orthocircular's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 137111907 | over 2 years ago | Gosh darn Vespucci always faking me out! |
| 106236341 | over 2 years ago | Hi, the road is Ioli Ranch with an I, please double check and avoid awkward names like Loli. I'm fixing it so there's no action required, just FYI. Thanks for being an OSM contributor!
|
| 94332421 | over 2 years ago | Hi ramijcr, thank you for your contributions! I see you've changed County Road 317A to be Southwest 44th Way however I see no evidence of this on the ground. County GIS lists these houses as having "County Road 317A" addresses and street-level imagery from 2011 and Feb 2023 show this road signed as "CR 317A." Can you confirm? |
| 52768396 | over 2 years ago | Hi Denis! In this changeset you tagged a bunch of houses as being on "Winifred Pool" street, however county data and street level imagery says these houses are on "Winifred Way." Does that sound right to you? |
| 88984294 | over 2 years ago | Hi wvayens, there seem to be a number of problems with this change. Firstly you removed 6024 Houdek Ave and merged it with 5970 Scardino Street, which implies that a house was demolished and its address moved 8 houses to the North. This seems really unlikely since satellite imagery clearly shows all brand new houses sitting in place with no gaps. Secondly, it looks like you renamed Marsh Bend Trail as it enters Wildwood city limits to be "CR-501" which doesn't follow OpenStreetMap conventions unless that section of road literally says "CR-501" with no other possible explanations. Usually, highways get a ref tag only and the name is secondary, as the rest of Marsh Bend Trail has remained. Please reply to this comment so we can discuss. If I don't hear back in a few days I'll assume these were mistakes and undo them. Thanks for being an OSM contributor!
|
| 132657232 | over 2 years ago | Hiya! Thanks for your awesome work in this area. Do you have any good address sources for the new houses in the Meggison Road / Newell Loop subdivision? |
| 133952464 | over 2 years ago | Hi there, is this not a prison building? Commercial seems like an odd choice for what appears to be jail cells.
|
| 133840524 | almost 3 years ago | Sure, just that naming industrial landuses doesn't seem like a very high priority or useful thing. It's unlikely to show up anywhere, and there's only one building on the property with a duplicate address to the landuse, and the most visible sign is on the building not the land, so if we mapped like this we'd be practically mapping property lines instead of buildings which isn't how OSM works. (It's just a building surrounded by parking lots, it's not like a campus or strip mall) |
| 126718596 | almost 3 years ago | Hi! I was doing a lot of cleanup at the time, if you have better data please feel free to undo my changes. It's very likely that I didn't see an extent and just removed the duplicate, so as long as there's no duplication I'm happy. |
| 132236518 | almost 3 years ago | Hi there! Please undo this edit: in openstreetmap we always expand common abbreviations like St for Street, Ave for Avenue, N for North, etc.
|
| 131900815 | almost 3 years ago | Thank you for helping keep OSM accurate!
|
| 131576825 | almost 3 years ago | Hi there! Remember to add the housenumber tag for the numeric portion of the address.
|
| 131157648 | almost 3 years ago | Hi thanks for your great contributions! FYI there's not a big need to make multipolygon relations for stuff like parking lots unless they're truly oddly shaped. For curbs, medians, grass, and other non-parking-lot stuff you can usually just normally map them inside of the parking lot without much issue, they're still "part of the lot" if they're encircled by places to park. I only bring it up because relations can easily create confusion and difficulty, so using them sparingly is almost always a good idea. Thanks again! |
| 130928560 | almost 3 years ago | Sure, and I guess it's valid (presumably iD told you this is how to tag, so I guess it's not wrong), it just might be clearer if you reverse the way and make it oneway=yes. But I guess it's not required as long as the arrows point the right way.
|
| 130928560 | almost 3 years ago | Hi and thanks for your contributions! I'm guessing you probably didn't intend to tag one-way=-1 on one of these hiking paths node #1127631556 ?
|
| 130893751 | almost 3 years ago | Hi there! We appreciate you wanting to add your business to OSM, however you can't put your business' location as a PO box inside the UPS store: not only would that make every place with PO boxes a nightmare on the map, but also people would show up to the UPS store thinking they can talk to you. If you've got a home-based or virtual business where customers aren't able to physically visit you then I'm afraid we can't accept your submission: we're Open Street Map, not Open Business Database, and our primary mission is to curate highly accurate information about where places are and how to physically get to them. Please let me know your thoughts by commenting here; if there's no satisfactory reply within a few days your submission will be removed. |
| 130741209 | almost 3 years ago | Oh wow that's crazy! I guess that's the correct tag for that situation then.
|
| 130741209 | almost 3 years ago | Thanks for your contributions and welcome to Willamette Valley OpenStreetMap! Your changes look fine, with the one exception that I bet Dumbeck Ave has 2 lanes, not 1. The case for lanes=1 is single-lane one-way alleys, turning lanes, onramps, etc, but a normal two-way road with one lane in each direction is lanes=2. Cheers!
|
| 130757264 | almost 3 years ago | Welcome to Salem and thank you for improving Minto Brown's mapping!
|
| 130616702 | almost 3 years ago | Heya! It looks like this turning spot doesn't connect at the end. You might connect it up so that a routing program knows you can turn around here. There's also a turning_circle or turning_loop tag as well that can just be used on an ending node.
|