Baloo Uriza's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 34472698 | about 10 years ago | Also, changeset comments are not a place to advertise. |
| 34472698 | about 10 years ago | Get your shit together and start using a single account to do your advertising already. It's obvious you're making a lot of sockpuppet accounts. Maybe try reading the wiki for how to tag correctly as well. |
| 33930044 | over 10 years ago | Let's try changeset/33969494 on for size, shall we? |
| 33930044 | over 10 years ago | Oh really? The blade signage agrees with the exit signage? Man, it has been a long time. You wouldn't have caught this on Mapillary, would you? |
| 33930044 | over 10 years ago | Sure. Be aware that the signs at the motorway_junction are the ramp's destination, these two ramps are named on the surface-street end by the blade signs at Halsey and Glisan respectively. |
| 33930044 | over 10 years ago | I'll be happy to set my proposed tagging if that's cool with the participants involved. |
| 33930044 | over 10 years ago | Also, I can confirm that the signed destination for Exits 2 and 3 are NOT what the ramps are named. Now, it's been a while, but I believe the first segment of exit 3 should have destination=Northeast 60th Avenue, junction:ref=3 in the transition segment and exit 2 should be similarly tagged on the transition segment as junction:ref=2 and destination=Hollywood;Northeast 42nd Avenue |
| 33930044 | over 10 years ago | I can confirm that exit 2 is indeed signed as 43rd Avenue and 3 is signed 58th Avenue. ODOT cannibalized those streets to build the ramps and the signs for those streets are still actively maintained as of 5 years ago when I was last in the area. However, names should not contain abbreviations, NE should be Northeast and Ave should be Avenue. |
| 33719367 | over 10 years ago | Aah, OK. I was just scratching my head since I couldn't quite spot the pattern (subtle, sparse changeset) myself but that makes sense. |
| 33669446 | over 10 years ago | Yeah, let's get the DWG to handle the revert since there's apparently more than one changeset involved and this is hella-messy. |
| 31707044 | over 10 years ago | Correct name for I 40 within this changeset should be "Vietnam Veteran's Memorial Highway" based on signage. |
| 31707044 | over 10 years ago | Looks like a mess was made out of motorway_junction nodes with the refs being moved to the names, and I 40 itself getting renamed incorrectly to "Interstate 40" |
| 33719367 | over 10 years ago | Curious what was going on here. |
| 33669446 | over 10 years ago | Sorry for coming in a little bit hot. Let's go ahead and get that reverted and work to coming to some agreement on classification. Can we come to an agreement that most people in the region view WA 500 west of Fourth Plain as a single unit? |
| 33587233 | over 10 years ago | I consider this changeset malice a forethought as it clearly has an agenda to torque the tags in a fashion similar to NE2 to map in a way that nobody would reasonably expect (such as making a partially controlled highway a motorway), and an extremely high number of ways were merged in this vandalism project without any regard to lane tagging. |
| 33611137 | over 10 years ago | Is this the name of a subdivision or something? |
| 33669446 | over 10 years ago | The only real difference between trunk and motorway in OSM classification is that trunks might be controlled access but lack a median, or are divided but lack a full control along a segment that people generally consider as contigous. Certainly that is the case with WA 500, as just saying SR 500 or hearing it in a traffic report on KATU or KEX immediately evokes the entire partially-controlled expressway as a single unit. Also, I'm going to have to add additional justification to revert this changeset and the related ones along 500 as this also seems to have reversed around 12-15 hours of hard work removing lane tagging I spent a lot of effort on. |
| 33669446 | over 10 years ago | Evidently not, motorways are controlled access, divided exclusively. |
| 33669446 | over 10 years ago | Yes, that is the point, Bickendan, which is why I'm rejecting WSDOT's assertation and substituting in one that is the most consistent in accurately describing this object. One thing we do need to watch out for is an upward creep in tag classification as well or the higher classifications lose meaning. When there's a concise way to accurately describe that, why not do that instead of trying to pass it off as a larger road because a state agency did? What WSDOT has it down as on paper and how it functions in actual operation are two different things. |
| 33760942 | over 10 years ago | What kind of object is WPCF? Also consider using description=* or mapping recharge basins as the appropriate water object without a name=* tag if the name is not known. |