OpenStreetMap
Frank Peng's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 184867228 | Please take the time to leave better changeset comments, what did you change and why? "Franklin County NY" is not sufficient enough to tell the average mapper what you did here. Refer to this OSM Wiki article here: osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments#How_should_I_write_Changeset_Comments?
|
|
| 181104566 | > No new waterways were created. Redundant and un-necessary user waterways existed. I know you did not create any new waterways in this changeset. I was referring to the natural=water way you deleted and remapped as a multipolygon in this changeset: way/37533324/history and relation/20427169. You could've just modified the geometry of the natural=water way that you deleted in this changeset (way/37533324/history) to align with its current geometry seen in aerial imagery. That would've helped preserve its editing history on OSM. How come it was "redundant and un-necessary"? > The only objects I ever remove are nonexistant or extraneous objects. I reuse objects when available. Please review the edit more specifically. I see here that you deleted a driveway (way/821682435/history) and remapped it anew in this changeset (way/1497982926). You could've just modified the geometry of the driveway you deleted to match its geometry shown in aerial imagery. That would've helped preserve its editing history on OSM. What do you mean by "reuse objects when available"? Where in this edit should I review more specifically? |
|
| 184533688 | Please make sure to use better changeset comments, what did you change and why? "Kaz" is not sufficient enough to tell the average mapper what you were trying to do here. For more information, please refer to this OSM Wiki article: osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments
|
|
| 172918476 | Hello Aline, thanks for the response! I can start to understand why you have been making those concerning map edits. It's common for new OSM mappers to make some mistakes, and seeing that you're new to OSM, new mappers will not be blocked just for doing so. However, it is important to respond when other mappers comment on our changesets, asking questions or pointing out issues about our map edits, and you have failed to do so, which is what caused you to be blocked on OSM. In the future, when other mappers leave comments on your changesets, asking questions or pointing out issues about your map edits, please make sure to respond to those comments.
|
|
| 183924273 | Reverted for creating a gap in a road and lack of response from the user.
|
|
| 182652348 | Reverted for changing valid motorway links to motorways and adding freeway name to the motorway links after lack of response from the user.
|
|
| 180355268 | It's good practice to modify the geometry of existant map objects instead of deleting them and remapping them anew. This helps preserve their editing history on OSM. I can see from here that you deleted an existing road and remapped it anew. In the future, please make sure to modify the geometry of existing map objects instead of deleting them and remapping them anew. For more information, please refer to this OSM Wiki article: osm.wiki/Keep_the_history
|
|
| 183922028 | Please make sure to not just accept the suggested fixes by the iD editor. You added ford=yes to places where there's not actually a ford.
|
|
| 183924273 | Seems like this changeset left a gap in a road. I'm curious on whether this edit was intentional or not.
|
|
| 183549387 | Just to clarify, turn restriction relations need to have one "via" node, or one or more "via" ways. The "via" node or way(s) connect "the beginning and end ways representing the attempted turn."
|
|
| 183549387 | Please make sure to include a "via" way/node for turn restricton relations. The turn restriction relations you added in this changeset only have two members, the "from" and "to" ways, which is not correct. Osmose will flag those issues. Turn restriction relations need to have at least three members, a "from" way, at least one "via" node/way, and a "to" way. For more information, please refer to the "Members" section of this OSM Wiki article on turn restriction relations: osm.wiki/Relation:restriction#Members > The most common form of a restriction relation is a triplet {from-way, via-node, to-way}, accompanied with a restriction=* tag specifying whether a turn from the from-way to the to-way is permitted at the via-node. There may be several turn restrictions at a junction, represented by separate relations. osm.wiki/Relation:restriction
|
|
| 181764232 | I'm curious as to why you reversed the one-way restriction of this service road?
|
|
| 182652348 | Hi Aline, I'm curious as to why you tagged those motorway links as motorways. Those are clearly motorway links/freeway ramps. Also, I see that you removed the destination=* and destination:ref=* tags from those motorway links and added the highway/freeway name to them. I'm curious about the purpose of those map edits you made.
|
|
| 162200907 | Hi Mitch, I went ahead and swapped the ID of the redrawn roads/service roads/parking aisles you mapped, with the original roads you deleted in this changeset (where you remapped roads in place of the original roads you deleted), using OSM HistoryRestorer.
OSM History Restorer is an online tool that allows you to restore OSM features that have been deleted and redrawn. It swaps the ID of the redrawn feature with the original, but keeps the geometry of the new feature.
In the future, per what I mentioned to you in the above comments, *please make sure to modify the geometry of existing map objects or reuse them, instead of deleting them and remapping them anew*. This helps preserve their editing history on OSM. See this OSM Wiki article for more information: osm.wiki/Keep_the_history
|
|
| 159902435 | Please never delete existing map objects. Doing so is against OSM's Terms of Use. I see here that you deleted a valid residential road (way/1133008424/history), when you could've just extended the road instead.
|
|
| 181104566 | You should reuse every existing map object, even if it's out of alignment or its geometry doesn't match that in aerial imagery, instead of deleting them and remapping them anew. Just modify the geometry of existing map objects to help preserve their editing history. For more information, see this OSM Wiki article: osm.wiki/Keep_the_history |
|
| 182199803 | What is the source for the removal of the gate nodes in this changeset?
|
|
| 181104566 | Please make sure to modify the geometry of existing OSM elements instead of deleting them and redrawing them anew. It helps preserve their editing history on OSM.
You deleted a natural=water way and remapped it as a multipolygon relation in this changeset, when you could've copied and removed the tags on the existing natural=water way that you deleted and created a new natural=water multipolygon relation, pasted the deleted way's tags to the multiplygon relation, and added the way to it.
|
|
| 181018326 | Please modify the geometry of the existing buildings instead of deleting them and remapping them anew. It helps preserve their editing history on OSM.
|
|
| 181018115 | I see that you deleted some buildings and remapped them anew in this changeset. Please just modify the geometry of existing buildings on OSM instead of deleting them and remapping them anew. It follows good practice on OSM and helps preserve the element's editing history.
|