OK

OK

Messpert
1. At the present there is no way to represent the specific format of a stone circle on OSM.
2. Some ancient maps represent stone circles with the same representation as OSM uses for embankment.
3. An embankment is also a disturbance on the the ground resulting from men interference.
4. The embankment is tagged on a different way then the stone circle.
5. I know this is as workaround, but is real close to the true on the ground and a good representation of the area covered by the stone circle, otherwise not existent.
6. If you don't feel comfortable with this explanation I will gladly remove the embankment.
RR

Dear Phil,
Please feel free to correct the name.

About the embankment
1. At the present there is no way to represent the specific format of a stone circle on OSM.
2. Some ancient maps represent stone circles with the same representation as OSM uses for embankment.
3. An embankment is also a disturbance on the the ground resulting from men interference.
4. The embankment is tagged on a different way then the stone circle.
5. I know this is as workaround, but is real close to the true on the ground and a good representation of the area covered by the stone circle, otherwise not existent.
6. If you don't feel comfortable with this explanation I will gladly remove the embankment.
RR

Dear Phil,
1. At the present there is no way to represent the specific format of a stone circle on OSM.
2. Some ancient maps represent stone circles with the same representation as OSM uses for embankment.
3. An embankment is also a disturbance on the the ground resulting from men interference.
4. The embankment is tagged on a different way then the stone circle.
5. I know this is as workaround, but is real close to the true on the ground and a good representation of the area covered by the stone circle, otherwise not existent.
6. If you don't feel comfortable with this explanation I will gladly remove the embankment.
RR

Hi,
Thank you Yorvik. I corrected it as you suggested.

Rory and TopoLusitânia,

I read carefully all your comments and took notice.

I'm willing to give RapiD a chance.

I have adopted a new method: after adding with RapiD no more then 10 to 20 features, and always on a nearby area, I stop. Then I edit the same area with JOSM browsing each new feature superimposing it over the JOSM Imagery. During this process as I advance each feature I delete the "source=digitialglobe" tag.

RapiD is advertised as AI. So, if that's really true, it certainly needs some usage to became better. I hope...

RB

Dear Phil,
Concerning Way: 761026742
is service, not residential: ok, but open to debate. I corrected it to service.
layer=-1: silly of me, no explanation, a mishap. I corrected it.
RB

Dear Phill

In Esri World Imagery on JOSM

I see way/760814325 as track.

I see way/760814327 as faded track, but a track.

the way
way/760814329 if is just a tramline left by a tractor, not a track. So it should not be represented?

If you think we still should revert this changeset please let me know because I want oppose to it.

RB

Hi Phil,
I haven't been there but looked at several photos and several Imagery.

In my opinion there's enough wall remains above ground to be better represented as a ruined building. The main reason is that we can imagine, just by looking at it, the shape and the area covered by the building. For me these are [very much] ruined buildings and not mere walls as we can see at most fields dividing them but not forming the shape of a building as it is the case here.

This is my rationale for this edit.

RB

Sorry I couldn't found it. Can you be specify please?
RB

Thank you.
I corrected it.
In this case it was my fault, not RapiD.
RB

Hi. I'm a native of Portugal so I'm able to recognize tracks on this part of the country. In this area, with few arborization, I think that the RapidID is not guessing too much. That's just an opinion. I don't understand what you mean by "trusting RapiD entirely?".

`source=digitialglobe` was added by RapiD Editor, not me, The fundamental question is "which aerial source did RapiD Editor used to generate the tracks...

Usually on this area I use Esri World Imagery to edit and now, with RapiD Editor, to confirm.

I was already reviewing this edit.

Sorry about that.
Any mishap were unintentional.
RB

Dear EliotB,
Please feel free to delete the relation if you think that this representation it's not better than the previous.

Hello. No, I did not want to add man_made=water_tap. Thank you for the correction.

Caro Filohipo,
Obrigado pela pergunta. Muito sucintamente eis o racional.
Em extensas zonas de Portugal não existe mapeamento nem da cobertura vegetal (wood/forest/scrub/grassland), nem da utilização do solo (farmland/meadow/orchard). Também não prevejo que tal venha a acontecer num futuro próximo.
A utilização de algumas das camadas CLC (wood/forest/farmland) nessas áreas beneficiaria o OSM, pois contribuiria para uma melhor compreensão do território. Pelo menos para quem visualiza o mapa OSM a pequenas escalas nomeadamente através de aplicações terceiras.
Estou consciente que o OSM é um mapa essencialmente a grande escala (o que implica bastante rigor) no entanto é usado por muita gente/aplicações "apenas interessada" no enquadramento geográfico de pontos notáveis (locais/edifícios/comércios) que pretendem assinalar/destacar.
A ideia não é originalmente minha. Deparei com a utilização desta solução logo aqui ao lado em Espanha. Sei que outros países também já o fizeram adotando regras que estão documentadas na wiki.
Ao dispor,

Já procedi à remoção dos dados CLC na zona a norte de Fornos de Algodres.

Caro Filohipo,

Parece não haver aceitação de "importação" de dados CLS, mesmo quando feitos com critério. Estou totalmente disponível para os retirar de seguida. Não existe qualquer insistência da minha parte na permanência dos mesmos.

Do acima referido retenho:
"Está tudo bem com o mapa e [com] este C[hange]S[et]".