Changeset No. Date Contributor Comment
12017-10-29 01:22:38 UTCMike Baggaley Hi, FYI adding access=no does not have any effect on a footway that has foot=yes because the foot tag overrides the access one. If you need to show the footpath as closed, you need to change the other access tags, rather than add access=no. Can you please review your change?

Cheers,
Mike
22017-10-29 12:06:16 UTCdrnoble Thanks Mike, I assume you mean for routing foot=yes overrides access=no. Are you suggesting that I should change the bicycle=yes and foot=yes tags? Should these also be set to no, or removed?
32017-10-29 15:10:24 UTCMike Baggaley Yes foot=* overrides access=*. If the path is closed, and is going to be for quite some time, then I would not add the access tag at all, but would change the foot and bicycle tags to no, and add a note to say this is a temporary closure and giving some idea of the reopening date. Alternatively, the...
12017-09-30 18:57:57 UTCGinaroZ Agreed, saw this before and thought it was a bit strange
22017-10-01 17:30:48 UTCdrnoble I discussed this in the pub with Eric from MESH quite a while ago, and he agreed it maybe wasn't the best way to do it, but it's never been changed so I decided just to do so
12017-07-14 12:48:20 UTCRobert Whittaker In this changeset, you seem to have created a duplicate node to one of the postboxes, rather than editing the existing node:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4920963852 http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/54535866

I presume this was unintentional (perhaps a bug in your editor) and there's actuall...
22017-07-15 11:05:06 UTCdrnoble Thanks for flagging this up Robert, it was unintentional, and in error. I have deleted the duplicate and made the edit to the original node.
12017-07-07 12:36:58 UTCGinaroZ Shouldn't https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/146912727 be a service road rather than a track (as it's not for agricultural use)?
22017-07-09 09:59:33 UTCdrnoble I suspect this was a very rough route, difficult to get a car down, which was why I mapped as a track. I don't think all tracks need be for agricultural use. But feel free to change if you have more recent information, it was 5 years ago I mapped this.
12017-03-20 18:35:12 UTCdrnoble As per discussion at https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/552859
12017-02-22 16:34:47 UTCChris Fleming Hi Dan, I would just like to start by welcoming you to OpenStreetMap - from your comment, it sounds like this is a private road, therefore should it be tagged as private rather than deleted?

Thanks CHris
22017-02-24 14:19:38 UTCDan Morton Hi Chris,

It's my private driveway that's shared with 2 of my neighbours, there's no reason for it to be mapped. No other driveways on the development are.

Thanks

Dan
32017-02-24 14:21:50 UTCDan Morton Also neither Google or Bing map it.
42017-02-24 21:39:23 UTCChris Fleming Thanks Dan - I will try and get over there and have a look. We try and be better than Google Maps.
52017-02-25 11:20:52 UTCdrnoble I think I mapped this section originally, and at the time I didn't realise it was a private drive. As Chris says, we try and map the world as it exists on the ground, including access rights where these are known. It is quite easy to add that this is a private section.

I appreciate your concerns ...
62017-02-27 10:09:49 UTCDan Morton No worries, and on reflection there are pros to it being mapped and marked as private too....
Will try and update the map as the development is finished around us. I have some site layouts that could be scanned and over laid to help
12017-02-14 17:52:54 UTCdrnoble I think something went wrong with this edit, as Way: Jessfield Bowling Club (474410581) appeared in Drummond Place in the New town
22017-02-15 17:12:12 UTCsaintam1 way 474410548 also seems to have wandered quite a bit as it now sits in Quartermile
32017-02-17 14:16:10 UTCsophiemccallum Thanks - I have now deleted the Quartermile one. It was an accidental copy and paste (sorry!) and thanks for deleting the New Town one Donald!
42017-02-18 16:17:52 UTCdrnoble There were a whole lot more pavilions that got erroneously added in this changeset, and the revert plugin didn't seem to pick them up, so I have manually deleted them in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/46196020
12016-12-18 11:28:42 UTCdrnoble Please consider reverting the changes that make the large area of railway landuse. I don't think it is appropriate to tag railway tunnels with landuse=railway, especially where there are overlapping uses of the land above
22016-12-19 10:12:48 UTCsophiemccallum Thanks for the message - I will revert these changes over the next couple of days! Cheers, Sophie
12016-09-04 22:50:34 UTCSomeoneElse Hello,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/237500312 is "building=F". Did you mean "family_house" here like the adjacent one?
Cheers,
Andy
22016-09-05 11:59:11 UTCdrnoble This was meant to be building=house, but must have been a glitch when editing, have changed now. Thanks for flagging up
12015-12-04 10:36:34 UTCGerdP Hi there!
I found a node highway=g1,
changed it to give_way. OK?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/35744196
22015-12-04 10:42:05 UTCGerdP Please do also note that the nodes with
highway=stop or highway=give_way should
be connected to (part of) the road.
32015-12-04 11:39:09 UTCdrnoble GerdP - thanks for fixing/highlighting this. I was using ID, but have now fixed the unconnected nodes in JOSM.
Turns out that ID isn't ideal for this type of edit
42015-12-04 13:33:19 UTCGerdP Interesting. Did you open a ticket for this?
In my eyes iD should show a warning, like JOSM does. It is really a sad thing that each editor has its own rules.
52015-12-04 13:53:44 UTCSomeoneElse @GerdP if you'd like to discuss this with the editors of iD you're welcome to, and I'm sure that they'd gladly point you at the _tons_ of discussion that has taken place about the level of interaction that is appropriate for users who may be new to OSM. Personally I see far more "invalid edits...
12015-06-13 09:51:57 UTCdrnoble Construction might be complete, but the station doesn't open for another 2-3 months. Not sure if it should be marked as a station yet?
22015-06-13 14:43:04 UTCNorthBeric I thought about putting '(opens Sept 2015)' as a suffix to the name, but it didn't look right, and wasn't the correct name tag. I think people may be looking for the stations before the line opens, and they can see them on the ground. Happy enough if you want to change it back, it's just my view.
32015-06-13 15:59:30 UTCRostranimin Both points of view seem really valid... ...if pushed I'd come down on the side of them being mapped before open. After all, the presence of a station doesn't necessarily imply that a train can be caught there. So long as an ordinary person would look at what's on the ground and would see a complet...
42015-06-13 18:05:01 UTCdrnoble I have added start_dates for the railway relation and all the stations.

I'm not sure whether they should be rendered or not, but thought I would ask the question
12015-05-18 20:14:49 UTCdrnoble Many of the walls that are being added by these changesets are actually fences, or no longer exist at all.

I have removed ones I know for a fact do not exist in http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/31266709
12015-05-16 10:39:06 UTCdrnoble You got there just before me. Have tweaked some of the geometry and added a few more features from my survey, hope it doesn't conflict with yours.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/31197898
12015-02-08 18:18:48 UTCdrnoble Wrong comment - should be "Landuse and details around Wormit"
drnoble has contributed to 14 changeset discussions(s) with a total of 36 comment(s)