miroslavuzice87's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 166333301 | 7 months ago | Hi Mapper02, thank you for a reply. I tried to revert your changeset but couldn't, it's too big and revert plugin breaks inside JOSM |
| 166333301 | 7 months ago | Hello mapper02, I noticed that you've made a significant number of edits in this area, including the deletion of 865 entities. These deletions appear to have affected the coastline around Málaga, which in turn has broken several administrative boundaries. As a result, the following relations are currently incomplete or disrupted:
Could you please take a look and verify whether these deletions were intentional? If not, it might be worth reviewing and possibly reverting some of the changes to restore coastline integrity. Thank you for your contributions and for taking the time to review this. Best regards,
|
| 155804448 | over 1 year ago | All right, thank you so much for fixing this, now everything seems fine. |
| 155889434 | over 1 year ago | Hello, thank you for your contributions. I can see that you have modified this relation and as a result it is now broken as you can see it here: relation/10051261#map=12/30.5056/104.2537 Can you please finish updating this relation so that it can be complete and we can have a relevant map data? |
| 155757416 | over 1 year ago | Great. Thank you as well. Happy mapping! |
| 155757416 | over 1 year ago | Thank you so much for your reply. Understandably you didn't actually realize that there were some consequences of your edits. This is one of them: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1QhN The whole coastline of USA was broken as a result. We were able to fix all these errors, you can see one of the changeset here: changeset/155774125 By deleting coastline tags you were creating wetlands. The best way to create wetlands in this type of situation is to create a multipolygon using the coastline ways as a part of multipoygon while remaining all tags. Find more details here: osm.wiki/Relation:multipolygon |
| 155804448 | over 1 year ago | Hi ferog_v thank you for your contributions. It seems that after your edit this boundary: relation/6418301#map=15/21.04749/-89.55804 is now broken. I can see that you have deleted lower part of a relation and it now has split ends and as a result boundary is broken. I wanted to check if this is maybe done by mistake or you have some local knowledge that boundary situation here has changed?
|
| 155757416 | over 1 year ago | Hello! Thank you for your contributions to OpenStreetMap. Your efforts are greatly appreciated. However, with this recent edit, it seems that the natural=coastline tag has been removed from some parts, and as a result this caused issues with coastlines tag not being connected as a whole. It would probably be best not to delete the natural=coastline tag. Instead, you might want to add the natural=wetland tag as a separate way or as a multipolygon. This way, both natural features can coexist without any rendering and broken ways problems. Thanks again for your work, and happy mapping! |
| 155471516 | over 1 year ago | It should work. There is no way for the boundary to be locked down. |
| 155471516 | over 1 year ago | Thank you for reply. You can use the split option. After selecting the boundary way, click on the node that should be a separating point, and click P button on your keyboard. You can find more details here: https://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Help/Action/SplitWay |
| 155471516 | over 1 year ago | Dear DrDisaster
|
| 139950487 | over 2 years ago | Hello JJIglesias, thank you for your edit and for pointing this out.
|
| 139436068 | over 2 years ago | Hello kapazao, thank you for pointing this out.
|
| 139254145 | over 2 years ago | Hola Daniel, gracias por corregir esto. |
| 131724698 | over 2 years ago | Hello Andy. The word "Fontanelle" is not triggering our internal profanity check tool and the change looked legit. Thank you for commenting on this, we have noted this example and will pass the offending name to the profanity tool team to update the lookup datasets. |
| 131724698 | over 2 years ago | This change was proposed by one of our users. Our editorial team reviewed the change carefully and used various methods to verify its quality and accuracy. These include:
After completing the validation process, our editorial team did not find anything suspicious or presense of the logical issues in the changeset and decided to publish it for everyone to see. |
| 135338023 | over 2 years ago | Hello. Thank you for pointing this out. |
| 133076780 | over 2 years ago | Hi Diógenes de Sinope thank you for your question. Can't say for sure whether this is private or commercial property. |
| 132664198 | almost 3 years ago | Hello, and thank you for getting in touch. Indeed house was drawn over a road, and even though the building was aligned with the Bing imagery it doesn't align with the road geometry that was drawn over some other imagery and the building does cross the road. Thank you for pointing this out, changeset is reverted. Happy mapping. |
| 131776843 | almost 3 years ago | Hello InsertUser, and thank you for your comment. This does seem like a foundation for the future building and yes, it is currently not visible on the satellite images, but we are working on suggestions from Map builder users who most likely know the local situation that is not yet visible on any imagery. |