CurlingMan13's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 146263688 | almost 2 years ago | Is this what replaced "Bar Uni" ? Is there a reason you didn't remove "Bar Uni" and close your note? |
| 144561902 | almost 2 years ago | When features are "private", they are not access=no. It should be access=private. I have corrected this feature, but please be aware for future edits. |
| 146202943 | almost 2 years ago | Please do not perform tests on the live OSM server. This is not allowed.
|
| 146230448 | almost 2 years ago | 'This changeset has been reverted in part or full. The feature is still visible in aerial imagery. Access tags should be used instead of deleting the feature. You can read why deletion is not the solution here:
Please don’t do that; in OSM, if a trail/road exists but is not usable (due to being closed, private or simliar) we use the so-called “access tags” to record the fact.' |
| 146220224 | almost 2 years ago | 'This changeset has been reverted in part or full. The feature is still visible in aerial imagery. Access tags should be used instead of deleting the feature. You can read why deletion is not the solution here:
Please don’t do that; in OSM, if a trail/road exists but is not usable (due to being closed, private or simliar) we use the so-called “access tags” to record the fact.' |
| 146230834 | almost 2 years ago | 'This changeset has been reverted in part or full. The feature is still visible in aerial imagery. Access tags should be used instead of deleting the feature. You can read why deletion is not the solution here:
Please don’t do that; in OSM, if a trail/road exists but is not usable (due to being closed, private or simliar) we use the so-called “access tags” to record the fact.' |
| 146139608 | almost 2 years ago | This changeset has been reverted in part or full. Do not delete features that still exist. If you are updating the features, please just manipulate what is there to maintain revision history of the features. |
| 145774765 | almost 2 years ago | 'This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset where the changeset comment is: undo undiscussed and large-scale deletions of paths not open to public - use access=private instead In OSM, if a trail exists but is not usable (due to being closed, private or simliar) we use the so-called “access tags” to record the fact. Property owners do not have the right to dictate what we map about their property; we can map private trails all we want as long as we correctly state that these are private. If you would like to discuss this rule, please bring it up on community.openstreetmap.org. Please do not perform further deletions.' |
| 145774554 | almost 2 years ago | 'This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset where the changeset comment is: undo undiscussed and large-scale deletions of paths not open to public - use access=private instead In OSM, if a trail exists but is not usable (due to being closed, private or simliar) we use the so-called “access tags” to record the fact. Property owners do not have the right to dictate what we map about their property; we can map private trails all we want as long as we correctly state that these are private. If you would like to discuss this rule, please bring it up on community.openstreetmap.org. Please do not perform further deletions.' |
| 145773795 | almost 2 years ago | 'This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset where the changeset comment is: undo undiscussed and large-scale deletions of paths not open to public - use access=private instead In OSM, if a trail exists but is not usable (due to being closed, private or simliar) we use the so-called “access tags” to record the fact. Property owners do not have the right to dictate what we map about their property; we can map private trails all we want as long as we correctly state that these are private. If you would like to discuss this rule, please bring it up on community.openstreetmap.org. Please do not perform further deletions.' |
| 145634128 | almost 2 years ago | 'This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset where the changeset comment is: undo undiscussed and large-scale deletions of paths not open to public - use access=private instead In OSM, if a trail exists but is not usable (due to being closed, private or simliar) we use the so-called “access tags” to record the fact. Property owners do not have the right to dictate what we map about their property; we can map private trails all we want as long as we correctly state that these are private. If you would like to discuss this rule, please bring it up on community.openstreetmap.org. Please do not perform further deletions.' |
| 146086646 | almost 2 years ago | Why did you delete the golf cartpath just to redraw it?
|
| 116005477 | almost 2 years ago | Features should not have descriptive names when there are better tags that can be used. |
| 132388593 | almost 2 years ago | Do not purposely change lakes to water hazards. This is a lake, not just some golf feature. I have reverted this changeset in part or full to return this feature to a lake. |
| 146079251 | almost 2 years ago | When mapping buildings, "Q" can/should be used to square the buildings. |
| 146078455 | almost 2 years ago | Do not partially overlap landcovers. The fairway and green should not overlap. I have gone through and fixed this error. Please review the following to avoid other common mistakes.
|
| 146052623 | almost 2 years ago | Do not map things for test purposes on the live OSM map.
|
| 146052670 | almost 2 years ago | Do not map things for test purposes on the live OSM map.
|
| 146013392 | almost 2 years ago | This should not have been deleted. Access=private should have been applied instead. This is to prevent someone from completely readding it. If we tag it as private, then people will know it is added, etc. I have reverted this changeset to readd it, and have added the private access tag instead.
|
| 146011152 | almost 2 years ago | What's up with consistently not adding the golfcart paths as a bridge over water? Like why end your cartpaths so abruptly? I have fixed these for you, and have cleaned up other mistakes. |