Hi,

OSM best practice is not to add personal information such as the names of people who own the parcel of land. The name field is for if the property or feature itself has a name, not the owner name.

For more information please see osm.wiki/Mapping_private_information

I've removed these names for you, please refain from adding personal information like this in the future.

thanks!

thanks for finding the surface=3 error! <3

eastern end isn't connected as it hasn't finished being mapped yet

I have no idea how surface 3 got there sorry, removed now in changeset/175468223

thanks for fixing up those school buildings! looks awesome

Hi, was wondering why you added construction to a residential area?

Hi,
Thanks for your comment! I've retagged these areas now.

Thank you,
Phoebe

hi, what was the source for this?

I've gone through the problematic area and added no exit tags to dead ends and split up the area, if the warning reappears can you please comment on this post. I hope it resolves it.

are you able to give more information about what exactly causes the "unconnected_open_ends_1" if known?

but yes I do agree there's probably something wrong with this particular one if its the only one appearing as an error so i'll go through and see if i can figure out what's wrong, maybe it needs splitting up?

I'm not sure why this particular one seems to be causing an issue compared to all the others so i'll go through it in JOSM and try see what is causing it, as for discussion around it refer to this similar fourm post https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/clarification-of-footway-area-mapping/130974/16 and this discussion on this changeset changeset/166883890#map=18/40.691542/-74.015139

For highway areas it is accepted and common practice to map them as both areas and ways despite the general OSM guidence of one feature one object. There's no approved singular tagging at the moment which is why i've used both of the most popular formats, so one can eventually be removed when a consensus is reached. It's important to not just map for the validator.

If there's a routing issue im happy to fix it but removing the highway tag doesn't seem like the proper solution

can you please explain why you did this?

Hi,

I have receved no further feedback across any other worldwide changesets related to this project. It will be resumed. Please direct any further feedback to the fourm page,https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/mass-partially-automated-edit-of-solar-panel-tags-worldwide/130200

Thanks, Phoebe

I'm not sure if you saw my earlier message but i'll try get a waiver from Stats NZ for OSM. changeset/170543166

Hi, I'm aware theres some other quality issues around this import that need to be discussed first before resuming however I can maybe help out with licensing. I live quite close to a Statistics NZ office and are happy to go there next week and try get the waver signed for CC 4.0. Data has been imported into OSM from them before but that was under CC 2.0 - 3.0. CC 4.0 has different attribution requirements that unfortunately require a waver for OSM saying they accept the way OSM attributes them. For now as ❤️‍🔥 said, please hold off importing further data until more discussion takes place.

Thanks, Phoebe

Hi Poncratis,

Are you able to clarify if there are any other sources you are using? Bing aerial imagery in this area isn't high enough resolution for the detail you are mapping at, and some other features such as small bare rock, meadow, wood and scrub areas seem too small to be viable. I'm concerned you may be mapping for the renderer rather than mapping what is actually visable on aerial imagery.

Thanks, Phoebe