OpenStreetMap
CAM-Gerlach's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 167933228 | RIP that Moe's. Honestly, a bit surprised it lasted as long as it did. I hardly ever saw anyone in there, even when the Cellar, the Chipotle up the street and the Qdoba in Lavery Hall would have lines out the door.
|
|
| 167933333 | Hey, looks like the `name` was deleted; was that intentional? Judging from the WiFi name that was added, seems to me like it might not be?
|
|
| 156297350 | I'm also a little confused about why the parking way around Wendy's was classified as a `driveway` rather than the previous `parking_aisle` or generic `service`, which seems inconsistent with both the wiki and the consensus its based on, and the tagging of the other similar ways in this mapping area. Per the lede of the wiki for the former tag, service=driveway , the defining feature of a `service=driveway` is it "leads toward an entrance to a specific destination", whereas the primary purpose of this way is to provide access to parking around the restaurant, and secondarily to the drive-through. Furthermore, none of three primary usage scenarios are close to either of these purposes (direct access to a house/garage carport, space for passenger pickup/dropoff, loading dock access), while it states not to use it on: > Paths in or around a parking lot (amenity=parking) are tagged with highway=service without service=* on the entrance and exit ways, as well as any way that forms the "trunk" or perimeter of the lot, connecting multiple parking aisles (service=parking_aisle). Likewise, the wiki page for the approved and implemented `service=parking_aisle` service=parking_aisle gives specific examples of restaurants with drive-throughs closely resembling this one, stating that they should be either mapped as either `parking_aisle`s or as two separate ways (as done here), one with `service=drive-through` and the other as `service=parking_aisle` (or, presumably, just `service`). It also re-iterates that higher-class ways within a parking lot that provide through connectivity (entry/exit, connect multiple parking aisles) should be tagged as just `service`, while the only relevant mentioned use case of `driveway` inside/near a parking lot is > Primarily provides space for picking up and dropping off passengers Given that and your evident experience, I'm curious as to the reason for the present tagging, particularly as I plan to do another pass adding and improving service ways in downtown Blacksburg. |
|
| 156297350 | Hello again! Thanks for the roadway hierarchy improvements—that's something I mostly haven't touched for existing ways except in cases where it seemed fairly unambiguous that the existing classification wasn't right, although after several passes I'd been considering doing some reclassification in this area. While the other classifications make sense, I am curious, however, about classifying Church Street as `residential` rather than unclassified (or the existing `tertiary`)—per my previous mapping in that area, it has no or almost no residential buildings/uses along its full length, and the landuse areas immediately around it (which, full disclosure, I mapped) are all non-residential. Is that just a misclick, or is there a reason for that?
|
|
| 156297166 | Hi Joseph! Thanks for the fixes and improvements along Industrial Park Road—it definitely needed some love; I was just focused on other areas at the moment and didn't have time to dig into it. I do have a question about your changes to the slip road/turn channel between Industrial westbound and Research Center northbound from a `highway=secondary_link` to a `highway=secondary` with a `name`. My understanding per the wiki was that the former was more correct per the lede of the [Highway link article](osm.wiki/Highway_link) as well as that of [secondary_link](highway=secondary_link) article), as it is a slip road/turn channel between the former and the latter, while the "main line" of Research Center continues south to the intersection and then becomes a `motorway_link` to 460. It also appears to be inconsistent with the link classification used on the turn channel to Industrial Park westbound and the motorway link it becomes. As you're a highly experienced mapper, I'd appreciate your insight here on the reason for the classification, particularly as I plan to return to continue mapping the CRC area soon. Thanks! |
|
| 156195324 | Hi Philip, and welcome (back) to OpenStreetMap! Given you've presumably verified this business has closed, overall the change looks good. However, make sure to remove other tagging specific to the closed business—for example, `brand` was removed, but `brand:wikidata` was not. You can also remove `amenity`, `cuisine`, `diet:vegetarian`, `opening_hours` and (possibly) `phone`, as they no longer make sense given the POI they describe is no longer here. One other note—instead of deleting the `name` entirely, you can also move it to `old_name`, which may be useful for both future mappers and map consumers to understand the history of the place. Thanks!
|
|
| 155999049 | Backstory of how this most unfortunate blunder came to be: While performing a tricky and delicate extraction of a group of existing changes into a logically separate changeset, I accidentally forgot to overwrite the comment from the previous changeset, frustratingly leading to it very unfortunately duplicating the comment from the changeset rather than correctly expressing the very explicitly distinct nature of the changes (the reason I'd separated them in the first place). |
|
| 155999049 | Changeset comment INCORRECT; should be: Add/update service roads, parking lots, foot/cycleways, buildings and fencing from newly-rebuilt Briarwood Pool area in the Hethwood community of Blacksburg, VA. |
|
| 155933922 | Looks good, thanks!
|
|
| 155879844 | Great, thanks! |
|
| 155879844 | Thanks for the update. Shouldn't `opening_date` be preserved as `start_date` rather than deleting valid information from the map?
|
|
| 155675928 | Oops, sorry about that! Thanks for the catch; I'd checked the wiki and taginfo before as usual but saw very low usage (only a few hundred hits) of the correct tag and none of my many validators flagged the incorrect one, so I didn't realize I'd made a mistake and not entered it correctly the first time, which then propagated to the others. I've fixed it in changeset/155850997 changeset/155850997 |
|
| 155715498 | Thanks. Would it make sense to fix the bad previous name tag to old_name=Mish Mish rather than removing it entirely? Or is it just _too_ old to be relevant now?
|
|
| 155715403 | Also left a comment on the original user's changeset, so this is brought to their attention to keep in mind for the future. |
|
| 155604661 | FYI, this mistakenly removed node with still-valid details (e.g. addr:*); reverted in changeset https://osmcha.org/changesets/155715403?aoi=15aa7c6a-52b1-4bb0-a810-81319c87415b
|
|
| 155715403 | Thanks! And also ""Be brave in what you add but careful in what you delete", i.e. not removing valid, in-scope detail from the map when making changes (e.g. addr:* tags here), e.g. osm.wiki/Good_practice#Don't_remove_tags_that_you_don't_understand
|
|
| 155344954 | For some guidance, in the Blacksburg area I've found the following uses for the available imagery: - VBMP for primary work (newer, moderate resolution, lower tree blockage, needs alignment)
To align VBMP (to Bing, which closely matches GPS traces and is well-aligned at high zooms), I use the following imagery offset: -0.67;0.82 |
|
| 155344954 | Additionally, I suggest (and implemented) the following changes, mostly similar to the previous: changeset/155448900 - These days, the source tag Source should generally be set on your changeset itself rather than specific objects, as it is a property of your specific changeset and not anything inherent to the object itself (for example, someone like myself might later update the object using e.g. aerial imagery, making the source out of date)
|
|
| 155344954 | Good job here! Just a few suggestions and tips, with the main one being: With recently-constructed buildings like these, its a good idea to check all available imagery to see which is the most up-to-date. Esri Clarity (which the imagery tag on your changeset indicates you used) is often some of the oldest (though some of the best quality, depending on region) and just shows a greenfield, as does the somewhat newer Bing. VBMP, while lower resolution, shows the construction site, while NAIP actually shows the building outline. This allowed me to trace the building, and transfer your tags to it from the node. To help preserve the history, I moved your original node to be the top-left corner of the resulting building.
|
|
| 155344380 | Looks good! The only changes I might consider are adding a few more (entirely optional) basic details from the linked website (phone number, and ideally fax and opening hours as well), addr:country since other local addresses use it, and tagging the building the POI is in appropriately (building=commercial in this case). I've implemented them in my changeset: changeset/155448900 But again, all those are just a bonus on top of what you've already done—what you have is great! The only other possible thing is that if the vet clinic occupies the whole building (which I cannot tell for sure from the available information as I'm not on the ground), its good to add the tags on the building itself rather than a standalone node.
|