OpenStreetMap
fortera_au's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 182808866 | DataSA has this as Dunk Court still (last updated March 2026), has this been changed recently? |
|
| 182743171 | Hi and welcome to OSM! For your changeset comment, it's best to describe what the changes you've made are.
|
|
| 182678380 | Hi, are those names signposted?
|
|
| 182731815 | It also should be access=private. access=no means nobody can go there, even the people who live along that driveway.
|
|
| 182641834 | I'd also recommend using the square function in iD/JOSM (Q key in both when selecting the way) to square off buildings when drawn.
|
|
| 182641834 | Hi there, pools in backyards should be marked with access=private, to show that they're not a publicly accessible pool.
|
|
| 182541453 | Hi, the trees you've removed, have those trees been cut down? If not, they should remain even with the natural=wood sections mapped.
|
|
| 182375493 | Yeah those are for routing onto the platform, this should be reverted.
|
|
| 182375636 | Reverted removal of footway=sidewalk, as that is a valid tag to use across the globe in OSM. |
|
| 182324069 | If there's no name on it, then there should be no name tag in OSM. |
|
| 181210023 | Anything under 6 months, the most I would consider doing is a conditional tag, and even then, the rail still exists and it's not in a permanent state of disuse, so the change to disused isn't really accurate even over that temporary period. |
|
| 182324069 | Hi, what is the source for the name, is this visible on the side of the building at all?
|
|
| 182330084 | Revert mapping of path that doesn't exist |
|
| 182338531 | Yeah, this seems like an iD "fix" that might not actually be correct. Please make sure that suggestions from ID are correct before accepting them.
|
|
| 181978982 | Service is valid for either preference, and the general consensus on OSM is the higher option, which only lists service. I've already changed them back. |
|
| 182184585 | Done in changeset/182231365 |
|
| 182185938 | I was looking at the imagery used in the changeset, the perfect circles might be right, but the positioning definitely seems off, as well as that crossover section that I would have thought should be merged into one. |
|
| 182184585 | Hi, was the removal of boundary=administrative from relation/216359 intentional? |
|
| 182185316 | Same concerns as your other changeset around landuse=grass and the fences. Can you also explain changing Hein Road to residential, given the lack of houses on that road?
|
|
| 182185856 | Hi, is way/1508709183 actually grass, or is it potentially just farmland that was captured by imagery with no visible growth? based on the track marks, I'd say the latter is more likely. I also doubt some of the fence lines you've drawn, as these are all in the middle of where visible tracks are from farm equipment.
|