Changeset No. Date Contributor Comment
12018-10-16 13:50:22 UTCwill_p Hi,
I notice you are adding names to electricity substations across the country. Please could you inform me of the source for these names? When adding names from a source other than survey, it's always helpful to give a source so other mappers can verify what you have added.

This query was promp...
22018-10-16 15:23:13 UTCRuss My sources for names are mostly planning permission/press releases/local news articles, and very occasionally educated guesses. Not many people go out of their way to survey these places.

The "grid" thing is somewhat of a stylistic choice, I guess. "Grid" is the type of substa...
12018-09-27 17:16:45 UTCwill_p Hi,

I've been looking at the historic Nottinghamshire county you have been editing here and specifically at places where the current boundary line differs from the historic one. For example, Ilkeston Junction ( was until the 1990s in Nottinghamshire, bu...
22018-09-27 21:42:37 UTCsmb1001 Hi Will,
I didn't have chance to finish the whole of the traditional border today; I'll try to tomorrow. (I started with duplicating the ceremonial border and am editing the parts that have been altered with modern boundary legislation. The edits I'm doing are as to recreate the traditional borders...
12018-09-23 18:11:33 UTCwill_p As well as removing SEO spam you have also deleted most of the address tags. Any reason why?
22018-09-24 20:38:26 UTCgileri This node is inside the following landuse which already bears addr:postcode and addr:street.

Therefore copying this data on the node inside is redundant and prone to drift when one or the other is updated.
32018-09-24 20:40:23 UTCgileri See for yourself for addr:postcode :

As for addr:city, it is not needed as the city has an outline, so geocoders can use it to derive the addr:city of all features inside :
42018-09-24 20:43:09 UTCgileri Sorry for the spam (ironic), but I figured I should share this wonderful too to check whether addresses are correctly resolvable :
52018-09-24 22:15:31 UTCwill_p Thanks for explaining your reasoning. When adding addresses in the UK it is usual practice to put all the address tags on the individual objects. Few mappers would think to check whether tags have been added to the surrounding landuse areas. Therefore I don't think you should delete tags in this sit...
12018-09-24 16:08:19 UTCwill_p Hi, there were previously two objects tagged with place=town for West Bridgford:

You have now added a third. Was that really necessary? There should obviously only be one.

22018-09-24 17:48:09 UTCadamb70 My mistake, I didn't see 2661621. I have reverted the change.
I'm new to OSM, hence requesting review, so your input, while seemingly a little condescending, is very much appreciated.

12018-09-23 18:13:12 UTCwill_p Forgot to update changeset comment - should be added path in Mapperley Wood and near by minor power lines.
12018-09-10 15:56:08 UTCwill_p Hi,

Has the route of this footpath changed recently? I last walked it last year. At that time there was a well defined path following the route you have deleted. The rights of way markers also clearly pointed along that route. I'm aware that the official designated route follows the new path you ...
22018-09-12 12:20:35 UTCgoose_wh Right; I'm with you - let's perhaps reinstate the waymarked route then. However on the ground when attempting to follow the L shaped path, there's very little evidence the official route is ever used / or even there (particularly in winter!).
32018-09-12 22:17:55 UTCwill_p Thanks for your reply. I have re-added the unofficial but waymarked route and tagged it as permissive. It appears to be the route that the farmer wants people to take. When I surveyed it, I vaguely recall there was a gap in the hedge at the SW end, but no other indication that the official route exi...
12018-09-04 21:19:36 UTCSK53 Hi Will,

OSM Inspector is complaining about the Shipley Country Park relation. I think the issue is the wood over Coppice Pond marked as an inner which touches the outer way. The map on the DCC website indicates the private area round the pond is smaller than the wood, so it may be an issue of re...
22018-09-05 10:11:47 UTCwill_p I have removed the wood over Coppice Pond from the relation and have added Lakeside Business Centre instead. I don't know why that wood was added to the relation and suspect it may have been accidental. I realise the private area is bigger than the business centre, but don't want to directly copy fr...
12018-08-07 09:41:04 UTCwill_p Hi Dave,

Looking at this changeset, I realise I must have deleted the defibrillator outside the White Swan while surveying here on Saturday. I've no idea how that happened. Thanks for spotting my error and fixing it.

12018-07-18 15:50:31 UTCSK53 I dont think St Andrews Church Hall is listed. It's a 60s block IIRC.
22018-07-21 10:34:19 UTCwill_p It is often difficult to determine exactly what a listed building designation covers based on the node and short description in the open data. In this case, the name in the listing data is:

I assumed the 'former Sunday School' bit refe...
12018-06-30 21:09:16 UTCwill_p The deletions you are making look a bit heavy handed. As well as the shop and name tags you are also deleting some addresses. For example:
Empty shop units still have addresses, so they should be left in place. In addition, I certainly find upd...
22018-07-01 02:35:43 UTCseanking2919 1. I was doing the edits manually. They were not automated.
2. If you want me to keep the marks of the units with their addresses, I can try to see what I can do.
32018-07-01 02:42:23 UTCseanking2919 That is if there is any way to reverse my own edits so I change things.
42018-07-01 02:51:22 UTCseanking2919 Does look like some of the now-vacant units didn't have addresses initially listed. But I can look into individual nodes deleted in the U.S. and U.K. so far to see if it's possible to place some back in as vacant units with an address.
12018-06-27 14:32:18 UTCwill_p Hi,
Was the change from Costa to LCosta intentional?

22018-06-27 15:01:26 UTCSK53 Naturally not. Vespucci does this kind of odd thing when I'm not looking! For various reasons I haven't reviewed the added data either. Incidentally I surveyed this bit on Sat, but you got your edits in first. I noted that you put DEBRA in all upper case, whereas I'd gone for all lower (although wit...
12018-06-21 15:16:49 UTCSK53 Hi Will,

You seem to have inadvertently incorporated an oil well into the fabric of the village hall.

22018-06-22 22:01:31 UTCwill_p I'm not really responsible for this, because I didn't add the oil well or the building. All I did in this changeset was tag the village hall and retagged the oil well from man_made=petroleum_well to historic:man_made=petroleum_well. I thought the oil well required some more checking before removing ...
12018-06-12 15:39:23 UTCwill_p Hi,

I notice you have again added foot=no to the following part of Woodhouse Way:

Please could you explain your reasons for adding this tag. To me it appears wrong because there is a pavement running along one side, which is commonly used by pedestri...
12018-05-24 15:08:29 UTCwill_p Hi,
I notice you have added foot=no to Woodhouse Way. You should only add foot=no if foot access is actually prohibited, which is not the case here. If you wish to indicate whether or not there is a pavement, you should use the sidewalk tag.

The following way does have a pavement along the east...
12018-04-27 10:25:05 UTCwill_p I've deleted the park, lake and other doodles you added here because they don't exist. Don't add imaginary features!
12018-04-12 08:34:27 UTCwill_p Hi,

The change you have made here doesn't make sense. You have removed motor_vehicle=no but kept motor_vehicle:conditional=yes@18:00-08:00. The default access for motor vehicles on unclassified roads is 'yes' so the conditional rule is now redundant.

What is your source for this change? I note...
22018-04-13 17:58:35 UTCmap_cascadia Hey Will,
Sorry about the mess up! My source for this change was based upon previous edit, all I did was swap the motor_vehicle access tag (and the conditional). I thought it was confusing to have the first access tag for mv=no, and then the conditional yes for a certain time range. Personally, ...
12018-04-09 10:44:10 UTCSK53 Note that you used amenity=childcare on the day_nursery betwen Cropwell Butler & Tithby. Any particular reason for not sticking with kindergarten?
22018-04-09 11:43:46 UTCwill_p I think childcare is a tag that is worth supporting. I dislike the ambiguity of kindergarten, meaning different things in different countries.

I recognise that with OSM sometimes one has to accept the wrong tag name has been chosen, but not worry and get on with it. In this case though childcare...
32018-04-11 18:08:44 UTCSK53 Funnily enough I have the same problem with childcare for day nurseries because they may be either predominantly education or childcare facilities. OTOH I dont mind synonymy. I think a more significant problem with amenity=childcare is that many of the objects only have that as a tag: amenity=kinder...
12018-04-09 09:29:26 UTCSomeoneElse Can you explain why you made this change? The previous two editors of this way are both local to Derby, and are familiar with the area. Why do you think they are wrong?
22018-04-09 09:32:59 UTCwill_p How do you know Thorntree Lane is bidirectional? You clearly haven't visited the location. I can see from the aerial imagery that the road is very narrow, so it is likely to be oneway. Additionally the mapper who originally added the oneway did so after surveying the area on the ground.

I recogni...
32018-04-09 11:50:11 UTCkreuzschnabel The German forum has just become concerned about these edits too. Maybe a mapping party being not aware that they are editing not in a playground sandbox but within a live database used by others in real time?
42018-04-09 11:58:51 UTCSomeoneElse @kreuzschnabel Could you drop the DWG a mail please? Just so that we have the full list of accounts involved.

I don't think that it's a mapping party, as they appear to be working exclusively in business hours UTC+5. My guess is that some company is trying to "fix" OSM routing but doe...
52018-04-09 12:21:12 UTCkreuzschnabel Done.
62018-04-10 10:35:22 UTCDave Venables This section is definitely oneway. No egress onto Morledge. Clear no entry sign at the western end of this short stretch of Thorntree Lane.
Mirror image of the other end; one can enter Thorntree Lane from Saint Peter’s Street or Morledge but must leave via Exchange Street.
Entry from Morle...
72018-04-11 17:45:04 UTCDave Venables Entrances to Thorntree Lane from Morledge and Saint Peter's Street both now correctly show one way.
I've added a note on Exchange Street as it is currently just marked as Pedestrian only and I suspect there is a limited and conditional use by vehicles exiting Thorntree Lane to get to Albert Street....
82018-04-11 18:26:07 UTCSomeoneElse @Dave yes - I reverted it in .
92018-04-18 22:26:50 UTCNakaner-repair This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 58217008 where the changeset comment is: Revert all changesets by a group of commercial editors everywhere except North and South America. They "fixed" routing "errors" but hided real errors instead of...
12018-04-01 14:29:52 UTCwill_p Hi,

I see you have changed the section of Bath Street between Pelham Street and Station Road to oneway. I am reasonably sure that section is open to traffic in both directions. Are you certain that's not the case?

I cycled along there this morning. I wasn't aware of this change then, else I ...
22018-04-03 11:27:00 UTCwill_p Hi,
I was able to take another look at this location yesterday. I assume you have made a mistake here, because the middle section of Bath Street is definitely two way traffic. I have updated the map to reflect this.
32018-04-10 11:39:07 UTCArrow Cars UK Will, thanks for that. We had numerous drivers give us false information for this edit! I hate making incorrect edits, so thank you for spotting this one.
12018-03-28 11:36:36 UTCwill_p Hi,
You have changed the access restrictions along parts of Bath Street and Chapel Street in Ilkeston to allow all motor vehicle access between 10:00-16:00. Previously only buses were allowed between these times. What is the source of these changes please?
22018-04-03 11:20:24 UTCwill_p I have now verified these changes were incorrect and have reverted. Please don't change access tags without a reliable source.
32018-04-04 01:48:57 UTCyaswap okay that edit was accidentally done.Thanks for reverting it @will_p
42018-04-18 22:24:26 UTCNakaner-repair This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 58217008 where the changeset comment is: Revert all changesets by a group of commercial editors everywhere except North and South America. They "fixed" routing "errors" but hided real errors instead of...
12018-03-28 11:22:20 UTCwill_p Hi,
You have changed several streets from oneway=yes to oneway=no in the centre of Long Eaton. Unless things on the ground have changed very recently this appears incorrect. What is the source of your changes please?
22018-04-02 01:24:54 UTCygudeti Hi,
I have changed the direction as the other side of the road was connected to a pedestrian street and thought the only possible way for the vehicles to go in and come is the same street.
32018-04-02 08:27:36 UTCwill_p Thanks for responding.

Please don't change access restrictions by guessing. The situation was worse after your change because people could be illegally routed the wrong way down one way streets, whereas before there were some short sections of street that were only routable via a pedestrian stre...
42018-04-03 08:15:56 UTCygudeti Sure, thanks.
52018-04-18 22:23:59 UTCNakaner-repair This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 58217008 where the changeset comment is: Revert all changesets by a group of commercial editors everywhere except North and South America. They "fixed" routing "errors" but hided real errors instead of...
12018-03-29 22:35:12 UTCwill_p Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Just to note that I removed your earlier edit because you changed the oneway=no tag on Upper Parliament Street to oneway=reversible. That was incorrect because the 'reversible' value actually means the street is oneway, but the direction can change.

The oneway=no tag...
12018-03-29 08:05:36 UTCwill_p I didn't know Player Street had reopened to motor vehicles. For avoidance of doubt, please could you confirm that you have visited this location or let me know which source you used to know the access has recently changed. Thanks.
22018-03-30 02:07:09 UTCmusaib ali i made this change reviewing the fact that the access for motor vehicles was open on both ends of player street, so considering this I changed the access for the middle segment of player street to yes, if you have any local information regarding this you can go ahead and change it. Thanks.
32018-03-30 08:13:10 UTCSomeoneElse @musaib ali Please don't make changes like this based on just guesswork or aerial imagery (where you can't see signs at ground level).

Can you also explain _why_ you made this change here? You are making changes in lots of geographically separated areas which suggests that you haven't actually v...
42018-04-18 22:23:49 UTCNakaner-repair This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 58217008 where the changeset comment is: Revert all changesets by a group of commercial editors everywhere except North and South America. They "fixed" routing "errors" but hided real errors instead of...
12018-03-28 11:51:40 UTCwill_p You have added access=no to the lower part of Popham Street. Last time I visited this was the main route into a public car park. What source have you used for this change please?
22018-04-10 14:43:32 UTCtux67 Hi will_p .. this seems to be a bigger issue .. pls. have a look here:

This is also discussed in the German OSM Forum.

BR Stephan (tux67)
32018-04-18 22:24:24 UTCNakaner-repair This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 58217008 where the changeset comment is: Revert all changesets by a group of commercial editors everywhere except North and South America. They "fixed" routing "errors" but hided real errors instead of...
12018-03-25 17:29:38 UTCwill_p Another relation here:
12018-02-12 14:13:17 UTCwill_p Hi,

I notice you have removed the name 'Sawley Flood Lock' from
Why have you done that please?

Also, what source are you using for these edits? You are making changes all over the country, so I'm guessing you haven't surveyed all these locati...
22018-02-12 14:34:30 UTCJumbo Clarkie The Sawley Flood Lock omission was in fact an error, which I have now correct. The changes are related to inconsistencies in the data i.e. mostly that
people have been placing the name of the lock in the “name” meta data for
the lock, where as I’ve done a download of all the open...
32018-02-12 15:15:40 UTCwill_p Thanks for explaining what you are doing.

One comment - wouldn't it be better to use the lock_name tag for the name of the lock? The lock_ref tag is intended for the reference number. Most locks near where I live display both a reference number and a name.

12018-01-06 09:47:29 UTCwill_p Hi,
It's not clear to me why you have removed the grave yard from immediately around St Mary's Church (Weston on Trent)? That area is definitely part of the grave yard (my survey photos show lots of grave stones).
Thanks, Will
22018-01-07 00:15:36 UTCTheNottingHum I was wondering myself about this case. The southwestern area around the church indeed has a few stones which however appear even more historic than the northeastern part, which is separated by a wall, and has the more recent graves in rows.
The 'amenity' tag implies some current usage to me. Would...
32018-01-07 22:39:37 UTCwill_p The main south-west section of the churchyard, around the church itself, actually still has quite a lot of gravestones, it's just that many of them have been moved and placed against the perimeter walls and a few against the church itself. Looking at my photos I estimate there are still around 100 g...
42018-01-08 09:03:46 UTCTheNottingHum Thanks. I was not aware of the practice of tidying gravestones to the sides, I assumed these to be the original places, and the middle mostly cleared out.
Following your arguments, but considering that apparently the walled and the hedged part are historically different, I have now added the grave...
12017-12-17 11:05:15 UTCMike Baggaley Hi, on ways 16565027, 16565029 and 16565032 you have added access=private in this changeset. However, as they have foot=permissive, the change has had no effect other than to add confusion as to whether pedestrian access is intended to be permissive or private. Can you please remove either the foot...
22017-12-17 12:18:49 UTCwill_p Thank you for pointing this out. I agree it doesn't make sense. I should have removed foot=permissive when I added access=private. Now corrected.
12017-12-04 18:55:19 UTCwill_p Hi,

Great to see you are adding some buildings. Please keep in mind though that the Bing imagery around Hucknall is more than five years date of date. I mention this because I notice you have changed the Co-op store on Watnall Road back into the shape of the pub which stood there before the Co-op...
22017-12-04 23:31:32 UTCTheNottingHum Hey you are right, I knew Esri is newer but Bing is sharper so I would switch back and forth and use the best of both.
Seems I have forgotten that here but the previous drawing was a simple rectangle only and not the rebuilt shape.
This should be all fixed now, have a look.
32017-12-04 23:43:26 UTCwill_p Thanks for correcting it. All looks fine now.
12017-11-15 21:46:10 UTCwill_p Hi,
Is this building really called "Blenheim Hall's"? The apostrophe in particular appears wrong. It was called "Blenheim Hall" when I surveyed it four years ago. The operator's web page currently refers to it as just "Blenheim" (
22017-11-19 18:28:14 UTCwill_p I've now corrected the name to the previously mapped 'Blenheim Hall' as displayed on the signs outside.
12017-11-02 09:19:07 UTCwill_p Hi Mike,

I object to the change you have made here. You have changed bridge=chain to bridge=yes. How has the data been improved by this? You appear to only be stripping out information. I don't believe there is any consensus that bridges must only be tagged with bridge=yes. bridge=chain identifie...
22017-11-02 09:26:25 UTCMike Baggaley Hi Will, the reason for doing this is that bridge=chain is not rendered as a bridge by OSM, and is not included in the list of approved values. The bridge has a note on it saying it is a chain so no information has been lost.
32017-11-02 13:37:22 UTCRichard note= tags aren't machine-readable - so in practice, moving things from a machine-readable tag to a note means that they are practically lost to all consumers.

At the very least, this should have been moved to bridge:structure= rather than a note= .

There is no "list of approved values&qu...
42017-11-02 13:39:46 UTCSK53 On the contrary information has been lost: changing a tag to a note is always information loss. You are changing tagging for the renderer, a practice which has been discouraged for many years. Instead you should a) file an issue with the rendering github repository and b) improve the wiki documentat...
52017-11-02 13:43:43 UTCSomeoneElse To be honest, as there's no highway or railway over it I'd add the "man_made=bridge" object (as a closed way) if possible.
It'd donkey's years since I've been to the Priest House though, so my memory isn't up to it.
62017-11-02 15:56:09 UTCMike Baggaley The difficulty with having an indeterminate set of bridge values is that it is impossible to determine which of the unusual values are actually bridges. For example, there were quite a few bridge=culvert tags which on examination mostly turned out to be waterways below roads and should not have had ...
72017-11-02 17:37:33 UTCSomeoneElse > The difficulty with having an indeterminate set of bridge values is that it is impossible to determine which of the unusual values are actually bridges.

Speaking as someone who's done that, no it isn't:
82017-11-02 17:46:02 UTCMike Baggaley >Speaking as someone who's done that, no it isn't:

What you have actually done there is build your list of 'approved' values :)
92017-11-02 17:50:24 UTCRichard > it is impossible to determine which of the unusual values are actually bridges

That's a genuine issue, but one which would be better fixed by removing the not-actually-a-bridge values than by removing the actually-a-bridge values. ;)
102017-11-02 17:53:59 UTCSK53 No, he's built a list of values which he finds useful. One of the main points of OSM is to allow the description of the unusual & idiosyncratic because a rigid list of approved values inevitably cannot cope. People enforcing a set of values devalues what OSM is about. For instance you have chang...
112017-11-03 12:27:53 UTCSomeoneElse Yes - what SK53 has said is correct. It's probably clearer to look at some of the other examples in the same file (barriers, shops, offices). For example, depending on the application it might make sense to render or otherwise process a cycle_barrier the same as a motorcycle_barrier or it absolute...
12017-10-07 12:59:30 UTCwill_p Hi,
Could you just confirm that you have walked along the entire length of this path? It is several years since I have attempted to walk this route, but I remember that starting at the eastern end, the path was completely blocked by a high hedge and barbed wire fences when it reached the boundary ...
22017-10-07 13:09:52 UTCAndrewDJohnson Hi Will,

Thanks for the feedback. Actually, I was simply going by the sign that was there, on the road/track going down to Nottingham road and what was on the OS Map - so it could well be that the path is still blocked in the manner you describe. Hence, you can delete the edits. If I go back the...
32017-10-07 15:53:11 UTCwill_p Thanks for the quick response. These paths are confusing and I'm sure many people have followed them wrongly assuming that they join up.

I have updated your edit: I have left the section of path I remember walking along in place, but have removed the section around Moor Cottages/Old Workhouse Fa...
42017-10-07 21:45:44 UTCAndrewDJohnson Thanks for the info!
12017-09-11 13:55:57 UTCMike Baggaley Hi Will, I see you have changed tunnel=yes to tunnel=underpass. I can find no mention of tunnel=underpass as an approved value in the wiki, and the wiki at indicates that tunnel=yes is the correct value. Can you please explain why you think tunnel=underpass...
22017-09-11 15:05:03 UTCwill_p I reverted your change because it stripped out information. Just because a tag isn't documented on the wiki, does not mean its use is not allowed, and it certainly does not permit you to randomly swoop down and remove it. OSM mappers thankfully aren't limited to a list of 'approved' tags.

Adding ...
12017-09-03 15:39:11 UTCwill_p I notice you have removed the designation=byway_open_to_all_traffic tag from way It was certainly signed as such when I surveyed it last year. Has the formal legal designation changed since then?

22017-09-03 22:27:33 UTCcb44 My apologies. I'm not really sure why I did that. I have reverted most of the changes I made and it's back to being tagged as a bridleway with designation=byway_open_to_all_traffic again.
32017-09-03 23:51:57 UTCwill_p Thanks.

Regarding the highway tag, ignoring the right of way status, the path does indeed look like highway=footway, so I do understand why you made that change. It is unusual to find a byway running along a path which is that narrow. On balance I think bridleway is probably the correct tag, assu...
42017-09-04 00:34:10 UTCcb44 The area directly to the east is a paddock, so I'm guessing it was historically a bridleway. As far as I can tell, it's used almost exclusively by pedestrians these days (mostly kids from the nearby school), but as long as the legal designation is correct, either highway tag seems fine.
12017-08-05 17:20:32 UTCwill_p Hi,

In this changeset you tagged two bus stops on the A50 close to the A453/M1 roundabout - and Have you actually visited this location and confirmed the existence of these bus stops? I ask because there d...
22017-08-12 16:30:35 UTCwill_p I passed by here this afternoon and noted that there were definitely no bus stops. Please be more careful when remote mapping. The presence of NaPTAN imported customary stop nodes does not mean there are bus stops. Please remember that OSM is a collaborative project. If you had answered my initial q...
12017-08-08 14:29:30 UTCwill_p *** SPAM *** not displayed - visit
12017-08-07 20:32:44 UTCSK53 I presume the bridleway past Stoke Bardolph (59305357) should be designation=public_bridleway? Just looking at more unusual values.
22017-08-08 11:47:53 UTCwill_p I did notice the non-standard designation tag when I added this changeset, but decided to leave it because it wasn't something I had checked on the ground. I do strongly suspect it is a public bridleway.

It might be worth checking with kevjs1982 who added the designation tag originally.
32017-08-08 12:39:25 UTCSK53 My apologies, didnt check closely enough. Thought it was unusual?
12017-08-05 17:37:53 UTCwill_p Did you intend to remove the highway tag from this service road? -
12017-08-05 09:03:06 UTCwill_p I have reverted this changeset. Mapping spiral walkways and stairways is difficult and I'm sure the current mapping could be improved, however, your changes made no sense to me. You added a stairway that doesn't exist and joined up ways that are on different levels.
22017-08-05 09:27:19 UTCBCNorwich Hello, very sorry that's my fault, I didn't study the layout close enough. I can see now what you're trying to achieve. Thanks for reverting it.
Regards Bernard
12017-08-01 18:18:39 UTCSomeoneElse Hi will,
Quick question - does the edit to the location of after your change look OK to you?
Best Regards,
22017-08-02 11:21:02 UTCwill_p It appears that the whole roundabout was moved rather than just the traffic signals. Everything was shifted roughly 2 metres to the west. Looking at GPS traces I think the original position was slightly more accurate, but it's probably too minor to worry about.
32017-08-02 12:57:21 UTCSomeoneElse OK, Thanks.
12017-06-12 15:10:06 UTCwill_p In this changeset you have deleted the solar farm at Elton on the Hill commenting that it 'made no sense'. Please could you explain this more. It was certainly there when I surveyed it last year.

22017-06-12 16:27:16 UTCJonOrchard Will,

Thanks for the comment, and I will rollback to your changeset ASAP. It was a mistake on my behalf, so thanks for highlighting it.

32017-06-12 18:19:29 UTCwill_p Thanks, Jon.

If you need help with undeleting, just let me know.

42017-06-12 20:04:11 UTCJonOrchard Will,

Hopefully your solar farm is back on now.
12017-04-11 13:21:23 UTCwill_p Hi,

What is the purpose of adding an elevation for an entire city? To me this usage of the ele tag seems likely to cause confusion, because the ele tag is usually used to provide an accurate elevation at a particular point, whereas this is something much more vague. Many different heights could b...
22017-04-11 15:35:11 UTCtimwenzel98 Hi Will,

thank you for opening the discussion. The elevation for an entire city can be useful in some circumstances when using specific mobile apps ( for instance), i added the official elevation of a town, each for their own measurement. It of course would be nice to have the elevation of...
32017-04-11 15:41:16 UTCSomeoneElse Hi Tim,
Where did you measure the elevation? If you didn't measure it, where did you copy the information from?
42017-04-11 17:16:05 UTCSK53 There is no such thing as an official elevation of towns/cities in the UK. This seems to be more common in Europe and is indeed often shown on conventional topo maps. In Britain only spot heights are shown.

Adding an ele on an area is furthermore absurd. Elevations in Nottingham vary between arou...
12017-04-06 16:46:11 UTCtrigpoint Hi, what is the source of this edit?
You have removed footpath L57 and the airport trail for example. L57 is a PROW and cannot simply be closed, it will at most have been diverted. Do you have any reference to this?
22017-04-06 17:29:39 UTCArrow Cars UK Hi,
Sorry, I should have referenced such a significant change like this. All the site plans and access arrangements are available here:

The public right of way info is here:
32017-04-06 21:55:02 UTCwill_p Hi Luke,
I haven't looked what's happening on the ground here for a couple of months, but I'm a bit surprised that all these features have already been cleared. Have you actually confirmed that they have all gone? For example, you have removed a service road all the way from Church Street, Lockingt...
42017-04-07 08:34:26 UTCArrow Cars UK Morning Will,
The features I've removed have all gone this week. The construction area I've added is the full area where ground work has started. (Obviously it's impossible to get GPS tracks at the moment as there is no access).
The roads which are closed, such as the junction with Ashby Road and...
52017-04-08 21:38:45 UTCwill_p Today I have had a look at the current situation. It turns out that many of the deleted features do still exist:
The Airport Trail is still there and is still open to the public with minor diversions.
The service road from Church Lane (Lockington) is still there. It's being used as one of the main...
12017-03-23 18:13:44 UTCwill_p Hi Stan,

Last week I commented on a bridleway you added north of Kegworth ( I received no response from you, and at the weekend I decided to survey it on the ground, because your remote mapping was clearly approximate and rather confusing in the w...
22017-03-23 21:09:49 UTCStan W Hi Will,

Apologies for not responding - I am not familiar with the concept of discussions.

While I was relying on second-hand information from one of my team of surveyors who walked the route, this does raise an issue in my mind as to the purpose of including routes on OpenStreetMap.

If we ...
32017-03-24 11:34:40 UTCwill_p Hi Stan,

There has been a lot of discussion in the past about tagging rights of way and the general consensus is that the highway tag should only be used to indicate physical characteristics and not access rules. There are separate tags available for tagging access (
42017-03-24 16:00:09 UTCSomeoneElse Hi Stan, hi Will - for info is on a server in Germany now, and should be able to cope with people viewing maps there (though tile scrapers would be a problem).
Best Regards,
52017-03-24 16:17:07 UTCSK53 Hi Stan,

A couple of blog posts about footpath mapping & assessing completeness of PRoW information are: and might help build the ...
12017-03-19 16:48:16 UTCwill_p Hi, what does 'RA surveys' mean? The abbreviation isn't clear to me.
22017-03-20 17:41:47 UTCtrigpoint My guess, and knowing Stan as I do. it would be Ramblers Association
12017-03-16 11:03:46 UTCwill_p Hi Stan,

It's good to see you are adding lots of footpaths and bridleways in Leicestershire. However, looking at these additions I'm curious what source you are using? You are adding them at quite a rate, so I'm guessing they might not all be from survey. In general, it would be helpful to fellow...
12017-03-02 12:27:29 UTCwill_p Welcome to OSM.

I see you have added a footway along Hampden Street. You have added it down the centre of the street so that it mostly shares the same nodes as the road itself (mapped as highway=residential).

Please note that we don't map pavements in this way. If you wish to indicate the pre...
22017-03-02 15:41:29 UTCSK53 Can I add that the local convention in Nottingham is definitely NOT the addition of pavements as separate ways. Adding pavements makes the data harder to maintain and may complicate routing to the point that pedestrian routing no longer works. Adding a sidewalk tag is the local convention.

12017-02-18 12:28:27 UTCSomeoneElse Hi Will,
A question about the Y1 bus:
Is the Langley Mill / Eastwood stretch of this the same as the Derby / Heanor service? I've only ever used the latter part. the H1 (which this is a partial duplicate of - Yourbus have desi...
22017-02-19 16:07:57 UTCwill_p Hi Andy,

When I added the Y1 route information I certainly assumed the Langley Mill / Eastwood stretch was part of the same route as the Derby / Heanor section. It was surveyed by photographing the bus stops rather than using the bus.

I mostly added the Eastwood part of the route in 2015 and H...
32017-02-20 17:07:49 UTCSomeoneElse Thanks Will,
I'll stick the Derby-Heanor bit into the same relation for now and update it if anything seems different.
Best Regards,
12016-11-29 09:08:04 UTCwill_p Hi,

The address you added in this changeset appears to be a duplicate (Norfolk House, 47 Upper Parliament Street). It has previously been mapped here:

Norfolk House is definitely located on the other side of Norfolk Place where the earlier node is p...
22016-12-01 22:15:10 UTCGuy All resolved now...
12016-11-22 10:47:31 UTCwill_p Hi,

This edit looks problematic to me -

1. You have changed the name of the shop. How do you know this? You've made edits across the world in the last hour, so I doubt you have visited it.

2. You have changed the shop type to 'weapons'. Again how do you know this? It seems unlikely to me. ...
22016-11-22 13:48:14 UTCloconvey Well, you are right - in parts. 1) While the name now includes a description of the business its still the name. And the note= key is omitted as its use should be temporarily. 2) shop=weapons might be misleading - please try to find an appropriate classification in the wiki. 3) well: surplus= is a...
32016-11-22 13:52:00 UTCloconvey Addendum: Anchor Supplies could become the operator, as it seems to be the Ltd. behind this shop. Also there is a web address.
Go ahead!
12016-11-12 14:16:36 UTCwill_p It had indeed reopened when I visited three weeks ago. I didn't notice that it had been tagged as motor_vehicle=no. The section to the west is now being reconstructed on a new alignment.
12016-09-29 11:25:33 UTCGinaroZ Hi, what exactly is "shop=For Fran & Edie"?
22016-09-29 11:29:40 UTCwill_p Hi, it's a mistake. I'll check my photos/notes this evening and correct it. Thanks for pointing it out.
12016-09-20 15:05:20 UTCwill_p Hi, in this changeset you have added a duplicate of Howitt Primary Community School. You added, while was already present.
22016-09-20 15:47:41 UTCChristian Ledermann Ooops sorry, removed mine, added additional metadata to
32016-09-20 16:18:09 UTCwill_p Thanks.
12016-09-19 12:02:23 UTCwill_p Hi, you seem to have made various small changes in this edit. It would be really helpful to other mappers if you could provide changeset comments for this type of edit to give some idea about what was changed. Giving a source for the changes would also be appreciated.

I see you have added a doubl...
12016-09-17 10:48:18 UTCGinaroZ Hi, just wondering why you are using amenity=notice_board rather than the already established board_type=notice, information=board and tourism=information?
22016-09-19 11:59:35 UTCwill_p The board_type key is quite confusing. It is used both to describe types of information board (history, wildlife, geology etc.) and notice boards (local notices, times of church services or parish meetings, etc.). These seem two separate things and I don't understand why they are in the same key. Th...
32016-09-21 20:45:39 UTCGinaroZ Sorry, I don't see how it is confusing - notice boards are a type of information board, therefore board_type=notice is perfectly usable.
How does creating a new tag make things less confusing? Especially as it doesn't provide any new information about the type of board or indicate it is a church n...
12016-09-05 13:16:12 UTCSK53 Does the interpolation way 4-9 for The Cliff still make sense now that Rufford Court is a B&B. Dont think I have any pictures from this area from when I first surveyed it.
22016-09-05 13:34:09 UTCwill_p No, it doesn't appear to make sense. I suspect I just forgot to remove it.

Looking at my photos, the address of the B&B as written on signs outside is '3 The Cliff', while the FHRS data gives it as '3-5 The Cliff'.
12016-09-04 17:53:00 UTCwill_p Hello, welcome to OpenStreetMap. I see you have removed Southcliffe Road from the map. I suspect that might have been done unintentionally. Let me know if you need help fixing it.
22016-09-04 19:17:10 UTCnosher Sorry, it was not my intention to do that - particularly as that is where I live! I had dropped a gold pin and was attempting to pin my own home. As a newbie I am trying to learn about how to make greater use of the programme. I am particularly interested in why no individual homes are shown on m...
32016-09-04 22:21:55 UTCwill_p Hi, no problem, I've reverted the changes, so the road should now be shown again.

You made the edits using OpenMaps for iOS. I have never used that particular app, so I can't advise you on exactly what went wrong. The following page lists places where you can get help: http://www.openstreetmap.o...
42016-09-05 08:56:34 UTCSK53 Just to add a welcome from another mapper in the Nottingham area. I think the houses N. of Carlton Hill have been added very recently. We've had more mappers living on W & S of city which has meant the buildings have appeared there first. Adding just addresses can be very helpful as these have t...
52016-09-10 20:52:59 UTCalexkemp Hi nosher, welcome to OSM! I'm the man that you can blame for the presence of all those houses north of Carlton Hill (and thus absence south of Carlton Hill). I drew an arbitrary line down the Hill & decided to map all streets north of it; I'm currently doing something similar with houses south...
62016-09-10 20:56:40 UTCSomeoneElse I've heard people recommend!! for iOS (though I'm also not a regular iOS user myself).
12016-09-03 18:06:04 UTCwill_p In this edit I notice you have deleted the fhrs:id tag. Did you have a particular reason for doing that? The tag refers to the ID given by the Food Standards Agency as part of the Food Hygiene Rating Scheme. This covers most premises that serve or sell food in the UK. In Nottingham local contributor...
22016-09-09 14:21:09 UTCHilton Hotels Thank you very much for re-adding the tag. Apologies for removing it earlier, it's definitely good to keep it live.
12016-08-13 08:49:01 UTCwill_p Here you have added a non-existent admin_level=10 boundary named 'Beeston and Stapleford' but it doesn't even cover Stapleford! Why?

This is just nonsense. I propose to delete this, although will give you a chance to reply first.
22016-08-13 11:41:06 UTCalexkemp (the non-existent Beeston and Stapleford parishes that you are complaining about). It is an unparished area, which covers a *bit* of Stapleford. Stapleford is it's own CP, which I shall add as soon as I get a chance to do so. Please complain to Broxto...
32016-08-13 12:11:13 UTCalexkemp I've renamed "Beeston and Stapleford" as "Beeston". Of course, Stapleford (or at least, the parts of Stapleford that do not appear within the Beeston Unparished area) was already included within the map, since I've already gone through Broxtowe.

Restatement: Beeston *has* depa...
42016-08-17 08:28:43 UTCColin Smale Alex, could you please explain what you mean by "Beeston *has* departed from Council control"?
52016-08-17 15:46:49 UTCalexkemp Why do you want to know?
62016-08-17 15:53:19 UTCColin Smale I expect it is still fully under control of both Nottinghamshire CC and Rushcliffe BC... unless you have information to the contrary?
72016-08-17 15:55:42 UTCColin Smale Sorry, of course I meant Broxtowe BC not Rushcliffe BC
82016-08-17 17:05:41 UTCwill_p I live in Broxtowe and the statement "Beeston *has* departed from Council control" makes absolutely no sense to me.
Why would I have been paying council tax to Broxtowe BC if the area isn't under their control?
92016-08-17 19:28:14 UTCalexkemp Will is both a senior mapper & also has local knowledge as he lives in Beeston; I'm happy to defer to him.
12016-08-17 10:40:36 UTCwill_p Thank you for your contribution. However, please note that the convenience store you added is already mapped. See here:

I see you have recently added other duplicate shops elsewhere. Please could you be more careful in checking that the shops you are ...
12016-08-13 14:48:17 UTCwill_p First, I regret you feel objections to your admin boundary changes are a personal attack. I have no wish to attack you personally. You do seem to be aware that the changes you are making are controversial. Therefore you really should have tried to find consensus before going ahead. If you don't seek...
22016-08-13 14:50:34 UTCwill_p I actually meant to add this to:
32016-08-13 14:59:22 UTCwill_p In response to your changeset comment here, it's really not unreasonable to suggest deleting something which doesn't exist and it's unhelpful to describe it as a 'threat'. Why not try to be more constructive and recognise the legitimate concerns that others have over this?
42016-08-13 15:57:14 UTCalexkemp Hi Will.
Thank you for a much more reasonable response.
The reason that I felt the previous comments to be a “personal attack” was because they were a personal attack. To be told that a spelling mistake following 3 hours of painstaking boundary reset was “nonsense...
52016-08-13 18:12:51 UTCwill_p I find the tone of your reply unnecessarily personal. I want to be clear, I find it unpleasant and would like it to stop. I intend to stick firmly to the matter in hand in this reply.

1. Administrative boundaries define legally defined entities. There's little grey area here - something is eithe...
62016-08-13 19:21:17 UTCalexkemp I'm going to be discussing this with the relevant local, city and/or county authorities in order to get the situation clear before I do or say anything else (unless I find my work summarily deleted, of course).
72016-08-13 21:37:39 UTCwill_p I'm sorry you are unset by my suggestion to delete your relation. It was made in the genuine belief that what you added doesn't exist. It's become apparent that you strongly contest that point. My feeling now is that this is something that requires wider community discussion rather than action on my...
82016-08-13 21:58:58 UTCalexkemp Hi Will.
A month ago I added (Nottinghamshire Civil Parishes - names for unnamed areas) then a couple of days ago (Derbyshire Civil Parishes - names for unnamed areas).

I put t...
92016-08-13 22:35:03 UTCwill_p "Diamonds to a pig." - It's a shame you feel you have to keep insulting me personally. It's hardly conducive to discussing the points you've raised. Yes, I've critisied your tagging choices, but never you personally. Your behaviour is uncalled for.
102016-08-13 22:44:04 UTCalexkemp Hi Will
Once again: criticise my reasons & we can have a useful discussion. Criticise my actions, or myself personally, and we can never have a useful discussion. On this matter, and your statements, look in the mirror.
I said: you punch me, I punch you back, often & hard. ...
112016-08-14 20:21:57 UTCSomeoneElse @alexkemp , Please tone the comments down a bit. Saying things like "Diamonds to a pig", "you punch me, I punch you back, often & hard" and "I trust my personal experience better than someone else's intellectual considerations" don't help to communicate your messag...
122016-08-14 23:43:40 UTCalexkemp Hi Andy
Yes, you are correct. I apologise to Will, hoping that he reads this.
50 years ago I read in a book that, in the 1800s, the staff at Lunatic Asylums would lock all their inmates into their cells at every Full Moon. A little later I was hitch-hiking and got a lift from someo...
132016-08-14 23:44:56 UTCalexkemp This is an automated response: sorry, but I'm too busy mapping too be able to spare the time to respond to you. Thank you for your interest in my mapping. -Alex Kemp
12016-08-10 17:52:06 UTCwill_p Here you have deleted the Nottingham administrative boundary relation, which has existed in OSM since 2009. I see you have recently created another relation for the city with admin_level=8. This is wrong because Nottingham is a unitary authority and therefore admin_level=6. It is the relation you cr...
22016-08-10 22:20:18 UTCalexkemp Hello Will. Nottingham is unique (as best I can tell) in that the identical area BoundaryLine actually contains 3 admin_levels (see
1) level=6 Nottinghamshire; County (Nottm is the hole in the county)
2) level=8 "City of Nottingham&quo...
32016-08-10 23:28:31 UTCwill_p Firstly, I do recognise you have spent a lot of time tidying the geometry of boundary relations. That is definitely worthwhile and I've got absolutely no intention of doing anything that will negatively affect that. In this case, there's no reason why changes to the tagging and structure of the rela...
42016-08-11 00:02:45 UTCalexkemp You say: “City of Nottingham (unitary authority) relation could be tagged as admin_level=6;8;10”. That is genius! Leave all other BoundaryLine ‘admin_level’ as single-values, but make UAs triple values. In that case, after undelete on old relation, both new 'City of Nottingha...
52016-08-12 03:16:08 UTCalexkemp See (csmale is the user that has also made all OS .shape files available as .gpx downloads). Looking inside those downloads, the designation for unparished parishes is “designation=non-civil_parish”.
62016-08-12 14:02:06 UTCSK53 Can I add again, the standards for admin_level assignment are clear (they were not in 2009 when this was added). You certainly should not have removed the existing relation.

The rule is tags on relation, lowest admin_level. In fact for Nottingham the highest level is 6 as it is a unitary authorit...
72016-08-13 07:36:03 UTCColin Smale I fully concur with SK53. The fact that the UA and the city boundaries are coterminal does not make them the same object.

I am not convinced that the unparished areas should be in OSM at all, as the individual areas are all purely historical, unmaintained (though liable to change) and of no curre...
82016-08-13 09:36:19 UTCwill_p I have now undeleted the City of Nottingham admin_level=6 relation and deleted the admin_level=8 one. I checked the relation members and tags matched up between the two (where correct).
92016-08-15 09:26:31 UTCColin Smale Alex, please note that there is no such thing as an "unparished parish". A location in England is either within a Civil Parish, or it is within an unparished area.
102016-08-15 09:30:07 UTCalexkemp This is an automated response: sorry, but I'm too busy mapping too be able to spare the time to respond to you. Thank you for your interest in my mapping. -Alex Kemp
12016-07-25 18:13:28 UTCSomeoneElse Do you reckon that is still in occasional use? The tracks are still there (at least where it crosses the service road at ), but there shrubs growing through the line are 2-3 ft high now.
22016-07-25 23:20:24 UTCwill_p I've not seen any trains going along that branch since 2011. It's some time since I've had a proper look at the state of the track. I don't object to it being changed, although it would be worthwhile also checking where it crosses the canal, because that bit was in good repair last time I checked (p...
12016-07-23 21:50:37 UTCSomeoneElse I think that might need a look at. It's called "Treetwise Confectionary" - should that be "Treetwise Confectionery"? Also it has tags "clothes=hosiery" and "gender=female". While technically possible it seems unl...
22016-07-24 08:10:07 UTCwill_p Thanks for pointing this out. All now corrected. The extra tags were intended for another shop and I guess I copied them by mistake.
12016-07-10 05:51:13 UTCWarin61 Hi,
please see the wiki ... it says "Use sport=* to specify more details of sold products, useful values can be taken from sport key. "

22016-07-10 05:52:56 UTCWarin61 P.S. Don't blame me for the inconsistency with OSM tags.. I'd much rather use something like sells=* to specify what a shop/vending_machine sells.
32016-07-10 18:04:44 UTCwill_p I appreciate that there are arguments in favour of using the sport key in these cases. However, there are counter arguments of which two immediately come to mind:

1. As mentioned in my changeset comment, with shops it's common to use the format shop=x x=y to expand on the products sold.

2. Th...
42016-07-10 22:59:10 UTCWarin61 Some sports shops sell food, drinks, clothing ...
But the OSM convention is to use sport=* to specify what sport (or multiple sport using the ; as a separator). I have started a topic on the talk uk list.
12016-07-01 13:14:46 UTCwill_p Please could you explain in more detail why you have changed Carlton from a suburb to a neighbourhood? I don't understand your changeset comment. Deciding on the relative importance of different places is subjective, but Carlton is one of Nottingham's main suburbs, so I find it hard to see any justi...
22016-07-01 13:55:05 UTCalexkemp Hi Will. On every recent Diary entry that I made the ‘Location’ said “Bakersfield NG22”, even though I clicked on a location on the map close to the Carlton suburb node (NG4). Checking the Bakersfield node I discovered it to be ‘place:neighbourhood’ with a Note sa...
32016-07-01 15:07:33 UTCSomeoneElse FWIW, the issue I suspect might be the same as . The recommendation from Lonvia (who maintains Nominatim, which is what's producing "where I am" results) was "use areas".
42016-07-01 15:15:10 UTCwill_p My view is that the quality of the underlying data is by far the most important consideration. The data can be used for a range of purposes, so making it less accurate to work round a particular software deficiency seems the wrong way to go.

I agree that incorrect locations shown in diary entrie...
52016-07-01 15:36:46 UTCSK53 Yes I agree with will_p & SomeoneElse: the solution is to get a fix in Nominatim not mung the data. The existing places have been pretty stable for quite a number of years. Tweaking things in this way may well break other things, such as Garmin Maps based on OSM which many people (SomeoneElse &a...
62016-07-01 16:02:01 UTCalexkemp “the quality of the underlying data is by far the most important consideration” : that is irrefutable. I'm in the middle of adding houses in First Av, etc.. I'll revert the node when done with the houses. The whole thing should be up before midnight.

Does anyone know whether Bakersfie...
72016-07-01 17:31:21 UTCwill_p I think its borderline whether Bakersfield is a neighbourhood or suburb. I added the node originally and decided on neighbourhood, but I don't have any strong views either way.

I suppose I decided on neighbourhood, because I find it's a lesser known part of Nottingham. A lot of people haven't he...
82016-07-01 18:54:39 UTCalexkemp Just done another uplift of houses + have also changed both carlton + bakersfield nodes to ‘suburb’.
92016-07-07 23:54:25 UTCalexkemp After many talks with locals in Carlton ever since this conversation it is certain that the current location for Carlton is wrong. The current consensus seems to be the crossroads of Carlton Hill / Cavendish Road / Burton Road / Station Road. However, I will NOT touch anything until I've found an a...
12016-05-10 10:50:29 UTCwill_p Hi,

Are you sure that the change you made here is correct:

Have you surveyed it or else what's your source?

The canal no longer passes under the road, except in narrow pipes, so waterway=canal seems inaccurate to me. See http://www.geograph...
22016-05-10 12:05:43 UTCSomeoneElse Actually, a photo from the other side would make it much more clear - the pipes would be clearly visible :)

Seriously though, please don't make "armchair" edits on the basis of "Mapbox User Feedback" without doing at least a smidgeon of due diligence. There are at least two v...
32016-05-10 19:53:43 UTCSK53 Can I just also add my request that such changes be at least passed by local mappers. The Grantham canal is a disused canal with a wide variety of different status throughout its length. It is non-trivial to map even with a survey. In this case one of the most active mappers in the world (kevjs1982)...
42016-05-11 05:45:41 UTCruthmaben Thank you for highlighting this SomeoneElse, will_p and SK53. I made these changes based on the satellite imagery. I have reverted the changes I made, which will remove the tags I added. You'll are right, this should have been taken care by the local community. Will be cautious in the future.
12016-05-10 10:30:11 UTCwill_p Hi,

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Please note that road references should never go in the name tag, so the name=A6006 you added needs to be removed.

If you are confident that this section of road really doesn't have a name, then remove the name completely, else the previous name should be put ...
12016-04-07 22:46:29 UTCwill_p Hi, there's no need to enter speed limits in km/h. You just need to add the unit after the number, e.g. 20 mph.

22016-04-07 22:51:47 UTCalexkemp Hi Will

Thank goodness for that!
32016-04-08 10:56:05 UTCSK53 Yes we dropped the idea of having to enter stuff that way a long time ago, and all shared your feeling too.
12016-03-23 00:42:16 UTCwill_p Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

You have added the name '(no-name close)', please note that the name tag should only be used for proper names. If something has no name, then the correct thing to do is to not use the name tag at all. You can use the 'note' or 'description' tags if further explanation is...
22016-03-23 21:34:49 UTCalexkemp Thanks for the info on the 'name' tag.

The 'highway' tag is accurate as 'road', 'service road' or whatever (I think that the term 'close' should be added as a value to the 'highway' tag, simply because it would quickly become the predominant value chosen for English residential roads). I live clo...
12016-03-16 01:24:50 UTCwill_p I see you have added highway=footways along the walls that mark the layout of Shipley Hall (e.g. Are you sure they really should be mapped as paths? Some of the walls are flush with the ground, but they are too narrow to walk along comfortably, a...
22016-03-16 18:54:01 UTCRovastar Ummh I am not sure.

For drops yeah I should not have joined them for the drops and add steps where applicable but the others I would I suppose class them as walkways.
My reasoning is although narrow they have put down paving slabs for walking on rather than leaving the uneven ruins.

here is a...
12016-01-22 19:42:15 UTCwill_p Hi,

What was your intention here? -

You have tagged the takeaway as both open and disused. Which is correct?
22016-01-23 00:15:57 UTCSomeoneElse I mapped that bit of Clay Cross High Street not that long ago, and it looked pretty shut then - still set up internally as a fast food place, unopened mail on the doormat and a "fast food place available" sign in the window. I'd be surprised if someone has turned it around and opened it s...
32016-01-23 00:19:18 UTCSomeoneElse Also, I'd suggest reading - "fixing amenities" doesn't really explain what changes you made and what the source was.
42016-01-23 00:24:02 UTCSomeoneElse Also also, you've duplicated the Pattenmakers Arms and and dredged up some old tags and put them on the building.

I'll have to revert this, but can you please explain exactly what you're trying to do here?
52016-01-23 00:29:45 UTCSomeoneElse For info, reverted in .
12016-01-22 19:35:54 UTCwill_p Please don't merge duplicate nodes when they belong to ways with different layer or level tags. I've fixed some nodes you wrongly merged around Nottingham.
12016-01-21 22:57:51 UTCwill_p In this changeset you deleted a way ( inside Nottingham's Broadmarsh shopping centre ( Your changeset comment was 'Fixing overlapping ways'. The way you deleted did indeed overlap another, but did you not notic...
12015-12-10 21:59:36 UTCSomeoneElse The source here is listed as "local survey; Bing". Does this mean you actually visited the area?
22015-12-10 22:31:44 UTCSomeoneElse ... and another question: What was your justification for the tagging of as a "village green"?
32015-12-11 20:20:45 UTCPolarbear Local survey+Bing means gathering local knowledge from a complexity of sources, to verify what can be seen from aerial imagery, in a spacial and temporal perspective.

Your tagging question will be going to further consideration.
42015-12-11 21:21:50 UTCSomeoneElse I'm not sure exactly what "gathering local knowledge from a complexity of sources, to verify what can be seen from aerial imagery, in a spacial and temporal perspective" means - did you visit Somercotes or not?
52015-12-11 22:06:17 UTCwill_p If you give 'local survey' as a source that should absolutely imply you have looked at it on the ground. In my view anything else is highly misleading. If you are using online sources, you should cite these so other mappers can easily verify where the data has come from.

Additionally, please giv...
62015-12-16 21:01:06 UTCSomeoneElse What, specifically, was the source of ? It's inside a building so it can't have been overhead imagery.
72015-12-17 10:55:47 UTCPolarbear @will_p, apparently we have different definitions of the types of survey. When I do a ground, photograph or GPS based survey, I label it such. When I say local, for me it means general research from OSM-compliant sources, as above.

The purpose of my edits is to improve OSM data quality by combini...
82015-12-17 18:53:15 UTCtrigpoint I also agree with will_p, these edits should have been discussed and agreed on @talk-gb prior to being changed.

Also I consider the term juvenile inappropriate in this case, I do not think your undersatnding reflects modern English usage.

Using the term survey when you have not visited an area...
92015-12-17 19:46:25 UTCSomeoneElse @Polarbear You say "from interviewing staff" above - staff of what and where? "local survey" has a clearly understood meaning within OSM - "that I went there and had a look". You seem not to have done this.
102015-12-18 00:28:26 UTCPolarbear @SomeoneElse - I am not aware that OSM requires to record and publish conversations with operators of POIs. As for the 'what' - the way you enquired about.

Survey is not as clearly understood as you assume and has multiple meanings, which are badly defined for OSM purposes. The wiki/Survey redire...
112015-12-18 14:29:16 UTCSomeoneElse I (and I suspect most mappers) have never needed to look at the wiki to see what the word "survey" meant. The page you reference was mostly edited by Xxzme (since banned from the wiki) and is therefore (as you've said) now of limited usefulness.

OSM doesn't "require" anythi...
12015-10-30 10:03:18 UTCwill_p You have added the postcode NG2 3AA to Nottingham Mail Centre. This appears wrong to me, because the mail centre is in the NG9 postcode area. I don't doubt mail for the postcode you added is processed here, but it is certainly not the postcode of the mail centre itself.
22015-10-30 20:19:39 UTCGuy This is a Boots PO Box number for the mail centre: whether it should be the Boots site at "Thane Road West" I don't know. According to the postcode (PC) is at the mail centre. Mail centres often have multiple PCs, I would expect this one is NG9 nxx (if it is in NG9) where n is...
32015-10-31 15:45:48 UTCSK53 Please dont add postcodes which dont have real geographical content to such buildings. There are probably hundreds of postcodes co-located at this building, none of which correspond to the postcode for the building. By adding such postcodes you will make it very difficult for people who use postcode...
42015-10-31 16:07:23 UTCSK53 Thinking about it, I suspect that NG2 1AA is a postcode associated originally with the Pennyfoot St location (or possibly even Station Street), which has been parked at the delivery office instead of being reused.
52015-10-31 16:27:12 UTCchillly is not a valid source for OSM. He releases his CODE as PD (not really possible in the UK but still ...) but copyright remains on all other content.
62015-10-31 16:34:37 UTCRichard is a direct interface to Google's geocoder data. See (for example), open up the web inspector in your browser, and look at all the requests to This data can't be used in OSM.
72015-11-01 07:25:38 UTCzool dear Guy, I write on behalf of the OSM Data Working Group. This discussion has been sent our way due to concern over data derived from the Google API (via potentially being added to OpenStreetMap. As Richard points out above, this data can't be used within OSM. See http://wiki.openstre...
12015-09-04 21:38:52 UTCwill_p Are you aware that the American Adventure permanently closed more the 8 years ago and that almost all the buildings and other structures have since been removed? The Bing imagery (4 years old) shows an empty site and that is still how it is today.

Would it be okay if I revert the changes you made...
12015-08-18 10:17:50 UTCwill_p I don't think the change you have made here is correct. You have changed playground=adventure_playground to playground:theme=adventure.

On the wiki, examples given for playground:theme include: ship, octopus, rocket and horse. These don't fit with an adventure playground, which is a specific type...
22015-08-18 11:36:16 UTCPolarbear Ok, however the playground=* key is for equipment, not for the type of the playground. What should we do? What kind of equipment does the playground provide?
32015-08-19 11:32:07 UTCwill_p I find the use of 'playground' to describe individual play equipment confusing, because the word playground usually refers to the whole site. Anyway, I have changed the tag to playground:type=adventure to avoid conflicting with this usage.

I have never been inside the site, but I believe it inclu...
42015-08-19 12:12:56 UTCPolarbear Fine. I did not invent the playground=* key and agree with your concern, but with 10K uses it is a bit late to change.
12015-08-12 15:01:00 UTCwill_p I notice you are manually importing a large number of names from OS Streetview. I'm concerned you do not seem to be paying sufficient attention to what has already been mapped. In particular, there are many cases where you are adding place=farm tags when the farms have already been mapped as an area...
22015-08-13 15:05:04 UTCchillly I am a significant mapper in the area and I'm very unhappy with the way this mapper behaves. I feel inclined to revert all these recent edits.
32015-08-16 12:47:46 UTCSomeoneElse I can't claim to be familiar with this area, but after a survey of an area east of Goole last year, most of the OSSV-derived data added by a similar changeset where "wrong", where "wrong" was either duplicate, in the wrong place or unverifiable.
12015-07-21 10:24:42 UTCwill_p This changeset looks problematic. You seem to have misunderstood that amenity=bar and bar=yes are not exactly equivalent.

If something is tagged as tourism=hotel and bar=yes, it indicates the feature is primarily a hotel, which happens to have a bar inside. For rendering purposes, it should be sh...
22015-07-21 10:36:14 UTCYorvik Prestigitator I have to agree with will_p, have you read the wiki that says the same as will_p is saying , for example should I edit all the bars that have toilets from toilets=yes to amenity=toilets?
32015-07-21 11:44:42 UTCSomeoneElse For the avoidance of doubt, I can categorically state that is NOT an amenity=bar. It's a hotel bar (serves a nice pint, but not really a pub because it's part of the hotel, though it does welcome walkers who aren't covered in mud)
42015-07-21 11:49:58 UTCSomeoneElse @Dr Kludge may I respectfully suggest that you revert this changeset, then get out of the armchair and go out and map something in the real world instead? Any amount of fiddling with tags will never improve the volume of data within OpenStreetMap, and changes like this one actually reduce the quali...
52015-07-21 12:41:39 UTCRichard Or if you do want to continue armchair mapping, may I gently suggest the rural US - where there's hordes of bad imported TIGER data that needs clearing up.
62015-07-22 13:11:30 UTCDr Kludge Nice guys comments guys. It shows bunch of religion. How about fixing the wiki then. If I go to the bar page it redirects to amenity=bar. Anyone could have fallen into this problem.

(Redirected from Bar)
72015-07-22 13:38:26 UTCYorvik Prestigitator Hi sorry if I came across as unfriendly, I guess frustration at someone undoing my work out of misunderstanding of tags. Perhaps your global scale made it look if you were changing things without knowledge of local circumstances.
I am not sure what you mean about the wiki redirecting, the link I ga...
82015-07-22 23:31:54 UTCSomeoneElse I've reverted this in . Some items (including ) are now correctly tagged again. Some may need further investigation ( I suspect is an amenity=social_club, for examp...
92015-07-23 04:53:57 UTCDr Kludge @Yorvik Prestigitator
1.) Go to the wiki.
2.) In the search area in the top right corner of the screen enter "bar" sans the quotes and hit the enter key.
3.) The page redirects to amenity=bar.
This behavior still exists at 7/22/2015 21:40 US time.

The end of my change set comment--T...
12015-07-11 18:00:23 UTCwill_p I do think this change is worthwhile, however, I would have highly appreciated reasonable advance notice so that I could have updated visualisations I maintain which make use of the EH_ref tag ahead of the change - e.g.

I don't think a documented ta...
22015-07-11 18:35:49 UTCRobJN Sorry Will. I overlooked that probably assuming nobody used the tag on the basis that the split between EH and HE happened 1 April 2015 and nobody has raised the issue yet.
12015-05-05 16:57:30 UTCwill_p The railway lines now differ from what is shown on the Bing imagery around Trent Junction. Please could you confirm the source for the changes you have made. If you have knowledge of recent changes that's great, but it's helpful to cite a source so other mappers can double check the changes.

My c...
12015-04-27 10:41:46 UTCwill_p I'm wondering why you have deleted the bridleway stubs listed below? Have you checked on the ground that they no longer exist?

Throughout B...
22015-04-27 11:52:04 UTCaxc97c Sorry about that, I had converted relevant parts route back to a bridleway, but I had a changeset that didnt save correctly. It must have been part of that. I have re-done the bridleway tags from by notes and saved them as a new changeset
12015-04-24 13:45:09 UTCwill_p I see you are continuing to make junction simplification edits. These changes go against the consensus of the community

Please see my concerns here:

Additionally, I see you are now creating multiple ways when there is no physical separation in t...
12015-04-24 11:34:17 UTCwill_p I have concerns about your recent edits in West Bridgford (Loughbough Road/Radcliffe Road junction):

1. You have left behind several broken turn restrictions. These all need fixing.

2. You have removed the intersecting nodes from overlapping highways. Highways should never overlap (without a ...
12015-04-22 15:51:43 UTCSomeoneElse Is this change actually correct? I'd be very surprised if each individual unit was named "Mott Street Industrial Estate" in addition to having a separate unit number.
22015-04-22 19:00:11 UTCR0bst3r That is easily to check:
Official address is
"Two Towers Brewery
Unit 1 Mott Street Industrial Estate
Birmingham B19 3HE"
32015-04-22 23:14:10 UTCSomeoneElse Yes, but that part of the address ("Mott Street Industrial Estate") is the estate, not the individual unit (which is the "Unit 1" part). You've changed it so that the "housename" is "Mott Street Industrial Estate", which makes no sense.
42015-04-23 08:32:04 UTCwill_p I agree that using addr:housename seems wrong here. I would have left it alone, but if I was tagging it myself I would use addr:place.
52015-04-23 09:32:44 UTCR0bst3r shows that the way I tagged is just 1 possibility, but widely used in GB. But you are sincerely invited to improve this as local mappers from GB.
12015-04-22 23:30:55 UTCwill_p Why have you changed shop=chandlery to shop=outdoor? To me they describe substantially different shop types.
22015-04-23 01:52:25 UTCBryce C Nesbitt The shop=outdoor came from node during a merge. I'll fix it.
32015-04-23 01:59:50 UTCBryce C Nesbitt Done and thanks. Note chandlery chandler, ship_chandlery and have about equal usage. There's also seamark:small_craft_facility:category=chandler.
42015-04-23 08:23:50 UTCwill_p Thank you for changing it. I will verify what exists on the ground next time I pass by that way.
52015-04-23 08:54:12 UTCBryce C Nesbitt The bridge is unclear. It does not show on the Marina map. Is it a drawbridge? Is there a height restriction?
62015-04-23 16:41:12 UTCtrigpoint Probably just a normal bridge, there would be no need for a drawbridge for canal traffic.
12015-04-20 13:55:14 UTCwill_p You have changed hundreds of buildings tagged with building=offices to building=office.

I regard this change as controversial and think it should be reverted. building=offices has been used for a number of years and any attempt to merge it with building=office should have been discussed first.
22015-04-20 14:28:25 UTCd1g I haven't checked every edit, but most changes are fine. It is hard to spell office/offices if you are not native speaker.

Also, building=offices wasn't documented and was entered by multiple hit-and-run mappers around the world.
32015-04-20 15:30:36 UTCwill_p I have used both building=office and building=offices for a number of years. I disagree this edit is just fixing typos.

I don't regard the two values as exactly equivalent. In the past I have used building=offices for large office buildings typically housing more than one company. I now think bui...
42015-04-20 17:33:34 UTCd1g > building=office, however, implies to me a smaller office building typically used by a single company
1. this tag wasn't documented at wiki
2. in OSM we use pattern building=<typology> (http://wiki.openstreetmap.o...
52015-04-20 18:31:23 UTCwill_p Your second point doesn't make sense to me. I am tagging building typology. A large office block is a different sort of building from a single office unit. It's similar to building=house and building=apartments.

Anyway, the issue here isn't the correctness of my tagging, it is a question of wheth...
62015-04-20 19:29:15 UTCpschonmann Holy Cow ! I edited whole world ! I was using local / expecting changes in CZ only. Seems that was mistake. Reverting that changeset.
But i still think building=office is appropriate tag, doesnt matter how building is large.
72015-04-20 22:54:26 UTCSomeoneElse The wiki's supposed to document tagging practice, not restrict it - if a particular tag has been deliberately used and it's not documented in the wiki it's the wiki that's wrong, not the tag.

If it helps to get another "British English" sense of "building=office" vs "buil...
12015-04-17 08:16:58 UTCwill_p You are systematically changing all the leisure=gym to leisure=fitness_centre. I have noticed you doing this gradually over more than two weeks. It is courteous to include changeset comments when changing tags, so it is immediately clear to others what you are doing. Also, I think this change should...
12015-04-15 14:47:59 UTCwill_p Have reverted. See changeset comment.
12015-04-15 13:51:31 UTCwill_p There are no apostrophes included in the street signs at the junction with Oxclose Lane. I haven't yet checked the signs further up the road in the Nottingham City Council area.
22015-04-20 12:19:39 UTCSomeoneElse Seems wrong that "name:en" and "name" are different, too. What was the source of the change?
32015-04-20 13:07:42 UTCWelshie OS Locator has the apostrophe.
The original meaning of the Queen's Bower locality is named after Queen Elizabeth I.
If it's named after a particular queen, and it's a bower (a pleasant shady place under trees or climbing plants in a garden or woo...
42015-04-20 14:53:40 UTCSomeoneElse It doesn't really matter who it was named after, or what would be grammatically correct, does it? Surely we should record the world as it is and not as how we would like it to be (you also changed last year; I corrected that back based on resurvey).
12015-04-14 13:45:56 UTCwill_p Why do you think it's acceptable to delete tags that contain meaningful information?

Every other bus stop in the local area I have checked has a name displayed, so I considered it worthwhile recording that this one doesn't.
22015-04-14 13:52:25 UTCR0bst3r You're right. I've added a fixme tag. Maybe someone can impove it this way.
12015-04-08 17:37:29 UTCwill_p My personal preference would be to delete these descriptive names completely or move them to the description tag. I think the rule of not including route names in the name tag is worth following because they usually clash with street names or other routes. Parts of 'The Big Track' by the river could...
12015-04-08 11:23:09 UTCwill_p I have deleted the house you added, because all the houses on Smithfield Avenue have been mapped already, so it's just duplicating what is there.
Your contributions are most welcome, but please note that there is no need to add things that are already mapped. If you wish to change a name or add ext...
12015-04-06 15:06:13 UTCwill_p I'm puzzled by this edit. You have removed a short section of road on Belvoir Hill. The area is covered by trees on both the Bing and MapBox imagery, so what source did you use to decide the ground surveyed data was incorrect?

Also, I've just reverted two of your other changesets: 30011613 and 30...
22015-04-07 06:09:27 UTCshravan91 Thank you for the feedback. It was a very small change. Thank you for reverting back the change and fixing the road.
12015-04-02 18:40:25 UTCwill_p I have reverted this changeset. This area has already been surveyed in detail on the ground and if two ways don't join it is usually deliberate. Nidderdale and Fylingdale Way are separated by a brick wall. These sort of remote changes show contempt for people who have spent time surveying their loca...
22015-04-02 18:42:41 UTCGeorge Silva Hello Will. I was experimenting with to-fix, a new application developed by MapBox that checks for errors on MapBox.

On this particular case, I really thought it was an error. On the other error instances, I've cancelled the to-fix indication of errors.

I'm sorry about the disturbance.
12015-03-31 11:54:22 UTCwill_p Hi,

A couple of thoughts about this change:

1. Is 'Derbyshire Land Registry' a suitable source for making changes to OSM? Note that you must only use sources that are compatible with OSM's ODBL licence. This means most copyrighted sources cannot be used.

2. We map what physically exists on...
22015-04-01 02:28:02 UTCAlidmun The Derbyshire Land registry is accessible to anyone in the uk. There is physical barrier there now and is inaccessible. A picture of the barrier can be found published on
32015-04-01 15:58:04 UTCSomeoneElse Just to clarify something - if there's no public access along a track but the track physically exists you don't need to "unjoin" the track - just make sure that the access rights on it are correct. There's already an open note suggesting that footp...
42015-04-01 17:55:26 UTCSK53 Accessibility is not the same as permissible to use as a source for OpenStreetMap. Both Ordnance Survey mapping and Google Satellite images are fully accessible to anyone, but in neither case are these sources suitable for OSM. I'm also not clear what you mean by the Derbyshire Land Registry: The La...
52015-04-01 21:44:50 UTCwill_p From memory I believe the CycleStreets photo does show the correct location. It was blocked in a similar way when I surveyed it, hence why I tagged it as private.
The track does physically still exist, even if the gate is blocked by a lump of rock and corrugated iron, so I see no reason to disconn...
62015-05-23 12:01:36 UTCSomeoneElse For info I was there last night; but the footpath west across the golf course (not along the old track) still needs mapping. There are also a bunch of designations for public footpaths that need adding; I'll do that shortly. Also there's actually some confusion as to how long one of the bridleways...
72015-05-23 12:05:46 UTCSomeoneElse For completeness see also
12015-04-01 12:03:20 UTCwill_p I've reverted this change because it is incorrect. There is a barrier (wall or fence) at the end of Ossington Street preventing direct access to the path.
The area in which you made this edit has been surveyed in some detail on the ground and if the ways did join up its very likely it would have a...
12015-03-27 10:30:59 UTCwill_p Hi,

I was planning to survey the new estate you have added at the weekend, but no point now you have done it. Could you just reassure me that you have checked the roads and names on the ground? You didn't cite another source and some of the roads don't yet appear on Bing, so I guess you must have...
12015-03-19 12:24:59 UTCwill_p I'm guessing this was unintentional: It duplicates the Wickes on the other side of the road.

22015-03-19 13:29:54 UTCSK53 Certainly was!
12015-03-19 10:34:15 UTCwill_p Hi,

You have just deleted several tags from Tags like 'not:nccod:amenity' are intended to help local mappers interpret open data sources provided by the city council. You appear to be making changes across the world, so I doubt you understood the meanin...
22015-03-19 17:14:12 UTCSK53 Can I second this, and add I have sent you a PM about other deletions.
32015-03-26 07:14:38 UTCuser_7622 Hi
I found some keys via "taginfo -> ähnlich", that appeared worldwide only 2 or 3 times and thought it was save to remove or change them because they seemed to be misspellings. Sorry if I was wrong.
42015-03-26 11:57:39 UTCSK53 This has already been reverted, we will check other changesets made around the same period and may revert those. Please do not remove tags with a small number of values unless a) they are obvious typos, or b) you have checked with the people who added the tag/local editors.
12015-03-06 11:05:21 UTCwill_p Hello,

You have added a no-right-turn restriction from High Street to New Street (Long Eaton). Are you sure that is correct? New Street is tagged as oneway from High Street, so your change blocks all access.

12015-02-22 18:18:24 UTCSomeoneElse I'm guessing that the extra "g" on is a typo?
22015-02-22 18:53:35 UTCwill_p Yes, a typo. Now corrected.
12015-02-12 18:34:30 UTCwill_p What is your source for this change please?

I have a survey photo taken 4 days ago that clearly shows the name written on the stop is 'Train Station / Wilsthorpe Road'.
22015-02-13 11:55:03 UTCPmaiIkeey If the sign is incorrect, get the sign changed rather than duplicating the error on the map.
It works round here, I've had bus stop sign names corrected !
32015-02-13 12:52:54 UTCwill_p Usage of 'train station' is widespread. If you consider it incorrect, then fine, you are entitled to that view, but it's inappropriate for you to impose your opinion on the data in OSM. We should be mapping what is there. The sign has deliberately been written that way: it isn't a spelling mistake.
42015-02-13 23:46:31 UTCPmaiIkeey "we should be mapping what is there" - I totally agree - but it's not the OSM style - they label roads by their classification (A,B,C,U) and don't care whether the road is a farm track or a dual carriageway.

Anyway, I've wasted too much of the day on this today but for info I've contact...
12015-01-10 14:14:43 UTCwill_p In this changeset you have deleted valid information including the operator of the petrol station (Texaco) and the postal address of the associated convenience store. This information needs to be put back. It is not acceptable to just delete valid information.

Also, what is the source for the cha...
22015-01-11 15:58:54 UTCHeyheyitshay I'm only updating the name from various "co-op, "Co-op", "X Village Co-op store" etc to the "The Co-operative Food" that you actually see on the ground across all of the stores and adding in a few that I have seen. I have been checking for tags but this one or two ...
12015-01-10 13:59:56 UTCwill_p Hi,

I see you have moved The Co-operative Food from a node to an area. In doing so you have deleted the postal address, which was added by me previously. Please be careful not to delete valid information added by other mappers.

The details of the deleted node are here:
12014-12-16 22:27:40 UTCwill_p I forgot to update the changeset comment, should have been:
Fixed turn restrictions on Queens Road East / University Boulevard junction
12014-12-09 18:55:21 UTCwill_p Why have you changed the not:name tag here? The 'not:name' should never be the same as the 'name' tag. The 'not:name' tag is intended to record an incorrect name. It is usually used when the OS Locator name has been checked and found to be incorrect. It shows that a discrepancy between OSM and OSL h...
12014-11-11 13:42:02 UTCwill_p I have reverted this edit. Please do not delete valid information just because you disagree with or don't understand a tag.
22014-11-12 13:22:21 UTCMatthieuMartin cuisine:jp=* is used for the translation of the type of food (in japanese in this case).
Is it translated in chinese?
Ok let's have a special tag for the menu :
will_p has contributed to 109 changeset discussions(s) with a total of 336 comment(s)