Warin61's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 94464759 | about 5 years ago | Hi,
Side note The imagery used cannot be the DCS NSW Imagery as that does not show boundaries... |
| 93695260 | about 5 years ago | Error .. mine.
|
| 93695260 | about 5 years ago | Hi Arr.. no. Only one relation is required, not two. The relation should then have 2 members;
Next issue: way/867936796 has the same tags as the relation ... so the hole in the middle of the relation is pained over because the way says it is all water... remove the tags from the way and that will than leave the relation. ----------- Hope that makes some sort of sense. |
| 92547819 | about 5 years ago | See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=143.76701&lat=-37.77523&zoom=12 for some issues that should be fixed. |
| 93957306 | about 5 years ago | Hi, Multipolygon relations - thee other ways cannot share segments. See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=139.27571&lat=-35.12366&zoom=18 In this case I would make a single outer way with the correct tags on it and delete the relation. |
| 92264606 | about 5 years ago | This does not need to be a multiploygon! KISS The simpler the objects in OSM the easier they are to understand for us humans and the easier they are to render for the computers. |
| 93323222 | about 5 years ago | Hi, Errors in relation/11815440 1) Multipolygon relations outer ways cannot share segments! See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=145.45605&lat=-30.87017&zoom=6 2) building=yes;house ... no. It is either a house or not. Suggest separating the building or using building:part=*. |
| 93959294 | about 5 years ago | I would think there are some Casuarinas in the larger area at least. |
| 93818033 | about 5 years ago | Hi, Do these exist yet?
|
| 93623931 | about 5 years ago | Hi,
|
| 93624269 | about 5 years ago | Hi, Scarsdale Plantation looks to be an area used for forestry. While some areas maybe 'scrub' now they will be trees in the future, and some areas will be harvested - so no trees. Rather than continuously updating the areas vegetation which is a patchwork it is easier to tag the landuse=forest, without any natural=scrub/wood/near_earth and be done with it. |
| 93686317 | about 5 years ago | Hi, You have added ways to the administration boundary of Newcastle. Corrected. Please take care. |
| 88126138 | about 5 years ago | Hi,
On Bringelly Rd there are the tags; oneway=yes meaning it is one way in the forward direction of the OSM way. and maxspeed:backward=80 ...??? As oneway=yes forbids going backwards ... Danger Will Robertson, danger. |
| 93764501 | about 5 years ago | The changes broke the administration boundaries for 2 councils.
|
| 92643482 | about 5 years ago | No response. Repaired as best I could not knowing the area. |
| 90388465 | about 5 years ago | When you add an area inside another area that conflicts between the two, that conflict needs to be resolved. Here you have added a scrub area inside a tree area. It cannot be both trees and scrub.
|
| 93721912 | about 5 years ago | Have you visited this area? There looks to be considerable conflict between areas tagged as 'scree' and 'bear rock'. Then there is the question of 'heath' and 'tundra'. |
| 93707851 | about 5 years ago | Hi,
I would also like to know why you have deleted buildings already entered and what source you used for the changes. |
| 92899500 | about 5 years ago | Hi,
|
| 93690232 | about 5 years ago | Not a question of 'may have', there are crossing buildings. Crossing buildings are identified by the JOSM validator before you download the data to OSM.
|