I use metric. Nice to meet you ;p I guess people interested in historical features like benchmarks are more likely to still think in imperial units.

But OSM as a database defaults to metric; conversion to old units can be done on the fly if needed. I'd say in an OSM context there are very few reasons to use non-metric, the only one I'm aware of in Ireland are old signposts, which should be vanishingly rare nowadays.

Hi !

Is there a reason for the non-metric units for height and width ? JOSM validator complains about that. I could do the conversion, unless maybe benchmark types are named colloquially after their size in inches ?

Reverted by changeset/79304593 most riverside buildings are razed, there are big transformative plans for the area but they haven't materialized yet.

Clicked too fast, wrong changeset comment.

De-abbreviated church name, removed generic "st mary's church" wikipedia tag, added wikipedia tag to town.

Nicely done on that first changeset, hope you'll have fun making more :)

As a starter you might fix the housenumber on that building, it's probably not "Laragh" ;) It's ok if the house doesn't have a number at all : many in Ireland don't.

Not sure if "Laragh" corresponds to any other part of the address either ? I don't see a matching boundary nearby. Use the "query features" button on the right in the main website to find boundaries the house is in. None of those need to be tagged on the house itself : being geometrically inside it is enough.

Cheers.

The `ele` tag was apparently using the WGS84 referential, which the wrong referential for this tag according to osm wiki. Corrected to 925m as taken from the `ele:local` tag and original mointainview.ie source (now sure if mountainviews.ie changed its mind in using wgs84, or if the import was using the wrong value).

In case you're looking for it, the original node is node/332372493/history

Reported by note/2011005

Actually the 15 days old changeset/73072101 was when the error happened. I fixed it with changeset/73598091 and changeset/73598199 I just reapplied the tags on the latest version of the relation (membership changes and all). I wasn't sure at first how to proceed but the reverter plugin helped. Might be worth looking around in case you spot more issues.

Hum something went wrong here : relation/6045364/history Achill Island got turned into an islet, it's a member of a bare_rock MP... I was trying to do a quick coastline improvement and stumbled upon this. I'll investigate a bit to see if there is a clear fix, but I'd welcome your insight.

From garden center to B&B, that must have been a weird conversion :)

Is the garden center fully gone ? There's a very non-B&B-looking building on Bing/Digitalglobe imagery. Would be nice to trace the buildings, if you have time.

You've got a better grasp of it than I do, I'll let you edit to "Eir" if that's correct. I might photomap it tomorrow, this whole area could do with poi updates.

Don't really know, how would I check ? The shop front says "Eir", I thought these were all marketing names or subcompanies of "Eircom", but they're very hard to follow.

Fair enough that you can't spend too much time on each issue. I skip a lot of non-trivial issues myself.

But that relation will still show up on QA tools such as Jochen's or OSMI's checkers after you added a fixme, and IMHO the fixme tag doesn't make the issue more visible. I feel that fixme tags are much less likely to get attention than area errors or even a note, and I wouldn't add a fixme (or a note) to something that is already detected by automated tools.

But that's just me; if you think it's worth it, go ahead, there's nothing wrong with adding fixmes.

Moving the problem from one QA category to another doesn't seem that useful ? Arguably harmful in this case: I'd rather be able to look for old-style MPs than digging thru FIXMEs when I do fixup using QA tools, because FIXMEs are way too numerous and diverse for me to handle whereas MP problems are rarer and have a clear importance and fixup workflow.

I'm curious what QA tool you use that doesn't flag an old-style MP just because it has a fixme attached ? The fixme tag didn't change anything, the QA tool should still flag this as an old-style MP. For what it's worth, I found this flagged as old-style MP using OSMI Area QA tool.

Lastly, the fix was easy in this case: that relation simply needed to be deleted, it didn't represent any feature that wasn't already repersented.

Just adding a fixme tag isn't much of a fix :p ?

Adding that empty relation was a mishap; the feature was already mapped as another object. Fixed in changeset/63496329

Please keep your outrage for serious matters. Along with terms like butchering, this makes the conversation toxic and is not a good way to interact with other contributors. It took me some time and a chat with other OSMers before being able to give you this calm reply.

I won't try to give more arguments about the benefits and validity of detailed maping. Maybe you'll realize them yourself when overall map quality has improved in Belfast, and I wish you good luck working towards that goal.

In the meantime, I'll leave that car park as a single way and just fix the alignment and glueing issues.

Cheers.

Honestly I'm tempted to just reverse these two changesets (cf discussion at changeset/62314751), but there's no point in doing that without a discussion :

1) Looks like you used unaligned Bing imagery, which is off by a significant amount in this area. I'll let you check the wiki for an alignment tutorial, but straight away you can use the box_junction just east of the campus. Also check the other aerial imagery, as Bing isn't the best around here.

2) I you use imagery that's aligned differently from the imagery of the previous contributor, at least make make sure nearby objects are aligned relative to one another (here like you touched the parking object but nothing else, which creates visible inconsistencies).

3) Do not glue areas to ways as this is geometrically incorrect. It's ok to do that for a quick initial mapping, but not ok to do that to previously correct geometry.

4) You might disagree with this one since this is the main change you made, but the parking area covers areas that are not really parking (and misses one that is, due to alignment). To me the he clearest example is the sides of the north building, which are lined by a service road and no parking spaces. Another one I'd cut out is the very south, for the same reason. And the bit of parking at the west is pretty naturally separated from the rest.

To be clear, I wouldn't have bothered with that 4th paragraph if this was the initial version of the car park. It's not as detailed as it could be, but it's correct. But the previous version was more detailed and also correct. You threw away mapped details, and I don't really see a positive. It's one thing to simplify the OSM data structures (overnodded ways, nodes that should be glued, ways that should be combined, etc), but it's another to simplify OSM's description of the reality.

You'll have to qualify what you mean by "butcher", as the whole campus (parking included) was in a pretty poor state and I can assert that my version was a big improvement.

Please avoid insulting terms like this when talking about somebody's work, especially when it took a lot of time and care (whether you like the result or not).

Perhaps you're referring to the the fact that I mapped isolated parking areas as distinct osm objects ? It's simply more detailed mapping, and considered good practice. There's a big spectrum of accepted mapping details, from the single parking node to individual parking places, and I feel I had struck a reasonable balance.

I would have liked to have the time to reply before you went in and undid some of my work, making a mess of various things beside the debatable number of parkings. I'll head over to your changeset to discuss these properly.

Hum, looks like you tried to draw both the car park and its service road as a single object. Try separating the amenity=parking closed way from the highway=service way. See also amenity=parking and highway=service for other useful tags.

Thanks and welcome to OSM :)

osm.wiki/Community_centre maybe ?

Hello!
Thank you very much for your contributions to OpenStreetMap!
I reviewed your changeset on OSMCha and found some errors or elements
that could be mapped in a better way. Feel free to message me
to know more about it or visit http://learnosm.org/ to get started.
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/55682490