
| 6 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | MrSledge ♦239 | Chester's boundaries should match the boundaries of the County(Thayer County, relation/1425393) and State(Nebraska, relation/161648). | |
| 7 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | ICT_maps ♦13,575 | moved; looks like this one got attached to nearby roads | |
| 4095825 | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | opened | MrSledge ♦239 | O nome deste parque é "Mina de Água" ou "Jardim da Mina"? Creio que é "Jardim da Mina". |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | ç´p ♦1 | ||
| 3 | ~ 7 months ago | reopened | MrSledge ♦239 | ||
| 4 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | MrSledge ♦239 | @ç´p Porque fechou a nota se a pergunta ainda está por ser respondida? | |
| 3365160 | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | opened | MrSledge ♦239 | The borders of this element(relation/129292) are incorrect here. They should be fixed to match the parent administrative element or at least the state borders. If the state borders are the ones being incorrect then they should be fixed. |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | dannmer ♦20,382 | Is this still an issue? | |
| 3 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | ICT_maps ♦13,575 | yes, it appears the town borders still cross the state borders | |
| 4 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | MrSledge ♦239 | @danmer It is still an issue, yes. The borders of Blanchard(relation/129292) still does not have the same borders as both of its administratively superior elements(Page County, relation/1789293 and Iowa, relation/161650), as ICT_maps has said as well. So, this note must remain opened until the borders of Blanchard town align with county and state borders. | |
| 5 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | MrSledge ♦239 | *Blanchard(relation/129292) still does not have the same borders... | |
| 3365158 | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | opened | MrSledge ♦239 | The borders of this element(relation/129127) are incorrect here. They should be fixed to match the parent administrative element or at least the state borders. If the state borders are the ones being incorrect then they should be fixed. |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | dannmer ♦20,382 | Is this still an issue? | |
| 3 | ~ 9 months ago | closed | MrSledge ♦239 | No longer. I'll close it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. | |
| 4107578 | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | opened | MrSledge ♦239 | Bom dia. Não faria sentido adicionar a tag "natural:water" a esta ribeira? Obrigado. |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | eteb3 ♦1,469 | Definitely no, here, in my opinion. What would be communicated by "natural:water" is fully implied by waterway=stream. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | MrSledge ♦239 | Would you say that "stream" would be value that best matches what's here? I think this issue also relates to OSM tagging nomenclature. | |
| 4 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | eteb3 ♦1,469 | "stream" vs "river" must a matter of degree. I haven't seen what's on the ground here, but from my hike elsewhere on Monsanto, I think this I highly likely to be what the documentation calls a stream: " (the commonly accepted rule for OpenStreetMap is that a stream can be jumped across by an active, able-bodied person)." That's all the more so as it's intermittent: in Europe, intermittent rivers are (afaik) very rare. | |
| 5 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | eteb3 ♦1,469 | *must be | |
| 6 | ~ 10 months ago | closed | MrSledge ♦239 | Then well, since the tagging is already what best fits the situation here I'll be closing the note. Thanks for the feedback @eteb3! | |
| 4107573 | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | opened | MrSledge ♦239 | Bom dia. Não faria sentido adicionar a tag "natural:water" a esta ribeira? Obrigado. |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | eteb3 ♦1,469 | That tag is not documented on the wiki. A valid alternative appears to be "waterway=river" (or =stream, as this is small). If I've understood the situation, this is a river that is always present, but runs wider in the winter. I can imagine why the first mapper added it in this way: it's hard to show the intermittent extent of the river without making it an object that is different from the river. | |
| 3 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | MrSledge ♦239 | @eteb3 Thanks for the reply. The tag is documented here: "https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:natural?uselang=en#Water_related" If you search for "Any body of water, from natural such as a lake or pond to artificial like moat or canal. Also see water=river" you will find the specific lie. A nearby example that uses this tag is: "https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/562557777#map=17/38.712785/-9.223783" My idea was simply to mention there is a body of water present here, but perhaps some other tagging fits better, here? | |
| 4 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | MrSledge ♦239 | *you will find the specific line. | |
| 3240270 | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | opened | MrSledge ♦239 | Place with no name. I see that it has a tag "old_name" with "Boucherie". What is the new name if "Boucherie" is the old name? Please name as soon as possible. |
| 2 | ~ 3 years ago | closed | lunaticstraydog ♦793 | There is nothing here | |
| 3 | ~ 3 years ago | reopened | MrSledge ♦239 | ||
| 4 | ~ 3 years ago | commented | MrSledge ♦239 | @lunaticstraydog That's not true. Check the link https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3999962. | |
| 5 | ~ 3 years ago | commented | MrSledge ♦239 | I was the one commenting that note, because before I set the name to the supposed "old_name" this relation had no name. | |
| 6 | ~ 3 years ago | commented | lunaticstraydog ♦793 | Oh sorry I didn't look at relations. My bad. | |
| 7 | ~ 3 years ago | commented | MrSledge ♦239 | No problem. I also forgot to include the relation id, although I'd ask you to ask me first before declaring the note as resolved. | |
| 8 | ~ 2 years ago | commented | GeorgeKaplan ♦27,050 | Note toujours nécessaire ? | |
| 9 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | GeorgeKaplan ♦27,050 | Pas de réponse, je ferme. | |
| 10 | ~ 11 months ago | reopened | MrSledge ♦239 | ||
| 11 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | MrSledge ♦239 | Je suis désolé pour ma réponse tardive, @GeorgeKaplan. Je ne pense pas que la note puisse être clôturée tant qu'un habitant de la région n'aura pas confirmé si cet endroit (« relation/3999962 ») s'appelle bien Boucherie. | |
| 12 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | esmenard ♦158 | Si quelqu'un a un abonnement au Dauphiné, cet article devrait donner la réponse https://www.ledauphine.com/societe/2024/03/22/quatrieme-reunion-de-quartier |