watmildon's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 128049858 | about 1 month ago | 2 years later and I found one more. changeset/174713660 Amusing to me. I hope you are well. Happy mapping. |
| 167622322 | about 1 month ago | I was disappointed to discover this ead already added. Nice work!! I also noticed the seed library at the back of the building but will need to find some tagging for that. Happy mapping! |
| 148045265 | 3 months ago | Really nice work!! |
| 170298529 | 4 months ago | Great update. Thanks!! |
| 171161085 | 4 months ago | Absolutely crushing me getting to these. I gotta move faster! |
| 61105911 | 4 months ago | Great work! This was super helpful!! |
| 167879371 | 5 months ago | Thanks for updating this! |
| 164656077 | 5 months ago | Thanks for adding the mascot! |
| 166097491 | 5 months ago | Wonderful! keep up the great work! |
| 161688792 | 5 months ago | all good! Anyone who has done any large amount of editing is assured of making some funny edits like this. We're all human after all. :-D |
| 166757378 | 5 months ago | Found an amusing typo in this changeset for the building:levels on this buidling: way/267850947 |
| 161688792 | 5 months ago | Found an amusing typo on the building:levels for this house: way/1337307043 |
| 166097491 | 5 months ago | Whoops. Obviously I mean in Japan. New Zealand seems fine. Sorry for that mix up. Worth getting these addressed. |
| 166097491 | 5 months ago | Some of the buildings here and in another part of NZ now have building:levels=9999 which should be reviewed. Presumably from whatever data source you used? |
| 158278471 | 6 months ago | Thanks for adding these details!! |
| 159828124 | 6 months ago | I hear ya. It's totally possible that there wasn't any consensus when these went in or that there was and it changed over time. This happens and it can definitely when effort gets caught in the crossfire. Has happened to me too. One of the dangers of the loose schema and "rules" around here. |
| 159828124 | 6 months ago | Hello! There's community consensus that OSM isn't and shouldn't be a map of parcels. I am sorry if this causes you downstream issue but you're free to use the parcel layer directly in whatever downstream use you have for it. You can see a discussion about this class of issue in a number of places but here's one regarding a parcel import in TX that has also now been removed. https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/proposal-undo-4-year-old-parcel-import-in-dallas-tx/107965/25 If you think this has been done in error or want to discuss the general rule, I encourage you to open an issue on the community forum and we can work it out as a group. |
| 155803837 | 6 months ago | Love the addition of the wikidata tag! <3 |
| 119184465 | 6 months ago | Thanks for adding these! |
| 68528238 | 6 months ago | I love this changeset so much. |