About two weeks ago I commented on a changeset of a new user who added a bunch of footways in Offida: Changeset: 138098987 | OpenStreetMap. Although I explicitly asked for feedback in the changeset comment there is no response so far. In the meantime the user continued editing making the same common newbie mistakes I tried to point out. I therefore would ask somebody to check the edits and eventually to provide an Italian changeset comment. Thanks!
1 Like
Given the mapper uses ID Editor would send same thru Send Message. Then the message counter will show in his editor right top until read.
Most popular is mapping CAI/hiking/mtb routes top of existing ways. Communicated with CAI (Club Alpino Italiano) as suspecting there’s something wrong in the instructions how to set up a route. You see things like 1 long line/loop in a 1 member relation. Arduous work to transfer onto existing ways, check, recheck and delete the offending duplicate ways.
I sent the comment directly to the user yesterday.
Yes. I’m not even sure if fixing the problems without local knowlege would be better compared to completely reverting.
IMHO, all tourism=attraction by user lucarchi1 should be removed. If user stays long unresponsive and then reappears, I prevent any complains saving his work in this umap so he can easily restore his data (but not in OSM).
1 Like
IMHO, all tourism=attraction by user lucarchi1 should be removed.
Thank you for pointing this out and for your comments you put into Changeset: 138325904 | OpenStreetMap. Given the amount and the provided useless names of these POIs I agree.
Now the user has just started editing his/her footways, but still has not responded. What I know about old touristic city center places in Italy I doubt that all the footways are physically separated from the road network and therefore these should not be mapped as separate ways in most cases.
What is the preferred option? Deleting most of the footways as well or fixing the connectivity problems?
To be honest, it could be either. If you think that, even after fixing connectivity, separately mapped footways misrepresents the real situation, then obviously deletion makes sense - but this may need to be done on a footway by footway basis.
If you think that what is there now is such a mess that a wholesale revert makes sense, then that is obviously an option - but I’d try and get them into the confersation (perhaps via a “message that they have to read” from the DWG) first.
1 Like
The same user has uploaded images to mapillary taken three days ago. Based on this valuable information it now becomes possible to improve the edits from remote for the places where this is available. The POIs mapped as tourism=attraction seem to reference a touristic guide, which provides numbers. Putting these numbers into the name tag was not a good idea though.
1 Like
Good morning everyone, sorry for my inaction, but I didn’t know how I could contact you. I have now seen the blog. I apologize for having generated so many problems, I assure you that everything is the result of my first experience using Osm. I certainly used Osm improperly, but I had a strict need to report on a geo-referenced support information relating to a rather accurate survey, and I chose Osm in a short way. I deal with infrastructural surveys related to the accessibility of people with disabilities. Thanks to cascafico for saving, I think, some of the work on umap. Maybe it can help me to better understand how umap works.
Thank you for responding here. And welcome to OSM! Looking on your mapillary images I came to the conclusion that most, but not all of the footways, deserve a separate way. But before we start improving the map from remote by merging the useful tags on the existing ways I would like to know if you checked the “incline” tag against the direction of the way you created.
Based on your answer from above I conclude that you agree most of the tourism=attraction POIs can be removed.
Hello Lucarchi,
I saved your data in case of revert, which AFAIK nobody did :-). Hopefully fixing situation is not so cumbersome. It will take some manual work connecting highways and crossings. Removing “tourist attractions” can be easily done.
I just fixed the detected and discussed connectivity issues as good as it was possible from remote in Changeset: 139216670 | OpenStreetMap. Additionally I removed the “tourism=attraction” nodes.
1 Like