Your mapping of this wetland is sloppy and inaccurate. You have included bare fields and what appear to be wooded areas in the wetland that you then further tag as wetland=swamp.Have you visited the wetland personally? Do you know for a fact that the trees in your "swamp" are actually in water some of the time?

Please pay closer attention to what you're doing. Your building traces are inaccurate, . positioned badly and overlap with natural or landuse areas. It will take years to correct the mistakes you are making.

I wish you would reach out to other mappers to learn more about how to do things before mapping everything in Thailand the way you are doing it.

AlaskaDave

Hi Nicole,

Today I came across these two glaciers that you added as tourism=attraction a couple of years ago. I cannot find any source for the names you used. If these are names known locally and are not official names, I think the tagging should reflect that in a loc_name=Bomber Glacier for example.

What do you think?

Thank you,

Dave

So, will you make the edits? Did you understand the difference between levels and layers?

I mentioned this before but you haven't corrected your errors in either Wat Pak Mueang or nearby Wat Sri Moonrueang. The objects inside the walls that you tagged as buildings are actually better tagged as man_made=tower with tower:type=stupa.

Even if you disagree with that, these structures do not have floors or levels like multistory buildings but even if they did, your use of the layer tag to describe them is wrong. The levels in a building are LEVELS not LAYERS. That said, those stupas do not have either levels or layers; they are merely large concrete towers. Please read the Wiki to understand the difference between these two concepts.

Please reply to this comment to inform me if you are going to make the changes yourself or have me do it.

Thank you,
Dave

Did you accidentally reverse the direction of flow of this canal? id:695049611

Please do not edit it again!

Are you also mCloud00?

There is an object you tagged as a building in this changeset that is actually a tower, a stupa. (the building level=0 has the OSM id:786188922). There were several errors in your tagging of this object. 1) It's not really a multilevel building as you tagged it but a man_made=tower having tower:type=stupa
2) You used layer tags (layer=1, layer=2, etc.) instead of level=1, level=2, etc.
3) The ground level of any building is level=0 not level=1.

I did not change the building tags but did change all layers to levels. I'm not sure why I bothered to do that because IMO the tagging is incorrect for the entire object.

You can see the changes I made to the temple complex and surrounding area here:
changeset/87957420#map=18/18.68007/98.99041

I also changed several more ways you had tagged as service/alleys back to what they were before, single lane residential ways.

This highway is not a service alley. I would have tagged it that way if it was. Please do not retag any of my work.

I have tried to reason with you and even offered to help you understand what you're doing wrong and you have not responded. If you do not stop messing up my work, I will contact the DWG and have you blocked again.

Hi,

I came across an Alaska State Park today, the Jack Bay State Marine Park included in this changeset, and wondered if you obtained permission to use the State of Alaska's copyrighted material. I have wanted to use Alaska park data for a long time but was always stopped by the anticipated trouble of obtaining such permission.

If you did this properly, I congratulate you because I want to start using it for parks in other parts of the state.

Can you please advise me on this important question?

Cheers,
Dave

Yes, it does. It appears the project is stalled for lack of funds. I don't expect that to change any time soon, especially now that Covid has paralyzed the economies of both the state and the country.
Thanks,

Dave

I removed some of your gardens because they are not gardens and some of your natural=wood areas because they include other features like houses.

More needs to be done in this changeset but I'm not going to do anything else until you have a chance to correct these areas yourself.

I noticed a node you added where a highway (ชม.2042) on a bridge crosses over a waterway close to a place you had identified as "Hinduism god place". The river and the highway do not intersect so that node is incorrect. The node needs to be deleted. Also, as discusses in a previous comment, the name "Hinduism god place" is not correct. It should be removed or if you feel you must use it to describe the place, put into a description:en tag.

Dave

You did not remove the remaining ford=yes nodes as you agreed. I did it for you.

In another comment you said that you live in this area. So do I. Would you be interested in meeting with me to discuss OSM mapping? I think we and the OSM community could benefit from getting together to talk about mapping the Saraphi area. I sent you a message though the OSM messaging system earlier. If you're interested, reply to that message with contact information. I live near the 89 Plaza on Route 106.

Dave

Hi,
I do a lot of mapping in Alaska and am very interested in this proposed bridge. Unfortunately, the URL you provided in this Changeset comment doesn't exist at this time. Do you happen to have an updated link or source of information?

Thanks,
Dave

Hello,

The areas you have tagged as "gardens" are mapped very poorly and improperly. PLEASE READ the Wiki definition of leisure=garden before continuing what you're doing.
leisure=garden
You have not answered my previous Changeset comments nor my PM addressed to you on other issues. Why?
If you don't speak English or don't speak English well, we have Thai speaking OSM members who can assist you.

Other Thailand mappers are very concerned about your mapping and failure to respond to our advice or questions. It is possible that you will be blocked form further mapping activity for those reasons.

Hi,
I am using the riverbed object for rivers in Alaska that occupy large areas in the spring but later run in much smaller channels. These channels I tag with waterway=riverbank.

I'm curious about this object:
Vikedalselva (id:685121386)

The way you're using waterway=riverbed here seems incorrect. To my way of thinking, this area should be a waterway=riverbank.

Can you tell me why you decided to tag this water body the way you did?

Thanks,
Dave

Okay, thanks for your clarification. I am going to add a "note" tag with the intention of explaining that the trail has been surveyed and is mostly steps. I have no problem with the way you tagged it but wanted to be sure it wasn't a tagging error.
I dislike highway=path for hiking trails because it is not specific enough and makes such ways seem to be accessible by wheeled vehicles, hence IMO, highway=footway is much to be preferred.
In this case, highway=steps is really the only sensible tagging alternative. It isn't perfect but there is no other way to do it.
Thanks for your quick reply.
Dave

Hi,

I'm mapping some streams and trails on Doi Suthep and noticed that you tagged the Pilgrim's Path as highway=steps for its entire length. I haven't walked this trail but it seems strange that it would be entirely steps. I saw some steps at a point where it crosses 1004 and the trail is shown on OpenTopoMap as steps, so that may very well be the case. I'm wondering if your edit last fall was based on your personal experience or perhaps on OpenTopoMap?

Thank you,
Dave

Actually, it appears that the way id:82189093 mentioned above might actually be a canal or stream. Perhaps it was incorrectly tagged as a highway and you removed those tags but forgot to retag the way?

Hi,

In this changeset you deleted the tags from a highway that was added in 2010 and left it as an untagged way containing 272 nodes. This should have produced an error message when you uploaded it.

I added the tags back but would you please check your work on this changeset to better understand what you did and why.

Dave

Hello,
I see you have added ford=yes to some places where waterways cross highways in my neighborhood. The way you used that tag is incorrect. A "ford" is a place where a vehicle crosses *through* a waterway, not over it. In other words, there is no bridge or culvert. The wheels will get wet in such a crossing.

Just because the original mapper didn't place either a bridge or a culvert at a crossing does not mean it is a ford. He or she may not know what sort of crossing it is and left as is until such time as it could be checked by a ground survey.

Please review your edits and remove any other "fords" that look similar to this one . I removed this ford and several others nearby. In the future, please check the Wiki to understand the correct use of this tag.

Thank you,
AlaskaDave

Hello,
I see you have added ford=yes to some places where waterways cross highways in my neighborhood. The wa you used that tag is incorrect. A "ford" is a place where a vehicle crosses through a waterway, not over it. In other words, there is no bridge or culvert. The wheels will get wet in such a crossing.

Just because the original mapper didn't place either a bridge or a culvert at this crossing does not mean it is a ford. He or she may not know what sort of crossing it is and left as is until such time as it could be checked by a ground survey.

Please review your edits and remove any other fords that look similar to this one . I removed this ford and others nearby.