| Changeset | No. | Date | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 58168167 by Paragon_ | 1 | 2018-04-23 08:02:57 UTC | CompactDstrxion | This edit is wrong. The 'trunk' status on OSM is used to describe primary routes in the UK. The A644 between Dewsbury and the M62 is signed on the ground as a primary route (green signs). |
| 2 | 2018-05-17 16:46:42 UTC | Paul Berry | I'm reverting the A644 and A642 back to trunk. Yes, this doesn't actually mean trunk in the Highways England sense of the term, it's just a term OSM use to define what we know as primary routes. It's not you, it's OSM and it's confusing, however these are yellow-text-on-green-background routes as an... | |
| 58311382 by JayCBR | 1 | 2018-04-22 21:41:23 UTC | Paul Berry | The Headrow axis is not a B-road. It's not even open to all traffic. |
| 2 | 2018-04-23 07:30:37 UTC | JayCBR | its more than a b-road, its the major road in Leeds..couldnt be even secondary? | |
| 3 | 2018-04-23 08:01:09 UTC | Paul Berry | It's a C-road (not sure of unpublished number) but note that it's restricted to buses/taxis/cycles/access for most of its length. Even the Loop Road is only C-class: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4148004 | |
| 4 | 2018-04-23 14:39:04 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI, Ways 400349313 and 454077550 have ref=A64, so either the ref is wrong or they should not be secondary. I am not local, but have been along that road and believe it has green signs, indicating it should be trunk. Can you please review these two ways?Thanks,Mike | |
| 5 | 2018-04-23 14:55:33 UTC | Paul Berry | There's possibly some confusion with recent changes regarding how OSM represents A-roads. Apologies in advance if this is already known...OSM | RealityTrunk | Primary A-Road (yellow on green signage)*Primary | Secondary/Non-Primary A-Road (black on white signage)Secondary | B-RoadUnclass... | |
| 6 | 2018-04-23 16:37:03 UTC | JayCBR | i am sorry i didnt realize there was such a restriction..if thats the case maybe the restricted section should be a service road and maybe the loop could be secondary..about the underground section of A64 i need to have some research | |
| 7 | 2018-04-23 20:50:48 UTC | JayCBR | i dont think ways 400349313 and 454077550 are parts of A64, the signs only point out where it leads (York A64), its like a side road | |
| 8 | 2018-04-24 11:03:12 UTC | Paul Berry | Those ways are signed York A64--no brackets--according to local signage on the ground. | |
| 58247724 by JayCBR | 1 | 2018-04-22 21:38:09 UTC | Paul Berry | Please map what's on the ground. Westgate/West Street running either side of the A58(M) aren't under motorway regs but do have primary route signage. That's why they were mapped as primary.I can go and snap photos if you want evidence (I work about 2 mins' walk from Westgate) but you have this w... |
| 2 | 2018-04-23 07:40:35 UTC | JayCBR | im afraid i dont get the exact problem..do you mean the slip roads (motorway links) getting to and off A58(M)?? or the side road West Street starting near Ibis hotel? | |
| 3 | 2018-04-23 08:11:44 UTC | Paul Berry | Ways 216965787 & 6136466 (Westgate) are not motorway links but tertiary. You'll notice from the map they don't ever join the motorway (intentionally) and, from the ground, are not under motorway regs either.However, you do have West Street right (ways 6136477 & 6136478 & 34428523).... | |
| 58216798 by Paul Berry | 1 | 2018-04-22 19:27:41 UTC | lakedistrict | Hi Paul, what's the source for these edits please? The previous ref tagging reflected what the signs and lane markings said. (see also https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/56451569) |
| 2 | 2018-04-22 21:24:01 UTC | Paul Berry | Sorry, armchair-mapped because I noticed A1508 was wrong number (should be A1058 of course; (M) part debatable). Having looked at the comments on changeset 56451569, feel free to revert it. | |
| 3 | 2018-04-22 22:02:38 UTC | lakedistrict | Thanks, I've partially reverted this in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/58321493. Another mapper told me elsewhere that sliproads don't need ref numbers so I guess the refs could be moved to destination:ref but that would be a job for another day. | |
| 4 | 2018-04-23 07:17:37 UTC | Paul Berry | Agreed, destination:ref makes sense, however I would still contend that slip roads do have refs because, of course, the start-of-motorway sign (with number) is at the beginning of them. However, i will defer to agreed practice.Thanks for the information. | |
| 58216203 by Paul Berry | 1 | 2018-04-18 21:51:37 UTC | GinaroZ | Are you planning on adding ref= to all of the motorway links in the UK? |
| 2 | 2018-04-19 07:14:12 UTC | Paul Berry | Yes, where they are missing, since slip roads take the parent motorway's number, and signage on the ground confirms this.An exception is direct motorway-to-motorway links where it's ambiguous. | |
| 3 | 2018-04-19 09:26:03 UTC | Paul Berry | Having said that... check the changeset comments here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/54852723 | |
| 56183385 by Paul Berry | 1 | 2018-02-08 13:57:42 UTC | Paul Berry | I meant street lighting :( |
| 55377588 by hornbydd2 | 1 | 2018-01-12 13:57:50 UTC | The Maarssen Mapper | Hi.... You might not be aware of this but these edits to the rivers are screwing up the admin boundaries... Can you please ensure the boundaries are complete and correct again? Example here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4253482Any questions, please get in touch. Otherwise I expect this... |
| 2 | 2018-01-12 15:08:04 UTC | hornbydd2 | Hello,I followed your link and if I have understood correctly my attempts to update the river network by breaking it at junctions is loosing the relationship with the parish boundary? I have stopped my bulk editing and update until I can work out how to resolve this.It looks like my edit... | |
| 3 | 2018-01-12 15:30:27 UTC | The Maarssen Mapper | It looks like where you split a way, the "old" half (which retains the original ID) is OK but the "new" part (which gets a new ID) does not inherit the relation membership. You need to make sure the relation membership is copied over. Potentially it is not just parishes, but any ... | |
| 4 | 2018-01-12 16:23:39 UTC | SK53 | In general such topological changes should not be done in OSM. Ideally you should create a post-processing chain which does the splits as required (large numbers of routing tools already do this for road networks). Not only is the risk of breaking other things as pointed out above; but breaking a st... | |
| 5 | 2018-01-12 16:50:50 UTC | hornbydd2 | I have found a plugin in JOSM that allows me to revert changes, I'm running this in the hope this undoes my edits. Interesting argument SK53, I look at the river data and a see an unusable topological nightmare. I was attempting to improve it so that it can be used by the wider scientific community ... | |
| 6 | 2018-01-12 17:02:26 UTC | Paul Berry | I don't know what your exact aims are, so forgive my question, but can you not use relations to better organise the waterways? Example of my own here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7851221 | |
| 7 | 2018-01-12 17:05:52 UTC | SK53 | We probably ought to find a way to continue discussion elsewhere as this could be long-winded, I've long had trying OSM for hydrography models on my todo list (see http://sk53-osm.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/floods-of-transient-data.html). The best way is to publish post-processing tools/code as open sou... | |
| 8 | 2018-01-12 19:01:34 UTC | hornbydd2 | I believe I have been able to revert my changes that I made today. I want to go away and discuss with others what next step should be. I'm personally for editing OSM so there is one definitive version that everyone can benefit from. Having snapshots with considerable post processing squirrelled awa... | |
| 9 | 2018-01-12 19:14:22 UTC | SK53 | Many thanks for that.The post-processing step is what all road routing engines do. See the recent email from Frederik Ramm on talk-gb.It's also unlikely that you can guarantee that any additional data added will be in a topologically convenient form, or that editors will leave your split str... | |
| 10 | 2018-01-13 17:09:38 UTC | The Maarssen Mapper | Unfortunately it appears your reverts were not complete... And now another user (FvGordon) has started to patch up the admin boundaries but I have no idea if they are fixing ALL the broken relations. That may now complicate the revert process, This is starting to become a proper mess.Take a look... | |
| 11 | 2018-01-14 00:43:46 UTC | FvGordon | Hi.. This evening I saw that many errors on http://www.loach.me.uk/osm/boundaries/ and started repairing the broken boundaries. After having repaired half of them, I saw this changeset and this discussion. Until now I have checked/repared the whole list on that site. Let's see, what errors will be s... | |
| 12 | 2018-01-14 10:16:40 UTC | The Maarssen Mapper | Thanks for engaging here. Could I ask you to explain your process for this? Where do you source the knowledge to make the right repairs? I have seen a couple of cases where the admin boundaries have been fixed, but other relations (for example type=waterway=river are not. My opinion is that the pers... | |
| 13 | 2018-01-14 10:35:07 UTC | FvGordon | When there is a gap in a boundary outline ring, I can see both ends of the gap. Often a segment from an other boundary relation fits to close the gap or (in this case) the river, that he has split.This morning I have repaired all gaps in type=waterway relations south and south-west of London. I ha... | |
| 14 | 2018-01-14 13:24:27 UTC | hornbydd2 | I'm showing naivety here, I've never seen this website (http://www.loach.me.uk/osm/boundaries/) before. I was expecting to see my [offending] username all over it as someone who has broken a relationship. I was not able to find myself on it and a lot of the areas appear to be elsewhere in the UK. Ho... | |
| 15 | 2018-01-14 13:56:16 UTC | The Maarssen Mapper | Hi,The reason your name is not here, is that you have NOT updated the relation when splitting a component way - and this is the exact problem. The fact that a component way (or node) has changed, does not change the relation itself. This is one of the "quirks" of OSM. However a relation ... | |
| 53794744 by chrisarmitage | 1 | 2017-11-20 08:18:33 UTC | Paul Berry | A big thank you for tidying up the stands at the bus station - they were a bit messy before and I'd been meaning to fix them for ages. |
| 53911840 by John Stanworth | 1 | 2017-11-19 23:27:16 UTC | Paul Berry | I used to live close by but moved away a couple of years ago. However, it looks about right from memory. Nice mapping! |
| 53255552 by vatheeskumar | 1 | 2017-10-26 12:45:55 UTC | Paul Berry | This changeset should be reverted immediately as it contains numerous examples of vandalism:http://osm.org/way/535487628http://osm.org/way/535487632http://osm.org/way/535487635 |
| 2 | 2017-10-26 12:56:42 UTC | SK53 | Dear Vatheeskumar ,I'm afraid your additions to OpenStreetMap are causing a number of problems. In particular you seem to be adding buildings with an area of several tens of thousands of square kilometers. Can you please stop editing with JOSM and engage in a conversation with us to identify wh... | |
| 3 | 2017-10-26 13:05:15 UTC | SK53 | I'm afraid I have had to remove all your additions to OpenStreetMap as they were seriously affecting the contributions and workload of many other contributors. Notwithstanding this, your contributions are welcome. I would suggest using a different editor next time. | |
| 4 | 2017-10-26 13:48:40 UTC | bgirardot | @paul BerryNewbie mistakes are not vandalism.@SK53 thank you for reverting these kindly and letting people who can possible directly the contact the mapper know about the issue as well. | |
| 5 | 2017-10-26 13:54:13 UTC | SK53 | @bgirardot2: not every contributor has the time to assess the full aspects of contributions which are interfering with their use of OSM. They may be in the middle of a complex series of changes or trying to achieve something quickly. It has taken me around 90 minutes to get to grips with this: not e... | |
| 6 | 2017-10-26 14:05:15 UTC | bgirardot | I think if you are going to accuse someone of vandalism, you should be pretty sure it is vandalism, even if that takes some time to figure out.Otherwise, it is just bad mapping that is causing a problem. Vandalism has a pretty specific meaning.But I appreciate your point sk53 | |
| 7 | 2017-10-26 14:26:59 UTC | SK53 | කලින් පණිවිඩවල ගූගල් භාවිතයෙන් ස්වයංක්රීය පරිවර්තනය:ආදරණීය වේෂේෂ්කුමාර්,OpenStreetMap ඔබගේ එකතු කිරීම් ගැටළු ගණනාව... | |
| 49510986 by peregrination | 1 | 2017-06-15 14:24:37 UTC | Paul Berry | Hi,I thought you'd like to know it looks like you've clipped a building with the footpath you've mapped.(https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/179457250 refers.)Thanks.Regards,Paul |
| 49126700 by stev | 1 | 2017-05-31 12:08:04 UTC | Paul Berry | Thanks, I was just about to fix this myself. See changset comments here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/47688939 |
| 47688939 by gopherdeals | 1 | 2017-04-26 13:31:19 UTC | Paul Berry | Hi,Welcome to OpenStreetMap. It looks a though you've mapped an area instead of a point of interest (ie office) for your company. Could you please map this correctly. I'll revisit this in 7 days. Let me know if you need any help in the meantime.Regards,Paul Berry |
| 2 | 2017-05-31 12:07:21 UTC | Paul Berry | Fixed on changeset #49126700. | |
| 24499979 by ika-chan! UK | 1 | 2017-05-23 16:12:50 UTC | Paul Berry | Hello. Should the route_master include the path of the Woolwich Ferry (relation #392885) or not? |
| 2 | 2017-05-23 18:16:26 UTC | ika-chan! UK | It was too ambiguous to include the ferry at the time, because it doesn't operate 24 hours a day. | |
| 3 | 2017-05-24 08:21:02 UTC | Paul Berry | OK, that makes sense. | |
| 14624724 by DCM_HD | 1 | 2017-03-19 11:55:02 UTC | Paul Berry | A survey today showed "Moldgreen Liberal Club" is spelt as such. |
| 45856935 by Dan Clarke | 1 | 2017-02-09 14:05:08 UTC | Paul Berry | Hi,Did you mean to put this William Hill in a different place? You've put it in the former Yorkshire Post building which is now a car park. http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/330071182 refers.Thanks. |
| 37502994 by DCM_HD | 1 | 2017-01-31 13:16:08 UTC | Paul Berry | Railway Street *is* one way in all but signage.Evidence:* Single lane along its length.* No traffic lights facing north into Railway Street at the junction with Westgate (if it was two-way there would be).I have logged this with Kirklees Council. Let's see what they come back with: https... |
| 2 | 2017-01-31 18:59:51 UTC | Paul Berry | Have just resurveyed on foot. There is also a speed table with the road marking in one direction only. | |
| 3 | 2017-01-31 19:14:21 UTC | Paul Berry | I've just taken a moment to appreciate this from your point of view: this was a changeset of yours from 11 months ago that I've just picked up on and that might look a little impertinent. Not my intention: I'm just trying to make sense of a slightly odd street, as I'm sure you were. | |
| 4 | 2017-02-01 19:39:23 UTC | DCM_HD | I agree that your further comments are as it is. I hope Kirklees Council come back to you quicker than they did me. I logged the problem through the council's own website exactly a year ago. It seems most locals know the score and the taxi drivers seem trained to take the longer route from their cir... | |
| 43883720 by Alevtine Maksimoff | 1 | 2016-12-20 22:59:08 UTC | SomeoneElse | Is "Rillington Place 10" really a tourist attraction, and is it here? https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4516194593 |
| 2 | 2016-12-21 19:15:04 UTC | shawmat | 10 Rillington Place was the house where John Christie murdered several women in the 1950s. What made it even more notorious was that a lodger at the house, Timothy Evans, was convicted of the murder of his wife and was executed. But it had been Christie that did it. More than any other case, the wr... | |
| 3 | 2017-01-23 15:47:02 UTC | Paul Berry | There is no trace whatsoever left of Rillington Place or any of the properties that lined it. So although this might be the geographical point at which the infamous house, wash-house and gardens stood, nothing physical remains at all (quite deliberately). When the area was redeveloped in the 1970s i... | |
| 43509055 by Paul Berry | 1 | 2016-11-12 14:00:15 UTC | mueschel | Hi,way 389961326 has the tag 'adpoted =no' that doesn't make sense to me. Could you check that?Cheers, Jan |
| 2 | 2016-11-12 14:56:29 UTC | trigpoint | That looks like a typo, it should be adopted=no. | |
| 3 | 2016-11-13 14:22:08 UTC | Paul Berry | My mistake; thanks for correcting it, @mueschel. | |
| 41444391 by werner2101 | 1 | 2016-09-03 10:01:25 UTC | Paul Berry | Hi,I think your change to change the relation here from a grouping to a multipolygon has meant the map now shows each of the three reservoirs as "Ingbirchworth Reservoirs" when they should instead have their own names (Ingbirchworth, Royd Moor, Scout Dike).Respectfully, could you p... |
| 2 | 2016-09-04 07:43:08 UTC | werner2101 | Changed relation type to the neutral type=collection. Not switched back to waterways, because that type doesn't fit well. Regards Werner | |
| 3 | 2016-09-04 19:31:23 UTC | Paul Berry | Many thanks. | |
| 35286187 by Warofdreams | 1 | 2016-07-25 19:36:02 UTC | Paul Berry | The high-rise block "The Fosters" (way 380095247) was demolished in 2011. I'm not sure anything has taken its place yet. |
| 40500464 by CompactDstrxion | 1 | 2016-07-15 16:15:23 UTC | Paul Berry | Sorry to impinge on your hard work but there is no cycle track on Wellington Street (excepting the contraflow between King Street and City Square) nor is there a even a cycle lane marked on the road, in either direction. |
| 2 | 2016-07-15 17:00:29 UTC | CompactDstrxion | Thanks I have taken it back to Westgate Roundabout. | |
| 36503005 by crossmyloof | 1 | 2016-05-25 15:53:54 UTC | Paul Berry | Is this not Cann Hall? |
| 2 | 2016-05-25 17:50:55 UTC | SK53 | *** SPAM *** not displayed - visit osm.org | |
| 38320109 by wnX08hgh2TJ | 1 | 2016-04-06 22:12:33 UTC | Paul Berry | The road classifications need amending too. Thanks. |
| 2 | 2016-04-07 07:06:00 UTC | wnX08hgh2TJ | Yep. And the pedestrian crossings have all moved too. | |
| 3 | 2016-04-07 11:47:05 UTC | Paul Berry | Since you're midway through mapping I'll leave you be :) | |
| 35203604 by Paul Berry | 1 | 2015-11-09 22:20:09 UTC | SomeoneElse | Thanks for this (and for resolving those notes). |
| 2 | 2015-11-10 09:56:53 UTC | Paul Berry | A pleasure. | |
| 26435327 by Paul Berry | 1 | 2015-10-30 15:54:56 UTC | Paul Berry | Really this shouldn't be marked as a secondary road but a tertiary one (except on the trunk sections). However it does allow the route to show up as being special in some way. |
| 29193818 by PeterEastern | 1 | 2015-03-06 12:42:45 UTC | Paul Berry | Motorway regulations don't apply until the route is signed, which is immediately after the footpath crossing, so this part is not a motorway. You'll notice there are similar changes of classification on the slip roads elsewhere about this junction.Thanks. |
| 28590066 by HovisCoder | 1 | 2015-02-05 16:21:28 UTC | Paul Berry | Not much about the routing of the A61 around this area makes any sense so I'll let your changes stand :) |
| 2 | 2015-02-05 19:28:16 UTC | HovisCoder | Thanks for that. :) I've written a tool that makes the road references visual and I tend to correct there where possible. I agree with your remark about the A61 that clearly shows. | |
| 27322338 by Paul Berry | 1 | 2014-12-07 22:26:13 UTC | Paul Berry | Or tram routes, even. |
| 10511077 by DaveOxford | 1 | 2014-12-03 23:15:22 UTC | Paul Berry | Trams in Morecambe? If these are former or proposed stops they should be tagged as such. |
| 16132818 by PeterEastern | 1 | 2014-11-18 17:59:26 UTC | Paul Berry | Should the Purple Line relation extend to Meadowhall? It's an off-peak service but still part of the overall routing. |