Xvtn's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 145020280 | about 2 years ago | Looks great. Thanks for your contribution! One minor thing - changeset comment is for describing what you changed. So in the future you might put something like "Added buildings in Heber and surrounding area".
|
| 145051283 | about 2 years ago | Hi, thanks for your contribution! Since you requested a review, here are a few tips: - In the iD editor, (the one you used) you can select an area and hit "Q" to square up its corners. It's surprising how much nicer it can make things look!
I went ahead and made those changes. Thanks again, and welcome to OSM! |
| 145053920 | about 2 years ago | Also, I'm about 95% certain I'm correct, but feel free to challenge me on that if you disagree. :) |
| 145053920 | about 2 years ago | Hi, and thanks for your contribution! Looks great overall. Since you requested a review, I went over it and noticed a minor thing. There was one redundant traffic light node such that a northbound driver on Friant Rd would have to pass through two such nodes. I removed it. Thanks again! |
| 145056648 | about 2 years ago | Looks great! Thanks for your contribution and for the descriptive changeset comment. |
| 145056937 | about 2 years ago | Hi, and thanks for your contribution. In the future, do you mind adding a descriptive changeset comment? That helps others know what you changed without having to manually inspect. (Especially since you're requesting review on your changes!) |
| 145057787 | about 2 years ago | Hi, and thanks for your contribution! This looks good to me. I did extend both sides' bike ways to Mission and Market streets so that cyclists won't be routed onto crosswalks. |
| 145060074 | about 2 years ago | Looks great. Thanks for your contributions! |
| 145068015 | about 2 years ago | Hi, thanks for your contribution! Since you requested a review, here are a few tips: - The Description tag should be a concise description of the feature rather than a free-form ad space.
I went ahead and made those changes. Thanks again, and welcome to OSM! |
| 145072393 | about 2 years ago | Hi, thanks for your contribution! Since you requested a review, here are a few tips: - It's best to avoid abbreviations in OSM wherever possible. ("N" -> "North")
I went ahead and made those changes. Thanks again, and welcome to OSM! |
| 145080973 | about 2 years ago | Looks great! Thanks for your contribution. |
| 145085156 | about 2 years ago | Looks great! Thanks for your contributions. |
| 144872894 | about 2 years ago | I just edited the area and building to try that suggestion out. Let me know your thoughts on this! I get that people are going to clash on some ideas so the last thing I want is silent edit-wars. If you feel strongly about having them a certain way I'm willing to just quit worrying about it and let you do your thing. :) Thanks for your contributions, regardless! |
| 144872894 | about 2 years ago | When it comes to tagging the outer area, I think I am still in favor of avoiding duplication by minimizing tags on the building. Perhaps a good compromise would be as follows: For churches with a single building, meaning the vast majority, put all tags on the building way itself, except for landuse=religious on the outer "grounds" area. For churches with multiple buildings, put all tags including amenity=place_of_worship on the outer area, leaving only building=church on the buildings. This tracks pretty closely with the recommended method on the wiki: landuse=religious#Usage |
| 144872894 | about 2 years ago | Re: cross vs worship icon, OSM Carto currently correctly uses the latter for denomination=mormon. But they have not updated it yet to correctly handle latter_day_saints or latter-day_saints since the church changed their mind on the mormon name. I looked at some github issues here and there earlier today and it sounds like they want to avoid implementing stuff for which the community has not settled on a common schema for. (Seems like someone needs to take ownership of this issue and do a global tag change, and spearhead the necessary renderer changes.) |
| 128100138 | about 2 years ago | That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the info! (I have this vague feeling I already asked you about this or something similar... Sorry if that's the case.) |
| 144872894 | about 2 years ago | Just a heads-up that when both building and outer church boundary is marked as amenity=place_of_worship, it's generally interpreted as two churches. (Two icons and labels rendered, two entries show up on searches, etc.) For that reason, I've generally tried to put all tags on the outer area, then tag the building as building=church only.
|
| 128100138 | about 2 years ago | Might I ask, what is your source on these changes? I might be wrong, but I think the USFS motor vehicle map shows many or all of these as public roads. |
| 144135792 | about 2 years ago | Thanks. My mistake |
| 143951917 | about 2 years ago | Hmm, at first I disagreed with your changes here, but after reading the wiki page I guess place=village is technically correct since AFAIK Lewiston and Franklin do have "few facilities available". |