fortera_au's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 170602109 | 4 months ago | Revert SEO edits added to whole building |
| 170601505 | 4 months ago | Revert SEO edits added to whole building |
| 170601778 | 4 months ago | Hi, you've added this onto the building as a whole. I've reverted it, if you wish to add your business, please add it as a node within the bounds of the building.
|
| 170473566 | 5 months ago | There is the possibility they're signed as part of a walking/cycling route, but if not then I'd say removing it is fine, if it's a highway=footway way. |
| 170473566 | 5 months ago | Designated means there's some kind of signage. Access=no isn't needed since it's assumed by default that cars can't go on footpaths, you generally only need to add restrictions if it differs from the norm. You've actually excluded bicycles here, which are legally allowed on footpaths. |
| 170473566 | 5 months ago | Hi, is there a reason for tagging access=no? Also, is there signage for walking, if not then foot=designated isn't correct.
|
| 170319584 | 5 months ago | Hi vajayjay_u, Your changeset comment seems to indicate that you're using sources that you haven't mentioned in your changeset tags. Can you let me know what the source for these edits are? Kind regards,
|
| 168299079 | 5 months ago | Google Earth isn't a source we can use, if you have other edits that have been made based on Google Earth and that can't be backed up by another source (or that you haven't confirmed in person), they should probably be reverted. |
| 170366795 | 5 months ago | Fully agree with what you've said, and if there's concerns about how dangerous something is, there's likely a way to tag it as such. Similar to how we tag private trails and roads as such instead of removing them.
|
| 170234486 | 5 months ago | Hi, this building doesn't match up to what's showing on aerial imagery, has it recently been built?
|
| 168030300 | 5 months ago | Hi Peacock 7784, Can you please explain the reason why these have been deleted? Do they no longer exist, or has something else happened to them? Kind regards,
|
| 168038678 | 5 months ago | Hi Peacock 7784, Can you please explain the reason why these have been deleted? Do they no longer exist, or has something else happened to them? Kind regards,
|
| 168040075 | 5 months ago | Hi Peacock 7784, Can you please explain the reason why these have been deleted? Do they no longer exist, or has something else happened to them? Kind regards,
|
| 169797615 | 5 months ago | Also, where you've removed the bits of road going across the road named 早稲田通り, are you able to turn right there at all? |
| 169797615 | 5 months ago | Hi, it's expected that your changeset comment describes your edit. Please see osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments |
| 169684382 | 5 months ago | Hi Shefu89, it's best to change the existing objects instead of deleting and recreating them. See osm.wiki/Keep_the_history for more info. |
| 170012591 | 5 months ago | A lot of these multipolygons don't need to be mapped as such, they can just be a single closed way.
|
| 169941795 | 5 months ago | Also, has the running track actually been removed?
|
| 169952771 | 5 months ago | It's just the unmade at the end of the name bit that I'm thinking about. The name is fine, but if unmade isn't part of the name, it should just be Schultz Road |
| 169952771 | 5 months ago | Hi, is unmade part of the actual name of the road, if not that should be removed, and the other tags you've used will cover that
|