janesk's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 155400260 | 5 months ago | What's up with the construction zone on the west side of Old Windsor Road? It's just a copse of trees. Is there some sign that it's a construction site? |
| 168210913 | 6 months ago | Submitted this changeset comment without thinking about it; it should say that I added chicanes. |
| 163820327 | 9 months ago | Oh cheers, did that with the last payphone I added but it totally slipped my mind here. Thanks for fixing. |
| 163668718 | 9 months ago | G'day, Please make your changesets comments more descriptive. "Added new data" tells people nothing about what your changeset does. A better comment might have been something like "added footpaths and fences" (although I can see you also did more than that). Cheers |
| 160627194 | 10 months ago | Hello, I have removed the hundred or so shrub nodes that you added for the hedges and replaced them with a way. Hedges shouldn't be mapped as discrete nodes but as ways (barrier=hedge). While technically a hedge is made up of discrete shrubs, it isn't reasonable (or often possible) to verify the existence of the individual shrubs even on the ground, let alone from aerial imagery. It's also just more functionally useful to map it as a way. |
| 162914132 | 10 months ago | Oh dear. Silly me! Too many tabs open. Ta |
| 162914132 | 10 months ago | Hello, I have removed the hundred or so shrub nodes that you added for the hedges and replaced them with a way. Hedges shouldn't be mapped as discrete nodes but as ways (barrier=hedge). While technically a hedge is made up of discrete shrubs, it isn't reasonable (or often possible) to verify the existence of the individual shrubs even on the ground, let alone from aerial imagery. It's also just more functionally useful to map it as a way. |
| 162804346 | 10 months ago | If the buildings aren't egregiously wrong I would certainly not remove them from the map even if they may not be as high quality as anyone would like. Obviously at a certain point data could become bad enough that you might consider it vandalism, at which point removing them would be justified. But I that obviously isn't the case here, and it would be a good idea to discuss this with other mappers before making a deletion. If you don't feel existing building outlines are good enough, you should improve them yourself, rather than deleting them. It preserves the data and also importantly the history of the object. |
| 160478235 | 12 months ago | Nie zauważyłam że był tam pojedynczy stojak. Dziś poszłam sprawdzić, teraz poprawione. Dzięki za uwagę. |
| 160478235 | 12 months ago | Myślę że obok. Nie zauważyłam stacji metroroweru, pamiętam tylko że jest tam 5 stojaków. Jutro mogę wrócić i jeszcze potwierdzić jaka jest faktyczna sytuacja. |