Greg_Rose's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 117367085 | almost 4 years ago | Please see comments for changeset/117373881.
|
| 117371210 | almost 4 years ago | Please see comments for changeset/117373881
|
| 117373881 | almost 4 years ago | Hi Mashin - As you may remember, after extended discussion on the OSMUS Slack #trails channel late last year, there was overwhelming consensus (9 to 2) that removing the Name tag from a way simply because it's a member of a named relation is not desirable. Yet you are once again deleting trail names throughout Connecticut - in some cases you aren't transferring the data you're deleting into the relation, and in other cases you aren't even creating a relation, or if you are, it's just a one-member relation. You can't keep doing this just to see your trails show up in your favorite renderer if you are DELETING data in the process!
|
| 116088253 | almost 4 years ago | Heya - 2 little inner-relation bits left over from this changeset - I don't want to delete in case this is somehow a real boundary or (more likely) an inner boundary that needs fixing.
|
| 115598194 | almost 4 years ago | Pls note that the user that marked this changeset as "bad" has provided no change-specific feedback to me personally or within OSMCha.
|
| 115619839 | almost 4 years ago | Pls note that the user that marked this changeset as "bad" has provided no change-specific feedback to me personally or within OSMCha.
|
| 102513995 | almost 4 years ago | Heya - you probably already know this, since this change is 10 months old... but Forest Service Roads shouldn't be tagged as "service roads". Unclassified or track would be more appropriate, depending on usage.
|
| 116273982 | almost 4 years ago | Also need to capitalize |
| 116273982 | almost 4 years ago | Too many R's! :) |
| 102511357 | almost 4 years ago | Thx Fogey. I didn't realize EFRX was done. That's depressing. |
| 102511357 | almost 4 years ago | Hey Nate - where does EFRX tie down now if that stretch crossing 175th is disused? |
| 115809793 | almost 4 years ago | Hey Tom - there's some untagged lines from that change. I'm not touching them, in case you're still working on this.... |
| 115662728 | almost 4 years ago | You don't seem to ever respond to my responses - as if you don't care about my rationale.
|
| 115662728 | almost 4 years ago | Hello again...
On sources - that iD field was what I was talking about in my previous communication... but it's been a long time since that was an issue. I think the field was only 128 characters - I can't imagine that it's still that small. So I'll try to go back to putting sources in my changesets.
|
| 115615338 | almost 4 years ago | So much to deal with here....
Remember we are on the SAME TEAM: We both want the same thing - an accurate and usable dataset!
Greg |
| 115615338 | almost 4 years ago | I take it back - the names are coming from the CFPA (www.ctwoodlands.org). Do you not consider them authoritative? |
| 115615338 | almost 4 years ago | So you're just going to delete the trail names with no discussion, not even 24 hours after I edited? Not cool - at all.
|
| 104152574 | about 4 years ago | Hey there! FYI, the 'seasonal' tag is for roads and trails. For waterways, use 'intermittent=yes'. The change here is months old, so you might already know that now - if so, disregard!
|
| 114284058 | about 4 years ago | @UnionPacificRailfan Keyboard shortcuts are your friend in iD: Use the "w" key to toggle in and out of wireframe mode - that will easier to map inside a colored polygon. |
| 114803510 | about 4 years ago |