OpenStreetMap
CurlingMan13's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 152179955 | There is no consensus - simply that. Some cases are best for the entire building, some are best as node within a building. And even then, there is no "right" way for single businesses within a building. Realistically, I don't care how it is mapped, as long as the "one feature, one element" rule is followed. For example, look at the State Farm just to the north:
It isn't a reduction in quality or what not, it just an alternate way. To be clear, I didn't extract the data to a node to exert it as the "correct" or "superior" way. I just chose that as the easier method, especially since there was a duplicate address node on the building that I merged into the ACE node to resolve a duplicate tagging. I often find myself editing suburbs or urban areas where there are multiple businesses present within the same building and the node is a better fit than randomly splicing the building into random pieces that don't necessarily conform to real life. But either way, thanks for changing it back and adding all the extra details like parking, building colors, trees, etc. Feel free to map or edit however you see fit - OSM's a community, and I'm proud to contribute regardless. Happy mapping! |
|
| 152179955 | This is actually common practice. In thos case, the business may not occupy the entire building (building has multiple addresses), so it is better to map ad nodes within a building area. All the info is there, it was just extracted to nodes. This is common practice, and for some is even the preferred method of mapping! https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/amenity-shop-better-use-node-or-area/81992/4 |
|
| 151921010 | Before you make further changes, please read: leisure=golf_course#:~:text=the%20building%20itself.-,Common%20mapping%20pitfalls,-Adding%20name%3D* |
|
| 152062192 | Do not partially overlap areas. Please review this webpage before making further edits! :: leisure=golf_course#:~:text=the%20building%20itself.-,Common%20mapping%20pitfalls,-Adding%20name%3D*
|
|
| 130585174 | Is construction complete yet? |
|
| 111030395 | Also, do not "lollipop" |
|
| 111030395 | Do not partially overlap areas. I have resolved it for you here. Please avoid this mistake in the future. |
|
| 111030027 | Do not partially overlap areas. I have resolved it for you here. Please avoid this mistake in the future. |
|
| 113637835 | Do not partially overlap areas. I have resolved it for you here. Please avoid this mistake in the future. |
|
| 152046677 | They did some other vandalism. I recommend referral to DWG |
|
| 152050172 | tests are not permitted on OSM. changeset reverted |
|
| 152050465 | this isn't a golf course... changeset reverted in part or full
|
|
| 152013914 | Read:
Changeset reverted in part or full. Access tags should be used instead. |
|
| 152047745 | Welcome to OSM and edit looks acceptable.
|
|
| 151336688 | I think I fixed it whenI left the comment - otherwise I forget and the errors remain. If it isn't fixed yet (and they make this error on future Changesets), it should just be reverted. |
|
| 151872950 | Please do not delete features just to readd them with slightly different positions.
|
|
| 90565100 | Descriptive names such as "Not Public Road" should not be used. |
|
| 151696186 | Awesome. Keep up the good work! I've been trying to get these cart paths converted from roads to paths ever so slowly. |
|
| 151728080 | Do not partially overlap areas. Before making further edits please review: leisure=golf_course#:~:text=Overlapping%20green/fairway/rough%20polygons%20(see%20graphic%20below). I have fixed it for you for just this changeset. Please try to avoid this in the future.
|
|
| 151686576 | Same thing here: |