Hi IanVG, I was correcting some minor errors in this building and noticed that several rooms have the exact same nodes, but also have the same tags. I'm assuming the rooms are meant to be on different levels. Could you double check and correct these problems? way/970103798 is an example that shares the same path as another room with the same tags.

I'm guessing you meant to tag way/968934754 as something other than natural=wood. Can you take another look? Thx.

Can you please explain the fence at way/965617338 ? I've never seen a fenced area like that. Was this a ground survey or did you map this from aerial images. If the latter, can you indicate which image set you used?

No worries. If you look at my history, you'll see I fix a dozen or so similar errors a day. It gets to be old hat.

Hi there ExecutableFiles. Thanks so much for asking about the change and how you can improve in the future. That's awesome.

Basically what I did was removed one node (5908972688) from the area because the way went out to that node and then immediately double back on itself, which isn't "topologically correct" since that doubling back part is zero width. I believe that it went along a wall or something. If you want to indicate that there isn't grass because there is a wall there, it really isn't necessary and you'd have to draw around the wall for the width of the wall. That's just overkill IMO and unnecessary.

I hope this explains things. If not, happy to engage with you some more.

Hi VLD178. I noticed there are overlapping buildings in this changeset that you might want to look into. Maybe there is a problem with your dataset that you are working with that should be addressed?

Hello. Can you take a look at way/30802924 ? I think it got messed up in your edit.

Can you take a look at way/824663804 and see if it can be cleaned up? It currently is all over the place and crosses over itself and that just doesn't make any sense. Thanks.

Can you take a look at way/957610299 ? Something must have happened to it because the way goes all over and crosses over itself. I'd like to fix it, but I'm not sure what was intended. You can probably fix it better than I can. Thanks.

Hey 1T. Something went very wrong with way/837278306. I think it might have been part of your change. Can you take a second look? Thanks.

Hi. Can you look back at the following ways and make corrections:

way/90758334

way/44708341

way/47246634

Hello Sedna,
I have removed a few of the sidewalks that you mapped in this change since they duplicate an existing path (the cycleway). If there is only one physical path there, there shouldn't be an additional way mapped. The original should be modified or enhanced if need be. There might be some additional cleanup needed in this area. Thanks.

You might want to find a GPS app or device that can take more samples per given time. When you have samples that are almost a half mile apart and you don't plot intermediate points, your track can be misleading and possibly even dangerous.

The other problem is that you are double plotting the same path. For example, you go up to the overlook and come back on what I can only assume is the same exact path. Since only a single path exists, it should only be mapped once, not twice.

Hello Juan. thanks for all of the contributions to OSM. The area is looking well mapped now. One thing you might want to be aware of is the difference between the name and description tags. It looks like you are using "name" when a description would be more appropriate. For instance, the bench "In treasured memories of ..." isn't really named that. There is just an inscription/plaque with that text. That information should be put in the description tag instead, not the name tag.

Thanks,
b-jazz

Not sure what you were trying to do with way/853443159, but it has no tags. Can you take a look?

Sorry, just getting back to this. Did you take a look at the way that you mapped (way/874953527)? There are three points in the track that wildly zigzag hundreds of feet out of the way of the rest of the trail. Those can't possibly be correct. Can you take a look and hand correct those to fit in with the rest of the trail. It's always a good idea to hand edit GPS tracks in case there are any signal abnormalities like this.

Yes, but this particular one looks to be a single family home.

Why aren't the tags for node/8618758800 just including on the surrounding building way? They appear to be from the same import and it doesn't make sense to have both the node and the way exist.

For the service road (way/918325433), since there existed another service road at that same location, a new one should not have been created as there is physically only one road there. Could you go back and clean up that duplication please? Thanks.

Nope, I'm not sure. This looked sus from the very first minute I came across it. I left a note on one of the changesets and didn't hear back so I thought it would be best to at least make the topology consistent and hope that someone else with local knowledge could come back and do proper removals. I will continue to map in this manner, so we'll have to agree to disagree.