| 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=noI 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 ♦28 | 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 ♦28 | 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 ♦28 | 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 ♦28 | 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... | |
| 163794241 by Iwerne @ 2025-03-18 22:04 | 1 | 2025-03-18 22:32 | ndm | Reverting this - as it deletes useful housename information. |
| 160523466 by MapSpot @ 2024-12-23 04:45 | 1 | 2024-12-30 19:32 | ndm | This should not be marked as private it is a public road. |
| 2 | 2024-12-31 04:52 | MapSpot ♦96 | Ah, sorry about the confusion. I was a bit misled by the meaning of the tag private=yes on these roadways. I've since fixed the access tags and added some additional lane tags and street-side parking areas. | |
| 156277976 by Ann1 @ 2024-09-06 14:24 | 1 | 2024-09-08 19:51 | ndm | OpenStreetMap is a volunteer-led project, so mapping is dependent on volunteers.Thanks for adding your address.I added the Cavell Road section recently -- walking it with a GPS to get the shape of the roads.Unfortunately, the satellite maps that we are allowed to use aren't up to da... |
| 148189714 by Gorger @ 2024-03-04 05:00 | 1 | 2024-03-04 21:06 | ndm | It's a building passage - coverd isn't a meaningful tag. |
| 2 | 2024-03-06 06:14 | Gorger ♦32 | Hi ndm, Thank you for your feedback. I have changed the data back to its previous version and I will be more cautious in these situations going forwards. | |
| 148191533 by Gorger @ 2024-03-04 06:45 | 1 | 2024-03-04 21:04 | ndm | The footpath is over the shops on layer 1 -- why is it now marked as layer 0? |
| 2 | 2024-03-06 13:31 | Gorger ♦32 | Hi ndm, Thank you for your feedback. I will analyze the situation and come back to you. | |
| 3 | 2024-03-07 06:57 | Gorger ♦32 | Thank you for feedback. Based on your feedback and my reassessment of the situation I have reverted the layer of the footpath back to =1 where it crosses the buildings below. | |
| 139458659 by ndm @ 2023-08-04 21:29 | 1 | 2024-01-20 09:16 | osmuser63783 ♦62 | 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/566039If 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 ♦62 | 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! | |
| 145999079 by Adam Edwards @ 2024-01-07 16:59 | 1 | 2024-01-08 12:26 | ndm | Does cross checking with other maps have any copyright implications? |
| 143064038 by Kosciow @ 2023-10-24 12:58 | 1 | 2023-10-24 20:11 | ndm | Please fix your edit -- Downend Road A432 has been dragged.See https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/17566444 |
| 2 | 2023-10-24 20:24 | ndm | Ok, reverted. | |
| 136967812 by Kosciow @ 2023-06-05 11:21 | 1 | 2023-10-24 20:14 | ndm | Please fix your edit Shaw Road looks like it has had nodes dragged. |
| 2 | 2023-10-24 20:22 | ndm | Have reverted - as it's 5 months old. | |
| 138246169 by sirorezka @ 2023-07-07 22:14 | 1 | 2023-07-08 23:06 | ndm | Please add former buildings to open historic map -- openstreetmap is for current data. |
| 2 | 2023-07-09 12:03 | sirorezka ♦74 | Hi, this is historical grade II listed building known as "Former Leadworks / Leadworks". Thus building has current historic/tourism interest. Previously leadworks wikidata link was added directly to Aquarium amenity. Which in my opinion is incorrect, because "Aquarium" has it... | |
| 3 | 2023-07-09 15:03 | ndm | It loses information, not a great approach - without area information renderers can’t determine which items are most important. I don’t think it really needs mapping - except on open historic map - if it’s that important maybe a relation? I was wondering about simple indoor mapping... | |
| 4 | 2023-07-10 11:10 | sirorezka ♦74 | Sry, didn't get your point ) Could you please give an example. I'm usually looking at this situation in the following perspective:If you are speaking about POI's inside the building - OSM allows to create amenities as areas or points. 1) So you can create one building and then... | |
| 5 | 2023-07-10 21:34 | ndm | I split disparate business units which will have unique addresses into different buildings -- this is akin to splitting terraced houses.Most of the centre of Bristol is mapped this way. If you want to combine separate businesses together then I think you need some sort of relation / other contai... | |
| 136299512 by hadb @ 2023-05-19 13:05 | 1 | 2023-05-19 21:13 | ndm | It's already there as a bakery. |
| 135191926 by Amadeus_AKA @ 2023-04-21 12:41 | 1 | 2023-04-21 20:15 | ndm | These sections cannot be driven by a normal bus -- it needs to be reverted. |
| 135191985 by Amadeus_AKA @ 2023-04-21 12:42 | 1 | 2023-04-21 20:15 | ndm | This section cannot be driven by a normal bus -- it needs to be reverted. |
| 127679754 by achyutha @ 2022-10-17 15:26 | 1 | 2022-10-17 19:39 | ndm | I've reverted this change there are no one-way signs and junctions are 2-way at either end of Crokeswood Walk. |
| 2 | 2022-10-19 06:23 | achyutha ♦2 | Hi, Thank you for reviewing my change set. This is an honest mistake from my end, where I made the edit without checking proper resources. Thanks for highlighting the issue and making the changes. I would ensure not to repeat such errors again. Looking forward to learn more from you.Regards,ac... | |
| 124053842 by Robert Whittaker @ 2022-07-25 13:52 | 1 | 2022-07-26 20:50 | ndm | Surely, the name should be what's on the signage -- which is HSBC.You can see it's not HSBC UK on Bing streetside. |
| 2 | 2022-07-27 07:47 | Robert Whittaker ♦274 | Banking is a regulated industry in the UK. Rule changes that came in around 2019 meant that HSBC had to re-brand its UK retail banking operations, and chose to go with "HSBC UK". The re-branding of branch signage started in 2018, and as far as I know was completed several years ago.So ... | |
| 123637059 by Bramble @ 2022-07-15 06:52 | 1 | 2022-07-15 18:40 | ndm | Have they removed the metal marker? |
| 2 | 2022-07-16 10:01 | Bramble ♦2 | Sorry, I didn't see it. I'm happy to put it back - or you can?Apologies for my error. I was reacting to it being a Viewpoint, which I didn't understand as it comes out as very significant when printing a map of Bristol centre. | |
| 123381547 by Allison P @ 2022-07-08 20:58 | 1 | 2022-07-08 21:26 | s222121 ♦33 | Hello Allison, can you please try to make your changesets smaller? This one covers almost the entire planet! (Except Antarctica) |
| 2 | 2022-07-08 21:48 | Allison P ♦1,136 | That would take hours, and to be fair there are changes on most of the planet, maybe just not most of Asia or Africa. | |
| 3 | 2022-07-09 11:00 | Patrickov ♦103 | I do think that you should at least split into four changes, one in the Americas, one in Europe, one in Asia and one in Africa. Or, one change per language involved. | |
| 4 | 2022-07-09 17:20 | SekeRob ♦1,435 | Seeing this was done in JOSM, I was told you can safe a big edit in JOSM in portions. JIC Allison does not know. :O)Where I am pretty much every semi global edit crosses my long/lat and then these edits sit in my local history view for days on end, at the top. Often page 2 before seeing anything... | |
| 5 | 2022-07-09 18:26 | Allison P ♦1,136 | I am aware that you can highlight certain elements and upload only changes to them. I did this for a bulk edit of these churches once. It took over an hour. It is a lot of work for minimal gain (one less changeset showing up in select QA tools). | |
| 6 | 2022-07-09 23:58 | ndm | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1037045325 ?? | |
| 7 | 2022-07-10 00:10 | Allison P ♦1,136 | I ran the validation and it removed the generic name. No clue why it was marked as a Mormon pharmacy. | |
| 8 | 2023-05-02 18:20 | Xevi ♦36 | Acording to the wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:denomination%3Dmormon) the donomination should be "latter_day_saints" i understant that "latter-day_saints"perhaps is more correct but please, first fix the wiki otherwise the values of denomination are meaningless | |
| 9 | 2025-07-02 13:40 | eisa01 ♦35 | This broke the name of at least one Norwegian church, the spelling was replaced with the Danish versionhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/way/103865877/history | |
| 10 | 2025-07-02 15:55 | Allison P ♦1,136 | Apologies. They were similar enough that I did not even realize they were in separate languages. I went by string similarity. Since I didn't find other features with a Norwegian name in the download, I thought it was a spelling mistake. This was out of linguistic ignorance, not a mechanical edi... | |
| 11 | 2025-07-02 16:53 | eisa01 ♦35 | No worries, I fixed it. Thanks for getting back! | |
| 123257736 by Ahilles @ 2022-07-06 04:40 | 1 | 2022-07-06 11:46 | ndm | Could you please provide more information about this change set - what was the intention? Why are you adding residential ways to an airport? |
| 123205380 by Ahilles @ 2022-07-04 19:41 | 1 | 2022-07-05 22:14 | ndm | Please add more details in your changeset comments -- what has been corrected? |
| 123251972 by Ahilles @ 2022-07-05 21:29 | 1 | 2022-07-05 22:13 | ndm | Pretty sure the roads aren't residential -- where are the houses? |
| 123252646 by Ahilles @ 2022-07-05 22:01 | 1 | 2022-07-05 22:10 | ndm | Looks like you're changing the administrative boundary -- it doesn't seem likely that they need updating. |
| 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... | |
| 122436360 by osmlondon @ 2022-06-15 21:46 | 1 | 2022-06-16 11:41 | ndm | I’ll revert this I surveyed it previously - there’s a clear sidewalk on Bing street side. It breaks routing connectivity. Always best to survey on foot :-) |
| 2 | 2022-06-16 22:23 | ndm | https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=584f7360-0809-4357-bbb3-63603d978425&cp=51.463531~-2.610033&lvl=19&dir=334.8492&pi=-1.5524229&style=x&mo=z.2.53&v=2&sV=2&form=S00027 | |
| 3 | 2022-06-17 21:02 | osmlondon ♦3 | I literally tried to get through here the other day. A random streetview does not show the whole situation. It is closed at night. It is private the rest of the time.I have changed its metadata to reflect this. | |
| 4 | 2022-06-17 21:26 | ndm | It's a route to/from the shopping centre -- so deleting was obviously incorrect. There's no signage that it's closed -- but I guess you second change is probably ok. | |
| 122261237 by DaveF @ 2022-06-11 19:04 | 1 | 2022-06-13 23:46 | ndm | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/138171847voltage=destination :-) |
| 2 | 2022-06-16 18:05 | DaveF ♦1,566 | Oops.Thanks for spotting that & letting me know. | |
| 122002644 by nacharyu @ 2022-06-06 04:21 | 1 | 2022-06-06 22:00 | ndm | You've removed a block that stops entry into University Road -- I noted this two weeks ago -- you are using outdated sources. |
| 2 | 2022-06-06 22:10 | ndm | I've reverted your changes to University Road -- here's a link to a photo 2022-05-28 https://www.flickr.com/photos/155435107@N06/52127769943/in/dateposted-public/ | |
| 122002399 by nacharyu @ 2022-06-06 04:08 | 1 | 2022-06-06 21:55 | ndm | Your edit needs to be reverted -- the satellite imagery is not up to date.Current road is blocked near Queen's Road -- and hence cannot be "oneway=yes" |
| 120299716 by PiersG @ 2022-04-28 10:52 | 1 | 2022-04-28 19:07 | ndm | Wondered if the cashpoint is still viable? |
| 2 | 2022-04-29 12:25 | PiersG ♦6 | It's not. | |
| 119685022 by hooper114 @ 2022-04-13 20:34 | 1 | 2022-04-13 21:14 | ndm | What's the copyright on these S. Glos. council documents -- are you really allowed to copy from them? |
| 2 | 2022-04-14 15:18 | hooper114 ♦3 | Yes! I have simply used the documents to verify the name of the road which is also available from other sources, not make a copy of the documents. A street name is a fact, not a creative work, and thus is not sufficiently substantive to be covered by copyright law. I understand your vigilance but I ... | |
| 3 | 2022-04-14 18:52 | ndm | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trap_street | |
| 4 | 2022-04-15 16:02 | hooper114 ♦3 | OMG really? First you assume I don't know about trap streets. I do. Next, do you really think the council is going to care about mapping data? Finally you can't be bothered to actually communicate.... just copy-paste a URL and move on.... Good job. Nvmd ndm - I was getting bored of OSM any... | |
| 5 | 2022-04-15 20:44 | ndm | Changeset comments aren't great for potentially lengthy replies.I'm sorry you were upset by me posting a Wikipedia link.I'll do a foot survey in the near future. | |
| 119607456 by WalthamCity @ 2022-04-12 07:17 | 1 | 2022-04-13 21:25 | ndm | Is the NHS drop in centre really this shape now? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/125782184 |
| 2 | 2022-04-14 05:58 | WalthamCity ♦16 | Well spotted. It has lost a node! I will put it back. Thanks for your comment. | |
| 119683989 by hooper114 @ 2022-04-13 20:00 | 1 | 2022-04-13 21:15 | ndm | Looks like a dragged node on Elderberry Walk -- there's a very sharp angled spike? |
| 2 | 2022-04-13 21:15 | ndm | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/645769516#map=18/51.50809/-2.60190 | |
| 3 | 2022-04-14 15:23 | hooper114 ♦3 | Fixed with #119718090 | |
| 119613762 by confusedbuffalo @ 2022-04-12 09:57 | 1 | 2022-04-12 22:14 | ndm | You've added an addr:street which doesn't have a named way - that really doesn't seem correct. |
| 2 | 2022-04-13 09:34 | confusedbuffalo ♦333 | It probably needs a path adding in front of the houses, but it's not visible from aerial due to the trees | |
| 118767817 by AlexH1988 @ 2022-03-22 08:32 | 1 | 2022-04-09 22:35 | ndm | I can't see Bing Streetside, or Mapillary imagery -- but Bing seems to show a reasonable verge to walk along.Again, I think sidewalk=no and rather than foot=no would be better. |
| 118355036 by AlexH1988 @ 2022-03-11 09:35 | 1 | 2022-04-09 22:30 | ndm | Can't see any "no pedestrians" signs on Bing Streetside. |
| 118579699 by AlexH1988 @ 2022-03-17 07:53 | 1 | 2022-04-09 22:25 | ndm | It's not strictly a motorway services -- you can access it from the A-roads -- there's even a footpath that looks like it should connect to the services in the north-east. |
| 118354866 by AlexH1988 @ 2022-03-11 09:30 | 1 | 2022-04-09 22:23 | ndm | Can't see any no pedestrian signs on Mapillary -- looks reasonable for horse riders too. |
| 117808103 by Kosciow @ 2022-02-24 11:27 | 1 | 2022-04-09 21:49 | ndm | I'm partially reverting this - the building isn't triangular and road probably doesn't connect directly to the building. |
| 119463933 by AlexH1988 @ 2022-04-08 10:08 | 1 | 2022-04-08 10:30 | ndm | Some of edits seem to be mixing up legal rights, i.e. access - with whether a footpath or a sidewalk is present - which is obviously different :-)Perhaps you could double check that there’s signage explicitly disallowing pedestrians. |
| 2 | 2022-04-08 10:50 | AlexH1988 ♦1 | thanks for the advice. i'll check signage and amend. | |
| 117967268 by Kosciow @ 2022-03-01 06:36 | 1 | 2022-03-01 13:10 | ndm | Why are you marking private roads as access = no |
| 2 | 2022-03-01 13:11 | ndm | Also access is public until the gate | |
| 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. | |
| 111840564 by Falsernet @ 2021-09-28 23:19 | 1 | 2021-09-29 10:44 | ndm | This is miles from Avonmouth, seems an unlikely misleading name. |
| 2 | 2021-10-18 08:42 | Falsernet ♦151 | Tell that to national highways. https://highwaysengland.co.uk/our-work/south-west/m49-avonmouth-junction/ | |
| 111840533 by Falsernet @ 2021-09-28 23:16 | 1 | 2021-09-29 10:42 | ndm | Is this really being constructed now? |
| 2 | 2021-09-30 14:29 | Falsernet ♦151 | Satellite imagery suggested to me that it is but reading more up on the subject, even recent articles suggest that some property business is battling it out with the council (and maybe Highways England too?) over who is responsible for building the road. Beats me. Now that this dumb fiasco has my at... | |
| 111062137 by confusedbuffalo @ 2021-09-11 13:23 | 1 | 2021-09-14 10:28 | ndm | You are changing items that are carefully surveyed - the road signs in Bristol have postcodes on them - that’s what the postal code on the road is signifying - it should be what is signed, I.e. BS9. |
| 2 | 2021-09-14 18:38 | confusedbuffalo ♦333 | Ok, that seems to me like a partial postcode though and therefore much less useful than a full postcode | |
| 3 | 2021-09-14 22:36 | ndm | Roads (ways) don't really have full postcodes - buildings on opposite sides can often have different full postcodes.I'll revert. | |
| 4 | 2021-09-15 12:14 | SK53 ♦864 | Worth noting that in some places road signs will have a full postcode (providing the road is short enough to only have one). Quite common in Nottinghamshire, and perhaps elsewhere. | |
| 5 | 2021-09-15 16:43 | confusedbuffalo ♦333 | And that's why I thought it would be reasonable here as that's sometimes the case near me too and all houses on both sides have the same postcode here.As an aside, I've used postal_code:left and :right where postcodes are different on each side> Roads (ways) don't really... | |
| 6 | 2021-09-15 22:45 | ndm | If you edit roads in the City and County of Bristol and change postal_code then you need to move the signed value to an appropriate tag (signed:postal_code). Or just use addr:postcode if you really want to have the whole postcode somehow associated with the road. Otherwise there will be a loss of su... | |
| 108906353 by Milliams @ 2021-07-30 18:38 | 1 | 2021-08-02 21:07 | ndm | It looks like you've redrawn the recycling centre from the old Bing imagery -- this is before it was refurbished. The previous mapped data you deleted matches the GPX tracks I've surveyed for the new facility with up/down ramps and extra specific recycling area "in the middle", e... |
| 107754959 by cryptickryptos @ 2021-07-10 16:38 | 1 | 2021-07-26 23:15 | ndm | Not sure that the "sidewalk=separate" is really true - sure you've drawn it as a separate way - but in reality there's nothing between the sidewalk and the road. You can cross anywhere. More detail's great but in this case it's likely to confuse pedestrian routers? |
| 2 | 2021-07-27 10:41 | cryptickryptos ♦33 | sidewalk=separate doesn't seem to be specifically for sidewalks physically separated from the street but for any drawn separately, at least not according to the wiki. From https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sidewalk "This road has sidewalks but these are mapped using separate ways.&qu... | |
| 108574471 by PooledResources @ 2021-07-25 17:27 | 1 | 2021-07-26 21:44 | ndm | Is this a recent change -- it's clearly two-way on Bing streetside https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=35581164-8d7e-4d7f-ac8c-c96a3fe92561&cp=51.46837~-2.613307&lvl=19&dir=44.859768&pi=-1.4095678&style=x&mo=z.0&v=2&sV=2&form=S00027 |
| 2 | 2021-07-26 21:58 | PooledResources ♦1 | It's definitely no entry to cars from Whiteladies Road (though bikes can enter) now - walked by it as I logged. I didn't actually spot any one-way signs, so suspect on reflection it is still technically a two-way street. Any advice on how to best record (some debate at https://help.openstr... | |
| 3 | 2021-07-26 22:10 | PooledResources ♦1 | Realised that, as per the link above, a small portion of the road coming off Whiteladies Road had already been marked as one-way. Have reverted my edit for the rest of it: sorry about that, and thanks for spotting. | |
| 4 | 2021-07-26 22:25 | ndm | No worries - just spotted the no-entry except bikes on Mapillary. | |
| 108016016 by aepunavy @ 2021-07-15 05:29 | 1 | 2021-07-16 21:04 | ndm | This needs to be reverted - it's correct as is. |
| 2 | 2021-07-16 21:10 | ndm | Ok, so this is correct -- no like the other times mapbox have editted this street. | |
| 107480394 by priymose @ 2021-07-06 08:10 | 1 | 2021-07-12 19:45 | ndm | Redrawn slightly - service road was going through a pitch/playground. |
| 2 | 2021-07-14 14:06 | priymose ♦23 | Hi ndm, I have used Bing aerial imagery to make the edit as it was the most aligned imagery. Thanks for correcting the geometry. Regards,priymose. | |
| 107513485 by cryptickryptos @ 2021-07-06 17:47 | 1 | 2021-07-06 20:00 | ndm | Is this a new oneway -- can't see it on Bing streetside -- and Bing "satellite" imagery clearly shows cars facing both directions. |
| 2 | 2021-07-14 11:30 | cryptickryptos ♦33 | Sorry for the delay. Yes, this seems to be recent, there are no entry signs where the street joins Stapleton Road now. Satellite imagery shows recent road narrowing, perhaps the imagery is from before the one way system began. Or it's just showing the type of drivers in this area. | |
| 107513881 by Mike Baggaley @ 2021-07-06 17:54 | 1 | 2021-07-06 19:54 | ndm | Probably needs reverting - rest of the "round road" is a roundabout. |
| 2 | 2021-07-06 23:13 | Mike Baggaley ♦630 | Hadn't realised I'd only changed half the roundabout. Have now changed the rest of it to circular. | |
| 107280420 by skadge @ 2021-07-01 21:32 | 1 | 2021-07-02 19:34 | ndm | I think the name tag is more of a description? |
| 107233861 by madnikhi @ 2021-07-01 02:12 | 1 | 2021-07-02 19:18 | ndm | Redrawing - I think you've put the road through a building (on Bing). |
| 2 | 2021-07-06 06:32 | madnikhi ♦18 | Hi ndm, Apologies for the genuine miss from my end. The building was quite not clear from the aerial imagery and I mistook it to be a heavy vehicle as there is no photo overlay. Thanks for correcting my edit. Good day!Regards,madnikhi | |
| 106101548 by OneLoneRanger @ 2021-06-09 14:24 | 1 | 2021-06-09 21:09 | ndm | Did you survey this stop https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/485403949You've removed the (B5) from the name which is typically shown on timetimable information on Bristol bus stops. Note previous information was a specific survey of bus stop names, so I'm surprised it's changed. |
| 2 | 2021-06-09 21:16 | ndm | May need to zoom in - but looks like a B5 on painted bus stop name https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=51.4565656700074&lng=-2.593537975946745&z=19.56796359863698&pKey=yobDg-fV_YoYj3hvRN_lgg&focus=photo&x=0.5077693495755636&y=0.526728348859028&zoom=0 | |
| 3 | 2021-06-10 08:47 | OneLoneRanger ♦16 | My mistake just a merge issue JOSM and deselecting the name tag. The nearest NaPTAN stop to node 485403949 has the AtcoCode of \t010000057, the common name of just "Nelson Street" and the indicator B5, when merging the tags the name tag was not deselected so it had overridden the OSM v... | |
| 106035939 by kartonage @ 2021-06-08 12:38 | 1 | 2021-06-08 20:56 | ndm | Changeset comment seems odd? |
| 2 | 2021-06-09 03:46 | kartonage ♦987 | Hej,the modified object in this changeset was an area object that wasnot completely closed although should be to work correctly. w1922557391 was not a closed area so the Blackberry Hill Hospital was not rendering.I suggest looking at it via OSMcha (https://osmcha.org/changesets/106035939/ or... | |
| 106036046 by kartonage @ 2021-06-08 12:39 | 1 | 2021-06-08 20:55 | ndm | Changeset comment seems odd? |
| 2 | 2021-06-09 03:42 | kartonage ♦987 | Hej,the modified objects in this changeset were area objects that did were not completely closed although should be to work correctly. w68113634 is a landuse and was not fully closed and therefor couldn't be rendered and w168520362 was a short building line that was seemingly left from a sp... | |
| 105831329 by Jez Nicholson @ 2021-06-04 10:19 | 1 | 2021-06-04 18:18 | ndm | It's 99% the wrong plaque/place -- it's nowhere near the "Chapel of the Three Kings" or "Foster's Almshouses" see https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/123978470 |
| 2 | 2021-06-05 11:29 | Jez Nicholson ♦71 | Oh! Thanks for spotting Neil. I must have been having an off day. OpenPlaque 55158 is clearly over near Christmas Steps. This one is John Foster's former house, but not sure what the inscription says. - Jez | |
| 105821599 by NastassiaKalesnikava @ 2021-06-04 07:51 | 1 | 2021-06-04 15:13 | ndm | You’ve broken the no u turn restriction which is what is signed, so I’ll revert this. |
| 2 | 2021-06-04 15:42 | NastassiaKalesnikava ♦61 | Hi, ndm!Thank you for your comment. I forgot to delete the wrong restriction that consists only two members. For now everything is fixed. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/105847923#map=18/51.53050/-2.56961 | |
| 105712708 by PRICEWECA @ 2021-06-02 08:08 | 1 | 2021-06-02 18:36 | ndm | Please don't make changes without surveying - Naptan data is likely inaccurate wrt the actual bus stop signage. If you want to add an "official_name" then please do so, but don't change what's been captured from on the ground surveys. |
| 2 | 2021-06-03 07:11 | PRICEWECA ♦3 | I hold the naptan dataset- as this is my job to keep it up to date on behalf of the highway authority. The edits that have bean made are inline with the most recent edits I just made to the data set. | |
| 3 | 2021-06-03 07:57 | ndm | You’re misunderstanding OpenStreetMap - we map what’s on the ground and visible - not what’s in some database. Anyway I’ve added notes so that other mappers will check what’s present on the ground, I.e. ground truth. | |
| 4 | 2021-06-03 08:04 | PRICEWECA ♦3 | You misunderstand what I am saying. I manage the data which also means that I update the on street information. | |
| 5 | 2021-06-03 14:58 | ndm | So you’ve repainted the signage, or changed the electronic display, or changed the names on the paper timetables - and those match data in OpenStreetMap. If so, fantastic. | |
| 6 | 2021-06-03 15:22 | PRICEWECA ♦3 | Please be polite. The paper name on the timetable matches the data. The naptan number is in the bottom right hand side of the timetable on street has now been included - for reference it is now included on every paper timetable stop in the city. The real time information was updated last night v... | |
| 7 | 2021-06-03 21:20 | ndm | Bus stop names in Bristol don't necessarily match Naptan data - especially the old painted signs.Even the Metro bus painted signs don't include the local_ref. although their paper timetables do seem to include it.I don't want to have to revert changes where I've carefully... | |
| 8 | 2021-06-03 21:21 | ndm | If you could also please observe https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines that would be great -- at least then there's be an email address I can contact. | |
| 105672940 by PRICEWECA @ 2021-06-01 10:53 | 1 | 2021-06-01 18:32 | ndm | The changes to the over bridge seem to be incorrect - I'll revert them.access=Yes is meaninglessbicycle=yes is already implicit for UK highways, as is motor_vehicle=yes, foot=yes and horse=yes.I'll remove the redundant tags |
| 2 | 2021-06-02 07:55 | PRICEWECA ♦3 | Please can you explain why you are removing redundant but correct, tags? | |
| 3 | 2021-06-02 08:30 | ndm | You’ve answered your own question. Plus, Yes != yes. And JOSM validator will complains about motor_vehicle=yes on a standard highway — so it’s not just me. If your system is relying on irrelevant, incorrect or redundant tagging then you’ll have to add them to all Bristol road... | |
| 4 | 2021-06-02 08:37 | ndm | Btw you probably need to follow the commercial mapping guidelines if you’re not editing in a personal capacity. | |
| 105503761 by roryqueenan @ 2021-05-28 16:41 | 1 | 2021-05-28 20:27 | ndm | A descriptive changeset comment helps all local mappers - what did you change here? Or was it a mistake and it should be reverted? |
| 65855858 by ndm @ 2018-12-29 00:10 | 1 | 2021-05-27 18:30 | southglos ♦120 | HiyaI 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 :-) | |
| 105237089 by foxysrider @ 2021-05-24 15:35 | 1 | 2021-05-24 20:58 | ndm | This looks like a duplicate of the parking aisle. |
| 2 | 2021-05-24 21:08 | foxysrider ♦4 | the cycle route goes through the car park | |
| 3 | 2021-05-24 23:20 | ndm | There shouldn't be overlaping ways for the same item - just add "bicycle=yes" to the existing parking lane. | |
| 105230408 by foxysrider @ 2021-05-24 13:35 | 1 | 2021-05-24 22:11 | ndm | "access=no" means no one can legally access this service road -- which seems odd. Maybe "service=private" was intended? |
| 105230651 by foxysrider @ 2021-05-24 13:38 | 1 | 2021-05-24 22:09 | ndm | It seems odd to have a cycleway with "bicycle=no" did you survey this? |
| 105231278 by foxysrider @ 2021-05-24 13:49 | 1 | 2021-05-24 22:07 | ndm | I've corrected a long node drag from this changeset -- seems like it might not be the only one. |
| 105237348 by foxysrider @ 2021-05-24 15:40 | 1 | 2021-05-24 21:31 | ndm | This looks like a bmx-style racetrack, rather than a track for agricultural vehicles -- did you survey this? |
| 105239046 by foxysrider @ 2021-05-24 16:18 | 1 | 2021-05-24 21:25 | ndm | There's no one-way markings visible on satellite imagery, given tree cover. Bing shows it as a cul-de-sac from A366 (necessarily two-way) https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=f70f66a5-0f98-4376-b48c-bcb9533cd932&cp=51.314973~-2.299937&lvl=19&dir=302.45245&pi=-6.536615&style=x&... |
| 105154402 by BCNorwich @ 2021-05-23 06:57 | 1 | 2021-05-23 13:43 | ndm | A descriptive change set comment helps other mappers especially with ones covering a large area. What did you change? |
| 2 | 2021-05-23 14:12 | BCNorwich ♦4,856 | Hi, You can easily see what was changed by looking at the three ways below. I added a description to a path, amended another path and a grass area.The large changeset area was inadvertent. Regards Bernard. | |
| 105157049 by roryqueenan @ 2021-05-23 08:51 | 1 | 2021-05-23 13:42 | ndm | A descriptive changeset comment helps other local mappers - what did you change? |
| 105157766 by PiersG @ 2021-05-23 09:14 | 1 | 2021-05-23 13:40 | ndm | You’ve removed amenity=hospital so it won’t be considered as a hospital now |
| 105030817 by hooper114 @ 2021-05-20 13:02 | 1 | 2021-05-21 23:24 | ndm | Not really a good reason to delete it, just because its private (add access=private) -- but it was definitely a bit rubbish as was -- so have had another go :-) |
| 2 | 2021-05-22 20:50 | hooper114 ♦3 | Perhaps that should have been "remove private footpath because it goes through a house and is clearly wrong". Thank you for correcting. | |
| 104881526 by Tim Rawling @ 2021-05-18 10:07 | 1 | 2021-05-18 22:19 | ndm | I don't think many routing apps would notice a wall drawn like that -- might have to break the way and have a real gap, well unless there's a gate or something in the wall. |
| 104778444 by Luke H @ 2021-05-16 17:20 | 1 | 2021-05-16 22:48 | ndm | Seems odd -- it's inside CM3 ? |
| 2 | 2021-05-16 22:52 | Luke H ♦1 | I placed the mark based on the satellite image so it might be slightly off. It's partially covered by the roof of the building but not inside. | |
| 104672871 by fredley @ 2021-05-14 08:06 | 1 | 2021-05-15 22:37 | ndm | Some of the landuse seems to overlap other landuse which is unusual -- plus the grass going through the bingo building looks odd? |
| 104700640 by fredley @ 2021-05-14 17:51 | 1 | 2021-05-15 22:35 | ndm | FYI you modified an admin boundary when you added scrubland - probably best to avoid. Some of the scrub looks more like allotments.Whole area is scheduled for housing in the near future. |
| 104729437 by roryqueenan @ 2021-05-15 11:41 | 1 | 2021-05-15 22:33 | ndm | FYI you modified an admin boundary by joining a forest to it -- probably best to avoid. |
| 104729154 by roryqueenan @ 2021-05-15 11:36 | 1 | 2021-05-15 22:32 | ndm | Looks more like a trampoline on Bing? |
| 104729281 by roryqueenan @ 2021-05-15 11:38 | 1 | 2021-05-15 22:31 | ndm | Really looks like trees on Bing? |
| 104355475 by Mike Baggaley @ 2021-05-08 08:55 | 1 | 2021-05-08 21:29 | ndm | Why have you removed the bus-only tagging https://www.mapillary.com/app/?focus=photo&pKey=DZ6C024e0nUGfdPEEkLuBL&lat=51.499329982373396&lng=-2.4796254560374464&z=17&x=0.4861360520140399&y=0.6484835871922798&zoom=0 |
| 2 | 2021-05-08 21:34 | Mike Baggaley ♦630 | I have not removed the bus only tagging. The sign does not prohibit pedestrians or horses, only vehicles other than buses, which are still prohibited in my tagging - see bicycle=no and motor_vehicle=no. | |
| 104350859 by hooper114 @ 2021-05-08 06:10 | 1 | 2021-05-08 21:18 | ndm | Squared up the buildings in JOSM - looks like "Q" is also the shortcum in iD. |
| 2 | 2021-05-08 21:18 | ndm | shortcut | |
| 104274405 by steph321 @ 2021-05-06 20:53 | 1 | 2021-05-06 21:01 | ndm | A good changeset comment would be useful to help other local mappers. |
| 2 | 2021-05-06 21:03 | ndm | landuse=yes isn't really helpful -- maybe this should be reverted -- especially since the changeset comment is "odd". | |
| 104145179 by ndm @ 2021-05-04 20:24 | 1 | 2021-05-05 13:22 | SekeRob ♦1,435 | hiany 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? | |
| 104120337 by AMonkster @ 2021-05-04 11:28 | 1 | 2021-05-04 19:08 | ndm | Looks like you removed the building=sports_centre tag -- so BAWA no longer registers as a building. |
| 2 | 2021-05-04 19:21 | ndm | Added it back :-) | |
| 103865745 by ALu68 @ 2021-04-29 19:24 | 1 | 2021-04-29 23:08 | ndm | Not landuse=commercial -- there is no commerce, it's for park maintenancelanduse=industrial mentions workshops -- which is closer. Alternatively, landuse=depot. |
| 2 | 2021-05-01 08:12 | ALu68 ♦360 | Hello ndm, Maintenance means service - commercial use, but it's not a depot."Commercial landuse mainly deals with services and trade" .. "no goods are produced""Commercial landuse mainly deals with services and trade"https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wik... | |
| 3 | 2021-05-01 09:53 | ndm | No services are offered and nothing is traded, I will revert. | |
| 4 | 2021-05-01 11:43 | ALu68 ♦360 | And which goods are produced? | |
| 103865593 by ALu68 @ 2021-04-29 19:19 | 1 | 2021-04-29 23:07 | ndm | Not landuse=commercial -- there is no commerce, it's for bridge maintenancelanduse=industrial mentions workshops -- which is closer. Alternatively, landuse=depot. |
| 102817200 by tf808962q @ 2021-04-12 16:37 | 1 | 2021-04-12 19:48 | ndm | Inconsistent tags compared with https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8623168229/historyoperator:MNC versus provider:MNC, etc. |
| 2 | 2021-04-12 19:50 | ndm | Also https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8620964963 | |
| 102217880 by DaveF @ 2021-04-02 22:04 | 1 | 2021-04-03 20:05 | ndm | Working well -- there haven't been any avalanches. |
| 2 | 2021-04-03 20:31 | DaveF ♦1,566 | How about suicide jumpers, the unofficial reason it was constructed?Rockfall being the official one, | |
| 101559460 by southglos @ 2021-03-23 09:06 | 1 | 2021-03-23 20:24 | ndm | Could you please add back the traffic island into Pennywell Road that's visible on Bing - it also seems to be visible on your Mapillary image :-) |
| 2 | 2021-03-23 20:46 | southglos ♦120 | Pennywell Road didn't have the split flare at the end, just joined Lawfords Gate at an angle. So I haven't deleted an island, just didn't add one. I'm usually hesitant to add islands, as I don't really feel highway=pedestrian is right for a traffic island. landuse=traf... | |
| 3 | 2021-03-23 20:57 | ndm | My bad -- it's a definite improvement. | |
| 100714419 by vladimir_gnedko @ 2021-03-09 13:30 | 1 | 2021-03-09 21:20 | ndm | No street name. Conditional is broken. Did you really survey this? Did you add a note for local mappers to check it? |
| 2 | 2021-03-10 11:10 | vladimir_gnedko ♦1 | I have done this editing according information from mapillary and driver's feedbackI used this example for OSM WIKIhttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictionshttps://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=pbbZIF4PYRR0UWt6Ahv7mg&focus=photoI have just added motor_vehicle... | |
| 3 | 2021-03-10 11:13 | vladimir_gnedko ♦1 | Sorry, i saw my mistake and thank you for editing | |
| 100284424 by Bince @ 2021-03-02 13:43 | 1 | 2021-03-02 22:22 | ndm | This seems that you are "tagging for the renderer". track would normally be for ways that vehicles (maybe tractors, or 4x4's) could use. path is just for non-motorised transport - foot, bicycle and horse. |
| 100281743 by Bince @ 2021-03-02 12:56 | 1 | 2021-03-02 22:19 | ndm | What was changed? The comment's not very clear. |
| 100283284 by Bince @ 2021-03-02 13:23 | 1 | 2021-03-02 22:19 | ndm | What was changed? The comment's not very clear. |
| 100286435 by Bince @ 2021-03-02 14:23 | 1 | 2021-03-02 22:18 | ndm | What was changed? The comment's not very clear. |
| 100286496 by Bince @ 2021-03-02 14:24 | 1 | 2021-03-02 22:18 | ndm | What was changed? The comment's not very clear. |
| 99051053 by Roman Oleynik @ 2021-02-10 15:32 | 1 | 2021-02-10 20:57 | ndm | Only one short section is one way -- on Bing Streetside. |
| 2 | 2021-02-11 07:19 | Roman Oleynik ♦8 | Hello, ndm! I'll revert this change. | |
| 98976962 by back_spin @ 2021-02-09 12:28 | 1 | 2021-02-09 22:48 | ndm | Remove restrictions - added oneway as visible on Bing Streetside. |
| 98998111 by Emilydean01 @ 2021-02-09 20:07 | 1 | 2021-02-09 21:48 | ndm | Looks like the salon was added twice and some roads got dragged about a bit - will try to fix. |
| 2 | 2021-02-09 23:30 | Emilydean01 ♦1 | Thank you | |
| 98765931 by andrewwbarry @ 2021-02-05 11:52 | 1 | 2021-02-05 19:34 | ndm | A more detailed changeset comment would be great - and help other local mappers.You seem to have added 4 new universities to Bristol which seems odd - and removed buidling tags from buildings which again seems odd.I'm going to tweak the name and add the building tags back. I'll try... |
| 98466991 by Nathan_A_RF @ 2021-01-31 21:10 | 1 | 2021-02-01 22:26 | ndm | removed a footpath to avoid the mini-roundabout https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=f8d63762-95a8-496b-97b5-5b15c4a251cf&cp=51.507332~-2.630896&lvl=19&dir=260.5512&pi=-1.4445857&style=x&mo=om.1~z.0&v=2&sV=2&form=S00027 Other modifications seem ok. |
| 98470703 by Nathan_A_RF @ 2021-01-31 23:48 | 1 | 2021-02-01 22:19 | ndm | 98470703 seems problematic in that motorists will have less/no time to turn due to the elongated road-marking influenced joins.Will revert back to the previous version that followed https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions#Divided_highways |
| 98466310 by Nathan_A_RF @ 2021-01-31 20:49 | 1 | 2021-02-01 22:17 | ndm | 98466310 - removes oneway (although markings suggest they should be oneway - in the same exit direction -- although Bing car seems to drive in?) https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=4f042376-e4ca-4694-a761-a708eb764658&cp=51.491744~-2.679992&lvl=19&dir=305.23654&pi=-24.748507&style=x&a... |
| 98466425 by Nathan_A_RF @ 2021-01-31 20:52 | 1 | 2021-02-01 22:14 | ndm | There must be a way to map this without requiring entrance onto the roundabout.This is incorrect as this removes any way of avoiding the roundabout -- which is what the inside 2 lanes are for https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=ff2b1106-3af2-42d7-8f9d-a79a6b075137&cp=51.497792~-2.690791&lvl=1... |
| 2 | 2021-02-01 22:16 | ndm | Given that the inside lanes have no give way -- that would at least make this junction=circular? | |
| 98466571 by Nathan_A_RF @ 2021-01-31 20:56 | 1 | 2021-02-01 22:13 | ndm | I've unglued the political boundary from the service road. |
| 98467604 by Nathan_A_RF @ 2021-01-31 21:30 | 1 | 2021-02-01 22:04 | ndm | This now seems to incorrectly allow a right turn from Rownham Hill to Bridge Road (see double white lines https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=0ebb4649-a299-4e13-8e13-a87d46e19b81&cp=51.451654~-2.636361&lvl=19&dir=265.55078&pi=-10.58628&style=x&mo=z.0&v=2&sV=2&form=S000... |
| 98467406 by Nathan_A_RF @ 2021-01-31 21:24 | 1 | 2021-02-01 22:01 | ndm | I've added back the oneway that applies to most motor vehicles. |
| 98466040 by Nathan_A_RF @ 2021-01-31 20:41 | 1 | 2021-01-31 22:05 | ndm | I have already asked on talk-gb and was assured that whilst this may be viewed as micromapping it was still a valid approach.It would be great if you could consult the wiki -- in particular https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing:island which notes that there are tagging schemes that al... |
| 2 | 2021-01-31 23:44 | Nathan_A_RF ♦219 | The wiki does not suggest that every single traffic island should be mapped as two-one way roads. For larger or unique islands this may be acceptable but for single islands like the ones I corrected this adds nothing compared to a single point marked with the relevant island tag, not to mention the ... | |
| 3 | 2021-02-01 21:34 | ndm | I believe that in general the https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions#Divided_highways applies -- "A divided highway (also separated highway) is any highway where traffic flows are physically separated by a barrier..." and "Divided highways should be dr... | |
| 4 | 2021-02-01 21:38 | ndm | It is possible that small gaps, e.g. < 1 typical car length might be mapped with a node -- provided that routing is not adversely affected. | |
| 5 | 2021-02-01 21:56 | ndm | However, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions#Divided_highways says "If a road has a small traffic island (eg at the approach to a large roundabout) should this be represented as a triangle or not? How big should it be before it should be drawn? You can d... | |
| 98467063 by Nathan_A_RF @ 2021-01-31 21:12 | 1 | 2021-02-01 20:05 | ndm | Fine. |
| 98300143 by Herbie Challice @ 2021-01-28 13:38 | 1 | 2021-01-28 19:34 | ndm | Thanks for adding 4 semi-detached houses in Bristol - very hard to see that when the changeset is so large - always good to save each local edit before the next one.I'm going to tweak the Bristol houses slightly so that they share a joint wall and square them up -- there's usually a se... |
| 98220962 by Welshie @ 2021-01-27 10:22 | 1 | 2021-01-27 19:30 | ndm | The previous alignment was closer to the GPX tracks I walked -- I think there's probably an offset to the imagery. |
| 2 | 2021-01-27 19:47 | Welshie ♦28 | Having looked at other GPS traces in the system, it looks like the current alignment is in the middle of the logged GPX tracks. As and when we get more data (GPX and imagery), we could perhaps improve it further. | |
| 3 | 2021-01-27 19:49 | Welshie ♦28 | Current Bing imagery of this area appears to be well aligned with nearby features from multiple data sources, GPX and other suitably-licenced maps. | |
| 4 | 2021-01-27 19:58 | ndm | The modifications look about 2-3 metres south -- I'll fix if I get time. | |
| 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" :-) | |
| 98166772 by Dan12345678 @ 2021-01-26 13:23 | 1 | 2021-01-26 22:02 | ndm | Near Wooten Road, the track looks like it goes through the corner of a garden and maybe somthing like a substation / gas small green box (on Bing).Maybe its old imagery? |
| 98154267 by JDennis @ 2021-01-26 06:34 | 1 | 2021-01-26 11:20 | ndm | Look like a bad idea to delete carefully surveyed on the ground routes using Strava copyrighted information. |
| 2 | 2021-01-26 12:08 | JDennis ♦1 | As far as I'm aware OpenStreetMap users still have permission to make use of the Strava heatmap data (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Permissions/Strava).As regarding the accuracy of the paths previously mapped, I walk and run in the path plenty, and know of many marked paths which have... | |
| 97994136 by MacLondon @ 2021-01-22 19:46 | 1 | 2021-01-22 19:58 | ndm | Or maybe also add a man_made=bridge drawn "underneath" with a "real" name -- in case it gets deleted again? |
| 97994159 by ndm @ 2021-01-22 19:46 | 1 | 2021-01-22 19:48 | ndm | See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing#Accessibility |
| 97946315 by Nathan_A_RF @ 2021-01-22 05:58 | 1 | 2021-01-22 08:54 | ndm | Good job on the euro route, but ncn 4 looks very short now? |
| 2 | 2021-01-23 02:13 | DaveF ♦1,566 | This section should be part of https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1318928You've added it to the super relation 1318931 which should only contain other relations. | |
| 97656990 by Nathan_A_RF @ 2021-01-18 00:45 | 1 | 2021-01-18 20:11 | ndm | You're removing/changing stuff that was carefully surveyed on foot -- at least check on Mapillary before modifying things -- will revert items as necessary (again). |
| 2 | 2021-01-21 19:38 | ndm | Your edit broke two major cycle routes:https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1318928andhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5479822Please fix if you can. If not see if I can. | |
| 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=S00027Inside lane doesn't enter the roundabout - so mapping as a separate way (even though ... |
| 97855985 by Nathan_A_RF @ 2021-01-20 18:30 | 1 | 2021-01-21 00:23 | ndm | I cnsider these edits to be vandalising the map and removing useful changes -- I have reverted it. You are removing islands and road flares that exist and have been carefully surveyed. |
| 2 | 2021-01-21 00:25 | ndm | Ok, if you have any reasonable excuse then please explain yourself. | |
| 3 | 2021-01-21 14:03 | Nathan_A_RF ♦219 | Firstly it is not up to you to consider what is right and wrong, that's determined by the wiki. If you look here https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing:island and here https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:traffic_calming%3Disland you will see that islands of the type I corrected sh... | |
| 4 | 2021-01-21 14:32 | ndm | The wiki is supposed to document best practice and de facto mapping styles - it’s obviously missing the idea of micro mapping islands and geometry. I think there’s probably a reasonable approach that will match both the macro and micro mapping styles - I’ll try that and see how it ... | |
| 97854907 by Nathan_A_RF @ 2021-01-20 18:01 | 1 | 2021-01-21 00:30 | ndm | Why? You're deleting useful info -- it may not be relevant to you but the number of lanes was a physical fact -- you can see it on Mapillary. If you have any excuse then please explain yourself. |
| 97856699 by Nathan_A_RF @ 2021-01-20 18:53 | 1 | 2021-01-21 00:27 | ndm | I cnsider these edits to be vandalising the map and removing useful changes. You are removing islands and road flares that exist and have been carefully surveyed.if you have any reasonable excuse then please explain yourself. |
| 97788745 by ndm @ 2021-01-19 19:17 | 1 | 2021-01-19 20:26 | ndm | Added back a few good bits. |
| 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=photohttps://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=51.54126844787473&lng=-2.631421718792012&z=14.918503348990576&pKey=qO2rk5OU1CSJNp6o3KDwSQ&focus=photohtt... |
| 2 | 2021-01-20 04:47 | DaveF ♦1,566 | If there's no vehicle access, it's not a service road anymore. | |
| 97771310 by ZhenyaBarashko @ 2021-01-19 13:10 | 1 | 2021-01-19 19:23 | ndm | You need to adjust your imagery to match the current map rather than just drawing outside of the parking area. |
| 97775869 by Nathan_A_RF @ 2021-01-19 14:37 | 1 | 2021-01-19 15:20 | ndm | It’s planned by the council but the responsible developer is not proposing to build it. Should be deleted. https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/incredibly-frustrating-delay-50m-bristol-4870185 |
| 2 | 2021-01-19 16:03 | Nathan_A_RF ♦219 | It is definitely proposed and has been for years otherwise the motorway junction would never have been built. The owners of the land won't build it yet is the only thing, hence it is not under construction but proposed. | |
| 97499758 by willisturm @ 2021-01-14 14:08 | 1 | 2021-01-14 22:15 | ndm | If you keep deleting information I will have to ask that you are blocked by the DWG. |
| 2 | 2021-01-14 22:35 | ndm | Ok, so you moved the info to a newer building that doesn't really have that name. If it's really obvious it isn't a typo, then just add a note -- don't just modify it -- let local mappers check.I'm only grumpy because this is the second time you've modified stuff wi... | |
| 96969440 by willisturm @ 2021-01-05 10:12 | 1 | 2021-01-05 19:20 | ndm | Did you recently survey it? Is this removed now? |
| 2 | 2021-01-06 20:47 | ndm | Ok, I've added this back. | |
| 3 | 2021-01-12 17:13 | willisturm ♦55 | Hi ndmI removed it, because there was an error: highway=tram_post was wrong. There are still errors: Man_made=post does not exist in OSM. Railway=tram must be a way, not a node. Do you mean railway=tram_stop? I can't see a tram_stop. If you mean the monument, this is historic=pillory (look at... | |
| 4 | 2021-01-12 17:30 | ndm | OpenStreetMap uses free form tags the wiki is purely for information you should not remove information that is valid, but not defined in the wiki. | |
| 5 | 2021-01-12 23:37 | ndm | https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=3c212b41-b017-454d-b918-b8d03eba7dcf&cp=51.448859~-2.584636&lvl=19&dir=51.95298&pi=2.8457613&style=x&mo=om.1~z.0.48&v=2&sV=2&form=S00027 -- It used to hold the electric cable when Bristol had a tram system. | |
| 97384292 by David Cundy @ 2021-01-12 15:52 | 1 | 2021-01-12 23:33 | ndm | This deletion flagged up on my radar -- so I've added the two driveways as requested -- so that there's no information loss. |
| 97344415 by amanura @ 2021-01-12 05:37 | 1 | 2021-01-12 22:21 | ndm | You really ought to look at the existing map data before you start editing and align your imagery with existing data. |
| 2 | 2021-01-12 22:22 | ndm | I've redrawn the service roads | |
| 3 | 2021-01-14 03:08 | amanura ♦14 | Thanks for looking into our edits. Apologies for the misalignment. It is good to see the community improvising our edits. Going forward, I will make sure to prioritize the vicinity over the clear imagery. Thanks for your suggestions. Always happy to learn from the community. | |
| 97357708 by amanura @ 2021-01-12 08:56 | 1 | 2021-01-12 21:35 | ndm | You have connected a highway to a landuse -- maybe you could use a filter when you edit next time -- I have redrawn it. |
| 2 | 2021-01-14 03:07 | amanura ♦14 | Thanks for checking into our edits. Apologies for the wrong connectivity. It is good to see the community improvising our edit quality. Thanks for the correction. Always happy to learn from the community | |
| 97358503 by pravallg @ 2021-01-12 09:07 | 1 | 2021-01-12 21:32 | ndm | Your edits are ignoring the buildings already on the map (that were probably drawn with ESRI clarity) -- you really, really should adjust your imagery before you start to draw features using other imagery. |
| 2 | 2021-01-13 16:02 | pravallg ♦16 | Thanks for checking into our edits. Apologies, I have overlooked the imagery and added the road. Thanks for the quick correction. I will take this as a learning from the community and make sure to add the roads in correspondence to the vicinity in my future edits. Always happy to learn from the comm... | |
| 97297154 by kotamadh @ 2021-01-11 10:10 | 1 | 2021-01-11 20:53 | ndm | Buildings are drawn carefully using ESRI clarity -- if they don't match the imagery you are using you need to apply an image offset.I have moved the service road to match the existing 100s of buildings. |
| 2 | 2021-01-12 16:03 | kotamadh ♦6 | Thanks for checking into our edits. Apologies for the misalignment. I have missed checking the alignment of the surrounding buildings. thanks for the improvisation. I will take this as a learning from the community and make sure to implement it in my future edits. Always happy to learn from the com... | |
| 97323575 by tishbh @ 2021-01-11 18:07 | 1 | 2021-01-11 19:33 | ndm | Not a service road - two separate driveways to two separate garages. |
| 2 | 2021-01-12 14:59 | tishbh ♦1 | Thanks for checking into our edits. i have made the edits based on the available imagery. it is good to see the community improvising our edits with the local knowledge. always happy to learn from the community. | |
| 97224825 by jampants @ 2021-01-09 18:43 | 1 | 2021-01-09 23:25 | ndm | I've added back the service road that you deleted - without re-adding the connection. |
| 97165878 by baggg @ 2021-01-08 11:19 | 1 | 2021-01-08 19:56 | ndm | Really odd change - have a public service road surrounded by private service roads -- doesn't really make sense? |
| 2 | 2021-01-13 06:15 | baggg ♦4 | thanks for checking into our edits. i have not modified the access as i do not have the supporting resources to validate it. i completely align with your verdict, thanks for the suggestions. please find the changeset (97413867) for the suggested improvisation. always happy to learn from the communit... | |
| 97113048 by Tyntesfield @ 2021-01-07 13:43 | 1 | 2021-01-08 19:40 | ndm | The public footpath is not permissive -- this changeset should be reverted -- see https://www.rowmaps.com/showmap.php?place=51.4417%2C-2.7101&map=OS&lat=51.441700&lon=2.7101&lonew=W |
| 2 | 2021-01-08 19:43 | ndm | Putting bicycle=no means that even National Trust members aren't allowed to cycle to Tyntesfield -- which seems very strange and eco-unfriendly. | |
| 3 | 2021-01-11 08:44 | Tyntesfield ♦1 | This path goes through estate grounds, where there is a no cycling rule to protect the conservation of the area. Visitors are welcome to approach by cycle on the main road or via the NCN Festival way. | |
| 4 | 2021-01-11 08:46 | trigpoint ♦2,373 | However a PROW should be tagged as foot=yes, it is not permissive as it is a legal right of way. | |
| 96911769 by ambakum @ 2021-01-04 13:24 | 1 | 2021-01-04 23:46 | ndm | Must be a miscommunication I already adjusted this - so I've reverted this change. |
| 2 | 2021-01-06 11:11 | ambakum ♦2 | Thanks for the update | |
| 96803426 by GrumbleGrumble @ 2021-01-02 11:47 | 1 | 2021-01-02 13:48 | ndm | Bing Streetside (can be a bit old) https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=85857154-7f9c-4225-ad2c-d153859f8c68&cp=51.565082~-2.641074&lvl=19&dir=16.438393&pi=-23.147562&style=x&mo=z.0&v=2&sV=2&form=S00027 doesn't show any signage that it's illegal to walk here? |
| 2 | 2021-01-04 23:36 | ndm | No worries, I can easily revert it. | |
| 96912260 by di4tu2 @ 2021-01-04 13:32 | 1 | 2021-01-04 23:17 | ndm | Your changeset comment suggests you are copying a map or a copyrighted website? |
| 96820549 by ChrisHodgesUK @ 2021-01-02 18:53 | 1 | 2021-01-02 21:59 | ndm | Looks to be a duplicate of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/372870713 |
| 2 | 2021-01-02 22:26 | ChrisHodgesUK ♦9 | @ndm I see what you mean. I was only looking at tags, but it looks like the node I changed was meant to be the building while the way you linked is the whole grounds. I'll delete the node and see about tagging the building properly | |
| 3 | 2021-01-03 00:39 | ndm | Only mentioned it, as I was confused that it wasn't previously named. | |
| 96567920 by ambakum @ 2020-12-29 03:14 | 1 | 2021-01-02 21:11 | ndm | Buildings are drawn using ESRI clarity - you should either use that or set a new offset for the Bing imagery to match them. |
| 2 | 2021-01-04 13:28 | ambakum ♦2 | thanks for checking into our edits. apologies for the misalignment. please find the changset # 96911769 for the modifications. i will make sure to align the new edits with the vicinity. always happy to learn from the community | |
| 96570072 by ssohila @ 2020-12-29 04:14 | 1 | 2021-01-02 20:15 | ndm | I've unglued the boundary relation you connected to the service road -- maybe a filter would help in the future. |
| 2 | 2021-01-04 14:02 | ssohila ♦6 | thanks for checking into our edits. apologies, i have overlooked the boundary and made the connection. thanks for improvising my edits. i will take this as a learning from the community and make sure it follow it in my future edits. always happy to learn from the community | |
| 96803714 by Dave Drury @ 2021-01-02 11:55 | 1 | 2021-01-02 17:17 | ndm | It was only recently changed - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4439520/history Unfortunately, not in my immediate locality -- so I added an OSM note https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2459623 |
| 96790943 by fredley @ 2021-01-01 23:43 | 1 | 2021-01-02 00:32 | ndm | There's a fence across a service road - which seems odd. Not quite sure what you're trying to do? Note: a lot of stuff is drawn using ESRI clarity not Bing. |
| 2 | 2021-01-02 00:37 | ndm | Sorry, missed the gate | |
| 3 | 2021-01-02 10:08 | fredley ♦2 | I live in the area, so am using my own knowledge (and Bing), I had to look up what ESRI was! | |
| 96748119 by Robert Whittaker @ 2020-12-31 18:39 | 1 | 2021-01-01 23:20 | ndm | At least one item seems incorrect; amenity=nightclub + disused=cinema is now disused:amenity=nightclubProbably should be reverted and checked again? |
| 2 | 2021-01-01 23:22 | ndm | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/568831882 | |
| 3 | 2021-01-02 10:33 | Robert Whittaker ♦274 | I'm not sure how that happened, as I was looking at each one individually before fixing the tagging. I guess I must have missed the the two amenities being different there. I've checked all the other items in this changeset and they were fine. I've fixed that particular way. Thanks fo... | |
| 96776708 by Robert Whittaker @ 2021-01-01 15:35 | 1 | 2021-01-01 15:55 | ndm | This has removed carefully mapped objects will revert in due course |
| 2 | 2021-01-01 15:57 | Robert Whittaker ♦274 | Oops, sorry if it did. It wasn't supposed to. This only objects that should have gone (I hope) were some of the pedestrian avenues, that I merged into one. There wasn't any different tagging on them, so there didn't seem any need to keep them as separate objects. | |
| 3 | 2021-01-01 15:59 | Robert Whittaker ♦274 | Certainly, there shouldn't be more than one object on the site tagged with shop=mall, since there is only one mall (shopping centre) there in reality. That was the main thing I was trying to address. Sorry if it's messed anything else up. | |
| 4 | 2021-01-01 16:19 | ndm | Second look it’s probably fixable - some customer inaccessible rooms have been merged to the walkable area - the multiple malls are probably from me splitting the original single shop - may be better described using indoor mapping, I’ll have a look later. | |
| 96604309 by Mike Baggaley @ 2020-12-29 13:20 | 1 | 2020-12-29 15:59 | ndm | https://www.southglos.gov.uk/documents/Road-to-Nowhere-Website-Document.pdf |
| 2 | 2020-12-29 17:28 | Mike Baggaley ♦630 | Hi, The document doesn't seem to describe this section of road, which in my view was arbitrarily named as a continuation of "Road to Nowhere". Although there are some road names containing brackets, in most cases they are made up descriptions and not proper names. If you believe this ... | |
| 96527813 by srikmar @ 2020-12-28 10:31 | 1 | 2020-12-28 12:25 | ndm | I've removed the service road you added that seems to be a hedge. |
| 2 | 2020-12-31 12:07 | srikmar ♦9 | Thanks for checking into our edits. I have added the road based on the Private Maxar imagery. Apologies, I have missed adding the source. It can be helpful if the local knowledge can improvise our edits. Please let me know if my edits are contradicting with the ground truth and suggest me with the n... | |
| 96461330 by Simon Candelaresi @ 2020-12-26 18:07 | 1 | 2020-12-26 23:57 | ndm | Big toilet |
| 2 | 2020-12-27 16:03 | Thibaultmol ♦60 | Are you sure your edit is correct? You changed some roads in the UK & added a toilet in Italy? (if it's correct: just try and make those seperate changes. large changesets like this make it hard to check if something is correct or not) | |
| 3 | 2020-12-27 16:19 | Simon Candelaresi ♦2 | Changes are correct. I meant to split the changes into different uploads. | |
| 96429948 by kotamadh @ 2020-12-25 17:25 | 1 | 2020-12-26 23:48 | ndm | If you move a building, then you need to move all the others in the neighbourhood -- otherwise the map will be incorrect. |
| 2 | 2020-12-28 16:32 | kotamadh ♦6 | Thanks for checking into our edits. I will make sure to maintain the geometric equilibrium in the vicinity of my edits. I will take this as a learning from the community to improve my edit quality. Always happy to learn from the community. | |
| 96291042 by baggg @ 2020-12-23 04:00 | 1 | 2020-12-23 19:47 | ndm | I've redrawn this using an offset applied to Bing imagery to match data already mapped, i.e. buildings. |
| 2 | 2020-12-25 04:43 | baggg ♦4 | thanks for checking into our edits. Apologies, I have mistakenly created the offset. thanks for the improvement. I will make sure to follow your suggestions in my future edits. always happy to learn from the community. | |
| 96183705 by pachilam @ 2020-12-21 09:43 | 1 | 2020-12-21 13:52 | ndm | The service roads aren't connected -- always good to check Bing Streetside -- https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=5295e0b3-0ef8-4089-8366-a65af8a31ac2&cp=51.53578~-2.406054&lvl=19&dir=27.578197&pi=-0.6915984&style=x&mo=om.1~z.2.64&v=2&sV=2&form=S00027 |
| 2 | 2020-12-23 05:00 | pachilam ♦2 | Thanks for looking into our edits. My sincere apologies, i have missed checking the connectivity of the adjoining road. thanks for improvising my edits. i will take this as a learning from the community and make sure to implement in my future edits. always happy to learn from the community | |
| 96123760 by Ebstoolap @ 2020-12-19 22:28 | 1 | 2020-12-20 23:52 | ndm | I think you dragged a node from a service road a long way -- no worries have put it back. |
| 96142907 by AlwynWellington @ 2020-12-20 14:58 | 1 | 2020-12-20 23:25 | ndm | Why are you naming pavements -- it's the road's that have the names -- will revert. |
| 2 | 2020-12-21 05:48 | AlwynWellington ♦58 | You may not revert unilaterally.The pavements etc are part of the road or other feature they are part of.Please advise where in the wiki your view understanding be found.Then we can discuss. | |
| 95929376 by Dowluri @ 2020-12-16 09:12 | 1 | 2020-12-18 18:15 | ndm | It would probably be better if you could adjust Bing imagery offset to match existing map data - so everything remains "in sync".I've adjusted the edit this time. |
| 95930846 by ansukess @ 2020-12-16 09:35 | 1 | 2020-12-18 14:31 | ndm | Redrawn this so service road goes on correct side of tree (see Bing Streetside) and doesn't impinge on the building visible in Bing. |
| 2 | 2020-12-22 16:04 | ansukess ♦6 | thanks for checking into our edits. apologies for the misalignment. i was confused with the street view and misinterpreted the geometry. thanks for the quick correction. going forward, i will be more cautious with the geometry before saving the edits. always happy to learn from the community. | |
| 95949783 by Arthur2e5 @ 2020-12-16 15:15 | 1 | 2020-12-18 12:36 | ndm | What was changed here -- changeset comment doesn't provide any information. |
| 95913218 by randerv @ 2020-12-16 04:55 | 1 | 2020-12-17 20:08 | ndm | Your changeset says Bing Imagery -- but the edit doesn't match it at all -- seems very odd.Will redraw. |
| 95915771 by ssnjan @ 2020-12-16 05:39 | 1 | 2020-12-17 11:07 | ndm | Reverted and redrawn -- you need to adjust your imagery offsets to match the existing map data, i.e. existing buildings. Or move every single building to match your new imagery. |
| 2 | 2020-12-17 12:22 | ssnjan ♦7 | Hi Ndm, Thanks for your feedback I apologise for the miss from my end, I will make sure to check on these feature in my future edits. Thanks for correcting my edits. Always happy to learn from community.Regards,ssnjan | |
| 95917421 by ssnjan @ 2020-12-16 06:04 | 1 | 2020-12-16 21:21 | ndm | Need to adjust imagery offset to consider existing map data. |
| 2 | 2020-12-17 12:31 | ssnjan ♦7 | Hi Ndm, Thanks for looking into my edit, I have used bing aerial imagery but did not use the offset feature to align the segment accurately I will take this learning for my future edits. Happy to learn from the community.Regards,ssnjan | |
| 95919720 by ssnjan @ 2020-12-16 06:39 | 1 | 2020-12-16 21:04 | ndm | You made building non-square |
| 2 | 2020-12-17 11:30 | ssnjan ♦7 | Hi Ndm, I intended to add the service road to the building. As the building was misaligned I have aligned it according to Bing aerial Imagery but missed out on squaring the buildings. thanks for your feedback and corrections. I'll consider this learnings in my future edits. Regards,ssnjan | |
| 95924927 by ssnjan @ 2020-12-16 08:02 | 1 | 2020-12-16 20:19 | ndm | You've made buildings non-square and haven't aligned the imagery with existing map data! |
| 2 | 2020-12-16 20:21 | ndm | Redrawn correctly. | |
| 3 | 2020-12-17 11:39 | ssnjan ♦7 | Hi Ndm, I have added the service road and modified the building geometry based on Bing aerial Imagery using the imagery offset feature. I have missed out on squaring the building outline. I apologise for the miss from my end. Thanks for improving my edits.Regards,ssnjan | |
| 95925567 by ssnjan @ 2020-12-16 08:12 | 1 | 2020-12-16 20:09 | ndm | Redrawing this - you've made buildings non-square and haven't applied an offset to Bing Imagery to match existing map content. |
| 2 | 2020-12-17 11:40 | ssnjan ♦7 | Hi Ndm, I apologise for the miss from my end in squaring the buildings. I realize that the segments added by me are misaligned. I will take this as a learning in my future edits. Thanks for the feedback and corrections.Regards,ssnjan | |
| 95925694 by Dowluri @ 2020-12-16 08:14 | 1 | 2020-12-16 20:04 | ndm | Retagged this as a driveway, which is much more likely. |
| 95844056 by randerv @ 2020-12-15 04:17 | 1 | 2020-12-16 18:50 | ndm | Redrawn with new offset to match existing buildings on map |
| 2 | 2020-12-18 04:35 | randerv ♦1 | thanks for checking into our edits. apologies, i have missed checking the alignment of the surrounding vicinity and created the geometry misalignment. thanks for the quick correction. i will make sure to implement your suggestions in my future edits. always happy to learn from the community | |
| 95842982 by ssohila @ 2020-12-15 03:52 | 1 | 2020-12-16 18:22 | ndm | You've misconnected two separate service roads - drawing them over a grass area.Will redraw. |
| 2 | 2020-12-17 13:20 | ssohila ♦6 | Hi Ndm, I have wrongly assumed the path to be a service road and digitized it incorrectly. I apologise for the miss from my end, Thanks for correcting my edit. Thanks & Regards, | |
| 95840866 by daitv @ 2020-12-15 02:40 | 1 | 2020-12-16 17:52 | ndm | Redrawn to map roundabout correctly. |
| 2 | 2020-12-17 12:57 | daitv ♦2 | Hi Ndm, Thanks for looking into my edits. I have added the service road and gate based on bing aerial imagery. Thanks for improving my edits. Regards.daitv | |
| 95840789 by ssnjan @ 2020-12-15 02:37 | 1 | 2020-12-16 17:48 | ndm | I've reverted this - you need to adjust Bing imagery offset - given large amount of buildings already drawn. |
| 2 | 2020-12-17 12:03 | ssnjan ♦7 | Hi Ndm, As per your suggestion I have redrawn the service road based on Esri Clarity beta in which the roads and the buildings are aligned. Please find the changeset (96003796) for your reference. Thanks for your feedback. Always happy to learn from the community.Regards,ssnjan | |
| 95842494 by ssohila @ 2020-12-15 03:38 | 1 | 2020-12-15 18:15 | ndm | Bing Streetside shows a wall -- have redrawn as two separate service roads: https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=76f5ceb6-4efd-4866-b3f6-8239eea096fe&cp=51.51571~-2.549052&lvl=19&dir=304.01483&pi=-3.8398213&style=x&mo=z.3&v=2&sV=2&form=S00027 |
| 2 | 2020-12-16 04:54 | ssohila ♦6 | thanks for checking into my edits. apologies, i have misinterpreted the geometry. thanks for the quick correction. going forward i will make sure to double check my edits before saving them. thanks for the valuable feedback. always happy to learn from the community. | |
| 95841939 by ssnjan @ 2020-12-15 03:19 | 1 | 2020-12-15 18:03 | ndm | Bing imagery seems to show this as a new residential area under construction? |
| 2 | 2020-12-17 12:15 | ssnjan ♦7 | Hi Ndm,Thanks for looking into my edits. I apologise for the miss on my end. I have modified the roads as per Esri clarity beta, which I now realize is the old imagery. Thanks for the constructive feedback and improvising my edits. I will consider this learning in my future edits.Regards,ssnja... | |
| 95739504 by Richard @ 2020-12-12 22:49 | 1 | 2020-12-14 20:05 | ndm | This looks more like a (mechanical) edit to remove stiles from bridleways? Has this been agreed on talk-gb? |
| 2 | 2020-12-14 20:10 | Richard ♦220 | No, it isn't a mechanical edit at all. If you can do mechanical edits with Potlatch 2 then I'd be impressed to find out how ;)Bridleways don't have stiles - bridleways are RoWs that are open to horses and bikes, which can't cope with stiles. If there's a stile on a bridl... | |
| 3 | 2020-12-14 20:25 | ndm | FYI: a mechanical edit can be done by hand - just a set of unsurveyed armchair edits - supposedly fixing the same item.I believe that there are things called horse stiles - unless you survey them you won't know what the issue was. And without a note on OSM then local mappers won't know... | |
| 4 | 2020-12-14 20:38 | Richard ♦220 | Right, so if it was a horse stile it would be barrier=horse_stile, not barrier=stile.I'm at a loss to understand your point, I'm afraid. At the very worst interpretation then this is correcting something evidently wrong (a stile on a bridleway) to something less wrong. That's how ... | |
| 5 | 2020-12-14 20:57 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,660 | "Bridleways don't have stiles - bridleways are RoWs that are open to horses and bikes, which can't cope with stiles."Stiles should not be present there, but for example illegal stiles may be present there. | |
| 6 | 2020-12-14 21:20 | ndm | None of the new "guessed items" have any sort of fixme on them. | |
| 7 | 2020-12-14 21:22 | eteb3 ♦113 | Or, someone may have tagged a horse_stile as a stile, especially if they're a new mapper; and/or they may be a horse-rider who assumes that 'stile' on a bridleway will always mean a horse-stile, not the other sort. That would mean the error correction is [ barrier=stile > =horse_st... | |
| 8 | 2020-12-14 21:24 | Richard ♦220 | @ndm: wait, what? There are several fixmes in this changeset.I mean, honestly, go ahead and revert this if it'll make your day. It'll make OSM on balance significantly worse, but you do you. | |
| 95732433 by Avonmouth @ 2020-12-12 18:24 | 1 | 2020-12-12 20:04 | ndm | Smaller changeset would help local mappers (and be safer in case your editor crashes). |
| 2 | 2020-12-12 22:59 | Avonmouth ♦1 | Ok, I'll keep that in mind. I've been a mapper in 2014/15, the map has become much more "filled" since then.I've wanted to ask whether it was correct to delete a duplicate node for the Torfaen Learning Zone inside its way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/838690709 . I h... | |
| 3 | 2020-12-13 10:22 | ndm | Mapping style changed to mark schools as areas. So maybe node is just old?No very easy way to check remotely -- maybe add a note so local mappers can be prompted to check -- maybe both are wrong? | |
| 95730345 by Remesse @ 2020-12-12 17:23 | 1 | 2020-12-12 19:54 | ndm | Smaller changeset would help local mappers (and be safer in case your editor crashes).Have removed the was:building outlines. |
| 2 | 2020-12-12 22:37 | DaveF ♦1,566 | After being a member for just 11 hours, deleting "tagging for the renderer" edits across multiple continents seems a little unusual. Could you give explicit details of the deletions you've made & purpose of your other amendments? | |
| 3 | 2020-12-13 02:46 | skquinn ♦804 | I agree with ndm, half the US plus a huge chunk of the Atlantic Ocean then stretching into Africa/Europe is a bit big. | |
| 4 | 2020-12-18 09:15 | Minh Nguyen ♦567 | This mapper also performed a mass untagging of buildings in changeset 95721077. Quite unusual for a new mapper to be this involved in lifecycle tagging, but I suppose there’s no prohibition against opening secondary accounts, generally speaking. | |
| 95666240 by back_spin @ 2020-12-11 08:07 | 1 | 2020-12-11 20:13 | ndm | The hgv tag on Tanhouse Lane looks odd -- Bing Streetside seems to have it as ?"Except for loading"? https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=e05770e1-7a1a-4519-9d27-6254d0b6b7bc&cp=51.566035~-2.406859&lvl=19&dir=262.34555&pi=-5.756836&style=x&mo=om.1~z.3&v=2&sV=2&... |
| 95599432 by staslima @ 2020-12-10 08:18 | 1 | 2020-12-11 20:05 | ndm | I've redrawn this - there are 2 separate ways -- your version seems to go through a wall. Bing Streetside helps. |
| 2 | 2020-12-15 07:48 | staslima ♦1 | Thanks for checking into our edits. apologies, I have overlooked the wall and misinterpreted the geometry. Thanks for the quick correction. Going forward, I will make sure to double check the imagery before saving my edits. always happy to learn from the community. | |
| 95560123 by NRCH @ 2020-12-09 14:43 | 1 | 2020-12-09 23:57 | ndm | Just wondered what you were using to map the houses - there's no uploaded GPX tracks and Bing imagery doesn't show any.Presumably this is drawn from personally acquired GPS data and not copied from any copyrighted maps? |
| 95474122 by Tema_Ded @ 2020-12-08 09:21 | 1 | 2020-12-08 20:30 | ndm | I've redrawn the service roads so that they match existing buildings by offsetting the imagery slightly. |
| 95494789 by roland_sw @ 2020-12-08 14:48 | 1 | 2020-12-08 20:20 | ndm | Deleting information is rarely the best approach -- I've marked them with fixme's so that they can be checked. |
| 95501245 by mapalangeo @ 2020-12-08 17:03 | 1 | 2020-12-08 20:15 | ndm | Probably needs reverting it's one hoop -- not a pitch |
| 95433195 by Robert Whittaker @ 2020-12-07 16:15 | 1 | 2020-12-08 20:11 | ndm | The building you edited is part of "The Mall" it is not "The Mall" -- have corrected it. |
| 95185944 by Nathan_A_RF @ 2020-12-03 02:17 | 1 | 2020-12-03 22:50 | ndm | Not sure what's happened here -- this was carefully mapped from an GPS and ground survey -- there are no tunnels -- bridges have been deleted and items that are visible on mapillary -- from the ground survey.Is there any reason not to revert this? |
| 2 | 2020-12-03 22:59 | Nathan_A_RF ♦219 | There are no bridges over the paths, these are covered passages or tunnels you could say. Some minor tweaks have been made where appropriate but the smaller roundabout in particular was way out of line. | |
| 3 | 2020-12-03 23:04 | ndm | I think that the smaller roundabout was drawn using ETSI clarity -- Bing just has a different offset you may need to adjust it.Bridge over cycletrackhttps://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=51.5431677334852&lng=-2.6358287002277905&z=17&pKey=9CSHVr57GXzXMp4Zzaduyw&focus=photo | |
| 94954679 by di4tu2 @ 2020-11-28 18:06 | 1 | 2020-11-28 20:59 | ndm | I've added a note that this needs to be surveyed -- if it isn't signed then access tags shouldn't be inferred. |
| 94778002 by aepunavy @ 2020-11-25 13:32 | 1 | 2020-11-25 19:04 | ndm | Reverting this - previous geometry matched Bing imagery well and didn't try to link roads that aren't linked. |
| 2 | 2020-11-27 07:40 | aepunavy ♦14 | Hi ndm,Apologies for the misinterpretations and making the geometry misalignment. Thanks for checking into our edits and making the necessary corrections. Always happy to learn from the community.Regards,aepunavy | |
| 94552405 by objtool @ 2020-11-21 16:38 | 1 | 2020-11-22 00:37 | ndm | The Aztec West edits look problematic - Cap Gemini is a not a man_made=works. |
| 2 | 2020-11-23 14:56 | objtool ♦1 | Thanks for your help. Which tag would be appropriate? | |
| 3 | 2020-11-23 23:59 | ndm | Previous landuse=commercial was fine. Area didn't need editing -- maybe building=office if it wasn't already. | |
| 93334974 by emiliovigil826 @ 2020-10-31 11:54 | 1 | 2020-10-31 19:35 | ndm | This will be reverted -- it was surveyed carefully on foot -- there are several sections that aren't navigable by normal buses |
| 93281080 by depsm @ 2020-10-30 09:39 | 1 | 2020-10-30 23:31 | ndm | I've unglued the highway from the landuse. |
| 2 | 2020-11-03 05:49 | depsm ♦6 | Hi ndm, Thanks for checking into our edits. It is good to see the community improvising our edits and i will take this as a learning from the community and make sure to implement in my future edits. Always happy to learn from the community. Regards,depsm | |
| 93080116 by emiliovigil826 @ 2020-10-26 20:49 | 1 | 2020-10-28 19:00 | ndm | Was this surveyed -- it stops cars routing from Longmoor Way. |
| 2 | 2020-10-28 19:01 | ndm | And looks like it restricts entry into the car parking for the park and ride, | |
| 92847006 by wyntingley @ 2020-10-21 17:30 | 1 | 2020-10-21 18:17 | ndm | I've reverted this the tracks (not footpaths) clearly exist on Bing satellite imagery.It is of course possible that they need to be marked as "access=private" |
| 2 | 2020-10-22 06:32 | wyntingley ♦1 | The tracks are not accessible from outside the golf course boundary at all. Having them on the map (and then on AllTrails as footpaths) is misleading and dangerous as they cross in use golf fairways. I can assure you, they do not exist as anything other than golf cart tracks at best. We were firmly ... | |
| 3 | 2020-10-22 08:52 | ndm | I don’t know the alltrails website - you should talk to them rather than deleting potentially useful info (even if it’s only useful for golfers). | |
| 4 | 2020-10-22 12:51 | wyntingley ♦1 | I did. They use open street map as source. The info is still misleading. Try not to sound patronising. | |
| 5 | 2020-10-22 20:56 | ndm | The issue is that alltrails are interpreting a "track" (unpaved road) and drawing it so that it might be interpreted as a footpath -- this is not a fault of the underlying OpenStreetMap data.If you would like a map that shows footpaths better but also uses OSM data then maybe https://f... | |
| 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 routesYou 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. | |
| 92759740 by back_spin @ 2020-10-20 10:13 | 1 | 2020-10-20 10:24 | ndm | Just wrong will be reverted |
| 2 | 2020-10-20 10:33 | back_spin ♦17 | oneway obstructs ride from Bradley Stoke Way in Woodlands Lane. see bing satellite | |
| 3 | 2020-10-20 10:50 | ndm | Can you please clarify what problem you are seeing. Post a link to a route on OsmAnd website that doesn’t work. I will check tonight. But at the moment it’s on the revert list. | |
| 4 | 2020-10-20 10:51 | ndm | OsmAnd == Osm, using e.g. graph hopper router, etc. | |
| 5 | 2020-10-20 11:19 | back_spin ♦17 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_car&route=51.54291%2C-2.56197%3B51.54409%2C-2.56338#map=17/51.54344/-2.56404but our customers and bing satellite confirms that a right turn is possible | |
| 6 | 2020-10-20 18:01 | ndm | You're right -- was a lot easier to see the issue with the routing link. | |
| 92716103 by A light 7 @ 2020-10-19 14:45 | 1 | 2020-10-19 23:23 | ndm | A more detailed changeset comment would be helpful for other local mappers. |
| 92715623 by A light 7 @ 2020-10-19 14:34 | 1 | 2020-10-19 23:23 | ndm | A more detailed changeset comment would be helpful for other local mappers. |
| 92714138 by A light 7 @ 2020-10-19 14:02 | 1 | 2020-10-19 23:23 | ndm | A more detailed changeset comment would be helpful for other local mappers. |
| 2 | 2020-10-20 15:37 | DaveF ♦1,566 | Deleted woodland | |
| 92714737 by A light 7 @ 2020-10-19 14:15 | 1 | 2020-10-19 23:23 | ndm | https://www.eonenergy.com/Login |
| 2 | 2020-10-20 15:33 | DaveF ♦1,566 | Why have you deleted woods & hedges? | |
| 92716160 by A light 7 @ 2020-10-19 14:46 | 1 | 2020-10-19 23:22 | ndm | Changeset comment is bizarre -- presumably this needs reverting? |
| 92157005 by di4tu2 @ 2020-10-08 08:16 | 1 | 2020-10-08 21:01 | ndm | There's no signed turn restriction on mapillary layer |
| 92149322 by bathines @ 2020-10-08 06:40 | 1 | 2020-10-08 20:04 | ndm | You need to change "access=private" at the gate not before -- the oriignal edit breaks cycle routing. |
| 2 | 2020-10-10 02:35 | bathines ♦20 | Thanks for your valuable suggestions. it is good to see the community improvising our edits. Going forward, I will make sure to consider the access tags of the adjoining paths before making the edits. I will take this as a learning from the community and make sure to implement in my future edits. | |
| 92153482 by prreddyz @ 2020-10-08 07:30 | 1 | 2020-10-08 19:39 | ndm | Redrawn to avoid changes to a boundary. |
| 2 | 2020-10-12 03:37 | prreddyz ♦1 | Thanks for checking into our edits. please let me know if anything else needs to be modified. Always happy to learn from the community. | |
| 91923941 by PiersG @ 2020-10-04 08:32 | 1 | 2020-10-06 22:24 | ndm | I removed the turn restrictions that are redundant due to "oneway=yes".I left the no u-turns -- I assume that they are signed explciitly. |
| 91973381 by kumrnls @ 2020-10-05 09:25 | 1 | 2020-10-06 21:47 | ndm | Redrawn - ways going through parking spaces |
| 2 | 2020-10-08 04:08 | kumrnls ♦6 | Thanks for checking into our edits. apologies, I have missed aligning the existing service road. Thanks for the quick correction. Going forward, I will be very cautious in aligning the roads with the latest geometry. Once again, thanks for the correction. Always happy to learn from the community. | |
| 92030322 by kukarana @ 2020-10-06 08:04 | 1 | 2020-10-06 20:04 | ndm | Bing Streetside shows this as a footway connecting to a pedestrian crossing. |
| 2 | 2020-10-07 06:12 | kukarana ♦2 | thanks for checking into our edits. apologies, i have misinterpreted the foot way as a service road. thanks for the quick correction. going forward, i will make sure to check all the available imagery before adding any new roads. once again, thanks for the correction. always happy to learn from the ... | |
| 91912659 by ArticCynda @ 2020-10-03 19:17 | 1 | 2020-10-03 21:50 | ndm | Odd edit -- deleted https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4892375583/history in Brussels |
| 91683221 by wellasus @ 2020-09-29 06:31 | 1 | 2020-09-29 21:29 | ndm | Are you sure this is private -- it looks like a road to the church |
| 2 | 2020-10-01 07:10 | wellasus ♦16 | Thanks for checking into our edits. i have added the private access based on the gate visible in the bing imagery. please let me know if it is contradicting with the local knowledge and needs to be modified. always happy to learn from the community | |
| 91702105 by That Art Gallery @ 2020-09-29 10:58 | 1 | 2020-09-29 20:21 | ndm | Housename "Ground Floor" seems wrong.The original data "The Orange Factory" was derived from external signage -- has this now been removed? |
| 2 | 2020-09-29 20:52 | That Art Gallery ♦1 | Yes, the ‘Orange Factory’ signage has been removed... it referred to a long since gone business. Specifying ‘Ground Floor’ is appropriate because there is a residential property on the 1st/2nd floor of the building which shares the address ‘2 upper maudlin st’ but... | |
| 91451553 by singhiyv @ 2020-09-24 16:15 | 1 | 2020-09-25 21:47 | ndm | Removed service road that you added - needs ground survey following recent building work - please don't add it via AI. |
| 2 | 2020-09-28 11:27 | singhiyv ♦7 | Thanks for checking into our edits. I have added the roads based on the available OSM imagery. It is good to see the community improvising our edits. Thanks for your suggestions. Always happy to learn from the community. | |
| 91239110 by jgopatho @ 2020-09-21 15:59 | 1 | 2020-09-21 22:20 | ndm | This seems to be visible on Bing? |
| 2 | 2020-09-23 04:19 | jgopatho ♦9 | Thanks for checking into our edits. I have deleted the segment based on your suggestions in the changeset https://osmcha.org/changesets/91134701/ . Please let me know if anything else needs to be modified. Always happy to learn from the community. | |
| 91083372 by OlegKukharchik @ 2020-09-18 05:13 | 1 | 2020-09-18 22:16 | ndm | Are there really 2 gates one within 20m? |
| 2 | 2020-09-21 07:47 | OlegKukharchik ♦10 | Hi ndm! Yes they are clearly visible on Bing satellite imagery. | |
| 3 | 2020-09-21 22:12 | ndm | Bing Streetside shows about half a gate: https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=d2f12912-b788-4606-8b36-5d394a7c2612&cp=51.527047~-2.676588&lvl=19&dir=304.03217&pi=-8.145277&style=x&mo=om.1~z.2.01&v=2&sV=2&form=S00027 | |
| 4 | 2020-09-22 04:42 | OlegKukharchik ♦10 | Hi ndm! Bing Streetside at least 3 years older than Bing satellite imagery. | |
| 91092283 by jgopatho @ 2020-09-18 07:19 | 1 | 2020-09-18 21:50 | ndm | This is just badly drawn -- parking aisles are straight you are adding unnecessary nodes which are giving them wierd angles. |
| 2 | 2020-09-21 16:02 | jgopatho ♦9 | Thanks for checking into our edits. Apologies, I have created geometry misalignment and misinterpreted some lanes as parking aisle. Thanks for making the necessary edits. I have cross verified all the roads and aligned the geometry. Please find the changeset() for the suggested modifications. Going ... | |
| 90945849 by DanGlover @ 2020-09-15 20:24 | 1 | 2020-09-15 20:30 | ndm | What is the Open Data source of your apparently correct ref? |
| 2 | 2020-09-15 22:28 | DanGlover ♦42 | See comment against Changeset 90945634 - requires survey to validate. | |
| 3 | 2020-09-18 21:11 | ndm | So you've added third-party copyrighted data into OSM, just not in a ref tag. | |
| 4 | 2020-09-18 21:12 | ndm | Data like this is already available at https://osm.mathmos.net/postboxes/box-info/?ref=BA1+299 together with the injunction not to copy it directly, but to survey | |
| 90945634 by DanGlover @ 2020-09-15 20:18 | 1 | 2020-09-15 20:30 | ndm | What is the Open Data source of your apparently correct ref? |
| 2 | 2020-09-15 22:26 | DanGlover ♦42 | Hi ndm - unfortunately it's not Open data (RM "services near me") therefore I have not changed the reference itself...still requires survey. | |
| 3 | 2020-09-18 21:05 | ndm | So you've added third-party copyrighted data into OSM, just not in a ref tag. | |
| 4 | 2020-09-18 21:11 | ndm | Data like this is already available at https://osm.mathmos.net/postboxes/box-info/?ref=BA1+183 together with the injunction not to copy it directly, but to survey | |
| 90835171 by rkumreo @ 2020-09-14 01:40 | 1 | 2020-09-14 19:33 | ndm | Why do you/Amazon keep adding this ludicrous turn restriction -- it makes no sense.I've already had to revert this change before.The sign you think you are using is for the next road to the south.Is there any way to add some note to Amazon logistics internal tasking to avoid this in... |
| 2 | 2020-09-15 07:21 | rkumreo ♦31 | Hi ndm,Thanks for checking into our edits and making necessary corrections. This is a honest mistake, I will make sure not to repeat these mistakes. I will double check before making the edits to avoid any possible misinterpretation. My sincere apologies. regards,rkumreo | |
| 3 | 2020-09-15 19:54 | ndm | In case you think I'm being grumpy -- this is almost exactly the same edit I told you about in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88701831 | |
| 4 | 2020-09-17 10:35 | rkumreo ♦31 | Hi,Thanks for the feedback. My sincere apologies, That I have made the same mistake twice. You have already suggested the same edit before two months. I was confused with the sign board and created an unwanted turn restriction. I will take this as a learning from the community. Once again, apolo... | |
| 90835034 by rkumreo @ 2020-09-14 01:30 | 1 | 2020-09-14 10:41 | Martin Constantino–Bodin ♦120 | Hi,It seems that you added an unwanted change to https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11621028 as part of this changeset. Can you double-check that it was wanted?Thanks! |
| 2 | 2020-09-14 20:13 | ndm | The changeset is too large to review.Having said that I have removed the turn restriction that you added in Bristol -- it is not visible on Bing Streetside. | |
| 3 | 2020-09-15 07:16 | rkumreo ♦31 | Hi,Thanks for checking into our edits. apologies, I have accidentally created a large changeset. I have added the no left restriction at (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/200999896) based on the sign board (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=9arZG3EssGU7KdMeaiQLqy&focus=photo&lat=51.4... | |
| 4 | 2020-09-15 19:52 | ndm | The Mapillary image is nothing to do with the Bristol edit I reverted. | |
| 5 | 2020-09-17 11:10 | rkumreo ♦31 | Hi,Thanks for the response. I have made the Bristol edit based on the Mapillary street side (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=TJZ6qvf3m-77OvwEgRBmEA&focus=photo&lat=51.48095689253088&lng=-2.604912444951576&z=17), it will be helpful if the community can improvise our edits with... | |
| 90755410 by Trainboy @ 2020-09-11 11:31 | 1 | 2020-09-14 20:19 | ndm | You've deleted the backs of the shops - why? |
| 2 | 2020-09-14 20:24 | Trainboy ♦2 | It’s like a balcony but an entrance way for the flats above. The walkway is not on top the shops but raised up. | |
| 90755980 by Trainboy @ 2020-09-11 11:42 | 1 | 2020-09-14 20:17 | ndm | Are you sure this is one-way -- neither Bing, nor Bing Streetside show any oneway signs |
| 2 | 2020-09-14 20:18 | Trainboy ♦2 | Hi. Yep deffo live round the corner from here. | |
| 90319673 by mike wain @ 2020-09-02 18:59 | 1 | 2020-09-02 21:53 | ndm | Adding descriptions as "names" isn't generally done in OSM. |
| 90030302 by Carl Andrews @ 2020-08-27 13:32 | 1 | 2020-08-28 19:19 | ndm | All ways that cross need to be connected by a node -- routing software only change ways at nodes -- without them directions won't work. Have added a couple. |
| 2 | 2020-08-28 21:13 | Carl Andrews ♦3 | Have I done this correctly then? | |
| 3 | 2020-08-28 21:58 | ndm | Pretty much -- there were 2/3 places where a "way" (line) crossed another without a "node" (point) -- that was probably why the edit checker complained a tiny bit. | |
| 4 | 2020-08-29 14:41 | Carl Andrews ♦3 | Thank you for the confirmation. I plan on mapping my local area. I have lived here for 25 years and OSM hasn't been updated so I shall take it apon myself. I enjoy mapping so hopefully others will find it useful. | |
| 90037623 by Anton Markau @ 2020-08-27 16:37 | 1 | 2020-08-28 19:53 | ndm | There's no signed restriction here -- should probably be removed. |
| 2 | 2020-08-28 20:22 | Anton Markau ♦2 | Somehow I didn't notice that the traffic lanes are separated not by a solid line, but by a broken line and mistakenly assumed that the u-turn is prohibited there. You're right, thanks for noticing this. Removing this restriction now. | |
| 90023723 by Sahmeepee @ 2020-08-27 11:21 | 1 | 2020-08-28 19:31 | ndm | Most tools have a mechanism to square up buildings - pretty sure ID has one -- haven't used it for a while. |
| 90024478 by JubaSJK @ 2020-08-27 11:34 | 1 | 2020-08-28 19:29 | ndm | Normally OpenStreetMap doesn't map temporary changes.For Covid19 related items you should follow the guidance on: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/COVID-19_-_How_to_Map#Pop-up_Bike_Lane:_cycle_track_and_temporary_infrastructures and at least add: description:covid19=temporary cycleway |
| 89981278 by Carl Andrews @ 2020-08-26 15:58 | 1 | 2020-08-26 19:34 | ndm | Just in case: If the "cycle" tracks are for off-road / bmx bikes, then they might need some extra tags. |
| 2 | 2020-08-26 21:06 | Carl Andrews ♦3 | I am trying to make multiple paths if you can see in the satellite view. I don't know how to link the path together in multiple directions. I will try on another device tomorrow. | |
| 89980882 by Carl Andrews @ 2020-08-26 15:47 | 1 | 2020-08-26 19:28 | ndm | This looks a bit strange -- you've drawn a park right on top of a recreation ground.Some maps might not display a recreation ground -- but that doesn't mean it's not correct.So, not sure what you're trying to achieve, so thought I'd ask -- rather than just undoing it. |
| 2 | 2020-08-26 21:05 | Carl Andrews ♦3 | Hi there!That area is my local field for football pitches, running markers and fittness (play area) I noticed it wasn't marked as a play are and only 3 of the dark squares were marked rather than the whole field which I marked. However I am on a tablet so editing was complicated. Any correc... | |
| 89873140 by Mauls @ 2020-08-24 18:28 | 1 | 2020-08-24 20:39 | ndm | Was this surveyed on foot? Most of the track looks like a hedgerow on Bing. |
| 89873201 by Mauls @ 2020-08-24 18:31 | 1 | 2020-08-24 20:35 | ndm | It's really useful to include a meaningfuil changeset message and it's always appreciated by local mappers -- "no comment" doesn't really help. |
| 89802071 by onurozgun @ 2020-08-23 09:06 | 1 | 2020-08-23 10:38 | ndm | Please ensure you match existing drawn buildings by adjusting the Bing offset. Best regards. |
| 89603140 by thadad @ 2020-08-19 03:37 | 1 | 2020-08-20 19:06 | ndm | It's a good edit with ESRI clarity - but unfortunately the area is under construction - hence the landuse construction - so Bing is more up to date now (and Maxar too). I'll edit it to match newer imagery. |
| 2 | 2020-08-21 10:08 | thadad ♦6 | Hello ndm,Thanks for checking into our edits. Apologies, I have missed checking the latest imagery. Thanks for the quick correction. Going forward, I will verify all the existing tags before making the edits. Always happy to learn from the community | |
| 89573115 by PRICEWECA @ 2020-08-18 11:50 | 1 | 2020-08-18 14:48 | ndm | You are adding names based on BCC pinpoint which has large copyright ordnance survey attribution - how have you checked that your changes are compatible with open data and the obdl licence used by OpenStreetMap? |
| 2 | 2020-08-18 14:54 | PRICEWECA ♦3 | I have called both the council and the highways authority to determine the actual recorded name of the road and cross referenced this with the data on pinpoint and locally held information including business records and council tax information. | |
| 3 | 2020-08-18 15:37 | ndm | That’s great, but if they use Ordnance Survey data to get the names and that O/S data isn’t compatible with obdl then all your changes will have to be revoked.If you check this at the start there may be less rework. | |
| 4 | 2020-08-18 15:43 | ndm | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_OpenData | |
| 5 | 2020-08-19 07:23 | PRICEWECA ♦3 | So, just to clarify. You are disputing the editing of the name of a road that is 1) obviously the name of a road;2) published as a name of a road in several open data sources;3) has been confirmed as the name of a road by BCC who are the highways authority for the area and whom have also confi... | |
| 6 | 2020-08-19 10:55 | ndm | Yes.You’re a new editor adding names to roads that don’t have signs - certainly the Clifton Down edit - and mentioning BCC pinpoint as a source which has copyright Ordnance Survey all over it. Or asking colleagues and not knowing how they got their data.You can’t copy from ... | |
| 7 | 2020-08-19 11:07 | PRICEWECA ♦3 | I am an old editor from Bristol with a new login to match my job change. I would appreciate it if you did not refer to the work done by other members without considering that I have also been trained to do this.The highways agency, BCC, have confirmed that both of these edits are acceptable and ... | |
| 8 | 2020-08-19 11:20 | ndm | Well I’m not trained - but I do check osm edits around Bristol - it might have been less contentious to link to Bristol open data website rather than mention bcc pinpoint. Glad to hear you’re an old editor - so I hope you and the other weca editors will be filling in the mapping commerci... | |
| 89402158 by swarood @ 2020-08-14 09:54 | 1 | 2020-08-18 21:23 | ndm | The highway clearly exists and shouldn't be deleted -- I've marked it as a footway. |
| 2 | 2020-08-19 06:44 | swarood ♦4 | Thanks for having another pair of eyes on the edits. I have deleted the segment as I did not find anything accessible through the Aerial or Street View's beyond the gate but thanks for the suggestion. Going forward, I will be more cautious while modifying such segments. Always happy to learn fr... | |
| 89357367 by vladaboitik @ 2020-08-13 12:35 | 1 | 2020-08-14 21:49 | ndm | I have updated your edit -- you added barrier=bollard to the entire road -- I presume that wasn't intentional. |
| 2 | 2020-08-17 08:04 | vladaboitik ♦6 | Hi! Thanks a lot for your edit. | |
| 89259046 by brainsurf @ 2020-08-11 15:17 | 1 | 2020-08-11 21:50 | ndm | It would be great if you could leave changeset comments -- especially for such large ones :-) |
| 89254130 by pachilam @ 2020-08-11 13:18 | 1 | 2020-08-11 21:48 | ndm | Dragging building#1 has made building#2 non-square -- it would be better in the future if you could please adjust the offset for the imagery you are working with to fit existing content -- otherwise one has to move everything that's already drawn. |
| 2 | 2020-08-12 05:12 | pachilam ♦2 | Hi ndm,Thanks for checking into our edits. I have modified the geometry to adjust the roads. thanks for the quick suggestion. going forward, I will make the best use of offset feature to resolve these kind of scenario. Thanks for your valuable feedback. looking forward to learn more from the commu... | |
| 88868428 by S Alvadia @ 2020-08-03 09:30 | 1 | 2020-08-03 12:27 | ndm | Just a quick question to check that there's no Ordnance Survey info in the map that you're copying from -- given that it has no copyright info and it's your first edit. |
| 2 | 2020-08-03 12:44 | ndm | Just adding "motor_vehicle=no" will disallow all motorised vehicles (including buses, taxis, motorbikes, hgv's, etc).I think the oneway change you've made could be wrong -- it already has oneway:bus=no ??Not sure about the motor_vehicle=destination -- again that should a... | |
| 3 | 2020-08-03 12:50 | ndm | Looks like exit from "Redclife Street" onto "Victoria Street" is a one-way that suddenly becomes "motor_vehicle=no" -- going to end up with a lot of stuck cars there :-) | |
| 4 | 2020-08-03 19:03 | ndm | It'd be great if you could respond and fixup the issues -- or I can revert the changeset until it can be surveyed properly. | |
| 5 | 2020-08-04 06:46 | S Alvadia ♦1 | Thank you very much for your comments and taking the time to review the changes, I really appreciate it as this is my first time editing so I relied on the walkthrough and the wiki. I’ll go through all your comments today and make the changes. | |
| 6 | 2020-08-04 08:39 | S Alvadia ♦1 | spark had already fixed some of the access for buses / motorcycles etc (thanks!) so I changed the few others I missed (hopefully all done now).The Redcliffe exiting onto a no vehicles allowed Victoria Street has also been fixed.To answer about the Newgate change, the bus lane has been remove... | |
| 88701831 by rkumreo @ 2020-07-29 23:41 | 1 | 2020-07-30 19:25 | ndm | I've reverted this change:1). I've surveyed this area2). the turn restiction would mean no one could ever drive into the road3). I think you have been looking at a sign that relates to the Gloucester Road/Shellmor Avenue junction which is the next turning and is mapped correctly. |
| 2 | 2020-07-31 12:52 | rkumreo ♦31 | Hi ndmThanks for checking into our edits. apologies, I have misinterpreted the sign board (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=v586_v-tcj4YrHJzpoG3Ew&focus=photo&lat=51.53892835606964&lng=-2.5664466340118706&z=17&x=0.5024307134434322&y=0.5518552877943146&zoom=1.557093... | |
| 88701506 by rkumreo @ 2020-07-29 23:15 | 1 | 2020-07-30 19:21 | ndm | I've removed the turn restriction -- there's nothing visible on Mapilary. |
| 2 | 2020-07-31 12:46 | rkumreo ♦31 | HiThanks for checking into our edits. apologies, I have misinterpreted the sign board (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=c4lfxdvqXzBEqv5fh5Z6Gw&focus=photo&lat=51.54720881787793&lng=-2.437757531441889&z=16.779496173169072&x=0.44833049579719636&y=0.4799504461017074&z... | |
| 88312141 by jgosm96 @ 2020-07-21 20:46 | 1 | 2020-07-22 20:30 | ndm | I've put the housenumbers/street back -- it matches the FHRS address https://ratings.food.gov.uk/business/en-GB/1073792 -- it would be unusual to have a number as part of a housename, and "College Square" is well-marked. |
| 2 | 2020-07-22 20:54 | jgosm96 ♦2 | Okay sure, I'm not sure what is best here. Businesses around here use "2 College Square" as address line 1 and "Anchor Road" as address line 2.College Square is used in this context as a building name rather than a road name as these buildings don't reside on the ro... | |
| 3 | 2020-07-23 19:11 | ndm | Tag the business addresses one way and the buildings the other way -- then at least someone searching will find a match whatever they are looking for?Maybe add:unit="2" addr:housename="college square"? But if it's addr:street="Anchor Road" what housenumber is i... | |
| 88289875 by jgosm96 @ 2020-07-21 10:33 | 1 | 2020-07-21 20:34 | ndm | Is the name still on the building? |
| 2 | 2020-07-21 20:37 | jgosm96 ♦2 | No, the name on the building is just the address "2 College Square", Parmenion occupied the ground floor but have since moved, Hargreaves Lansdown now occupy the ground floor. | |
| 3 | 2020-07-21 20:47 | jgosm96 ♦2 | I have added another changeset to clarify and clean up the addresseshttps://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88312141Let me know if there are any issues as I am new to OSM | |
| 88140439 by YaStratospheric @ 2020-07-17 11:23 | 1 | 2020-07-17 22:41 | ndm | https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=4a418b2d-d163-42dc-afc2-09b99fea097e&cp=51.461243~-2.507735&lvl=19&dir=155.23178&pi=-8.496526&style=x&mo=z.0&v=2&sV=2&form=S00027 suggests it isn't one-way for cyclists? |
| 2 | 2020-07-18 02:40 | YaStratospheric ♦17 | The left side of the sign and the road markings refer to oneway traffic for vehicles and the right side for cyclists. This is also confirmed by signs on the other side of this Moravian Road section.ttps://www.bing.com/maps?osid=4a418b2d-d163-42dc-afc2-09b99fea097e&cp=51.461243~-2.507735&lvl=... | |
| 3 | 2020-07-18 02:48 | YaStratospheric ♦17 | https://www.bing.com/maps?cp=51.460789~-2.507634&lvl=17&dir=315.154&style=x&v=2&sV=1 | |
| 4 | 2020-07-18 09:55 | ndm | That's correct -- I was trying to say that when you just added "oneway=yes" it broke routing for cyclists. | |
| 5 | 2020-07-18 10:08 | YaStratospheric ♦17 | Now I understand, thanks for your clarification. I wanted to add, but you've already corrected it, thanks.It might be better to add the cycleway:right=opposite_lane tag instead of cycleway=opposite for more precision, what do you think? | |
| 6 | 2020-07-18 21:40 | ndm | Modified to cycleway:right -- thanks. | |
| 87835264 by Dave Drury @ 2020-07-10 20:40 | 1 | 2020-07-10 21:54 | ndm | I think using some only straight-on / only turn-left/right might simplify the restrictions.The traffic lights on Bing streetside *mostly* seem to have "->" arrows in various directions. |
| 2 | 2020-07-13 07:21 | Dave Drury ♦3 | Sorry if I have complicated this. So what is the best way to represent the junction. Should I get rid of the extra roads that I have introduced and just use the straight-on / only turn-left/right rather than restrictions. I guess the reason that I used the extra roads was due to the presence of t... | |
| 87835669 by Dave Drury @ 2020-07-10 20:46 | 1 | 2020-07-10 21:26 | ndm | Has a sign been added since last Bing Streetside?If not, please don't add restrictions that aren't signposted. |
| 87651396 by GTAPP @ 2020-07-07 11:17 | 1 | 2020-07-07 22:48 | ndm | A large segment of administrative boundary seems to be added to the South Bristol Way (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/106446518#map=15/51.4335/-2.6318) was this intentional? |
| 87607128 by OlegKukharchik @ 2020-07-06 14:38 | 1 | 2020-07-07 22:43 | ndm | It's great that you reference your company website -- is there any discussion of this tagging on OSM mailing lists or on the OSM wiki -- if not I will remove the turn restriction since it isn't visible on the ground. |
| 2 | 2020-07-09 13:02 | OlegKukharchik ♦10 | It's great that you make comment, but there are two options that make that maneure illegal - no U-turn sign (on Bing street-side ) and road markings whith area of chevrons painted on the road. These are to separate traffic lanes or to protect traffic turning right. If you know that maneure is l... | |
| 87534575 by spark @ 2020-07-04 15:42 | 1 | 2020-07-04 18:31 | ndm | Please don't do this unless you can guarantee all routers will route through pedestrian areas. |
| 2 | 2020-07-04 21:48 | spark ♦24 | I can't guarantee all, but some routers work with pedestrian areas! The ways I deleted don't actually exist on the ground, and it's not recommended to map purely for the renderer/router. | |
| 3 | 2020-07-05 23:32 | ndm | Area routing is not clearly defined in the wiki. There are at least two interpretations -- https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/AreasTab suggests that the area is freely routable -- https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions#Highways_as_Areas suggests that routing may only ... | |
| 4 | 2020-07-07 16:16 | spark ♦24 | I agree that the routers are do not all handle areas the same, but I don't think justifies creating extra ways that don't exist on the ground (and it certainly looks better with them removed). However, I don't feel so strongly about it so if you wish, I will revert the change. | |
| 87356419 by kingfu @ 2020-06-30 15:47 | 1 | 2020-07-01 22:20 | ndm | The start of the road (near Saint Johns Lane) is already marked as oneway - are you sure that the rest of the road is also oneway? Limits access to the service road significantly? |
| 2 | 2020-07-02 11:18 | kingfu ♦1 | Thanks you're correct I've made a mistake, this section of Brendon Road is two-way. Additionally are we sure that the section of Brendon Road that meets St Johns Lane is one-way? It's definitely No Access via St Johns Lane. | |
| 87134462 by GrooveBox @ 2020-06-25 10:43 | 1 | 2020-06-25 22:02 | ndm | If the service roads still exist you should probably leave them. They still seem to be visible on Maxar imagery. Are they really demolished? |
| 86689659 by frankince @ 2020-06-15 22:46 | 1 | 2020-06-16 10:05 | ndm | Pretty sure that’s not a tunnel. |
| 2 | 2020-06-16 10:39 | frankince ♦1 | Well, Stapleton Road goes under the M32 so it needs to be shown with broken lines, i.e.the tunnel symbol. This is necessary for orienteering. | |
| 3 | 2020-06-16 10:42 | ndm | M32 needs to be a bridge. You don’t need both a bridge and a tunnel. | |
| 4 | 2020-06-16 11:26 | frankince ♦1 | ps it's not obvious at 1 to 10000 scale or 1 to 15000. | |
| 5 | 2020-06-16 11:53 | frankince ♦1 | I'm just trying to make it obvious that the yellow road goes under the M32 and, in doing so, provides a way of crossing the river. If you have a better way of showing that than dotted lines, then please edit the map accordingly. | |
| 6 | 2020-06-19 10:36 | Cebderby ♦300 | Please don't think of the OSM map as the (default) render, this is just one possible view of the OSM data; 'yellow' and 'dotted' are not properties of the roads or in OSM's map database. The B4058 is on a bridge over the river, so that part needs to be mapped as bridge... | |
| 7 | 2020-06-19 11:28 | frankince ♦1 | Thank you so much, Cebderby, that's really helpful. This is my first ever attempt to edit OSM, so I don't know if I'll be able to make sense of it, but thanks for your assistance. | |
| 86535387 by southglos @ 2020-06-11 21:48 | 1 | 2020-06-12 20:33 | ndm | Surveyed a lot of Easter Compton since Oct-Jan - presume speed limits have changed now. Surprised by the "hgv=delivery" on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/507558528 |
| 2 | 2020-06-12 20:41 | southglos ♦120 | https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=51.5349544538665&lng=-2.610987396913218&z=17&pKey=0Aoo6ptjsxdWfHjRWU8chw&focus=photo&x=0.49052370469215684&y=0.4933401464845683&zoom=0 | |
| 3 | 2020-06-12 20:53 | southglos ♦120 | Also appears that Bowstreet Lane/Farm Lane/Berwick Lane/Vimpennys Lane may have been 30mphed now - I've seen the new signs at the Easter Compton end and have tagged a section there, but haven't confirmed how far it extends (all the way to Hallen, I suspect) | |
| 86391370 by girinj @ 2020-06-09 07:38 | 1 | 2020-06-09 19:29 | ndm | It might be a good idea to filter out boundary items, so that you won't edit them by accident. |
| 2 | 2020-06-10 06:15 | girinj ♦13 | Thanks for checking into our edits. Apologies, I have accidentally connected the segment the boundary. Thanks for the quick suggestion, going forward, I will cross verify my nodal connections for unnecessary connections before saving the edits. Always happy to learn from the community | |
| 86368506 by doublah @ 2020-06-08 19:01 | 1 | 2020-06-08 20:55 | ndm | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/168837750 looks like a prime candidate for deletion? |
| 2 | 2020-06-09 17:16 | doublah ♦19 | Yep i'll delete, should the tag for the rest of the pill-portishead line stay as abandoned since it is planned to reopen? | |
| 3 | 2020-06-09 18:47 | ndm | I think leave it as it -- it may be a while before it opens -- 2023 at the earliest? -- https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/delays-reopening-portishead-railway-could-4071344 | |
| 86364821 by lmfalconer @ 2020-06-08 17:05 | 1 | 2020-06-08 20:53 | ndm | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/111801084 seems to have less legal standing as a permissive bridleway than a public foopath -- maybe "foot=designated" might be appropriate? |
| 86357238 by GrooveBox @ 2020-06-08 13:25 | 1 | 2020-06-08 20:34 | ndm | You might find that ESRI clarity is probably more detailed than Bing -- at least for "old" buildings |
| 86300659 by amurski @ 2020-06-07 08:33 | 1 | 2020-06-07 17:19 | ndm | You've removed the notes from all of the Bristol residential multipolygon -- it's a really bad idea to remove them -- it's a great help for novice mappers to understand that the ways are actually "in use" and not just "empty". |
| 2 | 2020-06-07 20:24 | amurski ♦9 | I didn't intentionally remove them. I don't know why josm would remove them simply through adding an inner way with 'update multipolygon'. That multipolygon though is a monstrosity which includes areas that are definitively not Bristol | |
| 3 | 2020-06-08 20:19 | ndm | Tried to fix it up - hopefully it's ok | |
| 4 | 2020-06-08 22:50 | amurski ♦9 | Thanks for that I'll take extra care in future to check the edits with big multipolygons before committing anything | |
| 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 | |
| 86277628 by RobCrewsHole @ 2020-06-06 11:57 | 1 | 2020-06-06 14:21 | ndm | I wonder if the "Access Track" should be a "highway=track" -- and maybe remove the name if it's not named/signed as that?If you can't buy a permit -- than it could be more like "motor_vehicle=private" |
| 2 | 2020-06-06 15:40 | RobCrewsHole ♦1 | Yes agreed. | |
| 86234485 by YaStratospheric @ 2020-06-05 09:25 | 1 | 2020-06-05 20:07 | ndm | 2018 Mapillary imagery near B4427 doesn't show any weight restrictions. https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/85bG06565lLCyfWd3SnI8g |
| 2 | 2020-06-05 20:09 | ndm | Nor at other end https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/VLfHTJH0ZvY2Fw4TD6dgNQ | |
| 3 | 2020-06-05 21:34 | YaStratospheric ♦17 | I was guided by these mapillary images when I did the edit.https://www.mapillary.com/app/?focus=photo&pKey=_1GzdH4hHcONuXcVZV29nA&lat=51.52868158777143&lng=-2.5036922061142852&z=17https://www.mapillary.com/app/?focus=photo&pKey=yTlCaxofd8LR-tQb1fZz_Q&lat=51.5294040667913&... | |
| 4 | 2020-06-05 22:40 | ndm | Great, thanks! | |
| 86252218 by amurski @ 2020-06-05 15:40 | 1 | 2020-06-05 19:55 | ndm | Looks like you've redrawn more recent stuff visible on Maxar near the Butchers Arms (roundabout). |
| 2 | 2020-06-05 21:04 | amurski ♦9 | Apologies, I have reverted the changeset in that area. Assumed they were part of the old yahoo traced stuff there that gets the validator angry if you touch it. | |
| 86192741 by PiersG @ 2020-06-04 13:38 | 1 | 2020-06-05 19:48 | ndm | Not sure it fits 800m of track any more? https://www.team-sport.co.uk/go-kart-tracks/ |
| 2 | 2020-06-05 20:11 | PiersG ♦6 | Thanks for your feedback. Watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z91FSiP_5lgYou can see the back wall, and the roof is two spans wide. Source: I've been racing here for nearly 20 years in its various guises and have spent hours and hours and hours there. | |
| 86181296 by nmotupal @ 2020-06-04 10:00 | 1 | 2020-06-05 19:44 | ndm | Please adjust the imagery offset before you start editing - hopefully it's ok now. |
| 2 | 2020-06-08 14:47 | nmotupal ♦6 | Thanks for checking the edit. I have made the edit based on Maxar imagery as it is clear and the remaining road skeleton is matching with this imagery. Going forward, I will utilize the offset feature to improvise my edits. Thanks for the valuable suggestion. Always happy to learn from the communit... | |
| 86121906 by PLauren @ 2020-06-03 08:24 | 1 | 2020-06-03 16:33 | ndm | A normal bus can't drive on the guided busway sections - please remove "bus=designated". |
| 86035457 by Colin Knowles @ 2020-06-01 08:11 | 1 | 2020-06-01 22:53 | ndm | Looks odd, no physical infrastructure for a shop on satellite imagery. Is it a popup? |
| 85976854 by PiersG @ 2020-05-30 09:45 | 1 | 2020-05-30 19:45 | ndm | I've added the building back as it's still visible on Maxar -- maybe just delete name/amenity tags when buildings are still present. |
| 2 | 2020-05-30 20:20 | PiersG ♦6 | Good point, thanks | |
| 85909539 by martinbendle @ 2020-05-28 21:33 | 1 | 2020-05-28 22:30 | ndm | I hope you didn't copy this from the copyrighted website: https://ldwa.org.uk/ldp/members/show_path.p |
| 2 | 2020-05-29 13:14 | martinbendle ♦1 | No. This is based purely local knowledge, checked against the aerial photography in the osm editor. I live less than 500m from that edit, traverse it at least 3 times a week, and had created the edit before I looked up the linked website. The link was only provided to justify the value of the change... | |
| 3 | 2020-05-29 20:34 | ndm | Brilliant -- couldn't see much of a path on satellite imagery (and it's always looked pretty green when I've walked past) -- there was a vague suspicion on GPX tracks.I think the link was members-only? | |
| 85909967 by Wandering Methodist @ 2020-05-28 21:50 | 1 | 2020-05-28 22:43 | ndm | Looks like it might connect to the service road from satellite imagery? If so, maybe just access=private inside the allotments? |
| 2 | 2020-05-30 13:28 | Wandering Methodist ♦3 | The service road that runs parallel with Talbot Road is for the houses alongside talbot road and is not part of the Allotments (and therefore the path I added is not connect. I will try and make this clearer | |
| 85909747 by Wandering Methodist @ 2020-05-28 21:41 | 1 | 2020-05-28 22:34 | ndm | It's already marked as a disused:amenity -- don't normally add "(Closed)" to names. |
| 2 | 2020-05-30 13:25 | Wandering Methodist ♦3 | OK, thanks | |
| 85880626 by assalea @ 2020-05-28 09:46 | 1 | 2020-05-28 19:06 | ndm | Marked as "motor_vehilce=destination", there is a clear parked car at northern end (and no signage): https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=0e54796a-4eb6-49da-b2dd-0aefc1d91e1c&cp=51.530547~-2.475129&lvl=19&dir=239.35243&pi=-3.0015583&style=x&mo=z.2.34&v=2&sV=2&... |
| 85400748 by bluepuddle @ 2020-05-18 19:42 | 1 | 2020-05-18 21:43 | ndm | OpenStreetMap doesn't map suitability.The access specifiers are really for mapping legal restrictions - like whether there's a no cycling sign. A quick check with Bing Streetside doesn't seem to show any such signs - so I'm not sure this is totally valid? |
| 2 | 2020-05-19 21:06 | bluepuddle ♦2 | I did this because one of my apps (Perhaps OSM Android) directed me along this path on a cycling route. Is there any other way to handle this sort of issue? | |
| 3 | 2020-05-19 21:48 | ndm | You could map width, incline, surface even https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:mtb:scale -- and hope cycle routing takes "notice" of it.But https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access is really based on legal rights.I'm surprised the bollard didn't affect it: https... | |
| 4 | 2020-05-20 17:21 | bluepuddle ♦2 | OK. I'm pretty new to all this; is there an easy way for me to properly revert this change? Or can you do that for me?Regards - Conor | |
| 5 | 2020-05-22 16:59 | ndm | Ok, I've taken off the "bicycle=no" tag | |
| 85434841 by girinj @ 2020-05-19 10:28 | 1 | 2020-05-19 21:59 | ndm | I disconnected a track going through a hedge. |
| 2 | 2020-05-20 15:30 | girinj ♦13 | Thanks for checking into our edits. I have missed checking the hedge and created the track road as the imagery is blurred. I will make sure all my future edits will be reflecting the upmost quality. Thanks for the correction. Always happy to learn from the community | |
| 85400627 by bluepuddle @ 2020-05-18 19:38 | 1 | 2020-05-18 21:47 | ndm | Probably best to remove the description and mark it as "power=substation"? |
| 2 | 2020-05-19 21:10 | bluepuddle ♦2 | Done | |
| 3 | 2020-05-19 21:48 | ndm | Great! | |
| 85248356 by PiersG @ 2020-05-15 08:49 | 1 | 2020-05-16 20:58 | ndm | I've connected the footpath to the road so that routing software will be able to use it. |
| 85255807 by back_spin @ 2020-05-15 10:52 | 1 | 2020-05-16 20:52 | ndm | Maxar Premium seems to show buildings being developed - do you agree? |
| 85209599 by GTAPP @ 2020-05-14 15:28 | 1 | 2020-05-14 22:23 | ndm | There's some strange elements like "Cycle Track" and a cycleway that's coincident with the northern end of Wedmore Vale. You've also added a gate on a tertiary highway -- or looks like it.I'm afraid this changeset probably should be reverted -- and maybe redone? |
| 85188011 by PiersG @ 2020-05-14 08:37 | 1 | 2020-05-14 21:55 | ndm | Based on your changeset comment I've marked it as a disused:amenity |
| 85195075 by PiersG @ 2020-05-14 10:25 | 1 | 2020-05-14 21:49 | ndm | You might find trying ESRI clarity imagery works better for older buildings. |
| 2 | 2020-05-15 12:37 | PiersG ♦6 | Thank you :) | |
| 85204999 by YaStratospheric @ 2020-05-14 13:33 | 1 | 2020-05-14 21:42 | ndm | It would be great if you could please include more description in the changeset comment so that local mappers can review it more easily. |
| 2 | 2020-05-14 21:49 | YaStratospheric ♦17 | In this changeset, I added a small driveway. Thank you for your comment and reminder, next time I will try to leave more description in the changeset comment. | |
| 85134324 by CjMalone @ 2020-05-13 09:20 | 1 | 2020-05-13 20:47 | ndm | Look to be in the wrong location -- are these just copied from a copyrighted website? Does OSM have a licence from ASDA? |
| 2 | 2020-05-13 21:23 | CjMalone ♦233 | Asda has given permission for data from there website to be used in OSM.See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/CjMalone/diary/392901 | |
| 84900038 by charlesbabbage @ 2020-05-08 14:18 | 1 | 2020-05-08 21:41 | ndm | The same object should not be duplicated in OSM - other pedantic mappers *will* remove overlapping highways.The best way to add the cycle path/track is to add that feature to the existing highway "Windmill Close".If you want to create a seamless Filwood Greenway -- then you should ... |
| 2 | 2020-05-11 09:50 | charlesbabbage ♦2 | I will attend to. thank you for advice. | |
| 84897293 by charlesbabbage @ 2020-05-08 13:18 | 1 | 2020-05-08 21:32 | ndm | Is the cycleway open to pedestrians? |
| 2 | 2020-05-11 09:49 | charlesbabbage ♦2 | yes. the path is shared use. I realise now that a 'relation' is the best method to identify the route of the cycleway, so will do this here. as it stands, the split hasn't materially affected the accuracy/integrity of the map. | |
| 84642062 by john2660 @ 2020-05-04 18:34 Active block | 1 | 2020-05-04 23:04 | ndm | On three sets of imagery the bunker you deleted is visible? https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=84642062 |
| 84641825 by john2660 @ 2020-05-04 18:31 Active block | 1 | 2020-05-04 18:54 | southglos ♦120 | HiI'm trying to work out what's been changed and why in this changeset - seem to be a load of bunkers deleted that another, local user added not four weeks ago, then a load of additions including bunkers. May I suggest making your changeset comments a little more descriptive than just... |
| 2 | 2020-05-04 23:01 | ndm | See the red bits in https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=84641825It's deleted a lot of ponds too -- at least that needs to be reverted -- I guess they looked a bit green and got confused for grass? | |
| 3 | 2020-05-05 00:26 | southglos ♦120 | ...and the clubhouse has lost its restaurant, which still appears to be there according to their website. | |
| 84189088 by jgopatho @ 2020-04-27 09:51 | 1 | 2020-04-28 21:19 | ndm | Changed to footway |
| 2 | 2020-04-29 12:40 | jgopatho ♦9 | Thanks for looking into our edits. Incorrect road addition is a miss from our end. I will take this as a learning opportunity and make sure to verify all the resources before making any edits further. Once again, appreciate your time for improving our edits. Always happy to learn from the community. | |
| 83848511 by ErraticThunder @ 2020-04-21 02:37 | 1 | 2020-04-21 12:15 | ndm | Why did you add "access=destination" there's no signage on Bing Streetside to indicate that. |
| 2 | 2020-04-23 02:34 | ErraticThunder ♦25 | HI ndm ,thanks for looking into our edits. I have misinterpreted a signboard and modified the access tags. Thanks for your quick correction. Always happy to learn from the community.regards asnghpi | |
| 83120007 by Arpitha AM @ 2020-04-06 04:33 | 1 | 2020-04-06 21:11 | ndm | You've added the oneway in error. |
| 2 | 2020-04-08 05:34 | Arpitha AM ♦3 | We could find Mapillary evidences (51.4559128, -2.5897423)along with local inputs to make the changes If you know for your sure that our input is wrong based on local presence then you may certainly revert the edit. | |
| 3 | 2020-04-08 18:31 | ndm | Difficult to explain the issue without an explicit mapillary link -- although you dont mention mapillary in the changeset comment -- only maxar which only shows trees obscuring the road.If you are editting just from satellite imagery you should really add a "note" so that local mappers... | |
| 4 | 2020-04-15 12:57 | Arpitha AM ♦3 | Thank you for giving valuable suggestion/feedback. I'll pay closer attention to these things. | |
| 5 | 2020-04-20 13:21 | Arpitha AM ♦3 | Thanks for your valuable suggestions and feedback, which I have partially gone through guildelines.We could see Lane Marking in Mapillary ( https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=51.456214916006935&lng=-2.588466968384568&z=17&feedItem=user-gG1f6osGs7f38gOYNiKexQ-activity-user-gG1f6osGs7f38gO... | |
| 6 | 2020-04-20 18:28 | ndm | Yes https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=51.456214916006935&lng=-2.588466968384568&z=17&feedItem=user-gG1f6osGs7f38gOYNiKexQ-activity-user-gG1f6osGs7f38gOYNiKexQ-publishing_done-image&focus=photo&menu=false&mapStyle=Mapillary+satellite&pKey=rH14XbHlwqk7bYFjym1veA&x=0.51... | |
| 83718571 by V Hill @ 2020-04-17 17:02 | 1 | 2020-04-17 19:34 | ndm | Any chance you could possibly have a look using ESRI clarity imagery -- which is how it was originally drawn -- it's usually a lot clearer (if older) than Bing (explained on the Bristol page on the wiki).Just to check -- you seem to have deleted a footway viisble on Bing Streetside -- does ... |
| 2 | 2020-04-17 20:07 | V Hill ♦2 | Hi,Thanks for spotting that. I disconnected the footpath from university Road whilst updating the study centre.There is a bridge that links the study centre to the geographical sciences building that goes over said footpath. I wasn't able to save the updated building with the footpath way i... | |
| 3 | 2020-04-18 17:36 | ndm | Cheers for confirming it wasn't a new modification and adding the way back. I'll add the link bridge and mark the footway undeneath as tunnel=building_passage hopefully that should be ok. | |
| 83551434 by lg8550 @ 2020-04-14 19:28 | 1 | 2020-04-14 23:14 | ndm | Did you redraw this using a GPX track or from satellite imagery -- some of the paths no longer follow the OSM GPX data now.Bing isn't the greatest imagery -- ESRI clarity is best, but old -- or Maxar is newer and ok once you adjust it. |
| 2 | 2020-04-17 08:31 | lg8550 ♦1 | The new path in Bennett's Patch was from Bing aerial imagery.The adjustments in Bishop's Knoll were from some GPS data on my phone walking around - but this could be inaccurate. I'm going for anther walk in the next couple of weeks and will look again. :)I didn't know tha... | |
| 83384188 by stevekeiretsu @ 2020-04-10 22:33 | 1 | 2020-04-11 14:40 | ndm | Your changes (or at least a lot of green areas) seem to be there when I zoom in a bit. Large area tiles probably get rendered less frequently.Maybe also check your browser cache? |
| 2 | 2020-04-11 14:49 | stevekeiretsu ♦3 | It's not just me. See https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=69069 Still, it seemed to start sorting itself out yesterday | |
| 83217332 by paulxb @ 2020-04-07 20:34 | 1 | 2020-04-08 18:55 | ndm | *Please* don't make "invisible" access changes when local mappers will consider this to be (previously) mapped fully/correctly. At the very *least* add a note on the map, so that locals can update it in the future -- unless you're prepared to remember to do so (add a date in your... |
| 2 | 2020-04-08 19:51 | paulxb ♦1 | Firstly, I don't appreciate the tone of your message. We are all trying to improve the map and if you usually send messages like that, you will put a lot of people off contributing. Maybe I have misinterpreted your tone, but I'm sure the message could be written in a more friendly way.... | |
| 3 | 2020-04-08 22:40 | ndm | Hi Paul,Short-term temporary access changes are a pain -- leaving a note on the main map means that other mappers can fixup any issues should you be unable to do so in the future.Marking it as construction means that it's visible on the main map and on other applications that use OSM data... | |
| 83264362 by Mike Baggaley @ 2020-04-08 16:41 | 1 | 2020-04-08 18:52 | ndm | *Please* don't make "invisible" access changes when local mappers will consider this to be (previously) mapped fully/correctly. At the very *least* add a note on the map, so that locals can update it in the future -- unless you're prepared to remember to do so (add a date in your... |
| 2 | 2020-04-08 21:51 | Mike Baggaley ♦630 | Hi, sorry, I don't understand your comment. My change was correcting the previous update which set foot=conditional=no, bicycle=conditional=no, horse=conditional=no along with a note saying the track was closed. These access conditions were invalid and can not be considered to be mapped fully o... | |
| 3 | 2020-04-08 22:13 | ndm | Hi Mike,You're right the main issue was the preceding changeset -- but setting access to "no" makes it hard to tell what it should be when the track reopens. Cheers, Neil | |
| 83119935 by Arpitha AM @ 2020-04-06 04:31 | 1 | 2020-04-06 21:12 | ndm | You've added the oneway in error. |
| 2 | 2020-04-08 05:34 | Arpitha AM ♦3 | We could find Mapillary evidences (51.4559128, -2.5897423)along with local inputs to make the changes If you know for your sure that our input is wrong based on local presence then you may certainly revert the edit. | |
| 3 | 2020-04-08 18:32 | ndm | Difficult to explain the issue without an explicit mapillary link -- although you dont mention mapillary in the changeset comment -- only maxar which only shows trees obscuring the road.If you are editting just from satellite imagery you should really add a "note" so that local mappers... | |
| 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 |
| 83042351 by stevekeiretsu @ 2020-04-03 15:29 | 1 | 2020-04-03 22:16 | ndm | *Please* don't join landuse to highways -- it makes editing so much harder and means that you can't easily add kerbs, sidewalks, etc. |
| 2 | 2020-04-03 22:20 | stevekeiretsu ♦3 | I wish someone had told me that sooner, I've done it a lot! Sorry! Noted | |
| 3 | 2020-04-03 22:35 | ndm | Might be stylistic -- but if you want to draw hedges / walls / kerbs / sidewalks it's easier if they aren't connected. I think a lot of the landuse round Bristol is done that way -- maybe it's an unwritten rule to copy the local mapping style :-) | |
| 4 | 2020-04-03 23:20 | stevekeiretsu ♦3 | I had noticed the problem with not being able to add hedges when I connected fields to roads, but that side of the mental debate lost to the side of me that hates leaving weird gaps where there is somehow no land use at all. I looked for guidance on the issue and somehow failed to find the wiki wh... | |
| 82874931 by Tzuyi C @ 2020-03-31 13:55 | 1 | 2020-03-31 23:25 | ndm | The changeset comment makes little sense -- a bay from the bus station got dragged across the road to the South Plaza -- have reverted this and the other minor changes. |
| 2 | 2020-03-31 23:26 | ndm | Good luck with your future edits -- the centre of Bristol might not be the easiest place to start. | |
| 82781831 by math42 @ 2020-03-29 14:54 | 1 | 2020-03-29 15:26 | ndm | Modified tagging to use lifecycle prefix, i.e. disused:amenity |
| 82620994 by minkhantthein @ 2020-03-25 17:13 | 1 | 2020-03-25 22:41 | ndm | Changeset comment is useless -- what were you trying to add? |
| 82521615 by girinj @ 2020-03-23 12:04 | 1 | 2020-03-23 21:01 | ndm | Huge changeset?I've reverted the powerline you moved in Dorset - it was clearly visible in ESRI clarity at the original position |
| 2 | 2020-03-24 12:43 | girinj ♦13 | Thanks for notifying. Apologies for the error caused here. This usually happens when ID editor hasn't responded for a long duration and I refresh the webpage. I shall consider this as a learning and avoid such glitches in future. Thanks again. | |
| 82460530 by UpsideDownDave @ 2020-03-21 14:13 | 1 | 2020-03-21 18:18 | ndm | Should be "oneway:bicycle = no".It'll take several days until routing engines pick it up.Think most named cycleroutes are done as relations.Presume you're not copying maps from that link? |
| 82328169 by srinatpa @ 2020-03-18 04:37 | 1 | 2020-03-18 20:58 | ndm | Updated based on public Maxar Imagery |
| 2 | 2020-03-19 10:23 | srinatpa ♦16 | Hi Ndm,Thanks for checking into our edits. The edit was based on Private maxar imagery dated "2019-11-16". The modified edit is creating road duplication, kindly verify the edit.Regards,Srinatpa. | |
| 3 | 2020-03-19 22:10 | ndm | The edit is perfect with regards to Maxar imagery licenced for OpenStreetMap - if you have other imagery licenced for OpenStreetMap, please make it available. | |
| 4 | 2020-03-20 14:17 | srinatpa ♦16 | Hi NDM,Thanks for your response. As mentioned in our wiki, we cannot share the private imagery publicly but it has the most recent imagery coverage (in few cases even a month old images). As per our ground survey (GPS traces of our driver) and latest satellite imagery proof, your edit is contrad... | |
| 5 | 2020-03-20 20:46 | ndm | Remote mappers make a lot of mistakes, even Amazon ones -- I check all edits in my local neighbourhood -- anything that's not correct will get reverted / modified.If I can't use the same imagery then this will likely happen again.I have always been able to respond to other mappers ... | |
| 82421374 by amanura @ 2020-03-20 08:06 | 1 | 2020-03-20 08:31 | ndm | This looks more like a footway -- are you sure this is a service road? |
| 2 | 2020-03-20 10:49 | amanura ♦14 | Thanks for your time for checking our edits. It was a mistake from our end. Reverting the changes as per the suggestion. Please find the changeset (82428040) for modifications. Always happy to learn from the community | |
| 82407011 by ndm @ 2020-03-19 21:36 | 1 | 2020-03-20 01:36 | DaveF ♦1,566 | Are you aware you've put buildings on top of others? |
| 2 | 2020-03-20 08:19 | ndm | Bother! | |
| 82391642 by remoh10 @ 2020-03-19 13:14 | 1 | 2020-03-19 21:18 | ndm | Please make smaller changes |
| 2 | 2020-03-20 08:38 | remoh10 ♦6 | Thanks for notifying. Apologies for the error caused here. This usually happens when ID editor hasn't responded for a long duration and I refresh the webpage. I shall consider this as a learning and avoid such glitches in future. Thanks again. | |
| 82403042 by elkomoot @ 2020-03-19 18:46 | 1 | 2020-03-19 21:16 | ndm | If you are sure, then you should have removed the construction=tertiary tag -- I am a little bit doubtful it's open, as it was basically a dirt track in February, as you can see from the Mapillary images. |
| 82067896 by hemasvn @ 2020-03-11 15:31 | 1 | 2020-03-11 20:17 | ndm | Think this should be reverted - there was already a bollard blocking the roads - as show in Bing imagery. Just adding a "path" probably doesn't help foot and cycle routing. |
| 2 | 2020-03-12 11:29 | hemasvn ♦17 | Hi ndm,Thanks for your time for checking our edits. We have added a path since there is no proper evidence to specify as it as foot/cycle path. Can you suggest any possible resolution in these kind of cases. Please let me know in case of any further edits.Regards,hemasvn | |
| 3 | 2020-03-12 19:20 | ndm | If you are changing the map based on incomplete data you should at least add a Map Note (note+ icon on the website) so that local mappers know that it needs a detailed survey!I'm going to review satellite imagery and will probably edit https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/780235136 | |
| 4 | 2020-03-13 12:39 | hemasvn ♦17 | "Thanks for your response. We just cross verified osm wiki again to improve our edits regarding paths . it was mentioned as "" highway=path is a generic path, either multi-use or unspecified usage, open to all non-motorized vehicles and not intended for motorized vehicles unless tagg... | |
| 5 | 2020-03-13 19:26 | ndm | Unless you have a better mechanism to communicate with mappers in the locality that your changes are "best effort" and not from a survey, then I think you need to add a note, especially where the situation is ambiguous. | |
| 82041765 by aepunavy @ 2020-03-11 07:17 | 1 | 2020-03-11 20:28 | ndm | "path" doesn't really help foot and cycle routing -- can you see if it can be better classified? |
| 2 | 2020-03-12 07:25 | aepunavy ♦14 | Hi ndm,Thanks for checking into our edits. This edit was made partially based on the Driver feedback and available resources. We are not sure of creating any cycle/ foot path as there is no ground resources validating such edits from our end. It can be helpful if the local knowledge can improve ou... | |
| 3 | 2020-03-12 19:18 | ndm | If you are changing the map based on incomplete data you should at least add a Map Note (note+ icon on the website) so that local mappers know that it needs a detailed survey! | |
| 4 | 2020-03-13 11:58 | aepunavy ♦14 | Hi ndm,Thanks for the reply. As mentioned in the wiki "" highway=path is a generic path, either multi-use or unspecified usage, open to all non-motorized vehicles and not intended for motorized vehicles unless tagged so separately. The path may have any type of surface.This includes ... | |
| 5 | 2020-03-13 19:25 | ndm | Unless you have a better mechanism to communicate with mappers in the locality that your changes are "best effort" and not from a survey, then I think you need to add a note.For example, is the path really called "Robin Place" -- is it signed, or left from some previous chang... | |
| 82039000 by di5order @ 2020-03-11 06:25 | 1 | 2020-03-11 20:40 | ndm | Think this needs reverting I can see cars parked facing the opposite direction on ESRI clarity and ESRI world. |
| 2 | 2020-03-12 14:49 | di5order ♦14 | Hi ndm! ESRI (Clarity) is 2011, on the 2018 ESRI World, most of the cars are headed southbound, and this partially confirms our edit.Plus it is worth explaining, that we made our edits based only on OSM sources, and customer feedback just helps us to locate the problem and chose the best way... | |
| 3 | 2020-03-12 19:25 | ndm | If you are changing the map based on incomplete data you should at least add a Map Note (note+ icon on the website) so that local mappers know that it needs a detailed survey!I will have another look at new ESRI imagery -- and will revert if there are cars facing in different directions. | |
| 81968555 by priymose @ 2020-03-09 14:30 | 1 | 2020-03-09 20:10 | ndm | Modified using Maxar (offset). |
| 2 | 2020-03-11 06:50 | priymose ♦23 | Hi ndm,Thanks for making changes to the edit. I have used a different imagery while making the edit. I will consider this and will follow the same going forward while making such edit. Always happy to learn from the community.Regards,priymose. | |
| 81866547 by Tom Southey @ 2020-03-06 12:00 | 1 | 2020-03-06 21:46 | ndm | Better to mark this as construction - adding "access=no" makes it hard to remember to remove it -- without setting a calendar for October. Also probably needs an OSM note to make it even more visible, as a short-term change |
| 81768822 by spark @ 2020-03-04 10:23 | 1 | 2020-03-05 00:34 | ndm | Just wondered about motorbikes and horses :-) |
| 2 | 2020-03-05 08:20 | spark ♦24 | Fair enough! Have redone the tagging with the more explicit motor_vehicle=no and added the bollards. | |
| 81793821 by Djmap4754 @ 2020-03-04 21:51 | 1 | 2020-03-05 00:21 | ndm | Changeset comment seems incorrect.The buildings already have "addr:unit" values.*If* it were "3 Clareton Villas" which seems unlikely given it's unit 4, then you could make a case for having addr:housename="Clareton Villas" and addr:housenumber="3"... |
| 81793808 by Djmap4754 @ 2020-03-04 21:50 | 1 | 2020-03-05 00:18 | ndm | Changeset comment seems incorrect |
| 81793706 by Djmap4754 @ 2020-03-04 21:46 | 1 | 2020-03-05 00:17 | ndm | If it's a track it should be "highway=track" not "name=track" |
| 2 | 2020-03-05 15:17 | Chris Fleming ♦375 | Hi, Welcome to OSM and thanks for signing up and helping to improve the map. As ndm commented, is sounds like we could probably classify these better, either highway=service with the gravel surface - we would normally use this for access roads to houses/buildings.or as highway=track also wit... | |
| 81533107 by srinatpa @ 2020-02-27 06:21 | 1 | 2020-02-27 18:00 | ndm | It improves motor_vehicle routing but degrades cycle routing -- I think you should have added a cycleway. |
| 2 | 2020-03-02 05:23 | srinatpa ♦16 | Hi ndm,Thanks for taking the time to review my edit. We are still working on the addition of paths data in OSM with valid resources. Please find the changeset for suggested modifications(81663115). Please let me know in case any further edits required.Thanks & Regards,Srinatpa | |
| 81552206 by Tim Rawling @ 2020-02-27 14:36 | 1 | 2020-02-27 17:54 | ndm | Why delete this "Birch House" should be around here? |
| 81427034 by ndm @ 2020-02-24 23:49 | 1 | 2020-02-25 16:10 | DaveF ♦1,566 | HiCould 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 ♦1,566 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/463238230You 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. | |
| 81402081 by hemasvn @ 2020-02-24 11:02 | 1 | 2020-02-24 21:40 | ndm | If you move a building you should probably move all POIs inside it. |
| 2 | 2020-02-25 14:27 | hemasvn ♦17 | thanks for checking my edits. Modified the building position to avoid overlapping with the service road. Not sure of positioning the POI accurately without being supported by ground reality. it can be helpful if local knowledge can improve our edits. Please let me know in case of any further modific... | |
| 81402805 by JDMOOORE @ 2020-02-24 11:20 | 1 | 2020-02-24 21:29 | ndm | I've reverted this -- please don't glue unrelated items such as highways and landuses items together it makes editting much more difficult. |
| 81421392 by Charlie Canton-Smith @ 2020-02-24 19:50 | 1 | 2020-02-24 21:26 | ndm | Don't believe that Driveway or "foot path" are their real names -- best not to invent them. |
| 2 | 2020-02-25 16:13 | DaveF ♦1,566 | HiWelcome to OSMAre you sure this is a footpath: it passes through a residential property.https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/692972623#map=17/51.98309/-2.62229. | |
| 3 | 2020-02-25 16:17 | DaveF ♦1,566 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/776060284#map=15/52.0932/-2.6150If this is accessible to motor vehicles it's not a footway. Please have a read of wiki, specifically: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway?uselang=en | |
| 81379126 by Sailor Steve @ 2020-02-24 00:11 | 1 | 2020-02-24 21:25 | ndm | Please add back all the footways and cycleways -- they were carefully surveyed. |
| 81318036 by southglos @ 2020-02-21 12:50 | 1 | 2020-02-21 22:00 | ndm | There was still a connection to farm lane two weeks ago -- even if it was subject to construction/barriers https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=51.54277175163148&lng=-2.6352815071017273&z=17&pKey=k-QaQtALdsyqoOecllSK5A&focus=photo&x=0.5062408917637296&y=0.5099147984565611&z... |
| 2 | 2020-02-21 22:02 | ndm | There's no reason cyclists can't use the roundabout --- access=no seems a bit harsh | |
| 3 | 2020-02-21 22:05 | ndm | Scrub that -- forgot cyclepath is separated. | |
| 4 | 2020-02-21 22:06 | southglos ♦120 | Yes, I've left it connected where the cyclepath comes off; I've disconnected it from what's now the roundabout - on the basis that there's a crash barrier in the way. | |
| 5 | 2020-02-21 22:17 | southglos ♦120 | Here's a nice photo from the Highways Agency: http://assets.highwaysengland.co.uk/roads/road-projects/M49+Avonmouth+Junction/M49+Avonmouth+Junction+December+2019.jpgIt shows crash barriers all the way round the edge, blocking off Farm Lane, the unused-for-now stubs to the east, and weirdly... | |
| 6 | 2020-02-21 23:54 | ndm | Needs a proper survey.Mapillary is from Feb 4th so it's newer -- and obviosuly has a copyright that is compatible with OSM, rather than the Highways Agency photo.Possible footpath might come out at: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=51.54172013435701&lng=-2.6328473485604604&z=1... | |
| 80803209 by _j_ @ 2020-02-10 15:09 | 1 | 2020-02-10 22:13 | DaveF ♦1,566 | HiBefore making amendments, especially id tall buildings, to be ware of 'parallaxerrors' & that the aerial imagery is accurately aligned with objects that are close to the ground ie roads.You've moved this, & other objects ouit of alignment.https://www.openstreetmap.org/... |
| 2 | 2020-02-10 22:31 | ndm | The changeset comment is next to useless -- what did you change? | |
| 3 | 2020-02-10 22:32 | ndm | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/332983392 no longer matches ESRI clarity. | |
| 4 | 2020-02-10 22:32 | _j_ ♦1 | Hi, thanks for the headsup, what is the best way to align the aerial imagery? | |
| 5 | 2020-02-10 22:38 | ndm | Cabot Circus is dragged badly https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8903084#map=18/51.45927/-2.58238 you can see parking entrance roads are at odd angles. | |
| 6 | 2020-02-10 22:40 | ndm | There's some wierd geometry near https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/80803209#map=19/51.46106/-2.57720 | |
| 7 | 2020-02-10 23:14 | ndm | A lot of the map is drawn from different imagery -- some of it is no longer available -- all has varying quality and offsets and parallax issues. Some mappers draw "to the roofs" -- some to the ground -- if there's no parallax there's no difference -- but can be significant if pa... | |
| 8 | 2020-02-12 21:15 | ndm | Reverted problematic edits | |
| 80803325 by _j_ @ 2020-02-10 15:13 | 1 | 2020-02-10 22:45 | ndm | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/618601186#map=19/51.46612/-2.58457 no longer matches ESRI clarity |
| 2 | 2020-02-10 22:47 | ndm | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/668771054#map=19/51.46700/-2.58378 no longer has a smooth wall/street | |
| 3 | 2020-02-10 22:48 | ndm | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/564470886#map=19/51.46989/-2.58089 no longer has a smooth wall/street | |
| 4 | 2020-02-10 22:49 | ndm | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/625567210#map=19/51.46729/-2.57694 no longer matches ESRI clarity | |
| 5 | 2020-02-10 22:53 | ndm | Other changes look harmless / useful cleanup. | |
| 6 | 2020-02-12 20:46 | ndm | Reverted problematic edits. | |
| 80803418 by _j_ @ 2020-02-10 15:16 | 1 | 2020-02-10 22:57 | ndm | There's a bad drag of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/496196928 -- don't think alll the nodes got moved -- original probably nearer ground truth, paralax in imagery. |
| 2 | 2020-02-10 22:59 | ndm | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/471983747 -- probably not a square building -- doesn't match ESRI clarity | |
| 3 | 2020-02-10 23:02 | ndm | Rest is probably ok. | |
| 4 | 2020-02-12 20:29 | ndm | Reverted problematic edits. | |
| 80664025 by ndm @ 2020-02-06 23:53 | 1 | 2020-02-11 14:23 | DaveF ♦1,566 | HiCould 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 ♦1,566 | 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/1lJw5srlLPaou8K4IqvFIQCan't help much more -- it's right on the limit for ... | |
| 4 | 2020-03-05 16:53 | DaveF ♦1,566 | 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 | |
| 79582860 by UKChris @ 2020-01-14 21:17 | 1 | 2020-01-14 21:32 | ndm | Did you check these -- the N Bristol one still had signage visible yesterday -- please revert your change. |
| 2 | 2020-01-15 19:05 | UKChris ♦42 | Hi ndm,I'm sorry if you're not happy with my edit. Mothercare no longer trade in their own stores (https://osm.mathmos.net/ghosts/mothercare/) and only now appear as a stock selection in select Boots stores.I don't think it's accurate mapping to have store data attached t... | |
| 3 | 2020-01-15 20:46 | ndm | Mostly reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/79621483 | |
| 4 | 2020-01-16 18:58 | UKChris ♦42 | Was hiding a personal jib as the source of a revert to a changeset that you didn't agree with really necessary? Rather than, for example, something like "here's a preferred way of doing things"? | |
| 5 | 2020-01-16 21:40 | ndm | Nope, it's my default source for edits which don't use surveys / satellite data or other imagery, e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/79169813This is the approach some Bristol mappers have been using: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bristol#Lifecycle -- like everything in ... | |
| 79584491 by Milliams @ 2020-01-14 22:26 | 1 | 2020-01-14 23:26 | ndm | Looking on Bing Streetside:1). There's no signage for a no U-turn.2). The traffic lights / road markings do have straight ahead only arrows though. |
| 79513472 by harinikh @ 2020-01-13 11:29 | 1 | 2020-01-13 23:50 | ndm | Looks like you can never leave? |
| 2 | 2020-01-15 07:21 | harinikh ♦7 | Hi ndm,Thanks for looking into my edit. This is an honest mistake. I understand the mistake now and will be more careful going forward. I've modified the directions as there wasn't sufficient information due to lack of street level imagery, please refer changeset ( 79595963). I would r... | |
| 79514574 by hvannere @ 2020-01-13 11:57 | 1 | 2020-01-13 23:40 | ndm | I've removed a service road segment that doesn't appear to exist. |
| 2 | 2020-01-21 13:16 | hvannere ♦7 | Hi ndm,Thanks for looking into the edit. I had made this edit partially based upon the GPS trace of our delivery partner. I would be happy in case local knowledge can improve this edit. I am always happy to learn from the local community. Let me know in case you have any further suggestion.regar... | |
| 79497972 by NikitaSalt @ 2020-01-13 05:40 | 1 | 2020-01-13 23:31 | ndm | This turn restriction is incorrect -- it has been reverted. |
| 2 | 2020-01-14 15:43 | NikitaSalt ♦9 | Hi! You are correct. It is my bad, didn't pay attention that this sign is placed after the intersection and related to the next one. Thank you for reaching out! | |
| 79259503 by Mike Parfitt @ 2020-01-06 18:01 | 1 | 2020-01-06 22:04 | ndm | This looks like it needs to be reverted -- should be using ESRI clarity as specified in the Bristol wiki entry -- previous data was a better fit to the middle lane. |
| 2 | 2020-01-07 11:01 | Mike Parfitt ♦13 | Please give an example node where the gps tracks are inconsistent with my positioning and I will investigate further. | |
| 79260663 by Mike Parfitt @ 2020-01-06 18:32 | 1 | 2020-01-06 22:02 | ndm | This probably needs reverted -- a motorway juntion tag has been deleted -- and roads should really be split where they are physically separate. |
| 2 | 2020-01-07 10:46 | Mike Parfitt ♦13 | Which node held the motorway junction tag ? I'm happy to fix that. | |
| 3 | 2020-01-07 20:49 | Mike Parfitt ♦13 | Reinstated the 3 valid tags on node 309474. | |
| 4 | 2020-01-07 22:02 | southglos ♦120 | Just noticed this one too. I don't think the southbound carriageway should be split so early - they're not separate parallel roads, it's just one road with lane markings, and it's possible and legal to change between the two halves right up until just before the physical split.\... | |
| 5 | 2020-01-08 12:13 | Mike Parfitt ♦13 | By marking the boundary between the motorway and the off-lane the Highways Agency is encouraging drivers to think ahead and get themselves positioned. Many take this hint, moving outwards as soon as the dashes start. Some don't and put themselves and others at risk by swooping from the overta... | |
| 6 | 2020-01-08 13:58 | southglos ♦120 | A laudable aim, but that's deliberately mis-mapping things for the benefit of satnav prompts. If we start splitting roads whenever we want drivers to get into the correct lane, we'd have an absolute chaos of parallel ways all over the place. You'd not suggest splitting every roundab... | |
| 7 | 2020-01-09 15:09 | Mike Parfitt ♦13 | No, it isn't a mis-mapping. It is reflecting how things really are on the ground. Check the gps traces. What I have done is to reflect actual usage and road markings. I will revert my changes if you can show me the section in the Road Traffic Act which says something equivalent to "whe... | |
| 8 | 2020-01-09 15:51 | southglos ♦120 | That's not what I'm arguing at all. I'm arguing that in OpenStreetMap we don't normally split roads unless they're physically separated. The stretch of road before the exit slip is a single piece of road, with three lanes, with the lane 1 marked up as being for the exit. ... | |
| 9 | 2020-01-10 22:16 | Mike Parfitt ♦13 | Your statement that "I'm arguing that in OpenStreetMap we don't normally split roads unless they're physically separated" is too grand a claim.Your statement that "We should split the road at the point it actually becomes two - I'd say where the solid white lin... | |
| 10 | 2020-01-10 23:47 | SomeoneElse ♦13,390 | (apologies for barging in here, but someone not in the edit history PMed me about it).Generally speaking "in OpenStreetMap we don't normally split roads unless they're physically separated" is normally correct - where roads are split into lanes they'd normally just be one ... | |
| 11 | 2020-01-14 08:55 | Mike Parfitt ♦13 | Topic raised in talk-GB as similar motorway junctions will crop up elsewhere. | |
| 79142564 by viplavm @ 2020-01-03 05:59 | 1 | 2020-01-03 19:03 | ndm | There's no service road here https://binged.it/37zxuwu -- I'll revert.If you meant to add a driveway -- then it was either too long or misaligned, depending on which house it was supposed to be associated with. |
| 2 | 2020-01-06 10:18 | viplavm ♦15 | Hi ndm,Thanks for reviewing my edit and making the necessary changes. It was an honest mistake. From private aerial imagery the road is visible and it was leading to single entity. I should have added a driveway rather than a service road. Will take this as learning and use for the further edits... | |
| 79080507 by jpthorogood @ 2020-01-01 13:04 | 1 | 2020-01-01 18:04 | ndm | Adjusted -- as there is no "no-left-turn" restriction. |
| 79081226 by jpthorogood @ 2020-01-01 13:29 | 1 | 2020-01-01 17:55 | ndm | Please don't glue areas to ways it makes it difficult to modify in the future. |
| 79086061 by Mike Baggaley @ 2020-01-01 16:46 | 1 | 2020-01-01 17:51 | ndm | Reverting this -- access was previously correct. |
| 2 | 2020-01-01 18:49 | Mike Baggaley ♦630 | Previous access was incorrect. access=staff is not a recognised value - access=private is the correct value to use for staff access. access=delivery allows more access than private, so already covers the staff. | |
| 79075124 by rkkapilk @ 2020-01-01 07:43 | 1 | 2020-01-01 11:52 | ndm | Please don't mark access to shops as private -- it should be customers. |
| 2 | 2020-01-02 12:00 | rkkapilk ♦8 | Hi ndm,Thanks for reviewing my edit and making the necessary changes. Will take this as learning and use for the further edits. Please let me know if anything else needs to be changed. Always happy to learn from community.Regards,rkkapilk. | |
| 79008246 by rkkapilk @ 2019-12-30 10:16 | 1 | 2019-12-30 10:31 | ndm | I've removed the service road that doesn't exist you added to McDonalds - you should be able to see that on Bing Streetside.Surely customers need to have access to Toyota. |
| 2 | 2019-12-30 13:51 | rkkapilk ♦8 | Hi ndm,Thanks for reviewing my edit. It was an honest mistake. Will take this as learning and use for the further edits.Please let me know if any further changes are to be made. Always happy to learn from community.Regards,rkkapilk. | |
| 65343167 by Nick in Kew @ 2018-12-10 12:48 | 1 | 2018-12-10 21:35 | ndm | Going to tweak some of this -- parks are glued to paths that they shouldn't be -- and I assume the car park shouldn't go through the building? |
| 2 | 2019-12-29 12:54 | Nick in Kew ♦3 | the car park goes under the building. Right up to it in some places, and under it in others. The building has an overhang on some of the spaces. | |
| 3 | 2019-12-29 21:52 | ndm | Thanks for the update. Looked like some parallax / image misalignment.Maybe really needs some judicious use of layer / level tags then? Or split parking into covered and uncovered. | |
| 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 | |
| 78885116 by poodoshi @ 2019-12-26 14:13 Active block | 1 | 2019-12-26 23:54 | ndm | Is it wise to add service roads to an area under construction? |
| 2 | 2019-12-27 08:09 | poodoshi Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 78786460 by krinkov76239 @ 2019-12-23 18:53 | 1 | 2019-12-24 00:35 | ndm | I've removed the through road to Moorlands Road -- clearly not present on Bing Streetside. |
| 78598746 by twwosm @ 2019-12-18 19:45 | 1 | 2019-12-20 00:00 | ndm | It looks like you're importing Sustrans copyright information into OpenStreetMap -- do you have an appropriate licence to do this? Was this discussed on the imports / talk-gb mailing lists? |
| 2 | 2019-12-20 00:03 | ndm | This signpost is already marked https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6985964877 | |
| 78598869 by twwosm @ 2019-12-18 19:50 | 1 | 2019-12-20 00:00 | ndm | It looks like you're importing Sustrans copyright information into OpenStreetMap -- do you have an appropriate licence to do this? Was this discussed on the imports / talk-gb mailing lists? |
| 78640122 by twwosm @ 2019-12-19 13:39 | 1 | 2019-12-19 23:59 | ndm | It looks like you're importing Sustrans copyright information into OpenStreetMap -- do you have an appropriate licence to do this? Was this discussed on the imports / talk-gb mailing lists? |
| 78640262 by twwosm @ 2019-12-19 13:42 | 1 | 2019-12-19 23:59 | ndm | It looks like you're importing Sustrans copyright information into OpenStreetMap -- do you have an appropriate licence to do this? Was this discussed on the imports / talk-gb mailing lists? |
| 78642945 by twwosm @ 2019-12-19 14:37 | 1 | 2019-12-19 23:59 | ndm | It looks like you're importing Sustrans copyright information into OpenStreetMap -- do you have an appropriate licence to do this? Was this discussed on the imports / talk-gb mailing lists? |
| 78653910 by twwosm @ 2019-12-19 20:10 | 1 | 2019-12-19 23:59 | ndm | It looks like you're importing Sustrans copyright information into OpenStreetMap -- do you have an appropriate licence to do this? Was this discussed on the imports / talk-gb mailing lists? |
| 78653980 by twwosm @ 2019-12-19 20:12 | 1 | 2019-12-19 23:59 | ndm | It looks like you're importing Sustrans copyright information into OpenStreetMap -- do you have an appropriate licence to do this? Was this discussed on the imports / talk-gb mailing lists? |
| 78485190 by theArchDruid @ 2019-12-16 17:17 | 1 | 2019-12-18 00:06 | ndm | ESRI imagery seems to show the removed section clearly.Maxar premium seems to have trees obscuring the path.Irrespective there must be some access to garages/sheds at end of the gardens. |
| 2 | 2019-12-18 14:47 | theArchDruid ♦29 | I've added a track road where I removed the section of service road. You're correct, there does appear to be access to some facilities beyond Francis Road. However, I don't believe it is apt to call it a service road. Hopefully this settles the issue. Thanks for the help. | |
| 78368825 by chaubean @ 2019-12-13 11:13 | 1 | 2019-12-15 22:32 | ndm | You have connected the service road to an administrative boundary -- perhaps you could zoom in more next time -- or even better use a filter to avoid changing boundaries if you are only adding service roads.I'll try to fix it. |
| 2 | 2019-12-16 09:21 | chaubean ♦7 | Hi ndm,Thanks for looking into my edit and for making the necessary changes. It was an honest mistake. Will take the suggestion as learning and use for the further edits.Please let me know if any changes are to be made.Always happy to learn from community.Regards,chaubean. | |
| 78179881 by shravyp @ 2019-12-10 03:13 | 1 | 2019-12-10 21:03 | ndm | I reverted this -- doesn't seem to be present on Maxar imagery and it would be somewhat unusual to have a service road near to a bus stop. |
| 2 | 2019-12-11 09:45 | shravyp ♦1 | Hi ndm,Thanks for looking into my edit. Will take this as learning and use for the further edits.please let me know in case of any changes that are to be made.Always happy to learn from community.Regards,shravyp. | |
| 78185990 by wellasus @ 2019-12-10 05:42 | 1 | 2019-12-10 20:52 | ndm | Bing Streetside shows a kerb -- it's probably more of a footway -- so I've modified it. |
| 2 | 2019-12-11 10:00 | wellasus ♦16 | Hi ndm,Thanks for looking into my edit. It was an honest mistake. Will take this as learning and use for the further edits. Please let me know if anything needs to be changed.Always happy to learn from community.Regards,lasushe. | |
| 78172213 by krinkov76239 @ 2019-12-09 21:48 | 1 | 2019-12-10 00:28 | ndm | Looks like parking areas have suffered from you moving nodes? I'll try and fix it. |
| 78172648 by krinkov76239 @ 2019-12-09 22:04 | 1 | 2019-12-10 00:20 | ndm | Do you have a link for this turn restriction? More likely to be "straight ahead only" not "no right turn" surely? |
| 78165174 by Şerdin @ 2019-12-09 17:53 | 1 | 2019-12-09 20:20 | DaveF ♦1,566 | HiWelcome to OSMWhy have you split these closed ways to create relations?They lookd fine as normal polygons. |
| 2 | 2019-12-09 20:51 | ndm | It's already marked as 1 Cathedral Square. | |
| 78019896 by PeaksearchWG @ 2019-12-06 00:01 | 1 | 2019-12-06 00:13 | southglos ♦120 | Bristol City Centre and the new Severn bridge as peak=natural ?? |
| 2 | 2019-12-06 00:21 | ndm | A lot of Bristol suburbs have now been duplicated as peaks.Can someone please revert - or I'll do so when I can | |
| 3 | 2019-12-06 03:06 | SomeoneElse ♦13,390 | I've reverted this in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/78023496 . If anyone sees any problems with that, or any other problems that need reverting, please let me know.Best Regards,Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group. | |
| 77898143 by Joseph2541 @ 2019-12-03 20:15 | 1 | 2019-12-03 22:48 | ndm | Congratulations on the move.I'd recommend keeping the name the same as that on the external signage.Obviously a shorter name is more likely to be displayed :-)If you want to describe a more legal owner, then maybe operator="formal company name" might be better. |
| 77898203 by Joseph2541 @ 2019-12-03 20:17 | 1 | 2019-12-03 22:44 | ndm | Does this still have any signage for Niche Frames? Is it still a shop?Generally, local Bristol mappers have been leaving signed names on buildings and just marking them as disused:amenity / disused:shop / disused:office. The names have only been removed fro mthe map when the last signage has... |
| 77898225 by Joseph2541 @ 2019-12-03 20:18 | 1 | 2019-12-03 22:42 | ndm | Does this still have any signage for Ceres? Is it still a restaurant?Generally, local Bristol mappers have been leaving signed names on buildings and just marking them as disused:amenity / disused:shop / disused:office. The names have only been removed from the map when the last signage has ... |
| 77898243 by Joseph2541 @ 2019-12-03 20:19 | 1 | 2019-12-03 22:41 | ndm | Does this still have any signage for Bristol Office Furniture? Is it still a shop? Are the contact detalis still relevant?Generally, local Bristol mappers have been leaving signed names on buildings and just marking them as disused:amenity / disused:shop / disused:office. The names have only... |
| 77898354 by Joseph2541 @ 2019-12-03 20:23 | 1 | 2019-12-03 22:40 | ndm | Does this still have any signage for Seabright printers?Generally, local Bristol mappers have been leaving signed names on buildings and just marking them as disused:amenity / disused:shop / disused:office. The names have only been removed fro mthe map when the last signage has disappeared f... |
| 77898382 by Joseph2541 @ 2019-12-03 20:25 | 1 | 2019-12-03 22:39 | ndm | Does this still have any signage for avon law centre? Is it still an office?Generally, local Bristol mappers have been leaving signed names on buildings and just marking them as disused:amenity / disused:shop / disused:office. The names have only been removed fro mthe map when the last signa... |
| 77701123 by Aidan Morgan @ 2019-11-28 23:36 | 1 | 2019-12-01 22:00 | ndm | I've added back the indoor corridors - please don't delete them again. |
| 2 | 2019-12-01 22:08 | Aidan Morgan ♦1 | The reason why they were removed initially was because mapbox who use the open street map data had data cached from a while ago when i made the parking positions initially. I wouldnt in my life grief this platform, only making the removal temporary to re-insert them in order to correct the wrongly c... | |
| 3 | 2019-12-01 23:27 | Aidan Morgan ♦1 | I had a look at what was reverted, i must have forgotten to apply the indoor corridoors as i was planning to use the official indoor map to layout the businesses and walkways more accurately. I do apologise | |
| 4 | 2019-12-02 00:20 | ndm | Just be careful -- you can't copy other maps (without getting permission to add their data under ODbL to OpenStreetmap). | |
| 5 | 2019-12-02 00:21 | Aidan Morgan ♦1 | I will keep that in mind | |
| 77769948 by ndm @ 2019-11-30 23:39 | 1 | 2019-12-01 21:29 | A67-A67 ♦932 | Hallo ndm,Broos Keukens en Bo-Rent stonden al op de kaart. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1569643722https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2596107024Ik 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 ♦932 | 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, ... | |
| 77791445 by Fred Boniface @ 2019-12-01 21:15 | 1 | 2019-12-02 00:07 | ndm | Has the building been demolished now? |
| 77563410 by sharagar @ 2019-11-26 09:19 Active block | 1 | 2019-11-26 13:18 | ndm | At first glance - it looks like you've added the gate on the footpath which seems odd. |
| 2 | 2019-11-26 21:10 | ndm | Ok, I've moved the gate so pedestrians can use the footway unimpeded. | |
| 3 | 2019-11-29 12:40 | sharagar Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 4 | 2019-11-30 00:13 | ndm | When you added it to the service road it got added to the footway too -- might have needed a bit more zoom next time :-) | |
| 5 | 2019-12-06 10:35 | sharagar Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 77715096 by bdevek @ 2019-11-29 08:40 | 1 | 2019-11-29 22:19 | ndm | This changeset seems to connect a service road to an administrative boundary -- I will try to fix it. |
| 2 | 2019-12-02 08:21 | bdevek ♦2 | Hi ndm,Thanks for looking into my edit. It was an honest mistake. Will take this as learning and check for proper node connections in future edits. Regards,bdevek, | |
| 77520721 by GrooveBox @ 2019-11-25 12:27 | 1 | 2019-11-25 21:00 | ndm | Looks to be pretty consistent with my approach, e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/77471096#map=18/51.54013/-2.54355, so I'd be equally wrong if you are :-)I tend to use the building outline to naturally clip the road -- I suppose it adds a couple of extra nodes to the building, b... |
| 2 | 2019-11-26 08:56 | GrooveBox ♦12 | Cheers. I'll tweak my "tunnel" lengths. | |
| 77446539 by ArticCynda @ 2019-11-22 21:44 | 1 | 2019-11-22 23:51 | ndm | Looks like this should be Barton Hill Settlement from Bing? |
| 2 | 2019-11-23 09:15 | ArticCynda ♦3 | Correct, I've set addr:housename=Barton Hill Settlement | |
| 77363207 by uttarann @ 2019-11-21 08:42 | 1 | 2019-11-21 22:02 | ndm | One of the service roads is a footway -- I've fixed it. |
| 2 | 2019-11-22 07:03 | uttarann ♦5 | Hi ndm,Thanks for looking into my edit and correcting the edit. It was an honest mistake.Will take this as learning for future edits. Please let me know if anything needs to be changed. Always happy to learn from community.Regards,uttarann. | |
| 77115357 by dvvuyyur @ 2019-11-15 09:33 | 1 | 2019-11-16 00:00 | ndm | I've reverted these turn restrictions -- there is no evidence on Bing Streetside. |
| 2 | 2019-11-19 01:54 | dvvuyyur ♦9 | Hi ndm,Thanks for looking into my edit. Added turn restrictions as the new added road goes over the legal median as per the OSM Wiki (https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/lines-and-lane-markings-on-the-road.html). Please let me know if anythings needs to be changed. Always happy to learn from communi... | |
| 3 | 2019-11-19 20:13 | ndm | I think you need to understand that you can cross a painted meridian to turn -- if you are careful https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/lines-and-lane-markings-on-the-road.html#Please don't add any turn restrictions that conflict with the highway code. | |
| 77069733 by YaStratospheric @ 2019-11-14 11:41 | 1 | 2019-11-14 22:48 | ndm | I have reverted this it is incorrect. |
| 2 | 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. | |
| 3 | 2019-11-14 22:55 | ndm | Normally the no U-turn should be on the island bollards but is not. | |
| 4 | 2019-11-14 22:57 | ndm | You should also be following the https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines | |
| 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. |
| 77087717 by Hobgoblin @ 2019-11-14 17:37 | 1 | 2019-11-14 22:36 | ndm | Please add meangingful changeset comments.Edits that don't give any information as to their intention are more likely to be reverted. |
| 2 | 2019-11-16 17:19 | Hobgoblin ♦11 | I thought Maproulette would have added more. I corrected a building outline by merging some nodes that were very close to gether. | |
| 76596548 by brutskmaria @ 2019-11-04 14:09 | 1 | 2019-11-04 21:24 | ndm | I've reverted this.Please don't add temporary road restrictions without adding something visible, e.g. a note, or marking it as construction, |
| 2 | 2019-11-12 13:38 | brutskmaria ♦3 | Hi!I apologize for the delayed answer,We map road closures according to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions OSM wiki guide.OSM data is not only for rendering, and big part of it not displaying in standard layer. Making this information visible (i.e. adding highway=con... | |
| 3 | 2019-11-12 15:55 | ndm | Please take account of the wishes of local mappers. If you add conditional restrictions for temporary road closures without adding something visible to the local mapping community it will be reverted - again. | |
| 4 | 2019-11-13 13:59 | brutskmaria ♦3 | Wishes of local communities is important for us not less than OSM rules.We will change our approach to conditional restrictions and will add Notes on the map in places where conditional restrictions located in our future edits.And, if we add Note, what it should contain? My guess is that "m... | |
| 5 | 2019-11-13 20:59 | ndm | Temporary access restrictions would seem to be covered by https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_temporary_events_and_temporary_features -- If you add a note it should be clear -- "Remove/check access after roadworks and a clear ISO date." Or take action to r... | |
| 6 | 2019-11-14 06:48 | brutskmaria ♦3 | I assume that good practices is covering mapping of temporary feature as permament (Just i.e. if you map sand dune over the roads in some Dubai Desert https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/02/23/08/3D51F73800000578-4232000-Dubai_highways_swallowed_by_sand-a-4_1487840356782.jpg), but conditional restr... | |
| 76946717 by YaStratospheric @ 2019-11-12 08:26 | 1 | 2019-11-12 09:46 | ndm | Please don't add in surveyed items.I will revert this there's no reason to add add an unsigned restriction here. |
| 2 | 2019-11-13 10:42 | YaStratospheric ♦17 | Hi, thanks for your comment. There is the road markings that regulate traffic are clearly visible on satellite images, so I assume that this ""only straight"" is clearly signed. Also, the driver’s report confirmed, as he drove on and did not turn around in this place. \... | |
| 3 | 2019-11-13 20:32 | ndm | Disallow ~180 degree turns from your routing would be an obvious idea -- as it happens I have seen u-turns at that point (whether they were legal is another matter). | |
| 4 | 2019-11-14 11:36 | YaStratospheric ♦17 | Disallowing 180-degree turns maybe have a chance to solve this problem, but it definately destroy navigation.As it explained in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:restriction, "*Don't map* turn restrictions that are *the default* for a given jurisdiction *and* are *not signed... | |
| 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. | |
| 76767311 by GrooveBox @ 2019-11-07 16:03 | 1 | 2019-11-07 22:43 | ndm | If you select a building and press q -- I think that should straighten it up and "square" the edges. |
| 2 | 2019-11-08 09:29 | GrooveBox ♦12 | In my defence I didn't add these houses. I just added house numbers! I've straightened them up anyway. | |
| 3 | 2019-11-08 19:55 | ndm | My bad -- still they look nicer now :-) | |
| 76583099 by poodoshi @ 2019-11-04 10:34 Active block | 1 | 2019-11-04 22:35 | ndm | I redrew the service road as it went through a hedge. |
| 2 | 2019-11-05 09:49 | poodoshi Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 76593806 by thadad @ 2019-11-04 13:28 | 1 | 2019-11-04 21:35 | ndm | This looks like a shared service road to at least 3 houses - not a private driveway. |
| 76594481 by Raihas @ 2019-11-04 13:38 | 1 | 2019-11-04 21:27 | ndm | Can you please indicate why there is a gate. Thanks. |
| 2 | 2019-11-07 06:58 | Raihas ♦10 | Hi ndm,Thanks for looking into my edit.The gate was added on basis of the shadow in Esri world clarity and private source(digital globe) which as date captured on 2019-10-06.Added the source for the edit. Please let me know if anything needs to be changed.Always happy to learn from society.R... | |
| 76602378 by thadad @ 2019-11-04 15:59 | 1 | 2019-11-04 21:19 | ndm | Looks like a service road to garages - might also access newly built houses - doesn't really seem to be a (private) driveway. |
| 76503041 by DaveF @ 2019-11-01 15:19 | 1 | 2019-11-01 23:04 | ndm | You've marked footpaths as access=no over the Old Market roundabout -- if that's only temporary could you possibly add a note to that effect -- so it gets flagged up to be remapped in the future. |
| 76476318 by artem95vlasovets @ 2019-11-01 06:17 | 1 | 2019-11-01 22:47 | ndm | I've moved the access restriction onto the highway -- please do that in future if your mapping around Bristol, UK -- it makes it more obvious for local mappers.Note: Amazon mappers typically use private rather than destination. |
| 76492828 by karmsudi @ 2019-11-01 12:13 | 1 | 2019-11-01 21:21 | ndm | I believe this is a footway, not a service road -- I've changed it after looking at Bing Streetside |
| 2 | 2019-11-04 13:36 | karmsudi ♦20 | Hi ndm,Thanks for looking into my edit.It was an honest mistake.Would take this as learning for the further edits.Please let me know if anything needs to be changed.Always happy to learn from community.Regards,karmsudi | |
| 76399346 by JDMOOORE @ 2019-10-30 14:28 | 1 | 2019-10-30 21:34 | ndm | Buildings don't get landuse. I've added the graveyard hopefully that helps. |
| 76399031 by JDMOOORE @ 2019-10-30 14:22 | 1 | 2019-10-30 20:49 | ndm | I've redrawn this using latest Maxar Premium Imagery -- if you have better/newer imagery please advise. |
| 76398782 by JDMOOORE @ 2019-10-30 14:18 | 1 | 2019-10-30 20:32 | ndm | Great you're trying to help OpenStreetMap -- always a good idea to make small edits first -- not the whole width of the country :-)FYI buildings should be tagged with "building=something" not landuse. |
| 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 ♦2,373 | 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 ♦2,373 | 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 :-) | |
| 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/33t6Sf3As I can see on OSM, you already made this correct way, as it was in https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/76115879/ you reverted previously. | |
| 76115879 by artem95vlasovets @ 2019-10-23 16:51 | 1 | 2019-10-23 19:03 | ndm | The road doesn't have oneway signs it should not be marked oneway - I'll change it. |
| 2 | 2019-10-24 06:46 | artem95vlasovets ♦52 | @ndm According to Bing Street Level Imagery Kingsway Avenue is onewayhttps://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-USIf y... | |
| 3 | 2019-10-29 12:06 | Velox ♦22 | Exact location of the sign: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-USJust FYI | |
| 4 | 2019-10-29 23:35 | ndm | Thanks, but your link doesn't show a blue/white oneway sign. | |
| 76311691 by Nomadcyclist @ 2019-10-28 18:52 | 1 | 2019-10-28 22:21 | ndm | So good, they named it twice? |
| 76204147 by back_spin @ 2019-10-25 11:54 | 1 | 2019-10-25 12:06 | ndm | As discussed with previous mapbox editor the road is not one-way there are no blue one-way signs. There is a no entry sign at one end only.Changes will be reverted later. |
| 2 | 2019-10-25 13:19 | back_spin ♦17 | Yeah. Thanks for your message and information. I fixed back | |
| 76092773 by Rick Wiles @ 2019-10-23 09:46 | 1 | 2019-10-23 18:58 | ndm | Reverted - you can't drive an ordinary bus on the route. |
| 2 | 2019-10-24 12:07 | trigpoint ♦2,373 | See also comments made in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/76133401 | |
| 3 | 2019-10-24 12:23 | Rick Wiles ♦7 | In answer to your request about changing tags, you changed them then sent a message, said in a friendly way, maybe you should follow your own rule. You cannot block access to everything with access = no. You must tag a Transport to allow it down there, Guided buses are buses. As we work with bus rou... | |
| 4 | 2019-10-24 22:46 | ndm | You can't drive a normal bus on these sections (or in fact any other vehicle, or cycle, or ride - a horse) hence "access=no".You can use a "guided bus" - hence bus:guided=yes.If your system doesn't understand bus:guided, then you need to preprocess the data befo... | |
| 5 | 2019-10-25 10:20 | trigpoint ♦2,373 | RickIn your comments you mention 'the system' and 'we'. Please coul you be more specific?These comments suggest that you should be following https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_GuidelinesThere is nothing in your profile suggeting you are anything other... | |
| 6 | 2019-10-25 16:11 | Rick Wiles ♦7 | Does anyone get paid for mapping within OSM, or does everyone do it as a hobby and for free? I don't know. To be honest I would be more than happy never touching OSM, but unfortunately I do have to input new roads etc all other the place to allow us to track bus routes along them. I was the fir... | |
| 76133401 by Rick Wiles @ 2019-10-24 05:47 | 1 | 2019-10-24 12:07 | trigpoint ♦2,373 | Please respond to changeset comments before you keep changing tags which may break the database for other users.You appear to be engaged in an edit war.If you believe the tagging is incorrect then please discuss it with the community.Some of your comment, such as the system imply you are... |
| 2 | 2019-10-24 22:45 | ndm | You can't drive a normal bus on these sections (or in fact any other vehicle, or cycle, or ride - a horse) hence "access=no".You can use a "guided bus" - hence bus:guided=yes.If your system doesn't understand bus:guided, then you need to preprocess the data befo... | |
| 76095163 by Rick Wiles @ 2019-10-23 10:25 | 1 | 2019-10-23 18:58 | ndm | Reverted - you can't drive an ordinary bus on the route. |
| 2 | 2019-10-24 05:39 | Rick Wiles ♦7 | You can not access = No and nothing else. It stops all transport inculded guider biuses. If you can tell me what can be put in to allow gueided buses down then we can add that. For this reason I am reverting it back. Bus = yes. | |
| 3 | 2019-10-24 05:42 | Rick Wiles ♦7 | I might add the system even notices that there is a tag missing. | |
| 4 | 2019-10-24 05:47 | Rick Wiles ♦7 | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbus_guideway | |
| 5 | 2019-10-24 22:45 | ndm | You can't drive a normal bus on these sections (or in fact any other vehicle, or cycle, or ride - a horse) hence "access=no".You can use a "guided bus" - hence bus:guided=yes.If your system doesn't understand bus:guided, then you need to preprocess the data befo... | |
| 76091639 by Rick Wiles @ 2019-10-23 09:25 | 1 | 2019-10-23 18:58 | ndm | Reverted - you can't drive an ordinary bus on the route. |
| 75875503 by alampim @ 2019-10-18 07:19 | 1 | 2019-10-18 23:37 | ndm | Looks like it's fenced off in Maxar Premium? |
| 2 | 2019-10-22 07:14 | alampim ♦1 | Hi ndm, Thanks for looking into my edit.It was an honest mistake.So, reverted the edits made. please refer the changeset for the edits (76031398).Will take it as learning and use them in the further edits.Please let me know in case of any other changes that are to be made. Always happy to learn fr... | |
| 75691207 by ndm @ 2019-10-14 23:18 | 1 | 2019-10-15 14:48 | DaveF ♦1,566 | 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. | |
| 75660344 by DoctorRad @ 2019-10-14 11:27 | 1 | 2019-10-14 22:44 | ndm | I distinctly remember the private road sign -- don't think there were any allowances for bikes / pedestrians. |
| 75494730 by GrooveBox @ 2019-10-10 07:30 | 1 | 2019-10-10 09:29 | ndm | Changing the imagery layer to ESRI clarity might help you to get more detail / split into individual properties. You can see elsewhere in Bristol that mappers have tried to add individual addresses. |
| 75371432 by brutskmaria @ 2019-10-07 11:28 | 1 | 2019-10-07 18:30 | ndm | ESRI clarity doesn't show the "to" road.What imagery did you use? |
| 2 | 2019-10-08 07:14 | brutskmaria ♦3 | Esri Clarity dated by 30.09.2011 Use Esri or Bing to see "to" road. | |
| 75376379 by artem95vlasovets @ 2019-10-07 13:10 | 1 | 2019-10-07 15:52 | ndm | There is no turn restriction - "Old Bristol Road" seems to be one-way where it joins Durley Hill -- from road markings on Bing Streetside. |
| 2 | 2019-10-07 18:19 | ndm | I've reverted this and added a one-way section, see 75389422 | |
| 3 | 2019-10-08 07:47 | artem95vlasovets ♦52 | Didn't see a sign that it was a one-way street. If you have better data, please fix it. Thank for your feedback. | |
| 75186018 by assalea @ 2019-10-02 11:41 | 1 | 2019-10-02 13:12 | ndm | Have you added an entry in your diary to remove this later? The unconditional constraint doesn't get rendered. You haven't added any notes for local mappers - how are they to know to remove your changes. Weird - conditional is for last month? Surely better to mark it as construction - ... |
| 2 | 2019-10-02 13:54 | assalea ♦5 | Ndm, Hello! Thank you for your concern. Yes, I added this case to my dairy. | |
| 3 | 2019-10-02 17:22 | ndm | I've reverted your change, see 75196111.It now follows the other roads that are closed in the area being marked as construction.I've also added an OSM note, so that it's really obvious that it needs checking in the future.At the risk of sounding a bit grumpy -- I can'... | |
| 4 | 2019-10-02 17:24 | ndm | I think dates should be treated with a grain of salt -- given that it should be already finished :-) https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/end-date-been-announced-temple-3367417 | |
| 74860481 by rkumreo @ 2019-09-24 14:02 | 1 | 2019-09-24 22:17 | ndm | I can't see any no U-turn signs on Bing Streetside or Mapillary -- could you please post a link. |
| 2 | 2019-09-25 11:32 | rkumreo ♦31 | Hi ndm,Thanks for looking into my edit. Here is the link of the mapillary street view(https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=7LohCOKSEDzezoxql4m9nA&focus=photo&lat=51.477449443239266&lng=-2.5364809110784563&z=17&x=0.5107296349306554&y=0.5668570055039049&zoom=0) with whic... | |
| 3 | 2019-09-25 12:06 | ndm | Great - didn't see the restriction on the traffic light - just looked at the bollard :-) | |
| 74851721 by PLauren @ 2019-09-24 11:26 | 1 | 2019-09-24 22:54 | ndm | How did you survey this?I mapped the guided busway by walking it on foot and was extremely careful -- and I'm not sure about some of your changes.I'll admit I probably used psv when I should have used bus. |
| 2 | 2019-09-24 23:00 | ndm | Looks like some typos in stop names?:Ss Great BritainQueen Square (Q1') | |
| 3 | 2019-09-25 07:19 | PLauren ♦3 | Surveyed using bus- dont walk on the guideway!! | |
| 4 | 2019-09-25 09:37 | ndm | I will be changing some of your modifications, as I think your bus survey could have missed some details, e.g. there's a combined cycle and footway all the way along:https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=51.43762039018646&lng=-2.6231131596663397&z=17&pKey=2vpAWQV3Wadci-b3I3ciug&... | |
| 74801326 by PLauren @ 2019-09-23 11:07 | 1 | 2019-09-23 14:52 | ndm | The large bus stops are called "The Centre" -- there's little evidence for C1/C2. Might be on some digital display, but not on major infrastructure items -- there's a strong argument to revert this change to on the ground surveyed data.Note: the C1/C2 were kept on the "o... |
| 2 | 2019-09-23 15:13 | PLauren ♦3 | The c1 and c2 name sets are on The background services timetables that are in the second case away from the RTI board. Additional supporting info can be found here-https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/travelwest/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Bus-Map-July-update-2019-2-8-19_WEB3.pdf | |
| 3 | 2019-09-23 15:14 | PLauren ♦3 | The link is a map made and produced by the council for the public and is primarily used by visiotrs to the city- hence the C1/c2 name change. Official name should be changed to match. | |
| 4 | 2019-09-23 18:38 | ndm | The PDF is "(c) Crown Copyright and database rights 2019, Ordnance Survey 100023406" -- if you're mapping/copying from that then that's going to be problematic. I *really* don't want to upset you -- but you *do* need to check out the copyright situation -- OSM can't... | |
| 5 | 2019-09-23 18:54 | ndm | As for the particular issue of the bus stop names -- it's clear that the name is "The Centre" (https://www.flickr.com/photos/184597061@N05/48783615901/in/dateposted-public/ and https://www.flickr.com/photos/184597061@N05/48783611851/in/dateposted-public/) | |
| 6 | 2019-09-24 07:15 | PLauren ♦3 | If you look in the first photo you provided then you should see a timetable with a blue band above it- this will clearly denote the stop as being named. The map I have up-loaded as copyright on this but this relates to the base map only. Bristol city council, whome I work for name these stops in a... | |
| 7 | 2019-09-24 14:14 | ndm | I'll try and check the names tonight.Regards copyright -- I'll flag it with the data working group -- they should have a better idea than me whether you are using a work derived from Ordnance Survey data. | |
| 8 | 2019-09-24 14:23 | PLauren ♦3 | I'm very confused why you keep talking about copyright. My job is to mange the names of the stops in Bristol as well as the route. The copyright is held by my team and is the name of the stop as displayed on the roadside. The timetables produced themselves are copyrighted but ONLY for the w... | |
| 9 | 2019-09-24 21:51 | ndm | Bus stops were originally imported from NAPTAN -- under OGL (see https://data.gov.uk/dataset/ff93ffc1-6656-47d8-9155-85ea0b8f2251/national-public-transport-access-nodes-naptan).Ideally, you would be able to say the same licence (or something similar) applied to any information you are adding:nam... | |
| 74826059 by DaveF @ 2019-09-23 20:40 | 1 | 2019-09-23 23:26 | ndm | Cheers, that's a good first start.Presume is still WIP given all the construction lines. Pretty sure "The Wellhead" was rectangular when I surveyed it -- looks a bit odd now. |
| 2 | 2019-09-24 00:15 | DaveF ♦1,566 | There's a chamfer & some steps were alongside:https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.45436/-2.58977 | |
| 3 | 2019-09-24 00:16 | DaveF ♦1,566 | https://snipboard.io/0JsPRr.jpg | |
| 4 | 2019-09-24 21:28 | ndm | Couldn't see steps tonight (it's boarded up) but shape seems close to map now.Sometimes it's difficult to tell what's intentional when the river gets moved. | |
| 74817920 by DaveF @ 2019-09-23 16:24 | 1 | 2019-09-23 20:13 | ndm | Presume you're reverting this too? A lot of stuff seems to have been "sheared" -- https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=74817920 |
| 74750510 by abedecain @ 2019-09-21 14:11 | 1 | 2019-09-21 18:36 | ndm | I've removed the names that are housenumbers. |
| 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 | |
| 74536525 by DaveF @ 2019-09-16 14:37 | 1 | 2019-09-16 22:17 | ndm | Looks like a ferry route got dragged north-east -- some strange artifacts on riverbanks near ferry terminals. |
| 74528913 by DaveF @ 2019-09-16 12:15 | 1 | 2019-09-16 22:15 | ndm | Bristol Power Signal Box (and its chimney) used to match ESRI Clarity - not sure what it's matching now? Maybe stuff got dragged -- there's a wobble in the parking lane near Bristol Power Signal Box. GPS data isn't conclusive -- matched old version as well (if not better) than the new... |
| 74451791 by theArchDruid @ 2019-09-13 18:51 | 1 | 2019-09-13 23:56 | ndm | Can't see any no U-turn signs on Bing -- are you sure it's there? |
| 2 | 2019-09-16 15:08 | theArchDruid ♦29 | After further review, you are correct. I believe I made this edit based on assumption. I will revert these changes. Thank you. | |
| 74179599 by PLauren @ 2019-09-06 14:26 | 1 | 2019-09-06 14:38 | ndm | Hi. Can you please explain the basis/source of your updates -- if this is an import you need to follow the import guidelines, otherwise your changes will likely be reverted. |
| 2 | 2019-09-06 14:44 | PLauren ♦3 | I work in Bristol City council and am responsible for the bus information/ naming of bus stops in line with DFT guidelines. It is not an import but a manual name update to reflect the on street names of the bus stop in line with publication produced by BCC. | |
| 3 | 2019-09-06 15:04 | ndm | It's still an import even if done "by hand". Do you have the copyright information for the source you are using? | |
| 4 | 2019-09-06 15:08 | PLauren ♦3 | If you are asking if i work for the company that owns the bus stops then yes. These are owned by Bristol City Council. If you are asking if i own the data the answer is no as this is open data and nobody owns it. Please explain your reasons for questioning the update to the correct names of stops to... | |
| 5 | 2019-09-06 15:17 | ndm | Ok, it seems that you don't have a good idea of the licence or copyright of the data you are adding - and whether it's compatible with odbl, i.e. the openstreetmap licence. I wouldn't add any more until you can clarify things - it's probably something you should check. | |
| 6 | 2019-09-06 15:29 | PLauren ♦3 | Again I ask the question :Please explain your reasons for questioning the update to the correct names of stops to assist the travelling public and adhere to DFT/ naptan guidelines.The data i am using is the data that is generated by myself at BCC for the stops that BCC own and control. Therefore... | |
| 7 | 2019-09-06 20:10 | ndm | Moved to OSM message. | |
| 73977621 by DevonshireBoy42 @ 2019-09-01 16:49 | 1 | 2019-09-01 21:06 | ndm | Not sure why noaddress is required -- National Rail seem to think it has an address? |
| 2 | 2019-09-04 18:02 | DevonshireBoy42 ♦18 | Ah add the address then, the street complete app was asking if it had a house number for which I answered no. | |
| 3 | 2019-09-04 18:15 | ndm | I think you need to report a bug and stop using the app until it's fixed then -- it should have added "nohousenumber=yes" | |
| 4 | 2019-09-05 19:10 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,660 | What is the address of this object? Is it address with just house name? Or some other form of the address?------And thanks for reporting the problem on the issue tracker of StreetComplete. Note that you can disable in settings a specific quest(s). You may do this with just house number q... | |
| 5 | 2019-09-05 19:11 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,660 | And issue is at https://github.com/westnordost/StreetComplete/issues/1553 | |
| 6 | 2019-09-05 21:48 | ndm | Copyrighted address info is at https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/stations/BPW/details.aspx | |
| 73933804 by krinkov76239 @ 2019-08-30 18:09 | 1 | 2019-08-30 19:25 | ndm | Tweaked service road to use ESRI clarity. |
| 73934534 by krinkov76239 @ 2019-08-30 18:36 | 1 | 2019-08-30 19:24 | ndm | Tweaked this to use ESRI clarity as in the Bristol wiki entry. |
| 73898973 by MacLondon @ 2019-08-29 21:07 | 1 | 2019-08-29 22:03 | ndm | This looks a bit odd - tempted to revert this.The coach station tags are now duplicated onto a new POI (should only be a single item) -- and the coach station building is now removed from the coach station relation? |
| 2 | 2019-08-30 03:33 | MacLondon ♦215 | Was just a temporary edit (using JOSM). Afterwards I used Potlatch (my preferred editor for drawing) to map the bus station as an area that covers more than just the building. | |
| 73780933 by cbbhush @ 2019-08-27 07:16 | 1 | 2019-08-27 18:56 | ndm | The existing content on the map, i.e. building is drawn from ESRI clarity. You haven't realigned the Maxar imagery to match the existing content -- I'll fix that now. |
| 2 | 2019-08-30 13:44 | Himanshu Galyan ♦6 | Hi ndm,Thank you for pointing this out. I have communicated to the editor regarding the mistake and have familiarized him with realignment for Maxar imagery. Going forward, he will not repeat it! Please go ahead and make the change. Let me know in case there is anymore suggestion.(Posted on cbhu... | |
| 73502034 by miuddin @ 2019-08-19 14:38 | 1 | 2019-08-19 18:56 | ndm | Reverted - service roads don't go through walls. Plus this area is being redeveloped and is subject to change |
| 2 | 2019-08-20 07:41 | miuddin ♦1 | Hi ndm, Thanks for looking into my edit. This edit was based partially upon the GPS trace of our delivery partner. Unfortunately, I missed checking the bing street view and wall block options in OSM. I have understood the mistake and will not repeat this in future. I am eager to learn from the c... | |
| 3 | 2019-08-25 09:18 | ndm | This area is under active development -- there's a new building "The Cigar Factory" there now -- may not be visible on imagery. | |
| 4 | 2019-08-26 12:00 | miuddin ♦1 | Hi ndm, Thanks for the update. Let me know in case you have any further suggestions. Always happy to learn from the community. Regards,miuddin | |
| 73189919 by kmarjbh @ 2019-08-09 11:43 | 1 | 2019-08-09 18:51 | ndm | Why are you adding oneway=yes -- there are no oneway markings -- please check Bing Streetside. |
| 2 | 2019-08-20 11:50 | kmarjbh ♦8 | Hi ndm, Thanks for looking into this edit. I had made this edit based upon the bing aerial imagery, where I could see a do not enter board. In case you have any local knowledge, please let me know, I will revert the edit. Let me know in case you have any further suggestions. Always happy to lear... | |
| 3 | 2019-08-25 09:16 | ndm | You are correct that there is a no-entry sign on St Augustine's Parade forbidding entry -- this was already implemented as a very small section of oneway=yes.However, there are no oneway signs on Denmark Street itself -- it is (theoretically) possible to turn and drive back in the opposite... | |
| 73189034 by kmarjbh @ 2019-08-09 11:16 | 1 | 2019-08-09 18:51 | ndm | Why are you adding oneway=yes -- there are no oneway markings -- please check Bing Streetside. |
| 2 | 2019-08-20 11:47 | kmarjbh ♦8 | Hi ndm, Thanks for looking into my edit. I have given the tag of oneway=yes based upon the mapillary street imagery with latest date where clearly we can see 1 way lane marking and 1 way street board. Let me know in case you have any concerns. I will be happy to learn from the community. Reg... | |
| 3 | 2019-08-25 09:13 | ndm | Your oneway was correct when I surveyed it -- I also removed the oneway:bicycle=no near Royal Fort Road that you had left. | |
| 4 | 2019-08-26 12:00 | kmarjbh ♦8 | Hi ndm,Thank you for the update. Let me know in case you have any further suggestions. Would be happy to help.Regards,kmarjbh | |
| 73084540 by GrumbleGrumble @ 2019-08-06 20:55 | 1 | 2019-08-07 09:54 | ndm | This just looks like an import from rowmaps - you need to revert your changes (or I can) and follow the import guidelines as specified on the OSM wiki. |
| 2 | 2019-08-07 20:27 | GrumbleGrumble ♦2 | Hi ndm. Sorry, I'm still getting to grips with OSM! This isn't a direct import. I viewed the South Glos council data by imprting it as a custom layer on iD, and then went over the map individually adding the footpaths to match satellite imagery, street level photos, OS OpenData, and my own... | |
| 3 | 2019-08-07 20:27 | GrumbleGrumble ♦2 | (I also used old OS maps via NLS and iD) | |
| 4 | 2019-08-07 21:36 | ndm | Assuming all the licencing is fine (!) then maybe any new "paths" need a source=rowmaps and fixme=survey (unless you've walked them). | |
| 5 | 2019-08-25 09:11 | ndm | According to https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2019-August/023358.html it seems that you need to either remove edits or add an attribution notice. | |
| 73618830 by ppgne @ 2019-08-22 11:20 | 1 | 2019-08-22 20:26 | ndm | Dear Amazon Mapping Team,Most of previous Bristol (UK) edits have been made based on ESRI clarity (which also matches previous Bing layer -- not current one) .This is documented in the OSM wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bristol)Please ensure that any mapping using, e.g. Maxa... |
| 2 | 2019-08-23 12:40 | ppgne ♦3 | Hey Neil, Thank you for looking into my edit. I have understood the problem associated with the parallax in Maxar imagery. The team has been appropriately informed about the risk you have pointed out and have been advised to use the offset imagery tool in OSM to avoid making this mistake. I have... | |
| 73618115 by tmmanish @ 2019-08-22 11:05 | 1 | 2019-08-22 20:18 | ndm | Dear Amazon Mapping Team,Most of previous Bristol (UK) edits have been made based on ESRI clarity (which also matches previous Bing layer -- not current one) .This is documented in the OSM wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bristol)Please ensure that any mapping using, e.g. Maxa... |
| 2 | 2019-08-27 06:26 | tmmanish ♦14 | Hey Neil, Thank you for looking into my edit. I have understood the problem associated with the parallax in Maxar imagery. The team has been appropriately informed about the risk you have pointed out and have been advised to use the offset imagery tool in OSM to avoid making this mistake. I have... | |
| 73616935 by tmmanish @ 2019-08-22 10:42 | 1 | 2019-08-22 20:12 | ndm | Dear Amazon Mapping Team,Most of previous Bristol (UK) edits have been made based on ESRI clarity (which also matches previous Bing layer -- not current one) .This is documented in the OSM wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bristol)Please ensure that any mapping using, e.g. Maxar ... |
| 2 | 2019-09-09 11:03 | tmmanish ♦14 | Hey Neil, Thank you for looking into my edit. I have understood the problem associated with the parallax in Maxar imagery. The team has been appropriately informed about the risk you have pointed out and have been advised to use the offset imagery tool in OSM to avoid making this mistake. I have... | |
| 73607862 by sefbisht @ 2019-08-22 07:19 | 1 | 2019-08-22 19:30 | ndm | Dear Amazon Mapping Team,Most of previous Bristol (UK) edits have been made based on ESRI clarity (which also matches previous Bing layer -- not current one) .This is documented in the OSM wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bristol)Please ensure that any mapping using, e.g. Maxar ... |
| 2 | 2019-08-23 12:26 | sefbisht ♦1 | Hey Neil, Thank you for looking into my edit. I have understood the problem associated with the parallax in Maxar imagery. The team has been appropriately informed about the risk you have pointed out and have been advised to use the offset imagery tool in OSM to avoid making this mistake. I have... | |
| 73607664 by neerdixi @ 2019-08-22 07:14 | 1 | 2019-08-22 19:28 | ndm | Dear Amazon Mapping Team,Most of previous Bristol (UK) edits have been made based on ESRI clarity (which also matches previous Bing layer -- not current one) .This is documented in the OSM wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bristol)Please ensure that any mapping using, e.g. Maxar ... |
| 2 | 2019-08-23 12:31 | neerdixi ♦14 | Hey Neil, Thank you for looking into my edit. I have understood the problem associated with the parallax in Maxar imagery. The team has been appropriately informed about the risk you have pointed out and have been advised to use the offset imagery tool in OSM to avoid making this mistake. I have... | |
| 73606818 by mundlk @ 2019-08-22 06:50 | 1 | 2019-08-22 19:26 | ndm | Dear Amazon Mapping Team,Most of previous Bristol (UK) edits have been made based on ESRI clarity (which also matches previous Bing layer -- not current one) .This is documented in the OSM wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bristol)Please ensure that any mapping using, e.g. Maxar ... |
| 2 | 2019-08-23 12:37 | mundlk ♦19 | Hey Neil, Thank you for looking into my edit. I have understood the problem associated with the parallax in Maxar imagery. The team has been appropriately informed about the risk you have pointed out and have been advised to use the offset imagery tool in OSM to avoid making this mistake. I have... | |
| 73606490 by vennredd @ 2019-08-22 06:39 Active block | 1 | 2019-08-22 19:23 | ndm | Dear Amazon Mapping Team,Most of previous Bristol (UK) edits have been made based on ESRI clarity (which also matches previous Bing layer -- not current one) .This is documented in the OSM wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bristol)Please ensure that any mapping using, e.g. Maxar ... |
| 2 | 2019-08-23 12:26 | vennredd Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 73340685 by ob36483 @ 2019-08-14 10:02 | 1 | 2019-08-14 20:24 | ndm | Realigned with ESRI - fixed up non-square buildings (probably due to pointy roofs and strange Maxar parallax) added missing building, created multipolygon |
| 73340268 by ob36483 @ 2019-08-14 09:52 | 1 | 2019-08-14 20:16 | ndm | Adjusted roads, redrew buildings - realigned and separated them -- needs a survey |
| 73341312 by ob36483 @ 2019-08-14 10:18 | 1 | 2019-08-14 20:09 | ndm | Realigned to move buildings off of roads! |
| 73341753 by ob36483 @ 2019-08-14 10:31 | 1 | 2019-08-14 19:55 | ndm | Realigned buildings to ESRI clarity so that they don't overlap the roads. |
| 73323260 by natolh @ 2019-08-13 19:52 | 1 | 2019-08-13 22:13 | ndm | I'm going to revert this -- you've removed the building tag and all the address information. |
| 2 | 2019-08-14 06:34 | natolh ♦5 | Thanks must be a problem with OsmAnd edition tool. | |
| 3 | 2019-08-14 19:16 | ndm | I tried to keep the new tags you added -- so hopefully, just a glitch | |
| 73187274 by ob36483 @ 2019-08-09 10:33 | 1 | 2019-08-09 19:08 | ndm | I've tried to adjust this so landuses don't overlap -- does "Kings Weston Ln" have a better name? |
| 73188073 by ob36483 @ 2019-08-09 10:53 | 1 | 2019-08-09 19:03 | ndm | I'm going to revert most of this -- you've moved separate buildings on top of each other -- and put a whole landuse layer on top of an existing one.If you insist on use a beta imagery layer you need to adjust it to match existing content -- not just move stuff randomly. |
| 73157006 by nishisi @ 2019-08-08 14:00 | 1 | 2019-08-08 22:52 | ndm | You've removed the oneway sections that are clearly visible on mapbox and maxar imagery. |
| 73127775 by GrumbleGrumble @ 2019-08-07 20:41 | 1 | 2019-08-07 22:58 | ndm | Please stop if you're still importing footpaths piecemeal -- it's still an import!There is no GPX data for the paths you are adding -- it doesn't seem that they've ever been surveyed. I think you need to survey them and provide GPX data. If not I'll revert all the import... |
| 73078938 by GrumbleGrumble @ 2019-08-06 17:52 | 1 | 2019-08-06 18:56 | ndm | What's the source of the new names -- most of the roads aren't signposted. Ditto the roundabout "centres"? |
| 2 | 2019-08-07 20:12 | GrumbleGrumble ♦2 | Sorry, I should have broken this into seperate edits which specific references. Primary source is S Glos's planning consultations on bus lanes, pedestrian crossings etc https://consultations.southglos.gov.uk/consult.ti/system/findConsultations and planning permissions re the Metrobus Extension:... | |
| 3 | 2019-08-07 20:25 | ndm | Ugggh, it sounds like you are copying from other maps?I think you probably need to revert some of this unless you have an explicit licence to use South Glostershire council data in OpenStreetMap -- it's extremely likely to be Crown Copyright and probably mixed in with Ordnance Survey data. | |
| 4 | 2019-08-07 20:26 | ndm | Maybe ask some questions on the talk-gb mailing list -- they may have some better ideas. | |
| 5 | 2019-08-07 22:10 | GrumbleGrumble ♦2 | What a confusing world... Some of these names are included in OS Open Roads, so I'll work through removing any other names the Queen won't (yet) let us have! | |
| 6 | 2019-08-07 22:23 | ndm | Well it's really simple if you survey it yourself and don't copy. | |
| 73090311 by Steve @ 2019-08-07 03:22 | 1 | 2019-08-07 09:55 | ndm | Do you have a better change set comment - what did you modify? |
| 73073897 by ob36483 @ 2019-08-06 15:47 | 1 | 2019-08-06 19:09 | ndm | Please don't move existing buildings -- just realign Maxar to match them -- ESRI clarity is recommeded on the Bristol wiki page. I'll fix them up. |
| 72609734 by letsridebikes @ 2019-07-24 15:58 | 1 | 2019-07-25 19:08 | ndm | Has it got a ref? |
| 2 | 2019-07-25 19:36 | letsridebikes ♦58 | Not sure, I found it by visiting and physically laying eyes on it; how would I find that out? Happy to take a closer look | |
| 3 | 2019-07-25 19:51 | ndm | It's usually just a "code" BSxx yyy on the front paper sheet with collection times -- you can see matched post boxes at https://osm.mathmos.net/postboxes/progress/BS/BS34/#13/51.5201/-2.5648 | |
| 4 | 2019-07-25 19:57 | letsridebikes ♦58 | sounds easy enough - I'll double check next time I'm nearby. Will update! | |
| 72560183 by Rick Wiles @ 2019-07-23 13:53 | 1 | 2019-07-23 20:49 | ndm | Is there a road sign for this? |
| 2 | 2019-07-24 06:15 | Rick Wiles ♦7 | According to NSC which you can find on Roadworks.org, go to Map Layer, Customise my Map and Operation info and select NSG. This is maintained by the local Council, In this case South Glos. It has a raod name. | |
| 72560552 by Rick Wiles @ 2019-07-23 14:00 | 1 | 2019-07-23 20:48 | ndm | The changeset comment seems a little misleading?psv=designated / bus=designated is a perfectly valid value why did it need changing? |
| 2 | 2019-07-24 06:25 | Rick Wiles ♦7 | Our system uses OSM mapping for adding bus routes. Unfortunatly it doesn't reconise psv=designated, but does psv=yes. According to wiki "For dedicated, separate bus tracks, use highway=service, access=no, psv=designated (or psv=yes)". I will how ever mention this to our supplies and ... | |
| 3 | 2019-07-24 12:47 | Rick Wiles ♦7 | Quick question on bus designated, Does this inculde all PSV or just the local bus services? | |
| 4 | 2019-10-14 13:31 | DaveF ♦1,566 | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:psv This is another example of you thinking the tail can wag the dog. bus/psv=designated is a perfectly correct tag & your company's software code needs to be amended to suit. | |
| 5 | 2019-10-14 14:20 | Andy_traveline ♦2 | Unfortunately this is another example of a single person thinking they are the owner of OSM rather than a Worl Wide Open data solution. | |
| 6 | 2019-10-14 14:29 | Rick Wiles ♦7 | We are contacting our developers over this, But this can be found at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:psv"Add the tag psv=designated to a feature that is tagged with a primary feature tag such as highway=* to specify that the feature is designated for use by public service vehicles... | |
| 7 | 2019-10-14 14:38 | DaveF ♦1,566 | What a pathetic response. And not a very nice way to talk about employees of travelline.The wiki is a collaboration of many hundreds of OSM's contributors. The OSM database is similar but in thousands.The consensus is clear: bus/psv=designated is a fully accepted tag. Editors have it list... | |
| 8 | 2019-10-14 15:21 | Andy_traveline ♦2 | I apologise for the comment, I think there is some confusion here, our OSM interface does use psv=designated where required. Please be aware that traveline is GB wide and our system developers World Wide, we are hundreds of contributors and editors of OSM worldwide, we have been editing OSM for man... | |
| 9 | 2019-10-15 06:26 | Rick Wiles ♦7 | As my colleague has asked you about doing all the edits this will sort any future problems. One thing I will say is that wiki is used by me and properly million across the world. If it is wrong on this it must be wrong in lots of other instances, maybe you should ask for it to be removed as an aid.... | |
| 72236715 by Gregory Williams @ 2019-07-14 16:03 | 1 | 2019-07-15 07:18 | ndm | Surely only the panel area should be mapped -- not the whole building |
| 2 | 2019-07-23 05:53 | Gregory Williams ♦18 | At the time my access to imagery was limited. I've now moved it to a separate way. | |
| 3 | 2019-07-23 18:30 | ndm | No worries -- just seemed odd that an office block was marked as a generator. | |
| 72433151 by DaveF @ 2019-07-19 13:59 | 1 | 2019-07-19 20:39 | ndm | highway = f ? |
| 72261746 by wvdp @ 2019-07-15 11:59 | 1 | 2019-07-15 19:59 | ndm | What were the routing errors? |
| 2 | 2019-07-18 13:31 | wvdp ♦64 | the relation was had the wrong TO way.https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7833191 | |
| 72130620 by eriolfox @ 2019-07-11 11:21 | 1 | 2019-07-11 19:04 | ndm | "name" should really be what's on the signage.Moved the names to description. |
| 62090951 by bathis @ 2018-08-29 04:37 | 1 | 2018-08-30 21:59 | ndm | I've removed the private tag from the graveyard.Have the gates been surveyed or are they "assumed"?Sent to osm-edit-escalations@amazon.com but no response. |
| 2 | 2019-07-08 15:08 | bathis ♦4 | Hi ndm,Thanks for making the changes and I apologize for the delayed response. There was a little confusion with parallel roads and added gate on the wrong road segment mistakenly. It’s a complete mistake from my side. Thanks for reverting the changes.Regards,Bathis | |
| 3 | 2019-07-08 21:02 | ndm | No worries -- thanks for reviewing | |
| 71979228 by en7art @ 2019-07-07 11:13 | 1 | 2019-07-07 13:43 | ndm | It's already mapped as an area :-) |
| 71945329 by AlwynWellington @ 2019-07-05 21:01 | 1 | 2019-07-05 21:27 | ndm | Think this will need to be reverted: there's a clear cycle path -- not a footpath https://binged.it/2LDjuKd |
| 2 | 2019-07-05 22:50 | AlwynWellington ♦58 | @ndm, thank youI looked at available imagery.I found an urban sidewalk with signage (blue roundel showing a bicycle and child holding the hand of an older person.The location of the sidewalk indicates use is a foot way as well as a cycle way.Neither use is dominant.A route of any type is n... | |
| 3 | 2019-07-05 22:56 | AlwynWellington ♦58 | I should add, reversion of a complete change set for one apparent transgression (which can be fixed by itself, if the wiki description is wrong) seems like a blunderbus strategy.Please look again at the image. You can see a sidewalk to the left and a road to the right. They are mapped separate... | |
| 4 | 2019-07-06 08:27 | ndm | If you want a discussion start a topic on talk-gb as suggested previously.If you want less of a blunderbuss approach then make the individual change(s) yourself. | |
| 5 | 2019-07-06 10:42 | DaveF ♦1,566 | >Neither use is dominant. The tagging, as was, implied no dominance for either user.It's location is irrelevant. it's still classed as a shared use cycleway.if the vast majority of a changeset is incorrect (as in this case - The K&A towpath relation shouldn't be ext... | |
| 6 | 2019-07-11 06:17 | AlwynWellington ♦58 | @DaveF, a tag of cycleway does imply cycling is the dominant use.What is there is a path. That a Euro, NCR or local cycle route is signposted only goes to confirm it is a shared path. And imagery indicates as many (if not more) on foot as on other means of getting about.So "=Path" i... | |
| 7 | 2019-07-13 14:03 | SomeoneElse ♦13,390 | > a tag of cycleway does imply cycling is the dominant use. Strictly speaking, no - it's "designed to be usable by cyclists". The wiki page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway has had various versions of that over the years, but that's essentially the... | |
| 71924415 by ob36483 @ 2019-07-05 09:27 | 1 | 2019-07-05 21:17 | ndm | Nowhere near the docks :-)I've squared up (orthogonalised) some of your edits.ESRI clarity is the best source for imagery -- unless Maxar is newer |
| 71314188 by AlwynWellington @ 2019-06-17 03:17 | 1 | 2019-06-17 12:52 | ndm | You've reclassified some major new cycling infrastructure as path - this probably needs to be reverted. |
| 2 | 2019-06-17 18:07 | AlwynWellington ♦58 | @ndm , thank you for your observation.My understanding includes these considerations:* all my tags in Bristol are for ways accessible by the public without let or hindrance* these ways are tagged for those on foot, such as River Avon TrailIf you can give me a list of my tags that are f... | |
| 3 | 2019-06-17 19:37 | ndm | Did you survey any of your changes - or are you making assumptions? | |
| 4 | 2019-06-18 08:34 | AlwynWellington ♦58 | ndn, thank you.I could have asked you the same question, that you appear to have made assumptions.If you would be so kind as to answer my question that followed my response to your initial query, then I think we can proceed on the basis we both have the best interest of all users at heart.... | |
| 5 | 2019-06-18 09:00 | AlwynWellington ♦58 | And, in addition, would you kindly indentify the location of the elements you believe should revert to cycle path. Supported with documentation, if any, from the Bristol City Council showing these ways are to be exclusively used as cycle ways.with kind regards | |
| 6 | 2019-06-18 12:35 | trigpoint ♦2,373 | Alwyn, a cycleway is not exclusively for cycling, foot access is allowed too. | |
| 7 | 2019-06-18 17:29 | ndm | At least the Baldwin Street "path" is an exclusive cycle path, pavement is separate and marked (probably) as sidewalk on the road. A quick Google will help you there. As for your other changes in and around Bristol I'll have a look in due course and ensure that what's on the grou... | |
| 8 | 2019-06-18 21:50 | AlwynWellington ♦58 | @trigpoint, thank you. I am aware of the various levels at wich OSM works.To my mind the first level is what you see when using a browser. My expectation an element displayed in blue is mainly or exclusively for bicycle access.The difficulty arises when distinguishing between 'footway... | |
| 9 | 2019-06-18 21:55 | AlwynWellington ♦58 | @ndm, thank you. I will look at that directly.I was also aware of the cycle and foot lanes physically marked on the Redcliffe Bascule Bridge.I am still curious as to your interest in these matters.kind regards | |
| 10 | 2019-07-02 03:15 | AlwynWellington ♦58 | @ndm, I looked at your issue a day or two later.In looking at the detail I think I can see where I "went wrong". To the east of Welsh Back, in what was quite a complex set of paths crossing one another and I had not noticed they related to physically separate ways. I hope you have look... | |
| 11 | 2019-07-02 03:20 | AlwynWellington ♦58 | Of course, marking as a path does not in anyway affect any cycling route relationships. These will still be displayed in the "Cycle Map" layer and in "cycling.WayMarkedTrails.org": these are 'fed' from the OpenStreetMap database and can be as up to date as posts made w... | |
| 12 | 2019-07-02 23:11 | ndm | I note one of your recent changes has been completely reverted (not by me!).It would be better to explain your ideas/motivations on talk-gb mailing list -- then you will get a general range of opinions. E.g. using the duck test, etc. | |
| 13 | 2019-07-03 04:57 | AlwynWellington ♦58 | @ndm, thanks, a good suggestionDoes "duck test" in this context mean "if it quacks like a duck ..."?Or does it mean something else? regards | |
| 14 | 2019-07-10 22:39 | AlwynWellington ♦58 | @ndm.A few days ago I have looked at the talk-GB mailing list for the first several days of July 2019.A phrase I saw, and took to heart, is to map what is physically there.I will continue to look from time to time.Kind regardsI will | |
| 71630966 by SimonM182 @ 2019-06-26 10:26 | 1 | 2019-06-28 22:20 | ndm | Is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/337967806 really called "57" |
| 2 | 2019-06-29 10:34 | SimonM182 ♦1 | Yes. Hence the addition. | |
| 3 | 2019-06-29 17:46 | ndm | Well it could have been number, rather than name? | |
| 71641526 by hkkollip @ 2019-06-26 15:15 | 1 | 2019-06-28 21:39 | ndm | Maybe you could try adjusting your imagery offset to match what's already mapped.This area has been carefully mapped -- and you've just drawn a driveway straight through a building! |
| 2 | 2019-07-10 10:56 | hkkollip ♦9 | Hi,Thanks for reviewing the edit. As per your suggestions going forward I will use Imagery Offset and create/align the road segments.Regards,hkkollip | |
| 71712238 by jojoyal @ 2019-06-28 15:20 | 1 | 2019-06-28 19:39 | ndm | I think it would have been better to merge the footpath with the start of the service road, rather than having 2 highways on top of each other. |
| 2 | 2019-07-11 10:14 | jojoyal ♦6 | Hi, Thanks for commenting on the edit. I will follow the same going forward in these situations. It's a perfect edit from your side. Thanks for making changes to the edit.Regardsjojoyal. | |
| 71486465 by branib @ 2019-06-21 15:35 | 1 | 2019-06-21 19:48 | ndm | Road probably doesn't go throught the building. |
| 2 | 2019-06-29 14:06 | branib ♦17 | Hi,Thanks for your feedback and correcting the edit. I will consider the feedback for further edits.Regards,branib | |
| 71409259 by JonKrato @ 2019-06-19 16:46 | 1 | 2019-06-20 20:14 | ndm | This looks wrong - the road now goes straight through a pedestrian crossing island. What was the original problem? |
| 2 | 2019-06-20 21:18 | JonKrato ♦21 | My apologies, I added a traffic lane onto Newbridge Road to better represent that pedestrian crossing island. This edit was made to fix the geometry on Saint Anne's Road. | |
| 71139520 by AlwynWellington @ 2019-06-11 12:27 | 1 | 2019-06-11 20:38 | ndm | Are you sure Wikipedia licence is compatible with OSM? |
| 2 | 2019-06-12 06:46 | AlwynWellington ♦58 | ndm, thank you and not clear what you are asking. | |
| 3 | 2019-07-02 10:46 | SomeoneElse ♦13,390 | (for the avoidance of doubt) Wikipedia's licence is not compatible with OSM. However, any information there should be available somewhere else, and that "somewhere else" may be appropriately licensed (or personally known from survey, etc.). | |
| 4 | 2019-07-10 22:35 | AlwynWellington ♦58 | @SomeoneElse, thank you.But what does this mean.How does your comment relate to the Wiki, where licences are not mentioned.King regards | |
| 5 | 2019-07-10 23:54 | SomeoneElse ♦13,390 | The licence under which wikipedia data is made available is linked at the bottom of the page at https://www.wikipedia.org/ . The compatibility of various licences with OSM is described at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/ODbL_Compatibility . | |
| 71106087 by DHP11 MDS @ 2019-06-10 14:52 | 1 | 2019-06-10 18:44 | ndm | Buildings have been deleted and replaced with building:part -- can you please fix urgently. Also outlines now don't seem to correspond to ESRI clarity -- buildings are too big -- looks like you are drawing into the shadow somehow. |
| 2 | 2019-06-11 07:38 | DHP11 MDS ♦9 | the buildings havent been deleted, they are still there | |
| 3 | 2019-06-11 15:27 | DHP11 MDS ♦9 | if I have deleted buildings, could you please be more specific on which ones? | |
| 4 | 2019-06-11 19:01 | ndm | I have raised a ticket https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/17802 -- if I filter out building:part items they still hide the real building (presumably underneath). | |
| 5 | 2019-06-11 19:38 | ndm | Actually it looks like you added building:part items -- but didn't put a building around them. E.g. the diagonal ones NE of the church. Strangely, OSM map renders them -- but maybe other renderers won't? Not sure how that affects 3D stuff. | |
| 6 | 2019-06-12 07:45 | DHP11 MDS ♦9 | I placed a building part over the buildings, unfortunatly it didnt do the building part as it is marked.its a issue we have when houses are marked seperately and they have hipped roofs, if we mark them as a whole then the roof comes out correctly, otherwise it puts on 2 hipped roofswe use the... | |
| 71102275 by DHP11 MDS @ 2019-06-10 13:10 | 1 | 2019-06-10 18:39 | ndm | You've deleted a large chunk of a building - could you please fix it - or if you can't I can easily revert the changeset. |
| 2 | 2019-06-11 07:37 | DHP11 MDS ♦9 | If you look at it on Bing view and cross reference with Google earth the building isnt there anymore and has a car park | |
| 3 | 2019-06-11 19:14 | ndm | You can't use Google Earth to edit OSM -- and you/Licence Working Group would have to remove all edits using it.Luckily "Maxar Premium Imagery" shows new configuration of the building - I've tweaked it to use that. | |
| 71107013 by DHP11 MDS @ 2019-06-10 15:17 | 1 | 2019-06-10 18:48 | ndm | Most of the buildings need a "building=yes" tag |
| 2 | 2019-06-11 07:44 | DHP11 MDS ♦9 | the buildings already have the house tag or the appartment tag, the building parts are just placed on top of them.please check stuff before complaining about every little detail | |
| 3 | 2019-06-11 18:59 | ndm | I've raised a ticket https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/17802 | |
| 71100621 by DHP11 CDW @ 2019-06-10 12:25 | 1 | 2019-06-10 18:55 | ndm | You deleted a building and its associated address information -- could you please add it back as soon as possible -- if it's too difficult I can revert it all for you. |
| 71107436 by DHP11 MDS @ 2019-06-10 15:29 | 1 | 2019-06-10 18:49 | ndm | Needs a building=yes and an outline. |
| 70983844 by DHP11 CDW @ 2019-06-06 10:05 | 1 | 2019-06-06 21:57 | ndm | Note: fixed |
| 70983634 by DHP11 CDW @ 2019-06-06 09:58 | 1 | 2019-06-06 21:45 | ndm | Note: fixed |
| 70983573 by DHP11 CDW @ 2019-06-06 09:56 | 1 | 2019-06-06 21:38 | ndm | Note: fixed |
| 70983222 by DHP11 CDW @ 2019-06-06 09:46 | 1 | 2019-06-06 21:31 | ndm | Note: fixed |
| 70983121 by DHP11 CDW @ 2019-06-06 09:42 | 1 | 2019-06-06 21:28 | ndm | Note: fixed |
| 70982124 by DHP11 CDW @ 2019-06-06 09:09 | 1 | 2019-06-06 21:14 | ndm | Note: fixed |
| 70982008 by DHP11 CDW @ 2019-06-06 09:06 | 1 | 2019-06-06 21:01 | ndm | Note:fixed |
| 70981251 by DHP11 CDW @ 2019-06-06 08:46 | 1 | 2019-06-06 20:37 | ndm | Note: fixed |
| 70981040 by DHP11 CDW @ 2019-06-06 08:40 | 1 | 2019-06-06 20:27 | ndm | Note:fixed |
| 70980998 by DHP11 CDW @ 2019-06-06 08:39 | 1 | 2019-06-06 20:17 | ndm | Note: fixed |
| 70980894 by DHP11 CDW @ 2019-06-06 08:35 | 1 | 2019-06-06 19:54 | ndm | Note: fixed |
| 70980694 by DHP11 CDW @ 2019-06-06 08:29 | 1 | 2019-06-06 19:18 | ndm | Note: fixed |
| 70980619 by DHP11 CDW @ 2019-06-06 08:27 | 1 | 2019-06-06 19:14 | ndm | Note:fixed |
| 70980367 by DHP11 CDW @ 2019-06-06 08:20 | 1 | 2019-06-06 19:10 | ndm | Note:fixed |
| 70980104 by DHP11 CDW @ 2019-06-06 08:11 | 1 | 2019-06-06 19:00 | ndm | Note: fixed |
| 70979862 by DHP11 CDW @ 2019-06-06 08:03 | 1 | 2019-06-06 18:45 | ndm | Note: Fixed. |
| 70187957 by DHP11 CDW @ 2019-05-13 11:33 | 1 | 2019-06-06 18:36 | ndm | Note to self: fix changesets after this. |
| 70947383 by bernardh100 @ 2019-06-05 08:13 | 1 | 2019-06-05 18:22 | ndm | Moved to 2012 position based on Streetside - needs a survey |
| 2 | 2019-06-05 18:36 | bernardh100 ♦1 | There are no bus services on that part of Filton Avenue any longer. How does a survey get done? | |
| 3 | 2019-06-05 21:55 | ndm | Well one wanders/rides/drives past, and checks that the bus stop's not there.Then having checked delete the bus stop from the map - probably just select the node and press the delete key.Or add a note to the map and hope someone else reads it... | |
| 70949685 by gckm @ 2019-06-05 09:49 | 1 | 2019-06-05 18:07 | ndm | FYI some of the roads already have sidewalk="left/right/both/no" |
| 70960879 by branib @ 2019-06-05 16:42 | 1 | 2019-06-05 17:45 | ndm | ESRI clarity shows this is a parking aisle with spaces |
| 2 | 2019-06-29 14:01 | branib ♦17 | Hi,Thank you for providing your feedback and correcting the road classification. Please let me know if there are any other suggestions.regards,branib | |
| 70961839 by rsakunth @ 2019-06-05 17:19 | 1 | 2019-06-05 17:38 | ndm | I used ESRI clarity which is clearer - and have adjusted them to avoid buildings. |
| 2 | 2019-07-03 10:46 | rsakunth ♦9 | Hi,Thanks for changing the alignment of the road segments. We will follow the same suggestion going forward. Regards,rsakunth | |
| 70928793 by Jake55265 @ 2019-06-04 16:12 | 1 | 2019-06-04 20:02 | ndm | Hope you don't mind I tweaked the buildings a bit -- several of the editors have a mechanism to make buildings "square". |
| 70879971 by DHP11 MDS @ 2019-06-03 10:09 | 1 | 2019-06-03 10:46 | ndm | Please add back the building details you deleted. |
| 2 | 2019-06-03 12:38 | DHP11 MDS ♦9 | I havent deleted any impostant details or any major changes, i just adjusted to what i can see on the map and information provided. | |
| 3 | 2019-06-03 12:38 | DHP11 MDS ♦9 | *important | |
| 4 | 2019-06-03 13:26 | ndm | That's fine I can just revert or then | |
| 70814533 by JulienBalas @ 2019-05-31 16:13 | 1 | 2019-05-31 23:29 | ndm | The change in Bristol is wrong and doesn't match the changeset comment!Maybe this should all be reverted -- validator is throwing up stuff that should be fixed locally (or at least in smaller changesets). |
| 2 | 2019-06-03 08:10 | JulienBalas ♦2 | Hisorry for having introduced some errors.I've reverted the changeset.Can you tell me what was wrong in Bristol ?Best regards | |
| 3 | 2019-06-03 09:09 | ndm | I'm not a fan of large changesets. When I looked with achavi there was a change that made a building detached that should be connected in Bristol - which wasn't reflected in the comment. If you're having trouble finding the issue in your change so will other mappers. Other changes mig... | |
| 70803599 by dmercer1 @ 2019-05-31 10:31 | 1 | 2019-05-31 23:53 | ndm | Do these blocks stop motor_vehicle only or foot and bicycle (horse) too? |
| 70756739 by Nick in Kew @ 2019-05-30 06:09 | 1 | 2019-05-30 21:23 | ndm | You deleted a way marked as a public footpath -- it seems to be on rowmaps -- seems like a bad idea? |
| 2 | 2019-05-30 21:40 | Nick in Kew ♦3 | The pink/red dotted line is a signposted public right of way. The other paths were not, and were possibly "casual use" but are no longer visible. I was following those pathways and the landowner (very irate) told me that the pathways don't exist and cross his horse paddock and a hay f... | |
| 3 | 2019-12-28 22:43 | DaveF ♦1,566 | Hi NickWhere did you view "pink/red dotted line "?Paths don't have to be visible to still be in existenceHow did you verify they had been redacted?Did the landowners say when they were deleted? What evidence did he provide?The paths are shown on the latest OS map: http://t... | |
| 4 | 2019-12-29 00:13 | Nick in Kew ♦3 | Hi DaveF. The OS Maps may be recent, but I was physically stood in all of those places and the paths are not visible at all. You would be trampling the landowners crop if you walked them. The entrance to that pathway is not accessible: it looks it, but I tried to get through and goes down their priv... | |
| 5 | 2019-12-29 00:57 | DaveF ♦1,566 | HiI'm afraid that OS maps usurps you being there. As i said, paths don't have to be visible to be legitimate, however I notice you you're aware of the stiles as you add access tags to them. The paths have never been removed from OS maps so you're claim you checked against them ... | |
| 6 | 2019-12-29 12:38 | Nick in Kew ♦3 | Hi DaveF. My claim to check the OS Maps was not false. I have it installed on my phone, and there was no path there at the time. I stood and argued with the landowner, and brought up the OSMaps app as I was using another map application at the time,, and the lack of pathways was clear and apparent. ... | |
| 7 | 2019-12-29 13:47 | Nick in Kew ♦3 | OK - this has been bugging me, because I hate being accused of lying. And I have found the map I checked. Screenshot here: https://imgur.com/a/cXXVIyr Only the path to the western side of the field is shown. | |
| 8 | 2019-12-29 15:09 | DaveF ♦1,566 | HiOSM has to be based on the best, authoritative data available, which isn't a landowner who gets upset with people crossing his land. Provide evidence from the local authority they've been removed & I'll willingly remove them from OSMWhat is the name of the app you use? Wha... | |
| 9 | 2019-12-29 15:40 | DaveF ♦1,566 | HiI've just found ithttps://osmaps.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/51.45468,-2.42429,16I think it's called just 'Standard', It's missing a large percentage of PROWs bridleways etc. Hardly authoritative proof.What you need is OS Explorer (link in previous comment.) | |
| 10 | 2019-12-30 11:48 | Nick in Kew ♦3 | I think "I'm sorry I accused you of making false statements" would have been a good start. OK, if I've used the wrong info, but you started with an erroneous claim, which you haven't yet corrected. | |
| 11 | 2019-12-30 14:24 | DaveF ♦1,566 | You were looking at the *wrong* map. | |
| 12 | 2019-12-30 16:31 | Nick in Kew ♦3 | I looked at the OS Map at the time and subsequently. I've proven that fact. You said that my claim to have done that was "false". Right map or wrong, you are accusing me of lying. If you'd said: "you looked at the wrong map," that's one thing. To say I my claim to ... | |
| 70729315 by DoctorRad @ 2019-05-29 11:07 | 1 | 2019-05-29 23:41 | ndm | Should at least be shared foot/cycle? |
| 70537598 by letsridebikes @ 2019-05-23 05:15 | 1 | 2019-05-23 21:46 | ndm | Better to just add access no? Maybe demote to path? |
| 2 | 2019-05-28 12:51 | letsridebikes ♦58 | It's a steel gate in a tall fence which is now permanently locked, so I am not sure on the best representation of ground truth. The paths within the site are already access=private so do you think access=no is a clear enough indication? It doesn't render any differently (I know we shouldn&... | |
| 3 | 2019-05-28 21:45 | ndm | No it was deleting the way I wondered about -- I often use the presence of even inaccessible paths as useful routing info. | |
| 4 | 2019-05-28 21:53 | letsridebikes ♦58 | Fair point, I'll reinstate the way segment with access=no. Thanks for the help! | |
| 70657055 by abbuddha @ 2019-05-27 10:49 | 1 | 2019-05-27 13:26 | ndm | Demote to driveway based on Bing Streetside |
| 2 | 2019-07-02 10:50 | abbuddha ♦3 | Hi,Thanks for looking into the edit. We added residential based on the surrounding segments. But here adding service is correct as per the OS Data. Thanks again for the review.Regards,abbuddha. | |
| 70656830 by abbuddha @ 2019-05-27 10:40 | 1 | 2019-05-27 13:17 | ndm | All the residential roads are mapped -- demoted to driveway |
| 2 | 2019-07-02 10:50 | abbuddha ♦3 | Hi,Thanks for looking into the edit. We added residential based on the surrounding segments. But here adding service is correct as per the OS Data. Thanks again for the review.Regards, abbuddha. | |
| 70636206 by ssomeya @ 2019-05-26 16:16 | 1 | 2019-05-26 21:49 | ndm | Checked on Bing Streetside and demoted to service |
| 2 | 2019-07-01 11:00 | ssomeya ♦4 | Hi,Thanks for reviewing the edit. The edit was made based on the aerial view. The OS data doesnt show that it is a public access road. It should be a service road. Thanks for changing it.Regards,ssomeya. | |
| 70636604 by ssomeya @ 2019-05-26 16:36 | 1 | 2019-05-26 21:38 | ndm | Likely to change in a construction area? |
| 2 | 2019-07-01 11:04 | ssomeya ♦4 | Hi,The roads were added as per the Digital globe imagery which is of 2018-06-28. Please do suggest whether the area is still under construction or not ? so that we will edit it accordingly.Regards,ssomeya. | |
| 70545310 by kmarjbh @ 2019-05-23 09:58 | 1 | 2019-05-23 22:59 | ndm | Not a good idea to draw roads through buildings. |
| 2 | 2019-07-02 13:11 | kmarjbh ♦8 | Hi ndm,Thanks for reviewing the edit, the roads were added as per bing aerial imagery. Thanks for changing the alignment of the road segments drawn in this change set.Please let us know if there are any suggestions.Regards,kmarjbh. | |
| 70545629 by kmarjbh @ 2019-05-23 10:07 | 1 | 2019-05-23 22:57 | ndm | Demoted to service and driveway |
| 2 | 2019-07-02 13:21 | kmarjbh ♦8 | Hi,Thanks for looking into the edit. We added residential based on the surrounding segments which looks like a residential community. But here adding service is correct as per the OS Data. OS data was not considered when this edit was made. Going forward we will use this resource and make change... | |
| 70547516 by kmarjbh @ 2019-05-23 11:04 | 1 | 2019-05-23 22:46 | ndm | Demoted to service |
| 2 | 2019-07-02 13:21 | kmarjbh ♦8 | Hi,Thanks for looking into the edit. We added residential based on the surrounding segments which looks like a residential community. But here adding service is correct as per the OS Data. OS data was not considered when this edit was made. Going forward we will use this resource and make change... | |
| 70548691 by kmarjbh @ 2019-05-23 11:41 | 1 | 2019-05-23 22:34 | ndm | Demoted to service |
| 2 | 2019-07-02 13:21 | kmarjbh ♦8 | Hi,Thanks for looking into the edit. We added residential based on the surrounding segments which looks like a residential community. But here adding service is correct as per the OS Data. OS data was not considered when this edit was made. Going forward we will use this resource and make change... | |
| 70555816 by singhyyd @ 2019-05-23 15:13 | 1 | 2019-05-23 22:14 | ndm | Demoted one to service |
| 2 | 2019-07-03 09:39 | singhyyd ♦7 | Hi,Thanks for reviewing the edit. We apologize for the delayed response. Yes, this road(https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/691986621#map=19/51.39920/-2.29626) should be service. It doesn't qualify for residential. Even the OS data supports that it should be service road. Thanks for making th... | |
| 70559204 by branib @ 2019-05-23 16:57 | 1 | 2019-05-23 22:08 | ndm | Driveways - please check with Bing Streetside when adding. |
| 2 | 2019-06-29 14:16 | branib ♦17 | Hi,Thanks for your feedback and correcting the edit by changing road classification.Regards,branib |