OpenStreetMap
CAM-Gerlach's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 175006399 | Thanks, just fixing my own mistake :) I'd broken it a few changesets before in #174938202 https://osmcha.org/changesets/174938202 while splitting up a landuse multipolygon into finer chunks, and somehow missed that the VT boundary also used the same way. JOSM's validator didn't catch it somehow, perhaps because the relation wasn't fully downloaded (although it usually warns on modifying an incomplete relation too which would have flagged the issue, so not sure what happened there). In any case, all fixed.
|
|
| 174904231 | Thanks for the catch! One of my new custom presets had a typo that my bevy of validators didn't catch, sorry--in the process of further expanding my custom validator suite. Preset fixed going forward and also double-checked there were no other instances of it across the areas that I map. Thanks again!
|
|
| 174805694 | I'll keep monitoring the user and report to DWG if necessary if there's no response after a reasonable amount of time or they do further damage in the meantime.
|
|
| 174805694 | Thanks for the quick revert of the damage!
|
|
| 174799506 | Given the spammy changeset comment, the lack of any intentional valid content to upload and the blatantly damaging nature of the change, it appears this may have been intentional (or at the very least severely misguided), and may need further escalation. But first, Nicomarvin, would you care to explain what motivated this change?
|
|
| 173645556 | I see, then indeed there was something I was missing there. Sorry about that; my sincere apologies for the inadvertent mistake and failing to meet my usual standards of due care and diligence. Not sure how I somehow missed it the first time—might have had too many custom map styles enabled, or neglected to check as I normally would with wireframe mode off after aligning that way. I'll ensure I do so next time. In any case, thanks for the catch, and for taking the time to explain. Cheers. |
|
| 173645556 | Hey Frank, I'm curious on the source for the sign being removed? As far as I could tell, it was present on the ground in KartaView imagery from 2017, Streetside from 2020 and Mapillary from 2021, and I _think_ I can just spot the shadow in late-2022 VBMP (and its obscured by trees in early-2023 Bing, which was the only source cited in the changeset). Did it just get removed recently per an uncited in-person survey? Or is there something else I'm missing here? Thanks!
|
|
| 173250739 | (BTW, would be great to have you on there, as you're one of the most experienced and knowledgeable mappers in the area that's currently active :)
|
|
| 173250739 | Overall, I don't have a strong preference, I just think we should be consistent either way, at the very least locally (per OSM principles) if not nationally or with OSM as a whole. Perhaps the #local-nrv channel in the OSMUS Slack, where several of the other most active NRV mappers hang out, might be a good venue to decide on this? Just for reference, worldwide less than 20% of roundabouts have oneway= https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/junction%3Droundabout#combinations . On the other hand, in the US https://taginfo.geofabrik.de/north-america:us/tags/junction=roundabout#combinations and Virginia https://taginfo.geofabrik.de/north-america:us:virginia/tags/junction=roundabout#combinations that rises to over 50% (perhaps because of the lower familiarity and less consistent usage of roundabouts versus circulars and other types of junctions here versus in Europe and elsewhere, thus greater perceived need for explicit clarification).
|
|
| 173250739 | Just FYI, I'd previously added `oneway=yes` here and elsewhere on local roundabouts (it generally wasn't present before) but later removed it as Osmose flagged it as redundant (FWIW) and per the wiki, `junction=roundabout` directly implies `oneway=yes` (and by definition a roundabout must be oneway), and in the prose it states: > oneway=yes is implied and redundant. In specific cases, it can be added for clarity though. If its "clearly" one way, seems like that second bit wouldn't apply here? On the other hand, I do tend to prefer explicit over implicit tags, so there's that argument.
|
|
| 173120501 | Long-term, seems this should be converted to the modern PTv2 schema to make it easier to work with, more widely consumable and follow current best practice, though as that's a major change to existing practice and should presumably be done in coordination with the order BT, etc. bus routes, I held off on that for now and just explicitly tagged it as PTv1. Any comments/input on that? You seem to be the local mapper with the most experience with public transport routes (its the one major area of OSM I haven't really touched before today), so I imagine there are considerations I haven't thought of here and I would propose this in a wider community discussion in e.g. the #local-nrv channel of the OSMUS Slack before going forward with anything.
|
|
| 173120501 | Hi Frank, I went ahead and removed the outdated ways from the route relation as well as split a couple of ways that required it after your changes, which was quick to do in JOSM. However, I ended up manually sorting it as it was thoroughly out of order and JOSM's normal sort functionality couldn't fully handle it due to including multiple directions in the same relation (as its still PTv1 rather than v2), as well as needing a few additional way splits. See changeset #173162730 https://osmcha.org/changesets/173162730 for the result!
|
|
| 172998439 | Hi Pidugu, just a tip—no need to include your bio (or arguably, data sources) in your changset comment—that's what the bio of your OSM profile and the Source field of the changeset are for, respectively (and neither of which contains this respective information). Instead, its much more helpful to use that space to write a descriptive, useful changeset comment, for example "Add missing service road to apartment complex off Whipple Drive in Blacksburg" See the [Good Changeset Comments page on the OSM Wiki](osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments), which includes these guidelines and more help and examples on writing a good changeset comment. Thanks, and happy mapping!
|
|
| 172865664 | Looks good; thanks for the fix!
|
|
| 172551725 | Add road tags for northern Hunters Mill Road of Foxridge Apartments in Hethwood, Blacksburg, Virginia |
|
| 172551725 | INCORRECT CHANGESET SUMMARY; as with the previous changeset, "northwest Hunters Mill Road" should be "northern Hunters Mill Road". My sincere apologies for the multiple mistaken changeset summaries in this session due to not updating the street/area name I was working on. Full corrected changeset summary follows.
|
|
| 172551795 | Add separate parking areas for northern Hunters Mill Road of Foxridge Apartments in Hethwood, Blacksburg, Virginia |
|
| 172551795 | INCORRECT CHANGESET SUMMARY; "northwest Hunters Mill Road" should be "northern Hunters Mill Road". My sincere apologies for the multiple mistaken changeset summaries in this session due to not updating the street/area name I was working on. Full corrected changeset summary follows.
|
|
| 172552941 | Add road tags and align basketball court for Colonial Drive of Foxridge Apartments in Hethwood, Blacksburg, Virginia |
|
| 172552941 | INCORRECT CHANGESET SUMMARY; "northern Hunters Mill Road" should be "Colonial Drive". My sincere apologies for the multiple mistaken changeset summaries in this session due to not updating the street/area name I was working on. Full corrected changeset summary follows.
|