ViriatoLusitano's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 172384755 | 3 months ago | Good spotting. Mistakes while copy-pasting. Will fix shortly. |
| 172244923 | 3 months ago | Thanks for giving it a fix. |
| 169784436 | 4 months ago | It's done changeset/171309354 |
| 171309354 | 4 months ago | In response to changeset/169784436#map=16/51.93205/-8.41176 |
| 169784436 | 4 months ago | Hello, Back home and will will go through them over the next few weeks. I will delete the circular paths but I would like to keep the tracks leading between farms. |
| 169784436 | 4 months ago | Hello, Yes, I am onto it. I am away from home at the moment until the end of August then I can review the tracks. |
| 169784436 | 5 months ago | Fair enough, from now on I will be careful placing these farm tracks, and will do a review soon of those I've placed so far. Thanks for bringing this up. |
| 169784436 | 5 months ago | Hello mapbear66, thank you for your nice comment. About the tracks, the purpose is to show (and allow) routing between farms that are far away from a normal road. I'm referring these parts: way/1418985692 The tracks leading to those parts are often not in aerial photography as you mentioned. To avoid randomness I just do a track that hugs the perimeter to connect these links between farms. As for the hedges, in most cases I cannot see the barriers themselves from my on-foot surveys, nor in the aerial imagery. I go with the option of mapping these boundaries between farms as scrub since they fit the wiki description of "uncultivated land covered with shrubs, bushes or stunted trees". Happy to discuss more about this in case you have issues with this mapping. |
| 167277171 | 7 months ago | Looks grand, keep it up! |
| 164945039 | 8 months ago | I will keep this tagging in mind going forward. Thank you for the heads up. |
| 164464862 | 9 months ago | Thank you for the heads up I will change it here and for other places that I have modified. |
| 164489548 | 9 months ago | I agree with your definition that they cannot accommodate motor traffic, these roads are more important than normal footpaths as they are in a shopping area that sees wide used by people. I feel these ways should still be considered highway=pedestrian. |
| 164399186 | 9 months ago | Could this be oneway=no + oneway:motor_vehicle= yes instead? |
| 163996742 | 9 months ago | Hello PubUpdater. I am following what is on the ground and it's a pub that happens to have a restaurant. What's the purpose of having two different nodes representing the same establishment? |
| 161612142 | 11 months ago | The Ballintemple had an erroneous exclave that I removed. |
| 161612142 | 11 months ago | Hello Andy, Once more I appreciate finding these issues for me. I will fix them now. |
| 161097526 | 12 months ago | Thank you for the heads up Andy, I will fix these now. |
| 158499556 | 12 months ago | Thank you for the heads up, I will correct this. |
| 158741650 | about 1 year ago | Hello, Thank you for the heads up, I will remove these. |
| 152340532 | over 1 year ago | Hello Victor, Following this area:highway=footway |