zluuzki's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 148692948 | almost 2 years ago | way/167022870 exists along de facto entire length due to tree lines, road alignments, canal alignments, field lines, building alignments, vegetation color changes |
| 148693030 | almost 2 years ago | way/1103141948 exists due to tree lines, field lines
|
| 148693174 | almost 2 years ago | way/167290826 exists almost at its entire length due to the field changes & adjoining buildings & clearly noticeable vegetation color changes |
| 148693285 | almost 2 years ago | way/167035570 exists within Kenney, Rowell & at various agriculture field lines & noticeable vegetation color differences along the entire way |
| 148528299 | almost 2 years ago | The key phrases are actually a bit longer: "route [and] other railroad right of way signs or infrastructure". It does not only refer to an old track alignment that is still visible, but also an old route that is still visible - yes, this is a difference. Directly north & south of the road are physical traces visible, in a way where it is clear that the route/ROW crosses the road here at this exact location. This is why I think a railway=abandoned way crossing at this road is valid mapping.
Note that an embarkment is a very significant part of the infrastructure. Only because there is a single road crossing where the railway=abandoned is not clearly visible dosen't justify deleting the entire line, especially if all other parts are still clearly visible. Calling a changeset "unquestionably vandalism" because 4 out of 180 changes are not referring to the reasoning for the revert is veeeery doubtful. (yes, the small pier is the only thing unrelated to railways, see https://osmcha.org/changesets/148681678) Somewhat offtopic: Why is there a bridge mapped at the road crossing in question? I'm pretty certain that there is no bridge, maybe a culvert. |
| 148528299 | almost 2 years ago | I am seeing it clearly, both the mentioned 3DEP and recent aerial imagery. Can you explain in own words what railway=abandoned means? |
| 148661572 | almost 2 years ago | Deleting tags where you have obviously no clue what they mean and then refusing to engage in ANY discussion whatsoever - THIS is vandalism. @woodpeck: I urge you to take a quick look at the "USGS 3D Elevation Program" layer in the ID-Editor. This confirmes the on-the-ground traces "railway=abandoned" refers to immediatly. (But so does also the way the vegetation is shaped and other things) (To be clear, "non-existing" things can be deleted, but the things in question here are !clearly! existing) |
| 148528299 | almost 2 years ago | railway=abandoned refers to an abandoned railroad right-of-way, which is still visible - and that is very clearly the case here. For example: the entire ROW can be seen on the USGS 3DEP, which means that ground traces exist.
|
| 148410665 | almost 2 years ago | "this church"? Stop trolling, I was obviously referring to the deleted railway=abandoned ways which are clearly still existing - those make up more than 99% of the CS. |
| 148410665 | almost 2 years ago | Reverted as this line is more than clearly still visible |
| 148034649 | almost 2 years ago | What is the point of this & other massive quality reductions? |
| 146467616 | almost 2 years ago | 1182420396 does not go "through" buildings, it is next to the buildings, USGS topos are definitly verifiable sources.
|
| 146467616 | almost 2 years ago | There is no "OSMF guidance".
|
| 146467616 | almost 2 years ago | Stop mass-deleting features where you haven't even bothered to read the documentation.
Reverted this and similar changesets. |
| 145653080 | almost 2 years ago | Hello,
Note that railway=abandoned is for an abandoned railroad right-of-way, (which is still visible, like here), while railway=disused is for "abandoned" out of service tracks.
Therefore, I've restored the deleted way. |
| 145625544 | almost 2 years ago | Hello,
Therefore, I've reverted this changeset. |
| 144885459 | about 2 years ago | why are you deleting so many access roads/driveways?
|
| 144381915 | about 2 years ago | No, I appreciate your hard work, the data is definitly welcome! It just has to fit to the other data, and since it does now, no problems anymore! |
| 144381915 | about 2 years ago | Hello, and thank you for your impressive work!
I fixed both, but please make sure that this dosen't happen again. |
| 144204422 | about 2 years ago | forgot sources: Bing Imagery, PHMSA online, FERC eLibrary, HIFLD database |