OSM changeset discussions of ndm

Changeset	#	Tmstmp UTC	Contributor	Comment
23995102 by ndm @ 2014-07-07 00:15	1	2021-01-04 23:38	di4tu2 ♦7	If motor vehicles are prohibited on this highway (motor_vehicle=no) then you have added this speed limit specifically for bicycles. Is this correct?
	2	2021-01-05 00:30	ndm	No, I didn't add "motor_vehicle=no I think it is more likely to be "motor_vehicle=private". Note the maxspeeds are visible painted on the roads in Mapillary images, as is a van.
	3	2025-07-02 17:43	mstrbrid ♦32	Can you offer any reassurance that this is a mistake, and not something more sinister?!: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2951687522
	4	2025-07-02 19:57	ndm	There was a red naval mine on the harbourside - presumably deactivated.
	5	2025-07-02 20:05	mstrbrid ♦32	You'd hope! I see it now in old photos, now long-gone. Thanks
165213227 by ndm @ 2025-04-20 21:31	1	2025-05-03 13:14	mstrbrid ♦32	Hi ndm, why have you split this building into 4? As far as I can see it's a single building with four units contained, so would be best retained as a single building with multiple entrances and the various businesses mapped to single nodes within the area of the building. If, in the future, som...
	2	2025-05-03 19:16	ndm	Thanks for explaining your mapping style. I added 3 items to the map to improve it -- whilst retaining the 1 item that was previously mapped. There are others that are equally valid. I map the area that each business occupies (or the best approximation). This has a number of advantages: -...
	3	2025-05-06 11:38	mstrbrid ♦32	Hi ndm, thanks for your explanation. It seems to me that you're conflating the physical occurrence of a structure (represented by building=*) with the activity / current use of the building. I don't think that it's a question of differing styles; the original proposal for the building...
21445901 by ndm @ 2014-04-01 19:45	1	2025-01-15 17:03	mstrbrid ♦32	This will likely test your memory, but why is Queen's Road not named with an apostrophe here? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/36996687/ The signage and OSOpenRoads both show it with its apostrophe.
154955805 by ndm @ 2024-08-07 22:20	1	2024-08-08 09:33	DaveF ♦1,567	Hi. There can't be a bridge /and/ a tunnel. It has to be one or the other. In this case it's clear the raised railway is bridging over the road.
139458659 by ndm @ 2023-08-04 21:29	1	2024-01-20 09:16	osmuser63783 ♦63	You've recently modified this way (https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/566039), do you have anything to add about this note? https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/566039 If the cycling infrastructure is now mapped correctly here it could be closed?
	2	2024-01-20 15:19	ndm	I was on foot and not taking notes of cycle infrastructure - be great if you could do a proper survey.
	3	2024-01-20 15:43	osmuser63783 ♦63	Thanks! I'm nowhere near Bristol unfortunately. Just browsing the map for notes where the thing they're asking to be mapped has already been mapped, which is surprisingly common!
137623789 by ndm @ 2023-06-21 22:18	1	2023-09-10 10:38	DaveF ♦1,567	Hi Your Cotham Updates appear to have split NCN 4. Could you take a look please. https://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=1318928
75528614 by ndm @ 2019-10-10 18:17	1	2023-07-22 17:37	SomeoneElse2 ♦455	Hello - just checking - can shop=vacant be removed from https://osm.mapki.com/history/way/617266279 ?
122819314 by ndm @ 2022-06-24 21:25	1	2022-06-27 14:51	cryptickryptos ♦33	Hey, I noticed you're adding the numbers to the markers for fire hydrants instead of the hydrants themselves. The top number on markers can be added to the hydrant as fire_hydrant:diameter in millimeters, usually a value of 75 or 100, and the lower number is just the distance from the marker to...
	2	2022-07-04 20:07	ndm	Thanks for the comment -- the website will be useful. I probably won't add measurements -- doesn't really fit my workflow -- I don't always see signs and hydrants together (it's taken over 6 months to find one -- and I still need to add it to the map too) plus I'd probabl...
43657579 by ndm @ 2016-11-14 23:54	1	2021-10-19 13:08	Richard ♦220	When you're adding service roads (e.g. way 453419520), could you make sure you add an access tag? As it stands there's no way to tell who's allowed to use this. Given that Geograph shows pretty clear access signage exists (https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1918421) I'm at a loss ...
	2	2021-10-19 15:17	ndm	Feel free to add more information. I suspect I was on an organised ramble and obviously found the company of my fellow walkers more interesting than an obscure service road's access rights. I do tend to add the pubs though.
	3	2021-10-19 15:44	Richard ♦220	Ok. Am I allowed to change https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/453419513 too, which makes even less sense?
	4	2021-10-19 21:50	ndm	I'm sure after five years it'll benefit from a good on the ground survey.
	5	2021-10-20 08:37	Richard ♦220	Cool, maybe you can do that some time. I'll fix it remotely for now so that cyclists stop getting mistakenly getting diverted down there. Until then, perhaps you could consider being a little less aggressive to other people in changeset comments (as per https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-di...
	6	2021-10-20 10:09	ndm	Well it would be best if you could do a proper survey as I mentioned above. As for tone - it’s always difficult to get right - I doubt neither of us are perfect.
65855858 by ndm @ 2018-12-29 00:10	1	2021-05-27 18:30	southglos ♦120	Hiya I know this is two years late, but I've just spotted "Wnidy Ridge" at 165 Bishopthorpe Road. I'm assuming a typo, but just checking first! Cheers, Paul.
	2	2021-05-27 21:47	ndm	Well spotted. I have no reason not to assume it's my typo.
	3	2021-05-27 21:51	southglos ♦120	Ha, no problem. There are some wacky house names out there, so I thought I'd ask just in case :-)
104145179 by ndm @ 2021-05-04 20:24	1	2021-05-05 13:22	SekeRob ♦1,435	hi any reason why everyone between Bristol, Madrid, Kyiv and Ankara has to see your building tweaks in their local changeset history?.Pretty please make changes at most on a country basis and save them. That keeps most lists outside borders free from 'we don't need to know' clutter...
	2	2021-05-05 18:47	ndm	That's what happens when you tidy a previous changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/103799734#map=5/46.058/14.985 --maybe that one should've had a comment too?
98185675 by ndm @ 2021-01-26 21:59	1	2021-01-27 14:30	fredley ♦2	I'd imagine these change throughout the year as different sports are in season?
	2	2021-01-27 19:23	ndm	They are traced from Bing and could be considered "indicative" :-)
97994159 by ndm @ 2021-01-22 19:46	1	2021-01-22 19:48	ndm	See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing#Accessibility
97923853 by ndm @ 2021-01-21 19:09	1	2021-01-21 19:12	ndm	See https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=ca3a2823-7b40-45fd-9bf8-9a2d81ebd11a&cp=51.497696~-2.690709&lvl=19&dir=299.52963&pi=-14.200873&style=x&mo=om.1~z.0&v=2&sV=2&form=S00027 Inside lane doesn't enter the roundabout - so mapping as a separate way (even though ...
97788543 by ndm @ 2021-01-19 19:12	1	2021-01-19 19:39	ndm	https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=51.54260749415042&lng=-2.6348403568245127&z=17&pKey=SJCh9Ry-zV6E82sVlTwzJA&focus=photo https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=51.54126844787473&lng=-2.631421718792012&z=14.918503348990576&pKey=qO2rk5OU1CSJNp6o3KDwSQ&focus=photo htt...
	2	2021-01-20 04:47	DaveF ♦1,567	If there's no vehicle access, it's not a service road anymore.
97788745 by ndm @ 2021-01-19 19:17	1	2021-01-19 20:26	ndm	Added back a few good bits.
97720865 by ndm @ 2021-01-18 20:44	1	2021-01-19 06:11	southglos ♦120	To be fair, it was tagged as 'proposed', which seems reasonable?
10413988 by ndm @ 2012-01-17 01:39	1	2021-01-08 16:25	DaveF ♦1,567	Hi Neil https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/4002666 Could you clarify the name of the tunnel structure? Even if it has a name, the road's name should still be Hotwells.
95830958 by ndm @ 2020-12-14 19:50	1	2020-12-17 19:02	DaveF ♦1,567	Hi Duplicate roads?
92849567 by ndm @ 2020-10-21 18:43	1	2020-10-22 07:30	Cebderby ♦300	In this changeset you have: - reverted a change without discussion - damaged the corrected alignment of a road - reinstated damaged bus routes You will kindly explain you actions.
	2	2020-10-22 08:38	ndm	The road geometries were so badly edited in the change set - it was impossible to recover them back to their correct locations - so that they split at physical barriers - without spending an unnecessary amount of time.
	3	2020-10-22 09:27	Cebderby ♦300	Thank you for your prompt reply. I had expected an apology and explanation for your unacceptable action, not offensive abuse, but you can't have everything. Are you going to re-fix the bus routes and the bad alignment then?
	4	2020-10-22 10:24	ndm	Likewise. I didn’t get any contact when you redraw straight highway sections as curves that don’t entirely match reality, or normal editing conventions. Normally I just clean things up, but that wasn’t possible here.
75324187 by ndm @ 2019-10-05 17:29	1	2020-06-08 18:26	CjMalone ♦233	Hello, in this changeset you partially deleted Bristol Sweet Mart. I assume it closed, or looked closed. However a few days after you removed it supposedly had an inspection from FSA, implying it's still open. https://ratings.food.gov.uk/business/en-GB/385083/Bristol-Sweet-Mart-Easton ...
	2	2020-06-08 18:46	ndm	My guess -- original building was too large -- so split and removed tags, but probably had both halves selected by accident. Add it back and add a note, or just add a note? I'm not likely to be passing for a while and notes remind everyone, not just me :-)
	3	2020-06-08 19:12	CjMalone ♦233	I've added it and a note 2222380. Thanks
85518200 by ndm @ 2020-05-20 21:04	1	2020-05-23 15:16	DaveF ♦1,567	You've doubled up on buildings again. Please ensure you download all objects in JOSM
83165679 by ndm @ 2020-04-06 21:12	1	2020-04-06 21:15	ndm	Apologies Uber edit
83165706 by ndm @ 2020-04-06 21:13	1	2020-04-06 21:15	ndm	Apologies Uber edit
82407011 by ndm @ 2020-03-19 21:36	1	2020-03-20 01:36	DaveF ♦1,567	Are you aware you've put buildings on top of others?
	2	2020-03-20 08:19	ndm	Bother!
80664025 by ndm @ 2020-02-06 23:53	1	2020-02-11 14:23	DaveF ♦1,567	Hi Could you take a look at NCN 4 which has split in a coupe of places? Unsure which way it's meant to go. ta
	2	2020-02-11 14:29	DaveF ♦1,567	http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=1318928
	3	2020-02-11 21:10	ndm	Fixed the easy gap. Don't know about the one near Amazon -- deleted the "temporary path (construction works), not visible on Bing" -- which is no longer there, see https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/1lJw5srlLPaou8K4IqvFIQ Can't help much more -- it's right on the limit for ...
	4	2020-03-05 16:53	DaveF ♦1,567	There's still two very short lengths without the NCN relations. Unsure if they have any significance.: One of them: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/759989733
81427034 by ndm @ 2020-02-24 23:49	1	2020-02-25 16:10	DaveF ♦1,567	Hi Could double check this please: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1277566#map=14/51.4982/-2.5902
	2	2020-02-25 22:33	ndm	Double-checked -- it was broken before I editted it.
	3	2020-02-25 22:39	DaveF ♦1,567	https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/463238230 You added tags to the way: https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/463238230
	4	2020-02-26 00:17	ndm	Hopefully removed now. Didn't get any validation issues, except for some complaints about "incomplete" relation -- same as previous version had.
77348570 by ndm @ 2019-11-21 00:07	1	2019-12-29 14:45	Mike Baggaley ♦630	HI, can you please review the change you have made to way 84250952 in this changeset? It is tagged as a footpath over a bridge and has foot=yes. The change has added access=private, which causes confusion about whether there is is is not access for pedestrians. The ways either side of the bridge hav...
	2	2019-12-29 21:28	ndm	The access=private I added is correct -- I've removed the pre-existing tag that seems to confuse you. And added a note that access on the other bridge needs checking too. Basically, the area over the stream is supposed to be only for authorised personnel (as much as I can tell from seeing on...
	3	2019-12-29 21:44	ndm	https://flic.kr/p/2i74dKt
35411375 by ndm @ 2015-11-18 16:33	1	2019-12-09 20:28	SK53 ♦864	Do you know if the gardens on top of "We the Curious" are accessible ones, or are they just green roofs?
77770365 by ndm @ 2019-12-01 00:14	1	2019-12-02 11:22	A67-A67 ♦933	Hello ndm, Leeuwenstein (stylised as Leeuw&stein) isn't the name of a kitchen store, but the name of the entire shopping area. It was already in OSM: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/143470411. I'll remove the incorrect node for the shop.
77769948 by ndm @ 2019-11-30 23:39	1	2019-12-01 21:29	A67-A67 ♦933	Hallo ndm, Broos Keukens en Bo-Rent stonden al op de kaart. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1569643722 https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2596107024 Ik heb de dubbele winkels verwijderd. Daarnaast schrijven we namen met hoofdletters.
	2	2019-12-02 00:17	ndm	Thanks for checking - I always mark stores where I survey them, and follow the signed names. -- Bedankt voor het controleren - ik markeer altijd winkels waar ik ze onderzoek en volg de ondertekende namen.
	3	2019-12-02 11:19	A67-A67 ♦933	Sorry for starting in Dutch and thanks for adding stores from survey. This is always a good way to improve the map! The problem with using the text from signs is that these are often logo's instead of names. So choices in font and design can be the reason for a stylised version of the name, ...
77097949 by ndm @ 2019-11-14 22:51	1	2019-11-14 22:53	ndm	I have added a no U-turn here based on Bing Streetside https://binged.it/2qi1ZXJ showing a UK "No U-turn sign" next to the bus stop.
67010301 by ndm @ 2019-02-07 23:57	1	2019-11-12 21:27	SK53 ♦864	AFAIK the former Inmos (STMicroelectronics) building was vacated by 2016 (possibly earlier). There was a fair bit of press coverage about the refurb: https://www.rrnews.co.uk/multi-million-pound-office-refurbishment-at-aztec-west-set-to-provide-much-needed-modern-business-space/
	2	2019-11-12 21:32	ndm	It still has the signage -- at least ~3 weeks ago!
	3	2019-11-12 22:57	SK53 ♦864	Ah, I did wonder if that was the case. Used to visit back in the glory days of the 1980s.
76242369 by ndm @ 2019-10-26 12:35	1	2019-10-29 12:30	Velox ♦22	Hi ndm. In process of reviewing your reverts of 76204147 and 76115879 about Kingsway Ave, I found out that there IS a blue one way sign. It is located North of the Gillard Road and Kingsway Ave, from this and to Two Mile Hill Road Kingsway Avenue is one way. Please, check the length of one w...
	2	2019-10-29 23:36	ndm	Thanks, but your link doesn't show a blue/white oneway sign.
	3	2019-11-05 12:13	Velox ♦22	Yeah, Bing links are not very obvious. You can find this sign here: https://binged.it/33t6Sf3 As I can see on OSM, you already made this correct way, as it was in https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/76115879/ you reverted previously.
76120655 by ndm @ 2019-10-23 19:05	1	2019-10-29 10:23	andygol ♦488	Hey ndm. I'd like to get to know can you confirm that the state of the signage on the Kingsway Avenue still looks the same as it is on the Bing Streetside photos? (https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=a77a42c0-3003-4eeb-a97d-18b9ee550feb&v=2&sV=2&form=S00027)? If so, could you please re...
	2	2019-10-29 12:39	trigpoint ♦2,374	Looking at the signage on bing streetside, there is no oneway here. There are no entry signs, which means you cannot enter from Two Mile Hill Road. This situation could simply be mapped using turn restrictions. For Kingsway Avenue to actually be oneway there would need to be blue signs with whit...
	3	2019-10-29 13:13	trigpoint ♦2,374	Sorry oneway arrows are here https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=c9193494-9048-44b4-9920-863c5674bf45&cp=51.461758802222164~-2.5236010587254896&lvl=19&dir=0&pi=12.94129&style=x&mo=z.0&v=2&sV=2&form=S00027&setMkt=en-US
	4	2019-10-29 13:59	andygol ♦488	trigpoint, right. That is what I was talking about - `oneway` sign on the intersection Kingsway Ave and Gillard Rd https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=6e1443ef-ac9f-4802-9aab-f46f770923db&cp=51.461067~-2.522781&lvl=19&dir=345.37552&pi=-5.3121524&style=x&mo=z.0&v=2&sV=...
	5	2019-10-29 23:37	ndm	Yay, a link to a picture of a oneway sign :-)
75691207 by ndm @ 2019-10-14 23:18	1	2019-10-15 14:48	DaveF ♦1,567	Any idea where this is?: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1941123#map=18/51.44356/-2.56655&layers=N
	2	2019-10-15 21:32	ndm	Only a very rough idea.
40795835 by ndm @ 2016-07-17 11:06	1	2019-10-15 06:26	amapanda ᚛ᚐᚋᚐᚅᚇᚐ᚜ 🏳️‍🌈 ♦363	Hi. You added `irish=yes` as a tag to the irish pub https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/431512698#map=19/51.45379/-2.59323 ( Seamus O'Donnell's ). I've changed that to `theme=irish`
74756424 by ndm @ 2019-09-21 18:35	1	2019-09-23 08:47	abedecain ♦1	Thanks! Makes sense, I am new to editing maps on OSM, used to edit Google maps before, so a lot of differences and no clear guide :(
70617844 by ndm @ 2019-05-25 19:26	1	2019-09-20 13:12	chexum ♦5	Why was the speed limit of 20mph reverted to the incorrect 30mph? I'm driving there every week, and I have video proof that it's still 20mph as of this week for most of the in-town sections of Mill Ln/High Street. (It still has a 20mph when-lights-flash inside the 20mph section, but 20...
	2	2019-09-20 20:54	ndm	The changeset was trying to correct the road geometries that had been dragged about badly. Apologies if I upset something else.
	3	2019-09-21 08:07	chexum ♦5	Thank you for the clarification! I'll check the speed limits again
70397695 by ndm @ 2019-05-18 21:52	1	2019-05-21 12:45	yaswap ♦68	Hi ndm, Thanks for the edit. The editor might have drew the residential road as it looks like the road is leading to residential enties. But there is another way to access those houses. The road that was demoted to service is leading to the backyard of the houses(garages and trash can be seen) lo...
	2	2019-05-21 20:22	ndm	It's a close call, but if it's residential many QA tools assume it should have a name -- so it should be signed?
69822837 by ndm @ 2019-05-02 23:17	1	2019-05-03 17:44	cryptickryptos ♦33	i assume the housename on 554749073 is an error?
	2	2019-05-03 19:45	ndm	fiddlesticks
69614284 by ndm @ 2019-04-26 20:06	1	2019-04-26 20:17	cryptickryptos ♦33	you removed the fhrs IDs for st nicholas of tolentine school, which has two valid IDs
	2	2019-04-26 20:51	ndm	I removed all the mismatched ids - the auto-matching website doesn't work well with multiple values. I'll check on the FHRS site and add back any it recognises that I removed.
	3	2019-04-26 20:57	ndm	https://ratings.food.gov.uk/business/en-GB/1082910 doesn't look terribly useful - but I'll add them both.
67900197 by ndm @ 2019-03-07 20:58	1	2019-03-07 22:29	southglos ♦120	Duplicates some existing buildings?
	2	2019-03-07 22:31	ndm	Bother will fix
67368369 by ndm @ 2019-02-19 21:21	1	2019-02-20 18:04	DaveF ♦1,567	I thought spark said Trenchard St was still, mostly, accessible by vehicle.
	2	2019-02-20 21:32	ndm	As I said ask talk-GB -- but removing the signed (suspended) onewayness isn't a great idea. The road will likely just get joined back without adding the oneway back as the normal state is lost. Maybe: use the temporary: prefix then -- temporary:oneway=no, temporary:access=destination Or i...
65580352 by ndm @ 2018-12-18 12:59	1	2019-01-10 11:54	southglos ♦120	Ok, genuinely intrigued. "Dave"? :-)
	2	2019-01-10 19:48	ndm	A feline "in memoriam" - if memory serves correctly.
65875850 by ndm @ 2018-12-29 21:29	1	2018-12-30 00:37	DaveF ♦1,567	Has the runway & surrounding area been dug up? It would beneficial if this was still rendered with it being such a large area.
	2	2018-12-30 10:18	ndm	Different bits are being redeveloped, but being behind a fence can't always get to them. I suppose it could be marked as brownfield? Though some of it may be under the Aerospace museum.
65084379 by ndm @ 2018-12-01 23:01	1	2018-12-01 23:08	cryptickryptos ♦33	these garages aren't connected to the main building, there's a path between them.
	2	2018-12-02 00:18	ndm	Bother -- tweked it to match 2012 Bing Streetside and old ESRI imagery - using original polygon (to keep the history). Might dig out my 2017 photos if I can find them to verify.
64755326 by ndm @ 2018-11-21 20:57	1	2018-11-21 21:35	cryptickryptos ♦33	looks like this broke the multipolygon. fixed an error already but it doesn't seem to render still. could you take a look?
	2	2018-11-21 21:46	cryptickryptos ♦33	nevermind, it's fixed
	3	2018-11-22 00:13	ndm	I'll keep an eye on it -- sometimes rendering takes a while to catch up -- plus all browser caching too. Fingers crossed :-)
63206426 by ndm @ 2018-10-04 18:50	1	2018-10-18 16:17	Mike Baggaley ♦630	Hi, pedestrian exclusion on a road requires a specific no pedestrians sign. I'm not local, so can't be sure whether there is a red no pedestrians sign, but if it only has a blue sign indicating certain vehicle types, this does not exclude pedestrians. It seems unlikely that this road would...
	2	2018-10-18 20:26	ndm	Pedestrian crossing is on the adjacent separated footpath as marked on the map.
	3	2018-10-24 12:10	Mike Baggaley ♦630	The point is, that unless there is an explicit prohibition, it is perfectly legal to walk in the road or a cycleway. The map should show what is legal, not what is recommended.
	4	2018-10-25 11:58	trigpoint ♦2,374	Mapillary image here https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/Z8MvACDaZN5PPAnljfVOOA
63291855 by ndm @ 2018-10-07 23:11	1	2018-10-22 11:46	Robert Whittaker ♦274	This changeset added the Post Office https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5965080695 . But there is another amenity=post_office at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/15660773 which is only about 400m away. It's unlikely that both exist on the ground. Do you know if the other one has closed, or if ...
	2	2018-10-22 18:13	ndm	Well, realised it wasn't a separate building part, so demoted it to a POI within the co-op (exact position TBD). As to the other building - looks like it's in an industrial estate from ESRI imagery -- maybe a Royal Mail factity perhaps, rather than a post office per se?
	3	2018-10-22 18:20	Robert Whittaker ♦274	Thanks, I think you're right. On the DigitalGlobe-Premium imagery, you can see lots of red vehicles in the car park. I've updated https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/15660773 accordingly.
63556054 by ndm @ 2018-10-15 20:54	1	2018-10-16 15:13	DaveF ♦1,567	Does the tagging, as is, excludes taxis?
	2	2018-10-16 20:32	ndm	yep, only guided PSVs.
56802379 by ndm @ 2018-03-01 22:22	1	2018-09-03 10:17	spark ♦24	The highway=construction between the M5 junction and highwood lane looks odd, was this intended?
	2	2018-09-03 22:26	ndm	Yes. At the time it was added there was a general linear track with construction vehicles on it. Don't know what was being constructed -- needs a survey :-)
59583986 by ndm @ 2018-06-05 22:54	1	2018-06-06 09:35	DaveF ♦1,567	Hi Neil You've split/duplicated the YMCA https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/594364550 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/39275886 Was this to add the shops as polygons on Broad St?.
	2	2018-06-06 20:43	ndm	Yep, but I didn't have good enough photos to confirm - have stuck the pieces back together.
59565716 by ndm @ 2018-06-05 11:05	1	2018-06-05 14:00	DaveF ♦1,567	Isn't Sacco hair above Found? https://pbs.twimg.com/media/De7sEgAXkAAwjHo.jpg
	2	2018-06-05 17:16	ndm	Don't know -- I had this https://www.flickr.com/photos/155435107@N06/28717108048/in/dateposted-public/lightbox/ -- seems to show "Found" on the left (or at least a display window). Can swap it back if needs be.
	3	2018-06-05 17:25	DaveF ♦1,567	Hi Neil It also shows Found on the right window. Video from Sacco's rear window: https://www.instagram.com/p/BiO0h7ZgXPM/
	4	2018-06-05 21:38	ndm	Cheers. Let me know if you think current version needs modifying.
57646779 by ndm @ 2018-03-29 21:32	1	2018-03-29 21:38	DaveF ♦1,567	Hi The building is a part of the railway any more https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Mills_railway_station#History
	2	2018-03-29 22:49	ndm	Still has Network Rail signage on it :-) https://www.flickr.com/photos/155435107@N06/27230255338/in/dateposted-public/
57255047 by ndm @ 2018-03-16 22:28	1	2018-03-17 16:47	mueschel ♦6,576	Hi, could you check this node? The tag 'sheno' looks like a mistake. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/485403860 Jan
	2	2018-03-17 20:20	ndm	shelter=no
56426254 by ndm @ 2018-02-16 21:23	1	2018-02-17 00:39	DaveF ♦1,567	Very disappointed you deleted my amendments to Cargo 1. If you look at the images on the business's websites you'll notice the Cider Shop & WokyKo are clearly 2 units wide (out of a total of 11). Using Bing imagery (the most up to date) you'll see it can't be that close...
	2	2018-02-17 09:51	ndm	Well, I was a bit disappointed too -- as I counted all the units very carefully on the ground. Anyway, I'm going past today -- so will have a look at how many units each shop really has -- I'll stick a couple of photos on flickr / mapilliary so we can all see. Have used latest Bing i...
	3	2018-02-17 09:53	ndm	Anyway rest of the realignment was a distinct improvement -- glad you deleted all the construction lines :-)
	4	2018-02-17 19:14	ndm	Ok, you're right there are 11 front units, see https://www.flickr.com/photos/155435107@N06/39424835715/in/dateposted-public/ Looking a bit closer I think that the front of yours is probably correct, but units are too large and back extends too far (back of mine is correct). Also first and la...
55426549 by ndm @ 2018-01-14 10:27	1	2018-01-14 12:40	DaveF ♦1,567	Hi Adding layer does work as Garden & Park are rendered with the same colour. This needs to be noted on OSM Carto's github page. Also, I don't think the ruin should have amenity tag as that implies it's a working church. ruins=church, maybe?
	2	2018-01-14 13:16	DaveF ♦1,567	https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/3022#issuecomment-357510876
54745484 by ndm @ 2017-12-19 00:00	1	2017-12-19 00:02	ndm	Modified so buildings aren't grown incorrectly by including the front walls.
53934518 by ndm @ 2017-11-19 22:04	1	2017-12-06 09:31	Mike Baggaley ♦630	Hi, are pedestrians and cycles allowed on any parts of this road? If so, can you change access=no to vehicle=no or motor_vehicle=no as appropriate? Thanks, Mike
	2	2017-12-06 22:50	ndm	If there were pedestrian access it would have a sidewalk tag.
52873600 by ndm @ 2017-10-12 22:40	1	2017-10-12 23:04	DaveF ♦1,567	This is a relocated pharmacy. The FHRS was for it's previous location. I'm in discussion with BANES about the inaccuracy of their database.
	2	2017-10-13 11:21	ndm	Sorry about that -- looked like a good match!
52459779 by ndm @ 2017-09-28 22:29	1	2017-09-29 09:22	DaveF ♦1,567	Hi Neil I think you've used old imagery for the Lamplighters garden: http://tinyurl.com/y73kkgqj
	2	2017-09-29 19:30	ndm	Well obviously I can't use that link :-) http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/52487166 -- is based on more sober reflection and the Digital World Standard Imagery -- which is the only imagery with the overlooking flats in Cottonwick Close. May have to do another survey when it's li...
52370157 by ndm @ 2017-09-26 00:21	1	2017-09-26 10:30	DaveF ♦1,567	Hi Neil Do you think these city based places for amendment? I'm struggling to see Aztec West as a village.
	2	2017-09-27 17:54	ndm	Well, have relabelled the commercial area instead -- but it has a church, doctors, cafes, etc., etc. so village prob' wasn't too far off.
	3	2017-09-27 18:27	DaveF ♦1,567	Sorry, I for got add the Overpass link: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/s1d +Cadbury Heath. Personally I think they should be suburbs, what do you think?
48805860 by ndm @ 2017-05-18 23:05	1	2017-05-19 12:39	DaveF ♦1,567	Is it steps only to the North bank? Seems strange as it was meant to be a shared path.
	2	2017-05-19 22:39	ndm	Hopefully, I have some photos so I can disambiguate it -- I got keen yesterday to see how the GPS track looked compared to my original "by eye" sketch. More importantly I should have info on the south side to connect it to Finzel's reach and get better map routing -- and map a rather ...
42136443 by ndm @ 2016-09-13 21:30	1	2016-09-14 12:03	DaveF ♦1,567	Is this recycling centre open to the public or just for the authority to sort household waste? would it benefit from a 'recycling_type=centre' tag?
	2	2016-09-14 19:09	ndm	Thisi is just a sympathetic cleanup of Changesets 42119601 and 42124023 -- which added a new industrial area and an untagged way that was roughly the same size atop the original larger industrial area. As it happens I've done some mapping here -- by no means is it a recycling facility -- more a...
	3	2016-09-15 22:11	DaveF ♦1,567	Yes, i saw what was edited before you, but he tagged it as Bristol Waste Company & if you google it: http://www.bristolwastecompany.co.uk/ It appears it's recycling, nut unsure if it's for the public to drop stuff off. Note they use OSM in their small map.
41500020 by ndm @ 2016-08-16 21:54	1	2016-08-16 22:21	southglos ♦120	applause
40350206 by ndm @ 2016-06-28 18:36	1	2016-06-28 18:42	ndm	Have redrawn junction after making a lot of notes onsite -- some items were duplicated and some (especially "U-turn lanes" were missing).
38131673 by ndm @ 2016-03-28 23:00	1	2016-03-29 08:13	txlaparta ♦1	Thanks. The validator didn't tell me I was creating a duplicate
14581473 by ndm @ 2013-01-08 23:23	1	2016-03-05 19:39	SomeoneElse ♦13,398	http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/200232398/history has "boat=yes;no" on it. Presumably that's as a result of a previous merge (probably before you edited it) but do you know what is correct here?
	2	2016-03-06 22:01	ndm	I'm guessing it should be no, but that's looking at the adjacent river segments -- it's been ~3 years, probably due a survey?
	3	2016-03-06 22:06	SomeoneElse ♦13,398	Yes - makes sense to me. I've added http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/524167 .
37491450 by ndm @ 2016-02-27 23:31	1	2016-02-27 23:32	ndm	Changeset comment should be postboxes.
34399867 by ndm @ 2015-10-02 23:55	1	2016-01-29 23:35	SomeoneElse ♦13,398	Hope you don't mind - I've changed "Flavour Vapour" here from "shop=vaping" to "e-cigarette", on the assumption that they're equivalent tags. Let me know if you think that's wrong.
25849135 by ndm @ 2014-10-04 10:53	1	2015-12-10 10:34	SK53 ♦864	Aztec West is not a village in any usual sense of the word. I think it would be better just to name the area of the Aztec West business park.
	2	2015-12-10 20:37	ndm	>1000 people, church, doctor, newsagent, 2 different coffee chains, Hotel, pub, ponds... Not entirely clear where Hempton Court, The Quadrant and the rest of the part split. Signage is "Aztec West" not "Aztec West business park". It's the same as "Cribbs Cau...
	3	2015-12-10 21:33	SK53 ♦864	Yes I know its called Aztec West, I have worked there over the years, but unless it's changed a lot it is not a residential area. Lots of industrial/business areas have churches: I can think of over 10 in Nottingham, but it doesnt make them villages.
26558508 by ndm @ 2014-11-04 21:22	1	2015-11-22 21:49	SomeoneElse ♦13,398	Hi - some buildings here have been added as "building=y#" - I'm guessing that that should be building=yes? http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/311168535 is one example - the two to the south are too.
	2	2015-11-24 00:29	ndm	Well spotted -- definitely not intended -- will modify asap.
34997463 by ndm @ 2015-10-31 18:13	1	2015-11-20 21:12	RobJN ♦77	Hi ndm, Thanks for resolving these one-ways. Please don't forget to mark any that you complete as "fixed" using the Traffic Flow Direction plugin so that others don't have to go over the same place. I've marked these fixed now :-) Cheers, Rob
	2	2015-11-21 20:14	ndm	For these I just used the website and JOSM (no plugin) -- couldn't see any way to mark it as done (even now I have the plugin installed).