| Changeset | # | Tmstmp UTC | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 159843988 by gurglypipe @ 2024-12-02 13:48 | 1 | 2024-12-08 17:47 | John-O | I wonder what is happening to this bus stop?If it's disused then it shouldn't be part of the route relations anymore.The data could be wrong, but bustimes still shows timetabled services for that stop: https://bustimes.org/stops/250020050 |
| 2 | 2024-12-08 17:51 | gurglypipe ♦872 | Yeah I asked on the original changeset (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/159701793) which marked it as disused, but didn’t get an answer.Maybe leave it until the next issue of the bus timetables and see whether the stop gets removed?Or see if there’s anything obvious in lo... | |
| 152969997 by iiBus @ 2024-06-20 23:25 | 1 | 2024-08-18 11:11 | John-O | I'm finally getting round to fixing up some more bus route validation errors.If you are removing the public_transport:stop_position from nodes, then these nodes also need to be removed from the public_transport route relations. They are often included with role:stop.I don't necessa... |
| 154059261 by John-O @ 2024-07-17 13:45 | 1 | 2024-08-16 14:15 | saintam1 ♦158 | Hello, this changeset seems to have turned the Edinburgh-Dundee E1 into an Edinburgh-Borders bus. In reality the E1 route has not changed and continues to go to Dundee, it looks like this has applied another bus' route to this relation? |
| 2 | 2024-08-17 10:27 | John-O | Probably a bug in relatify. I'll see if I can revert the change | |
| 3 | 2024-08-17 11:50 | John-O | Version 31 now looking like the correct route again. Thanks for spotting this | |
| 4 | 2024-08-17 22:31 | saintam1 ♦158 | Thanks for fixing! If it's not too much work could you also fix relation 16622635 (same route, other direction)? It needs the same treatment. Cheers! | |
| 152562291 by iiBus @ 2024-06-11 21:28 | 1 | 2024-06-12 07:42 | John-O | There are a large number of validation errors today on Edinburgh bus routes which I suspect may be due to some of your changes. For example:{"relationID":946200,"name":"Bus 5: Hunters Tryst =\\u003e The Jewel","validationErrors":["ways are incorrectly... |
| 2 | 2024-06-12 16:01 | iiBus ♦2 | Thank you for this. I'm not seeing these error myself, if you could point me in the right direction?I am personally more comfortable with the iD editor however I will bare this in mind. | |
| 3 | 2024-06-12 21:18 | iiBus ♦2 | Update - I have looked into this and it would appear this was an existing issue before I made adjustments as it affected an area I didn't change. I have now rectified it. | |
| 4 | 2024-06-12 21:22 | iiBus ♦2 | If there are any other examples of this error, could you send these (or let me know how I can spot these issues)? | |
| 147419867 by saintam1 @ 2024-02-13 17:51 | 1 | 2024-02-14 07:14 | John-O | The E1 route is now failing validation due to stops appearing after the ways. Is this something you are able to fix? |
| 2 | 2024-02-14 08:01 | saintam1 ♦158 | Sure yes I’ll have a look. What validation tool are tool using? | |
| 3 | 2024-02-14 10:52 | John-O | Geofabrik OSM Inspectorhttps://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=pubtrans_routes&lon=-3.27824&lat=55.94504&zoom=13&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=ptv2_routes_valid%2Cptv2_routes_invalid%2Cptv2_error_ways%2Cptv2_error_nodes%2Cptv2_routes_valid%2Cptv2_routes_invalid%2Cptv2... | |
| 147037467 by michau @ 2024-02-03 23:47 | 1 | 2024-02-04 07:15 | John-O | Thanks for your edit. Bus route relations 2805560 and 11087987 are now failing validation with the message: ways are incorrectly ordered. Is this something you are able to fix? |
| 2 | 2024-02-06 11:03 | michau ♦3 | Bus route relation 2805560 ways' order fixed | |
| 3 | 2024-02-06 11:18 | michau ♦3 | Bus route relation 11087987 ways' order (thanks for pointing this out) fixed | |
| 146730504 by WestWyreWanderer @ 2024-01-27 02:30 | 1 | 2024-01-28 08:59 | John-O | Thanks for your contribution. This node previously had some bus stop tags and was part of several relations:https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1600919895However the tags seems to have been removed from the node. If the tags are now on a different node could you update the relations please.... |
| 2 | 2024-01-28 13:32 | WestWyreWanderer ♦3 | Bus stop move was right, orphaned node removed. Thank you for pointing that out, well spotted. | |
| 3 | 2024-01-28 13:33 | WestWyreWanderer ♦3 | Moved bus stop relations restored too. | |
| 143858414 by quaffer_rick @ 2023-11-10 11:13 | 1 | 2023-11-10 16:00 | John-O | Thanks for this contribution. These bus routes now contain stops which are not on the bus route:2023/11/10 15:57:45 validating relation: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/61523812023/11/10 15:57:45 stop is not on route - https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/53968998222023/11/10 15:57:45 s... |
| 142386792 by Chris Fleming @ 2023-10-10 10:33 | 1 | 2023-10-10 22:09 | John-O | Thanks for your contribution. The iD editor is not a good one to use when editing public transport routes.To be a valid PTv2 route, the stops need to be ordered in the relation the same way as along the route. It's a lot harder to do this in iD than some other editors.I'd particula... |
| 140807859 by Falsernet @ 2023-09-04 14:10 | 1 | 2023-09-05 12:46 | John-O | Reducing the number of road splits has broken a number of the bus routes which used this junction |
| 2 | 2023-09-05 20:48 | Falsernet ♦151 | Sorry I missed that somehow. Good spot and good fix :) | |
| 106294452 by John-O @ 2021-06-13 19:05 | 1 | 2021-06-25 14:54 | gurglypipe ♦872 | Are you sure that’s a measuring flume near the car park? It might just be a channel to take the stream over the top of the Thirlmere aqueduct and reduce the chance of cross-contamination. |
| 2 | 2021-06-25 21:10 | John-O | I have no idea. Surely the aqueduct is in a concrete pipe and if that leaks they have a problem anyway. I don't see how putting the stream in a concrete channel helps that. | |
| 3 | 2021-06-25 21:12 | gurglypipe ♦872 | I’ve got no idea either. It just seems like this is suspiciously close to the aqueduct and there’s no obvious reason for a measuring flume there (like, it’s not a big stream and it doesn’t flow into anything interesting) 🤷 | |
| 4 | 2021-06-25 21:16 | John-O | There's a similar structure in the stream on the way up clougha from rigg lane which is also suspiciously close to the aqueduct. so I suspect you are correct. feel free to delete the measuring station | |
| 5 | 2021-06-27 09:09 | gurglypipe ♦872 | Reworked in changeset 107028107. I haven’t done the one near Rigg Lane since I can’t see it on satellite imagery (assuming I’m looking in the right place; I think I know the one you mean — in the woodland?) | |
| 56769615 by John-O @ 2018-02-28 22:11 | 1 | 2019-08-02 19:50 | DaveF ♦1,563 | Hihighway=foot on a platform is not required (a platform's primary purpose is to be walked upon)You've mapped a level crossing. Has the bridge been removed?A level crossing or bridge isn't a platform. |
| 2 | 2019-08-04 12:04 | John-O | I think I see what's happened. Rather than drawing a section of footway between the two platforms, I've extended the platform instead.Fixed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/72988199Regarding the bridge, I don't know. I didn't remove on in this changeset. From wh... | |
| 3 | 2019-08-04 14:14 | DaveF ♦1,563 | Thanks for amending.Sorry, I meant has the bridge been removed recently in the real world. It was there a year ago.https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/5772238 | |
| 4 | 2019-08-08 22:19 | John-O | sorry, I don't remember. I think I mapped out of the train window ~1 year ago. I'll check if I go through on the train again, but I've no idea when that might be | |
| 5 | 2019-08-08 22:29 | DaveF ♦1,563 | I'm changing it to a bridge as I don't think you mapped it correctly.. | |
| 6 | 2019-08-08 22:42 | John-O | Looking at the photos on Wikipedia I think you are correct. The platforms don't line up in a way it would make sense to go between them like the path I mapped | |
| 7 | 2020-03-02 16:59 | skifans ♦37 | Bit late but just confirming, yes the platforms are staggered (as currently mapped), and yes the bridge is still present. | |
| 8 | 2020-03-02 17:23 | DaveF ♦1,563 | Great, thanks. | |
| 65894484 by Bodian @ 2018-12-30 18:48 | 1 | 2019-01-01 17:00 | John-O | Does the footpath from Ash Mount Road go to Charney Road? At the moment there is a small gap where the footpath isn't joined onto the road |
| 2 | 2019-01-01 18:23 | Bodian ♦5 | Good spot - thanks. I've edited it. | |
| 65826844 by Bodian @ 2018-12-27 22:44 | 1 | 2018-12-28 08:46 | John-O | Thanks for your contributions to the map.I have reverted a few of the nodes modified in this changeset for the following reasons:Node 486597245 (deleted)I have restored this node. It marks the platform position (where the passengers wait) of the bus stop. There is a relation which links th... |
| 2 | 2018-12-28 09:43 | Bodian ♦5 | Thanks John. I have no idea about node numbers, so I'm not quite sure what 486597245 is about - but thanks. As to the name of the bus stop - what confused me is that when looking at the street map online it says 'Grange Railway Station', when actually it's a bus stop - the stat... | |
| 65417623 by Pete Owens @ 2018-12-12 17:56 | 1 | 2018-12-13 10:24 | gurglypipe ♦872 | You’ve put bicycle=yes on the Caton Road interchange even though there are cycle paths explicitly mapped separately from the roadway. Why?Where has all this data come from? --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/65417623 ... |
| 2 | 2018-12-13 16:04 | Pete Owens ♦55 | Fortunately, in the UK there is no obligation to ride on the pavement just because it has been designated for use by bicycles - in the same way motorists are still allowed to drive on the A6 even though there is a parallel motorway explicitly mapped for motors.. | |
| 3 | 2018-12-13 16:11 | gurglypipe ♦872 | I realise that (I am a cyclist). It still seems redundant to add bicycle=yes to roads when the default legal status is for bikes to be allowed on roads. Similarly, the default legal status for motorways is for bikes to not be allowed, so tagging them with bicycle=no seems redundant.Where has all... | |
| 4 | 2018-12-13 16:34 | Pete Owens ♦55 | Also checking the route of the cycle path navigating the A683 Eastwards (Morcambe-> Caton). After stopping for TWELVE separate signal crossings you are dumped on the slip road for the Motorway - so not a viable route in any case. I have added cycling=yes to that stretch of slip road so at least t... | |
| 5 | 2018-12-15 13:12 | John-O | The tagging of roads with `bicycle=yes` seems unnecessary. Otherwise, every residential road in the country should have `bicycle=yes` explicitly set. A better solution would be to add `bicycle=no` where there road type allows cycling, but the particular instance does not. You still have not ... | |
| 63625253 by John-O @ 2018-10-17 20:55 | 1 | 2018-10-22 10:47 | Casey_boy ♦82 | Thanks for reverting this (now the bridge is open again). I hadn't been able to get round to it. |
| 2 | 2018-10-23 16:47 | John-O | No problem. Some other user(s) had partially reverted it and I thought I should do the rest | |
| 58374094 by Casey_boy @ 2018-04-24 13:22 | 1 | 2018-09-11 21:32 | John-O | I presume ford=yes on Pinewood close is accidental? |
| 2 | 2018-09-13 09:03 | Casey_boy ♦82 | Indeed. (Whoops!) Fixed in: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/62545161 | |
| 61680288 by TheEditor101 @ 2018-08-15 09:29 | 1 | 2018-08-16 21:48 | John-O | Thanks for updating the other half of bus 727. You've changed the route in a few places, and the bus stops along West North Street have been removed from the relation. I presume this is based on local knowledge and the traveline data is incorrect? |
| 2 | 2018-08-17 09:26 | TheEditor101 ♦21 | No problem! That's correct, Broad Street was recently reopened for buses only and the route now goes along there (as it used to before works started there). | |
| 59568569 by skifans @ 2018-06-05 12:40 | 1 | 2018-07-28 11:26 | John-O | Thanks for updating the bus routes. When modifiying bus routes please check whether the `public_transport:version:2` tag is present on the bus route relation. The ways in a PTv2 bus route relation don't have the `forward` and `backward` roles. In this changeset you added `role:forward` ... |
| 2 | 2018-07-28 17:30 | skifans ♦37 | Sorry, thank you for the information. Ill ensure I keep a look out, is there a different way this information should be dealt with? | |
| 3 | 2018-08-01 19:18 | John-O | In PTv2 route relations, the ways don't have a role. They need to be added to the relation in the order that a bus/vehicle would travel the route. This can be quite difficult to do using the ID editor, but is rather easier using JOSM | |
| 60523220 by Agung Indrawan Suandi @ 2018-07-09 04:23 | 1 | 2018-07-09 12:17 | John-O | Please don't add stuff to openstreetmap that doesn't exist. Reverted changeset. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/60537916 |
| 59900248 by Kurisu112 @ 2018-06-16 18:55 | 1 | 2018-06-17 11:13 | John-O | Thanks for contributing to OpenStreetMap. I'm just wondering whether this nursery should be tagged as `amenity=kindergarten` rather than school.https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity=kindergarten |
| 2 | 2018-06-17 22:12 | Kurisu112 ♦1 | Hi John,Nursery is very similar to a Kindergarten.Nursery is just the English (UK) word. So I suppose it could sit under Kindergarten. | |
| 3 | 2018-06-18 13:22 | SK53 ♦864 | Hi Kurusu112, yes you have two options: the most usual one is amenity=kindergarten (I sometimes I add kindergarten=day_nursery to separate ones which are primarily looking after kids from those doing some kind of teaching like a Montessori School). A alternative is amenity=childcare with childcare=... | |
| 59911929 by John-O @ 2018-06-17 10:50 | 1 | 2018-06-17 10:52 | John-O | Changset message should read `Add pharmacy in hospital`. Appears JOSM changeset bug still not fixed. |
| 59456773 by 20171108 @ 2018-06-01 10:20 | 1 | 2018-06-01 13:08 | John-O | Thanks for fixing this. Please try and add a meaningful changeset comment so other OSM mappers can understand the changes you've made |
| 59419732 by vinothpraba123 @ 2018-05-31 07:37 | 1 | 2018-05-31 15:05 | John-O | You've added some features around here:https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/0.0032/-0.0126which seems to be a long way from the other edits in the changeset.Are you sure that the areas you added exist? |
| 2 | 2018-06-01 13:07 | John-O | Issue fixed: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/59456773 | |
| 59347404 by philipcullen @ 2018-05-28 18:15 | 1 | 2018-05-31 15:10 | John-O | Would it be possible to add more descriptive changeset comments please? It's really useful for mappers local to the changes to understand what the editor was trying to achieve. |
| 57706083 by quaffer_rick @ 2018-04-01 07:45 | 1 | 2018-04-07 11:06 | John-O | The OSMI PTv2 validator has flagged the Lancaster => Knott End variant, as the route misses some of the stops. Any idea if this route variation is temporary or more permanent? https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6152381#map=16/53.9273/-2.9873 |
| 2 | 2018-04-08 07:44 | quaffer_rick ♦9 | It should now be correct. The loop around Links Road hasn't been served in 2-3 years! | |
| 3 | 2018-04-15 20:38 | John-O | Thanks for the clarification. Was asking because the stop still appears in the traveline data for the route. | |
| 4 | 2018-04-16 07:11 | quaffer_rick ♦9 | No problem, I've been on that bus 4-5 times in the last 6 months and it's always gone straight down Quail Holme Road. | |
| 57766718 by quaffer_rick @ 2018-04-03 10:03 | 1 | 2018-04-07 10:49 | John-O | Thanks for your edit. I'm just wondering whether the routing of Bus 42 (Blackpool => Lancaster) is correct? The route doesn't seem to visit the Abingdon Street bus stop, at the blackpool end of the routehttps://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4483907 |
| 2 | 2018-04-07 10:53 | John-O | Some of the bus stops on the Lancaster => Blackpool route variation, are also not visitedhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8102581#map=17/53.81955/-3.04733 | |
| 3 | 2018-04-07 11:00 | quaffer_rick ♦9 | There's lots of road works going on in Blackpool currently due to the extension of the tram line to Blackpool North Station. Currently the 42 starts/terminates next to Wilkos on Talbot road and doesn't visit Abingdon St. See https://www.stagecoachbus.com/service-updates/serviceupdatesart... | |
| 56997445 by gurglypipe @ 2018-03-08 12:14 | 1 | 2018-03-24 21:22 | John-O | Keepright has flagged that you have put `traffic_calming=humps`; where `humps` should be `hump`https://www.keepright.at/report_map.php?schema=86&error=112948611 |
| 2 | 2018-03-25 20:21 | gurglypipe ♦872 | Oops, thanks. Fixed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/57517178. | |
| 57385619 by lakedistrict @ 2018-03-21 13:45 | 1 | 2018-03-21 14:58 | gurglypipe ♦872 | I guess the terminal node could do with a fixme= key indicating why the pipeline hasn’t been continued all the way to Manchester. Good work mapping this! --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/57385619 |
| 2 | 2018-03-21 15:10 | lakedistrict ♦308 | Although the old maps have been removed from iD, I've found that they're still available in JOSM so it can be continued at some point. The relation itself has a fixme on it, and there's more details here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Thirlmere_Aqueduct | |
| 3 | 2018-03-21 15:13 | gurglypipe ♦872 | Aah, I didn’t notice the relation. Nice one. | |
| 4 | 2018-03-21 17:11 | John-O | I think the aqueduct might go "over" this bridge. below the footpath, but inside the bridge itself. The bridge is very well built and it's a strange place for it to be otherwise. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/125028047 | |
| 5 | 2018-03-21 17:18 | gurglypipe ♦872 | Yeah, I think this bridge is basically a viaduct with a footpath on top. Certainly there are no pipes obvious from the top when I’ve run over it.It’s the Ottergear bridge here: http://www.jdscomponents.co.uk/gates/thirlmere/bridges.asp(what a marvellous website) | |
| 6 | 2018-03-21 17:55 | lakedistrict ♦308 | Thanks for noticing, I somehow missed that. Fixed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/57394488 | |
| 56998682 by gurglypipe @ 2018-03-08 13:00 | 1 | 2018-03-09 13:31 | John-O | Relation 487 seems to be invalid, and contains some gapshttps://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7919795Would you like to fix it, or do I need to? |
| 56153439 by mon929 @ 2018-02-07 16:00 | 1 | 2018-03-03 23:06 | John-O | Just wondering if you know anything about the "narrow guage railway" (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/461227090)? I'm suspicious because I can't see anything on the aerial imagery and because railways don't have such sharp bends. |
| 2 | 2018-03-04 00:47 | lakedistrict ♦308 | This has been queried before - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1290747 . Given the lack of evidence for it I suggest deleting it. | |
| 3 | 2018-03-04 11:50 | John-O | Thanks - I hadn't seen the note. Have turned on the notes layer in JOSM now. Removed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/56868584 | |
| 54824721 by gurglypipe @ 2017-12-21 20:06 | 1 | 2018-02-26 19:17 | John-O | This is not necessarily a fault of yours, but as the last person to edit the bus station I thought I'd comment here.I'm wondering if the value of the local_ref tag should be the stand number rather than `AT`https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:local%20ref?uselang=en-GB |
| 2 | 2018-02-26 19:19 | gurglypipe ♦872 | Yeah, definitely. I’ve been removing local_ref=AT from various bus stops in Kendal (when I remember), because it doesn’t appear on any of the bus stop signage. I think it was added in error originally (or all the bus stop signage has changed, which is also possible). | |
| 3 | 2018-02-26 22:07 | John-O | I've updated Kendal bus Station. On most stops; the local_ref should perhaps match the naptan:indicator?See example at https://bustimes.org/stops/090079360954 which renders `nr` and `opp`. The transport layer in OSM should show you which bus_stops around kendal still have local_ref | |
| 4 | 2018-02-26 22:50 | gurglypipe ♦872 | I was planning on just deleting the local_ref on most stops. I think it’s useful for bus stations, or if the sign on the roadside has an identifier on it, but I’m not convinced nr/opp adds anything. | |
| 56655325 by Casey_boy @ 2018-02-25 09:14 | 1 | 2018-02-26 19:05 | John-O | Is there a particular reason why you've been adding `oneway=no` on quite a few roads? I think the lack of `oneway=yes` can be safely used to assume that two-way traffic is allowed.https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/wx1 |
| 2 | 2018-02-26 19:24 | Casey_boy ♦82 | It's a toggle tick option in the iD editor. The default is "assumed to be no" so I just toggle it to "no". It's not a tag I'm manually adding and I thought surely it's better to be definitively no, rather than just assuming it? | |
| 3 | 2018-02-26 22:01 | John-O | I normally edit using JOSM so it hadn't occurred to me that it was a predefined option in the editor. It's probably unnecessary to add the tag, and lots of the roads in the UK don't explicitly specify `oneway=no`. However I don't see there's any harm in doing so, and from se... | |
| 56472402 by John-O @ 2018-02-18 19:59 | 1 | 2018-02-19 12:00 | gurglypipe ♦872 | Have you verified the stop exists separately on the southbound side of the road? I can’t spot a bus stop sign there, there’s nowhere sensible for buses to stop, and I’ve never seen a bus stopping on that side of the road. I suspect the buses pull in to the layby on the northbound s... |
| 2 | 2018-02-19 14:34 | lakedistrict ♦308 | I know that the college buses only use the northbound layby for all journeys; I think that the southbound 555 and X6 (and others) went via Lound Road to call at K Village a few years ago, but they might not do anymore, now that K Village is dead. | |
| 3 | 2018-02-19 14:50 | John-O | When I used the 555 bus recently, from Kendal to Lancaster, I don't recall the bus pulling into the northbound layby. The AtcoCode for the southbound bus_stop appears in bus route data for a number of different routes. I think adding `physically_present=no` would be good. I'm unsure ab... | |
| 4 | 2018-02-19 14:52 | gurglypipe ♦872 | According to that wiki page, given what we know (it is used as a stop, and there is no sign present), it should be highway=bus_stop, physically_present=no. No need to add customary_stop=yes because that’s already in the naptan data, right? | |
| 5 | 2018-02-20 23:14 | lakedistrict ♦308 | According to someone who goes to Kendal College, the buses won't stop to drop off or pick up here, you have to use the stop at https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/486598075 | |
| 6 | 2018-02-21 21:20 | John-O | Whilst the stop appears in data on both Traveline (OGL) and Stagecoach (licence unknown) websites; I feel that the physical evidence is suggesting that buses do not stop there. I think it's best if I revert edits in this area | |
| 56397041 by John-O @ 2018-02-15 21:18 | 1 | 2018-02-15 22:42 | gurglypipe ♦872 | Don’t you need a separate stop_position for stop cumdjpgd (Collin Road junction)? The northbound and southbound platforms are quite far apart, and the southbound one has a separate layby. |
| 2 | 2018-02-15 22:43 | gurglypipe ♦872 | (Thanks for the changes!) | |
| 3 | 2018-02-15 22:48 | gurglypipe ♦872 | Done in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/56398943. | |
| 4 | 2018-02-15 23:12 | John-O | I was going to add that when I do the 555 Kendal to Lancaster section. But thanks for adding it | |
| 56282529 by Mastreme @ 2018-02-12 05:58 | 1 | 2018-02-15 22:08 | John-O | I think `access=customers` might be more appropriate? |
| 56230680 by Mike Baggaley @ 2018-02-09 23:57 | 1 | 2018-02-10 13:41 | John-O | thanks for correcting this |
| 55978270 by John-O @ 2018-02-01 21:27 | 1 | 2018-02-01 21:47 | gurglypipe ♦872 | Myanmar, really??! |
| 2 | 2018-02-01 22:38 | John-O | Oops. Looks like a case of operator error. Not really sure what happened because I did type a more relevant comment. Bus route to ptv2. Somehow that one didn't get uploaded | |
| 3 | 2018-02-02 07:48 | gurglypipe ♦872 | I prefer Myanmar. | |
| 4 | 2018-02-04 20:30 | John-O | https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/15879#ticket | |
| 56065951 by John-O @ 2018-02-04 20:15 | 1 | 2018-02-04 20:16 | John-O | `Split bus route 487 into a route_master and two routes` |
| 56052177 by John-O @ 2018-02-04 11:31 | 1 | 2018-02-04 11:32 | John-O | `Make bus route 41 PTv2 compliant` |
| 56051828 by John-O @ 2018-02-04 11:20 | 1 | 2018-02-04 11:22 | John-O | Maybe I'm being stupid but once again JOSM has taken the changeset comment from the changeset before this, and not what I typed into the box.This should say `Make bus route 41A PTv2 compliant` |
| 56035739 by John-O @ 2018-02-03 18:03 | 1 | 2018-02-03 18:12 | John-O | Changeset comment should say bus route 11 |
| 55776044 by Casey_boy @ 2018-01-26 15:40 | 1 | 2018-01-28 15:41 | John-O | Is landuse=construction really correct for this? I'm aware that there are plans to build on the fields. When I cycled past earlier today they were still just fields. No signs of any construction |
| 2 | 2018-01-28 15:58 | Casey_boy ♦82 | Yes, I reckon so. Trench work has started and a contractor's car park has been created. See here for example: https://twitter.com/LHHub/status/956824911967932416 from an official Lancaster University Twitter account. Very early stages but construction has started. | |
| 3 | 2018-01-28 16:09 | John-O | In which case I'd agree with this edit. Thanks for the good work! | |
| 55559932 by John-O @ 2018-01-18 20:13 | 1 | 2018-01-18 20:38 | John-O | I've accidentally duplicated the bus_route relation in this changeset. Fixed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/55560424 |
| 55560126 by John-O @ 2018-01-18 20:21 | 1 | 2018-01-18 20:38 | John-O | I've accidentally duplicated the bus_route relation in this changeset. Fixed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/55560424 |
| 55336540 by Jungleman @ 2018-01-10 22:28 | 1 | 2018-01-16 13:58 | John-O | Why have you deleted the block of forest in Happy mount park? Please add a comment to your changesets as it helps other mappers to understand what you were trying to do |
| 2 | 2018-01-16 20:33 | John-O | Undeleted forest in changeset 55504353https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/55504353 | |
| 55377106 by gurglypipe @ 2018-01-12 11:25 | 1 | 2018-01-16 19:14 | John-O | Hello! I reviewed your changeset on OSMCha and it looks great! Thank you very much for your contributions to OpenStreetMap! #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/55377106 |
| 2 | 2018-01-16 19:18 | gurglypipe ♦872 | I wish OSMCha wouldn’t do that. | |
| 3 | 2018-01-16 19:21 | gurglypipe ♦872 | https://github.com/mapbox/osmcha-frontend/issues/248 | |
| 55286123 by Captain Oates @ 2018-01-09 08:27 | 1 | 2018-01-16 19:12 | John-O | Hello! I reviewed your changeset on OSMCha and it looks great! Thank you very much for your contributions to OpenStreetMap! #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/55286123 |
| 2 | 2018-01-16 22:01 | Captain Oates ♦4 | I would recommend this place for coffee, which is why I added it. | |
| 55480945 by Jungleman @ 2018-01-16 04:02 | 1 | 2018-01-16 13:30 | John-O | Don't tag buildings with landuse=residential.Landuse=residential would be applied to an area such as the entire housing estate |
| 2 | 2018-01-16 13:31 | John-O | Fixed in 55493235https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/55493235 | |
| 3 | 2018-01-16 14:15 | gurglypipe ♦872 | Please also add a description to each of your edits. | |
| 4 | 2018-01-16 19:03 | John-O | Are the areas you have drawn as grass really grass? My interpretation of the satellite imagery is that they are probably gardens. I can see what looks like boundaries (hedges?) | |
| 5 | 2018-01-16 19:09 | gurglypipe ♦872 | They look like gardens to me, which we don’t normally map. landuse=grass is typically intended for publicly managed grass.This looks like mapping to manipulate Pokemon Go. I’d be tempted to delete the grass. | |
| 6 | 2018-01-16 20:12 | gurglypipe ♦872 | Reverted by Jungleman in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/55503452. | |
| 54436377 by bon bon Jongy @ 2017-12-07 16:33 | 1 | 2017-12-07 21:08 | John-O | Thanks for your edit. I see you have added a width to the stream. The default unit for width is meters, and Artle beck is not 30m wide. If you could correct this, that would be great. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:width |
| 2 | 2017-12-08 11:34 | gurglypipe ♦872 | I’ve reverted this in http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/54456404. | |
| 54437727 by noisecontroller3345 @ 2017-12-07 17:26 | 1 | 2017-12-07 21:03 | John-O | Thanks for your edit. When you draw new buildings, you probably want to square the corners. Using the iD editor, select the building and then use the button to square the corners |
| 54442641 by godax2000 @ 2017-12-07 20:45 | 1 | 2017-12-07 20:48 | John-O | Hi. If you are going to add features to openStreetMap, please tag them correctly.The wiki has a lot of information about how to tag things such as trees.See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dtree |
| 54442513 by godax2000 @ 2017-12-07 20:39 | 1 | 2017-12-07 20:46 | John-O | Landuse=residential is normally used for entire housing estates or districts within a town/city.See https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4007363These buildings should be left with building=house |
| 2 | 2017-12-08 11:40 | gurglypipe ♦872 | Reverted as changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?changeset=54442513 | |
| 54228745 by SDMeer @ 2017-12-01 09:08 | 1 | 2017-12-02 10:25 | John-O | I was just wondering why you've removed the car-park. Is it no longer there? |
| 2 | 2017-12-02 10:31 | SDMeer ♦3 | Hi John-O. The tarmac is still there, but it is not currently a car park. The area is fenced off and is being used as a storage space for construction works. It is expected to be reinstated as a car park at some point during 2018. I work for the University of Cumbria and am trying to tidy-up some of... | |
| 3 | 2017-12-02 11:27 | John-O | That all makes sense. Perhaps you could add a landuse=construction area in the meantime until the construction is finished | |
| 54228121 by Casey_boy @ 2017-12-01 08:37 | 1 | 2017-12-01 10:26 | John-O | Did you carry out a survey when making these changes to the map?Are you sure the buildings are detached houses? From the aerial imagery (and other similar properties in Lancaster) they look like they might be semi-detached.If the buildings are rectangular, they should be drawn with orthogona... |
| 2 | 2017-12-01 10:30 | Casey_boy ♦82 | Yes, all detached/semi-detached tags are correct. I will look at squaring of the corners. | |
| 3 | 2017-12-01 10:43 | John-O | Where the building contains two houses, it would be good to draw each as a separate rectangle tagged as building=house. Then details such as addr:housenumber can be added to each house | |
| 4 | 2017-12-01 11:06 | Casey_boy ♦82 | Ah I see. I had just copied the method of the next street over (Rays Drive) - which uses singular buildings and tags for semi-detached houses. | |
| 53464234 by John-O @ 2017-11-02 21:51 | 1 | 2017-11-03 10:10 | gurglypipe ♦872 | I think these need to be changed to building=house to be consistent with the rest of Lancaster. I’ve always been considering building=semi as only suitable for the outline of the entire building (before it’s split in two). https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dsemi is not ve... |
| 2 | 2017-11-03 20:02 | John-O | Good spot, - I'd agree with this on a consistency basis and what you say about the outline. Anyone should be able to see that most of these are two house numbers in one building = semi-detatched house | |
| 3 | 2017-11-03 20:05 | John-O | Resolved in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/53488407 | |
| 52409686 by gurglypipe @ 2017-09-27 10:12 | 1 | 2017-09-27 16:58 | John-O | Why `path` as opposed to `footway` ?From memory there are three cairns in at least one of the locations. They are more like carefully constructed rock pillar than a pile of stones |
| 2 | 2017-09-28 00:43 | gurglypipe ♦872 | See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=path; it’s not urban. Feel free to improve the cairn mapping; I was just fixing the tagging. | |
| 3 | 2017-09-28 11:43 | ACS1986 ♦61 | Hi,I agree with John on this.The fact that a Wiki editor thinks that you should use highway=footway for urban paths doesn't mean that highway=path has to be used for non-urban paths. Choice between 'Classic' (highway=footway/bridleway/cycleway) and 'Alternative' (highway... | |
| 4 | 2017-09-29 13:27 | gurglypipe ♦872 | Ah, this is more complex than I thought. I was just going off the descriptions of highway={footway,path} in iD. I have not verified the path’s access restrictions in person, although given the area they’re probably going to be the same as the shooting track since it’s all moorland ... | |
| 5 | 2017-09-30 14:09 | ACS1986 ♦61 | Thanks, and you're welcome. Unfortunately there is inconsistency in how these tags are used between countries. It is common in some places (particularly Germany) to use 'footway' for urban paths and 'path' for rural ones and that's probably some of the views in the Wiki... | |
| 6 | 2017-10-02 09:20 | SomeoneElse ♦13,368 | Just to chime in here, +1 to Adam and John above.The mailing lists have lots of detail on how highway=path came about when highway=footway etc. already existed, and certainly highway=path is widely used in e.g. Germany for what we would call "a footpath"If something "looks like so... | |
| 7 | 2017-10-02 09:27 | gurglypipe ♦872 | Thanks. Although the fact that the UK seems to rely on all contributors having read the mailing list archive (or asking repeat questions on the mailing list) is somewhat frustrating. That’s really the point of having a wiki. | |
| 8 | 2017-10-02 09:43 | SomeoneElse ♦13,368 | One problem with the wiki (or any wiki) is that it's difficult for it to get across the key points of where there are conflicting views. The "classic vs alternate" table is one of the better examples of doing that, where Harry Wood (I think) spent a lot of time putting it all togethe... | |
| 52395550 by John-O @ 2017-09-26 19:35 | 1 | 2017-09-27 10:02 | gurglypipe ♦872 | I think you might need to route the sidewalk into the crossing island with a footway=crossing (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:footway%3Dcrossing). |
| 2 | 2017-09-27 16:44 | John-O | Changed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/52418986. Does that seem ok. The other side of the road, the pavement is immediately adjacent to the road | |
| 3 | 2017-09-27 16:52 | gurglypipe ♦872 | I think that’s right, yes. | |
| 52181872 by Don Allertoni @ 2017-09-19 14:41 | 1 | 2017-09-24 16:48 | John-O | Hi Don,Thanks for your edit. I see that you have edited the footpath that joins on to Sunnyside Lane. I don't know if this is still the case, but there used to be a fence between the road and the parallel footpath. I feel the way the path was drawn previously may represent better the layo... |
| 52268418 by John-O @ 2017-09-22 08:36 | 1 | 2017-09-22 10:18 | gurglypipe ♦872 | I don’t think addr:interpolation is valid to use on areas — it needs to be used on a line. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Addresses#Using_interpolationAre those building on Holden Way actually houses, or are they apartments? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building=apart... |
| 2 | 2017-09-24 16:30 | John-O | That would make sense because an area doesn't have a direction specified in the same way a line does.They each have a front-door entrance at ground level so they are probably houses. Unlike a row of terraced houses, it isn't clear exactly how the properties are divided within the build... | |
| 3 | 2017-09-25 09:43 | gurglypipe ♦872 | You could maybe use entrance= on the doorways, and addr:flats=1;3;5 (for example) on the entrance node for those numbers, and addr:flats=7;9 for another entrance node. If the number of front doors doesn’t match the number of addresses for the building, it’s almost certainly a set of flat... | |
| 52190691 by John-O @ 2017-09-19 19:05 | 1 | 2017-09-20 10:23 | gurglypipe ♦872 | This should probably be building=church rather than building=yes, I think?https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dplace_of_worship#Buildings_and_open_areas |
| 2 | 2017-09-20 17:19 | John-O | Having read that page, I think so too. In iD, I just drew a polygon, and then searched for `church`. It appears it should also have an amenity=place_of_worship tag too. Fixed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/52217834 | |
| 51472024 by Onestone2birds @ 2017-08-27 03:01 | 1 | 2017-09-13 20:27 | John-O | Hello. Thank you for your edit. Are you sure this is the correct location for Europcar Car Hire? There is already a `Europcar` marked on the map (see https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/436358197) which has been there for over 1 year. |
| 2 | 2017-09-13 23:52 | Onestone2birds ♦1 | Sorry, probably I was wrong. How do I remove it? | |
| 3 | 2017-09-14 07:12 | John-O | Thanks for the prompt reply. Go to http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/51472024, and click the edit button at the top of the screen. In the editor, right click the node, and a dustbin should appear, which will allow you to delete it. | |
| 51006568 by Harti @ 2017-08-10 16:24 | 1 | 2017-09-03 21:13 | John-O | The mountain rescue box is NOT a shop. It is a supply of equipment used by mountain rescue teams in an emergency. A member of the public cannot buy equipment here. The mountain rescue box has already been added to the map:https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/396197926 |
| 2 | 2017-09-08 13:25 | John-O | Removed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/51845400 | |
| 49700991 by tms13 @ 2017-06-20 18:17 | 1 | 2017-09-03 20:20 | John-O | Thanks for your edit. Any idea what has happened to the service-road, which now appears beneath the motorway slip road?https://www.keepright.at/report_map.php?schema=86&error=102286504 |
| 2 | 2018-01-09 16:20 | tms13 ♦77 | Now updated from latest aerial photos. | |
| 45630526 by John-O @ 2017-01-29 19:53 | 1 | 2017-02-03 10:13 | kreuzschnabel ♦801 | Thanks for mapping the footpath on Wild Boar Fell! I tried my best to continue it according to Bing, maybe you can have a look if I got it right? Have you been up there and taken a GPS track maybe? --ks |
| 2 | 2017-02-03 10:32 | John-O | I'm aware it's good to try to join ways onto the rest of the map. I'd only added the bit I walked along when I was there recently. I'd say that the line of a path seen on the satelitte imagery is probably correct - and therefore what you have drawn is probably correct. Unfortunat... | |
| 3 | 2017-02-03 11:24 | kreuzschnabel ♦801 | I am planning to walk a bit around the western parts of the Dales on my summer holiday so I was hoping for a path on WBF and found you added one just a few days ago :-) May I ask which way you got up there, if the path you mapped is the only bit you’ve been walking along? | |
| 4 | 2017-02-03 13:59 | GinaroZ ♦1,280 | Not sure if you've seen it before, but Strava has heatmap data which might help you identify and draw paths:http://strava.github.io/iD/#background=Bing&map=16.00/-2.3703/54.3846&overlays=,,, |