Changeset: 104631109
new elements, tags added/corrected, deleted obsolete elements, positions enhanced
Closed by SHARCRASH
Tags
created_by | JOSM/1.5 (17833 en) |
---|---|
source | OpenStreetMap Carto (Standard); openstreetmap.lu "mapper’s delight" hillshade lidar 2019 with unclassified points; geoportail.lu all layers |
Discussion
-
Comment from user_3961358
What is your source for the new tracks and paths? Only imagery or survey as well? Asking out of experience unfortunately.
-
Comment from SHARCRASH
Hi!
Seriously? I thought by now that it was clear i don't contribute with guesses. Depends which feature you are talking about... Some are personal knowledge, others are obvious on resources available, others are just new because i detail a way in different sections like when a track grade1 becomes a grade3 for example, or a footway and steps, those are new. As said in the past i don't want to mislead people and neither be misleaded myself since I do use the map. The only times i may be mistaken is when i see something new, record it in OSM and the next days i check it. If invalid, i delete of course. I ride mountain biking, this allows me to survey a lot even in nature.
On your hand... You should not name woods or forests from a locality. Those are names that are part of the place itself. Definitely not a wood like when it is named "Schleedbesch". Schack or "Klenge Schack" are not names of woods, they ware localities.
Also an embankment is not a just a slope, it's supposed to be man made, hence the key man_made. Classic example i do would be the slope of covered reservoirs or Tumulus sites. Those are clearly not natural. You had made the slope fo a hill as embankment, a hill is not man made. hence why i deleted it.
For the privacy of this way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/121108807/ I'm really wondering if it's fully private because:
- part of the way is in a neutral zone, no parcel, so very likely part of the grass can be used as a public beach.
- part of it was wrong, meaning it was going over a retaining wall.
- campings usually do not privatise their ways because of hikes, attracting clients, etc.
But doubtfully i've let it private anyway, waiting for a confirmation.You've still not corrected the mistakes you've introduced and i warned you about and even gave you the tools to spot them. Please correct them first before contributing other features.
-
Comment from user_3961358
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8245639482 For example is long overgrown, I walk in that area regularly. Some tracks you marked grade1 only looked grade1 one from above, they are unpaved. The "private" path has many signs around that people shouldn't stick around there, only guests. Toponymes are super vague, Bësch means wood. For me it's a better way to designate a bigger area. Localities can mean any size :(
-
Comment from SHARCRASH
No waaay, really?! Just kidding, i believe you. 🙂https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/448361730 I've added it 4 years ago and last time i checked it was 2 years ago. Time passed, had totally forgotten to plot the steps, 9 months ago had started to enhance accuracy, today (after your contact though) thanks to the LH i've been reminded to plot it correctly+steps.
For the grade1 which one(s)? Usually it's local survey or other resources as Geoportail's Topo, Mapillary and alikes... Though, a grade1 with time to time rare loose material, like holes or other degradations I still plot it as grade1, it's more releavant IMO. Grade2 only when constantly almost hard with some loose. Also sometimes i noticed some people recorded grade4 tracks whereas under the thin layer of dirt it's grade2. I recall even someone mistakenly recorded surface=dirt with grade1 track. My guess: the contributor didn't realise the dirt is temporarily spread by tractors. Some days of rain and puts the road back with bare asphalt. Again, temporary feats should not be recorded in OSM.
OK for the signs, i hope they are official. Remember what i told you in our email about this residence privatising illegally some forest roads by blocking with chains and signs. Outrageous!
I understand a bigger name is better but tag wise it's really not not right. Locality have sometimes a link to historical facts, nothing to do with the woods/forests. That's really misleading. I don't want to be extreme though, in some situations i find the key name to be useful to input a brief description of a feature. I know many contributors who do this even though it is considered as a bad practice. The problem is that most services rely mostly on the rasterizing of the map, so no description from the data key "description".
- 942535010, v1
- 942535011, v1
- 942535012, v1
- 942535013, v1
- 942535014, v1
- 942535015, v1
- 942535016, v1
- 942535017, v1
- 942535018, v1
- 942535019, v1
- 942535020, v1
- 942535021, v1
- 942535022, v1
- 942535023, v1
- 942535024, v1
- 942535025, v1
- 942535026, v1
- 942535027, v1
- 942535028, v1
- 942535029, v1
Relations (1)
Welcome to OpenStreetMap!
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.
Hosting is supported by Fastly, OSMF corporate members, and other partners.
https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |