OpenStreetMap
fortera_au's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 180744731 | Hi, aerial imagery still shows a building here, has that been demolished recently or was removing building=yes a mistake? |
|
| 180699799 | There's also some issues with how these buildings have been drawn, can you please clean these up to follow the building outline and not overlap with the fences (which may require adjusting the fence positions if needed.
|
|
| 180444996 | Hi, you've created a multipolygon with a single member, you should just move the landuse and name tags to the way.
|
|
| 180434792 | Businesses shouldn't be mapped in OSM if they don't have a physical presence someone can just walk up to.
|
|
| 180072462 | Hi, can you please use a more descriptive changeset description than just "improvements"? osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments has some more information
|
|
| 179963939 | Hi, the farmland landuses you've drawn don't match up to the actual farmland boundaries, and the house is both traced wrong and has way too many nodes.
|
|
| 179701792 | Hi, these two roads should be joined up as this is a petrol station, the building in between them is just a roof.
|
|
| 179750926 | Hi, the roadway doesn't curve in the way you've shown, can you please redraw this to show the actual roadway and not a turn into a specific property.
|
|
| 179761311 | Hi, what imagery did you use for this, since ESRI shows a former carpark now under construction, and Bing doesn't line up with what you've drawn?
|
|
| 179284064 | Hi, there appears to be barriers going across sections of roadways you've drawn, it might be best to confirm with street level imagery or with better quality aerial imagery.
|
|
| 179199491 | Revert edit made with outdated imagery to restore the roundabout that now exists |
|
| 179199491 | I've confirmed that the ESRI imagery is 2025 whereas Bing is 2020, so I'll reverted this to restore the roundabout. |
|
| 179199491 | Hi, ESRI shows that this is actually a roundabout. Usually that is newer than Bing, have you been here and confirmed there isn't a roundabout? Otherwise, this should probably be reverted back to the roundabout.
|
|
| 179110148 | They're not needed in Australia, as we have full mapping of those as relations and those are used when geocoding.
|
|
| 179106110 | Hi, building=detached has about 8x more usage than house=detached in Australia, it's probably better to stick with that vs building=house and house=detached.
|
|
| 179041147 | Hi, I don't think this would be considered a pipestem, it looks to just be a single rural property.
|
|
| 178970917 | Hi, the path normally should extend to the roadway (and be joined to the way for that roadway) if they do join up through a kerb.
|
|
| 178763845 | Hi Jaroro, the format for phone numbers should be +61 421 024 435 for mobile numbers, and +61 8 8323 7594 for landlines.
|
|
| 178662718 | Hi, highway=path is more generic than highway=footway. If something is designed mostly for foot traffic but bicycles are still allowed, it should be kept as highway=footway and then bicycle=yes added to it.
|
|
| 178433769 | Hi, if the greens and other objects are inside the fairway, they should ideally be drawn as a multipolygon, otherwise you're actually drawing those areas as being both greens/bunkers and fairway at the same time.
|