OpenStreetMap
DaveF's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 181342465 | Hi
|
|
| 181728087 | You've made this just as bad by moving the road to an inaccurate location instead of moving the inaccurately placed house.
|
|
| 181525769 | Does he have aliases as there seems to be a few 'contributors' who have the same style of editing (although this maybe the editor inducing it. I've always thought iD did more harm than good.) |
|
| 181525769 | Why have you erroneously amended data for this station:
Where did you get the idea it was part of the Elizabeth Line? |
|
| 180969272 | What trains are stopping there? I thought it was just trams. |
|
| 180850253 | As the only reason platforms exist is for the public to walk on them a highway=foot is moot.
|
|
| 180649262 | Please provide more detailed changeset comments. What erroneous dataset are you using for these railway station amendments? node/5206774617
|
|
| 180683098 | way/1494652558
|
|
| 180615343 | Why did you delete the name & operator:website tags? |
|
| 169728597 | Hi
|
|
| 180304189 | <Gallic shrug> I don't wish to "make friends" I want to improve the quality of the OSM database. Someone who's been mapping since '07 should know they should be correcting their own errors. Given the comments, I'm concerned about the quality of data in Scotland. |
|
| 180267062 |
"Map an unconnected node" |
|
| 180267062 | Please don't attach station nodes to the track. It's a hangover from when all tracks were only mapped as a single way. There is a concerted effort to detach them. It make the OSM database more accurate & allows the nodes to be more accurately positioned to avoid rendering clashes.
|
|
| 180210755 | Why have you removed landuse=residential from these houses?
|
|
| 179969784 | > it's for staff and signed in visitors only. So what? It's still an entity in its own right. Add access=* to indicate who can shop there. > Could map it separately however as a generally mapper from the public it's impossible to keep it up to date. No. It's status is verifiable from the FHRS database. Giving the shop it own node & tags inside the building is still more accurate & detailed, even if the location within the building is rough guess. I've started a conversation on Talk-GB. |
|
| 179969784 | Your actions exclude & obfuscate valid data. Failing to give separate companies separate, named entities means that accurate data (such as a list of Tesco shops) can not be retrieved. This is poor mapping. > (needs both FHRS id and postcode to match). Presuming FHRS's addresses are accurate is also poor mapping. > "you can't go to the school and order some catering." The tag gives no implication that that is the case. It's disappointing to see another case where edits reduce the quality of the OSM database. Please pass this on to "the Edinburgh OSM meetup group". You've still not corrected your duplication: way/465242150 |
|
| 179969784 | > there is not a separate catering business that you could go to Then why did you add contact details? >instead it's an outside contractor As a separate contractor it requires as separate FHRS. > potentially as a ; separated list rather than having a separate node for the caterer. But that doesn't name the catering contractor
>I see the tag craft=caterer being the base/office/van of a business that you could go to for eg outside catering, or other venue catering. The caterer is contracted to multiple venues each with its own FHRS therefore requires a separate tag for each venue. >The FHRS comparison does support having a list of FHRS:ids. I don't know what you mean by that. |
|
| 179952536 | It's not correct because it's not open
|
|
| 179969784 | You've duplicated an existing FHRS:ID
Please remove your duplicate. |
|
| 179969784 |
You've duplicated an existing, correct id |