Hello t2editme,

Can you help me understand why you changed way/1159951756 from natural=wood to place=island? I don't see a reason to remove the landuse tag, and the place=island is redundant with the existing way for Greenlaw island 107263908.

scarapella

Hello t2editme,

Thanks for your contribution to openstreetmap.

I think if you look atRelation: 15601638 you might find the two inner ways should both be outer ways. Alternatively they could both be simply standalone polygons with amenity=parking rather than part of a multipolygon.

osm.wiki/Relation:multipolygon#Two_disjunct_outer_rings

Cheers,
scarapella

Hello t2editme,

Thanks for your contribution to openstreetmap.

I think if you look at Relation: Searsport District High School (15461215) you might find your inner and outer ways in this relation are reversed.
osm.wiki/Multipolygon_Examples#Forest_with_lake_(One_outer_and_one_inner_ring)

Cheers,
scarapella

Hello t2editme,

Thanks for your contribution to openstreetmap.

I think if you look at Relation: Curtis Hall (14889374) you might find your inner and outer ways in this relation are reversed.
osm.wiki/Multipolygon_Examples#Forest_with_lake_(One_outer_and_one_inner_ring)

Cheers,
scarapella

Indeed, looking at it now the Gulf of Maine Relation is… substantial.

Happy mapping,
scarapella

Hi t2editme,

Thank you for your contribution to openstreetmap.

Looking at this change, it seems like it left Bar Harbor (relation/13332224) as an un-closed multi-polygon.
https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=-67.02397&lat=44.95383&zoom=14&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&opacity=0.85

Would you mind checking?

Thanks,
scarapella

Hello Mainelymapping,

Thank you for your contributions to openstreetmap.

Looking briefly at this change set, it seems you've changed the Gulf of Maine (relation/13663366) from a Bay to an Islet. I admit i didn't look too deeply, but intuition tells me that the Gulf of Maine is more a Bay than an Islet.

Cheers,
scarapella

Hello t2editme,

Thank you for your contributions to openstreetmap.

In this changeset, it seems you changed a number of boundaries. This seems to have created several unclosed multi-polygons and added boundary lines that do not align with the official maine township map.

For example, we can see that the town of argyle now is an unclosed multipolygon
https://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/#zoom=13&lat=45.0679&lon=-68.6258&item=xxxx&level=1%2C2%2C3&issue_uuid=dc03e875-3ed6-3143-0ce1-ab7be859ba4c

and the introduced way/1168144686 does not align the maine township boundaries.
https://maine.hub.arcgis.com/datasets/4488cc07bfb34474a6b8110da9af9f4b/explore?location=45.077948%2C-68.693737%2C11.64

Hello Bkissin,

No worries. An BTW if it's easier for you to just repair, no problem at all. I just proposed a revert as it's what I would have done, but then you do lose the work you put into defining the wooded area.

The (only) way I know how to revert (which is inevitably because i've screwed up something :D ) is to use the revert ui
http://revert.osmz.ru/

Cheers,
Sean

you can also see how your edit removed some of the wetlands previously drawn such as

https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/1111192735

so overall this changeset degrades the information that was previously on OSM. I would recommend reverting this changeset.

Hi Bkissin,

Thank you for our contribution to open streetmap. I noticed this changeset for 2 reasons. First it seems like you use multiple values for landuse. I don't know that this is a common convention as the renderers don't know how to show this area. It also flags an osmose QA rule.
https://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/#zoom=14&lat=45.15299&lon=-68.27428&item=xxxx&level=1%2C2%2C3&issue_uuid=24d6f789-d869-dacb-d6cd-19d1adcf0ade

Secondly, it seems like there are some duplicate segments flagged on osmi
https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=-68.27309&lat=45.15263&zoom=15&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways%2Cduplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways

cheers,
scarapella

Yeah, it's really not super obvious sometimes when you're in the middle of making the edits if the multipolygon is well formed. I usually take a look at osmi a day or two after i've done a bunch of area edits to find what i've broken :-)

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=-68.47247&lat=45.28571&zoom=7&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways%2Cduplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways

Bonjour La Voire de la Raison. Merci pour votre contribution à OpenStreetMap. Désolé pour le comment en Anglais. Je n’ai pas le vocabulaire nécessaire en Français.

I was noticing the way/1073918521 (highway=track) and similar nearby ways. I was wondering if they were not highway=track but instead some sort of avalanche or snow control structure like a ditch or a dike.

-scarapella

Hi bhietsch,

Thank you for all your contributions to OpenStreetMap.

It looks like with this edit you included the Massabesic Experimental Forests as part of the White Mountains National forest (e.g. way/733107487). I was curious as I didn't think these parcels are part of the White Mountains National Forest and I couldn't find an obvious link. So I was just curious how you made the link.

Cheers,
scarapella

Hi t2editme,
Thank you for your contributions to openstreetmap in Maine.

I noticed in this change set that perhaps the inner and outer relations might be different than you intend. For example, Sawyer Pond (way/829792652) is inside the natural woods enclosed by way/1119243300. However, Sawyer pond is marked as "outer" in the relation and way/1119243300 is marked as "inner" rather than the reverse.

Cheers,
scarapella

@bluebasaur, thanks for all your OSM contributions around Kittery. I was wondering why you tagged some of these ways (e.g. 1092237165) as building=house;static_caravan when building=static_caravan seems to have the same meaning (and doesn't anger QA checks like osmose).

building=static_caravan

Thanks for all the great work you are doing on OSM in Maine!

Hello ybungalobill to quote waterway=stream "the commonly accepted rule for OpenStreetMap is that a stream can be jumped across by an active, able-bodied person" a more Maine based approach might be "if I can pole a canoe up it, it might be a river." ;-) So looking at Arnold Brook, I'd say from the mouth (~15m wide) to knights brook (~9m wide) is pretty comfortably a river. Above that, and especially above Chapman Road, I think it could go either way. I'd welcome your opinion.

Hi kartler175,

Which relations in particular are you concerned about. If you mean 14092249, yeah... not sure what I was doing there. I'm going to go fix that.

If you mean 14092316, I tend to go for Option B, but I'll admit, that's super arguable here.

However, perhaps your concern is broader and i'll be happy to hear from you.

cheers,
scarapella

Hi Kurusefahrer,

Updates are manual, which I think is good for the updating the names and links, but probably inefficient for any redrawing of water features in a large scale. I cross check against USGS, Esri and other imagery, and try to link to GNIS and wiki data where possible. My updates are generally to places I’ve been on the ground or adjacent areas.

Any concerns (or advice) are welcome.

Cheers
Scarapella