[Talk-GB] How to Fix a "Fix-Me"
sk53.osm at gmail.com
Wed Jul 31 18:35:01 UTC 2019
These very much look like fixmes which got forgotten. They do not show up
directly in many editors (and only recently in iD). In this case all the
ones you mention look to have been fully resolved by the existing mapping.
In that case it's safe just to remove the fixmes, which is good because it
stops others thinking this area needs a visit.
Obviously not every case is likely to be so clear cut. I suspect many of us
leave fixme tags if we are not absolutely sure that they have been
resolved: a false positive signal is better than a false negative one.
However, with more in-editor QA we may need to be more pro-active in
checking for fixmes which are no longer relevant.
It's always a good policy if unsure to start a discussion on the changeset
where the fixme tags were created. Often fixme tags are somewhat terse. A
direct question to the original author may elicit which information they
really felt they were lacking at the time. For instance in a case like this
I presume aerial imagery with the new roads was not available, or that it
only showed the area during construction. If someone walked or cycled
through to get GPS tracks they may not have been able to survey many of the
nuances of the site.
Personally I try and add multiple source tags to give an idea of what
information I used. For instance I have recently been adding footpaths
which I have seen leading of country roads in Yorkshire & Denbighshire. I
know where the path starts, what type of PRoW the path is and roughly where
it heads. Additional information I cull from old out-of-copyright maps &
aerial images, so the actual true alignment of the path is always an
approximation. If someone walks the path, GPS traces become available etc,
then the fixme can be removed & the source:geometry tag updated.
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 at 18:43, Peter Neale via Talk-GB <
talk-gb at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> If this is not the correct place / route to seek assistance with this
> issue, please advise me where to go.
> I see that, on a new housing estate near me, there are a number of "Fix
> Me" tags on highway=residential, which I would like to fix.
> The tags all say, "noexit? turning_circle? stub?"
> These are all streets that link to only one other highway, mostly
> highway=tertiary (i.e. they are cul de sacs / dead ends).
> Where the highway=residential is mapped as a single line, I can see that
> it would be sensible to mark whether there is a turning circle, or turning
> loop, at the end and, if there is no exit by vehicle, bicycle, or on foot,
> to mark it as "noexit".
> However, where there is a turning loop, which is already mapped as a
> looped highway, I don't understand what the "FixMe" is asking for. See,
> for example https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5111774622
> Acording to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dturning_loop
> "Draw a closed highway=* way around the traffic island and connect it to
> the main road, giving it the same name. If traffic is required to flow in a
> particular direction around the traffic island, add oneway=yes. This method
> is preferred for large turning circles, because navigation applications
> decide whether the user is on- or off-route based on their distance from
> the roadway. This method also makes it possible to accurately map features
> inside the loop, such as parking spaces, trees, or a flagpole.
> If a turning loop has been mapped as a way, do not remap it as a simple
> node, as that would remove detail from the map."
> Are these "FixMe"s generated automatically? Can I just delete the "FixMe"
> in these cases?
> I would be grateful for any advice.
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-GB