StreetSurveyor's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 153090402 | over 1 year ago | Fixed. |
| 152781781 | over 1 year ago | I was unable to capture all the names on my run last night. If you're able to help with the names, it would be most appreciated! |
| 152781781 | over 1 year ago | This cemetery has named service roads in it. |
| 152266407 | over 1 year ago | The sign for Dante Terrace doesn't even say private way on it. This shouldn't even be set to access=permissive. The lot could be tagged as such but the road shouldn't. |
| 152266488 | over 1 year ago | There’s a gate/barrier restricting access? Can cars drive on it? |
| 152221321 | over 1 year ago | Re-read regarding private access please: “Note that it notes access, not ownership. Many privately owned roads are freely accessible for the general public without prior permission- in such case access=private would be wrong and it may be access=permissive if the owner can revoke this permission at their own discretion.” access=* |
| 152180292 | over 1 year ago | I personally ran (surveyed) this street and there were absolutely no restrictions to access to make it where it should be marked private. |
| 152180292 | over 1 year ago | A street sign saying ‘private way’ does not mean it’s private. “Note that it notes access, not ownership. Many privately owned roads are freely accessible for the general public without prior permission- in such case access=private would be wrong and it may be access=permissive if the owner can revoke this permission at their own discretion.” |
| 152180292 | over 1 year ago | I typically only use private when there is a gate physically restricting access. |
| 152142385 | over 1 year ago | At most these, these should be marked as permissive vs. private. They are listed in the city GIS referenced as public and have no restrictions to access. |
| 143336446 | over 1 year ago | Correct. I went out there in the Fall and ran the entire island. Updated everything based on the signs physically present. |
| 151652935 | over 1 year ago | Seems like abandoned railway still might be the most appropriate. |
| 151603549 | over 1 year ago | I don’t agree that it’s incorrect. |
| 151339680 | over 1 year ago | Nice catch! :) |
| 151557011 | over 1 year ago | These were not done erroneously. They were done since they're service roads that belong to the cemetery. Please do not make these changes again. |
| 151233901 | over 1 year ago | Thanks for letting me know. Last thing I would want is to eliminate them from the map. I changed this to a path and reverted some others I changed from path. |
| 151233901 | over 1 year ago | We could do path but the abandoned railway seemed the most appropriate and matched several other sections with the same name. |
| 148226710 | almost 2 years ago | I recently restored them as hamlets. |
| 148774691 | almost 2 years ago | Going forward, how should the parts that are not recognized by the 'city limits' but are reflected with a mailing address in the city be updated? |
| 148774691 | almost 2 years ago | Thanks for letting me know. I reverted the changes. Apologies for my mistake. |