| Changeset |
No. |
Date |
Contributor |
Comment |
|
| 44525055 | SomeoneElse | I suspect that the former railway at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/32678501/history has grown an extra tree_row tag by mistake? |
| dudone | Thanks for spotting this. I've removed the tag.Dudley |
|
| 46420842 | kreuzschnabel | 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 ... |
| SomeoneElse | @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... |
| kreuzschnabel | 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 ... |
| dudone | 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... |
| kreuzschnabel | 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... |
|
| 47300587 | mueschel | Hi,could you check this way? http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/377910114The key 'ch]' looks like a mistake.Jan |
| dudone | Hi JanMany 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.RegardsDudley |
|
| 46473607 | Mike 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... |
| dudone | Hi MikeNo 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... |
|
| 45242536 | SK53 | 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. |
| dudone | Hi JerryWell 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.... |
| SK53 | 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... |
|
| 43135040 | SK53 | 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... |
|
| 41130893 | andygol | There was relation for Great Britain island - http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/relation/6038068. Why did you create one more? |
| dudone | HiWasn't aware that I had. It is hopefully now deleted.RegardsDudley |
| SomeoneElse | Thanks. See https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2016-August/thread.html#19100 for discussion about the other one BTW. |
|
| 40663970 | SomeoneElse | 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 ... |
| dudone | HiI 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... |
| SomeoneElse | 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!) |
| dudone | HiI 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 ... |
|
| 22643454 | SomeoneElse | I'm guessing http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/285292116 is a barrier=fence? |
| dudone | Yes. Corrected.RegardDudley |
|
| 33698494 | SomeoneElse | http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3722663279 is another "barrier=E". |
| dudone | Corrected to entrance.Dudley |
|
| 29016364 | SomeoneElse | Hi Dudley,Any idea what the barrier=E is at http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3365452752 ? |
| dudone | HiChanged 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.RegardsDudley |
|
| 21427367 | SomeoneElse | 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 |
| dudone | Hi AndyLooks like a type so I have changed it to hedge.RegardsDudley |
|
| 27828993 | SomeoneElse | Hi,I'm guessing that http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/319762883 isn't all "hampshire gate"? |
| dudone | HiAuto complete getting the better of me. I have changed it to hedge.RegardsDudley |
| SomeoneElse | Thanks. |
|
| 38866887 | SomeoneElse | Hi,I'm guessing that http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/80537943 should be "sidewalk=both"?Cheers,Andy |
| dudone | Hi Typo due to caps lock. Now fixed,RegardsDudley |
|
| 37554047 | SomeoneElse | Just checking - is Giddy Edge really a public footpath? If so, presumably some connection bits should be too? |
| dudone | 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... |
|
| 37316778 | R0bst3r | Hi dudone,can you improve the tag layer=0=gate on http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/398790760? |
| dudone | 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. |
|
| 36174069 | SK53 | Seems unlikely that you meant bare_rock for http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/387806282! |
| dudone | Should now be fixed.Dudley |
|
| 28737094 | R0bst3r | Hi dudone, can you please review way http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/327315427? Thanks! |
| dudone | HiI've removed the "odd tag" i.e. B=stepping_stone. This was a typo. Is there anything else?Dudley |
|
| 32683399 | SomeoneElse | 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) |
|
| 31207878 | SK53 | Any idea why you deleted the PRoW leaving Foolow at S edge of village towards Eyam? Or was this just a mistake? |
| dudone | Thanks for letting me know. This was a mistake. I've redrawn it. |
|
| 28018995 | RobJN | 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? |