Changeset: 35141265
fx lu=wood
Closed by avatar6
Tags
created_by | Level0 v1.1 |
---|
Discussion
-
Comment from woodpeck
Dear avatar6: Please stop making these large-scale mechanical edits. It is inconceivable that you actually looked at the objects you were editing - this is a blind replacement of one thing with another. Also, your changeset comments don't adequately explain what you're doing; "fx" or "fx str" is hardly useful.
-
Comment from avatar6
Dear wóodpeck, pls., specify what my do'ings exactly concerns you. I'm surely knew, what I did, cause landuse=wood - is mistakengly landuse=forest, or, more comongly natural=wood, or you know other usage?? f 'couse I looked every object edited enauph for replacing tags...
fx stands for 'fix', 'fx str' stands for 'fix street', it's hard to 'exactly specify each edit of common sence'.., espetialy for each without it...) -
Comment from woodpeck
I think you're making general assumptions about tags instead of looking at the individual situation. Also, the changeset comments are aimed at your fellow mappers. Neither "fx str" nor "fix street" are sufficient to explain *what* you think you were fixing.
-
Comment from avatar6
yeah, u r right. Most .my changesets in my home country Ukraine, I think I should comment it like that 'изменил имя улиці согласно оффициального перечня горсовета'. ) I apologe if doing smthng wrong for you, but I was trying my best wishes.
-
Comment from SomeoneElse
Hi avatar6, with regard to http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/375035/history , how did you know whether to use natural=wood rather than landuse=forest here? On http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forest there are four (!) conflicting approaches documented for tagging wood vs forest - it would be interesting to know which one you were using.
Unfortunately I'm not familiar with this particular wood (though I've done a fair bit of mapping just to the west - in the Llanthony valley and around Abergavenny) so I can't really really say much about this bit beyond what you can see from the aerial imagery (which isn't much - some of this obviously planted for forestry, so not obviously).
Did you think about asking the previous mapper? Although they mapped it a long time ago, they do still seem to be active. When they did map it, the contents of the "landuse=wood" wiki page was as follows: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:landuse%3Dwood_%28Don%27t_use%29&oldid=369680 so they can't really be accused of "tagging it wrong" (by the standards in place at the time) either.
OpenStreetMap is a collaborative project; we have to work together to create the best map. Perhaps if you'd talked to the previous mapper you might have been able to find out which bits of it where deciduous and which bits evergreen, and how much of it is still present (what was mapped 6 years ago doesn't quite match the Bing imagery, and likely of course that might be out of date now too).
Finally, as woodpeck says, "fx lu=wood" really doesn't explain what change you made, why, and what the source of that change was :)
-
Comment from SomeoneElse
Oops - typing fail above - "some of this obviously planted for forestry, so not obviously" should have been "... some not obviously".
Relations (21-32 of 32)
- 1
- 2
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 |