Changeset No. Date Contributor Comment
12017-06-19 14:36:30 UTCSomeoneElse I suspect that the former railway at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/32678501/history has grown an extra tree_row tag by mistake?
22017-06-20 20:21:48 UTCdudone Thanks for spotting this. I've removed the tag.
Dudley
12017-05-11 10:58:31 UTCkreuzschnabel Hi, I saw you re-tagged some small lanes hw=service + service=driveway. I took the liberty to change them to hw=unclassified since they do not lead to a single destination only. Please keep in mind that service=driveway should be used for small driveways from public roads into private property only ...
22017-05-11 14:12:48 UTCSomeoneElse @kreuzschnabel Please don't change service to unclassified unless you've surveyed on the ground and can see that it's council maintained or otherwise obviously qualifies as an unclassified road. I can think of plenty of highway=service roads near me that lead to more that one property, and more tha...
32017-05-11 16:53:27 UTCkreuzschnabel Sorry but which qualification does it actually need to be hw=unclassified? In the Wiki, I cannot find anything like "council maintained", I only find that hw=unclassified is the lowest category of public roads, while hw=service are mere access or special roads to particular places and not ...
42017-05-11 19:21:14 UTCdudone I think you will find that Brownber is an old estate which has now been broken up into a number of old and new residences. This was my impression when I walked through it. I cannot be 100% sure but it looked very much like a driveway and not a unclassified highway. I walked along the path from th...
52017-05-11 19:51:33 UTCkreuzschnabel Changed them back to hw=service but would still prefer to leave it that way. The driveway issue needs a general discussion IMHO since it’s interpreted in such different ways: some mappers use it as a default for any small lane, while for most renderers that makes them far less important than u...
12017-04-04 15:48:35 UTCmueschel Hi,
could you check this way? http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/377910114

The key 'ch]' looks like a mistake.
Jan
22017-04-04 19:47:24 UTCdudone Hi Jan

Many thanks for spotting this. I have removed the tag. There was also a highway=track tag missing for the way above this which I have now added.

Regards
Dudley
12017-03-14 01:17:14 UTCMike Baggaley Hi, hope you don't mind me commenting, but if a track allows access to agricultural and forestry vehicles (e.g. way 477728220), rather than using motor_vehicle=agricultural;forestry, I suggest using motor_vehicle=forestry and agricultural=yes. This avoids putting two values in a tag - multiple value...
22017-03-15 20:12:49 UTCdudone Hi Mike

No problem with the feedback. I'm afraid I don't know how to find the specific way you mention to look at the history. I think this tag must have already been on the way or I must have accidentally copied it from another way as this isn't a tag/style of tagging I would currently intenti...
12017-01-19 15:02:20 UTCSK53 Are you sure about http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4020491191. Just checking my photos from Feb 2016 & I think this is a stile adjacent to a gate.
22017-01-19 20:14:35 UTCdudone Hi Jerry

Well spotted. If I'm not sure I will use entrance. I have always assumed that if you have a barrier with out an entrance, gate, still etc routing wouldn't work so this is my default. Having checked my pictures I have one looking back at this. As you suggest it is a stile and a gate....
32017-01-19 20:29:55 UTCSK53 Realised that I had not added hedges etc from visit in Feb 2016, so was following that route. I agree entrance is good practice and helps to encourage checking of gates etc in the field.

Overall we seem to have made a very satisfactory impact on mapping this area. I'm continuing to add field boun...
12017-01-15 14:00:11 UTCSK53 Slightly complicated one: Raw Head & the hut across the road aren't really residential areas, but can't think what else can be used to mark them. From a purely financial view they're commercial as the climbing clubs have to pay business rates, but that ain't right either. Perhaps some kind of su...
12016-08-17 21:03:17 UTCandygol There was relation for Great Britain island - http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/relation/6038068. Why did you create one more?
22016-08-20 15:47:23 UTCdudone Hi

Wasn't aware that I had. It is hopefully now deleted.

Regards

Dudley
32016-08-21 08:08:41 UTCSomeoneElse Thanks. See https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2016-August/thread.html#19100 for discussion about the other one BTW.
12016-07-11 20:55:13 UTCSomeoneElse Got any thoughts on whether https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/25825505/history should really be an unclassified road? I thought not, and said so on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/38625785 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/566042 . https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/pmailkeey thought ...
22016-07-12 19:07:16 UTCdudone Hi

I walked along this only this Sunday. I haven't quite got the tagging right as it is a little problematic. I was assuming it would be a BOAT given the motocyles and motorcycle with sidecar! that passed me. However it seems it is an adopted highway. You could therefore argue that this is &q...
32016-07-12 19:13:34 UTCSomeoneElse Sounds a bit like one of Lincolnshire's "Unclassified County Roads". "designation=adopted_highway" sounds like a good answer to me (I'll stick a line in at https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L151 to deal with it!)
42016-07-12 19:22:53 UTCdudone Hi

I have now looked at the website!!

It seems that there was an order to change this into a bridleway from a "non-classified" highway but this has gone to the planning inspectorate as people have objected and what it classifed as a BOAT. It looks like a decision will be made later ...
12016-07-03 17:34:31 UTCSomeoneElse I'm guessing http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/285292116 is a barrier=fence?
22016-07-04 18:32:06 UTCdudone Yes. Corrected.

Regard

Dudley
12016-07-03 17:10:22 UTCSomeoneElse http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3722663279 is another "barrier=E".
22016-07-04 18:29:39 UTCdudone Corrected to entrance.

Dudley
12016-07-03 17:09:35 UTCSomeoneElse Hi Dudley,
Any idea what the barrier=E is at http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3365452752 ?
22016-07-04 18:27:49 UTCdudone Hi

Changed to entrance. I generally use this where the is a passage through a collapsed part of wall or a gap that doesn't look like it was every a gate entrance.

Regards

Dudley
12016-07-03 17:05:07 UTCSomeoneElse Hi Dudley,
Any thoughts about the oddly-tagged barrier http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/270684102 ? It looks like part hedge, part gap and part wall.
Cheers,
Andy
22016-07-04 18:23:10 UTCdudone Hi Andy

Looks like a type so I have changed it to hedge.

Regards

Dudley
12016-06-12 22:08:26 UTCSomeoneElse Hi,
I'm guessing that http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/319762883 isn't all "hampshire gate"?
22016-06-13 18:22:21 UTCdudone Hi

Auto complete getting the better of me. I have changed it to hedge.

Regards

Dudley
32016-06-13 22:08:05 UTCSomeoneElse Thanks.
12016-05-14 22:39:15 UTCSomeoneElse Hi,
I'm guessing that http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/80537943 should be "sidewalk=both"?
Cheers,
Andy
22016-05-15 19:04:06 UTCdudone Hi
Typo due to caps lock. Now fixed,
Regards
Dudley
12016-04-18 21:39:14 UTCSomeoneElse Just checking - is Giddy Edge really a public footpath? If so, presumably some connection bits should be too?
22016-04-19 17:06:22 UTCdudone Sorry it is rather a big change set so I'm not sure which way. The way named Giddy Edge doesn't seem to have a public footpath designation tag. The way to the North (Changeset 21740279) does but I'm not sure this is a public right of way or the way changset 7337922. Unfortunely the pictures I hav...
12016-02-22 14:14:39 UTCR0bst3r Hi dudone,
can you improve the tag layer=0=gate on http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/398790760?
22016-02-22 20:55:17 UTCdudone Deleted. It was a typo. I was thinking it should have a layer tag as it is below the level of the road. It actually goes under the bridge which has been deleted. Presumably because it is currently closed.


12015-12-31 14:58:01 UTCSK53 Seems unlikely that you meant bare_rock for http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/387806282!
22015-12-31 17:50:07 UTCdudone Should now be fixed.
Dudley
12015-11-16 14:10:22 UTCR0bst3r Hi dudone, can you please review way http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/327315427? Thanks!
22015-11-16 18:31:24 UTCdudone Hi

I've removed the "odd tag" i.e. B=stepping_stone. This was a typo.

Is there anything else?

Dudley
12015-09-23 19:01:22 UTCSomeoneElse Just checking - did you delete the highway tag from http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/49164552 deliberately? This was a track when I was last there (but it was a while ago)
12015-07-30 18:11:48 UTCSK53 Any idea why you deleted the PRoW leaving Foolow at S edge of village towards Eyam? Or was this just a mistake?
22015-07-30 18:47:12 UTCdudone Thanks for letting me know. This was a mistake. I've redrawn it.
12015-01-09 20:26:37 UTCRobJN Hi Dudley,
In the council data the track from Riddings lane is classed as a public bridleway - are you sure it only had yellow marker posts (i.e. footpath), or could they have been blue?
21 changeset(s) created by dudone have been discussed with a total of 47 comment(s)