| Changeset | No. | Date | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 51282722 by TobyMG | 1 | 2017-08-21 00:17:59 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | South Parade is a private gated road, are you sure it has a speed limit? |
| 51284601 by al_johnson | 1 | 2017-08-21 00:15:13 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | Bicis y Más are closing down and no longer serve food |
| 50231492 by Locator | 1 | 2017-07-13 01:45:21 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | you might have been replicating the estra tags by mistake - some of your buildings have maxspeed=30 mph and landuse=grass |
| 49515274 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2017-06-14 20:41:27 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | I think you might be confusing the old Travelling Man shop, at 54 Goodramgate, which is vacant with their new shop at 74 which is where they are now trading from (unless they have closed down in the past 3 days) |
| 2 | 2017-06-14 21:05:32 UTC | SomeoneElse | Quite possibly - I didn't mark the position; was just surprised that it was shut. | |
| 48000254 by murble | 1 | 2017-05-03 16:11:42 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | Royal cyphers and post box references are commonly written with capital letters |
| 47968230 by skgrange | 1 | 2017-04-20 22:07:32 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | You've not added Jupiter to the UofY Solar System relation |
| 47756395 by colonel_sponsz | 1 | 2017-04-19 22:00:17 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | not sure if the words "AH GOOD THE SEA" written scruffily in white chalk on a wall is best described as a mural |
| 22544906 by Yorvik Prestigitator | 1 | 2017-04-14 09:56:37 UTC | SomeoneElse | Hello,Just trying to understand the "motor_vehicle=designated" on St Andrewgate http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/69693516/history . This normally means "there's explicit signage or something else that indicates that motor vehicle traffic should go down here".Best Regards,A... |
| 2 | 2017-04-14 10:21:36 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | Hmm, that edit was 3 years ago, perhaps it was signed "access only", but since St A'gate (and surrounding streets) is effectively a dead-end for motor vehicles, that sems unecesssary. I will have another survey this week. | |
| 3 | 2017-04-14 11:43:28 UTC | SomeoneElse | I didn't notice any signage on St Andrewgate itself last night, but TBH you wouldn't expect any since car access is from near the Black Swan. Cheers,Andy | |
| 47293305 by Chris Sparrow | 1 | 2017-03-30 17:18:38 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | The Hotel - when they finish building it - is not called York, it is in York. More likely it will be called Travelodge something. |
| 46576540 by Robert Whittaker | 1 | 2017-03-08 17:55:44 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | I thought the label says B4 424 |
| 2 | 2017-03-08 18:08:43 UTC | Robert Whittaker | I didn't check (carefully) or alter the number -- just corrected the collection times and added the box design. It's quite possible the plate now says B4, so if you think that's what it should be, then feel free to fix it. | |
| 46599573 by Yorvik Prestigitator | 1 | 2017-03-05 20:37:46 UTC | lakedistrict | HI Yorvik,I'm not sure why you've tagged Heathwaite Convenience Stores (http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/388295422) as a post office - it lost its post office counter around 10 years ago! lakedistrict :-) |
| 2 | 2017-03-06 01:02:53 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | I was basing it on the signs above the shop windows saying "Heathwaite Post Office & Stores" which were still up recently.I will remove the amenity=post_office tag if you think the shop signs are incorrect. | |
| 3 | 2017-03-06 10:59:11 UTC | lakedistrict | Yes, despite the signs the post office counter has gone. Thanks for removing the tag. | |
| 4 | 2017-03-06 11:20:23 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | no problem, thank you for the inside information | |
| 46537441 by Yorvik Prestigitator | 1 | 2017-03-04 13:39:05 UTC | robert | Typo? http://ris.dev.openstreetmap.org/oslmusicalchairs/map?osl_id=854715 |
| 2 | 2017-03-04 14:25:34 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | oops, yes, now corrected, thanks for spotting this | |
| 46159991 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2017-02-17 16:07:18 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | You might not like their name, but Pharmacy is the name of this shop and is proudly displayed above the window (as can be seen in this streetview photo)https://goo.gl/maps/ri11LPEuHyM2Would you like to undo this change? |
| 2 | 2017-02-17 16:27:24 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I believe the correct name is Living Care Pharmacy - I've set that as the name. You can see details at http://www.livingcarepharmacy.co.uk/find-a-pharmacy/Blossom+Street/regards,Mike | |
| 45963639 by Yorvik Prestigitator | 1 | 2017-02-11 14:00:26 UTC | ndm | Probably was postal_code? |
| 2 | 2017-02-11 15:33:02 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | might have meant to be, but BS10 is not even the post code for Ash Walk, the post code is BS10 6RW, maybe it was postal_district? | |
| 3 | 2017-02-11 23:12:32 UTC | ndm | All Bristol roads are sgned with postal codes, e.g. BS10. | |
| 4 | 2017-02-12 14:07:34 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | That might make sense, thanks for fixing this. | |
| 45990857 by te1de | 1 | 2017-02-12 13:33:52 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | Hi,Welcome to Openstreetmap. You appear to marked a point on the public map without any information of what that point is meant to be. (Hence why it doesn't show up). What were you trying to mark? Can I help. If left the node might probably be assumed to have been made in error and deleted in any ... |
| 45809987 by Yorvik Prestigitator | 1 | 2017-02-04 20:10:22 UTC | GinaroZ | Hi, just wondering if you carried out a survey of this area? |
| 2 | 2017-02-04 22:30:15 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | Hi, just using sattelite imagery and some old photos of the area, do you know if there is still a post office in the village or has it now closed down? | |
| 3 | 2017-02-04 22:53:27 UTC | GinaroZ | No idea sorry. I'd also mapped here from bing recently so just thought you might be able to help with speed limits/details if you'd surveyed :) | |
| 45728694 by cdavila | 1 | 2017-02-02 14:49:08 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | I am confused why you have transferred max height from the node to way, when for some of the ways they are accessible for vehicles greater than this height from both sides of the obstruction and can deliver to businesses up to the obstruction but cannot pass through it. |
| 2 | 2017-02-02 15:08:28 UTC | cdavila | HelloI check restriction from node affects all a way before moving values, but maybe I missed something. Can you tell me what way are you talking about? (Changeset involves several ways). | |
| 3 | 2017-02-02 15:24:13 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | ok starting near the top; Terry Avenue is also accessible from Clementhorpe, while the height restriction only affects vehicles coming from Skeldergate | |
| 4 | 2017-02-02 15:44:00 UTC | cdavila | I'm not sure I catch what you mean. I applied height restriction only to Terry avenue portion under Skeldergate Bridge, which I think is OK. If space under bridge is 8'6'' it affects all vehicles, no matter where they come from. Please correct me if I'm wrong or I'm missing something | |
| 5 | 2017-02-02 15:53:53 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | Sorry, I have misread your changes, many apologies, (the part of Terry Ave between the two bridges has a max height of the higher of the two bridges) | |
| 6 | 2017-02-02 16:44:36 UTC | cdavila | No problem at all. It's good to have people supervising possible errors in changeset. | |
| 44948938 by Adam MyKnowledgeMap | 1 | 2017-01-20 02:00:57 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | What is Myknowledgemap? Is it an office? |
| 44446416 by MinOas Pfs | 1 | 2016-12-17 02:05:22 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | Are you sure about this location, this is a grassy area with trees across the road from where the carriage works was, there are no shops here.The shops on Poppleton road are either near where it joins Holgate Road or up the hill to the Water end junction. |
| 2 | 2016-12-17 02:05:49 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | Do you have a name for this shop? | |
| 43442110 by ubert767 | 1 | 2016-11-09 08:13:41 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | Hi,Do you have the name of the hotel?Are you 100% sure of location? It appears to be in the road, rather than in any of the buildings alonside the road |
| 2 | 2016-11-19 14:06:03 UTC | SomeoneElse | @Yorvik Prestigitator I'm guessing this is just a MAPS.ME duplicate of one of the existing hotels here - personally I'd just delete it as the mapper hasn't replied within 10 days. | |
| 3 | 2016-11-20 11:06:44 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | Deleted | |
| 43489888 by YSJSU | 1 | 2016-11-09 08:11:46 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | Hi,do you have the names for the bar and the fast food place you have added to the map?Are you sure about the locations? The bar appears to be in the old Aviva car park and the fast food place appears to be in the Kitchen Accessory shop (used to be Budgens) |
| 42913064 by skgrange | 1 | 2016-10-15 14:55:29 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | I thought your tag of flood_prone was quite appropriate for the ings |
| 2 | 2016-10-15 20:35:54 UTC | skgrange | Hello. I agree. I made the change because the MapBox services were rendering the Ings as water. So it is a work-around. I can revert the change if desired. | |
| 3 | 2016-10-15 22:04:38 UTC | SomeoneElse | Sounds like a bug with Mapbox's rendering to me (although over the next 6 months or so it'll be likely as wrong as right!). | |
| 42738181 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2016-10-08 18:29:18 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | You might have broken the 142 and 143 bus route relation continuity |
| 2 | 2016-10-08 18:31:33 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3005848 and http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3005931 | |
| 3 | 2016-10-08 21:59:40 UTC | SomeoneElse | Well spotted, thanks. | |
| 4 | 2016-10-08 22:07:20 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | No worries, sort of thing I often inadvertently do. | |
| 42575010 by Yorvik Prestigitator | 1 | 2016-10-02 07:44:36 UTC | tomhukins | Hi, in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/42570189 I set the postbox type of https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/338481504/history to "double_pillar" but you reverted this change in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/42575010 - I'm curious why you did this. |
| 2 | 2016-10-06 00:53:07 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | Hi, there are basically 3 types of post boxes for stamped mail; pillar (free-standing), wall (built into a wall or building) and lamp (mounted to a pole or similar). This post box is primarily a pillar box and secondly has two slots for letters. Double pillar is confusing as it wouldn't show up as a... | |
| 3 | 2016-10-08 18:19:23 UTC | tomhukins | Thank you, it sounds like you have a far more detailed understanding of this than I do. | |
| 41553848 by Warofdreams | 1 | 2016-09-19 03:14:22 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | be careful using aerial images, eg the nurses accomodation by york hospital was knocked down many years ago |
| 37812182 by Yorvik Prestigitator | 1 | 2016-09-04 22:17:11 UTC | SomeoneElse | Hi, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/215452372 is "building=q" - presumably it should have been "school" or something?Cheers,Andy |
| 2 | 2016-09-04 22:54:31 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | Yes, fixed now, thanks for spotting this. | |
| 41724711 by Warofdreams | 1 | 2016-08-28 03:31:54 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | I'm embarrassed to notice I hve editted this four times and missed this typo. |
| 40845932 by Yorvik Prestigitator | 1 | 2016-07-25 17:51:09 UTC | chillly | I think the multipolygon might need more tags. If you can have two outers (not sure you can) then both of the school areas need to be tagged as outers. Would a site relation be better than a multipolygon? |
| 2 | 2016-07-25 19:38:01 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | I'm no expert, the OSM wiki says a multipolygon can have "Two disjunct outer rings" and says on the relations:site (proposal) page that for schools with multiple sites to use a multipolygon relation.I have now tagged the ways as outers now, which I had failed to do on this changeset. H... | |
| 3 | 2016-07-25 20:25:26 UTC | SomeoneElse | You'll want amenity=school on the school relation presumably? Unless I've completely misunderstood what's happening here... | |
| 4 | 2016-07-26 00:13:06 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | You're right, I can't work out why it was not there. I have added it now, thanks. | |
| 40845866 by Yorvik Prestigitator | 1 | 2016-07-25 17:46:06 UTC | chillly | Hi,Have you missed a tag from the way into the churchyard? |
| 2 | 2016-07-25 19:26:34 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | oops, looks like I have! Now fixed, thanks for spotting this.(or it could be Potlatch not recording all my changes in a changeset again) | |
| 39947285 by Spuds | 1 | 2016-07-05 14:49:54 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | Hi, is way 424238404 part of the temporary diversion to route NCN route 67?It appears to be untagged.http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/424238404 |
| 40462715 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2016-07-03 18:33:24 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | thanks, sadly that looks like it was one of my typos. |
| 40270396 by deadpool809 | 1 | 2016-06-26 09:33:53 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | Clifford's Tower and Multangular Tower are already on the map and in greater detail. |
| 39954806 by Yorvik Prestigitator | 1 | 2016-06-23 18:07:26 UTC | SomeoneElse | Any reason for the expansion of http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/424321516 to include the field to the west and the footpath to the right? It's certainly not obvious from the road that it's this big - the previous size of the school area was based on what things look like from the road. |
| 2 | 2016-06-23 18:09:50 UTC | SomeoneElse | I removed the made-up names "SPSP" on e.g. http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/424321513 as well. that was added by the previous (new) contributor; which I didn't fix straight away because I had let them know about it via a changeset discussion. | |
| 3 | 2016-06-26 05:29:05 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | There is/was a school sign on the roadside in the woods alongside the field, so I assumed the field belonged to the school. It could be they are just advertising the school on a field adjacent, I am happy to defer to local knowledge. | |
| 39321130 by Eugene13 | 1 | 2016-05-15 00:56:16 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | Hi, What are you trying to dowith this edit?You seem to be deleting lots of ways and nodes and losing information about which junctions are roundabouts, their speed limits whether they have pavement, what the source was for this data. |
| 2 | 2016-05-15 22:30:39 UTC | Eugene13 | hi,my edits basically was geometrics. And maybe sometime I forget check for more details, maybe. But 97% changes was only with geometrics. Was few places where creator did something strange, all components for place was improperly. At this moment I did try change with removing. Why I did this ch... | |
| 37750113 by Yorvik Prestigitator | 1 | 2016-04-30 07:55:04 UTC | SomeoneElse | Are https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/402995159 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/402995178 really spelt with a double S? The village, and other amenities, aren't. Also, you didn't happen to notice what the access to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/402995582/history from the west is? It see... |
| 2 | 2016-05-03 00:37:20 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | oops, you are right, my heavy fingered typing is to blame. Thanks for spotting that.Can't really definitively help you with whether the other pathway is gated, sorry. | |
| 13236756 by Yorvik Prestigitator | 1 | 2016-03-26 00:38:56 UTC | SomeoneElse | Is the passageway through to Precentor's Court really called "Hole-in-the-Wall"? The pub next door is definitely called the "Hole In The Wall", and I guess it might count as a loc_name, but I've never heard of it as an official name.FWIW http://www.holeinthewallyork.co.uk/ has... |
| 2 | 2016-03-26 02:48:02 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | Hmm, it was three years ago I surveyed this, so I can't remember where I got the name from, but I personally don't like the hyphenation so must have got the hyphens from somewhere - though this is what we always called this alley.The local tourist guides corroborate that "Peculiar Lane" ... | |
| 37822555 by Yorvik Prestigitator | 1 | 2016-03-17 11:35:48 UTC | SomeoneElse | Just checking - are you sure that http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/403656398 is a public footpath? It seems just to go to the church. |
| 2 | 2016-03-17 13:28:39 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | oops, no it is just a footpath to access the church | |
| 3 | 2016-03-17 14:13:01 UTC | SomeoneElse | Thanks - and thanks for doing all the schools hereabouts, too. | |
| 37850221 by tcdiosm | 1 | 2016-03-15 19:00:02 UTC | ndm | http://map.n-somerset.gov.uk/publicrightsofway doesn't seem to be a valid URL?What rights do we have to use this source on OSM? |
| 2 | 2016-03-15 19:05:43 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | no idea about this edits or rights, but the correct url is probably http://map.n-somerset.gov.uk/publicrightsofway.html | |
| 3 | 2016-03-16 17:03:23 UTC | tcdiosm | My apologies for not giving the full URL , I shall do so in future. I was hoping that contributors to OSM would be inquisitive enough to research this resource for themselves and read further; it is a minefield but useful.I have used the online map of local authorities as a resource to check the ... | |
| 4 | 2016-03-16 17:22:20 UTC | SomeoneElse | (as a brief aside on "footpath" and "bridleway" tagging):I'd use "highway=footway" for something that looks like a footpath; "highway=bridleway" for something that looks like a bridleway (typically "has gates instead of stiles and horse poo on the groun... | |
| 5 | 2016-03-16 17:38:45 UTC | tcdiosm | definitive information from the authority gives us the legal status. A horse rider would be in the wrong to use a footpath. Yes many tracks look wide enough for a 4x4 but that does not give them the right to use it. We must be careful to provide accurate information, landowners also have rights and... | |
| 6 | 2016-03-16 17:44:49 UTC | SomeoneElse | @tcdiosm if you're replying to me, I'm confused :) | |
| 7 | 2016-03-16 17:57:13 UTC | tcdiosm | sorry new to the Forum.Hope this will make it clearer.FootpathPublic footpaths are public rights of way on foot.BridlewayPublic bridleways are public rights of way on foot, or leading or riding a beast of burden (e.g. a horse). Cyclists may also use bridleways, but must give way to rid... | |
| 8 | 2016-03-16 18:14:24 UTC | SomeoneElse | @tcdiosm The point that I was trying to make was that for example "highway=footway" does not indicate the legal status of access. It just means "used mainly or exclusively by pedestrians". There are permissive footways, and private ones.In order to indicate that something is ... | |
| 9 | 2016-03-16 19:13:58 UTC | ndm | Dear tcdiosm, thanks for the details on sources, etc. -- I'm always interested when someone remarks that they're copying another map (doesn't help that I can never remember which Ordnance Survey products have which licence, etc).Have fun mapping,Neil | |
| 37711071 by Yorvik Prestigitator | 1 | 2016-03-12 14:25:39 UTC | mueschel | Hi Yorvik,this node has a strange key:http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4051038589Is that supposed to be entrance or access or something else?Cheers, Jan |
| 2 | 2016-03-12 15:18:39 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | is the entrance - the perils of predictive text.Thanks | |
| 37336436 by Yorvik Prestigitator | 1 | 2016-02-22 12:56:53 UTC | chillly | I don't think So Wok is a restaurant, last time I was there (a few months ago) it was certainly only a takeaway. It's a very small place, there's no room for a sit-down meal. I also think the name is So Wok (without the 'Takeaway'). |
| 2 | 2016-02-22 16:46:44 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | HI Chillly,I was just correcting the Chinese to chinese (as OSM is fussy about capitalisation in tags) which Rogero added on their edit of this way.I think you are correct about it being fast_food rather than restaurant (especially as it has the tag takeaway=only).As you are more knowledgeable... | |
| 36799663 by bigalxyz123 | 1 | 2016-02-05 04:44:35 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | hi, you haven't tagged way 393459010 http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/393459010#map=17/53.70912/-0.80197Is it a track? |
| 2 | 2016-02-05 09:44:30 UTC | bigalxyz123 | Hi - yes it is, I guess I forgot to label it as such. Now fixed. Alan. | |
| 36734652 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2016-01-22 21:50:21 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | Why have you changed the name? This section of road is called De Grey Terrace according to the signs and the addresses of the houses on it |
| 2 | 2016-01-23 00:57:22 UTC | Mike Baggaley | As I understand it, this part of the road is still Avenue Road, with a few houses forming De Grey Terrace, so I have moved what seemed to me to be the less important name to the alt_name field so that the name Avenue Road is contiguous. It does not seem correct to me to have a road name of De Grey T... | |
| 36730463 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2016-01-22 21:44:10 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | The street sign says "Tang Hall Lane 124-138" which is what is down this street.Also "addr:housenumber" should not be used for ways according to the wiki |
| 2 | 2016-01-23 00:47:18 UTC | Mike Baggaley | One needs to use some common sense when reading street signs. The sign saying Tang Hall Lane 124-138 indicates that the street name is Tang Hall Lane with just house numbers 124-138 on this section of the road. If The street name were Tang Hall Lane 124-138, then this would mean that house number 12... | |
| 36735041 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2016-01-22 21:40:21 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | The houses on the east side of this street are Railway View and the houses on the west side of this street are Northfield Terrace, this is clearly indicated by local street signs.Why have you changed the street name from "Northfield Terrace / Railway View" to "Northfield Terrace&quo... |
| 2 | 2016-01-23 00:40:06 UTC | Mike Baggaley | The street name is not Northfield Terrace / Railway View, it has two names. I have put one in the name field and the other in the alt_name field, which I believe is the correct way to handle this situation. | |
| 32306895 by Yorvik Prestigitator | 1 | 2015-12-28 19:13:48 UTC | SomeoneElse | Hi, can you think of any reason why http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/357471821 shouldn't be man_made=reservoir_covered? |
| 2 | 2015-12-28 21:07:10 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | No, I think your word order is probably the correct one. | |
| 3 | 2015-12-28 21:08:15 UTC | SomeoneElse | Thanks for fixing (never understood why it was that order to be honest). | |
| 35738553 by Yorvik Prestigitator | 1 | 2015-12-04 09:55:47 UTC | Derick Rethans | What did you change with this changeset? Can you please use changeset comments? |
| 2 | 2015-12-05 21:04:24 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | Hi Derrick,I renamed North End/Wildwood Terrace to match what the street sign at the end of the road said - as highlighted by note #382035 Aligned the buildings of King Alfred School to better match the bing aerial imageTidied up the roundabout at the junction of North End Way/Spaniards Rd/Hea... | |
| 34901901 by Locator | 1 | 2015-11-06 19:09:47 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | Are there really four post offices in Elvington Industrial Estate? |
| 2 | 2015-11-07 00:09:16 UTC | Locator | No, hurried use of copy tags. Sorry. Now removed. Thanks for keeping me right. | |
| 34735867 by Locator | 1 | 2015-10-19 19:28:49 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | Node 3792858161 looks a little peculiarhttp://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3792858161 is it definitely part of the building? |
| 21129202 by Yorvik Prestigitator | 1 | 2015-10-14 10:56:23 UTC | GerdP | please review:natural=bare_rocks is uncommon,probably should benatural=rock or natural=bare_rock |
| 2 | 2015-10-14 14:34:42 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | corrected, thanks | |
| 34407237 by GerdP | 1 | 2015-10-04 23:18:36 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | Hi GerdP,How about correcting my obvious spelling mistake or message me and ask what I meant to type, rather than going round deleting tags and information from the map.YP |
| 2 | 2015-10-05 09:02:17 UTC | GerdP | Hi YP,thanks for reviewing my changes andsorry for destroying data. I meant to remove simple typos.In this case Bing shows a normal road junction which is not a passing placeas described in the wiki:http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:highway%3DpathGerd | |
| 3 | 2015-10-05 10:19:02 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | Hi Gerd,If you go down the road in person you will see there is also an official sign designating this point as a Passing PlaceThis sign is also visible on google streetview www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.9243057,-1.0124602,3a,15y,212.23h,84.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssRmNgmC1loXgi01OiK7rig!2e0!7i13312!... | |
| 4 | 2015-10-05 10:46:43 UTC | GerdP | I see. Sorry again. | |
| 5 | 2015-10-05 10:48:20 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | is okay, is fixed now. | |
| 33441081 by Locator | 1 | 2015-08-21 16:11:38 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | Why does the Acomb Police Station need marking on the map a second time?It is already adequately marked on the map by way 130352231 |
| 2 | 2015-08-21 22:25:56 UTC | Locator | In my mind from the Wiki I had it to tag the building outline and the node for the entrance. Tagging for the renderer is a cardinal sin, but maybe I got it wrong. | |
| 32767835 by Dr Kludge | 1 | 2015-07-21 10:24:42 UTC | will_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... |
| 2 | 2015-07-21 10:36:14 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | I have to agree with will_p, have you read the wiki that says the same as will_p is saying wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bar , for example should I edit all the bars that have toilets from toilets=yes to amenity=toilets? | |
| 3 | 2015-07-21 11:44:42 UTC | SomeoneElse | For the avoidance of doubt, I can categorically state that http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/331497978 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) | |
| 4 | 2015-07-21 11:49:58 UTC | SomeoneElse | @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... | |
| 5 | 2015-07-21 12:41:39 UTC | Richard | 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. | |
| 6 | 2015-07-22 13:11:30 UTC | Dr 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.Tag:amenity=bar(Redirected from Bar) | |
| 7 | 2015-07-22 13:38:26 UTC | Yorvik 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... | |
| 8 | 2015-07-22 23:31:54 UTC | SomeoneElse | I've reverted this in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/32814810 . Some items (including http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/331497978 ) are now correctly tagged again. Some may need further investigation (http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/256683224 I suspect is an amenity=social_club, for examp... | |
| 9 | 2015-07-23 04:53:57 UTC | Dr Kludge | @Yorvik Prestigitator1.) 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... | |
| 32700250 by Yorvik Prestigitator | 1 | 2015-07-20 12:00:34 UTC | SomeoneElse | For info I've added layer=1 back to http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/140324063 since it is higher than everything else nearby. |
| 2 | 2015-07-21 10:45:52 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | I am confused; the osm wiki says layer tag should be used to describe relative vertical differences of overlapping nodes or tags but "is not suitable to define vertical relationships of adjoining, nearby or distant elements or areas."Would the embankment tag be more appropriate for way 1... | |
| 3 | 2015-07-21 11:12:53 UTC | SomeoneElse | The wiki should be descriptive rather than proscriptive; unfortunately the overlap between wiki editors and actual mappers isn't high, and sometimes people's personal point of view creeps through. I would certainly never edit anything based on what the wiki says alone - it's always worth trying to ... | |
| 32706059 by abel801 | 1 | 2015-07-18 01:11:29 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | Why have you removed the oneway tag? This road is one way, it leads to the newly constructed underground car park at the college - it is not possible to exit the underground car park via this road. |
| 2 | 2015-07-20 20:35:42 UTC | abel801 | I overlooked that this street indeed leads underground. Thank you! | |
| 3 | 2015-07-20 20:49:18 UTC | abel801 | I reverted my changesets. | |
| 4 | 2015-07-20 21:36:18 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | Thanks, I will add a note that this way leads to the car park below | |
| 32683135 by karitotp | 1 | 2015-07-16 23:27:39 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | This road is one way, why have you removed the oneway tag from part of it??It is the exit from the underground part of the college carpark built a year or two ago (the underground part has not been surveyed yet). |
| 2 | 2015-07-17 13:58:00 UTC | karitotp | I fixed my change. Thanks for your observation.https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/32698254 | |
| 32679643 by dannykath | 1 | 2015-07-16 17:42:27 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | Why have you removed the oneway tag?? This is the exit from the service station forecourt and motorists are not allowed to enter the forecourt via this way as indicated by local signage. |
| 2 | 2015-07-16 18:01:50 UTC | dannykath | Hi, I am sorry, I reverted this changeset | |
| 3 | 2015-07-16 18:10:44 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | Thank you :) | |
| 32552024 by michaelinredhill | 1 | 2015-07-11 01:00:43 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | Are you sure the footpath and track east of York near the ringroad intersect?There is no evidence that the footpath even exists, it has only been added by nbr based on information they got from council that there used to be a right of way there and has already been corrected when they marked the f... |
| 2 | 2015-10-26 21:38:54 UTC | SomeoneElse | Re http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/343442814 west of the bypass, it is a public footpath (I've been there - there's a sign on the fence at the east end pointing west, and a stile on the fence suggesting access to the bypass is legal). http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/340896855 is still a bit r... | |
| 31801680 by warden330 | 1 | 2015-06-09 11:33:51 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | Has the building really become circular?? |
| 12423349 by Yorvik Prestigitator | 1 | 2015-06-08 13:04:34 UTC | SomeoneElse | (assuming it's still there) are you going to undelete https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1833702708/history , or would you like me to? They also replaced https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/59267532/history with https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3558188850 which has fewer tags. |
| 2 | 2015-06-09 05:23:08 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | After discussion with rsg123 about their deletion of clock and damage to Piccadilly in changeset 31477231 they told me the deletion and damage were by mistake (though slightly confused why they apologised from a different account - maybe they have 2 accounts).I could not see any way of undoing the... | |
| 31533862 by NewBrownRice | 1 | 2015-05-29 03:10:58 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | are these public parking lots or residents only parking? |
| 2 | 2015-05-29 09:50:20 UTC | NewBrownRice | They are permit only parking - however there is no restriction (gates/barriers) to the site. Should I have used access=private in this case?Thanks, NBR. | |
| 3 | 2015-05-29 14:29:06 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | Yes, personally I would recommend using access=private in this case so they are not confused with public parking (it will also render with a faded "P" on some maps). | |
| 31477231 by russg123 | 1 | 2015-05-26 22:54:54 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | Why have you deleted the clock above the Yeoman store in Blake Street? The clock is still there (and telling the correct time)Piccadilly does not cross Fishergate |
| 2 | 2015-05-27 07:56:40 UTC | yorkydude | Oh, sorry I must have done that by mistake. I moved a building area by accident and put it back, but i thought that was the only mistake I made | |
| 31144705 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2015-05-14 16:46:31 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | I would dispute that is an official sign from Yorkshire Housing, just someone being grumpy and as there is no indication that North Moor Gardens (southern section) is a Private Road then it would need an official sign to have any authority.Even then the written cyclist dismount is only advisory un... |
| 2 | 2015-05-14 16:55:06 UTC | SomeoneElse | It did look like an official sign from Yorkshire Housing. It wouldn't surprise me (given the history of the area - until surprisingly recently post-war prefabs) if it was a private road. | |
| 3 | 2015-05-14 17:05:46 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | Sorry, worded that badly, I was disputing Yorkshire Housing's right to create such a regulation, than whether it was genuinely their sign. But if you think it might be a private road then I guess they are allowed to be so anti-cyclist. | |
| 4 | 2015-05-15 08:17:23 UTC | SomeoneElse | ... and I suspect it'll also apply to the northern bit too (though I didn't get chance to look for a sign there). | |
| 30535499 by NewBrownRice | 1 | 2015-05-07 10:58:15 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | Is there any evidence on the ground for the footpaths from Murton? They appear to go through cultivated fields, hedgerow and becks as well as crossing very busy dual carriageway with no provision for pedestrians |
| 2 | 2015-05-07 11:08:33 UTC | NewBrownRice | Hi Yorvik Prestigitator, I added these footpaths and bridleways as exactly shown on the Local Authority's (City of York) Definitive map. You can view the map here: http://localview.york.gov.uk/Sites/lv/, then select Map Information on the left side, and scroll down the large list to find Public Foot... | |
| 3 | 2015-05-07 11:24:10 UTC | NewBrownRice | I've updated the Southern-most crossing with the By-Pass, as the footpath actually terminates on the Definitive Map before and after the By-Pass. But I can confirm that the Northern-most crossing is still a public footpath. As you can see here: http://binged.it/1GQRrtw The path is clearly shown on t... | |
| 4 | 2015-05-07 11:33:00 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | There is no indication on the York council map of what date the right of way is valid for, it may have been superseded by the dualling of the A64, there is no obvious footpath on the Bing imagery on the west of the A64. Ordnance Survey maps come with the proviso that they do not guarantee the paths ... | |
| 5 | 2015-05-07 11:49:10 UTC | NewBrownRice | It is true that the footpath to the West is unclear. It would probably be sensible to mark the path as impassable over the By-Pass as I don't believe there is a crossing point here. Even though the York Localview website uses Ordnance Survey maps, the overlays of footpaths and bridleways are not OS,... | |
| 6 | 2015-05-07 11:57:50 UTC | NewBrownRice | Just to confirm, looking at this Birds-eye view on Bing: http://binged.it/1RfTDTM, it is possible to see the footpath does cross the A64. The clearest way of distinguishing this is the two-tiered central reservation barriers in the road, which I guess are particularly suited for pedestrians to cross... | |
| 7 | 2015-05-07 12:28:56 UTC | SomeoneElse | @NewBrownRice - you mustn't use that map as a source. There is a very clear copyright statement at the bottom of it. If this is your only source these paths will have to be removed.I would only add footpaths that you personally have surveyed (by walking all the way along). I'd be genuinely s... | |
| 8 | 2015-05-07 15:39:40 UTC | NewBrownRice | Regardless of the copyright statement on that page (I was only using it to illustrate my point during this discussion) the Local Authority's definite map is a public document and the data contained within it is public data (available from data.gov.uk and is shown elsewhere on the internet from a FOI... | |
| 9 | 2015-05-07 16:45:49 UTC | SomeoneElse | It doesn't matter if "the Local Authority's definite map is a public document and the data contained within it is public data" - if it's derived from non-licence-compatible data it can't be used in OSM. However, it's likely that the definitive _statement_ may not be so encumbered. If you... | |
| 10 | 2015-05-07 17:29:37 UTC | NewBrownRice | York's definitive map has already been publicly released and is confirmed to have an OS OpenData license (OGL 3). Therefore, I believe that the raw data can be straight imported into OSM without any Copyright issues? Even though I cross-referenced the pathways with Bing satellite imagery, this shoul... | |
| 11 | 2015-05-07 17:44:34 UTC | SomeoneElse | How do I get to this OGL 3 data without going through a website that claims to be "© 2012 Esri (UK) Ltd and its third party licensors. All rights reserved."* or displaying it on a map is apparently "© Crown copyright and database right 2015 Ordnance Survey 100020818"?... | |
| 12 | 2015-05-07 18:07:54 UTC | NewBrownRice | Apologies for not providing the link earlier: The OGL 3 data is available through a link on the UK local councils wiki article for York, here: http://www.rowmaps.com/datasets/YK/Thanks for the clarification on Bing imagery. I can confirm I used the Bing imagery available through the OSM Editor, an... | |
| 13 | 2015-05-07 18:32:37 UTC | SomeoneElse | I personally would never use data from a third-party site that claims that data has been released to them under a certain licence, without any evidence that that is the case. How do we know what questions were asked? It _might_ be perfectly OK, but without knowing what questions were asked (and ho... | |
| 14 | 2015-05-07 18:59:42 UTC | NewBrownRice | I understand your point, but the use of the Definitive Map is different. It's correct to just assume the map is OGL based on the documentation and guidance here: http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/council-docs.html, http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/notes/os-open-data.html, https://www.ordnancesurvey.co... | |
| 15 | 2015-05-07 19:31:28 UTC | SomeoneElse | At that link I read "it is now possible for councils to request exemptions to OS's IP claims on data they have plotted on top of OS's base maps" (but I don't see any evidence that that has happened) and then "Unfortunately, it appears that Ordnance Survey's rights in the data will pre... | |
| 16 | 2015-05-07 19:42:27 UTC | NewBrownRice | I don't have any other info to hand unfortunately. The copyright info we have from York LocalView is misleading and shouldn't be a limiting factor here. I can however look at the many other local authorities which have set a precedent in the last few months of releasing Definitive Map data to OGL 3 ... | |
| 17 | 2015-09-06 20:31:37 UTC | SomeoneElse | Finally got to check these today - both https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/343442814 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/61432263 are signed as public footpaths at the eastern end on the fence at the edge of the bypass. There's a stile to get you over the fence in each case though what you do afte... | |
| 25186111 by Yorvik Prestigitator | 1 | 2015-04-10 00:30:51 UTC | PmaiIkeey | Just querying the footpath that's been named Whip-ma-whop-ma-gate - what evidence is there that it has that name ? |
| 2 | 2015-04-12 02:26:01 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | I didn't give it that name - it was already labelled such before I edited it. The road adjoining the footpath has a street sign Whip-ma-whop-ma-gate, but 1A Whip-ma-whop-ma-gate (where the estate agent is) is situated down this footpath. | |
| 3 | 2015-04-12 13:44:46 UTC | PmaiIkeey | As I have my suspicions, is this something you can investigate ? I'm aware 1½ is down there but this is akin to a private drive off a named road. I know it's not private but I have my doubts about it having that name. It may even have some other funky name! | |
| 28682428 by rex_the_first | 1 | 2015-03-17 16:05:42 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | Isn't this fiddling the data to make the Cyclestreets map work? Now the Pedallers Arms appears twice on other maps, wouldn't it be better to contact Cyclestreets and get them to fix their rendering? |
| 2 | 2015-03-28 14:14:38 UTC | rex_the_first | Yes, that is a good point. As the building is shared with Hackspace it probably shouldn't all get called Pedallers' Arms.I've removed the double naming https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/29805893Thanks | |
| 26559953 by McRoyall | 1 | 2014-11-07 17:44:34 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | Hi McRoyall, you need to connect footways to the other ways they meet or it will break any routing application |
| 25075532 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2014-11-07 17:36:16 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | The "hole" at top of New Lane is coming up on keepright as an untagged way - is it meant to be an island in the residential landuse? |
| 2 | 2014-11-07 17:36:46 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | way 300655231 for clarification | |
| 3 | 2014-12-09 18:04:26 UTC | SomeoneElse | Sorry I didn't reply to this - unfortunately people are only subscribed automatically to changesets from the time that changeset discussions were turned on, which was 2nd November I think. | |