I recently had some fun in micromapping, and this the same time was for me an OSM learning session.
Now I want some feedback.
If you want to provide feedback, please look generally at the stuff (also in an OSM editor or so which shows everything), and I am happy about any general feedback (specific questions I have phrased below) like
- This is plainly wrong (reason/ how to make it better)
- Could be done that way, but also another way (why/ how)
- Maybe … need more information
- this is a good idea!
- If you do this, you also need to do that (reason)
Here are the sites in question:
- One site of my micromapping is around this building (Uhlandstraße 5 and Paul-Küstner-Straße 9 and 11 in Leipzig, Germany): The division of the building in parts, placing of address tags, & (most micromapping carried out there) the backyard.
(Note that I could not subdivide the 9 and 5, since I don’t know where the subdivision line between the buildings run. I only could subdivide the 9, and I made building parts for the parts which have some
The “basement” is more like a souterrain, so I used a 0.5-levelling here, and I want to ask if this is the way to go here.
- The other site is around the tram stop “Infineon Süd (Abwzweig nach Hellerau)” in Dresden, Germany: The areas were people walk, features around, and a few of signalling. I concentrated along the platforms and railway tracks along the turning circle. I modelled many areas for features. (And noticed that
area=yesdoes not get rendered on osm.org, but hey, we don’t map for the renderer. But that case made me think twice here and there …)
Especially there I introduced a lot of “manholes”, although I suspect that below the openings is nothing deep someone can climb into but just some technical facilities for the tram. Is this OK?, or should it be mapped different?
I might not continue there, so I take the feedback as learning, but probably will not invest more energy there (except of fixing blatand mistakes).