Changeset: 63335093
These areas are not allowed as pedestrian squares.
Closed by stadiaarcadia
Tags
changesets_count | 3412 |
---|---|
created_by | iD 2.11.1 |
host | https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit |
imagery_used | Bing aerial imagery |
locale | nl |
Discussion
-
Comment from freebeer
Have you validated what you have worked on here?
I happened to be using the OSM Inspector tool at geofabrik.de to get to a nearby error, and the multitudes of errors throwing up colourful warnings here caught my eye.
https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=-79.41858&lat=43.63280&zoom=17&opacity=0.66
To quote someone else, iD is little more than a toy, and does no error checking and is known to introduce a lot of errors itself, particularly when working on more advanced editing concepts as you have to do with your focus of interest.
You should long since have switched to JOSM which can warn you about such errors as these and others before you upload them into the database and then try to find out what went wrong after the fact, whether you originated these errors by editing, or inherited them from others.
Please take some time to study and understand the link i gave above. -
Comment from stadiaarcadia
Thank you very much for the information freebeer, I’m gonna look at it. Do you also have some good links / tutorials for JOSM? I don’t understand good enough how it works yet, it’s a very complicated editor.
-
Comment from freebeer
just a few minutes after you wrote this, the following commentary was posted:
https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/63388797
In it dvdhoven (whom i quoted earlier in an english post s/he had made some days ago), explains what iD breaks in route relations, but eggie follows up with a link to a tutorial that looks to span five pages of discussions in a language i hope is most comfortable for you.
apologies if you know of and have read this link.
.
another thing about this edit, i see you removed all the tagging here from the pedestrian areas another user had added, not just the wrong tagging misused as tagging for the renderer.
this means the other user's contributions in naming each section by number are now lost.
i am not sure why you did not only delete the bad tagging, or replace it with something more correct. maybe iD does not allow you that possibility, but i know it does when i have deleted castle tags in far-away lands leaving the address and name intact.
You should work to preserve the contributions of other users as much as possible to avoid hard feelings, and alienating others, that i see too much of nowadays, as out of the mis-tagged pedestrian areas there are now blank polygons with nothing to offer, not even outlines. (the old data may still be visible for a while in certain zoom levels.)
.
note that i have no experience whatsoever with JOSM and can be of no help, as a bit earlier i used the ancient Potlatch 1 editor to repair some damage iD had somehow managed to introduce and did not flag as an error, so seek the help of your native-language users whom I read pull no punches in their opinions of iD and maps.me.
thanks.
- 401849003, v2
- 401849002, v2
- 401849004, v2
- 401849001, v2
- 401849005, v2
- 401849006, v2
- 401849000, v2
- 401848999, v2
- 401849007, v2
- 401849008, v2
- 401848998, v2
- 401849009, v2
- 401848997, v2
- 401849010, v2
- 401849011, v2
- 401848995, v2
- 401849012, v2
- 401848994, v2
- 401849013, v2
- 401848993, v2
Relations (1)
- 227;127;126;226;225;125;124;224;223;123;222;122;221;121;220;321;325;120;219;119;118;117;116;115;114;113;112;111;235;228;104;105;229;230;106;107;231;232;108;109;234;233;110;103;102;101;134;133;132;131;130;128;129 (8791642), v1
Nodes (10)
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 |