| Changeset | No. | Date | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 50888347 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2017-08-07 13:06:58 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, is way 342863745 really named Bus Link? If this is not a proper name, please remove it. If it is, I suggest adding a note to say it really is the name.Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-08-07 13:28:59 UTC | SomeoneElse | Yes, it really is called that. | |
| 50384009 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2017-07-18 16:38:40 UTC | SomeoneElse | The changes here were to:o Remove fences that had been added purely by guesswork.o Joining component ways of the car park into one amenity=parking way and remove unnecessary multipolygon relation.o Redraw the residential landuse so that it uses the nodes of adjacent features that form the land... |
| 48576507 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2017-06-26 20:06:32 UTC | VlIvYur | Why did you dropp all of footway=crossing? |
| 2 | 2017-06-27 00:48:51 UTC | SomeoneElse | Can you give any examples? I've left e.g. http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/488741633 and http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/488741636 . Strictly speaking those are traffic calming cushions though not crossings as such. You _can_ cross the road there, but can just as well cross anywhere else as well.... | |
| 49771519 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2017-06-23 15:18:34 UTC | JamesKingdom | Well watching the video, is it about that lift, so I'm assuming that's where he got the information from about the levels, etc. So it might not be an accident? |
| 49515274 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2017-06-14 20:41:27 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | I think you might be confusing the old Travelling Man shop, at 54 Goodramgate, which is vacant with their new shop at 74 which is where they are now trading from (unless they have closed down in the past 3 days) |
| 2 | 2017-06-14 21:05:32 UTC | SomeoneElse | Quite possibly - I didn't mark the position; was just surprised that it was shut. | |
| 49515202 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2017-06-14 00:20:37 UTC | SomeoneElse | The sign on the side says just "Travelodge"; their website suggests an official name of "Travelodge York Central Layerthorpe". |
| 39794788 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2017-05-15 18:26:23 UTC | ff5722 | http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/335031789 has the tag 'abbatoir=cat'except for the fact that the key abbatoir is only used here, I don't think this business is really a slaughterhouse for cats. |
| 2 | 2017-05-15 18:39:45 UTC | SomeoneElse | Strange as it may seem, as far as I could tell from the signage, http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/335031789 really did appear to be an abbatoir specialising in cats. | |
| 3 | 2017-05-15 18:42:53 UTC | ff5722 | Well there's a first for everything...I have to believe you on this :) | |
| 4 | 2017-05-15 18:44:05 UTC | SomeoneElse | I was pretty surprised too :) | |
| 47885397 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2017-04-17 21:04:07 UTC | SomeoneElse | Whilst can be contentious mapping temporary closures in OSM, I guess that 6 weeks of remaining closure is enough to make it worthwhile mapping it. |
| 47604117 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2017-04-09 21:28:13 UTC | SomeoneElse | The untagged names in here (e.g. "Antenatal") aren't errors, they're just placeholders for department locations that will need tags adding once I (or someone else) has figured out a sensible way to tag them. |
| 46161968 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2017-02-17 11:38:29 UTC | SomeoneElse | I've left the duplicate areas (part of two schools) which might be correct and the duplicate nodes (to indicate where there is still a problem). |
| 2 | 2017-02-17 11:40:55 UTC | SomeoneElse | Note that some of the "odd duplications" seem to match imagery features, such as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/449580309 , which looks like some sort of shed. The surrounding landuse could also do to be aligned with the school boundary too. | |
| 45986564 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2017-02-10 23:17:42 UTC | SomeoneElse | Oops - this was just a 1-node building. |
| 45661817 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2017-01-30 19:27:56 UTC | SomeoneElse | I've also changed a nearby TIGER-derived bridge to be the tunnel that both Bing and Mapbox aerial imagery suggest that it is. There's still _lots_ more to map around here though. |
| 45414788 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2017-01-23 22:28:08 UTC | SomeoneElse | "shop changes" in the changeset comment turned out to be "no shop changes needed because all of the ones that I looked at matched". |
| 45205036 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2017-01-17 08:06:53 UTC | Aleks-Berlin | Hi Someoneelse, please be careful introducing typos like key=";ayer". I fixed to layer. kr, Alex |
| 1576227 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2017-01-08 12:22:29 UTC | SK53 | I suspect the post office mapped in Eakring (http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/426994556) is an error for the post box in almost the same location. I certainly dont recall seeing a post office here in June 2015. |
| 2 | 2017-01-08 12:24:17 UTC | SomeoneElse | http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/426994556 was added 7 years ago - it's quite possible that there was one then and isn't now. If you think it's gone, I'd just delete it. | |
| 3 | 2017-01-08 13:16:37 UTC | SK53 | Yes, looks to have gone according to OSSV http://os.openstreetmap.org/#zoom=16&lat=53.15099&lon=-0.9938. Cant find my pic of the postbox, but I dont remember anything looking like a former PO. | |
| 40803604 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2017-01-01 14:52:46 UTC | fkv | It does exist, but only once. (One of those two nodes represented the previous location which is now gone.) I restored node 4016935198, see my comments on changeset 39796423. I accidentally placed my comment there, but meant to place it here. |
| 43992153 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2016-11-27 21:20:20 UTC | SomeoneElse | I've adjusted the north of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/456253921 to not overlap known forestry areas. The overlap between this and other woodland and agricultural land needs further survey.The north side of this polygon was fairly crudely drawn before I've amended it; the east, south and wes... |
| 43920311 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2016-11-24 13:12:39 UTC | SomeoneElse | "vollage location" == "village location", obviously. Must learn to spoll. |
| 43589570 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2016-11-15 14:53:56 UTC | SomeoneElse | Grr. The 55a doesn't go through Clay Cross. Will need to correct... |
| 43581889 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2016-11-12 14:16:36 UTC | will_p | It had indeed reopened when I visited three weeks ago. I didn't notice that it had been tagged as motor_vehicle=no. The section to the west is now being reconstructed on a new alignment. |
| 43581639 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2016-11-12 13:49:24 UTC | SomeoneElse | It used to match the old "Dayrider" area, and the old "Plusbus" zone which was based on that. When the Dayrider area was made smaller and Dayrider+ introduced, the Plusbus zone was reduced to match the smaller Dayrider area, so this area matched none of the public transport area... |
| 42738181 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2016-10-08 18:29:18 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | You might have broken the 142 and 143 bus route relation continuity |
| 2 | 2016-10-08 18:31:33 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3005848 and http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3005931 | |
| 3 | 2016-10-08 21:59:40 UTC | SomeoneElse | Well spotted, thanks. | |
| 4 | 2016-10-08 22:07:20 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | No worries, sort of thing I often inadvertently do. | |
| 42208126 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2016-09-17 23:54:39 UTC | pete404 | Thanks! |
| 40478264 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2016-07-04 13:01:14 UTC | SomeoneElse | "sport=model_aerodrome" sounds like a bonkers tag, since it's an aerodrome for models, rather than an aerodrome which _is_ a model. However the tag is documented (badly) on the wiki in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport%3Dmodel_aerodrome and is (after tagfiddling by one of the ... |
| 40462715 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2016-07-03 18:33:24 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | thanks, sadly that looks like it was one of my typos. |
| 40162247 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2016-06-20 17:20:30 UTC | SomeoneElse | The second duplicate wasn't down to MAPS.ME; it was a duplicate hospital tag on the main building. The hostpital is already mapped as http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/165971552 . |
| 21590701 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2016-06-15 10:06:19 UTC | SK53 | You never added the name! (done now) |
| 2 | 2016-06-15 14:25:51 UTC | SomeoneElse | D'oh! | |
| 39536756 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2016-06-07 15:40:55 UTC | rainertest | rainertest (my is my online-name) is as "silly" as SomeoneElse.I do not feel offended by your freedom of speech. For your information: I do not enter TESTDATA. The places are real and are discussed in the OSM community. I hope in this discussion we remember the meaning of the wor... |
| 2 | 2016-06-07 16:21:44 UTC | SomeoneElse | So what exactly is "Dragoneye-Place" then? | |
| 3 | 2016-06-08 07:58:29 UTC | rainertest | Do you speak German?Here you can find the ongoing discussion:https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-at/2016-May/008397.htmlbr Rainer | |
| 4 | 2016-06-08 12:31:24 UTC | SomeoneElse | I don't see anything in that discussion that suggest that these in any sense actually "exist". Both https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-at/2016-May/thread.html#8394 and the linked http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/556617 suggest that they don't (specifically "nein, dazu gi... | |
| 5 | 2016-06-09 09:18:26 UTC | geow | We should only add data, that is valid and verifiable and not (at best) disputable esoteric features. | |
| 39806586 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2016-06-05 19:11:39 UTC | SomeoneElse | D'oh. The comment should say "now open" not "not open "! |
| 39299223 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2016-05-13 19:32:56 UTC | SomeoneElse | Note: As suggested on http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/39249542 , I've asked whether a "Kosovo" community sub-forum can be created (see http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=54574 ). That would be an ideal place for discussion; but until that's created I'd suggest that an... |
| 2 | 2016-05-13 19:36:12 UTC | SomeoneElse | A couple of useful links: The changes over time to tags can be seen at http://osm.mapki.com/history/relation.php?id=2088990 .The OSM Foundation's policy on disputed names is at https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf . | |
| 39182096 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2016-05-08 17:27:55 UTC | SomeoneElse | Er, "move to locator" should be "moved to description" of course, and there should be a "source=survey" on the changeset. |
| 21448357 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2016-02-08 22:43:42 UTC | SimonRedding | Hi there! Just noticed that this is tagged as the Compass when it's the funeral home. The Compass is the large untagged building next door. Any objection if I retag these, merging the nodes in with the building outlines? |
| 2 | 2016-02-08 22:54:15 UTC | SomeoneElse | Sure - please do! | |
| 3 | 2016-02-08 22:59:12 UTC | SimonRedding | Cool. Probably do that tomorrow now - it's just round the corner from our house... | |
| 37086216 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2016-02-08 22:47:17 UTC | SimonRedding | Fair enough... |
| 36298132 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2016-01-01 13:54:27 UTC | SomeoneElse | ... and also moved Brian's milestone to the edge of the road from inside a field. |
| 36135292 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2015-12-24 13:12:50 UTC | SomeoneElse | Oops, inadvertent changeset comment. Should actually have been "Ditches near Spalford from OSSV". |
| 35618699 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2015-11-27 21:17:21 UTC | SomeoneElse | FWIW I'm not entirely convinced by the "separate footpath" to the north, but that's by a local so I've left it :) |
| 25968881 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2015-11-09 08:53:55 UTC | R0bst3r | Hi SomeoneElse, you've added the tag residential=residential at http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/307063405. It looks like construction=residential or construction=yes? |
| 2 | 2015-11-09 09:12:08 UTC | SomeoneElse | Thanks - it was probably intended to be construction, but may actually be complete now, so I've added fixmes in http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/35186838 . There were actually other tag problems with the other two areas there too. | |
| 34072010 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2015-09-16 21:57:18 UTC | SomeoneElse_Revert | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 34072039 where the changeset comment is: Reverted at request of author as a test |
| 33942203 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2015-09-10 20:11:30 UTC | SomeoneElse | Also adding Cuckney Hay Wood as "landuse=forestry" (to distinguish the managed area, including cleared sections, from the area covered in trees) |
| 33192987 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2015-08-12 07:25:50 UTC | FellRnr57 | While 'Staffordshire Moorlands Walks' isn't a unique name, it is a name used on waymarks on the route itself and on other maps e.g. OS 1:25000. For theses reasons I still believe the use is valid and useful to map users. |
| 2 | 2015-08-12 09:19:00 UTC | SomeoneElse | It's a tricky one - I've always found the OS's inclusion of "Staffordshire Moorland Walks" rather odd (they don't do it with the equivalent "Derwent Valley Walks" in Derbyshire, for example). There's no suggestion that the indvidual footpaths along which the "Staffordshire ... | |
| 3 | 2015-08-12 10:57:54 UTC | FellRnr57 | Thanks for the link, though it did not seem to make anything clearer in this particular instance. I do see the name as the name of a route. I am not particularly concerned about the inclusion or otherwise of the name. I do agree that it causes the area - "to light up with Staffordshire Moorl... | |
| 4 | 2015-08-12 11:09:18 UTC | SomeoneElse | You're more local to the area than me, so if you reckon that "Staffordshire Moorland Walks" are worth mapping as a route I'd go for it. I did initially try keeping track of SMW signs as I do for e.g. Staffordshire Way ones, but couldn't get any sense of where the route "went". ... | |
| 32815430 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2015-07-23 15:18:51 UTC | manof25 | Yes I have been into this store and, unfortunately like some other Waitrose stores, there is no customer toilet or cafe in the Southsea branch. |
| 32408250 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2015-07-06 01:05:59 UTC | SomeoneElse | Well that didn't work. I'll have to have a look in more detail about what is needed to have the name rendered on the largest of the outers only. |
| 32344144 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2015-07-02 10:14:20 UTC | SomeoneElse2 | (email test) |
| 32315348 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2015-06-30 20:54:53 UTC | SomeoneElse | The other bit of this changeset was nudging the nodes near the Coach and Horses roundabout to better match traces and imagery. |
| 31793230 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2015-06-07 17:57:00 UTC | SomeoneElse | A quick note about the "tree" edits in Clipstone - dividing the area into smaller areas of different sorts of trees means that there's no single "Clipstone Forest" label currently. I'll add that back (probably as part of a larger "landuse=forest" area that includes par... |
| 31429859 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2015-05-24 21:31:56 UTC | SomeoneElse | I'm gradually surveying Clipstone and breaking up the large "forest" area into smaller "natural=wood" areas with details of tree types (leaf_type and usually a note). When more of the old forest area has been done I'll re-add landuse=forest around the whole of it and move the na... |
| 31144705 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2015-05-14 16:46:31 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | I would dispute that is an official sign from Yorkshire Housing, just someone being grumpy and as there is no indication that North Moor Gardens (southern section) is a Private Road then it would need an official sign to have any authority.Even then the written cyclist dismount is only advisory un... |
| 2 | 2015-05-14 16:55:06 UTC | SomeoneElse | It did look like an official sign from Yorkshire Housing. It wouldn't surprise me (given the history of the area - until surprisingly recently post-war prefabs) if it was a private road. | |
| 3 | 2015-05-14 17:05:46 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | Sorry, worded that badly, I was disputing Yorkshire Housing's right to create such a regulation, than whether it was genuinely their sign. But if you think it might be a private road then I guess they are allowed to be so anti-cyclist. | |
| 4 | 2015-05-15 08:17:23 UTC | SomeoneElse | ... and I suspect it'll also apply to the northern bit too (though I didn't get chance to look for a sign there). | |
| 30962216 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2015-05-10 12:18:53 UTC | SomeoneElse | In more detail:I walked past where http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3505971351/history should be / have been and there was nothing obvious there. If you want to add historical places, add them to OpenHistoricalMap.http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3505959273/history was already mapped as h... |
| 30849507 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2015-05-06 18:34:42 UTC | SomeoneElse | Note that there's an argument for "name" to match "name:sr" rather than "name:sq" on http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1332173 . See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kosovo_ethnic_2005.png and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Kosovo . |
| 25887152 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2015-05-01 21:14:19 UTC | SomeoneElse | Does the path run through the gate at http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/306462408#map=19/53.16429/-1.24041 ? |
| 2 | 2015-05-01 21:16:03 UTC | SomeoneElse | No, there's a stile. | |
| 29134978 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2015-02-27 13:10:21 UTC | SomeoneElse | ... as neither are signed at the http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/206564047 end. More survey needed to check things around here. |
| 28318884 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2015-01-22 03:02:11 UTC | SomeoneElse | If there's a discussion to be had about making this section of the A595 secondary rather than primary (like Oxford High Street) it needs to be made on talk-gb or similar, really. |
| 28317549 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2015-01-22 00:03:18 UTC | SomeoneElse | (continuing changeset comment) - the rest isn't separate so added as cycleway=opposite_track. Also removed a section of duplicate footpath / track, and added a fixme to the footpath, which looks iffy. |
| 28208343 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2015-01-17 13:07:13 UTC | SomeoneElse | Hi - something went a bit wrong with http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2251189832 here (a zebra crossing within a station in Croydon, England). It somehow got joined to a railway line. I've unjoined it. |
| 27938477 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2015-01-05 18:03:15 UTC | SomeoneElse | If http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27578878 et al need to be reverted, then revert this changeset and http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27938325 first. |
| 25075532 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2014-11-07 17:36:16 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | The "hole" at top of New Lane is coming up on keepright as an untagged way - is it meant to be an island in the residential landuse? |
| 2 | 2014-11-07 17:36:46 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | way 300655231 for clarification | |
| 3 | 2014-12-09 18:04:26 UTC | SomeoneElse | Sorry I didn't reply to this - unfortunately people are only subscribed automatically to changesets from the time that changeset discussions were turned on, which was 2nd November I think. | |
| 26876402 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2014-11-18 23:12:56 UTC | SomeoneElse | (continuing the changeset comment)There are several routes signed down here; a Staffordshire Moorlands Walk is one, the Staffordshire Way is another. It's not named either of those. |
| 26576295 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2014-11-05 17:47:39 UTC | SomeoneElse | (physically, that is, rather than just bridleways) |