Allison P's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 133745161 | almost 3 years ago | And yet the building=house tag was not removed. |
| 133830236 | almost 3 years ago | Names should not be used as descriptions. name=Field 5 should become ref=5 with no name, and "Batting Cage" should have no name. |
| 133644884 | almost 3 years ago | At no point should incorrect information be added to OSM for any length of time. It is more than possible to test things that either add useful data to the map or use a test server like https://master.apis.dev.openstreetmap.org/ |
| 110046450 | almost 3 years ago | I don't think it's appropriate to add the unit as a name. Probably should be addr:unit instead |
| 133681110 | almost 3 years ago | Accidentally clicked "review requested", disregard. |
| 133602054 | almost 3 years ago | I was under the impression that that had been mapped because it would appear that way once opened. Has the construction finished and this U-turn no longer exists? |
| 133647247 | almost 3 years ago | Right, this is definitely not political commentary on the status of churches in the United States. Pull the other one. |
| 133446517 | almost 3 years ago | Is Via Sherry really not capitalized? |
| 133190357 | almost 3 years ago | Road suffixes should be expanded (Ct -> Court, Blvd -> Boulevard). Additionally, names should not be used as descriptions like "Cycle, Walking and Jogging Pathway". |
| 133530837 | almost 3 years ago | He's still doing this? At what point can we cast him out the airlock? |
| 111361641 | almost 3 years ago | Not limited to that intersection, the ones on 8th in this changeset all look odd. |
| 111361641 | almost 3 years ago | Just the weird geometry of the crosswalks |
| 111361641 | almost 3 years ago | *What* is going on here?! way/984590058 |
| 133231517 | almost 3 years ago | Make sure to square buildings before uploading by selecting them and pressing Q. |
| 133227566 | almost 3 years ago | Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thank you for your contributions! When drawing buildings, make sure to square the corners to improve their accuracy. This can be done by selecting them and pressing Q. |
| 133188227 | almost 3 years ago | For schools, it is generally better to add information to the grounds rather than the building. Especially because the address and name were already present on grounds, this just duplicated the information. I've gone ahead and drawn the school grounds now, though. |
| 133194703 | almost 3 years ago | Hey dummy, you forgot about the stuff around Elmore Lake and the golf course. |
| 116263701 | almost 3 years ago | That's a serious offer, by the way. I'm probably running close to a block of my own with this commentary. I'd like to close this off beforehand. Perhaps me reverting this now and just shutting up is the best way to end this discussion. Does that work, or will that just add fuel to the fire? |
| 116263701 | almost 3 years ago | You started this back up. Could've let it be, and maybe no one would've bothered to revert this import... The lie came just as predicted. The small portion of your data can apparently be quickly and easily observed. If it's so easily seen by me to be wrong, why not you? Is it because you think two hours is a reasonable amount of time in which to review tens of thousands of buildings? Pointing out perceived "contradictions" in my statement doesn't accomplish anything. It's sarcasm (perhaps inappropriate). I'm not happy to give you a list. You should have picked up on these and never uploaded them, or at least gone back and fixed them. But I do think it's worthwhile to show the world that you're willing to completely make things up. The shame should be that the DWG has pretty much said what amounts to "this is an undocumented import" and you're still trying to say it's not. The only people whose take on the matter has any weight have weighed in. You are free to leave the discussion any time! You just have to stop defending your buildings. I'll be here as long as you're still trying to muddy the waters of whether these changesets should be reverted. You could end the discussion with your "time to contribute something actually useful" by fixing these errors! Or reverting them, in all likelihood. Your entire claim about the low error rate is defeated by the simple fact that you haven't caught these errors. You haven't gone back and fixed them. You haven't done squat with this data on OSM to really justify adding it in the first place. No building types, no business info, no addresses. You don't even map here much at all! |
| 116263701 | almost 3 years ago | I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say this and its neighbor were visible on all aerial when you made this edit: way/1022020937 way/1010562596 is totally off way/1010563197 and the rest of the mobile home park don't approximate the shape well at all way/1022017715 doesn't exist way/1010566126 is a house with attached carport, not a single building, and the garage nearby includes a bit of driveway way/1010566407 was definitely visibly gone when you made this changeset, or perhaps never even existed way/1010566759 should just be a rectangle, not this mess way/1010568913 is a weird fusion of multiple mobile homes way/1010561528, another fusion way/1022020663, anti-fusion (splitting?) way/1022022691, very wrong I'll do more later, but I'm busy. |