OSM note activities of MrSledge for the last 12 months
Copyright © Pascal Neis | Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors | More? See ResultMaps | Notes overview worldwide | Autoreload 5:00 min
Overall activities (12 months)
Opened: 1 (5%) Commented: 7 (32%) Closed: 9 (41%) Reopened: 5 (23%)
Stats per month
Latest activities
Latest activities | The colored events are made by MrSledge | Limit 500
Note#Tmstmp UTCEventContributorComment
409582512024-02-01 15:45openedMrSledge
♦239		O nome deste parque é "Mina de Água" ou "Jardim da Mina"? Creio que é "Jardim da Mina".
22026-01-08 22:10closedç´p
♦1
32026-01-09 01:05reopenedMrSledge
♦239
42026-01-09 01:08commentedMrSledge
♦239		@ç´p Porque fechou a nota se a pergunta ainda está por ser respondida?
336516012022-09-19 01:34openedMrSledge
♦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.
22025-11-10 11:27commenteddannmer
♦18,308		Is this still an issue?
32025-11-10 12:08commentedICT_maps
♦6,939		yes, it appears the town borders still cross the state borders
42025-11-11 21:26commentedMrSledge
♦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.
52025-11-11 21:27commentedMrSledge
♦239		*Blanchard(relation/129292) still does not have the same borders...
336515812022-09-19 01:33openedMrSledge
♦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.
22025-10-18 22:52commenteddannmer
♦18,308		Is this still an issue?
32025-10-19 12:54closedMrSledge
♦239		No longer. I'll close it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
410757812024-02-10 21:16openedMrSledge
♦239		Bom dia. Não faria sentido adicionar a tag "natural:water" a esta ribeira? Obrigado.
22025-08-11 18:38commentedeteb3
♦1,017		Definitely no, here, in my opinion. What would be communicated by "natural:water" is fully implied by waterway=stream.
32025-08-11 18:52commentedMrSledge
♦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.
42025-08-12 12:49commentedeteb3
♦1,017		"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.
52025-08-12 12:49commentedeteb3
♦1,017		*must be
62025-09-28 17:20closedMrSledge
♦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!
410757312024-02-10 21:13openedMrSledge
♦239		Bom dia. Não faria sentido adicionar a tag "natural:water" a esta ribeira? Obrigado.
22025-08-11 18:36commentedeteb3
♦1,017		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.
32025-09-28 17:16commentedMrSledge
♦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?
42025-09-28 17:16commentedMrSledge
♦239		*you will find the specific line.
324027012022-06-25 18:27openedMrSledge
♦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.
22023-06-16 10:56closedlunaticstraydog
♦793		There is nothing here
32023-06-16 11:32reopenedMrSledge
♦239
42023-06-16 11:33commentedMrSledge
♦239		@lunaticstraydog That's not true. Check the link https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3999962.
52023-06-16 11:34commentedMrSledge
♦239		I was the one commenting that note, because before I set the name to the supposed "old_name" this relation had no name.
62023-06-16 12:51commentedlunaticstraydog
♦793		Oh sorry I didn't look at relations. My bad.
72023-06-16 15:27commentedMrSledge
♦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.
82023-08-27 15:01commentedGeorgeKaplan
♦25,385		Note toujours nécessaire ?
92025-08-22 10:45closedGeorgeKaplan
♦25,385		Pas de réponse, je ferme.
102025-09-07 17:19reopenedMrSledge
♦239
112025-09-07 17:19commentedMrSledge
♦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.
397571512023-11-06 17:54openedMrSledge
♦239		Deveria estar aqui o Centro Nacional de Cultura(CNC).
22025-07-30 12:06closed_Lx_
♦585		Added, thanks
32025-07-30 20:46reopenedMrSledge
♦239
42025-07-30 20:48closedMrSledge
♦239		Thank you for checking and addressing my note. 🙏🏼
4855806
Category: unknown		12025-07-14 23:57openedMrSledge
♦239		Hello. Is this line(Kuohu-Vesanka relation/1708561) a relation? Aren't they usually a polygon?
22025-07-24 09:44closedliljaadeliina
♦5,025		They can be also lines
410915912024-02-12 02:05openedMrSledge
♦239		Já foi construída casa neste espaço, peço que adicionem, p. favor. Obrigado.
22024-02-21 16:21commentedMrSledge
♦239		O número é o 7.
32025-05-26 21:28closedMrSledge
♦239
336516212022-09-19 01:35openedMrSledge
♦239		The borders of this element(relation/128576) 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.
22022-09-19 01:37commentedMrSledge
♦239		There are multiple errors with these borders. Please fix them to match the parent element's ones.
32025-04-22 17:35commenteddannmer
♦18,308		Has this been fixed? There's been a few edits here recently.
42025-04-22 20:28closedMrSledge
♦239		It's fixed, the geometries must have been fixed in the meantime. hank you for bringing this to my attention!
336482512022-09-18 16:59openedMrSledge
♦239		The borders of this object(relation/129590) are incorrect here. They should be fixed to match the adminLevel-1 or at least the state borders.
22025-03-30 03:44commenteddannmer
♦18,308		Has this been fixed?
32025-03-30 15:15closedMrSledge
♦239		Yes. I believe the issue has been fixed, since the object's geometry(relation/129590) has been fixed. Thank you for bringing it to ky attention!
344240612022-11-14 22:22openedMrSledge
♦239		Why is this element a subelement of another when it is not a subarea of it: Saint-Nazaire (18349) Céret (2767883) https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/18349#map=13/42.6491/3.0632 https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2767883#map=13/42.6491/3.0632 Additionally, Saint-Nazaire doesn't count on the list of communes of Céret: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/fr:Arrondissement%20de%20C%C3%A9ret?uselang=en
22022-11-15 00:01commentedMrSledge
♦239		The wiki of Céret also doesn't have Saint-Nazaire as a Commune: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/fr:Arrondissement%20de%20C%C3%A9ret?uselang=en Both wikipedia links on this note are from the "Wikipedia" Tag,
32025-01-12 12:44commentedLySioS
♦1,850		Looks lile it's OK now, doesn't it ?
42025-01-12 15:01commentedMrSledge
♦239		Why do you say it looks ok? The associated wiki still doesn't have Saint-Naizare as a commune of Ceret, so how do we know Saint-Nazaire is really a commune of the Ceret arrondissement? Ideally a French person would confirm this.
52025-01-12 15:06commentedMrSledge
♦239		Additionally this website also doesn't list Saint-Nazaire as a commune of Céret: https://www.insee.fr/fr/metadonnees/geographie/arrondissement/661-ceret So I don't really know if it is solved...
62025-01-12 16:48commentedLySioS
♦1,850		my bad, when i clicked on relation 2767883, i didn't see it in the orange boundary, so i figured out it was solved. Should i remove the SaintNazaire relation of the Céret relation ? i guess it's the appropriate way of doing (but i'm not familiar with this type of object)
72025-01-12 18:25commentedMrSledge
♦239		No problem. Then perhaps it might be better to remove the link between relations, but I can do that once I get back home. Thank you for bringing this to my attention once again!
82025-01-12 18:48commentedMrSledge
♦239		I understood what happened. Basically the wrong link was created between Saint-Nazaire and Céret, because Saint-Nazaire's containing element borders Céret. The real link should ve Saint-Nazaire- Perpignan. I'll take care of it and resolve the note once it's finished. https://imgur.com/a/qgSrDKO
92025-01-12 18:48commentedMrSledge
♦239		*be
102025-01-12 18:59commentedLySioS
♦1,850		Thanks
112025-03-24 19:39closedMrSledge
♦239		Fixed! https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164048929
336563612022-09-19 12:46openedMrSledge
♦239		The borders of this element(relation/13839742 - Heipa District) seem incorrect. Is it supposed to go beyond state borders into North Dakota? If not they should be fixed to match the parent administrative element or at least the state borders. If the borders of the parent elements are incorrect then they should be fixed instead.
22025-03-18 16:05closedelijahmathews
♦10		As far as I can tell, the borders of this relation (Heipa District) and its parent relation (Lake Traverse Nation) appear to be correct. The Lake Traverse Nation does indeed cross the North Dakota/South Dakota border (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Traverse_Indian_Reservation), and in fact the reservation itself predates the split of Dakota Territory into North/South Dakota.
32025-03-18 20:39reopenedMrSledge
♦239
42025-03-18 20:40closedMrSledge
♦239		@elijahmathews I see, thank you for telling me. So it's just one of the edge cases where the border has an exception.
336483612022-09-18 17:05openedMrSledge
♦239		The borders of this object(relation/130117) are incorrect here. They should be fixed to match the adminLevel-1 or at least the state borders.
22024-12-29 13:05commenteddannmer
♦18,308		Still a problem?
32025-03-02 11:40closeddannmer
♦18,308		No response, resolving note
42025-03-02 12:07reopenedMrSledge
♦239
52025-03-02 12:09closedMrSledge
♦239		I believe the borders have been fixed in the meantime, so it's no longer a problem, yes. Thank you for your feedback.