EdLoach participated in the following changeset discussionsEdLoach participated in the following changeset discussions| Changeset | # | Tmstmp UTC | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 161128971 by smsm1 @ 2025-01-08 11:04 | 1 | 2025-03-25 12:50 | EdLoach | Ipswich Star is reporting ribbon has been cut, so this might now be open? |
| 2 | 2025-03-25 13:45 | smsm1 ♦8 | https://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/25025087.new-europa-way-link-road-ipswich-officially-opens/ suggests it's been open for a week. I no longer live in the area to be able to do an in person survey, should it be required. | |
| 3 | 2025-03-25 14:03 | EdLoach | Thanks. I'll just mark it open then. I only saw the headline on Facebook and locals moaning that it was pointless without additional improvements on Bramford Road. | |
| 162927483 by AnnaLyasota @ 2025-02-25 11:08 | 1 | 2025-02-25 17:24 | EdLoach | Hi and welcome to OpenStreetMap. I've removed this test path (it worked - I could see it), and also tweaked the tagging on the tennis courts. Play structure doesn't really work for the lines, and some sites already automatically show them if the individual pitches are mapped (as they are n... |
| 162811062 by catch56 @ 2025-02-22 10:43 | 1 | 2025-02-24 17:39 | EdLoach | Thank you. I think from the changeset they might relate to this note https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2325384 If I'm correct, can the note be closed do you think? |
| 2 | 2025-02-24 18:06 | catch56 ♦2 | It's definitely the same set of affected footpaths, I'm sure I didn't do a perfect job of mapping the new ones, but probably issues with that could be resolved in their own right. Not sure how to resolve a note though - haven't done that before on OSM. | |
| 161579906 by Matt Aardvar @ 2025-01-20 22:04 | 1 | 2025-01-21 16:58 | EdLoach | Hi, should the permissive path perhaps be foot=permissive rather than access=permissive, motor_vehicles=no (or can bicycles and horse drawn carriages also use the path)? |
| 2 | 2025-01-21 21:11 | Matt Aardvar ♦6 | HII see not reason why bikes couldn't use it and I've seen people on bikes over there in the past. Not seen any horses.CheersMatt | |
| 3 | 2025-01-21 21:13 | Matt Aardvar ♦6 | I think the important thing is that a missing path has been added, one that is widely used. | |
| 161036969 by Floki500 @ 2025-01-05 21:27 | 1 | 2025-01-09 17:24 | EdLoach | Are you sure it is this side of the road? From the address even numbers look to be opposite side of the road, and I'd guess it needs fitting in somewhere around Jennifleurs and Tesco Express. |
| 156372802 by Hayleox @ 2024-09-09 00:37 | 1 | 2024-12-23 10:15 | EdLoach | I am not convinced that removing detail from a tag value is a "fix"? |
| 152623317 by Greeny6000 @ 2024-06-13 09:19 | 1 | 2024-06-13 10:57 | BCNorwich ♦4,846 | Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.The recreation ground is within the area outline of the school, so it was correctly mapped. So I've retagged the recreation ground as such. Thus the rec is part of the school.Regards Bernard |
| 2 | 2024-06-13 11:11 | Greeny6000 ♦1 | Hi Bernard,The meaning ofrecreation ground (noun)a piece of public land used for sports and games.The school is not public land. The area mapped out is the school sports field where the children play at lunchtime in the summer and have PE lessons. This coming Monday and Tuesday, the ... | |
| 3 | 2024-06-13 16:51 | BCNorwich ♦4,846 | Hi, Unfortunately the tag amenity/landuse=sports_field is not in use by OSM, the nearest tag descriptor is landuse=recreation_ground. The area could be tagged access=private to indicate no public use.I don't mind what you tag it as as long as it is logical. You changed the tag to amenity=sc... | |
| 4 | 2024-12-23 10:08 | EdLoach | The school wiki page seems to suggest leisure=recreation_ground (and although this has its own wiki page, the leisure=pitch wiki page says it is a tagging mistake and landuse=recreation_ground should be used instead). https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dschool | |
| 152244692 by Robert Whittaker @ 2024-06-04 13:31 | 1 | 2024-10-07 15:29 | EdLoach | Hi Robert. Do you think https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11955885761/history/1 might be the same post box as https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1387341180 |
| 2 | 2024-10-07 15:57 | Robert Whittaker ♦273 | Oh yes, definitely. The location of the node I added is correct. I'm not sure why I didn't notice the existing postbox node when I added it. I've removed the duplicate now. Thanks for spotting that. | |
| 3 | 2024-10-08 09:40 | EdLoach | I only noticed because when I walk post postboxes with Mapillary running I tend to take a photo of the royal cypher in case it is missing, and was checking when I got home (it wasn't missing). https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=848234287500341 | |
| 50305661 by ironstone11 @ 2017-07-15 13:11 | 1 | 2024-10-07 15:08 | EdLoach | Hi. I can't find any record of The Supper Club being at this location. Do you have a link, or might it have closed since you named it? Thanks, Ed |
| 154738073 by pmmikes @ 2024-08-02 13:59 | 1 | 2024-08-08 13:39 | EdLoach | I don't suppose you happened to check the road names when you were checking the speed limits? There is a notice in today's paper which has the order to make a 20 mph zone for Safrano Avenue, Armada Drive, Bettina Close, Ellna Road, and Nevada Close. Three of the names in the order differ f... |
| 2 | 2024-08-10 07:34 | pmmikes ♦2 | I didn't, but I will check those when i'm next there. Thank you! | |
| 154010915 by pole_climber @ 2024-07-16 11:32 | 1 | 2024-07-18 08:31 | EdLoach | I just read https://www.harwichandmanningtreestandard.co.uk/news/24458480.manningtree-developments-new-junction-cycleway-footway-complete/ and see you got there already... |
| 150346802 by EdLoach @ 2024-04-22 13:16 | 1 | 2024-04-22 13:26 | rskedgell ♦1,467 | Would it be worth adding the seamark tagging for wrecks?https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Seamarks/Wrecks |
| 2 | 2024-04-22 13:55 | EdLoach | Firstly, it looks like I forgot the note URL in the changeset comment https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4207472I could add seamark:type=wreck and even wreck:type=lighter (based on reading various linked documents in the note) and probably even wreck:visible_at_low_tide=yes, but can't really ... | |
| 124672835 by Steve Goodey @ 2022-08-09 08:25 | 1 | 2024-04-10 15:01 | EdLoach | Would this be last September, by any chance? |
| 147370743 by Sharvari Tate @ 2024-02-12 14:53 | 1 | 2024-04-03 11:59 | EdLoach | I have reverted this changeset as there was no intersection. The footpath to the upstairs flats runs on top of the ground floor shops. I have added layer=1 to the existing level=1 to make this clearer. |
| 148913942 by Robert Whittaker @ 2024-03-20 13:37 | 1 | 2024-03-20 15:07 | EdLoach | You might find this changeset relates https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/136603258 |
| 2 | 2024-03-20 15:14 | EdLoach | I should add I *think* I went to survey the road end after the earlier changeset was created, and there is no obvious sign from Bentley Road, with the way as you've drawn it passing through a gate and a garage, iirc | |
| 147142835 by RaccoonFederation @ 2024-02-06 16:40 | 1 | 2024-02-06 17:32 | EdLoach | Well spotted. I'm glad my Mapillary imagery is useful. Looks like an old cypher (starting G), so I'm wondering if this postbox got moved when the post office moved. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1832001391 Will try and spot it on recent Mapillary images |
| 2 | 2024-02-06 17:34 | EdLoach | Not that one I think (at least I think I can see a lamp box in https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=783420368949832 ) | |
| 3 | 2024-02-06 18:42 | RaccoonFederation ♦96 | Yes, looks like the lamp box was removed in 2021, Mapillary #2917923981797998 | |
| 146589123 by Casey_boy @ 2024-01-23 11:35 | 1 | 2024-01-23 13:38 | EdLoach | Why? The new building is not yet built. |
| 2 | 2024-01-23 13:40 | EdLoach | I'll revert. | |
| 3 | 2024-01-23 15:01 | Casey_boy ♦82 | Has construction started? In the aerial imagery, it looks like there's nothing there (except a car park). | |
| 4 | 2024-01-23 15:33 | Casey_boy ♦82 | I was probably a little hasty in removing, but perhaps this should instead be tagged as landuse=brownfield. It looks like there's been no construction for over 6 years? Unless it has now started? | |
| 5 | 2024-01-23 16:33 | EdLoach | The note on this site shows that the original planning application was for Demolition and construction (with later change of plans). That the demolition has been done means the expiry date on the original permission is no longer relevant as the development has begun (even if so far that is just the ... | |
| 6 | 2024-01-23 16:36 | EdLoach | There are a couple more sites within half a mile of this one that have also only done the demolition part of their permission, so if we do change one we should probably be consistent. And probably many more across the Tendring district where we monitor approved planning applications and use those to... | |
| 7 | 2024-01-23 16:43 | Casey_boy ♦82 | I think brownfield is the correct value based purely on wiki definitions. Brownfield is documented as including land scheduled for future development whereas it documents construction for sites where construction is in progress.Though, truthfully, I think a lot of brownfield sites (per the OSM def... | |
| 146410948 by pole_climber @ 2024-01-18 15:52 | 1 | 2024-01-18 17:01 | EdLoach | I think the area:highway tags are used for pretty rendering in some renders, but the highway way for routing (and possibly labels), so you could try adding both if you want. |
| 2 | 2024-01-18 17:53 | pole_climber ♦8 | I see. Added area back. | |
| 68351495 by Flux Matta @ 2019-03-20 19:55 | 1 | 2024-01-03 17:19 | EdLoach | Hi. Do you remember where you got the Station Lane and Old Station House names from? I've seen suggestions that the address of the house might (now) be Gate House, Rectory Road. Thanks. |
| 10473529 by EdLoach @ 2012-01-23 09:34 | 1 | 2023-10-13 00:05 | SomeoneElse ♦13,362 | I know that https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1602070477 was 11 years ago (!), but I wonder if it is actually what is now https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/372776872 ?Cheers,Andy |
| 2 | 2023-10-13 10:34 | EdLoach | Using JOSM to identify the relevant GPS trace I then tracked down a photo, and a duplicate seems likely. As might this one https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1602070540/history | |
| 3 | 2023-10-13 11:22 | EdLoach | So I've removed them. But there is still stuff needs fixing in the area - the footpath definitely didn't involve wading in a river. | |
| 4 | 2023-10-13 11:31 | SomeoneElse ♦13,362 | Great, thanks! | |
| 142393151 by pmmikes @ 2023-10-10 13:12 | 1 | 2023-10-10 14:29 | EdLoach | I'm fairly sure the Rowhedge Trail also has permissive cycle access and plays a part in the city council's cycling strategy (or used to). |
| 2 | 2023-10-10 15:46 | pmmikes ♦2 | It’s definitely on the cycling strategy “wish list” but at the moment is a footpath only with no formal permissive access (unlike the wiv trail which is a footpath with formal permissive cycle access) (source: I work for the local authority) | |
| 3 | 2023-10-10 16:00 | EdLoach | Thanks for the reply. I've not cycled that bit, just seen cyclists on it when I've been on the Wivenhoe side. I have been looking at catching the bus to Rowhedge and walking to Wivenhoe on what will be the England Coast Path. | |
| 142394050 by pmmikes @ 2023-10-10 13:30 | 1 | 2023-10-10 15:45 | EdLoach | Has the crossing been replaced? Always used to be two with an island in the middle, as here https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=3973747309357327 |
| 132495474 by Roshmaps @ 2023-02-13 15:17 | 1 | 2023-09-23 13:34 | EdLoach | Any idea about this bridleway, which seems to be inaccessible to horses, only having footpaths either end? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1144835177 |
| 132276082 by Mzy2c98Z6GUwahTX @ 2023-02-08 20:53 | 1 | 2023-09-19 15:44 | EdLoach | The footpath that you added when you deleted the service road that this note relates to https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3186298 you've added bicycle=yes, but the first photo mentioned in that note suggests cycling is prohibited. This may have changed since the photo was taken, but thought I&... |
| 140977310 by GAFAAAAA @ 2023-09-08 09:11 | 1 | 2023-09-08 10:47 | EdLoach | This seems to have lost the detail that the hotel has a separate entrance for when the pub is closed (though admittedly the pub entrance centre front was already missing). |
| 2 | 2023-09-08 10:57 | GAFAAAAA ♦2 | I've been in two minds over combining pub/hotels into one to be honest, little things like this might actually convince me to separate them entirely from now on. For this case I'll make a secondary entrance with opening times opposite to those of the pub | |
| 138422748 by spiregrain @ 2023-07-12 13:08 | 1 | 2023-07-12 13:56 | EdLoach | I'd not noticed before, but the bridleway to the west of this changeset has access=yes on it. That should probably be removed as I'm pretty sure this car routing isn't correct. https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_car&route=51.93978%2C1.11437%3B51.93985%2C1... |
| 2 | 2023-07-12 14:06 | spiregrain ♦195 | I edited that way only *this morning* to add foot=yes (my android app of choice has a hard time routing on unusual highway times without explicit foot=yes). I didn't notice access=yes was already set - it's gone now. | |
| 138380144 by PulisakZ @ 2023-07-11 13:02 | 1 | 2023-07-11 14:43 | EdLoach | It can be changed to residential. I'd forgotten to add this bit after a recent survey https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=751505759831890 |
| 2 | 2023-07-12 05:56 | PulisakZ ♦45 | Perfect! I have updated classification. Thank you. | |
| 90022265 by spiregrain @ 2020-08-27 10:55 | 1 | 2023-07-10 10:41 | EdLoach | Sorry to comment on an old changeset, but before I got to Wrabness beach yesterday I walked along https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/28723405 having expected to encounter some signs saying private, but reached the main road without seeing any. There are some at the main road end saying there isn'... |
| 2 | 2023-07-10 14:41 | spiregrain ♦195 | I too have recently walked the length on Ray Lane (Golf Club, East Newhall Farm Cottage, East Newhall, and on to Wrabness Road), and didn't see any indication that it was private for pedestrians. From memory, there was an indication at the B1352 end that it's not suitable for HGVs or som... | |
| 125601441 by RaccoonFederation @ 2022-08-31 08:47 | 1 | 2023-07-03 15:43 | EdLoach | I'll have to go out and survey to confirm, but I'm wondering if it got moved to here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10687884073/history |
| 137156003 by dmgroom_ct @ 2023-06-09 23:00 | 1 | 2023-06-12 14:31 | EdLoach | Ooops. Thanks. |
| 2 | 2023-06-12 14:34 | EdLoach | Looks like it was me realigning https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/65000623 to UK Cadastral that caused the overlap with the other way. I thought I'd checked, but must have missed it. | |
| 137062844 by Marquishelp @ 2023-06-07 16:08 | 1 | 2023-06-07 18:37 | Cebderby ♦299 | Surely this is the vehicle access way to the line of garages, so highway=service was correct as it was? If it's signed as private for motor vehicles, you can put motor_vehicle=private. You can only put what's signed, don't invent restrictions and speed limits. |
| 2 | 2023-06-08 10:42 | EdLoach | I hadn't noticed this change until I went to re-tag it as a private driveway based on this Mapillary image https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=162958163320467 and this note (which I'll now close as the driveway is marked as private) https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3725035 | |
| 136830546 by Peter Elderson @ 2023-06-01 13:07 | 1 | 2023-06-01 14:45 | EdLoach | Your change to https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4740645 to fix the gaps in E2 has broken the Essex Way by adding a bit that doesn't belong. |
| 2 | 2023-06-01 19:59 | Peter Elderson ♦148 | That of course was not right, sorry. I will correct! | |
| 134970196 by user_5359 @ 2023-04-16 11:05 | 1 | 2023-04-19 16:30 | EdLoach | Thank you. My eyes aren't what they once were... |
| 133905490 by m_chelmsford @ 2023-03-20 15:58 | 1 | 2023-04-04 13:27 | EdLoach | Any chance you could add the data source to your changesets? OS OpenMap Local doesn't seem to include these ways yet, and while I think the USRN opendata contains the shape, it doesn't contain names. You've added quite a few where the buildings sites are still fenced off and the roads... |
| 2 | 2023-04-10 13:21 | m_chelmsford ♦1 | https://www.findmystreet.co.uk/map has road names and can be more current than the OS. "Open" status may be for part of the street, so OSM construction status may not be accurate until other evidence from ground/satellite imagery, local knowledge etc is gathered. | |
| 3 | 2023-04-10 14:42 | SK53 ♦864 | Hi,Unfortunately both findmystreet and findmyaddress contain data copyright to GeoPlace. Clause 3.2 of the End User licence states:The End User shall:a) ensure that the Streets Data is not copied, adapted, varied or modified except to and only to the extent to which any of those acts a... | |
| 133741178 by DrButthead @ 2023-03-16 09:45 | 1 | 2023-03-16 10:55 | EdLoach | Would the parish council website that you've added to the village node by more appropriate on the parish relation? https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/76861 |
| 132918001 by RaccoonFederation @ 2023-02-23 10:19 | 1 | 2023-02-23 11:58 | EdLoach | Thanks. Funnily enough I went to survey the box when you removed it and I was sure it was definitely gone then, so looks like it has been replaced. Or I checked the wrong place when I was out. |
| 2 | 2023-02-23 11:59 | EdLoach | Looks like it reappeared somewhere between my October and November Mapillary images. | |
| 3 | 2023-02-23 14:52 | RaccoonFederation ♦96 | Yes, I thought I had made a mistake but it was blocked off for a while | |
| 118533934 by CT-import @ 2022-03-16 04:24 | 1 | 2022-12-06 16:28 | EdLoach | This changeset includes a number of nodes such as https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9582085770 with the addr:street as "Colchester Commons Commons" which looking at the map doesn't need Commons repeating. |
| 2 | 2022-12-06 19:44 | Mashin ♦556 | Nice catch, thanks!I fixed the street names. | |
| 128600713 by davidbavin-hobbs @ 2022-11-07 14:29 | 1 | 2022-11-08 10:49 | EdLoach | Hi. Are you sure bicycles are allowed on public footpaths? Particularly the south end of this one can be quite cramped on foot when the crops are nearing their maximum height (depending on crop). Thanks, Ed |
| 2 | 2022-11-10 11:30 | davidbavin-hobbs ♦2 | I was under the impression that bicycles were allowed. It certainly seemed so the last time I went through here a few weeks ago. Happy to be proved wrong though? | |
| 3 | 2022-11-10 15:09 | SK53 ♦864 | I think you need to be careful to distinguish permissive from tolerated. A landowner might not be fussed if the odd bike goes this way (it might even be them or their kids after all), but we know from a lot of experience on OSM, that if traffic goes beyond a certain level then toleration ceases.... | |
| 128041516 by Mauls @ 2022-10-25 13:51 | 1 | 2022-10-25 16:26 | EdLoach | It looks like you've merged an abandoned:railway way with a highway=footway way, which now leaves an erroneous name, start_date and end_date on the footpath way, which probably wasn't the intention. I'm not sure what you were aiming for, so haven't just reverted the changes. |
| 2 | 2022-10-26 12:58 | Mauls ♦28 | I was demerging, not merging - those dates were on there from the previous merge. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/160291839/history | |
| 3 | 2022-10-26 15:40 | EdLoach | Oh yes, my apologies. Thanks for fixing it too (though I might also remove the name, as it isn't the name of the footpath). | |
| 127527866 by RaccoonFederation @ 2022-10-14 14:14 | 1 | 2022-10-14 16:30 | EdLoach | I think that one has been removed from the wall and a new one added just north of the Kings Arms, visible in https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=468959014794623 - I'll try and get out there in the next few days to survey the reference. |
| 2 | 2022-10-14 18:14 | RaccoonFederation ♦96 | Cool, that was quick | |
| 124761909 by samsung galaxy s6 @ 2022-08-11 07:39 | 1 | 2022-08-11 15:58 | Andre68 ♦88 | Overlapping coastlines is not valid! Coastline checkers (like mine) will detect it.Since I cannot see the construction area on any imagery service (even not on Maxar Premium!) I cannot fix it.So, it most likely is up to you to fix it...(If not fixed) You will see the error tomorrow at noon... |
| 2 | 2022-08-15 13:45 | EdLoach | It does show it. Firstly because the way direction is wrong (I haven't reversed it, but couldn't even find how to in iD) and secondly because two coastlines are overlapping. I would say either remove the natural=coastline tag (effectively reverting to v1 of the way), or make the coastline ... | |
| 3 | 2022-08-15 21:30 | Andre68 ♦88 | No, the direction of the way is correct (Land is on left hand side)!I would currently not remove the coastline tag, because it "might" be correct... Problem is, that it is not visible on aerial images right now!Thus, I think that only a local can solve this problem...If the (initial)... | |
| 4 | 2022-08-15 21:35 | Andre68 ♦88 | Revision...Corrected way direction... | |
| 5 | 2022-08-16 09:08 | EdLoach | I think the update process is broken because of this issue making the coastlines invalid (and perhaps a different issue before this one). | |
| 6 | 2022-08-18 13:56 | EdLoach | This news article from July seems to have a photo of what is planned. https://tw.news.yahoo.com/金門料羅港區北碼頭區圍堤造地工程動土-2-圖-071011032.html | |
| 7 | 2022-09-02 07:27 | Andre68 ♦88 | It seems, that there is in fact a construction area and thus I've now fixed this. Hope, it is okay...Very sad, that the original author did not react... | |
| 124440137 by pole_climber @ 2022-08-03 14:32 | 1 | 2022-08-16 14:33 | EdLoach | I think you might want to remove highway=track and just leave the disused:highway track, as the current tagging suggests this is routable: https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_bike&route=51.83696%2C0.99420%3B51.83588%2C0.99354 |
| 2 | 2022-08-17 14:51 | pole_climber ♦8 | Removed highway=track - thanks. That explains why cycle.travel was still navigating this way - I was about to ask for help but you highlighted it first. | |
| 3 | 2022-08-17 16:30 | EdLoach | I only spotted it as I was working out where to go for a walk after work yesterday. I walked from Batemans Tower to the edge of this crossing and back. Crossing image in Mapillary: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=188835886895024 | |
| 118870117 by LMDenny @ 2022-03-24 15:35 | 1 | 2022-03-24 19:30 | BCNorwich ♦4,846 | Hi, I've removed your new area outline Way: outer boundary defined (1043475948) as it's fiction. The outline of the golf_course named Clacton-on-Sea Golf Club is already mapped as Way: Clacton-on-Sea Golf Club (26834535).I don't know what you were trying to achieve but please tr... |
| 2 | 2022-03-24 20:02 | LMDenny ♦1 | As you know from previous correspondence I am long retired and trying to recreate some golfing experiences from my younger days. The instructions are difficult to follow and I was not intending to upload fiction. Perhaps you can tell me how I create the course area map to work with the TGC-Designer-... | |
| 3 | 2022-03-25 08:09 | BCNorwich ♦4,846 | Hi, The only tutorial I can find is here:- https://tinyurl.com/3pcvbtebI don't think this would be very helpful to you though. The TGC-Designer-Tools seem to be directed mainly to the USA.I downloaded the tools and tutorial and could not make sense of anything.Anyway the tools and O... | |
| 4 | 2022-03-25 09:41 | LMDenny ♦1 | Thanks, Bernard. Useful tutorial link thanks. It is USA biased, and the lidar data over here comes from the Defra site. The section on Editing OpenStreetMap is indeed brief with a promise to create a detailed tutorial in due course. I will tread carefully in future and appreciate your drawing it to ... | |
| 5 | 2022-07-01 10:34 | EdLoach | Hi Bernard. Looks like you forgot to delete https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1043475948 - doing so now. Ed | |
| 121239400 by smeòrach @ 2022-05-20 11:36 | 1 | 2022-05-20 12:09 | EdLoach | Do they really count as a city until the formal receipt of the Letters Patent later this year? |
| 120647354 by Caroline Hall @ 2022-05-06 21:11 | 1 | 2022-05-11 13:59 | EdLoach | Are you sure school lane should be tagged hgv=no? The LHP still show that a scheme to deter HGVs from using the lane is awaiting funding. https://www.essexhighways.org/highway-schemes-and-developments/local-highway-panels/lhp-scheme-lists/tendring-lhp-schemes-list |
| 2 | 2022-05-11 14:01 | EdLoach | PS: Welcome to OpenStreetMap, and if hgv=no is correct you might also like to add a maxweight tag if there are signs to indicate a limit | |
| 3 | 2022-05-11 14:47 | Caroline Hall ♦1 | Hi, thanks for your questions and information. That is very interesting. I have been told by a Councillor that funding for this scheme has been agreed in this year's budget, but it is apparent from the Current Year Schemes List that you have just directed me to that this is not the case. Bu... | |
| 4 | 2022-05-12 08:32 | EdLoach | Thanks for the reply. Local knowledge is what makes OpenStreetMap so good. And if anyone else wonders about the restriction with no sign hopefully they'll find this discussion too. Best wishes, Ed | |
| 5 | 2022-05-12 09:07 | Caroline Hall ♦1 | Thanks! Yes, I hope so too. The Order that I mentioned has applied for a long time (>30 years), so a sign seems very overdue! Caroline | |
| 119902111 by borovac @ 2022-04-19 11:21 | 1 | 2022-04-19 16:14 | EdLoach | Which of these current projects suggests adding transliterations of names? https://github.com/Microsoft/Open-Maps Only the two wiki tags add anything to the node. |
| 2 | 2022-04-19 17:29 | borovac ♦102 | Hi EdLoach,We will do update https://github.com/Microsoft/Open-Maps page. Thank you for drawing attention.Best regards Borovac | |
| 3 | 2022-04-28 09:51 | SomeoneElse ♦13,362 | Hello,Please ensure that you and your team follow https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines . Currently there is no link from https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/borovac to any projects at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities that you might be tak... | |
| 4 | 2022-04-28 10:41 | Aleksandar Matejevic ♦199 | Hi Andy, we will ensure that our team is acting according to the requirements you have mentioned. Thanks for pointing this out.Best regards, Aleksandar Matejevic | |
| 5 | 2022-04-28 11:57 | SomeoneElse ♦13,362 | @Aleksandar Matejevic Please ask your team to update their profiles to point to the relevant wiki pages (not just github - though they can link to that as well if they want) | |
| 56063953 by EdLoach @ 2018-02-04 18:58 | 1 | 2022-04-11 00:15 | SomeoneElse ♦13,362 | Hello,Is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/296216290/history perhaps missing a main tag?Cheers,Andy |
| 2 | 2022-04-12 15:06 | EdLoach | Perhaps :) | |
| 117633454 by eggie @ 2022-02-20 11:05 | 1 | 2022-02-21 11:39 | EdLoach | I'm not sure you need this ferry terminal node when the area is already mapped. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7402504 |
| 2 | 2022-02-21 12:18 | eggie ♦40,637 | Oke.... Me either.. There was an issue with routing with some routers from Hoek of Holland. I added the ferry_terminal in the Netherlands and checked thisin the UK as well.I removed the info now from the node.. but JOSM is still warning for amenity inside amenity=ferry_terminal.. So I think th... | |
| 3 | 2022-02-21 13:17 | EdLoach | There is another ferry terminal tagged on a node at the station: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5406166131 which seems to be what JOSM doesn't like, being inside the area relation | |
| 4 | 2022-02-21 13:18 | EdLoach | Oh, and this building is yet another amenity=ferry_terminal https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/66437417 though it doesn't seem to mind about that. | |
| 5 | 2022-02-21 14:31 | eggie ♦40,637 | Hi... I noticed that...Up to the local mapper 😀Greetz..Eggie from Holland.. | |
| 6 | 2022-02-23 16:12 | EdLoach | I'll have to find an excuse to take the train to the railway station, perhaps to walk to the village pub at Parkeston, as the security barriers doing that in reverse always look discouraging. It is 25 years since I last sailed from there (to Esbjerg when that route still ran). | |
| 113163585 by pole_climber @ 2021-10-30 14:36 | 1 | 2022-01-20 16:11 | EdLoach | Ribbon has been cut - https://www.harwichandmanningtreestandard.co.uk/news/19862051.lawford-nursery-unveils-new-education-centre/ |
| 116115321 by user_5589 @ 2022-01-13 17:04 | 1 | 2022-01-14 17:24 | EdLoach | The network tag really isn't appropriate for the disjointed set of bus services we have locally. operator is much more suitable. |
| 116025333 by Justin Johnson 1983 @ 2022-01-11 13:54 | 1 | 2022-01-11 17:16 | EdLoach | Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap. As a temporary measure I've converted the point feature you added into a building based on the Maxar imagery background (which is not as sharp as say Bing imagery, but is a little more up to date). I believe this is the new nursery school, but do you know wheth... |
| 2 | 2022-01-11 17:22 | EdLoach | I found this, so will add a name for it. https://www.st-clares.essex.sch.uk/st-clares-nursery/ | |
| 104431532 by cliveb @ 2021-05-10 07:50 | 1 | 2022-01-05 12:25 | EdLoach | Hi, I noticed you added the Swiss Farm farm shop in this changeset some time ago. Sticklegs is brewing again and Facebook suggests also based at this farm https://www.facebook.com/people/Sticklegs-Brewery/100029115386115/ and I wondered if you knew where by any chance? Thanks. Ed |
| 79413811 by OSC @ 2020-01-10 10:55 | 1 | 2021-11-18 16:06 | EdLoach | Interestingly (at least to me) the legislation has just caught up with the signage. The 8 tonne 1993 restriction officially became 7.5 tonnes on 15 November 2021! |
| 112277292 by confusedbuffalo @ 2021-10-08 18:19 | 1 | 2021-10-11 10:51 | EdLoach | But you left the state as Florida? I'll remove it... (PS - this is meant to be a jokey comment - thanks for fixing the postcode) |
| 2 | 2021-10-12 19:48 | confusedbuffalo ♦332 | I was clearly on a one track mind of postcodes, thanks for spotting and fixing | |
| 110755239 by Road5914 @ 2021-09-05 15:45 | 1 | 2021-09-06 16:37 | EdLoach | should your tag have been added to all the tags on the relation? https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7402504 |
| 105721764 by Robert Whittaker @ 2021-06-02 12:43 | 1 | 2021-07-05 14:32 | EdLoach | I just found this relation when I read in today's paper that the section between Maldon and Salcott is now open ("the 15th section to open" according to the article). Details are few however. "A 26.5 mile stretch running east from Maldon along the north bank of the river Blackwat... |
| 2 | 2021-07-05 14:46 | Robert Whittaker ♦273 | The bits I added were just from observations of newly installed signage on the ground. However, a quick Google has thrown up https://data.gov.uk/dataset/2cc04258-a5d4-4eea-823d-bf493aa31eef/england-coast-path-route , which might be usable. | |
| 74851495 by Ian Glen @ 2019-09-24 11:23 | 1 | 2021-06-03 13:33 | EdLoach | I'm not sure this footpath tunnels under the parish boundary (or under the stream, slightly south of here). |
| 2 | 2021-06-05 06:39 | Ian Glen ♦8 | typo corrected - reset to bridge (thx Ed) | |
| 104722166 by Jan Olieslagers @ 2021-05-15 09:02 | 1 | 2021-05-16 15:58 | EdLoach | You might like to check this way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/128124606/history and this note https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2638338#c5693546 |
| 2 | 2021-05-16 16:11 | Jan Olieslagers ♦201 | Ok, I will update other sources, then. Thank you very much for correct and polite exchange!(it is a nuisance that these satellite images always lag behind in time, this makes local information so much better than my poor armchair mapping!) | |
| 104361705 by cliveb @ 2021-05-08 11:45 | 1 | 2021-05-16 15:58 | EdLoach | You might like to add a comment to https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/104722166 |
| 101003228 by m_chelmsford @ 2021-03-14 18:34 | 1 | 2021-03-16 13:34 | EdLoach | Personally, I think this was unnecessary and makes maintenance harder. There are also various self-intersections in the invalid multipolygon you created, so the residential area no longer renders. I'll try and fix them. |
| 2 | 2021-03-16 14:42 | SK53 ♦864 | I'd like to second EdLoach here: only use multipolygons when necessary (holes or greater than several hundred nodes). They are very confusing for inexperienced mappers, easy to break (as seen here), and don't save space. Much better to share nodes between ways: particularly as you are usin... | |
| 3 | 2021-05-05 15:14 | EdLoach | I'm going to add landuse=residential back onto the outer way as the multipolygon relation has already been broken by someone deleting a construction area and also losing the outer way, which supports my harder maintenance prediction. | |
| 103339754 by AMonkster @ 2021-04-21 12:16 | 1 | 2021-04-21 14:14 | EdLoach | In some ways this is an unhelpful changeset as it wrongly drags the corners of one house to cover the two newly built ones as well, but it has at least brought to my attention that despite having surveyed the new builds that I have driven past twice today, and probably feature often on Mapillary, I ... |
| 102522054 by robyyen @ 2021-04-08 04:58 Active block | 1 | 2021-04-08 12:45 | EdLoach | Also reverting this for the secondary ways |
| 2 | 2021-04-17 15:29 | SomeoneElse_Revert ♦70,576 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103106631 where the changeset comment is: Following a request from HOT, reverting some poor quality edits. In this case, they have been contacted several times previously and even the most recent building edits still have problems. See... | |
| 102526918 by robyyen @ 2021-04-08 06:03 Active block | 1 | 2021-04-08 12:43 | EdLoach | also reverting this for the secondary ways that don't exist |
| 2 | 2021-04-17 15:29 | SomeoneElse_Revert ♦70,576 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103106631 where the changeset comment is: Following a request from HOT, reverting some poor quality edits. In this case, they have been contacted several times previously and even the most recent building edits still have problems. See... | |
| 102525392 by robyyen @ 2021-04-08 05:45 Active block | 1 | 2021-04-08 12:42 | EdLoach | Also reverting this for the secondary roads that don't exist |
| 2 | 2021-04-17 15:29 | SomeoneElse_Revert ♦70,576 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103106631 where the changeset comment is: Following a request from HOT, reverting some poor quality edits. In this case, they have been contacted several times previously and even the most recent building edits still have problems. See... | |
| 102520966 by robyyen @ 2021-04-08 04:42 Active block | 1 | 2021-04-08 12:41 | EdLoach | I will revert this for the fake secondary roads |
| 2 | 2021-04-17 15:29 | SomeoneElse_Revert ♦70,576 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103106631 where the changeset comment is: Following a request from HOT, reverting some poor quality edits. In this case, they have been contacted several times previously and even the most recent building edits still have problems. See... | |
| 102526276 by robyyen @ 2021-04-08 05:56 Active block | 1 | 2021-04-08 12:39 | EdLoach | I will revert this because of the imaginary secondary roads that have been added. |
| 2 | 2021-04-17 15:29 | SomeoneElse_Revert ♦70,576 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103106631 where the changeset comment is: Following a request from HOT, reverting some poor quality edits. In this case, they have been contacted several times previously and even the most recent building edits still have problems. See... | |
| 102512995 by chrish_m @ 2021-04-08 01:57 | 1 | 2021-04-08 12:11 | EdLoach | I'm going to revert this as it is adding trunk roads where there aren't any. |
| 2 | 2021-04-18 09:52 | SomeoneElse_Revert ♦70,576 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103129129 where the changeset comment is: Following a request from HOT, reverting some poor quality edits. In this case, the mapper has been contacted about their edits but problems still persist. | |
| 101191659 by cliveb @ 2021-03-17 13:11 | 1 | 2021-03-17 17:48 | EdLoach | Just a quick note to say I like what you're doing, though I'm not sure I have the patience. https://demo.f4map.com/#lat=51.9436718&lon=1.0833682&zoom=18 |
| 101143436 by Nathan_A_RF @ 2021-03-16 20:32 | 1 | 2021-03-17 09:19 | EdLoach | I'm reverting this changeset because merging the ways has messed up the PT v2 route relations that use this roundabout. |
| 100994459 by m_chelmsford @ 2021-03-14 15:30 | 1 | 2021-03-16 13:53 | EdLoach | And in this changeset you have an inner touching the outer, which I think in theory makes it invalid (though at least this one still seems to render). |
| 100125663 by CroftSmith @ 2021-02-28 07:58 | 1 | 2021-02-28 09:31 | BCNorwich ♦4,846 | Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.The fact that the track is private is not a valid reason to delete it from OSM. Almost all land in the UK is owned and therefore private, even land where there is a right of public access is private. I've thus reinstated the track as it can clearly be seen on im... |
| 2 | 2021-02-28 12:30 | CroftSmith ♦1 | Do you mark all driveways? It’s a driveway not a track. The neighbours house shows a “service road” which is semi correct, it is their driveway with services allowed to access for water/ power and communications maintenance. It is also not long enough on OSM as it doesn’t rea... | |
| 3 | 2021-02-28 15:14 | BCNorwich ♦4,846 | Hello, I've again reinstated the highway that you've twice deleted. I've sectioned the way splitting it at the residential boundary area. I've tagged the residential section as highway=service and service=driveway. I again separated the two areas abutting the track, this can clea... | |
| 4 | 2021-02-28 15:56 | CroftSmith ♦1 | From OSM “However, a road which is the primary access to a permanent residence or commercial property, such as residential driveways or industrial access roads, should be a highway=service or a higher road class“At least tag it as it is , a service road from one end to the other. I c... | |
| 5 | 2021-02-28 18:13 | BCNorwich ♦4,846 | Hi, I did tag the section of highway into The Croft grounds as highway=service and service=driveway as you yourself seemed to point this out.I've now tagged the north section as highway=service. For the record, the field originally had a footpath going across it so there may well be a righ... | |
| 6 | 2021-03-01 10:34 | EdLoach | More and more driveways are getting added to OpenStreetMap, especially longer ones, as delivery companies are adding them to help their drivers. Adding gates as Bernard suggests (and access=private - I've passed the south end of the drive when walking between the Wooden Fender and the Lion) wil... | |
| 99119437 by BrokenBoots65 @ 2021-02-11 16:20 | 1 | 2021-02-11 16:53 | EdLoach | Ooops. I see you added the missing bit back. I'll sort out my mess... |
| 99118319 by BrokenBoots65 @ 2021-02-11 15:57 | 1 | 2021-02-11 16:35 | EdLoach | It should be marked as private access if it is visible on aerial imagery. I will check and undelete if this is the case. |
| 2 | 2021-02-11 16:49 | EdLoach | OK, I can see the problem. There were footpath tags on what should only have been marked as abandoned railway. I have restored the abandoned railway without the footpath tags, so it should no longer show as a footpath, but won't be a gap in the former railway line route. | |
| 3 | 2021-02-11 16:51 | EdLoach | Welcome to OpenStreetMap by the way - it might not have been clear that the one way represented two different things, but the more you edit the more you'll learn. Feel free to ask my anything (if I don't know then I might know where to point you instead). Best wishes, Ed | |
| 96108186 by rswestling @ 2020-12-19 13:22 | 1 | 2020-12-19 16:58 | BCNorwich ♦4,846 | Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.As the footpath has been diverted it is not now a highway (unless it's still unofficially used). The tag highway=no has been used to indicate a removed path. I see from the definitive map that the roughly north to south section of footpath should be on the west ... |
| 2 | 2020-12-19 18:48 | rswestling ♦1 | Hi Bernard,I will confirm the current footpath and update the map when I do. The footpath I've indicated as closed must have been a recent change as you can see from the GPS traces, and from the aerial imagery, that people have been following this route. However, today, there is no bridge a... | |
| 3 | 2020-12-28 18:46 | EdLoach | Hi Robert, Welcome from me too. If you switch on the optional notes overlay you'll spot this note which probably relates to the diversion. https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1816071 I'm not entirely sure you're allowed to use the definitive map as a source, but the data is available ... | |
| 93612127 by rowena2611 @ 2020-11-05 15:45 | 1 | 2020-11-12 20:15 | IpswichMapper ♦24 | Why did you remove the "leisure=park" tag from Hilly Fields? Now it doesn't render properly in the OSM Carto |
| 2 | 2020-11-13 09:06 | EdLoach | Doing a bit of googling to find our more about the area, it should probably be leisure=nature_reserve rather than leisure=park | |
| 3 | 2020-11-13 13:55 | rowena2611 ♦3 | I dont believe it is a Nature Reserve though? I'll check again but believe it is a Local Wildlife Site and Scheduled Ancient Monument | |
| 4 | 2020-11-13 13:56 | rowena2611 ♦3 | See here: https://www.colchester.gov.uk/info/cbc-article/?catid=country-parks-and-local-nature-reserves&id=KA-01615 | |
| 5 | 2020-11-13 17:37 | EdLoach | Hilly Fields is a Local Nature Reserve and is included in the data available from https://data.gov.uk/dataset/acdf4a9e-a115-41fb-bbe9-603c819aa7f7/local-nature-reserves-england | |
| 6 | 2020-11-13 18:31 | rowena2611 ♦3 | OK, thanks, re-added. Odd that CBC doesn't acknowledge as such. | |
| 7 | 2020-11-13 18:56 | IpswichMapper ♦24 | It still doesn't render properly... what tag should be used to make it render? natural=wood? | |
| 8 | 2020-11-13 18:57 | IpswichMapper ♦24 | okay no, there are some open areas and some wooded areas. These can be marked seperately | |
| 9 | 2020-11-13 19:03 | IpswichMapper ♦24 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/94081487#map=13/51.8786/0.8636Added some "natural=wood" ways in wooded areas, and some "landuse=grass" ways over open areas. (Is the landuse=grass tag correct?) | |
| 10 | 2020-11-14 07:21 | EdLoach | I'd have been tempted to use natural=grassland within a nature reserve, though they get rendered the same. | |
| 11 | 2020-11-20 17:56 | Walk Colchester ♦1 | I agree, I think natural=grassland would be better in this context? | |
| 93077127 by Steven44 @ 2020-10-26 19:16 | 1 | 2020-10-28 17:33 | EdLoach | Hi. I'm curious why you removed the track that is still visible in aerial imagery. Marking the track as access=private would probably be better, as it is likely to just get added back at some point. |
| 2 | 2020-11-02 08:00 | BCNorwich ♦4,846 | Hi, Thanks for trying to correct the error by adding back a path. Unfortunately this wasn't quite correct. (Please if amendments are needed amend the original mapped features if possible, this keeps the way history.)I've removed your access=no path and reverted back to the features tha... | |
| 91785522 by EdLoach @ 2020-09-30 19:18 | 1 | 2020-09-30 19:24 | EdLoach | Found it (from the days before changesets, so this might not be numerically my lowest numbered changeset, but this is what I remember doing first, days before my GPS device arrived). https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161389 |
| 2 | 2020-09-30 19:32 | EdLoach | Found an earlier one. These were in the days when I hadn't realised you had to update the name on every section of road separately. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/131741 (also changes to the default map layer only got re-rendered weekly) | |
| 3 | 2020-09-30 19:35 | EdLoach | My lowest numbered changeset was about four months later https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/9129 by which time I'd done lots of GPS tracing and mapping of Clacton. | |
| 4 | 2020-09-30 19:36 | EdLoach | I should have checked https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?EdLoach first as that finds my first changeset 131741 as above much quicker than I did | |
| 5 | 2020-09-30 19:37 | EdLoach | I've just realised I've probably increased my discussed changeset count on the hdyc page by talking to myself here. | |
| 6 | 2020-10-01 20:07 | jambamkin ♦81 | Just bumped into this self comment stream of consciousness, really enjoyed it, thanks for all your contribution all this time. | |
| 90282430 by mundlk @ 2020-09-02 06:51 | 1 | 2020-09-21 13:26 | EdLoach | Did you want to answer this note? https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2355528 (Also looking at your source link, isn't the re-opening day midnight at the end of today, or earlier if the works are already complete?) |
| 2 | 2020-09-24 07:06 | mundlk ♦19 | Hi,Thanks for checking into our edits. Based on our driver feedback and the available sources, https://www.goringparishcouncil.gov.uk/news/upcoming-road-closures/ , I have added the construction tag #90282430 and reverted back #91236690 the edit post the mentioned dead line. I will be updating th... | |
| 90408196 by robbob700 @ 2020-09-04 10:09 | 1 | 2020-09-06 11:52 | EdLoach | Funnily enough while I saw this announced in the press last month (e.g. [1]), Beestons have not yet removed the route from TNDS (as at yesterday's update) so online bus route planners still show it as running (e.g. [2]).[1] https://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/hadleigh-colchester-bus-route-save... |
| 2 | 2020-09-07 08:39 | robbob700 ♦3 | Yes - quite a lot of the recent bus changes (e.g First Ipswich village links) are not yet correct on online journey planners. | |
| 90128049 by beatpoet @ 2020-08-29 18:56 | 1 | 2020-08-30 12:11 | EdLoach | Hi. Are you sure about the bus stop name change from Coopers End to Car Rental Village? All the opendata and timetables that include the stop still refer to it as Coopers End (they could of course be out of date if the change is recent). e.g. the 309 https://bustimes.org/services/309-bishops-stortfo... |
| 2 | 2020-08-30 12:34 | beatpoet ♦7 | I messed up, wrong bus stop, apologies! | |
| 85790082 by EdLoach @ 2020-05-26 20:09 | 1 | 2020-05-27 04:38 | Wynndale ♦52 | Are you sure they have gone permanently? |
| 2 | 2020-05-27 05:30 | EdLoach | No, but if they return I will re-add them. I try and check every Tuesday evening (or Wednesday) after the weekly opendata release. | |
| 3 | 2020-05-27 06:30 | EdLoach | I should probably add that the National Express file in the opendata seems to update on Saturday rather than Tuesday, so with me only checking weekly there may be a short delay (as there was with the removal). | |
| 4 | 2020-06-02 18:32 | EdLoach | 816 is back this week, but with different route variants to before the deletion. | |
| 84824446 by CjMalone @ 2020-05-07 10:16 | 1 | 2020-05-22 09:48 | EdLoach | This should be in the opposite corner, really. I might move it when I get a moment (I shop there quite often, though have never been to the café). |
| 2 | 2020-05-22 11:13 | CjMalone ♦233 | It would be awesome if you could place it more accurately. Thank you. | |
| 83147906 by cliveb @ 2020-04-06 13:09 | 1 | 2020-04-10 07:29 | EdLoach | Hi Cliveb, I'm afraid I don't know the iD editor well enough to say how easy this is to do, but we usually put house names in the addr:housename field rather than name - if you compare the current rendering to see the name stands out more than usual, and perhaps look at Bloomsbury House to... |
| 82213732 by CLC Essex @ 2020-03-15 10:40 | 1 | 2020-03-15 15:20 | user_5359 ♦19,351 | Welcome to OSM! Please have a look on the page https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Key:payment. What ist the meaning of your key payment:electronic_transfer ? |
| 2 | 2020-03-16 09:16 | EdLoach | I would have thought it would be one or more of the electronic transfer methods mentioned on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_funds_transfer which the key:payment wiki page seems pretty silent about. | |
| 3 | 2020-03-16 09:25 | EdLoach | To CLC Essex - your Facebook page looks like you run a business from home. Unless you don't mind people turning up to try and buy videos between 9am and 5pm any day of the week (based on current tagging) you might not want a physical shop location mapped in OpenStreetMap (OSM). (I say this havi... | |
| 82026240 by kanie69 @ 2020-03-10 22:49 | 1 | 2020-03-13 09:54 | EdLoach | Hi. I'm guessing this is a private pool from the imagery (I live near, pass regularly, and have never seen it advertised), so the wiki suggests adding access=private https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dswimming_pool - did you want to do this, or shall I? Best wishes, Ed |
| 74526721 by Ian Glen @ 2019-09-16 11:30 | 1 | 2020-01-30 15:09 | EdLoach | Is it definitely two kissing gates? When I last walked it it was stiles - https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/nn9nEzVdY07t0QAlixC8hQ |
| 2 | 2020-03-10 08:58 | EdLoach | Hi Ian, The earlier message was probably this changeset comment. I still mean to get back and have a look (as I did at the weekend when someone mentioned a railway crossing nearer Thorpe-le-Soken now has dog gates. https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/RuUlGnrZ94dxEHUI2MFtiw | |
| 3 | 2020-03-27 08:58 | Ian Glen ♦8 | Hi Ed:Your changeset comment as a map assocated with it, showing Weeley Footpath 8. My original request however refers to Great Clacton FP 25. This level crossing is very unusual. I simply did not know how to represent it on OSM. At this time of Coronavirus, I am not going to be able to check ... | |
| 81550764 by Mauls @ 2020-02-27 13:54 | 1 | 2020-02-27 16:27 | EdLoach | Some of those buildings you just added need removing again... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-51586370 |
| 80576701 by brianh @ 2020-02-05 08:48 | 1 | 2020-02-27 15:06 | EdLoach | This changeset has caused an infinite loop in my boundary validation routine because Killerry and Killnummery are both members of each other. Is that correct? They are both members of Killenumery https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10728329 |
| 2 | 2020-09-14 13:16 | SomeoneElse ♦13,362 | Like buses, you wait ages and then several turn up at once :)This sort of issue (in a different country!) was recently raised at https://github.com/osm-search/Nominatim/issues/1941#issuecomment-691426922 and https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2020-September/030986.html . | |
| 80476807 by Steve Goodey @ 2020-02-03 12:08 | 1 | 2020-02-06 11:23 | EdLoach | Hi Steve. The story in today's Gazette about the window stickers suggest that the Halal butchers counter is just part of the store, though I've not seen the store itself. Ed |
| 2 | 2020-02-06 12:49 | Steve Goodey ♦4 | Hello Ed,Good point. I had originally put it down as a supermarket but then went for butchers after seeing the Fresh Meat & Poultry and Halal signs on the photo I took. But on second thoughts you're right. I've now changed it.Regards Steve. | |
| 79297453 by LtTempletonPeck @ 2020-01-07 14:21 | 1 | 2020-01-07 14:41 | EdLoach | Hi and welcome to openstreetmap. I'm guessing from the node history that the cycle barrier is on the path rather than the road so should have been on a separate node on the path rather than the node where the path joins the road. If you agree it might be worth adding a new node to the path (whe... |
| 79079536 by CjMalone @ 2020-01-01 12:20 | 1 | 2020-01-02 10:54 | EdLoach | Thanks |
| 78398075 by MacLondon @ 2019-12-14 02:44 | 1 | 2019-12-21 13:00 | EdLoach | Thank you. After splitting the roundabout after someone merged it I was going to get around to fixing the routes. I just went to do so and found you got there first. I'd be interested to know how you spotted them? |
| 2 | 2019-12-21 17:18 | MacLondon ♦215 | Errors with routes tagged with "public_transport:version=2" get highlighted athttp://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=pubtrans_routes&lon=0.57186&lat=51.71202&zoom=12&overlays=ptv2_routes_invalid,ptv2_error_ways. 'Errors' would include gaps and misordering of route... | |
| 3 | 2019-12-21 18:02 | EdLoach | Thanks. I think all routes that stop at any bus stops in the Tendring, Colchester or Maldon district have all been updated to v2 - I wrote a validation tool to compared what is in OSM (at v2) to what is in the Open Datasets and I try to run it every week or so to check for changes. Today I got aroun... | |
| 78643636 by FireChris @ 2019-12-19 14:57 | 1 | 2019-12-19 14:59 | EdLoach | Are you sure these are correct? |
| 2 | 2019-12-19 15:27 | EdLoach | Sorry. I meant to say "Welcome to OpenStreetMap". Festival Gardens looked a bit big, so I shrank it to what the background imagery is more reasonable. The other one seemed to be over an area of houses so I have removed it for now. If there is anything I can do to help let me know. | |
| 3 | 2019-12-22 17:51 | rskedgell ♦1,467 | @EdLoach probably "inspired" by Pokémon Go. Your corrections were undone in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/78703818 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/78703848 (I've reverted the latter). | |
| 76445611 by joshuaowen @ 2019-10-31 11:35 | 1 | 2019-11-04 12:21 | trigpoint ♦2,372 | Hi JoshuaThis edit looks a bit odd, have these barriers been removed and there is no longer a height restriction here?Cheers Phil |
| 2 | 2019-11-06 10:18 | joshuaowen ♦4 | i have added a height restriction inas it was down as a barrier it was showing that cars cannot pass through so for our purpose of open street map it was adding on an excess of 5 miles to every journeyThe height restriction is more correct and will still allow our mapping to work and allow v... | |
| 3 | 2019-11-06 13:00 | Richard ♦220 | Joshua - you need to fix your router. Blacklisting barrier=* will fail unexpectedly in lots of other places: for example, the edges of central London had anti-terrorist barriers (actually just little checkpoint booths) which were tagged as barrier=checkpoint nodes for many months.The only way to... | |
| 4 | 2019-11-07 08:39 | EdLoach | "as it was down as a barrier it was showing that cars cannot pass through" - I suspect the motor_vehicle=yes tag on the nodes should have been enough for your router to allow cars past. Though I've not written a router like Richard has, so defer to his greater experience. | |
| 72567939 by Ian Glen @ 2019-07-23 16:43 | 1 | 2019-09-12 09:28 | EdLoach | Thank you for adding the references. Once I spotted Great Bentley FP5 had had the reference added I used overpass turbo to find FP4 so I could add this note - https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1922237#map=17/51.85771/1.05273&layers=N |
| 74152882 by sedman @ 2019-09-05 23:23 | 1 | 2019-09-06 18:05 | EdLoach | You're confusing routes and route variants. I now have three route variants to restore as the route has 5 variants, not the two you've left. |
| 73977299 by Jamie Martindale @ 2019-09-01 16:37 | 1 | 2019-09-02 12:12 | EdLoach | Is this really a pub? I can't find anything about it on the web, including WhatPub. Also, can you confirm whether the Crown opposite this new pub is permanently closed as https://whatpub.com/pubs/ROT/285/crown-wath-upon-dearne suggests? |
| 73862530 by ThorringtonScoutCamp @ 2019-08-29 02:51 | 1 | 2019-08-29 07:07 | BCNorwich ♦4,846 | Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.The camp site is a fairly large area/complex. Is it possible to draw the whole area? If you could send me a map I could draw it in.Regards Bernard. |
| 2 | 2019-08-29 07:40 | EdLoach | I'm surprised I mapped it as a node in the first place - my son has been here annually with beavers, cubs and most recently scouts. I've also picked him up from Thriftwood https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/126303332 which is also mapped as a private access camp site, but as an area. The no... | |
| 3 | 2019-08-29 08:46 | EdLoach | I've found it and made a start. Might take a few iterations to sort out, but for now have put the campsite tags on the area and the address tags on the reception building (so things like OsmAnd will guide to the building). Have also added the car park. | |
| 4 | 2019-08-29 08:58 | BCNorwich ♦4,846 | Hi Ed, Nice work, it'll be a lot better for everyone now. | |
| 68562208 by Steve Goodey @ 2019-03-26 20:17 | 1 | 2019-07-08 16:29 | EdLoach | Now more than possible... https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/17755689.new-coffee-shop-opening-saturday-staff-giving-away-200-free-coffees/ |
| 2 | 2019-07-08 21:07 | Steve Goodey ♦4 | Thanks Ed, amended. | |
| 71363351 by GaryDug1 @ 2019-06-18 12:03 | 1 | 2019-06-18 15:56 | EdLoach | Hi and welcome to OpenStreetMap. The node you've added seems to have been added right on the junction. If you could make sure you have background imagery of buildings switched on you could drag it to the right place as it isn't currently clear which building is Tudor Court. |
| 54392451 by BCNorwich @ 2017-12-06 07:26 | 1 | 2019-06-14 09:36 | EdLoach | I walked past here the other day, though wasn't paying much attention. I think though that "The Fountain" is a drinking fountain rather than an ornamental one. See e.g. https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/5489592.frinton-fountain-is-taking-shape/ I wondered if it needed tagging differ... |
| 67747021 by Greenpedal @ 2019-03-03 20:43 | 1 | 2019-03-04 08:57 | EdLoach | Hi - you might have seen a comment I made on one of your notes, but welcome to Openstreetmap. I don't get to Walton as often as I like (from Clacton) so keeping the shops updated usually requires a special trip. As you point out in https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/62818281 this is out of date,... |
| 66686506 by Road5914 @ 2019-01-27 20:30 | 1 | 2019-01-28 14:30 | EdLoach | Hi,I realise it has been over 6 years since I updated this way: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/143765773/history but my photograph of the sign on this junction was definitely black on white, not yellow on green, so the road definitely wasn't trunk (by OSM definition) back then. Have you ... |
| 55075960 by mboeringa @ 2018-01-01 13:35 | 1 | 2019-01-09 23:32 | SK53 ♦864 | I wonder why you chose to change tourism from attraction (which whilst not precise is accurate) to chalet which clearly is incorrect? |
| 2 | 2019-01-09 23:58 | mboeringa ♦49 | Hi,You should not confuse the OSM tourism=chalet tag with the "mountain" type chalets in the Alps, it is not the same, which in OSM are either tourism=alpine_hut for remote ones, or tourism=apartment for more luxurious "ski-village" type accommodation.Have you found time ... | |
| 3 | 2019-01-10 10:53 | EdLoach | Your reply seems to suggest that tourism=chalet might be appropriate on the individual buildings within the park, but not for the whole park (however they tag it in the Netherlands). tourism=attraction is more suitable for the whole park. | |
| 4 | 2019-01-10 11:34 | SK53 ♦864 | @mboeringa: no I have no confusion about what tourism=chalet means, and as EdLoach says applying it to a whole holiday park is stretching its meaning way beyond what either the wiki or general UK mapping practices. Changing the meaning of a tag from this is a holiday home to this is a site with lots... | |
| 5 | 2019-01-10 17:47 | mboeringa ♦49 | Hi Ed and SK53,As to part of the local differences of UK versus Netherlands: I think this may boil down to this type of luxury holiday park only relatively recently being introduced in the UK and still being uncommon, thus special enough to classify as touristic attraction. Here in the Netherlan... | |
| 6 | 2019-01-10 18:57 | SK53 ♦864 | Sherwood Forest CenterParcs was opened about 1990-91, as was the Longleat one. A friend of mine did the location planning. The whole CenterParcs business was owned by Scottish & Newcastle Breweries by the mid-1990s (their head office was a short distance away at Belle Eau park in Bilsthorpe at ... | |
| 7 | 2019-01-10 22:36 | mboeringa ♦49 | Well, yes, but this conversation could also have started with something like: "Thank you for the work you did on the Sherwood Holiday park (I actually changed and fixed quite a lot more than just this single tag), but we in the UK have our own local customs regarding tagging of holiday parks, a... | |
| 65264818 by EdLoach @ 2018-12-07 11:04 | 1 | 2018-12-23 13:24 | robert ♦234 | Think you managed to remove the name "Peacehaven" in this edit, breaking a match: https://ris.dev.openstreetmap.org/oslmusicalchairs/map?osl_id=579509Deliberate? |
| 2 | 2018-12-23 13:52 | EdLoach | Yes. I don't think it was ever the name of the service road, despite me adding it originally. It was the name of the building that was demolished and replaced by what is now Cooper Lodge (which has a Pole Barn Lane address). | |
| 65312383 by homeheatuk @ 2018-12-09 11:31 | 1 | 2018-12-09 12:55 | EdLoach | You seem to have added a node, which is probably the way to add your business, and a large area covering many roads, which will need removing. However you also reference a website for your business which shows a completely different address, on this road https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/130518594 |
| 2 | 2018-12-09 13:03 | EdLoach | Edit: I removed the area. If you work from home for the company on the website you used, I would suggest mapping the business address not yours, unless you want people knocking on your door trying to find a plumber. | |
| 63961193 by peaceloveunity @ 2018-10-28 22:02 | 1 | 2018-10-29 09:30 | EdLoach | Hi, and welcome to OSM. I can't find any mention of a Brook Spring near Lawford anywhere online and wondered how you know about it/where I can find more information? Best wishes. Ed |
| 2 | 2018-10-29 10:26 | peaceloveunity ♦1 | Hi ed. yes sadly springs in this area are not well documented, and have virtually no online presence, but still thrive in local knowledge. A very nice spring next to the brook, hence the name, with steps leading down. Lovely water. | |
| 3 | 2018-10-29 15:01 | EdLoach | Thanks. Is it accessible to everyone, as it looks a bit like it is in the garden of The Glade. I'd be interested in going to see it if I can. | |
| 4 | 2018-10-29 17:42 | peaceloveunity ♦1 | Yep its accessible. Just off the road. A layby space for a car to pull over next to it aswell. Yeah do! | |
| 59920060 by ADepic @ 2018-06-17 17:52 | 1 | 2018-06-26 15:59 | EdLoach | Funnily enough after commenting on one of your notes earlier I'll be visiting here for their open evening this evening. From when I visited the Science Open Day I think they have parking on the rear school playground with access from Creffield Road (if that is the case this evening I'll ad... |
| 2 | 2018-06-26 15:59 | EdLoach | Though for the open day we used the park and ride, so I wasn't paying much attention to the parking arrangements. | |
| 3 | 2018-06-26 17:05 | ADepic ♦3 | Should I delete the departments? It seems to private of information to me | |
| 4 | 2018-06-27 16:51 | EdLoach | I think that should be fine. There are places in the world mapped in more detail. See for example the section on Indoor Mapping on the openstreetmap wiki, and this example which has got every room number on every floor mapped - https://openlevelup.net/?l=0#21/50.77931/6.07464 | |
| 58816349 by Felixstowe's Community Nature Reserve @ 2018-05-09 11:06 | 1 | 2018-05-09 12:10 | BCNorwich ♦4,846 | Hello and Welcome to OpenStreetMap.OpenStreetMap represents physical features on the ground (e.g., roads or buildings) using tags attached to its basic data structures (its nodes, ways, and relations). Each tag describes a geographic attribute of the feature being shown by that specific node, wa... |
| 2 | 2018-05-09 13:12 | EdLoach | I'll say 'hi' too, and add that you might find that https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/ allows you to maintain a database of your own which is overlaid on top of Openstreetmap maps - we use it locally to monitor notes of what needs re-surveying - https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/ten... | |
| 58193043 by EdLoach @ 2018-04-18 08:29 | 1 | 2018-04-18 22:02 | ndm ♦889 | Was there clear external signage when you surveyed this? |
| 2 | 2018-04-19 09:08 | EdLoach | I'm not sure why you are asking me - I just made the edit for the company that are based there as they only seemed to be able to leave a note. You should be asking them as the people who "did the survey". | |
| 3 | 2018-04-19 19:22 | ndm ♦889 | A number of "spam" notes have been added to Bristol in the past. I would expect even if arm chair mapping it would be advisable to check mapilliary or other open sources -- otherwise you can't determine whether the "office" occupies the whole building, or is simply a mai... | |
| 4 | 2018-04-20 07:56 | EdLoach | You have a point, but perfect can be the enemy of the good. We've gone from knowing of no businesses in the building to having one mapped. If it turns out there are more then we can add them later. Don't forget from https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Disclaimer "The maps are an itera... | |
| 57278233 by bigfatfrog67 @ 2018-03-17 23:04 | 1 | 2018-04-16 12:15 | EdLoach | You changed a Londis to a Spar in this changeset, which was only mapped as a Londis 4 months ago and which now has a note added saying Spar should be Londis https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1361788 - I wondered when your survey (mentioned in the changeset source tags) was done? |
| 2 | 2018-04-16 17:52 | bigfatfrog67 ♦8 | I don't remember the exact date but it was a few days before my changeset, my notes were audio so I would have noted the name of the shop that way. I have no memory of what the shop was now so either I got it wrong or it's changed since? | |
| 57866464 by Tain82 @ 2018-04-06 14:05 | 1 | 2018-04-06 15:09 | EdLoach | Hi. Welcome to OpenStreetMap. You accidentally changed a residential landuse that covers roughly all of Witham with a park. I've changed it back. I don't know the area well enough to comment on the other changes, though aerial imagery suggests you could add a playground in the middle of th... |
| 41461983 by ecatmur @ 2016-08-15 07:33 | 1 | 2018-03-26 16:17 | EdLoach | The traffic lights on the underpass seem to have been a little premature - this newspaper article describes them as long awaited (but still not there) http://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/16110107.New_underpass_is_long_term_plan_for_traffic_gridlock/ so I'll remove them. |
| 2 | 2018-03-26 16:36 | ecatmur ♦34 | Yes, please do - don't know how I got the idea that they had put traffic lights in. | |
| 57147068 by BCBRENDA @ 2018-03-13 14:20 | 1 | 2018-03-13 14:26 | EdLoach | Hi, Can you link to a website about this park? The latest imagery available suggests it has a newish industrial unit and associated parking on it. |
| 56893153 by MattAnsellUK @ 2018-03-05 07:41 | 1 | 2018-03-05 16:47 | EdLoach | Hi Matt, I removed these two supermarket nodes as Lidl and Aldi are already mapped as areas. Let me know if you've got any questions. Best wishes, Ed |
| 56403378 by MacLondon @ 2018-02-16 05:21 | 1 | 2018-02-26 17:00 | SK53 ♦864 | The relation of NCN Cycleways has every appearance of a category. Not only is this unnecessary (Sustrans routes can readily be retrieved by other means), but generally they are heavily frowned on in OSM, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Relations_are_not_Categories. I wonder why you... |
| 2 | 2018-02-28 22:05 | EdLoach | Looks like SK53 beat me to it - I wondered why NCN150 had been added to a category type relation. I'd also be interested in an answer. | |
| 3 | 2018-03-01 00:30 | MacLondon ♦215 | Point taken and understood. I've now deleted the relation. | |
| 4 | 2018-03-01 12:46 | SK53 ♦864 | You can make sure things are properly tagged to make them easy to find en masse. For instance cycle_network=National Cycle Network, network=ncn and operator=Sustrans might be appropriate for NCN routes, but do check current usage. Normally I would use overpass-turbo to find the set. | |
| 55951654 by Mauls @ 2018-02-01 01:07 | 1 | 2018-02-19 14:06 | EdLoach | Can you explain what this changeset does exactly? For example deleting the two ways that were by Harwich station and replacing them with https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/557513772/history#map=19/51.94426/1.28728 has broken all the route variants that start or end at the station stop. |
| 54322779 by openstreetmapforPokemon @ 2017-12-04 09:12 | 1 | 2017-12-04 09:33 | EdLoach | Do Chislet Park and Bredlands Park exist? On aerial imagery they look more like school grounds. Perhaps you can point me at a website that mentions them? You've also damaged the shape of the Spires Academy area http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/161484452 which is what made me ask about the parks... |
| 2 | 2017-12-06 08:16 | BCNorwich ♦4,846 | Welcome to OpenStreetMap.Unfortunately your additions look to be obvious fiction, especially considering the changeset comment. On top of this the manner of the additions has caused damage to existing features. With respect I would advise reverting this changeset, your response is awaited.Rega... | |
| 3 | 2017-12-06 16:42 | EdLoach | I have reverted this changeset and 54329859 as Bing really doesn't look like the added parks are parks. This will also undo the damage to Spires Academy. As BCNorwich says, welcome to OpenStreetMap and if you want any help making valid edits let us know or ask questions at help.openstreetmap.or... | |
| 27017266 by WSI Yorkshire @ 2014-11-25 09:36 | 1 | 2014-11-25 11:42 | EdLoach | Hi. You seem to have added yourself as a node in the middle of the road. You probably should add yourself as a node (or area) to one side of the road, with the tag office=it (from http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:office ). If you use the background imagery to draw around your office to add you... |
| 2 | 2017-11-14 10:00 | Harry Wood ♦100 | I guess we can delete this node now http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3204292660#map=19/53.56704/-1.80067 .On the web that business seems to no longer exist. The website wsiyorkshire.co.uk redirects to something else with no Holmfirth address. | |
| 3 | 2017-11-14 10:18 | EdLoach | I've removed the tags. | |
| 53170042 by brianboru @ 2017-10-23 07:30 | 1 | 2017-11-13 15:19 | EdLoach | Hi Brian, Did you change the old Railway Drive back to unclassified because construction traffic can use it as well as bicycles? I notice you've added a note on one section that it is closed. http://www.wolverhampton.gov.uk/article/10481/Road-to-reopen-to-further-improve-new-access-to-railway-s... |
| 2 | 2017-11-14 16:24 | brianboru ♦158 | Hi EdThere were no access restrictions on the road which is why I changed it back. There was a "Road Closed" sign which you could easily drive around for access so I thought it best to leave it as unclassified until the position clarifies itslelf ( there's also access to the Briti... | |
| 53599624 by iretonroadgarage @ 2017-11-08 05:13 | 1 | 2017-11-08 09:12 | EdLoach | Hi. Welcome to OpenStreetMap. I've added a couple more tags to the node you added which I think should make it appear (shop=car_repair and service=repair;tyres based on your website). If you've any questions I can help with then let me know. Best wishes, Ed |
| 45605262 by Steve Goodey @ 2017-01-28 22:00 | 1 | 2017-08-09 11:23 | EdLoach | "to be" could now be "is being" (or perhaps just remove the name tags? http://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/15458379.Demolition_begins_on_town_centre_eyesore_buildings/ |
| 2 | 2017-08-10 07:51 | Steve Goodey ♦4 | Thanks. About time this area got used. | |
| 45721780 by goalkingcol @ 2017-02-01 17:15 | 1 | 2017-07-06 13:55 | EdLoach | Hi. I retagged three houses, such as this one http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/471160804/history and a tree http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4653285972/history and thought I'd mention it in case you wanted to add any more. Best wishes, Ed |
| 49769444 by Martin Wynne @ 2017-06-23 12:25 | 1 | 2017-06-23 14:23 | trigpoint ♦2,372 | Hi Martin, is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/502622232 really a park? It looks a very odd place for a park, and aerial imagery suggests it isn't.Also it is bad practice to join areas such as this to the centreline of roads. The area will end at the edge and should be mapped as such.Che... |
| 2 | 2017-06-23 15:34 | Martin Wynne ♦15 | Hi Phil,I use "park" for any public green space with trees or shrubs, because there doesn't seem to be any other designation available. I have noticed the same used in lots of other places on OSM. "Grass" is ok for plain grass, but this clearly isn't that - see: http... | |
| 3 | 2017-06-23 17:02 | chillly ♦819 | mapping landuse boundaries to the centre lines of roads is not good practice. Your explanation sounds good, but in practice we don't do it. Creating a map image is only one use of OSM data and whatever your renderer of choice does to make the result neatest is not a good justification. A park, ... | |
| 4 | 2017-06-23 17:12 | EdLoach | Personally I'd have mapped it as an area of (mostly) grass and perhaps added an occasional natural=tree node (similarly when I mark an area as wood or forest I don't usually map holes for every clearing in the trees). I also don't like to think about the amount of time I've had t... | |
| 5 | 2017-06-23 17:17 | trigpoint ♦2,372 | Please do not tag for the render, a park should only be used for area that are really parks. Mapping is not about making something appear a particular colour on one particular renderer. If I had brought my grandkids here because OSM says there is a park then they and I will be pretty pissed off.Fr... | |
| 6 | 2017-06-23 17:24 | Martin Wynne ♦15 | Hi Ed, You wrote " (in this case I'd have probably extended the residential area across the residential roads to the edge of the grass area)."This surely illustrates my point - a road is no more a residential area than it is a park.I found this on the Wiki: "If you choose... | |
| 7 | 2017-06-23 17:24 | trigpoint ♦2,372 | Hi MartinI forgot to say we do not have permission to use g.maps so please do not look at it, use it to check something, use it to illustrate something. Mapping must be done from what you have seen by being there, imagery we have permission to use, and out of copyright maps and information. | |
| 8 | 2017-06-23 17:33 | Martin Wynne ♦15 | Hi Phil,It is clearly not scrub. There is a suggestion on the Wiki to make it village_green for public green space, but that doesn't sound right here.If you want to visit a proper municipal park, it is likely to have a name, such as "Jubilee Gardens" or whatever.p.s. I hav... | |
| 9 | 2017-06-23 17:43 | Martin Wynne ♦15 | p.s. I have been there. I use Google Streetview only to confirm my memory of what I saw. Mostly I use OS OpenData to align buildings, water-courses, etc. Also the NLS 25K maps are very useful. The Bing aerial is very poor quality for seeing details.Will the NLS 25" historic maps ever be ava... | |
| 49483021 by Jarogo @ 2017-06-12 22:03 | 1 | 2017-06-13 07:55 | EdLoach | Hi. Out of curiosity, how do residents get past the bus gates to reach their homes? They used to have oneway access from the south I think. It might also be worth considering marking the nodes you've edited as barrier=gate as well as naming them Bus Gate. |
| 44060982 by SiHollett @ 2016-11-30 14:14 | 1 | 2016-11-30 18:50 | trigpoint ♦2,372 | Hi, what is the source of these reference numbers, and do you have permisson to use them?Also I assume they are not verifiable on the ground so should be in admin_ref rather than ref. A satnav telling a driver to turn left into UX2 will be both confusing and annoying.Cheers Phil |
| 2 | 2016-11-30 19:36 | SiHollett ♦12 | 1) source - https://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/media/28177/List-of-classified-roads/pdf/JW-LIST_OF_CLASSIFIED_ROADS.pdf2) there's zero copyright on the document (and it's illegal for it's data to not be accessible to the public), though I should have sourced it3) there's masse... | |
| 3 | 2016-11-30 19:49 | SomeoneElse ♦13,362 | Ahem. I'd suggest that your paragraph (2) could probably benefit from a bit of wider discussion - I'd suggest that talk-gb list https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb for that - it's where youll probably find the widest audience of GB mappers.Re (3) it's definitely w... | |
| 4 | 2016-12-01 07:39 | Richard ♦220 | Just because a document doesn't have a copyright notice on it doesn't mean it's uncopyrighted, I'm afraid. Quite the opposite- copyright subsists unless expressly disclaimed. Second, a document being "accessible" has no bearing on its copyright status. Third, as... | |
| 5 | 2016-12-01 09:03 | SiHollett ♦12 | "ref= means the same thing the world over: let's not add a needless exception for one country."Which is to include references that aren't signed with ref= tags. Unless Hungary, Estonia, Ukraine, Russia, Bulgaria, Switzerland, Albania and all the other countries that include eve... | |
| 6 | 2016-12-01 09:55 | SomeoneElse ♦13,362 | @SiHollett Your comments above seem to suggest that you believe that you and you alone have the correct answer - everyone else who disagrees with you must be wrong or somehow unenlightened. If only life was so simple - n the real world there are different views that need to be taken on board and di... | |
| 7 | 2016-12-01 13:12 | SiHollett ♦12 | "Your comments above seem to suggest that you believe that you and you alone have the correct answer"Not at all - that's you guys demanding that only you have the right version of true and that I conform to it. If you actually held to the idea that there's different versions of... | |
| 8 | 2016-12-01 13:19 | SomeoneElse ♦13,362 | > you refuse to handle it personally,No - go back and read it again. | |
| 9 | 2016-12-01 13:53 | SiHollett ♦12 | "Finally, speaking as someone who creates maps for my own satnav based on OSM data, how am I supposed to make it know which refs are signed and which not?"This reads like 'I, personally, don't deal with it as I'm clueless and must get other people to do that for me, rely... | |
| 10 | 2016-12-01 14:24 | SomeoneElse ♦13,362 | Seriously - when you've got three people suggesting that you might want to reconsider what you're doing, just how unable-to-consider-alternate-points-of-view do you have to be to think "I'm right; evereyone else is wrong".If you'd actually read the links I provided ab... | |
| 11 | 2016-12-01 14:58 | SiHollett ♦12 | "Seriously - when you've got three people suggesting that you might want to reconsider what you're doing, just how unable-to-consider-alternate-points-of-view do you have to be to think "I'm right; evereyone else is wrong"."So, hang on, so beyond having not one... | |
| 12 | 2016-12-02 14:54 | Mike Baggaley ♦630 | Looking at Lees Road (way 23111785 and adjoining), the U prefix reference suggests this is a tertiary road, but the highway tag has secondary in it, so either the ref tag or the highway tag is incorrect. Can you please either put a B road ref or change highway to tertiary?Thanks,Mike | |
| 13 | 2016-12-02 15:20 | SomeoneElse ♦13,362 | @Mike Baggaley - I think you mean https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4275498 (I keep doing that too!) | |
| 14 | 2016-12-02 15:59 | SiHollett ♦12 | Mike, any reason why you couldn't do it? surely it would have taken less time for you to do it than to ask me to?also, why am I responsible, when someone else erroneously made it secondary, rather than tertiary?Anyway, I've changed it, though I have no idea why I'm being so ni... | |
| 15 | 2016-12-02 16:32 | Mike Baggaley ♦630 | Thanks for that, Si. I am not local to the area so don't know anything about the road, other than that it failed my check of secondary roads with a ref beginning with something other than a B, so I had no way of knowing which tag was incorrect. As the last change to the road was to set its ref,... | |
| 16 | 2016-12-02 16:37 | SiHollett ♦12 | OK, thanks Mike, that makes sense | |
| 17 | 2017-05-11 13:30 | EdLoach | I just stumbled across UX6 and wondered why ref has been used in place of official_ref - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:official_ref but see there has been discussion already. It looks like we're being left to correct them as we find them? | |
| 46604858 by Jürgen Birner @ 2017-03-05 19:52 | 1 | 2017-03-06 08:33 | EdLoach | Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap. I don't remember there being any car dealers here - do you have the business name that could be added? Best wishes, Ed |
| 46465206 by KNB @ 2017-02-28 11:31 | 1 | 2017-02-28 13:30 | EdLoach | Hi. I noticed you added this house http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/477667758 on top of this building http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/459221181 - I personally would have split the building into two houses so I could add address details to each, rather than draw a new house over the top, a bit like ... |
| 45655235 by kfhgohoht @ 2017-01-30 15:36 | 1 | 2017-01-30 16:25 | EdLoach | Hi. Welcome to OpenStreetMap. I've reverted this changeset as it looks like doodles and quite often new editors aren't aware that their saved changes are visible to all users rather than just themselves. If you want any help let me know, or ask on either help.openstreetmap.org forums, #osm... |
| 45575509 by subzero598 @ 2017-01-27 21:33 | 1 | 2017-01-30 09:59 | EdLoach | Hi and welcome to OSM. If you want the park to show in OpenStreetMap it would be better drawn as an area, rather than as a single node, as it is visible on the Bing imagery available in the editors (combined with your local knowledge to make up for the lack of resolution). You could also trace the c... |
| 45564826 by Bignelly18 @ 2017-01-27 16:01 | 1 | 2017-01-27 16:51 | EdLoach | Hi and welcome to OpenStreetMap. For a first edit you've done better than many, but I thought I'd mention that the footpath you've added doesn't meet the roads at either end, so won't be usable for walking directions. You can perhaps see this best in this link http://www.ope... |
| 45534536 by Smurg @ 2017-01-26 23:20 | 1 | 2017-01-27 01:21 | EdLoach | Welcome to OSM. I've removed your doodle as your edits are live in the main database. If you want some help learning to edit the iD tutorial is pretty good, which you might already have tried, else try reading help.osm.org, wiki.osm.org or try asking in say #osm irc channel. |
| 45536945 by RoamingWild @ 2017-01-27 01:01 | 1 | 2017-01-27 01:16 | EdLoach | I've removed this as you've drawn it over a house, so can't be in the correct place. |
| 45471107 by pole_climber @ 2017-01-25 10:49 | 1 | 2017-01-25 11:51 | EdLoach | I think the road signs only permit them to drive to their homes from Via Urbis Romanae. They can cycle, walk, taxi or bus from the other side. https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/cBX_-mVnzh_Jk_Gm0a8FNw |
| 2 | 2017-01-25 12:07 | pole_climber ♦8 | I was unsure how those living in the short section between the Roundabout and Podium Close would access their homes. It looks like actually their garages are behind the houses so I'll remove the motor vehicle flag accordingly. | |
| 45104254 by chrisllarkin @ 2017-01-12 13:43 | 1 | 2017-01-12 17:15 | EdLoach | Hi Chris, Welcome to OpenStreetMap. I'm going to change Green Lane back to a track, which is what it is physically. It also has the designation=public_footpath tag on it to mark that it is a public footpath - I'm not sure how clear that is in iD editor that you used. Any questions let me k... |
| 44417703 by Essex_Boy @ 2016-12-15 09:02 | 1 | 2016-12-15 13:23 | EdLoach | Can you not make changes based on aerial imagery, please? This former farmland has been earmarked for housing, hence the greenfield tags. I'll put them back |
| 3675848 by EdLoach @ 2010-01-21 16:11 | 1 | 2016-10-05 12:12 | SK53 ♦864 | You might want to review if all these peaks are really peaks sometime :-) |
| 2 | 2016-10-05 12:35 | EdLoach | Switching to cycle map layer (for contours) it looks like many are, and some are slightly off. Source originally was one of these layers: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Haiti/VectorAndMapData#Public_Domain_CIA_Maps | |
| 3 | 2016-10-05 12:35 | EdLoach | Quite a few are slightly off, even | |
| 42405283 by EdLoach @ 2016-09-24 13:39 | 1 | 2016-09-25 11:08 | Aleks-Berlin ♦481 | please do not use empty keys, like ""="text".I fixed 2 buildings from this changeset. thanks, Alexander |
| 2 | 2016-09-26 07:29 | EdLoach | I'll blame the new version of Vespucci. Thanks for letting me know - I'll watch out for it happening in future. | |
| 42350670 by driftraf @ 2016-09-22 15:16 | 1 | 2016-09-23 12:42 | EdLoach | Hi there. I notice you've changed the name of St Andrew's Avenue to Clingoe Hill (which was already tagged as an alternative name in the alt_name I think, e.g. http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/327609649/history ). Has the road name been officially changed? The only street name signs I was ... |
| 35587736 by EdLoach @ 2015-11-26 10:04 | 1 | 2016-09-22 13:27 | GinaroZ ♦1,280 | Hi, noticed you added http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/198726298/ as shop=bistro - should this not be amenity=restaurant instead? |
| 2 | 2016-09-22 14:46 | EdLoach | Quite possibly. One of my earlier attempts at editing using Vespucci and it looks like I amended from shop=alcohol to shop=bistro to worry about later (then forgot). I've changed it to a restaurant until I'm next out that way to check whether café might be more suitable. | |
| 41368883 by Steve Goodey @ 2016-08-10 14:37 | 1 | 2016-09-20 13:32 | EdLoach | There's efficient - the Gazette reports that Taco Bell opens today and I went to see if the former Fabric 8 shop was mapped. |
| 2 | 2016-09-20 19:26 | Steve Goodey ♦4 | I was walking past and noticed the staff vacancy advert so updated OS. It's a bit of a chore trying to keep up with the changing shops. You've got quite a few edits under your belt. Wish I had more time for doing edits. | |
| 3 | 2016-09-21 10:13 | EdLoach | I wish I had more time for doing edits. Not so much the editing itself, but collecting the data first. It would be great for example if all the shops in Colchester were mapped so if the Gazette run a story similar to "shop x has opened where shop y was" it would be a simple matter to updat... | |
| 41363885 by Kenneth Gafa @ 2016-08-10 09:55 | 1 | 2016-08-10 12:01 | trigpoint ♦2,372 | Has Viva really become a Costa?If it has it should no longer be tagged as a restaurant but as a cafe with cuisine=coffee.Cheers Phil |
| 2 | 2016-08-10 12:14 | EdLoach | Also, has "The Filling Station" become "Beatles" - the FHRS data extract from yesterday suggests not? | |
| 3 | 2016-08-10 12:27 | Derick Rethans ♦156 | Phil, Maps.me doesn't allow you to change category ... | |
| 4 | 2016-08-10 15:10 | Kenneth Gafa ♦1 | Sorry but I do not have an idea about "The Filling Station" | |
| 5 | 2016-08-10 15:23 | trigpoint ♦2,372 | Hi Kenneth, was there a fast food place called Beatles when you were in Liverpool?Have you some more details if so?Cheers Phil | |
| 6 | 2016-08-10 15:29 | Kenneth Gafa ♦1 | Trigpoint, I do not recall such a place but in Liverpool The Beatles are mentioned at every corner. When I was there I ate at Nando's and TGI. | |
| 7 | 2016-08-15 13:01 | SomeoneElse ♦13,362 | It's already been changed back, but I'm pretty sure The Filling Station was still called that when I walked past it a couple of months ago. | |
| 41087503 by Rebecca Piper @ 2016-07-28 14:36 | 1 | 2016-07-28 15:42 | EdLoach | Hi. I noticed your edit and thought maybe you'd like to also set "Allowed Access" to private as well as (or perhaps instead of) the name. This will cause the "P" shown on the standard rendering to be paler than public car parks. |
| 2 | 2016-07-30 05:42 | BCNorwich ♦4,846 | Removed the name=Private from two car parks. They may be private but there is no suggestion that they are officially or otherwise named "Private". Also added access=private tags. | |
| 40706513 by patrick davey @ 2016-07-13 08:55 | 1 | 2016-07-13 12:53 | EdLoach | Hi Patrick, Are you sure that the cafe is in this unit, and this cafe hasn't taken the place of the Sea Breeze cafe next door? (and next door to that the microbrewery has now moved, so thanks for the reminder I need to untag that...) |
| 2 | 2016-07-13 17:45 | patrick davey ♦1 | Hi Ed - no, now I'm not sure how that you say it. I was using "OSMAND+" on my Android, and while I did wait for a GPS Lock, it may not have been perfectly accurate. I didn't see the cafe tagged though, hence I added it. I now see all the buildings are neatly marked, so I assume &... | |
| 39481866 by cliveb @ 2016-05-22 07:16 | 1 | 2016-05-23 13:11 | EdLoach | Hi. Are these houses really built already? When I last passed the ground was just about cleared but I don't think they'd even got foundations in. |
| 2 | 2016-05-24 18:57 | cliveb ♦2 | You are correct, they only at foundation level so far. I've added an area=construction to this. | |
| 3 | 2016-05-25 09:20 | EdLoach | Then how have you surveyed the house numbers? | |
| 4 | 2016-05-25 10:14 | cliveb ♦2 | These are shown on the building plans | |
| 5 | 2016-05-25 10:48 | EdLoach | You have access to plans other than the copyright ones that are part of the planning application? | |
| 37528587 by Stephen_Co_Antrim @ 2016-02-29 19:32 | 1 | 2016-03-17 16:05 | EdLoach | Does this need to be two relations? If so should 6013575 also include way http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/400633328 like 6016446 does? |
| 37749403 by Mar Mar @ 2016-03-10 23:52 | 1 | 2016-03-11 00:37 | DaveF ♦1,562 | The George is already there. |
| 2 | 2016-03-11 09:39 | SK53 ♦864 | Yes but I find mapping the whole site including the car park as the pub counterintuitive (let alone the non-optimal rendering position of the icon).I think the usual way is to have a way for the pub restricted to buildings, with ancillary areas: beer gardens, parking etc mapped separately. This ... | |
| 3 | 2016-03-11 12:04 | Mar Mar ♦27 | I agree with SK53, the proof is that I actually didn't see that the George was already there because the icon was so far away from the building, even less visible than the parking lot also named the George. But hey, these are details, just wanted to put this nice pub on the map... | |
| 4 | 2016-03-11 13:10 | DaveF ♦1,562 | Thanks for the repliesPlease don't tag incorrectly to suit a failing of just one renderer. Remember this is a database & their are many different renderings taken from it.Similar to schools, the amenity=* tag should be a closed polygon encompassing the full area of usage by the orga... | |
| 5 | 2016-03-11 13:21 | SK53 ♦864 | No, this is a genuine difference in how people choose to map pubs, not "mapping for the renderer".I can see the advantages of mapping the whole area : relationships are easily determined, but it has never been obvious to me (or many other mappers) that a pub car park is a pub. If I tho... | |
| 6 | 2016-03-11 14:12 | EdLoach | The wiki suggests that amenity=pub should go on the node *or* the building. "If the whole building is used for this feature and its footprint is present in OSM, you can apply the tags on the area if you prefer" which is different to schools. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3... | |
| 7 | 2016-03-11 15:27 | DaveF ♦1,562 | @SK53The reason Mar Mar added amenity=pub (well, restaurant actually), not only to the building but as a node, was his failure to notice the boundary & the icon in both the render & the editor, not due to tagging choice .'Retail' isn't a substitute for defining a boundary ... | |
| 8 | 2016-03-11 15:58 | EdLoach | So should the amenity=place_of_worship tag across the road be on the whole of the church grounds rather than just the building? | |
| 9 | 2016-03-11 16:23 | DaveF ♦1,562 | Good question, & one I've thought about but come to no concrete conclusions. I believe there should be some kind of tag, be it amenity=place_of_worship or some other tag, to define the extent of a place of worship's property which could encompass things such as the building, graveyards... | |
| 10 | 2016-03-11 16:53 | SK53 ♦864 | I suggest we move this conversation to talk-gb. There are interesting aspects of how we tag areas associated with various POIS: and obviously at least two different approaches. | |
| 11 | 2016-03-11 17:10 | DaveF ♦1,562 | Yes, but I think Tagging is the more appropriate forum.-----I need to clarify I reverted the edit, not due to 'tagging choices', but that there were three different George Pubs. All Mar Mar's additional tags have been added to the existing way. Between us we've made the OSM... | |
| 12 | 2016-03-11 17:23 | SK53 ♦864 | Yes I understand why it was reverted: I was just particularly interested in seeing a pub mapped this way, and then realising that we have (at least) 2 different approaches in the UK.Personally this is a talk-gb issue. By all means pass it on to tagging, but I don't place great faith on thei... | |
| 37693649 by OHVTH53 @ 2016-03-08 19:28 | 1 | 2016-03-09 08:56 | EdLoach | Hi. Does this and your other changesets need amenity=parking tag adding? Best wishes, Ed(Google Translate ) Hallo. Enthält diese und Ihre anderen Change brauchen amenity=parking tag hinzufügen ? Die besten Wünsche , Ed |
| 32426776 by badgerrrr @ 2015-07-05 13:57 | 1 | 2015-11-20 15:49 | EdLoach | This seems to be an exact duplicate of http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/32426640 - would you like me to try and revert one or other of the changesets? If so which would you prefer? |
| 2 | 2015-11-22 15:39 | badgerrrr ♦1 | Ah! It must have uploaded from Josm twice! (It appeared to fail the first time but must have actually succeeded). If it is possible to just remove all the added data from the first changeset 32426640 that would probably be best. If this isn't straightforward let me know and I'll work out a... | |
| 3 | 2015-11-23 08:38 | EdLoach | I'm told that some of the duplicates have already been removed manually which makes things a bit trickier. I spotted it because when editing in the area in P2 it highlights all the duplicated nodes on top of each other, so might be easier to just use that to spot duplicates and remove them. Alt... | |
| 4 | 2016-01-18 16:59 | EdLoach | Pretty sure I've now managed to de-duplicate using P2 manually. | |
| 5 | 2016-01-21 21:35 | badgerrrr ♦1 | Great! JOSM has a similar tool and normaly would check for and warn of conflicts before upload. Something just went wrong that time. | |
| 6 | 2016-01-21 22:55 | EdLoach | I've had similar happen in the past when trying to upload large sets of changes and JOSM not getting confirmation of success for some reason, so I've tried again. Because it doesn't know the first upload was there it doesn't know that trying again will duplicate. I upload more fr... | |
| 36493416 by crossmyloof @ 2016-01-10 22:45 | 1 | 2016-01-11 11:07 | EdLoach | Does it not exist, or was it just spelled wrong? OS OpenData Streetview layer shows Harpesford marked at this point (not Hapesford). |
| 2 | 2016-01-12 14:38 | crossmyloof ♦15 | Hi,It's a weird one. I know the area as my aunt lives in Virginia Water and the family always talked about the pub at Knowlehill. Harpesford Avenue was just the name of that one street. I'm a bit flummoxed by OS giving it the prominence it has but I'm open to suggestions.!... | |
| 3 | 2016-01-12 14:59 | EdLoach | I don't really know. I just happened to spot the deletion. Sometimes the OS retains historic names - perhaps that was the name before the Avenue existed? Anyway, there is a chance that as it was only added a few months ago that someone will spot it as missing and add it back again in future. It... | |
| 35987534 by thetornado76 @ 2015-12-16 12:42 | 1 | 2015-12-21 17:59 | EdLoach | The description of what they do on their website suggests car_repair is not an appropriate tag. Do you know for a fact that their website information is wrong? |
| 34375844 by Gregory Williams @ 2015-10-01 19:22 | 1 | 2015-10-03 09:16 | EdLoach | Did you want to mark the missing roads squares as closed (open missing roads panel in JOSM click green lock icon)? |
| 2 | 2015-10-03 09:23 | Gregory Williams ♦18 | I think I had marked the relevant squares as closed. I was just adding a note that there were some roads visible in the Bing imagery in adjacent "squares" that could also be added. | |
| 3 | 2015-10-05 08:05 | EdLoach | Sorry. Definitely closed now. Ignore me... | |
| 31920934 by MapperIAm @ 2015-06-12 13:23 | 1 | 2015-09-17 08:00 | EdLoach | I don't suppose you know whether the 'Lloyds TSB' in this changeset became a Lloyds or a TSB after the two split? |
| 2 | 2015-09-17 08:17 | MapperTwo ♦7 | Can't visualise the name, didn't even know they had split! However I remember it's primarily green livery, and a web search of images for the two show Lloyds=Green, TSB=blue | |
| 3 | 2015-09-17 08:44 | EdLoach | I just noticed how well the street was mapped, and was surprised that the bank still had the old name (I was a customer at another branch, so perhaps more aware of the split). I realise now it was added about 5 years ago and was only moved slightly 2 months ago. Thanks. | |
| 34077045 by Gun Brewery @ 2015-09-17 07:24 | 1 | 2015-09-17 07:45 | EdLoach | Hi. You didn't put any tags on the node you added, which I'm guessing is your brewery. I suspect you will want to add craft=brewery name=Gun Brewery and your address information. If so see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:craft%3Dbrewery and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:add... |
| 33275926 by karitotp @ 2015-08-11 19:18 | 1 | 2015-08-12 08:35 | Peter Mead ♦11 | Thank you for improving this road. However, it would have been better to change the existing way rather than delete it and add a new one. We've now essentially lost the history of it.Also, your changeset says "aligning roads" but you haven't changed the alignment. |
| 2 | 2015-08-12 21:11 | karitotp ♦123 | Peter Mead, I've been working on impossible angle roads, I did not remove the road, I have splitted this road , it should generate other new road.I reverted my change (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33300928) and left a note(https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/413223) to someone ... | |
| 3 | 2015-08-13 08:10 | EdLoach | With the reversion and the comments on the note it is clearer what was done. I've edited it, perhaps replicating what was done before. | |
| 4 | 2015-08-13 08:40 | Peter Mead ♦11 | karitotp, I didn't say you removed the road I said you removed the way. A revert wasn't really necessary as I was just letting you know about something that you may not have realised and that you might wish to do slightly differently in the future. | |
| 32954543 by unsungNovelty @ 2015-07-29 11:47 | 1 | 2015-07-29 14:33 | EdLoach | Did you mean to delete Currys PC World when you were amending the building outline? |
| 2 | 2015-08-01 06:09 | PlaneMad ♦449 | Restored the deleted building. Nikhil, please be more careful with existing objects and make sure you don't accidentally remove the work of others while making improvements. | |
| 3 | 2015-11-16 08:32 | unsungNovelty ♦52 | I will @PlaneMad. Thanks for pointing this out. | |
| 27238035 by eddeebee @ 2014-12-04 15:59 | 1 | 2015-06-26 11:08 | SomeoneElse ♦13,362 | Oops - I think that something went a bit wrong here. The relation http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3995199 now has a building tag on it - I suspect that that should be only on the building in the middle. Also there are now 2 "amenity=pub" - it'd make sense to have either the bu... |
| 2 | 2015-06-26 16:38 | EdLoach | I'd be tempted to draw a fence along the join (assuming there is one) as I did here: http://osm.org/go/0EH1CZr19-- | |
| 32162498 by Zverik @ 2015-06-23 14:11 | 1 | 2015-06-23 20:25 | EdLoach | What was fixed exactly? Looks like you lost loads of detail, and the offshore (below MHW) tidal multipolygon. |
| 2 | 2015-06-24 06:34 | Zverik ♦172 | Hi, I've redrawn the coastline here, because it was very innacurate, had geometrical errors and denoted things that should not be in a coastline, e.g. ditches. I've added a stream that was mapped only for some meters. As for the tidal multipolygon, it was tagged wetland=marsh and was too c... | |
| 3 | 2015-06-24 07:36 | EdLoach | If it helps, the tidal area is from the mean high water (coastline) to the mean low water (admin boundary). The seawall is where the footpath runs. The land areas outside the wall - some are above water at high tide, and what you're calling ditches fill with water at high tide. Hopefully that h... | |
| 4 | 2015-06-24 18:13 | Zverik ♦172 | Added the wetland, but may have chosen wrong tags. Wiki tells coastline should be drawn at high tide, and I'm not sure how to properly tag tidal area. It is sure not a wetland. | |
| 5 | 2015-06-25 07:40 | EdLoach | The wiki thinks otherwise - natural=wetland, wetland=tidalflat with perhaps surface=mud - this for the tidal areas between the land. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:wetland - this was done previously as multipolygon between the coastline (mean high water) and the admin boundary (mean low wate... | |
| 6 | 2015-06-25 13:40 | EdLoach | To be honest, I think I'm going to have to try and fix what you've done when I get chance. The coastline is complex here - just switch to OS Opendata Streetview in P2 to see how much closer the coastline was to the high tide line than before you amended it to something closer to Bing which... | |
| 7 | 2015-06-25 14:20 | EdLoach | Hmmm. I see. The Highwater mark in OS Opendata Streetview is out of date, as clearly on Bing some of that area is under water. I'll consider things carefully before changing anything. | |
| 8 | 2015-06-25 14:35 | Zverik ♦172 | Thanks, please do. I was just fixing a geometry error and got caught up in the process. | |
| 30313534 by user_5359 @ 2015-04-18 18:42 | 1 | 2015-04-20 09:45 | EdLoach | Oops. http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/262058424#map=19/51.74182/1.02446 (as just one example) |
| 2 | 2015-04-20 10:09 | EdLoach | Hopefully this reverts the nodes moving without losing the tag change: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/30350573 | |
| 30180698 by Express Of Walton @ 2015-04-13 07:39 | 1 | 2015-04-13 08:44 | EdLoach | Hi. I've just reverted your changeset as you accidentally the name of Annett Road to your business name. I think you were probably trying to add it to your building (having found your website http://www.motwaltononthames.co.uk ). If you click on your building you should be able to set your busi... |
| 29452252 by OrdinanceSurveyORG @ 2015-03-13 16:01 | 1 | 2015-03-13 16:15 | EdLoach | Hi. Did you mean to delete so many nodes out of the Cheltenham/Cotswold border? The latest data I have from OS OpenData BoundaryLine shows the pre-amended boundary. Let me know if you'd like me to help with any undeleting. Best wishes. Ed |
| 28402890 by MellisaTaylor @ 2015-01-25 19:06 | 1 | 2015-01-26 20:16 | robert ♦234 | I've reverted this edit - please note this is a global, shared map. Editing it edits everyone's version - a bit like Wikipedia. |
| 2 | 2015-01-27 08:34 | EdLoach | What you could do though is add all the houses in the street with their house numbers, so people can find Granny's (and her neighbours' houses) by the address. Let me know if you want any pointers as to how to do so. | |
| 28232563 by cnedramblers @ 2015-01-18 14:59 | 1 | 2015-01-19 21:53 | robert ♦234 | Please don't abuse the name tag to add the fact that roads happen to also be part of some-walk-or-other. If you really want to do this you should use route relations (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route), though you may have to upgrade to using JOSM to do that properly.In fact... |
| 2 | 2015-01-19 22:18 | Richard ♦220 | Despite the old grump above (we love him really), great to have you on board. :) | |
| 3 | 2015-01-20 10:04 | EdLoach | You might also like to look at other maps that use OpenStreetMap data where the routes are more obvious, such as http://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/en/?zoom=13&lat=53.2359&lon=-1.45586&hill=0 or http://www.opencyclemap.org/?zoom=14&lat=53.20775&lon=-1.5015&layers=000B0 | |
| 4 | 2015-01-20 10:32 | cnedramblers ♦1 | Thanks for all the comments. I must admit that as a walker I was totally unaware of the waymarked trails site. But so are many others. I accept that applying mutiple tags to highways or footpaths is a problem, but footpaths and trails were in many cases there centuries before tarmac roads and it is ... | |
| 5 | 2015-01-20 10:44 | EdLoach | I hope my comment didn't mislead you, as I was out in the rain 9 days ago collecting GPS traces and photos of local (to me) public footpaths that still needed adding to OpenStreetMap. I was just trying to help point out that the default view of the data when you come to this website isn't ... | |
| 6 | 2015-01-20 10:59 | SK53 ♦864 | I must emphasise we take rights of way very seriously and would really welcome your contributions. You can read about some of the work involving OSM and footpath mapping on my blog http://sk53-osm.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/footpaths or watch Dudley Ibbett talking mapping paths in the Peak Dist... | |
| 7 | 2015-01-20 11:07 | Richard ♦220 | Please don't remove them! OSM takes rights of way very seriously, more than any other mapping organisation other than the Ordnance Survey.At the same time we're a global project, so we can't show every single peculiarity of every single country in this map view. The main view on o... | |
| 8 | 2015-01-20 19:30 | robert ♦234 | Hey, there's nothing in the Terms of Service about not being a grumpy bastard. | |
| 9 | 2015-01-20 19:50 | cnedramblers ♦1 | I can try and get colleagues to annotate NE Derbyshire footpaths that are Public Rights of Way with the County Council's terminology (e.g. NE 2 46/1) - as rowmaps does - but only if it adds value ? | |
| 10 | 2015-01-21 00:55 | SomeoneElse ♦13,362 | Yes - public rights of way numbers are usually added using the prow_ref key (see http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Key:prow_ref), and would certainly be useful to have - although of course the source has to be licence-compatible (not derived from OS non-open mapping). See http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/UK_local_c... | |
| 11 | 2015-01-21 01:09 | SomeoneElse ♦13,362 | One more question about the route - back in 2008 when I walked it there used to be a Chesterfield Round Walk route marker around here http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/68834#map=18/53.18623/-1.45678 where the highlighted relation leaves Bolehill Lane. You've added the name to this footpath... | |
| 27306148 by mel-ray @ 2014-12-07 08:23 | 1 | 2014-12-11 08:16 | EdLoach | Hi, The name of the Essex Way should be on the relation and not the individual ways. Would you like me to revert this changeset for you? |
| 2 | 2014-12-11 09:31 | EdLoach | I meant to add, if you want to see a map which shows the Essex Way you could look at this Outdoor Map style at the OpenCycleMap website. http://www.opencyclemap.org/?zoom=12&lat=51.90187&lon=0.97143&layers=000B0 | |
| 3 | 2014-12-13 14:45 | SK53 ♦864 | Or use Lonvia's Waymarked trails site http://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/en/?zoom=10&lat=51.87465&lon=0.81488&hill=0 | |
| 27380190 by Sara Figueiredo @ 2014-12-10 15:51 | 1 | 2014-12-10 16:11 | EdLoach | Hi and welcome to OpenStreetMap,Are you able to add more details to this node, such as the name, religion, denomination and address? The imagery source noted for your changeset looks like you've placed the place of worship on one half of a semi-detached house, so the extra details will help... |
| 27308117 by Welshie @ 2014-12-07 10:46 | 1 | 2014-12-08 01:03 | EdLoach | Just a little bit premature maybe? The new speed limits don't come into force until 15th December. http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/43592 |
| 2 | 2014-12-09 09:26 | Welshie ♦28 | My thoughts are that the speed limit WILL change soon, and all the software I know that uses speed limit data uses a transformed copy of planet.osm, which isn't refreshed often, so when lowering speed limits, it's probably safer to update sooner than later (so that it actually gets to the ... | |
| 3 | 2014-12-09 09:33 | EdLoach | I didn't revert as I decided reducing a speed limit can't harm anyone, and as you say it will take a while for the changes to feed through. The signs are up incidentally (which is how I split the ways after a video survey) but need some grey paint cleaned off them. | |
| 26974914 by MeghaShrestha @ 2014-11-23 15:07 | 1 | 2014-11-25 11:36 | EdLoach | This bridge that you've added in this changesethttp://www.openstreetmap.org/way/314119581 might need a highway tag (e.g. secondary like the roads either side). |
| 26866144 by TeacherJoe @ 2014-11-18 15:00 | 1 | 2014-11-18 17:54 | EdLoach | I'm not entirely sure what you did in this changeset (you didn't include a changeset comment), but did you mean to call the large grass area Deadham Heath and also mark it as a village? Dedham Heath (the hamlet) is already mapped here: http://osm.org/go/0EHbd3d8 |
| 26842436 by Kensington delights @ 2014-11-17 12:35 | 1 | 2014-11-17 12:44 | EdLoach | Please don't make spurious edits. If you have a physical office then map that, but web only businesses can't be mapped to a location. |
| 26611347 by selina92 @ 2014-11-07 10:02 | 1 | 2014-11-07 10:28 | trigpoint ♦2,372 | Have the waste bins and memorial been removed here, you have ddeleted a lot of stuff. Why?Please add meaningful changeset comments |
| 2 | 2014-11-07 10:54 | EdLoach | Selina93 - I'm going to undo this changeset as it also includes the Norwich place node, and undeleting isn't something that is easy for new editors. I hope you don't mind. If the other items have actually been removed and need deleting I'm afraid it means you'll need to do t... | |
| 3 | 2014-11-07 10:59 | EdLoach | I have left the Guildhall Undercroft mosaic node that you added though. | |
| 26537333 by OdysseyResorts @ 2014-11-03 22:17 | 1 | 2014-11-03 22:19 | OdysseyResorts ♦1 | Updated information about Caribou Highlands Lodge |
| 2 | 2014-11-03 22:20 | emacsen ♦142 | Unless the name of every single of these buildings that have the name "Caribou Highlands Lodge Poplar Ridge Homes" on them, then this changeset is too spammy and will be reverted.Please fix. | |
| 3 | 2014-11-03 22:26 | OdysseyResorts ♦1 | I can definitely change these. What would you recommend for the naming of the buildings? There are several different styles of buildings at this resort. 9 of them are Poplar Ridge Homes, 5 are town homes, 2 are executive lodges, 3 are condo buildings and 1 is a lodge. They are all part of one resort... | |
| 4 | 2014-11-03 22:30 | emacsen ♦142 | If each building has a name, like the "Caribu Lodge"- then go ahead and change the name to that. What are you trying to indicate- that these are lodges available as part of the resort? | |
| 5 | 2014-11-03 22:37 | OdysseyResorts ♦1 | Yes. The entire resort property called Caribou Highlands Lodge is made up of 20 buildings. We refer to these buildings as condos, lodge, town homes, and poplar ridge homes. My naming was an attempt to show they are part of the same property, but designate their differences. So I could get rid of the... | |
| 6 | 2014-11-03 22:48 | emacsen ♦142 | I don't know if this is really your first OSM edit (it's your first one on this account). If so- this is a pretty amazing job. To indicate buildings are part of the same property, you could use something called a relation- which I can show you how to create (it's just a bit complex).\... | |
| 7 | 2014-11-04 10:02 | EdLoach | I don't know whether this is relevant, but there is an area near me that has holiday homes for rent where the whole area has been mapped as landuse=commercial (for lack of a suitable tourism tag) and the individual buildings with their numbers. http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/129105350#map=16/... | |
| 8 | 2014-11-04 13:37 | AndrewBuck ♦1 | The best thing to do would be to put the name of the resort in the 'operator' tag for the buildings. I don't think the iD editor displays a box for that field by default, you will have to click the 'All tags' button and then add a new one with a key of 'operator' ... |