Warin61's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 128918318 | about 3 years ago | Hi, OSM multipolygon relation outer ways cannot share segments. So relation/14889547 is in error. I would use building as the footprint of the total building - not two separate ways. If you want to separate the structure for some reason then use building:part. I'm leaving this for you to fix as you see fit. |
| 128795538 | about 3 years ago | Hi, Welcome to OSM! Multipolygon outer ways cannot share segments - so relation 14877302 is in error. There is no need to make this a relation .. better as 2 ways carrying the tags and no relation. I have deleted the relation and places the tag landuse=residential on the two ways. |
| 128671925 | about 3 years ago | For the final time .. I did NOT add any tags to this ... you will have to go to the mapper that added them and ask them. Out. |
| 128671925 | about 3 years ago | I quote from the OSM talk list
This seems to be in error, as - despite the recent tragic collapse -
The way had been marked as impassable. Can someone restore that, please?" The deletion was don by a non local. I am not local. Your not local. Shale we wait and see what a local does? Or do you want to delete the way and remove the past information from OSM? I an done with it. Someone has deleted the way for the pedestrian bridge at Morbi, India. This seems to be in error, as - despite the recent tragic collapse -
The way had been marked as impassable. Can someone restore that, please?" |
| 128714205 | about 3 years ago | OSm Inspector refreshes once a day. I keep an eye on it to pick up my own and those admin boundaries that get broken with road changes. |
| 128619514 | about 3 years ago | Reverted. Restores wetland within Lake Baghdad. Fixed tags and water way crossing. |
| 127966155 | about 3 years ago | Hi
But .. I don't think this is sand at all!!! See relation/14723827 |
| 128635165 | about 3 years ago | Hi, Multipolygon relation outer ways cannot share segments. So the Greensborough Walk relation is in error. I have:
This simplifies the data and makes it easier to understand. |
| 128671925 | about 3 years ago | Further reading ...
|
| 128563384 | about 3 years ago | This changeset did not alter any tags.
|
| 128714205 | about 3 years ago | Not iD/JOSM but that OSM Inspector website... And also the OSM wiki says
|
| 128671925 | about 3 years ago | Look at the history of the way to see who really added what?
I added no tags to the way, I simply restored the way from a deletion. You can see this if you look at the way history. Don't think your note will attract much attention. Making comments on the appropriate changeset should get more attention and probably better information as to the present status. This is not the changeset that introduced 'construction' nor 'access=no' etc... |
| 128359424 | about 3 years ago | Hi, You have created a duplication of the river ... Suggest you delete this one Machchhu (14759437, v2)
|
| 128714205 | about 3 years ago | Hi again, Same problem with relation/14867988 scrub. |
| 128671925 | about 3 years ago | I reverted the deletion of the way - the tags there will have to be discussed with those that put them there. Given that some money was recently spent on the bridge and it was just reopened for the festival, I would think there would be fair pressure to restore it. It may take some time for the determination of what is to be done (restricted numbers?). In the mean time access=no should dis-wade routers as would highway=construction. I'm not certain about the bridge=yes ... Andy Malbert thinks there are enough remnants for that to be ok, I'd like to signify it is 'damaged' .. possibly a new life cycle prefix .. could also be used for damages by floods/fires/landsides/earthquakes... |
| 128563384 | about 3 years ago | HI,
The way contains some history and should not be deleted . Some elements of the bridge remain. The local mappers have already tagged it access=no and construction. |
| 128623439 | about 3 years ago | Hi,
I would delete the relation and simply place the tags on each way. |
| 128274930 | about 3 years ago | Good .. umm how? Sometimes I don't want to change the 'other things' and sometimes I do want to change the other things .. but getting any associated features could be a good step. JOSM has a 'download along' thingy (under the file menu IIRC) . I have been using that sometimes .. depends on what I'm doing. |
| 128197806 | about 3 years ago | Hi,
Note a Quality Assurance too identifies these errors, that is how I find them. See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=151.12208&lat=-33.78372&zoom=12&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways%2Cduplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways |
| 128154904 | about 3 years ago | Hi
|