OpenStreetMap
fortera_au's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 173296587 | DWG revert: revert tag changes against community consensus |
|
| 173296574 | DWG revert: revert tag changes against community consensus |
|
| 173296564 | DWG revert: revert tag changes against community consensus |
|
| 172764914 | Hi ZLima12, If there is a disagreement between two mappers on how to tag something, please do not continue to change the tag back and forth. I'd recommend getting more of the local community involved through the community forums at https://community.openstreetmap.org, and come to a conclusion before you make any further changes like this. Kind regards,
|
|
| 172934259 | Hi matthewfecica, If there is a disagreement between two mappers on how to tag something, please do not continue to change the tag back and forth. I'd recommend getting more of the local community involved through the community forums at https://community.openstreetmap.org, and come to a conclusion before you make any further changes like this. Kind regards,
|
|
| 172938812 | Hi, same as my comment on the other changeset, but in this case I'd separate the building out into it's own object with just building=yes, and remove it from the outside way.
|
|
| 172938866 | Hi, the building=yes tag should only be added if the way just marks the building. I'd recommend shrinking the way to just the building.
|
|
| 172790222 | Can you please leave a more descriptive changeset comment than just Edits, a brief explanation of what you did is all that's needed.
|
|
| 172811719 | This should also be highway=service, not highway=unclassified.
|
|
| 172661279 | It's definitely R1, I'm wondering if it's part of two routes then. I'll check DataSA at some point, there's a routes dataset in there. |
|
| 172661279 | I'll have to double check with an allowed data source or in person, but I believe A5 actually goes along Greenhill Road for a small portion, until the Goodwood Road intersection. The section you've removed definitely looks like it was mistakenly added.
|
|
| 172545259 | Hey, same point as my other comment, is there a reason why service=alley was removed from what looks exactly like an alleyway?
|
|
| 172545397 | Hey, any reason why service=alley was removed from these? They all seem like alleyways based on both the wiki definition and how alleyways are mapped around SA.
|
|
| 172594095 | Hey there, just a couple of tips: If you're adding a bunch of houses in a similar area, it's easier for all to do them within the same changeset. For addresses in Australia, you don't need to enter the suburb, postcode or state. We have those fully mapped through relations, so adding them onto individual items duplicates that data. No major harm in adding them, but it can save time to just skip them.
|
|
| 172437773 | This should be highway=service, not highway=residential.
|
|
| 172381935 | Hi, just wondering what the source is for this data?
|
|
| 172289906 | Hi, is this a location someone can come to during your opening hours?
|
|
| 171988421 | Shouldn't this be disused:amenity=post_office instead of amenity=disused:post_office?
|
|
| 171961143 | access=yes is usually the default assumed permission anyway, all this change does is take it from an explicit access=yes to an implicit access=yes.
|
|
| 171858562 | You've removed the name from these bus stops, and the ref from one, and turned them into fitness stations.
|